|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Fistme
   |
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:38:00 -
[1]
Blasters are good for 1v1, lasers are better for everything else. Guess how often people 1v1 .
So to reply to the OP before I get myself off topic I suggest you train for the zealot and later try and skill up to the geddon and apoc. Geddon is king of RR med range fleet battles, Apoc is king of long range fleet battles! The Zealot is a great ship for roaming hac gangs and is very effective with both pulse and beams!
Now for the Blaster Whine! (you all knew it was coming)
Now I think most people that are at least mildly objective about the current state of PVP understand that Blasters could be much better in their point blank role to add a little diversity to small and medium sized gangs that are currently dominated by the RR, high EHP, long range DPS of the Amarr ships.
What I propose is to increase the dps of medium and large blasters by 5-7% while also increase the amount of cap they use(oh noes! a trade off!). I do not think that any adjustment to small blasters is needed as the ships they are commonly fitted to are doing amazingly well, if not too well! A scaled buff to blasters across the entire lineup would most certainly make these ships (taranis, ishkur) far too potent.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 23:01:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Smokeyblood
Originally by: Fistme
Blasters are good for 1v1, lasers are better for everything else. Guess how often people 1v1.
So to reply to the OP before I get myself off topic I suggest you train for the zealot and later try and skill up to the geddon and apoc. Geddon is king of RR med range fleet battles, Apoc is king of long range fleet battles! The Zealot is a great ship for roaming hac gangs and is very effective with both pulse and beams!
Now for the Blaster Whine! (you all knew it was coming)
Now I think most people that are at least mildly objective about the current state of PVP understand that Blasters could be much better in their point blank role to add a little diversity to small and medium sized gangs that are currently dominated by the RR, high EHP, long range DPS of the Amarr ships.
What I propose is to increase the dps of medium and large blasters by 5-7% while also increase the amount of cap they use(oh noes! a trade off!). I do not think that any adjustment to small blasters is needed as the ships they are commonly fitted to are doing amazingly well, if not too well! A scaled buff to blasters across the entire lineup would most certainly make these ships (taranis, ishkur) far too potent.
How does minmitar fit in to this scheme? worth training or just stick with amarr
Well to be honest I really don't have allot of flight time in minny ships however I've flown with many experianced pilots and understand the general advantages and disadvantages that they posses.
The first bright light that I noticed with minny ships is their awsome t1 cruisers. Rupter with a 1600mm plate is a close range beast and the stabber is a fantastic low SP heavy tackler with the ability to outrun almost anything that has the potential to knock it out. As for their t2 frigs, the stilleto is bar none the best of the inty tacklers. It has unmatched speed and handling while sporting enough mid slots to tackle and be nearly nos proof. The Jaguar and Wolf are both decent however I feal that Gallente have better options in the AF department. Now to the vaga, oh the vaga :P. Big stabber with perfect resist bonus to make a LSE you fit give a fantastic amount of ehp. Minmatar also have a great BC, the Hurricane. They also grant you one of the best if not the best Command ship for solo ops, the Sleipner. As for BS, I don't really have much insight as i've never flown one. The Maelstorm can sport one hell of a tank while cramming it's lows with gyrostabs though, great close range fire support platform for gate humping.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 13:07:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Hepren D'narr
How about... Boost Blasters damage (something x 1.5 like), a bit more optimal but less falloff. Then, boost AC:s giving them more tracking and falloff (maybe some damage increase needed? idk). How does that sound?
Sounds broken...
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 20:22:00 -
[4]
So I think at this point it's become rather obvious that there are inhearent flaws in the practical use of Large and to a smaller extent medium blasters in the current meta-game. That being said I think it's time we stop arguing with obvious trolls and start debating about what can be done to fix the state of this weapon class in today's eve.
To come up with a reasonable "fix" We are going to have to first diagnose the problem with how they function. The first issue that I come across is the "realistic" application of DPS. In a sense the problem is that in comparison to other weapon systems the travel time (loss of DPS) between targets that is often required to bring blasters into range is not made up for by the damage output that blasters put out. This brings me to my first proposal, a mild increase in damage, not tracking. Tracking buff would send us back to the days in which a single blaster BS had almost no problems melting cruisers and even to a lesser degree frigates.
I think that a Modest 5% increase in damage would be a good place to start.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.03.13 21:41:00 -
[5]
wtb 2x perma forum bans.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.03.13 22:06:00 -
[6]
Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 13/03/2009 21:54:02
Originally by: Fistme
wtb 2x perma forum bans.
Hey, i'm just trying to prove some guys here that if you use Blasters right, they are working perfectly fine.
But you know, the cry babys must cry at everything, so they are also in this topic.
I don't care if i get a ban here, because if i do, then sophisticatedlimabean will also get it .
I don't know how many times i have proven that sophisticatedlimabean is lying. The thing about my kilmails is a good example on why he is lying.
I have given explanations on everything i have said about Blasters, and i have given the reason why Battleclinic sucks when it's about killmails etc.
But what have sophisticatedlimabean done?, nothing more than whining.
All he's saying is bawwwww, i failed to use Blasters right and Blasters didn't work good at all then and then it means Blasters sucks and lasers are much much better than Blasters because Lasers is better than Blasters at the range he was at that time.
He doesn't even give en explanation on what kind of gang, what kind of ships they was using, what kind of setups they was using, and where they was fighting etc etc.
You get my point now why i'm doing all to tell that Blasters are fine until i'm proven wrong?.
I know many that mean the same as me when it's about using Blasters right, that they are best in close range fights.
.... Dude, you're more worried about arguing with a fellow troll than you are about actually debating the issues at hand. What i find even more astounding is that you try and justify you're actions because someone else plays by you're pathetic forum emo trolling rules. Give it a rest, most of the people will now just disagree with you because they don't like the crap that you post, same goes for limabean....
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.03.14 01:27:00 -
[7]
Now I understand that when we talk about Blasters people generally focus on BS class Blasters and the ships they are ideally fit on. How do you think the t1 and t2 medium blaster ships hold up against their competition?
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 02:07:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Fistme on 15/03/2009 02:14:02
Originally by: Captator
What are peoples' thoughts on medium and small blasters?
Small Blasters work almost perfectly. They have the advantage of commonly being strapped to ships that take full advantage of their strengths. Examples would be the taranis, Ishkur, and to a lesser extent the enyo.
Medium Blasters also work great on their t1 hulls, Thorax, vexor, Brutix. The issue is that the t2 hulls available for medium blasters really fall short in many situations. The Deimos may be great 1v1 against another hac with ecm drones but in any kind of reasonable gang combat you're going to die almost instantly. Weak tank coupled with point blank range = you're in serious trouble unless you have ewar support. The Astarte also suffers from some of these same issue. Your taking a ship that generally has 50-60k ehp and a 300-400 dps active tank into an arena in which it's slight speed and agility advantages over a bs mean next to nothing because you will probably be double webbed and eaten.
I think that there are a couple ways to "fix" the Deimos and Astarte. First and formost would be a re-evaluation of their fall off bonus. With a weapon system that is mixed between optimal and falloff I think the bonus needs to be increased to allow the use of null and neutrons to 20km range pre rigs. I think increasing the falloff bonus from 10% to 12.5% or 15% per level could make the Deimos have a fantastic role outside of web range w/o stepping on the toes of the zealot. As for the Astarte more specificly, another low slot could really make this ship shine. Also give the t2 BCs the hp boost that was given to their t1 counterparts!!! A Brutix having more raw hp than it's t2 brother is silly imho.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 10:35:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Raimo
Originally by: Fistme
I think that there are a couple ways to "fix" the Deimos and Astarte. First and formost would be a re-evaluation of their fall off bonus. With a weapon system that is mixed between optimal and falloff I think the bonus needs to be increased to allow the use of null and neutrons to 20km range pre rigs. I think increasing the falloff bonus from 10% to 12.5% or 15% per level could make the Deimos have a fantastic role outside of web range w/o stepping on the toes of the zealot. As for the Astarte more specificly, another low slot could really make this ship shine. Also give the t2 BCs the hp boost that was given to their t1 counterparts!!! A Brutix having more raw hp than it's t2 brother is silly imho.
Improving the Falloff bonus of the Deimos is actually not a bad idea. Just give it a 4th mid while you're at it! ;)
I highly disagree on the 4th mid. A 4th mid on the deimos would make it a faster more agile BC w/o the sacrifice that most Cruisers have to make between mobility and semi cap warfare proof. I think that longer range on t2 blasters ships would give them gang performance beyond the point of suicide. Mobility + small margin of error would make the blaster deimos a fun and productive ship to fly.
What i find as an even more simple solution is to simply increase the falloff bonus on null to allow it to strike at even greater ranges. You could simply remove the optimal bonus and increase the falloff bonus of the ammo by 125-150%. Scaled damage at a reasonable range.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 18:34:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Electric Universe
NightmareX only have 1 account.
So what, because i'm a friend of him and have almost the same posting style as him doesn't mean i'm his alt, at all.
This is just getting way ridicoulus. Because you accuse me of being NightmareX, when i'm not, i'm gonna start to report peoples here that accuse me for being someone that isn't me.
Comedy Gold
|
|
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 20:57:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Hepren D'narr
BS Blasters only; this discussion has mainly been about BS size Blasters.
Now I agree with this to a point however there are a few issues in the med blaster department. Both the Deimose and the Astarte are specialized ships designed to work at a range where their ehp and cap limitations make it near suicide. The issue is that if you boost medium blasters you boost a whole slew of ships that arguably don't need a boost at all, Thorax, Vexor, and the Brutix.
Understanding that it may be the Deimos and the Astarte themselves the pose the issue, not the medium blasters. A detailed look at their proposed role and potential boost to Falloff Bonus would be a fantastic improvment w/o messing up the balance that has already been achieved more or less at the t1 Cruiser lvl.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 22:12:00 -
[12]
Another solution could be to introduce fall off scripts to tracking comps. Mega or hype could choose to drop a portion of it's tackle (soloability) in favor of longer falloff allowing it to be more effective in gang warfare.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 23:27:00 -
[13]
I think that we can all agree that the only blaster ships that are truly "working as intended" are the frig line up and possibly the Thorax and Brutix because they bring good firepower to the fight in an inexpensive package. All of the t2 blaster boats and BS sized blaster boats are more or less fail when compared to other races comparable ships.
As stated earlier in the thread the issue with the t2 blaster boats (Deimos and Astarte) is that they do not have the ability to last long enough both through cap and ehp to be effective blaster platforms in a gang situation.
There have been many proposed ideas to remedy the situation however I think the most logical is to increase tracking by a small degree on the BS sized Blasters while also removing the optimal bonus from null and increasing the falloff to x1.75. Astarte could also use another low or at the very least give all Commands the hp boost that they missed out on.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 01:09:00 -
[14]
Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 04/04/2009 00:44:19
Originally by: maralt
The hyperion needs more grid if its gonna be a active repping ship as you cannot even fit a twin rep and nuetron setup without going over is available PG, let alone trying to put a mwd and injector on it along with tackle ect.
No battleship that use Blasters should be able to fit Dual LAR's on a Neutron setup anyways.
If you want Dual LAR's fitted you have to use Ions or Electrons.
Now I agree with your general point nightmare, 2x large reps + nuetrons is asking for too much but I'd like to correct you. It is not feasable to fit neutrons on ANY BS blaster boat with a rep, need to plate it or gank it to fit neutrons. If you're going to fit a rep on either the mega or the hype you're already down to ions, and if you want to dbl rep a hype or mega electrons are really you're only option.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 18:32:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Yewandeh
Also, why compare a blaster ship to a laser ship in a blaster thread?
Blaster thread
blaster.
..... Really dude?
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 18:51:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Tyrkisk Peber
Why are i'm lying when i say i'm a new player?.
Explain me why?.
Ooooooooooooooooooohhhhh just because you noobtard are saying it?.
Anyways, your reported for harassing me and because your trolling. Enjoy.
Hi Nightmare!
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 18:59:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Electric Universe
Originally by: Fistme
Hi Nightmare!
Hi Childstar / lecrotta / maralt / sophisticatedlimabean \.
The Hypocrisy is strong with this one! I really love it Nightmare, I really do :P
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 19:13:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Tyrkisk Peber
Uhm, i'm still not NightmareX's alt.
I'm just confused here .
Should EVE really be allowed to have such stupid players like lecrotta?.
It's a really shame for the whole EVE community to have such an idiot here. It's just sad.
Here i'm joining EVE because i have heard that the EVE community is very good and because EVE is a very good game.
But it's looking really dark now.
I find it odd that a "new" player would rather argue on the forums about not being an alt rather than playing a fresh game. Really just does not seem logical to me
If the eve community is looking "really dark now" simply based upon a very limited number of people calling you out on a message board then I think your analysis of the community or really anything at this point is inherently flawed.
So, "Tyrkisk Peber", what is it that you wanted to know about blasters?
|
|
|
| |
|