| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 71 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
   |
Posted - 2009.03.16 19:48:00 -
[631]
Another.
Regards
Mag's |
maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 19:48:00 -
[632]
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.
|
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 20:01:00 -
[633]
Another.
 Originally by: SecHaul
OK, Goum, I fitted your above Myrm, using 2 EANMs. Stats are:
Shield: 4883 (12.5, 30, 47.5. 56.3)
Armor: 11110 (75.1, 67.6, 67.6, 55.1)
Hull: 5371 (60, 60, 60, 60)
Average resists: 66, 61, 63, 57
Compared to Tempest numbers of: 74, 63, 60, 56
When not using Minmatar EM bonuses, and the shift in weighting, the 74 to 66 will increase EM damage by 30%. I.E. we are a lot closer to omni-resists. Here is your graph, including drones, and the above Myrm resists:
Doesn't change, Amarr kings from 14km against armor tanks.
Regards
Mag's |
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 20:02:00 -
[634]
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.
Don't forget the horrible CPU requirements of neutron blasters - surely I can't be the only one who notices!
try fit an all t2 neutron blaster bs
And good luck fitting neutrons with LAR, MWD, and cap injector. And that 8th high slot on megathron? a medium neut at best, or cloak - then CPU is really a problem
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 20:24:00 -
[635]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Don't forget the horrible CPU requirements of neutron blasters - surely I can't be the only one who notices!
try fit an all t2 neutron blaster bs
And good luck fitting neutrons with LAR, MWD, and cap injector. And that 8th high slot on megathron? a medium neut at best, or cloak - then CPU is really a problem
Fitting is relative to the amount you have on your ship. It is much harder to fit lasers on laser ships than blasters on blaster ships.
Originally by: Mag's
This is from another thread, showing the damage with webs fitted to all ships.
I don't get it, what is the point of showing graphs that the informed observer will know show how strong blaster ships are?
Here are some more to poor over
Of course when i put out information I also put out analysis with it explaining whats happening and why things were chosen...
Originally by: Ephemeron
The omni tank argument is a red herring. If blasters were clearly superior against omni tanks, people would stop fitting omni tanks. People choose to fit them now knowing that overall, they get the biggest advantage, not because they want blasters to have more damage for sake of game balance.
No, it is not a red herring. Omni tanks can both be better against blasters than tri-hardening while still being easier for blasters to kill than lasers. Currently, that is not quite the case. Omni tanking vs tri-hardening produces a roughly 5% drop in EHP against em/kin/therm combined with a roughly 40% increase in EHP against EM. The reason that you omni tank is that unless you know what you're going to go up against, trading the small effectiveness against everything for a large effectiveness drop against one is not valuable.
Blasters are clearly superior against omni tanks.
E.G. lets take an average weak battleship omni tank(Armageddon, 3x tri-mark, 2x 1600mm rt, 2x ANP, 1x DCII: 103k unified EHP). Its important to note that while racial tanks on other ships will favor one or the other, that advantage will be small and likely to be covered by the increase in raw EHP and armor EHP on other tanks.
Anyway
Universal EHP: 102,940
AN MF EHP: 115,238
Scorch EHP: 122,976
Antimatter EHP: 100,174
So what is the difference between shooting AN MF and Antimatter? 15.03%
And what is the raw DPS difference between the two weapons? 16.67
This puts the non-biased damage advantage at 34%. This number is pretty much higher for every other armor tanked battleships. And shield tanked battleships are able to fit specific EM hardeners due to lack of overlap between damage mods and tanking mods.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 20:25:00 -
[636]
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.
6.8 optimal, train ur skills, use T2 ammo, then come back to the forum. (Yes the extra dps and range is worth the cap usage and tracking hit, learn to web/scram ur target)
|
Electric Universe
Minmatar
The Choir
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 20:32:00 -
[637]
Edited by: Electric Universe on 16/03/2009 20:33:15
Originally by: Ephemeron
And good luck fitting neutrons with LAR, MWD, and cap injector. And that 8th high slot on megathron? a medium neut at best, or cloak - then CPU is really a problem
You don't fit a LAR on a Neutron fitted Mega anyways.
Ok, you can fit this setup with no problems with a -3% lower Turret CPU implant. I have this implant on my self on TQ. And the implant is dirt cheap anyways. That's a stupid idea to even think about.
High-Slot:
7 x Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
1 x Medium Energy Neutralizer II
Med-Slot:
1 x 100MN MicroWarpdrive II
1 x Warp Disruptor II
1 x Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
1 x Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Low-Slot:
1 x Damage Control II
2 x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
1 x Adaptive Nano Plating II
2 x 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
1 x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Rigs:
3 x Trimark Armor Pump I
Drones:
5 x Ogre II
With this setup, i use 684.64 out of 687.50 CPU. I use 17633.9 out of 19375 Powergrid. And i'll do 1k DPS. Yes this is from EFT.
Not that the stats from EFT says how good a ship is.
So i can't see any problems to fit a setup like that on a Neutron fitted Mega.
And to the things you talking about here.
1. Yes, against shield tanks, lasers is good. I agree on that. But how many are shield tanking and how many are using armor tanks?.
2. Yes an Abaddon have 37% more EHP than a Megathron, but that's because the Abaddon have armor resists bonus. So the resists a Megathron have against Lasers is as much important than the EHP bonus the Abaddon have.
3 % 4. With this, you will run way faster out of cap than a Megathron does.
5.Yes when a weapon is designed for med range, then what do you expect?.
6. A Megathron fitted with Neutrons is meant for close range combat. And when a Megathron meet a ship with med range weapons, it's logic that a med range weapon outdamages a very close range weapon from those ranges.
7. Blasters are close range weapon and a Pulse weapon is med range weapon. You cannot compare a close range weapon to a med range weapon. It just doesn't work.
|
Koloch
Amarr
Warriors Lost
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 20:32:00 -
[638]
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.
|
maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 20:39:00 -
[639]
Originally by: Trader20
6.8 optimal, train ur skills, use T2 ammo, then come back to the forum. (Yes the extra dps and range is worth the cap usage and tracking hit, learn to web/scram ur target).
Firstly i have perfect gunnery skills and as far as people using void in large blasters instead of faction anti matter, well i have never seen it used apart from on eft when people wanna post high dps figures in order to make blasters look better than they are.
Originally by: Trader20
Also not certain types of tank, stop acting like noone uses omni tanks noob. I see wat ur doin, start speaking some truth.
I did not say no one uses omni tanks in fact il be quite frank and say they are the MOST used tank, but as i actually said they are not the ONLY tank people use. A lot of cruisers and BC fits use a active tank and repper fit, while others use shield extenders as a buffer.
|
Dzil
Caldari
Apache Research Team
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 20:44:00 -
[640]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
OMG MY RACE SUCKS
Buff vegetables?
|
maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 20:47:00 -
[641]
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.
|
Electric Universe
Minmatar
The Choir
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 20:53:00 -
[642]
Edited by: Electric Universe on 16/03/2009 20:53:17
Originally by: maralt
7. Lasers are not supposed to be close range so im told but they do very high damage.
Yes before the omni tank resists.
And also, i do agree to some point that Lasers is a good choice when your fighting shield tanked ships.
But then, how many ships with shield tanks are here and how many ships are here with arnor tanks?. This difference is HUGE.
|
maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 21:08:00 -
[643]
Edited by: maralt on 16/03/2009 21:10:11
Originally by: Electric Universe
Yes before the omni tank resists.
Before omni resists blaster do great dmg at 4.5km but its only 30% more than lasers at that range, as soon as the target moves outside that range the difference gets smaller and smaller.
Originally by: Electric Universe
And also, i do agree to some point that Lasers is a good choice when your fighting shield tanked ships.
But then, how many ships with shield tanks are here and how many ships are here with arnor tanks?. This difference is HUGE.
In BS combat unless you are ganking a raven ect id say its almost guaranteed that you will be facing a omni tank in close range Battleship gang combat in 0.0.
Against raw ship resistances like snipers and shield extender tanks ect have i would probably give it to laser ships although lets be honest if a close range BS gang lands on your snipers you are gonna wish you had Vaseline handy. Low sec and empire is harder to judge as people fit to suit what they are going to be doing.
The thing is that none of these things is in dispute, the issue is that the up side of lasers is much greater than a 30% dmg reduction vs blasters at 4.5km
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 21:16:00 -
[644]
Originally by: maralt
4. All the other races need to carry ammo, and is this not covered in 3?.
How much ammo? Do you go out with 8k CN AM L and 8k of Null every time you undock? If you want middle range do you need another 8K of each type in the middle? The ammo costs are not insignificant.
Also, you almost never have to reload in most fights.
|
Electric Universe
Minmatar
The Choir
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 21:16:00 -
[645]
Originally by: maralt
The thing is that none of these things is in dispute, the issue is that the up side of lasers is much greater than a 30% dmg reduction vs blasters at 4.5km
Nah, i would not say that at all.
I will rather say that as stats, bonuses , resists, EHP and DPS etc etc are today, everything seems to be pretty nicely balanced.
|
Koloch
Amarr
Warriors Lost
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 21:23:00 -
[646]
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.
|
maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 21:32:00 -
[647]
Originally by: Electric Universe
Lasers are outdamaged up to 8-10 km.
Not by 30% they are not as i said the further they get away from 4.5km the less the difference is.
Originally by: Electric Universe
When you jump in to a system and land 20-25 km (or it depends on the gate) from a target or targets, then it doesn't take many seconds to move into web range and outdamage everything.
Id say the first ship approached will have a rough time of it as the blaster ships starting at 0ms can travel 15km + the distance the target would have traveled in say 20 secs or so (im sure somebody will have the exact figures).
But then the problem appears as they need to accelerate again from low speed after the other target ships that are now at top speed and pushing out a bucket tonne of dps between them, and the blaster ships need to do this again and again for every hostile ship they primary.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 21:45:00 -
[648]
Originally by: maralt
Originally by: Electric Universe
Lasers are outdamaged up to 8-10 km.
Not by 30% they are not as i said the further they get away from 4.5km the less the difference is.
Originally by: Electric Universe
When you jump in to a system and land 20-25 km (or it depends on the gate) from a target or targets, then it doesn't take many seconds to move into web range and outdamage everything.
Id say the first ship approached will have a rough time of it as the blaster ships starting at 0ms can travel 15km + the distance the target would have traveled in say 20 secs or so (im sure somebody will have the exact figures).
But then the problem appears as they need to accelerate again from low speed after the other target ships that are now at top speed and pushing out a bucket tonne of dps between them, and the blaster ships need to do this again and again for every hostile ship they primary.
I tymded it on my hello kitty stop watch and it takes a mega 9.3 seconds to close onto a target from 15km away.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 21:52:00 -
[649]
Quote:
1 x Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
That's a joke right?
no seriously?
|
maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 21:55:00 -
[650]
Originally by: Trader20
Originally by: maralt
Originally by: Electric Universe
Lasers are outdamaged up to 8-10 km.
Not by 30% they are not as i said the further they get away from 4.5km the less the difference is.
Originally by: Electric Universe
When you jump in to a system and land 20-25 km (or it depends on the gate) from a target or targets, then it doesn't take many seconds to move into web range and outdamage everything.
Id say the first ship approached will have a rough time of it as the blaster ships starting at 0ms can travel 15km + the distance the target would have traveled in say 20 secs or so (im sure somebody will have the exact figures).
But then the problem appears as they need to accelerate again from low speed after the other target ships that are now at top speed and pushing out a bucket tonne of dps between them, and the blaster ships need to do this again and again for every hostile ship they primary.
I tymded it on my hello kitty stop watch and it takes a mega 9.3 seconds to close onto a target from 15km away.
Was the target burning away from the start with its own web and mwd?.
Cos it seems odd that a plated mega can cover 10km from a standing start vs a stationary target let alone one that is burning away when its max burning speed is around 822ms.
After all that is only 8.22ish km every 10 secs at full tilt let alone needing to accelerate..
|
Electric Universe
Minmatar
The Choir
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 21:57:00 -
[651]
Edited by: Electric Universe on 16/03/2009 22:02:08
Originally by: Ephemeron
Quote:
1 x Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
That's a joke right?
no seriously?
Are you dumb ?.
Try fitting a Heavy Capacitor Booster II to that setup with Neutrons. You don't have the CPU or Powergrid to fit it.
Jesus man, every Neutron Mega pilots knows this heh.
EDIT: maralt, most pilots i know doesn't just to start to MWD away from someone that have jumped in to you and are MWDing towards you. They will most likely sit at the gate and deaggro if they need to get away.
They rather stay and try and kill something than just run away only because someone is burning after you lol.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 22:06:00 -
[652]
my point was that neutron blasters have bad bad fitting requirements - worse than mega pulse
This is yet another disadvantage that is supposed to make the extra 16.7% dps advantage worthwhile?
Add up all the other disadvantages, and the extra damage is not worth it.
I want damage advantage to be 10% bigger to make up for all the disadvantages
btw, dual plate mega moves like a brick and will be the death of you in many small gang engagements where the enemy has superior numbers and cruiser sized ships. And without active rep - good luck finding a station in 0.0 after every battle and spending 5 mil on repaires, or play docking games while you try to rep yourself by offlining some guns.
It's a gimped setup that works only in certain situations. All this self-gimping is not worth 16.7% more damage
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 22:26:00 -
[653]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Quote:
1 x Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
That's a joke right?
no seriously?
Size of the cap booster doesn't matter. What matters is how much cap you need and how much cap you get.
Med cap booster is fine for blasters without a repair unit.
|
Mila Prestoc
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 22:28:00 -
[654]
so while your busy increasing blaster damage because "it makes them balanced against laser battleships" what you going to do to ACs?
-------------------------
Originally by: "Lord Violent"
EvE is slowly becoming a game for the stupid, catered to by devs as they lack ability to kill/survive anything.
|
Electric Universe
Minmatar
The Choir
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 22:29:00 -
[655]
Edited by: Electric Universe on 16/03/2009 22:36:16
Originally by: Ephemeron
my point was that neutron blasters have bad bad fitting requirements - worse than mega pulse
This is yet another disadvantage that is supposed to make the extra 16.7% dps advantage worthwhile?
Add up all the other disadvantages, and the extra damage is not worth it.
I want damage advantage to be 10% bigger to make up for all the disadvantages
btw, dual plate mega moves like a brick and will be the death of you in many small gang engagements where the enemy has superior numbers and cruiser sized ships. And without active rep - good luck finding a station in 0.0 after every battle and spending 5 mil on repaires, or play docking games while you try to rep yourself by offlining some guns.
It's a gimped setup that works only in certain situations. All this self-gimping is not worth 16.7% more damage
Neutrons doesn't have it harder fitting Neutrons that a geddon have to fit 7 pulses with the normal omni tank setups that we use now.
And by giving Blaster 10% more DPS advantage is really asking to make Autocannons obsolete.
So i don't see that happening.
And increasing the DPS on Blasters is not going to do much.
They still have to MWD to the targets and be shoot while they move. So they rather have cap problems then to.
Maybe they need a capacitor boost to at the same time?.
|
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 23:18:00 -
[656]
Originally by: Goumindong
I don't get it, what is the point of showing graphs that the informed observer will know show how strong blaster ships are?
You're right, you don't get it. Even with your graphs, it shows how small the damage gap is and how lasers out perform blasters.
It isn't 30% extra damage from blasters, that's for sure.
Thanks for proving my point. 
Regards
Mag's |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 23:24:00 -
[657]
Originally by: Mila Prestoc
so while your busy increasing blaster damage because "it makes them balanced against laser battleships" what you going to do to ACs?
Why would a boost to blasters be mutually exclusive with a boost to ACs?
|
Electric Universe
Minmatar
The Choir
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 23:42:00 -
[658]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Mila Prestoc
so while your busy increasing blaster damage because "it makes them balanced against laser battleships" what you going to do to ACs?
Why would a boost to blasters be mutually exclusive with a boost to ACs?
Because Blasters are very balanced to Autocannons now maybe?.
So by you logic, if we only boost Blasters, then what's the point in that when you will get topics like the Boost Blaster topic all over again about how crappy the Autocannons is?.
Do we need that?, no we don't.
DO NOT TOUCH BLASTERS AND AUTOCANNONS.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 23:46:00 -
[659]
Originally by: Electric Universe
Edited by: Electric Universe on 16/03/2009 22:46:43
Originally by: Ephemeron
my point was that neutron blasters have bad bad fitting requirements - worse than mega pulse
This is yet another disadvantage that is supposed to make the extra 16.7% dps advantage worthwhile?
Add up all the other disadvantages, and the extra damage is not worth it.
I want damage advantage to be 10% bigger to make up for all the disadvantages
btw, dual plate mega moves like a brick and will be the death of you in many small gang engagements where the enemy has superior numbers and cruiser sized ships. And without active rep - good luck finding a station in 0.0 after every battle and spending 5 mil on repaires, or play docking games while you try to rep yourself by offlining some guns.
It's a gimped setup that works only in certain situations. All this self-gimping is not worth 16.7% more damage
Neutrons doesn't have it harder fitting Neutrons that a geddon have to fit 7 pulses with the normal omni tank setups that we use now.
And by giving Blaster 10% more DPS advantage is really asking to make Autocannons obsolete or in really really bad shape.
So i don't see that happening.
And increasing the DPS on Blasters is not going to help much.
They still have to MWD to the targets and be shoot while they move. So they rather have cap problems then though. But when you look closer to that, they don't directly have any cap problem when they MWD a bit around.
Only low skilled players with poor capacitor skills might end up in that problem.
Maybe they need a capacitor boost at the same time to, so the low skilled players can stop to whine about that?.
If you are talking about fitting difficulty for Mega Pulse geddon, then compare it to fitting neutron blasters on a Dominix - both tier 1 versions. I believe you'd still find the geddon has it easier.
I am aware that the Autocannons are rather weak weapons, but so far people aren't complaining because the Tempest and Typhoon are the most versatile of all battleships, able to make up for lack of dps in other ways, specifically by fitting heavy neuts. And the tempest has double damage bonus, which, in a way, brings AC damage up to par with blasters and lasers.
I'm all for boosting ACs - but only in a way that emphasizes their role. And their role is not in the damage they do, and not optimal - but all other stats.
Each of the 3 short range weapons deserves to have a clearly defined role.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 23:51:00 -
[660]
Originally by: Electric Universe
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Mila Prestoc
so while your busy increasing blaster damage because "it makes them balanced against laser battleships" what you going to do to ACs?
Why would a boost to blasters be mutually exclusive with a boost to ACs?
Because Blasters are very balanced to Autocannons now maybe?.
So by you logic, if we only boost Blasters, then what's the point in that when you will get topics like the Boost Blaster topic all over again about how crappy the Autocannons is?.
Do we need that?, no we don't.
DO NOT TOUCH BLASTERS AND AUTOCANNONS.
BOOST LASERS!
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 71 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |