EVE Search - Blasters Useless?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Blasters Useless?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.08 20:58:00 - [1] op: "should I give up on blasters?" possibly...it sounds like you trained the wrong race. blasters do need a little boost in damage, BUT that isn't going to change your situation. Blasters have never been and never will be medium-long range weapons. Variation in the races is important. Unfortunately there are a lot of people trying to flatten this instead of balance the races in their spec'd area. minmatar is the way to go. It's funny to see a lot of the pro Amarr pilots switching out to minmatar ships these days...though having said that you see a lot of the small gang pilots moving from amarr to gallente.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.08 23:08:00 - [2] Edited by: Koloch on 08/03/2009 23:11:57 @sophisticatedlimabean Yes Gallente have been up and down the power chart since the beginning, but they have never been the worse. Gallente are the only race that have ships that don't need to rely on guns for dps. Before the nos nerf you would see domi's with all of their high slots filled with nos. A jammer in the mids and see them take on 2-3x times their numbers. Or the EOS before the drone nerf. Nano Ishtar's with OrgeIIs. Gallente had the most flexible ships for pvp hands down, and this went on for quite awhile. ..oh and people fit autocannons to a mirm not because blasters suck, but because it gets enough dps from it's drones that the extra cap that is gained from using capless weapons is a bigger bonus to it's tank.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.08 23:49:00 - [3] Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Originally by: Koloch Gallente are the only race that have ships that don't need to rely on guns for dps. Before the nos nerf you would see domi's with all of their high slots filled with nos. A jammer in the mids and see them take on 2-3x times their numbers. Or the EOS before the drone nerf. Nano Ishtar's with OrgeIIs. Gallente had the most flexible ships for pvp hands down, and this went on for quite awhile. I dunno if you noticed bud but: 1. NOS, EOS and drones got nerfed. 2. We are talking about blaster problems not drone ships. Originally by: Koloch ..oh and people fit autocannons to a mirm not because blasters suck, but because it gets enough dps from it's drones that the extra cap that is gained from using capless weapons is a bigger bonus to it's tank. Spin it how you like but the fact is that if blasters were as good as the ppl on here (who just happen to be mostly amarr skilled surprise surprise) claim then myrm pilots would use them instead of AC. short term memory problem? you asked "when" was Gallente ever overpowered. if your stupid enough to not realize that this was a reply to that question then I seriously feel sorry for you. I am spec'ed in Gallente. Take your emo crap somewhere else.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.09 00:34:00 - [4] Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean ..you seem to think that gallente have been/were top dogs in BS pvp for years, so maybe you need a education in how races, ships and systems compare now and in the past. Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean You have no idea about the past if you think gallente ruled it for years... You deny that Gallente were overpowered. It's implied that you want proof for this overpowered phase in Gallente's history re: When? Looks like you are the fool.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.09 11:00:00 - [5] Edited by: Koloch on 09/03/2009 11:01:04 @sophisticatedlimabean Actually I support a boost to blaster damage - like I stated a few times in this thread. You made reference to the past, I just filled in the details. I never stated that the past should dictate how the game moves forward. End of the day I didn't make anything up. You are the one in the quotes.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.09 22:37:00 - [6] NightmareX, you I kind of see your point regarding leveling the testing field, but it is a bit flawed. Nobody is going to put 400mil isk worth of rigs on a 80 mil BS -or atleast there are very few. With that in mind you are adding too many variables to the test case and assume that pirate implants + t2 rigs are balanced. I've done a fair bit of testing on sisi and I've never flown anything that I couldn't afford to fly on TQ. Limabeanguy is correct in saying that if you want to call your tests valid then you should be testing against TQ realistic ship setups/implant configs.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.09 23:34:00 - [7] Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 09/03/2009 22:42:16 Originally by: Koloch NightmareX, you I kind of see your point regarding leveling the testing field, but it is a bit flawed. Nobody is going to put 400mil isk worth of rigs on a 80 mil BS -or atleast there are very few. With that in mind you are adding too many variables to the test case and assume that pirate implants + t2 rigs are balanced. I've done a fair bit of testing on sisi and I've never flown anything that I couldn't afford to fly on TQ. Limabeanguy is correct in saying that if you want to call your tests valid then you should be testing against TQ realistic ship setups/implant configs. Well i see your point. But to bad, there isn't anything i can do with the t2 rigs and implants. When everyone is using those i can't just tell them to take all of it off just because i want to use my t1 rigged and no implanted character in a Tempest for example to be as much realistic as TQ. I have to take the fighting as much realistic as it can get on sisi. And still make sure it get's as much realistic as TQ as possible. Well there are a few people that probably wouldn't mind doing that. I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask. There are players that do log on to do valid testing. Having said that the thing I hate most about sisi is it's more about people interested in playing the arcade version of eve then actually testing.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.09 23:42:00 - [8] Originally by: NightmareX Who would any of you here trust between an EFT warrior who only looks at some numbers or a player (me) who actually use things and test it out on sisi and get some results?. Neither You have to look at balancing from all angles. ..this is what makes it extremely difficult and why a lot of people don't understand that their "simple" fix to a balancing issue really isn't the best option or actually needed. It's also very difficult for people to be objective when it involves a ship(s) they have invested a lot of training time skill for.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.10 00:18:00 - [9] Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 09/03/2009 23:55:42 Originally by: Koloch Originally by: NightmareX Who would any of you here trust between an EFT warrior who only looks at some numbers or a player (me) who actually use things and test it out on sisi and get some results?. Neither A valid sissi warrior with no clue about TQ pvp... NightmareX Kills: 209 Losses: 22 Oh and just in case you are interested.. ME Losses: 130 Kills: 2,148 Mine are pvp kills of various types/styles, no smart bombing bubble camp kills or other exploits to boost numbers. Kills have a lot more to do with the combined skill of your corp/alliance you're in and not really a fair measure of personal skill level. Your previous corp, Burn Eden, is known for coming up with very clever tactics for gate camping -like the nano hyenas/sniper combo. Looking at some of your past kills you are either in a falcon, hyena, nano ishtar or sniper mega. I didn't look at all of your kills, but I failed to see any Blaster Mega losses.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.10 00:35:00 - [10] Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean I could hardly claim they were poor and in need of help then use them as my ship of choice now could i?...anyway losses are of less importance than dmg done and effectiveness in gang relative to other ships of the same class.. Yes, I guess that could be true, but I would have expected you to atleast have some failed attempts at using blaster ships in general. I know quite a few players that have a lot of kills/losses using blaster ships. I would take their opinion on how the ships fair in tq combat over someone that doesn't use them at all.

Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.13 04:29:00 - [11] Originally by: vostok You have to understand, that from where I'm sitting gallente and minmatar battleships are much less useful in most situations than amarr and caldari are. In fact at the moment as a general rule of thumb amarr and caldari are superior in almost every class of ship than gallente or minmatar. fleet snipers -> apoc/rokh gang dps -> baddon/raven, maybe a phoon, don't know the ship too well PVE -> raven/apoc EWAR -> scorp/domi? not sure how it would fare now all non bonused ew has been nerfed to the ground Spider tanking -> domi is clearly above the rest, thats about it really.... I agree to some extent, but really; fleet sniper > apoc/rokh/mega - mega with rails is a solid fleet ship. pve > raven. not really apoc do to it's limited dmg type. domi is an amazing PVE ship. No need for ammo and the ability to pick dmg type and lets not forget an insane tank. Seriously try and take down an angel BS in an apoc and time it. RR gangs > agreed domi is the king
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.13 06:28:00 - [12] Originally by: vostok Originally by: Koloch I agree to some extent, but really; fleet sniper > apoc/rokh/mega - mega with rails is a solid fleet ship. pve > raven. not really apoc do to it's limited dmg type. domi is an amazing PVE ship. No need for ammo and the ability to pick dmg type and lets not forget an insane tank. Seriously try and take down an angel BS in an apoc and time it. RR gangs > agreed domi is the king Apoc is one of the fastest T1 battleships for mission running. The damage type is a negative for it but running amarr missions most stuff is weak to EM damage, you rarely come across angels. The result is a good apoc pilot comes out just ahead of a raven pilot. As far as the domi goes for missions its a solid ship but just not in the same league imo, same with the mega as a fleet sniper, it does the job, but trying to get that DD tanked is a lot harder than the apoc or rokh. Both of those ships can shoot at 200km with an omni tank capable of taking any DD. Hell the rokh can take it in the shields using 425mm rails while having 3 damage mods. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.13 11:32:00 - [13] why do people continue to compare the megathron with the abaddon and then make blanket statements that Amarr are overpowered. There's no way in hell you'll be fitting a mwd, a full rack of mega pulses, and have amazing EHP on a geddon, and the apocs dmg is certainly not 70% of a mega's after the omni tank.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.13 12:29:00 - [14] Edited by: Koloch on 13/03/2009 12:29:32 Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Because its a option ppl have if they are amarr spec'd, if gallente had a ammo that did a lot more dmg and range than antimatter with no downsides would you accept the answer "yea but AM is not as good".... Are saying that if the baddon did not exist things between gallente and amarr would be more balanced?. Interesting perspective. Is it? You're putting the entire fleet of one race under the label of overpowered because of the Abaddon?
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.13 14:12:00 - [15] Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean I feel it shows blasters are underpowered and lack available scenarios on TQ where they are effective, but you seem to think it shows lasers as overpowered... So i say again..interesting perspective. I never said, nor will I every say that lasers are overpowered...because they aren't.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.16 20:32:00 - [16] Originally by: maralt Edited by: maralt on 16/03/2009 19:48:49 So the up side of blasters is 30% more dmg against certain types of tank in their 4.5km optimal. While lasers get: 1. Against other tanks lasers are the better choice for dmg types, although truth be told those tanks are not used on BS really but they are used on quite a few T2 ships. 2. They have 37% more ehp compared to blaster ships. 3. Instant reload if a ship is altering its range. 4. No need to reload for 10 seconds after a very limited amount of shots. 5. 400%-1000% more optimal range. 6. Match or out damage blasters from 8km-30km. 7. Do 730 gun dps from 30-45km + have a falloff while blasters do 0dps. 1. not sure I believe you on that one. 2. what all amarr battleships have exactly 37% more ehp? what are these figures based on? 3. not instant. it's probably more like 2 seconds. while amarr have to carry a minimum of 25-30 mil worth of ammo in each ship. 4. have to carry extra crystals due to hard to track crystal expiry. 6. nice try. mwd fitted blasters ships take no time to travel from 8k to their optimal. 7. not blasters intended operation range which is why they do 0 damage.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.16 21:23:00 - [17] Originally by: maralt Edited by: maralt on 16/03/2009 20:52:01 Originally by: Koloch 1. not sure I believe you on that one. 2. what all amarr battleships have exactly 37% more ehp? what are these figures based on? 3. not instant. it's probably more like 2 seconds. while amarr have to carry a minimum of 25-30 mil worth of ammo in each ship. 4. have to carry extra crystals due to hard to track crystal expiry. 6. nice try. mwd fitted blasters ships take no time to travel from 8k to their optimal. 7. not blasters intended operation range which is why they do 0 damage. 1. Shield buffer tanks and a few active tanks have em as the weakest or at lest not the best resist. 2. Abaddon vs mega or hyperion. 3. Even 2 seconds is better than 10. 4. All the other races need to carry ammo, and is this not covered in 3?. 5. what happened to 5?... 6. That depends on the target. 7. Lasers are not supposed to be close range so im told but they do very high damage. 1. so in reality not that many ships. 2. Abaddon is one ship in the Amarr Fleet -which tbh I agree is a bit too strong. 3&4. This debate has been going on for years. I'II let this one be. 5. amarr are mid range combat ships. it would makes sense they have a longer range over blaster ships. note that apart from the Abaddon no other Amarr BS can fit a full rack of mega pulses and a mwd. If they can't dictate range then they need a wider optimal range. 6. details please. 7. they do good damage though you can get a lot more damage out of a blaster ship.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.18 20:17:00 - [18] Originally by: The Djego B: When did you used a Blaster ship the last time and stated I won because I have flown a Blaster Ship? A: Nobody flyes Blaster ships this days, so how knows? I heard they are good Gang Damagedealers. Man I'm getting tired of people saying this. I spend a lot of spare time looking at other corporation's killboards. Players still use blasterships and if anything there are usually in higher use. This over exageration is really getting tiresome.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.18 20:24:00 - [19] Originally by: maralt Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: maralt By that reasoning as blasters do 0 dmg at laser optimal lasers should do 0 dmg at blaster optimal...after all lasers are mid range weapons not short... Blasters do not do 0 damage at laser optimal. Oh joy a gourmie word game... By that reasoning as blasters do 0 dmg in the extreem parts of lasers optimal (30-45+km) where lasers hit for high dmg, then lasers should do 0 dmg in the extreem parts of blaster optimal where blasters hit for high damage...after all lasers are mid range weapons not short... Do you ever get tired of being petty minded or is it that you tend to support the unsupportable and only have that to use?. except when outside of your optimal and in laser optimal you have the option to warp off/get a better warp in point. When you're inside your optimal targets are scrambled -so for a ship that can't hit it's certain death. Seems very overpowered to me.
Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.18 21:17:00 - [20] Originally by: Childstar Originally by: Koloch Man I'm getting tired of people saying this. I spend a lot of spare time looking at other corporation's killboards. Players still use blasterships and if anything there are usually in higher use. This over exageration is really getting tiresome. Even with perfect gunnery and ship tertiary skills it takes a while to train up T2 pulse plus amaar BS 5 ect. I have only just finished it myself although i did beams while i was at it as well. Do not confuse the fact that ppl HAVE to fly blaster BS in gangs because they do not have anything else trained, with blaster BS being a good gang ship. I'm not confusing anything. People fly blaster boats because they do their job well....and the comment was "nobody flies blaster boats because they suck" is complete bull****.

Koloch Amarr Warriors Lost	Posted - 2009.03.18 21:25:00 - [21] Originally by: maralt You do not need to point out how laser BS range gives them such a huge advantage in available "range tanking" as well as a much greater survivability in gang combat due to working very well outside point range. Compared to blaster BS that not only need to operate within point range but web range as well....and the optimal of every ship in the oposing gang.... Nice bend of what I said. Actually blaster boats are the ships with the mwd fitted. So in your case blaster boat would mwd to 24km scram and continue to mwd to target. In your example the Amarr ship has ~10 sec to kill the blaster boat before the blaster boat is under the Amarrs tracking and the Amarr ship (again in your example) does 0 damage. Blaster boat picks the engagments and wins 100% of the time. sounds very overpowered.
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.18 22:25:00 - [22] Originally by: The Djego Originally by: Koloch Originally by: The Djego B: When did you used a Blaster ship the last time and stated I won because I have flown a Blaster Ship? A: Nobody flyes Blaster ships this days, so how knows? I heard they are good Gang Damagedealers. Man I'm getting tired of people saying this. I spend a lot of spare time looking at other corporation's killboards. Players still use blasterships and if anything there are usually in higher use. This over exageration is really getting tiresome. It is more like a joke about so many people that don¦t actualy fly Blaster Ships tell you they are superior gang Damage dealers or superior solo Ships. Heimatar(the area where I normaly stick around) was actualy quite Blaster heavy, many people flown them. You see many of this guyes now in other ships. You see Blaster Ships mostly in small Gangs now, not because they are extrem good there, but because it at least negates the tracking/range Problems, while having more tackle avaidalbe. How about you tell us how successfull you are with your Blasterships since QR, o wait just another Alt in a Blaster Thread nvm. Nope I'm not going to fall for that troll. No matter how you spin it your comment that no one is flying blaster ships is bull****. I don't need to post my killmails and beat my chest. Look at any solid pvp corporations killboards and you will see a lot of blaster boats being used. You will see a lot of gallente ships period.
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.18 23:13:00 - [23] Originally by: The Djego Originally by: Koloch Nope I'm not going to fall for that troll. No matter how you spin it your comment that no one is flying blaster ships is bull****. I don't need to post my killmails and beat my chest. Look at any solid pvp corporations killboards and you will see a lot of blaster boats being used. You will see a lot of gallente ships period. So no own experience with Blasterships, no own kills, just trolling Blaster Threads? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm trolling. First find the meaning of troll, then look up debate.
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.18 23:24:00 - [24] Originally by: Childstar Edited by: Childstar on 18/03/2009 22:55:33 Originally by: Koloch Nope I'm not going to fall for that troll. No matter how you spin it your comment that no one is flying blaster ships is bull***. I don't need to post my killmails and beat my chest. Look at any solid pvp corporations killboards and you will see a lot of blaster boats being used. You will see a lot of gallente ships period. While i think the comment was either poorly chosen or poorly phrased it does not change the fact that the reason that those blaster Battle ships are being flown is because the pilots using them cannot fly anything else.....yet. Maybe in some cases, but how can you say ALL of them can't fly anything else? I think that's a pretty big assumption. Why don't they fly something below Battleship level. We can certainly assume that if they have the skills to fly a Battleship they can fly a cruiser and more than likely for that matter the t2 variations. Many blaster pilots in this thread have stated blasters below BS are well balanced. Why don't these blaster pilots then fly these ships that apparently perform a lot better instead of bs blasters?
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.19 00:00:00 - [25] Originally by: Koloch Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm trolling. First find the meaning of troll, then look up debate. Originally by: The Djego 1. Adding nothing to the discussion. 2. Disagreeing other people without beeing able to correcting them. 4. Relaying fully on other people things because you are unable of bringing own points. 5. Posting with a Alt. It¦t not the fact of disagreeing, it is the fact you lacking any own points, lacking any proveable background what makes your opinion considerable and still you try other people to respond on your post specific by asking qestions, or more like tasks to disaprove/searching for facts that disaprove something that isn¦t actualy a fact. That isn¦t a discussion that is trolling. I realy lack any kind of idea why people constantly have to troll ballancing threads, I mean we got C&P or CAOD for a reason, didn¦t we? Because you obviously don't know the meaning of troll; Troll; Act of appearing on internet forums and boards with malicious intent. Trolling includes... -batting people to flame at you -putting the forum down and encouraging people to leave. -flaming -spamming -using several identities on a board to support your own arguments / stage pretend arguments I have done none of this. If you make a statement that isn't correct I have every right to correct it. That isn't trolling. I am also allowed to post my opinion from the other side. a)I have fought blaster ships b) I fly with people that fly blaster ships and c) I actually do fly blaster ships. What's up with this elitist attitude that only people that fly blaster boats are allowed to post in blaster balancing threads - what an utter load of crap. If I'm proven wrong on a statement I'II admit it, but telling me I'm not allowed to post in this thread or that I have no experience to post is bull. Actually if we step back your reply to my valid post is more of a troll than mine.
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.19 01:24:00 - [26] Originally by: The Djego stuff... well if you care so much about not trolling then how about we get back to the discussion that you derailed. ...and lets try to keep to reality. If you're going to make a bold statement that nobody flies blaster boats anymore lets see the proof. As I stated it takes 10 minutes to find a killboard and step through the most recent kills/losses. Like my previous statement this data proves you wrong. Now maybe it's for other reasons, but the fact remains people still use them.
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.19 20:53:00 - [27] Originally by: Theron Gyrow You're claiming that a Blasterthron is a good option for RR gangs? :D (If you want to RR without losing damage, you can use a Geddon. Ok, without AWU5, you have to drop one mega pulse to DHP, but that is not a huge damage loss...) Geddon is a pretty terrible RR ship. I'd be really interested in hearing your setup... tbh there aren't many feasible setups for the Geddon + Mega Pulse. So please post me your exact setup.
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.19 21:00:00 - [28] Originally by: Childstar Originally by: Electric Universe In fact, an Abaddon melts like 20-30% faster to 6 Blaster Mega's than one Mega melts to 6 Abaddons. This is when the Abaddons are at their optimal and when Blaster Megas are in their optimal range. The abaddon may melt 20-30% faster but it also has 37% more ehp as well as the fact that the megas need to be at 4.5km while the abaddons can be at much longer ranges. Originally by: Electric Universe Stuff about RR A omni tank blaster mega gets 832 gun dps at 4.5km optimal with RR fitted. The 425 RAIL mega gets 538 raw gun dmg with faction antimatter out to 36km optimal, but has no chance of ever fitting a RR and only a 100k omni tank. The geddon gets 606 raw gun dps out to 45km optimal (760 gun dps out to 15km) with good EHP and a RR fitted. The abaddon gets 730 raw gun dps out to 45km optimal (916 gun dps out to 15km) with a massive EHP tank but no RR. Or if you decide to fit one on your abaddon you get 639 raw gun dps out to 45km optimal (802 raw gun dps out to 15km) and a massive EHP tank and has RR. But then the Mega also has the option to field ORgeIIs or sentryIIs. So it's true dps is a lot higher than 832
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.19 21:54:00 - [29] Originally by: Childstar Edited by: Childstar on 19/03/2009 21:46:31 Originally by: Electric Universe To you first thing. No that's not right. It's something called webbing more than just the primary and secondary target you know. Its impossable to designate individual webs from individual ships onto individual ships when in a good sized gang vs gang fight. Not only that but as you said the megas need to stick together and as such any tertiary ships they may have webbed will still have plenty of time to get out of the "4.5km blaster 30% dps advantage" range and into the ranges that lasers do the greater dps. Originally by: Electric Universe To the second thing. Yes i agree, but still even when the geddon can have as much drones as the Mega, it still doesn't do near as good DPS as the Blaster mega does at 5 km. I never said geddons match the dps of megas at 4.5km, they do however match and then out damage megas at every range from just over that, and then continue to do so all the way out to 45km. ...and leaving out lots of data regarding fit ehp (for both ships) etc. and just to note on your web comment. people fly mixed gangs for a reason. points and webs are spread out. yeah you'll get doubling up on targets, but it's not like 10 guys warp in on 10 and everyone puts a point and web on primary.
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.20 02:37:00 - [30] Originally by: Childstar The geddon fit i used 113ehp, mwd, large injector, point or web, 1077dps out to 15km and 923 out to 45km (inc drones) and a single RR. The mega fit had the 115ehp, mwd, point, web, large injector and does 1148dps at 4.5km and has a single RR. geddon with that setup is actually 112.5 not 113. well my mega setup has slighly lower dmg of 1096, but has 120.5 ehp with a lot higher resists with that setup the Geddon has a resist of 57.1 kin 62.8thrm Mega is; 75.1 em 67.6 thrm

Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.21 02:34:00 - [31] Edited by: Koloch on 21/03/2009 02:35:29 Originally by: The Djego This Tread basicly sucks, a lot of alts crushing EFT numbers, argumenting on links to KMs that arn¦t her KMs, links to Threads/Vids that arn¦t theres Here's what you don't get. Just because the person isn't linked to the killmail or the vid doesn't discount the proof that people can get these ships to work as intended. You forget that the people posting fly with people that fly blaster ships - it's not like amarr pilots only fly with other amarr pilot...unless of course you believe the crap that no one flys blaster boats any more. Originally by: The Djego To the guy stating he got no tracking Issues with Void, well get the ** out off your 10+ Ships gangs and you will realize why people considering useing Void as Fail. I actually popped an AF with Void last night. Originally by:** The Djego 30%, even 50% DPS advantage isn¦t this powerfull today after taking the get in range + EHP diffrence into account. You argumenting to ballance the Blaster BS around situations it actual fails on TQ. So how would you propose CCP balance this. How about calculate the time it takes a blaster ship to travel 40km and figure out the DPS needed to overcome a target once in optimal then boost by that amount? That sounds pretty fair I mean a blaster ship should always win a fight as long as it can get into range right ? Blaster pilots have be spewing that same garbage for years "nothing should survive a blaster boat when it gets into range"
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.21 04:03:00 - [32] Edited by: Koloch on 21/03/2009 04:05:25 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Koloch Here's what you don't get. Just because the person isn't linked to the killmail or the vid doesn't discount the proof that people can get these ships to work as intended. I can't even parse this sentence. FFS, plz fix it. In Diego's post she says that even if people post killboard stats or post links to videos showing blaster ships performing that evidence doesn't matter because they don't belong to that person. better? Yes it carries a bit less weight, but never the less it is worth something. Originally by: Liang Nuren Ooooooh, I **ing got it! Lets nerf the *ing hell out of lasers... they need to do about half* of the damage they currently do in order to keep it fair? WTF m8, you can be bitter about Gallente two years ago or you can ***ing help people find a solution to the problems* of today. -Liang I'm not bitter at all. I've listened to uneducated posters constantly say that Amarr needs to be nerfed or blaster pilots saying they need a huge dmg increase and greater range in order to compete. It's bull****. The balancing that is needed/if any is small. I can only speak for myself. I'm posting here to make sure that when blaster pilots post an over exaggerated or just plan false statement that it gets corrected because I don't want my ship getting nerfed unfairly.
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.24 03:59:00 - [33] The boost to Amarr tracking happened in RevII mid 2007 http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=474 Amarr FOTM started when kil2's video Armageddon came out - 2008.01.22 So yeah if Blasters really did suck they have had plenty of time to train up another race...
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.24 05:27:00 - [34] Edited by: Koloch on 24/03/2009 05:28:33 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Koloch The boost to Amarr tracking happened in RevII mid 2007 http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=474 Amarr FOTM started when kil2's video Armageddon came out - 2008.01.22 So yeah if Blasters really did suck they have had plenty of time to train up another race... The amarr fotm started when the EM boost happened. -Liang ...and surprise the em boost sits in the same time frame I posted. tbh I'm sure all three had an influence on the Amarr fotm. http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=533
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.24 06:01:00 - [35] Edited by: Koloch on 24/03/2009 06:02:55 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Koloch ...and surprise the em boost sits in the same time frame I posted. tbh I'm sure all three had an influence on the Amarr fotm. http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=533 A PVP video had nothing to do with the Amarr FOTM, and suggesting that it did is projecting. -Liang What you don't think people are influenced at all by what they see.
Koloch Amarr	Posted - 2009.03.24 07:04:00 - [36] they don't look at it because it doesn't support their case. It's as easy as that.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.