Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Portmanteau
CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 15:55:00 -
[481]
/signed, more damage, better tracking to hit at least as reliably as other races do in their optimal and that will still leave our slow asses struggling to get near enough to actually apply DPS while the other slow asses (Amarr) enjoy uber optimal to plink away without having to even try to apply failwebs. If something could be done about that which wasn't instant death for smaller targets/tacklers (90% webs again) or impeding on other races (a speed boost) it would be great but IDK what it could be /shrugs
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate Warped Aggression
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 21:32:00 -
[482]
Originally by: Doctor Aibolit I guess CCP will not return old web effect (-90% webbed ship) CCP will not implement crazy ideas about adding special effects to blasters like shield penetration, stunning effect, webbing effect and other CCP will not give more range to blasters it will blur advantage of laser optimal and AC falloff The more logical is to increase DAMAGE and TRACKING. Make blasters outstanding in extremely short-range engagements if you do not want to change range. As for now I do not see advantage of blasters. Pulses do almost the same damage as blasters (85%) at 300% optimal (400% comparing Scorch VS Null)
P.S. Do not send me EFT fits of 1000 DPS Brutix and 1450 DPS Hyperion.
this guy is talcking busynes, as much as i would love mroe range, giveme damage instead plz.
|
Arnold Predator
Special Situations
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 06:51:00 -
[483]
Edited by: Arnold Predator on 13/09/2010 06:56:15 I have spent some more time working the numbers on the other weapons sizes. I know the Weapon Score (WS) number is not all inclusive but it does give a good indication of the problem. I use themą if you donĘt want to donĘt. If you know a better way to rate weapons, please post it as this is the best way I know. I added tracking just so people can see it for each weapon type. Keep in mine the further the target is away from you the less tracking you will need.
One thing I have not touched on before is that lasers donĘt require ammo in the since of per shot consumable ammo. Add to that that reloading is instant were the other two types require a 10 second reload time. These are yet 2 more advantages to a weapon system that is all ready over powered.
Here are the numbers for small tech two weapons.
Small Neutron Blaster II
DPS: 14.4, Optimal: 900, Falloff: 2500 Range: 3500 Tracking: .3165 WS: 48,960
Medium Pulse Laser II
DPS: 12.34, Optimal: 3000, Falloff: 2000 Range: 5000 Tracking: .24525 WS: 61714
200mm Autocannon II
DPS: 11.01 Optimal: 600, Falloff 4800 Range: 5400 Tracking: .315 WS: 59875
Again the numbers show that blasters are lacking something. Most people say damage. In one of my last posts I worked out that if the damage modifier on medium blasters was upped from 4.2 to around the 5.2 mark the guns would be much more balanced across the board as far as weapons score goes. LetĘs see if that change would also work on small blasters as well.
(5.2x12/3.5)x(900+2500)=60622
That works out to 17.83 DPS, the same range as before, and a new weaponĘs score of 60,622. That would put the buffed neutron blaster right between the score of the 200mm Autocannon and Medium Pulse Laser. The blaster would still be the in your face weapon it was meant to be but would now have the dps to make up for its short range. So itĘs the same easy fixą just bump up the damage modifier of hybrid weapons 1 point to 5.2
Tech two ammo is still unbalanced as a medium pulse laser II with scorch ammo has a weapons score of 124457. The other long range tech 2 ammo for both hybrid and projectile weapons only have a weapons score of 70950 and 85377 respectably. Maybe nurf scorch ammo to bring it back in line to what the other weapons can doą right now it seems a bit over powered due to the 50% optimal bonus it gives. This needs to be looked at and re-balanced.
|
Arnold Predator
Special Situations
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 07:00:00 -
[484]
Here are the numbers for the large short range weapons
Neutron Blaster Cannon II DPS: 25.6, Optimal: 3600, Falloff: 10000 Range: 13600 Tracking: .0433 WS: 348160
Mega Pulse Laser II DPS: 21.94, Optimal: 12000, Falloff: 8000 Range: 20000 Tracking: .03375 WS: 438857
800MM Repeating Artillery II DPS: 19.712, Optimal: 2400, Falloff: 19200 Range: 21600 Tracking: .0432 WS: 425779
The weapons scores are just as unbalanced here as they are in the other sizes. Not only that, but there are other problems as well. First lets take a look at the weapons score of blasters and try to fix that.
So again letĘs see if the new damage modifier of 5.2 would bring blasters more inline to the other weapons.
(5.2x48/7.875)x(3600+10000)= 431055ą. What do you know... same problem, same solution. So not only would changing the damage modifier up one point fix blastersą it would fix three sizes of them.
Second problem, tracking speed.
A blaster should have much higher tracking to any other gun due to its low over all range. It makes since then that tracking on blasters should be adjusted so that they have the same chance to hit at there close range as the other weapons that shoot at there longer ranges. The problem I see is that the 800mm repeating artillery has 99.77% the tracking speed of the neutron blaster but 58% more range. Does that stick out as a problem to anyone else?
Tech II ammo is still unbalanced here as well. Scorch is still heads and shoulders better then any other tech 2 ammo. When it comes to long range ammo Scorch has a weapons score of 888480, Barrage: 607152, and Null at a very depressing 483276. The high damage ammo scores are also in favor of lasers. Conflagration: 512000, Void: 283670, and Hail at 276000. The long range ammo has 75% normal tracking speed. The high dps ammo takes a 50% tracking hit. So not only do blaster need a buff when it comes to normal ammo, but tech 2 ammo as well.
This is just another example why CCP needs to shelf WIS and get back to work on the core elements to there flagship game. Too bad walking in space stations is more important to a mmo about flying space ships theną you know flying space ships.
|
Failgun Owner
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 11:59:00 -
[485]
I wish you be heard by CSM or CCP
|
crimson fire
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 22:39:00 -
[486]
What really makes this scream to the heavens is that gallente has been left between a rock and a hard place. Both rail, blasters, and t2 ammo is in need of a rebalance. Ive been thinking of offering a few billion in lottery to people who spam CCP with honest complaints. Commit to excellence, recommit to gallente.
|
Kvo Vadis
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 23:57:00 -
[487]
Among medium weapons, Blasters have the lowest DPS at Warp Disruptor range (20km). Because even with long range ammo (Null M) optimal+falloff is 13.4km (Caldari ships have 16.2km) It is difficult to be fast with armor tank on Gallente ships.
P.S. HAM - can hit 20km with faction ammo (javelin 30km) 425 AC - 21km with barrage Heavy Pulse - 27km with scorch (Focused Medium Pulse - 23.8km)
|
D Scan
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 00:00:00 -
[488]
Moar blaster damage.
|
Arnold Predator
Special Situations
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 23:51:00 -
[489]
Edited by: Arnold Predator on 16/09/2010 23:52:04 please remember to check the box that says:
"Check here if you want o give your support to the idea/discussion going on" if you do in fact support the idea and or discussion.
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.09.17 14:13:00 -
[490]
Originally by: Arnold Predator
Tech two ammo is still unbalanced as a medium pulse laser II with scorch ammo has a weapons score of 124457. The other long range tech 2 ammo for both hybrid and projectile weapons only have a weapons score of 70950 and 85377 respectably. Maybe nurf scorch ammo to bring it back in line to what the other weapons can doą right now it seems a bit over powered due to the 50% optimal bonus it gives. This needs to be looked at and re-balanced.
How about reworking your "weapon scoring" to account for damage types? You want scorch range nerfed so that it's in-line with barrage and null?
There is nothing wrong with the worst-tracking short-range gun that deals the worst damage type (for most pvp situations) having the best damage projection.
You want something nerfed, look at the last round of buffs. You know, the weapon system that has excellent tracking, selectable damage types, no cap use, a tech 2 ammo that compares well to scorch...on hulls with multiple utility highs, double damage bonuses, best agility/speed...
Get hybrids buffed. Wait for things to settle down, THEN figure out if/what needs nerfed.
|
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.17 15:16:00 -
[491]
Blasters highest fitting requirements on the worst overall fitting ships. Gallente and Caldari have 3rd and 4th best power grids. Gallente have 3rd best CPU (Caldari is best for missiles).
I'd be satisfied with easing fitting requirements a bit.
|
Arnold Predator
Special Situations
|
Posted - 2010.09.18 00:37:00 -
[492]
Originally by: Templar Dane Get hybrids buffed. Wait for things to settle down, THEN figure out if/what needs nerfed.
Fair enough... one thing at a time is fine. But I was just pointing out that scorch is usefull were hybrid tech two ammo... not so much.
|
Jahpahjay
|
Posted - 2010.09.18 15:49:00 -
[493]
The dialogue I've seen in this thread is quite well thought out, imo. Most people are of the opinion that increasing blaster dmg would be the best way to go, and I agree it would be nice--but then again any improvement(s) would be nice.
At the moment, longer ranged weapon systems can kite shorter ones, and I'm all for that since it creates interesting strategies. What I would like to see happen is for the opposite to also be possible--that shorter ranged weapon systems (blasters in this case) being able to get under the tracking of longer ranged guns of the same class size (missiles are naturally immune to this issue, as they are also usually immune to kiters). At the moment, it is not feasible due to the poor tracking of blasters and that most blaster boats cannot control distance as well because they are either lacking in enough base speed and/or are armor tanking (which slows down these ships further).
So quite a few things need to be fixed. That being said, the first thing that needs to be fixed are the blasters so that we can have a good basis for judging what else needs to be brought in line on these ships with actually balanced weapon systems.
My proposal, as some others have already stated, is to increase the tracking speed a lot, and dmg somewhat as well. At least then we can have some real opportunities for creating strategies, like the longer ranged weapon systems can.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.09.18 15:51:00 -
[494]
Originally by: X Gallentius Blasters highest fitting requirements on the worst overall fitting ships. Gallente and Caldari have 3rd and 4th best power grids. Gallente have 3rd best CPU (Caldari is best for missiles).
I'd be satisfied with easing fitting requirements a bit.
aye or at the very leats include fitting requirments and ship fitting oppertunities into the ballance of weapon systems. For example acs do good dmg due to dbl dmg bonusses on many ships and have VERY VERY low fitting requirements as well as no cap use, just too many advantages in comparison to blasters.
So in conclusion i support a significant decrease to fitting requirments for blasters or an increase on the grid of blaster intended ships, brutix, astarte, mega needs cpu, and hyperion should at the ver least be able to fit a rack of ions with a dual rep, tripple rep should be what nerfs you to electrons.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.09.18 19:53:00 -
[495]
Originally by: Jahpahjay The dialogue I've seen in this thread is quite well thought out, imo. Most people are of the opinion that increasing blaster dmg would be the best way to go, and I agree it would be nice--but then again any improvement(s) would be nice.
At the moment, longer ranged weapon systems can kite shorter ones, and I'm all for that since it creates interesting strategies. What I would like to see happen is for the opposite to also be possible--that shorter ranged weapon systems (blasters in this case) being able to get under the tracking of longer ranged guns of the same class size (missiles are naturally immune to this issue, as they are also usually immune to kiters). At the moment, it is not feasible due to the poor tracking of blasters and that most blaster boats cannot control distance as well because they are either lacking in enough base speed and/or are armor tanking (which slows down these ships further).
So quite a few things need to be fixed. That being said, the first thing that needs to be fixed are the blasters so that we can have a good basis for judging what else needs to be brought in line on these ships with actually balanced weapon systems.
My proposal, as some others have already stated, is to increase the tracking speed a lot, and dmg somewhat as well. At least then we can have some real opportunities for creating strategies, like the longer ranged weapon systems can.
You have the right idea but you can't boost blaster tracking much, if at all, as ships like the Megathron will be able to track frigates. AC's hold an issue as they have the same theoretical tracking as blasters but far more range (yes I know its fall off but fall off is effective)and AC's get tracking boosting ammo.
Damage is the real goal. Boost damage to be extreme in blaster range. Very high DPS would give a stealth tracking boost as even slight hits would cause heavy damage. Maybe a slight nerf of AC tracking for overall weapon balancing. Then its a case of ship rebalance. ie blaster boats should be VERY fast in a straight line but slow to turn. Basically a blaster boat would "charge" into range and attempt to destroy the target very quickly with overwhelming firepower Also, Like I've said before, rework the ammo so that it offers real useful bonuses. One for plain short range DPS. One for heavy Alpha strike but low ROF. One for tracking. One for falloff and one for optimal.
|
Zorok
LEGI0N SOUL CARTEL
|
Posted - 2010.09.18 20:53:00 -
[496]
I give my support to this as well..
|
Fettered Soul
|
Posted - 2010.09.18 21:51:00 -
[497]
Originally by: Spugg Galdon
You have the right idea but you can't boost blaster tracking much, if at all, as ships like the Megathron will be able to track frigates.
Yesterday I tried a shield tanked Hyperion in BS V.S. BS. You can approach very fast to antimatter ammo optimal. But then you start to miss because of tracking. It is ridiculous: you can't hit effectively at long range because of tiny optimal+falloff, you can't hit effectively at close range because of lack of tracking.
P.S. BTW look at common minmatar PVP AC fits. They commonly have available low slots for TE. More range and tracking almost for free :)
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.09.19 10:20:00 -
[498]
Originally by: Spugg Galdon
You have the right idea but you can't boost blaster tracking much, if at all, as ships like the Megathron will be able to track frigates. AC's hold an issue as they have the same theoretical tracking as blasters but far more range (yes I know its fall off but fall off is effective)and AC's get tracking boosting ammo.
Nonsense you couldn't even hit firgs well with 90% webs under 5km back in the days with a Neutron Mega(and they didn't even got ABs). ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Arnold Predator
Special Situations
|
Posted - 2010.09.19 11:54:00 -
[499]
Edited by: Arnold Predator on 19/09/2010 11:57:29
Originally by: Spugg Galdon
You have the right idea but you can't boost blaster tracking much, if at all, as ships like the Megathron will be able to track frigates. AC's hold an issue as they have the same theoretical tracking as blasters but far more range (yes I know its fall off but fall off is effective)and AC's get tracking boosting ammo.
You know this because you having been flying nothing but blaster boats for years in pvp.... Try it then come back and talk.
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.22 15:41:00 -
[500]
Ninja bump:
Weapon Name: PG/CPU Heavy Electron Blaster II (worst T2 medium blaster): 105/28 Heavy Ion Blaster II (medium): 158/33 Heavy Neutron Blaster II (best): 212/35
Dual 180mm Autocannon II (worst): 88/19 220mm Vulcan Autocannon II (medium): 110/22 425mm Autocannon II (best): 154/25
Worst Blaster has higher CPU requirement than best Autocannon, yet Gallente ships have less CPU available than Minmatar ships.
Average Gallente Blaster has higher PG requirement than best Autocannon, yet Gallente ships have less PG available than Minmatar ships.
|
|
Grut
The Protei
|
Posted - 2010.09.22 16:30:00 -
[501]
Originally by: Jahpahjay
My proposal, as some others have already stated, is to increase the tracking speed a lot, and dmg somewhat as well. At least then we can have some real opportunities for creating strategies, like the longer ranged weapon systems can.
Tracking dosen't matter as much as damage - for one having to actually manage transveral is a player skill, approach - orbit = boring. The problem at the moment is that even managing transversal the damage output is meh, up the damage output and it actually means something to put you ship in the zone.
A tracking increase is more solo - as soon as theres more then 2 ships involved damage output is more important, by uping the damage blasters are useful in a slightly larger number of situations.
And ofc more tracking = ownage of smaller ships. Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know...
Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.22 21:11:00 -
[502]
Edited by: X Gallentius on 22/09/2010 21:11:50 Another Ninja bump:
Weapon Name: PG/CPU Light Electron Blaster II (worst T2 light blaster): 4/9 Light Ion Blaster II (medium): 7/13 Light Neutron Blaster II (best): 10/19
125mm Gatling Autocannon II (worst): 1/3 150mm Light Autocannon II (medium): 2/6 200mm Autocannon II (best): 4/9
Fitting for Worst Light Blaster = Best Autocannon. Fail.
Name: PG/CPU Tristan: 38/125 Rifter: 37/125
Catalyst: 60/170 Thrasher: 70/170
|
Nischara
|
Posted - 2010.09.22 21:19:00 -
[503]
a little oil on the fire. see:here
TLDR; blasters are underpowered to start with, and then t2 ammo makes them eaven worse
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.23 16:02:00 -
[504]
For completeness:
Weapon Name: PG/CPU Electron Blaster Cannon II (worst T2 large blaster): 1313/47 Mega Ion Blaster II (medium): 1838/56 Mega Neutron Blaster II (best): 2363/61
Dual 425mm Autocannon II (worst): 1375/35 Dual 625 Repeating Artillery II (medium): 1650/38 800mm Repeating Artillery II (best): 2200/41
Name: PG/CPU Megathron: 15500/550 Tempest: 15500/550
Hyperion: 15750/600 Maelstrom: 21000/640
|
Jahpahjay
|
Posted - 2010.09.23 16:28:00 -
[505]
Okay, here's the problem with that idea that tracking is not important: you can't do any dmg to ships you can't track.
Why does every person seem to believe that a boost to tracking on blasters will magically make them be able to hit smaller ships? My guess would be that they're used to the way other guns already have proportionally good tracking for the range they fight in, so they rightly think that better tracking on those guns would allow them to hit smaller ships too easily.
My friends, blasters do not have this "problem"--as most of you know, the closer a ship is, the greater their transversal velocity. So it will still be beyond blasters to reliably hit smaller ships any better than any of the other guns simply because the transversal velocity will be higher at the ranges the blasters can do anything in. Particularly since they even have a hard time hitting ships of their own size currently.
All I'm asking for with a tracking increase is to make blasters actually viable in the range they seem to be built to fight in. What's wrong with making them a tactically different kind of gun than the others? I.e. being actually able to hit ships well at a close range.
That being said, it also needs a dps increase to make it worth the time to get in range. Hell, why not even shorten the range somewhat even more just to make sure they HAVE to be close range. I'd certainly sacrifice maybe 25% of the range for proportionally better tracking for it's range and a dps boost.
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 16:01:00 -
[506]
Blasters have 2 major problems the way I see it.
1 There mainly fitted by gallente nubs who dont know what the ships speed control is for ( controlling transversal ). & 2 EFT that tells them they get omgwtfbbqdps for fitting a magstab when a TE would actually work much better in the real world.
|
Fettered Soul
|
Posted - 2010.09.26 22:55:00 -
[507]
Originally by: Good Advice
... Reduce optimal to 1 Tweak falloff to slightly less ...
How will you apply your damage? How much damage will you get before approaching at 1km? How will you kill minmatar ships? (they a the fastest in the game)
|
Phony v2
The Praxis Initiative Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 00:52:00 -
[508]
agreed ______________________________________________ Yes? You, the idiot in the back, with the dumb question. |
Ryan Starwing
Gallente Martyr's Vengence OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.10.04 11:04:00 -
[509]
I say buff blaster dps by like 20% and tracking by like 5-10%.
PS:Bump
|
NightmareX
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 01:30:00 -
[510]
Edited by: NightmareX on 05/10/2010 01:34:15
Originally by: Ryan Starwing I say buff blaster dps by like 20% and tracking by like 5-10%.
PS:Bump
20% more DPS?, o.O, jesus freaking christ man, are you thinking before you make ******ed ideas lol?
Do you know how crazy the Vindicator is going to be then? Yeah, you have to take the Vindicator into the picture here to.
I know Vindicators like to om nom nom Ravens VERY fast today, but taking 100% of the Raven's shield in 2 volleys is way to much tbh.
Like i have said earlier, a 5% DPS increase and like 10% tracking increase should be a good start.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |