Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sigras
|
Posted - 2010.08.24 23:42:00 -
[1]
I have a theory about blasters and why some people say they're gimped.
The problem isn't blaster damage which IMHO is fine save for maybe a 5-10% bump in overall damage. The problem is that the blaster boats lack the ability to get into range/stay in range to apply said damage. There are various reasons for this:
1. Armor tanks (which most blaster boats besides the rokh brutix and Hyperion are) are really slow 2. warp scramblers turn off your MWD at 10k preventing you from getting into range 3. If you do get into range, webs are ineffective at keeping the target in range as they are now only 60%
Am I right or way off base?
|
Bomberlocks
Minmatar CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2010.08.24 23:42:00 -
[2]
That's pretty much it.
|
FT Diomedes
Gallente The Fimbriani Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 00:04:00 -
[3]
Edited by: FT Diomedes on 25/08/2010 00:04:37 I bolded and underlined the part that sums it up best. Both those ships have a bonus to armor repairing, yet they are almost never armor tanked. Perhaps all Gallente ships need is a more significant boost to active armor tanking? That would at least go part of the way towards solving the current issues.
Originally by: Sigras I have a theory about blasters and why some people say they're gimped.
1. Armor tanks (which most blaster boats besides the rokh brutix and Hyperion are) are really slow
quote] --- This doesn't even seem to be a regular case of rats fleeing the sinking ship. Seems more like the rats are on fire, the ship is on fire, and the sea is full of drunk Russians. - Jacob Etienne |
Duchess Starbuckington
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 00:05:00 -
[4]
Sounds about right tbh.
Definately give them a damage boost though - the dps difference between blasters and other weapons is way too small to justify the major disadvantages that come with them. _________________________________
ROCKET STATUS: NOT FIXED |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 00:11:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/08/2010 00:12:50
Originally by: FT Diomedes
I bolded and underlined the part that sums it up best. Both those ships have a bonus to armor repairing, yet they are almost never armor tanked. Perhaps all Gallente ships need is a more significant boost to active armor tanking? That would at least go part of the way towards solving the current issues.
Comments: - The Shield Brutix/Hyperion is faster than the Armor Buffer Brutix/Hyperion, and has roughly the same EHP. The Armor Brutix/Hyperion has better tackle and a cap booster. - An active tanked Brutix/Hyperion doesn't have enough lows for a credible tank+damage mods. It further doesn't have enough grid for an active tank + neutrons, and yes the Neutrons are required for range.
Frankly, I don't see people stopping with the shield tanked blaster thing until they dramatically adjust fittings and remove the velocity penalty on active armor tanking rigs.
-Liang
Ed: The Brutix and Hyperion are interesting in that they're basically responding to the problems the same way. I guess its because they can be shield tanked, they are shield tanked. I'd also love to see a smaller sig radius on these active tanking ships. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
|
Lexa HeIIfury
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 00:18:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sigras The problem is that the blaster boats lack the ability to get into range/stay in range to apply said damage.
You figured that out all on your own, did you? -------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 00:53:00 -
[7]
This will surely be addressed..... in 18 months.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 01:03:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Lexa HeIIfury
Originally by: Sigras The problem is that the blaster boats lack the ability to get into range/stay in range to apply said damage.
You figured that out all on your own, did you?
Yes and it was a long and arduous process lol.
What do you think of these changes: 1. Change the range of T2 warp scramblers to 6k 2. Give a role bonus to the low damage interceptors (Ares Malediction Raptor and Stiletto) that is 100% bonus to the range of warp scramblers 3. Increase webs to 75% web
I'm not married to any of these ideas, but I think this would help in balancing the blasters without making any of the other turrets obsolete
Thoughts?
|
FT Diomedes
Gallente The Fimbriani Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 02:41:00 -
[9]
Removing the velocity penalty on active tanking armor rigs would be a good start. It also would help to adjust the bonuses on the active armor rep ships to make it more feasible in short, sharp fights. Making it so that active armor tanked ships could compare with buffer tanked ships in terms of EHP over the duration of a short fight would be helpful. You'd still have to manage cap carefully, but speedier, active armor tanked ships makes sense for the Gallente style.
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Frankly, I don't see people stopping with the shield tanked blaster thing until they dramatically adjust fittings and remove the velocity penalty on active armor tanking rigs.
-Liang
Ed: The Brutix and Hyperion are interesting in that they're basically responding to the problems the same way. I guess its because they can be shield tanked, they are shield tanked. I'd also love to see a smaller sig radius on these active tanking ships.
--- This doesn't even seem to be a regular case of rats fleeing the sinking ship. Seems more like the rats are on fire, the ship is on fire, and the sea is full of drunk Russians. - Jacob Etienne |
Jesslyn Daggererux
Non-Aligned Movement Biologic License Application The 0rphanage
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 02:51:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf This will surely be addressed..... in 18 months.
no it wont. train amarr/minmatar like everyone else NAMBLA, standing up and giving attention to your right to love. Also, we inspect things in an unbiased fasion. |
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 03:04:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jesslyn Daggererux
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf This will surely be addressed..... in 18 months.
no it wont. train amarr/minmatar like everyone else
This ^^. CCP haven't even fixed acknowledged issues like rockets and AF's.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 03:59:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/08/2010 03:59:56
Originally by: chatgris This ^^. CCP haven't even fixed acknowledged issues like rockets and AF's.
They have acknowledged both of those. AFs had a boost on the test server ready to go live until we the players revolted. Rockets have been on singularity (CCP dev server) for a year. They'll be fixed by Winter 2010 (I base this statement on information from the devs in Test Server Feedback at the height of the recent bout of whining).
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
|
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 04:09:00 -
[13]
There's lots of good ideas floating around. Boost Blaster DPS. Tweak Tracking. Ease fitting requirements. Remove Rig penalties for active armor tanking rigs.
I personally would make Gallente ships more agile - slower then Minmatar overall but able to get up to speed faster.
When CCP finally does direct it's attention to blasters there won't be any tweaking though. Everything including the kitchen sink will be thrown in to overpowering stupidity. At that point in time people will start to whine that ships need more EHP. And then we're full circle.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 04:21:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf There's lots of good ideas floating around. Boost Blaster DPS. Tweak Tracking. Ease fitting requirements. Remove Rig penalties for active armor tanking rigs.
I personally would make Gallente ships more agile - slower then Minmatar overall but able to get up to speed faster.
When CCP finally does direct it's attention to blasters there won't be any tweaking though. Everything including the kitchen sink will be thrown in to overpowering stupidity. At that point in time people will start to whine that ships need more EHP. And then we're full circle.
Strictly speaking, I could get by without much of a damage boost if they fixed the Gallente ships themselves. I really like the idea of close range active tanking gank ships because it meshes really well with the idea that blasters are supposed to be solo and small gang weapons.
There's a lot to be said for things which aren't immediately apparent on EFT.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
|
TheMahdi
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 04:41:00 -
[15]
What exactly is wrong with a Blaster Dual Injected/Double Rep Domi or Dual Injected/Triple Rep Hype? Atleast for solo/small gang in low sec.
I don't see anything wrong with a shield gank Brutix either. As for the Myrm, the only one I like is the triple rep Auto Myrm for solo.
They might have a niche role but they aren't horrible. I would personally like to see a larger bonus to said blaster boats for Active armor tanks, maybe 15% per level.
|
wizard87
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 04:43:00 -
[16]
Interesting thread in Warfare and Tactics points out a vital flaw with tracking. If you orbit a stationary object with your weapons pointed along the radius then in theory as you orbit the weapons would require much LESS tracking to occur than if that target was also moving.
As the tracking formula is, it actually requires MORE tracking the closer you get due to the current radians related formula. You're actually better off sometimes against moving targets because at some key apex points in the mutual orbit the radians decrease enough for you to track.
Combine this with the fact that it is impossible for many blaster ships to even maintain an orbit anywhere near their optimal. For example even the nimblest inty operates well outside its optimal (<1200m) with light blasters fitted unless it is manually slowed or has propulsion modules turned off.
The ammo also needs re-visiting. Void and Null tracking penalties compound the issues above and some real benefit/trade-off needs to exist for using say Iron in small blasters (giving maybe 300% more range) - making orbitting at a 4km optimal with say an AB turned on a viable tactic instead of everyone laughing their tyts off at you on your lossmail due to such lol ammo.
|
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 05:08:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
I personally would make Gallente ships more agile - slower then Minmatar overall but able to get up to speed faster.
I'd like it the other way around, able to close in on most prey, but not very good at maintaining a tight orbit. This would make it very dangerous still to close in, but actually give you the opportunity. Also: yay for the idea to make a different penalty for active tanking rigs. Which one did you have in mind? ------------------------------------- I like to fly around and shoot stuff. |
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 06:01:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Aamrr on 25/08/2010 06:03:13 How about reduced cycle time for propulsion modules? The afterburners and microwarpdrives do not function for as long with the increased load the armor rigs impose, and therefore must consume more power.
An added side-effect of this is that gallente pilots will be better able to tailor their propulsion module overloads -- something which I think is appropriate for the need to get in close and personal.
Alternatively, you could make propulsion modules require more powergrid -- though this may be prohibitive on the already tight gallentean ships.
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 06:25:00 -
[19]
I don't have much experience flying blaster ships (or railboats) so I'm probably wrong, but I think what hybrid weapons first need a new role before we look at a fix for them or the ships that fit them.
If you go long range you have lasers for a high optimal, or artilleries for high alpha - I can't imagine the middleground being viable, so for rails that's out, and the same can be said about blasters vs ACs and pulses. And then you need to keep in mind that some caldari ships also make use of hybrids so a fix can't be 100% focused on gallente ships.
No matter how I look at the situation I just can't see a solution that is satisfying and viable without risking breaking something else in the process. _____
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 07:04:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Hatsumi Kobayashi I don't have much experience flying blaster ships (or railboats) so I'm probably wrong, but I think what hybrid weapons first need a new role before we look at a fix for them or the ships that fit them.
If you go long range you have lasers for a high optimal, or artilleries for high alpha - I can't imagine the middleground being viable, so for rails that's out, and the same can be said about blasters vs ACs and pulses. And then you need to keep in mind that some caldari ships also make use of hybrids so a fix can't be 100% focused on gallente ships.
No matter how I look at the situation I just can't see a solution that is satisfying and viable without risking breaking something else in the process.
The flaw with your statement, is that rails are longer range than lasers. Both optimal and falloff. Blasters are at the other extreme, as the shortest range weapon.
This doesn't help hybrids particularly - there's not really decent 'midrange' options, when the game has evolved into a midrange game, thanks to the speeds being what they are.
Blasters are 'powered' for a time when ships closing to 'point blank' had adequate options to 'charge', immobilize and get range control on the ships they closed with - they'd web you, you'd web them, and you'd both sit there not going far, because you probably both had MWDs as well. You'd inch away from the blaster boat, but it would be melting your face already.
Now however, you need the MWD to close, but you 'lose' it when you hit scram range. You take longer to close up to blaster optimal as well, and because your tackle is 60% web, and _maybe_ a scram, if you can manage it (or you might need a long range warp disruptor, because you need to stop them leaving _before_ you close up) you've lost a lot of that control of range, and you've lost a lot of your blaster's effective tracking - two 90% webbed ships can track each other pretty well, and that works in the blaster ship's favour.
You can't really fix that any more, either - not without creating 'overpowered glass cannon' syndrome. So what's needed is a general rejig. My personal suggestions would be: Up blaster tracking - going from 90% webs and 24km points, to 60% webs and a choice between a MWD stopping scram, and a not speed altering point means your ability to track at blaster range has effectively got substantially worse. 4x worse.
Up the damage - your window of opportunity is narrower - you take longer to close, and you can't immobilize a target any more, therefore you need to do actually quite a lot more face melting to compensate.
And at the same time, look at the 'low end' rails - 75mm rails, dual 150s, dual 250s. Actually, maybe not the 75s. But whatever. Up the lowest tier rails that hardly anyone uses, to make them a 'midrange' railgun. Something that falls between a blaster and a top tier railgun in terms of range, tracking, fitting AND damage output. Leave the mid tier rails and top tier as are - top tier is the most commonly used, because the range is important, but the mid tier can be a fitting compromise/tracking boost option. Perhaps up that difference a bit, by increasing their tracking a bit.
Something like that, anyway. Blasters suffer because of how they're used has changed. Blasters need to change with it, and so do rails to support that.
|
|
Dr Sheepbringer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 07:06:00 -
[21]
When they planned the races they should have switched projectiles to Gallente and Hybrids to Minmatar. This way the ships would have been more balances.
At the moment, Gallente have slowest ships due to armor and weapons that need fast ships. Stop whining. |
Korg Leaf
The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 07:34:00 -
[22]
I would prefer to see the armor repair bonus on the gallente replaced with a 5% or 10% hp bonus, then they can armor tank but not be bogged down by such large plates, same with mwd bonus on the thorax. No idea about the rokh tho tbh.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 07:52:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Korg Leaf Increasing web strength will just obsolete frigates again wont it, i thought that was one of the reasons they changed the web strength originally.
They did the standard thing when nerfing webs and went too far. 70-75% should have been the high point and officer webs should have kept their range.
I have to be honest I gave up on any of this ever being fixed, webs, scrams, blasters, rails, rockets, etc etc. But good luck to you all.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive. |
Headerman
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 10:11:00 -
[24]
Swap projectile and hybrid stats, gallente fixed. Minmatar can then use their speed to quickly get in close and use blasters to full advantage
|
Stuart Price
Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 10:29:00 -
[25]
I've always maintained that Gallente ships should have the highest base speeds, with matari having the lowest mass.
The sweet spot comes where Gallente ships are the fastest under scram/web conditions and matari the fastest out if it.
This alone would help a lot of things. Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate' |
Wacktopia
Bi-Tech Theory Focused Intentions
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 10:29:00 -
[26]
Originally by: FT Diomedes Removing the velocity penalty on active tanking armor rigs would be a good start.
The velocity penalty annoys me so much.
|
Korg Leaf
The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 11:05:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Stuart Price I've always maintained that Gallente ships should have the highest base speeds, with matari having the lowest mass.
The sweet spot comes where Gallente ships are the fastest under scram/web conditions and matari the fastest out if it.
This alone would help a lot of things.
This is a better idea than swapping the minmatar and gallente weapons around, would mean that minmatar still do the kiting thing as they would have good mwd speeds. Would you lower the current masses on the minmatar ships to make up for slowing them down though? Same with increasing the mass on gallente ships marginally to balance out the increased speed?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 11:15:00 -
[28]
Originally by: James Lyrus Now however, you need the MWD to close, but you 'lose' it when you hit scram range. You take longer to close up to blaster optimal as well, and because your tackle is 60% web, and _maybe_ a scram, if you can manage it (or you might need a long range warp disruptor, because you need to stop them leaving _before_ you close up) you've lost a lot of that control of range, and you've lost a lot of your blaster's effective tracking - two 90% webbed ships can track each other pretty well, and that works in the blaster ship's favour.
There's another side to this problem as well: the reason the two 90% web scenario worked in the blaster ship's favour was that you either had a ship that moved at 100-200m/s with a sig radius of a small moon (because he was using an MWD) and thus was easy to hit with all that blastery DPS goodness, or you had a ship that was slightly smaller than a moon, but which only moved at 20û40m/s, and thus was an easy target to hità
àwhen they rejiggered the mechanics, the design goal was that scram+mwd would, in total, give you the same speeds and thus (supposedly) have the same scenario. It's just that they forgot those key elements: a ship with an MWD would no longer have that MWD active, and while he moved at 100-200m/s, he was suddenly 5× harder to track because of the lack of a sig bloom. Likewise, someone without an MWD would now also move at 100-200m/s because the lower effectiveness of the web, and thus once again be 5× harder to track.
The intent was interesting: provide a greater differentiation in roles between scrams and disruptors and give a reason to fit (or swear that you didn't fit) one of the two depending on the situation, while retaining the overall close- and medium-range scenarios as before the change. It's just that the way they chose to differentiate the two made that the scenario couldn't be the same as before, and they didn't adjust the weapon systems to fit this new world. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Proxyyyy
Caldari The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 14:58:00 -
[29]
Shield-gank-blaster ships, are worse than dirt! The whole thing is comedy, but whatever. Also, Sigras, its good that you brought this up, because alot of pilots seem to be confused. Gallente have great hulls, but their weapon-system excels only at close range (thier specialized).
Amarr have terrible hulls (worst in-game), but they excel at medium-ranges and good at close-range (which is where most pvp happens). All races have a downside. Mimatar hulls excel at nothing, and are good at everything (which for a long time, was said to be a bad thing). Minmatar have the, weakest tanks of all races, and do the least damage (or did do the least damage). high velocity and agility was the only way to make up for this.
If blasters, did more damage, they would be able to destroy their target long before help arrives etc (the diffrence between autocannon and blaster tracking is not even worth mentioning, cause its minute)...
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 15:33:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 25/08/2010 15:34:01
Originally by: Proxyyyy
Amarr have terrible hulls (worst in-game), but they excel at medium-ranges and good at close-range (which is where most pvp happens). All races have a downside. Mimatar hulls excel at nothing, and are good at everything (which for a long time, was said to be a bad thing). Minmatar have the, weakest tanks of all races, and do the least damage (or did do the least damage). high velocity and agility was the only way to make up for this.
If blasters, did more damage, they would be able to destroy their target long before help arrives etc (the diffrence between autocannon and blaster tracking is not even worth mentioning, cause its minute)...
I think this is why I still prefer the damage increase route. Fixing Gallente hulls helps Gallente, but Hybrids would still be laughable on the Caldari side.
Increasing damage on Blasters makes them even more fearsome at close range (and raises the damage curve farther into falloff), but the gamble of getting into range would still exist to balance it for Gallente. The weapons would then do respectable damage on the Caldari side while being able to apply their damage further, instead of the philosophy that a range bonus is no bonus at all when it comes to Hybribs.
IMHO, simple changes are the best changes, as they come with the fewest unintended consequences.
Take all of it with a grain of salt I guess. I haven't dug into curves, graphs, and stats on this subject in a long while.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |