Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 42 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Dunmur
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 02:22:00 -
[421] - Quote
Jeffrey Powel wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Not true. The standard tactic for a blaster ship pilot is to warp to 0 on the target (and not at max disruptor/scram range), web/scram the target, drop drones and apply overheated blasters before the target can putter away at webbed speeds. .... And your forget the "to pray" parts. Pray you will land at 0 and not a 5km, pray to don't be jammed cause you will be unable to hit or run after a falcon, pray the target don't have neutz cause your gun don't work whithout a lot of cap, pray they don't have a logistic cause at 50km you simply can't do anything, pray it's not a trap cause if it is you can't escape cause you always fight at web/scramble range ect, ect....
couldn't have put it better myself
|
Sorran Tor
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 02:24:00 -
[422] - Quote
Wait wait wait
...since when was the Ishtar a blaster boat? |
Stumanum
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 02:34:00 -
[423] - Quote
Just wonderful! I especially like the tracking boost to blasters.
Stum |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
144
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 02:37:00 -
[424] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:MotherMoon wrote:http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1431186&page=1#1
My assembly hall post before the old forum got shut down had about 70% thumbs up.
The idea is to make blasters shotgun damage. Meaning the closer you are, the more raw dps they do. This would mean medium do 20-30% more damage when within 50% of optimal. The same dps when outside of optimal.
And then , instead of falloff decreasing the chance to hit, it would only reduce the damage blasters deal. Because shotgun blasters as we all know move in a cone. So the closer you are the more hits you take, the farther away you are the less hits you take. However the cool part of this plan is optimal range is based on the size of the target. If your trying to shoot a target with larger sig radius than your guns, than their effective optimal range is greater. Since the cone of damage gets larger as it travels, damage is directly linked to how far away the target is, and how big it is.
Think the way they balance shotguns for any fps title.
If your in a frigate trying to hit a battleship, then hell why not, you now have 12-15km range on your small blasters. Which allows you to tackle and still put on some dps. the problem with that is that falloff is in the chance to hit formula... but that is only half of the applied damage formula... pretty much chance to hit = 0-1 and it goes against x which is a random generated number between 0-1.... if x is greater then chance to hit you miss...
but that isn't how the missile formula works. My idea is to make blasters a thrid weapon system, finally adding more than 2 weapon types to eve. |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 02:45:00 -
[425] - Quote
Xenuria wrote:Consider the following... You have a pilot with all skills at 5
A single tech 2 medium drone with ship bonuses does more damage in 1 hit Than A single tech 2 medium Hybrid Blaster with ship bonuses and tech 2 ammo
Should something like a drone be doing more damage then a single blaster?
Yea of course. You can only have 5 drones, but you can have up to 8 blasters. Also, you can use a magstab, there is no equivalent for medium drones (or any drones, except the sentry damage rig, but no module). Drones are supposed to be a primary weapon system (I really wonder when this is gonna be reflected by modules...), they need to do as much damage as other weapon systems but are hard-limited to 5 (sub capital at least) vs. 8 for guns.
Sorry, really bad comparison.... |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Industrial Group Rage Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 02:46:00 -
[426] - Quote
I will admit first that i did not read all the threads but I did read 12 pages.
What i suggest is keep the current boost that you are planing. I can agree with them, keep the speed boost I can agree with that. But when you look at boosting the Gal. ships make them different than any other race in the game that you cover that giant explosion hole in their armor. Bosst the base to 25 in stead of ten. Now while this seems extreme, it will give the Gal pilots that extra hp to get into fights and to be good in PvP again. |
Mariner6
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 02:49:00 -
[427] - Quote
Ugleb wrote:Quote:Javelin, Gleam and Quake (all sizes): Removed tracking speed penalty, added 25% tracking speed bonus
Hail (all sizes): Removed falloff penalty Speaking as a Minmatar, I hereby declare my love for CCP Tallest. Very nice to see CCP identifying an related issue and taking the time to address it there and then. Good stuff.
He's right! Way to go CCP. This buff to Minmatar is actually more of the real story here than the improvement to hybrids. The more I look at that, it makes them absolutely dominating. Well, they already were but now..... |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
82
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 02:50:00 -
[428] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:
but that isn't how the missile formula works. My idea is to make blasters a thrid weapon system, finally adding more than 2 weapon types to eve.
i dunno sounds like you want directional smart bombs... it could be cool... but remember shotguns have more then one ammo type... you have slugs too..
so how about making some of the ammo types directional smart bombs that have a 30 degree arc and the others are traditional ammo types...? |
Bomberlocks
CTRL-Q
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 03:11:00 -
[429] - Quote
Thorax, Brutix and Deimos all have 50m3 drone bays and as such can field 5 x ec-600 ecm drones. If they can get in range in a small fight, they'll usually have the upper hand if fit like that. Simply comparing blaster range ignores some of the other features and weakness of blaster ships.
Also with the changed fitting requirements to hybrids, instead of switching to a full Neutron gank fit, one could of course stick to Ions and fit a better tank.
Additionally, the Thorax and Deimos, with their strange MWD bonus and now a slight speed and agility bonus seem to be crying for kiting rail fits, now that rails do more damage.
The Eagle might, with some imagination, make a fine kiter using rails and TDs in the mids.
I think the hybrid changes are not perfect, but they need a chance to play out in game before the get changed again. |
Imawuss
United Atheist League
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 03:16:00 -
[430] - Quote
I'm disapointed with CCP yet again. With all the ideas that have been put forth by the community, ie: short range arty long range AC's or extremely short range deathrays that kill all out to 10km but not any further or changing falloff mechanics to work like a shot gun where you always hit but do less damage or changing ammo to work on more cap for more range instead of less damage for more range. Wether you like these ideas or not they are at least unique in their own ways and add to the diversity (or increase their niche effectivness) of the hybrid weapon system as well as make them more useful.
So what does CCP give us? something that could be done by 1 developer in 1 day. They boost a few stats on the weapon system while not even addressing the main issue with them. As someone put it, its akin to rebuilding an aluminum a car out of carbon fiber and adding a spoiler to reduce weight and handling while forgetting you designed the thing with square wheels and saying that the new features make it viable in races. How much work does it take to go in and change those stats?
99% have spoken these changes dont go far enough, the community has given many great and varied ideas on fixing hybrids. Now CCP lets see if you are truly listening to the community as you say you are now doing.
|
|
Digital Gaidin
Manetheren Rising
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 03:21:00 -
[431] - Quote
To those who questioned earlier why the blaster changes wouldn't just be for 1v1 engagements, I propose to view it through the following lens: Think of all the roams you've gone on with 4-8 pilots looking for small gangs to kill, or for the midsize roams of 20v20 where you hit that magic moment where a "real" fight happens... you know, where one side isn't just ganking the other but a true match-up of skill has arrived? The fights where one side feints as if running, hostiles pursue through the gate to follow, you about face and engage and have a rolling battle 10-40km off the gate. Yea... those.
If blasters are given the option to be the end-all be-all of close range combat, we introduce a weapon system that could seriously shake up everything from solo to small gang warfare to larger fleet tactics. Give numbers of blaster ships the ability to actually break the tank of a Logistics supported Battlecruisers/Battleships. Give them the ability in small gang warfare to significantly pressure a few logistics ships and push them to their edge of capability by themselves. Sure, Gallente ships using my proposed changes wouldn't be any faster than they are today, but the idea is that when they catch you there should be significant pain brought forth the likes of which EVE has not seen in a long while. Ships should melt under blaster fire (even with Kin/Therm tanks), but that should only occur when Gallente ships catch their prey. Sure they can be kited, as that WOULD be the ideal way to tank a blaster ships' DPS. A good move by the blaster pilot or a bad move by the kiter should either provide the blaster pilot the opportunity for a kill or for a hasty exit. THIS would provide versatility in the combat sphere across frigate, cruiser, and battleship classes without hurting existing weapon systems. This *might* provide a shake-up of the Alpha or Highly tanked setups that exist today, and if anything can do it, it just might be this.
I only ask that CCP doesn't try to stick blasters in the same box as Projectiles and Pulses. Missiles are a monster all their own, and easily left out of this discussion. With Pulses and Autocannons, there is reason enough to use over the other, but if blasters get shoved into the "mid range" envelope with increased range and DPS, something is going to break. With the versatility and flexibility provided by Autocannons, they will still be used the same way they are today. The trouble with blasters vs. pulses however is that one simple question will be asked: which is better? The one that is not will never be used except by the stupid pilot who trained the wrong skill. |
Collin Dow
Free People of Earth Red Dwarf Racketeering Division
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 03:41:00 -
[432] - Quote
The concept of CCP taking it slowly, and not turning hybrids into OMGWTFBBQPWN machines is nice in theory, but I just worry that we'll get a set of sort of, kind of buff that will make our weapons just a little bit less worthless, and then CCP will forget about hybrids for another few years, and maybe boost ACs and arty some more.
The Gallente shall rise again! |
Imawuss
United Atheist League
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 03:52:00 -
[433] - Quote
[quote=Digital Gaidin] I only ask that CCP doesn't try to stick blasters in the same box as Projectiles and Pulses. [quote]
I fully get this, i just dont prefere your plan to others. Its not a bad an idea i just think some of the other ideas suggested keep the uniqueness of Blasters while adding more survivabilty/versatility and use less warp to 0 and pray tactics.
I do however prefere your plan over what CCP has put out, which i feel is half assed and probably took 1 dev 30 minutes to come up with and then maybe a few hours to implement. |
Turnap
RED MASHINE Red Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 04:13:00 -
[434] - Quote
-ô-+-ü-+-+-¦-+!!! -í-í-ƒ -¦-ï -ç-é-+ -é-¦-+-Ç-+-é-¦? -» -+-+-+-+-+-¦-Ä -ç-é-+ -ì-é-+ -¦-¦-ê-¦ -+-¦-Ç-¦ -+ -¦-¦-+ -Ç-¦-ê-¦-é-î -ç-é-+ -¦-¦-+-¦-é-î -+-+ -¦-¦-+-Ä-ç-¦-¦-é-¦ -¦-+-+-+-¦-â,-é-¦-¦-+-¦ -ç-â-¦-é-¦-+ -ç-é-+ -¦-ï -+-¦ -+-¦-Ç-¦-¦-é-¦ -¦ -¦-¦-â. -Ü-¦-¦-+-¦ -ü-+-ï-ü-+ -¦-â-ü-é-+-é-î -é-Ç-¦-¦-+-+-¦ -¦-ü-+-+ -+-¦-¦-¦-é-Ç-+-+ -¦-¦-¦ -+-+ -+-+-¦ -+-+-¦-+-¦-+ -¦-+-¦-+-¦-é-î -é-¦-¦ -+ -+-¦ -ü-+-+-¦-¦-é, -Ç-¦-+-+-¦-¦-+-ï????? -ƒ-+-¦-¦ -¦-Ç-é-¦ -¦ -¦-¦-ê-+-à -+-¦-¦-¦-à -¦-â-¦-¦-é -¦-¦-¦-¦-é-î -é-¦-¦-â-Ä -¦-+-î-ä-â -+-Ç-+ -Ç-¦-¦-+-ï -+-¦-¦-ü-+-+-+-+-+-é -+-+-¦-é-+,-+-+-ç-¦-+-â -+-¦ -+-+-+-¦-+-+-é-¦ -ü-+-¦-¦-¦? -ú -¦-¦-ü -+-+ -+-¦ -ì-é-+-¦-+ -¦-+-+-+-+-¦-¦-é-¦ -¦ -¦-Ç-ü-+-+-ü-¦ -+-¦ -+-¦-é-¦-Ä-é -+-¦-é-¦-Ç-ü-¦-+-¦ -+ -¦-¦-+-¦-ï-Ç-ü-¦-+-¦ -¦-¦-+-+-é-¦-+! -Æ-ï -ì-é-+-¦-+ -+-¦ -¦-+-¦-¦-é-¦? -ù-¦-ç-¦-+ -â-+-â-ç-ê-¦-é-î -à-¦-+-+ -+-¦-é-Ç-+-+??? -P-+ -ü-¦-+ -+-+ -ü-¦-¦-¦ -à-+-Ç-+-ê -¦ -é-¦-+-¦-Ç-î-+-+ -¦-¦-¦-¦ -ä-Ç-¦-¦-å-+-Ä -+-¦-Ç-¦-+-+-Ä-+-¦-é,-+-+-ç-¦-+-â -+-¦ -â-+-â-ç-ê-+-é-î -¦-+-é-+-+-¦-é-¦-Ç-+-Ä??? -ò-ü-+-+ -¦-ï -¥-É-í-ó-P-¢-¼-Ü-P -+-¦ -+-Ä-¦-+-é-¦ -¦-¦-+-¦-+-é-+-¦ -¦-ï-¦-+-¦-+-é-¦ -+-à-+-+ -+-¦-Ç-ï -é-+ -ç-é-+ -¦-ï -ü -é-¦-¦-+-¦ -à-+-+-¦-é-+-+-ü-é-î-Ä -+-é-+-+-ü-+-é-¦-ü-î -¦ -¦-¦-¦ -¦-¦-+ -ç-¦-ü-é-+ -+-¦ -¦-¦-+-¦-¦-é. |
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 04:22:00 -
[435] - Quote
CCP Tallest:
The tracking increase resolves some of the issues that the web nerf uncovered. Compared to the original 90% webs, a 60% web with a 20% increase in tracking is back to around the effectiveness of an 80% web with no tracking bonus, so that's about where it should be.
This still doesn't fix the lack of DPS. The 5-10% more peak DPS that blasters have over lasers and ACs doesn't make up for the incredibly short range. The answer isn't to increase the range but to drastically increase the damage. Blasters need to deal massive *massive* DPS at very short range.
I used blasters pretty much exclusively for a little under five years. When the web nerf showed up, I put away my Hyperion, never to be used again. Give blasters a role, a very narrow niche, where they excel far beyond anything else. Right now there's just "too much of the same". You're creating the gaming equivalent of oatmeal.
Also, I thought this was supposed to be a blaster thread. Of all the T2 ammo you choose to fix, you pick PROJECTILE ammo? What about Void? It's the most useless ammo in the game! Remove the tracking penalty, increase the DPS and increase the cap use.
As has been said before- The posted changes could have been knocked out in an afternoon by a single dev. So far this expansion feels very last minute and thrown together. |
Prester Tom
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 04:26:00 -
[436] - Quote
Hello 400 dps Enyo |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 04:36:00 -
[437] - Quote
One change that might be needed also to the ammo itself, would be the m3 each unit of ammo uses.
as an example, projectile ammo uses half as much m3 as hybrid ammo http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Hail_L vs http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Void_L
While artilery fires much slower than railguns... (and in ofc autocannons are faster than blasters) but I personly think it would be ballanced to make the hybrid ammo just as "small" as projectile ammo... 0.025 m3 (instead of 0.05 m3)
I heard others suggest this before, main reason being to add some ballance to the gallante ships in regards to how many cap booster they can carry |
Gynoceros
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 04:36:00 -
[438] - Quote
These changes are a nice start, but, as others have already said, I don't think you can truly fix blasters as long as armor tanking has such a huge impact on speed and agility.
BTW, while you are looking at T2 ammo, Null needs a buff. Null only gives a 25% boost to effective (optimal + falloff) range while the 50% bonuses to optimal and falloff for Scorch and Barrage, respectively, represent ~40% boost to total optimal + falloff. For example:
Heavy Pulse Laser II (Base): 15km + 5km Heavy Pulse Laser II (Scorch): 22.5km + 5km Total boost to optimal + falloff: 37.5%
425mm AutoCannon II (Base): 3km + 12km 425mm AutoCannon II (Barrage): 3km + 18km Total boost to optimal + falloff: 40%
Null either needs a boost to its range bonuses, or some other bonus to bring it in line with Scorch and Barrage. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 04:39:00 -
[439] - Quote
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:CCP Tallest:
The tracking increase resolves some of the issues that the web nerf uncovered. Compared to the original 90% webs, a 60% web with a 20% increase in tracking is back to around the effectiveness of an 80% web with no tracking bonus, so that's about where it should be.
you forget that when a mwd is turned on your sig radius ballons... it was not just the 90% web it was the fact there was an active mwd... now if you are under 10km there is a garentee there are scrams so so sig radius bloom:(
thats why you need more 37.5% or more for blaster to work without scrams on...
Mors Sanctitatis wrote: This still doesn't fix the lack of DPS. The 5-10% more peak DPS that blasters have over lasers and ACs doesn't make up for the incredibly short range. The answer isn't to increase the range but to drastically increase the damage. Blasters need to deal massive *massive* DPS at very short range.
I used blasters pretty much exclusively for a little under five years. When the web nerf showed up, I put away my Hyperion, never to be used again. Give blasters a role, a very narrow niche, where they excel far beyond anything else. Right now there's just "too much of the same". You're creating the gaming equivalent of oatmeal.
right now imagine that hyperion with the megathrons tracking and 8% more dps with 50% more alpha and 15% more falloff...
or put in the script that turn it from slug to bird shot... and now you have a shotgun effect directional smartbomb that hit for max damage inside optimal range but looses damage fast in falloff...
Mors Sanctitatis wrote: As has been said before- The posted changes could have been knocked out in an afternoon by a single dev. So far this expansion feels very last minute and thrown together.
I know eh? ever since the nefarious fearless leak it seems that CCP have been tamed and are now the cowardly lion from the wizard of oz
We want a ccp that is not afraid to try new things... be bold and let us the players test out and help change the game in a positive way...
|
Digital Gaidin
Manetheren Rising
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 04:56:00 -
[440] - Quote
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:As has been said before- The posted changes could have been knocked out in an afternoon by a single dev. So far this expansion feels very last minute and thrown together. To be fair, a metric @%*#-ton of changes have happened at CCP in the last few weeks, including EVE getting a major refocusing as far as company attention went. In may be being thrown together a little fast, but for the most part I think we can all agree that this much attention towards this upcoming expansion is a welcome change from the past few.
To those at CCP... you have made a kick ass game. We speak up because we care, as cheesy as that sounds, and all these :words: that we put down on this forum are just us trying to say "what you showed us is cool, but we think you can do better!"
If you are still listening on this thread, a little nod that says "Hey, these changes are final! It's better than it was and we'll re-evaluate after we see this in action" or "Hey, we're talking about this some and evaluating a few more ideas" wouldn't hurt... |
|
Hyrath Rotineque
Atlas Research Group Vanguard Venture Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 05:20:00 -
[441] - Quote
Digital Gaidin wrote:If you just boost the speed of Gallente ships as a crutch for a broken weapon system, you aren't really fixing the problem, and gallente ships will either remain pointless or pass a tipping point where they invalidate one or more other races comparable ship types. Pretty much sums up my thoughts.
|
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 05:26:00 -
[442] - Quote
Digital Gaidin wrote:Mors Sanctitatis wrote:As has been said before- The posted changes could have been knocked out in an afternoon by a single dev. So far this expansion feels very last minute and thrown together. To be fair, a metric @%*#-ton of changes have happened at CCP in the last few weeks, including EVE getting a major refocusing as far as company attention went. In may be being thrown together a little fast, but for the most part I think we can all agree that this much attention towards this upcoming expansion is a welcome change from the past few. To those at CCP... you have made a kick ass game. We speak up because we care, as cheesy as that sounds, and all these :words: that we put down on this forum are just us trying to say "what you showed us is cool, but we think you can do better!" If you are still listening on this thread, a little nod that says "Hey, these changes are final! It's better than it was and we'll re-evaluate after we see this in action" or "Hey, we're talking about this some and evaluating a few more ideas" wouldn't hurt...
Digital-
It's a good start. The only way we'll know for sure if this is the start of something good is to be here two years from now and look back on it.
|
Vrabac
Zawa's Fan Club
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 05:29:00 -
[443] - Quote
While blaster/gallente boost was something badly needed and generally speaking I like it's finally happening, I got to admit I was disapointed with the lack of understanding of the issue shown in the devblog. Not surprised mind you, ccp keeps showing they don't know anything about their game, but still disapointed.
Tracking? Really? Repeating the line which was repeated over and over, I suppose ccp thinks that just because many people say something it's true. Since they apparently have no actual knowledge of their own to base their changes off, they are going for this sort of "safe bets" that aren't safe at all. Tracking. ffs
"Hail sticks out as terribly underpowered"... this is just... idk what to say really. Hail was the single useful close range t2 ammo even before the silly dominion change. Terribly underpowered... Maybe the person who came up with this brilliant conclusion was the same who concluded projectiles needed their ridiculous dominion boost? Are you aware autocannons with hail loaded are by far better blasters than blasters are? How about you sack these people instead of the community team? Community team at least had no clue or influence over game's development and was harmless as such.
Boosting rail's dmg looks good to me. Is it too much or no I honestly don't know, haven't used them much. Blasters however, while reducing their grid requirement obviously enables fitting larger guns and doing more dmg, imo will still suck. Reason is that their damage simply won't be better than other close range turrets. This is mostly due to dmg types they do (they are close to useless against 2 out of 4 t2 resits while also being less than stellar against both shield and armor t1 tanks), lack of low slots on the ships that more often than not prevents usage of 3 dmg mods, shielf buffer glass cannons aside, and the difficulty of fitting largest guns. Only 1 of the 3 issues will be solved with this change. So while it is a step in the right direction it's not enough to make them competitive. Autocannon boat will still shred a blaster boat to pieces at close range, doing close to equal or equal dps of more favourable type while at the same time having good kiting potential giving it options. Blaster boat will still be close range only, as it should be, and once it does get into its range and get it's target "where it wants it" it will still be only equal at best, without any advantage to speak of.
So yeah, gallente boost is good, I'm just hoping it's done properly.
|
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 05:36:00 -
[444] - Quote
O hell ya this is awsome man!!!
And I love the way your not only going to help fix Hybird Tech 2 ammo but all of them. Thx u! Thx u! Thx u!
I realy think this is a very good way to balance this as well. Nothing all to radical at once just a hand full of small twikes.
Awsome awsome job guys |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 05:40:00 -
[445] - Quote
Jeffrey Powel wrote: And your forget the "to pray" parts. Pray you will land at 0 and not a 5km, pray to don't be jammed cause you will be unable to hit or run after a falcon, pray the target don't have neutz cause your gun don't work whithout a lot of cap, pray they don't have a logistic cause at 50km you simply can't do anything, pray it's not a trap cause if it is you can't escape cause you always fight at web/scramble range ect, ect....
lol... you must do a lot of praying, then. This nonsense happens to every ship in the game, not just blaster boats.
Warp to 0 does not literally mean exactly 0 km. But, if you prefer "warp to target, within blaster range", then fine. And, jumping to any range is imprecise, so if you are just as likely to miss landing within disrupter or scram range, if you try to cut it too close in order to also stay out of range of your opponent's weapons.
A falcon will jam any solo ship in the game, except for titans and super carriers. And falcons always run away from drones, which most blaster boats carry.
Neuts will also shutdown ABs, MWDs, armor/shield reppers, invul fields, scrams and disruptors, lasers, etc. - not just blasters. The Curse is a pain-in-the-arse for most ships (except perhaps for the passive shield tanked Drake or Myrmidon).
If one ship is being supported by a logi, and the other is not, then it probably would not matter if the solo ship is blaster fit or fit with autocannons.
If it is a trap, then what's the point? It doesn't matter what guns you fit, or what distance you warp to, or how fast your ship may be, or how awesome you can tank. Why? Because it is a trap, stupid! |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 05:57:00 -
[446] - Quote
Bomberlocks wrote:Thorax, Brutix and Deimos all have 50m3 drone bays and as such can field 5 x ec-600 ecm drones. If they can get in range in a small fight, they'll usually have the upper hand if fit like that. Simply comparing blaster range ignores some of the other features and weakness of blaster ships.
Also with the changed fitting requirements to hybrids, instead of switching to a full Neutron gank fit, one could of course stick to Ions and fit a better tank.
Additionally, the Thorax and Deimos, with their strange MWD bonus and now a slight speed and agility bonus seem to be crying for kiting rail fits, now that rails do more damage.
The Eagle might, with some imagination, make a fine kiter using rails and TDs in the mids.
I think the hybrid changes are not perfect, but they need a chance to play out in game before the get changed again. Exactly. The significant change in the fitting reqs for hybrids opens the door for completely new loadouts, and new surprises - which will become more evident once the changes go live and players get creative. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Limitless Inc.
184
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 06:06:00 -
[447] - Quote
Dierdra Vaal wrote:Quote:Before we start looking at armor tanking issues or individual ships, Hybrid weapons as a whole need to be boosted up to a level where using them becomes desirable. What made you decide the weapons themselves were the issue, rather than the ships (hybrid ship maneuvrability, tracking bonuses, engagement ranges, etc)? I'd be very interested to see what research process you guys use to find the 'weak spots' in current balancing/game design problems.
That, and also two more things: 1) I really hope that CCP will monitor this carefully and actually iterate on it (hybrid as well as ship changes), especially at 3 and 6 months period after release. (not their usual "maybe in 3 years" approach). 2) As other people pointed out regarding the ammo, it is a dull approach as it makes the races more similar. That same goes for ships, if Gallente ships gets too agile and too fast, suddenly where's the racial differences?
It's interesting changes for sure, I have several pilots myself with t2 large hybrids - but unlike other people I actually use them and think they are strong today. These changes will make me even more happy. I'd actually preferred a look at the drone boats, they need more love than the blasters did. But rails, they really needed love. Noone snipes anymore and they're (at best) underwhelming in PvE. A rail buff would've made sense, kept blasters as they were, and a look at the drone boats (imho). this is a signature |
J T Kirk
New Eden Research And Design School
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 06:12:00 -
[448] - Quote
I like how someone before was comparing a hurricane to the brutix, and complaining that the hurricane was still substantially better. Try comparing the Brutix to the CYCLONE... you know tier 1 battlecruiser with tier 1 battlecruiser. I dare say the Brutix will come out on top (but I'm just guessing here)
Or I guess you could all just continue to nut off about changes that we haven't even had a chance to try in action yet. Yeah that's probably the more sensible thing to do :)
|
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 06:18:00 -
[449] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Bomberlocks wrote:Thorax, Brutix and Deimos all have 50m3 drone bays and as such can field 5 x ec-600 ecm drones. If they can get in range in a small fight, they'll usually have the upper hand if fit like that. Simply comparing blaster range ignores some of the other features and weakness of blaster ships.
Also with the changed fitting requirements to hybrids, instead of switching to a full Neutron gank fit, one could of course stick to Ions and fit a better tank.
Additionally, the Thorax and Deimos, with their strange MWD bonus and now a slight speed and agility bonus seem to be crying for kiting rail fits, now that rails do more damage.
The Eagle might, with some imagination, make a fine kiter using rails and TDs in the mids.
I think the hybrid changes are not perfect, but they need a chance to play out in game before the get changed again. Exactly. The significant change in the fitting reqs for hybrids opens the door for completely new loadouts, and new surprises - which will become more evident once the changes go live and players get creative.
Back in the day, Hammerhead, in his infinite wisdom, decided to add +2 CPU to T2 EANMs. What this did was specifically cripple a very decent T2 Neutron Megathron fit. The choice was to then use (very expensive at the time) True Sansha EANMs for their better CPU, or drop one T2 EANM for a T2 ANM and lose a huge amount of EHP and RR endurance.
Now that the CPU requirement has been reduced, I think we'll see more effective and less expensive fits for blaster ships. I'm really looking forward to seeing how far I can push things. |
Otto Schultzky
Steller Exiles Inc Fade 2 Black
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 06:47:00 -
[450] - Quote
Posted stats are an improvement, but I am afraid no amount of buffing/ boosting will make Dual 150mm and Dual 250mm rail guns useful. So they might as well just get rid of them or drastically redesign their role. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 42 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |