EVE Search - Blasters, any news?

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Blasters, any news?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kunming T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core	Posted - 2009.04.08 15:31:00 - [1] Hello there to EVE and our lovely lovely fluffy DEVs I havent been around for awhile (RL) and was planing to become an EVE-addict again once my projects are done. Anyways I have been forum-cruising and read that blasters (my favourite) will get some dev lovin. Without opening up a debate (which already exists in "ships & modules") I would like to know if and what the plan is for blasters and/or blaster ships. IMO currently they are shorthanded in any gang situation except some 1on1's. So basically: Is there any plan to make them more of a viable tactical option? - Quantum Rise... nerfing the unnerfable! Sponsored by CCP
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.08 15:40:00 - [2] try autocanons half dps same or worse tracking, poor optimal and guess what they were nt changed for long time 60D GTC - shattared link
Ephemeron North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.04.08 17:22:00 - [3] Why use blasters when mega pulse is better? seriously, take a step back and look at the bigger picture
NightmareX Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil	Posted - 2009.04.09 00:27:00 - [4] Edited by: NightmareX on 09/04/2009 00:31:55 Originally by: Ephemeron Why use blasters when mega pulse is better? seriously, take a step back and look at the bigger picture LOL, that's like saying the Koenigsegg CCXR are better than the Nissan Skyline GT-R, because the Koenigsegg is faster and have a much much more powerfull engine. Try putting both of those cars into a street in a city and then let them race to see whos gonna get to the finish first. And then you try to put both cars into a fight on whos gonna get to the finish line in a 5 mile long straight line track on a speed course. Whos gonna win that time then?. Anyways When you say they are better, then better for what?. Better for having the status as a FOTM noob?. Dude, it really depends on what kind of PVP we are gonna do. For close range RR gangs = Blasters. Med range = Pulses. Long range = Caldari and Amarr. And ofc it really depends on what kind of PVP style you have in close range, med range and long range. Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.09 02:45:00 - [5] Originally by: Ephemeron Why use blasters when mega pulse is better? seriously, take a step back and look at the bigger picture Still havent finished training the large lasers. :) And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1.
NightmareX Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil	Posted - 2009.04.09 03:11:00 - [6] Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: Ephemeron Why use blasters when mega pulse is better? seriously, take a step back and look at the bigger picture Still havent finished training the large lasers. :) Atm i'm training Large Autocannon Spec to level 5. 20 days does remain to have it on level 5. After that, i'm gonna start on Large Blaster Spec to level 5 from level 4. Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise
Ephemeron North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.04.09 03:27:00 - [7] ever since the Great Speed Nerf patch, the best fighting range for a close range battleship is 10-15 km. All 3 guns can do damage at that range, but only mega pulse is clearly ahead. If you have some specialized tactic that you like to use, that brings your fight to 5km, then blasters would be better. But for general purpose fighting, 10-15 km is where its at
Dr Resheph Amarr YOU ARE NOW READING THIS LOUDLY	Posted - 2009.04.09 03:47:00 - [8] Frigate and Cruiser blasters are fine, Battleship blasters are mostly limited by their ships. Dominix lacks grid, Megathron is great but victory even at point blank is far from certain. Hyperion is pretty crap, because it doesn't do any better as a blaster boat than the Megathron. It only does it slightly different. Take it from someone whose spent way too many years flying the damn things.. 1. Hyperion should get 10% blaster damage bonus instead of 5% hybrid, a massive powergrid bump and the same 4 mids / 7 lows as the Megathron. 2. I would also redo all T2 ammo in the game. Null should do 85% thermal and 15% kinetic, while retaining the same damage output and ranges as Antimatter. No penalties, no bonuses. This would make blasters more effective against T1 shield tankers and T2 Amarr. Not sure what to do with Void atm. 3. Fix the broken transverse formula and rebalance weapon tracking accordingly. This would do a lot to make sure Blasters miss less in their ranges.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.09 07:08:00 - [9] Originally by: Dr Resheph Frigate and Cruiser blasters are fine, Battleship blasters are mostly limited by their ships. Dominix lacks grid, Megathron is great but victory even at point blank is far from certain. Hyperion is pretty crap, because it doesn't do any better as a blaster boat than the Megathron. It only does it slightly different. Take it from someone whose spent way too many years flying the damn things.. 1. Hyperion should get 10% blaster damage bonus instead of 5% hybrid, a massive powergrid bump and the same 4 mids / 7 lows as the Megathron. 2. I would also redo all T2 ammo in the game. Null should do 85% thermal and 15% kinetic, while retaining the same damage output and ranges as Antimatter. No penalties, no bonuses. This would make blasters more effective against T1 shield tankers and T2 Amarr. Not sure what to do with Void atm. 3. Fix the broken transverse formula and rebalance weapon tracking accordingly. This would do a lot to make sure Blasters miss less in their ranges. 1) The Hype's slot layout is fine. It's 5th mid flexibility is what makes it unique. 2) The Hype doesn't need more PG or a bonus change to do more DPS. All large blasters need a DPS increase. That will fix what is wrong with the DPS issue. 3) I agree that if Null had damage closer to Antimatter then it would be useful, while still being different from a Geddon with Scorch. It would do higher damage, but with a different/shorter optimal/falloff curve. The tracking penalty could be reduced as well. 4) Void just needs to do more damage. Lots of it. It's tracking and cap use are horrible. It needs to do a LOT more DPS. 5) The tracking formula is horribly broken at close range and something needs to be done with it. Personally I think that the effective sig radius of a target needs to climb exponentially as range is reduced, but only for guns. This way as you approach 0m effective range your signature radius becomes infinite and you hit for 100% damage at 0km. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
rgreat Gallente OEG GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.09 07:16:00 - [10] Originally by: Bellum Eternus 5) The tracking formula is horribly broken at close range and something needs to be done with it. Personally I think that the effective sig radius of a target needs to climb exponentially as range is reduced, but only for guns. This way as you approach 0m effective range your signature radius becomes infinite and you hit for 100% damage at 0km. This. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.09 07:25:00 - [11] Edited by: Raimo on 09/04/2009 07:30:08 Originally by: Dr Resheph 2. I would also redo all T2 ammo in the game. Null should do 85% thermal and 15% kinetic, while retaining the same damage output and ranges as Antimatter. No penalties, no bonuses. This would make blasters more effective against T1 shield tankers and T2 Amarr. Not sure what to do with Void atm. That's a horrible idea. Null should maintain it's current range, preferably it should get a bit more range while maintaining it's current stats otherwise. Upping the gun DPS a bit will be enough. ATM I use Null most of the time in RR BS gangs where MWDing up close is not an option, too bad the Amarr boats outdamage me most of the time but them's the breaks. (And that is fine, just a bit more damage and range would be enough, and vastly increased damage and tracking up close plz, see Void.) Void OTOH should omit it's tracking penalty and get a slight damage buff IMO in addition to upping the base gun DPS. Make Void the default ammo to use. About med and small blasters, IMO they are NOT fine due to the random nature of the MWD/Scram/WEB/AB ****up in QR. Small blasters are mostly great but that situation adds way too much randomness even there. (But the ranis and the AFs do rock most of the time) Med blasters OTOH would definitely need a slight range boost (Same Null boost as larges) and a significant damage boost up close. If you compare the DPS of a Zealot at 24k and the DPS of a Deimos at 2k there is something wrong... Also boosting tracking across the board to be comparable at optimal to lasers at their optimal would be decent IMO. Bellum's idea might be good as well, though wouldn't it boost all guns and leave Blasters relatively handicapped still? AC's need their own thread and they anyway can hit stuff much further so the comparison is not fair. ---
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.09 07:32:00 - [12] Originally by: Raimo Edited by: Raimo on 09/04/2009 07:30:08 Originally by: Dr Resheph 2. I would also redo all T2 ammo in the game. Null should do 85% thermal and 15% kinetic, while retaining the same damage output and ranges as Antimatter. No penalties, no bonuses. This would make blasters more effective against T1 shield tankers and T2 Amarr. Not sure what to do with Void atm. That's a horrible idea. Null should maintain it's current range, preferably it should get a bit more range while maintaining it's current stats otherwise. Upping the gun DPS a bit will be enough. ATM I use Null most of the time in RR BS gangs where MWDing up close is not an option, too bad the Amarr boats outdamage me most of the time but them's the breaks. (And that is fine, just a bit more damage and range would be enough, and vastly increased damage and tracking up close plz, see Void.) Void OTOH should omit it's tracking penalty and get a slight damage buff IMO in addition to upping the base gun DPS. Make Void the default ammo to use. About med and small blasters, IMO they are NOT fine due to the random nature of the MWD/Scram/WEB/AB ****up in QR. Small blasters are mostly great but that situation adds way too much randomness even there. (But the ranis and the AFs do rock most of the time) Med blasters OTOH would definitely need a slight range boost (Same Null boost as larges) and a significant damage boost up close. If you compare the DPS of a Zealot at 24k and the DPS of a Deimos at 2k there is something wrong... Also boosting tracking across the board to be comparable at optimal to lasers at their optimal would be decent IMO. Bellum's idea might be good as well, though wouldn't it boost all guns and leave Blasters relatively handicapped still? AC's need their own thread and they anyway can hit stuff much further so the comparison is not fair. especialy megathron outdomages temepst up to 35km right ? 60D GTC - shattared link
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.09 07:38:00 - [13] Edited by: Raimo on 09/04/2009 07:38:17 Originally by: Kalintos Tyl especialy megathron outdomages temepst up to 35km right ? Uh I don't know WTF you are smoking, a Blaster Mega does eventually 300ish DPS at 35km if he fits Ogres (or a bit less but instantly with sentries), but ZERO (or very close) from his blasters. Maximum Null optimal+falloff is 27km... Tho I don't fit damage drones in RR gangs so it's moot. I do basically zero DPS at 35. What does the pest do? Like I said already do your own friggin thread. ---
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.09 08:06:00 - [14] Edited by: Kalintos Tyl on 09/04/2009 08:11:05 Originally by: Raimo Edited by: Raimo on 09/04/2009 07:38:17 Originally by: Kalintos Tyl especialy megathron outdomages temepst up to 35km right ? Uh I don't know WTF you are smoking, a Blaster Mega does eventually 300ish DPS at 35km if he fits Ogres (or a bit less but instantly with sentries), but ZERO (or very close) from his blasters. Maximum Null optimal+falloff is 27km... Tho I don't fit damage drones in RR gangs so it's moot. I do basically zero DPS at 35. What does the pest do? Like I said already do your own friggin thread. go try, there is reason im switching to blasters with null, over acs. Clue: Ac tempest have less ehp and dps up to 30km than mega, mega have trakcing of medium long range guns(webed cruiser dies so fast), and no acs have same trackign before bonuses so its wrose after mega bonus. 60D GTC - shattared link
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.09 08:19:00 - [15] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl especialy megathron outdomages temepst up to 35km right ? If you're flying your Tempest like a Megathron then you're too incompetent to be helped. The Tempest has entirely different advantages than the Megathron. Use it as such. And if you're going to bother fitting blasters on a Tempest, why not just fit DHP2s or MP2s? Better at everything, but needs a bit of cap and grid. I have a DHP2 Typhoon that is pretty fun. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.09 08:23:00 - [16] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Kalintos Tyl especialy megathron outdomages temepst up to 35km right ? If you're flying your Tempest like a Megathron then you're too incompetent to be helped. The Tempest has entirely different advantages than the Megathron. Use it as such. And if you're going to bother fitting blasters on a Tempest, why not just fit DHP2s or MP2s? Better at everything, but needs a bit of cap and grid. I have a DHP2 Typhoon that is pretty fun. i dont fly it, sometimes for duels on sisi with dual neut, and watching enemy slowly die to pity dps. 60D GTC - shattared link
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.09 08:31:00 - [17] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Kalintos Tyl especialy megathron outdomages temepst up to 35km right ? If you're flying your Tempest like a Megathron then you're too incompetent to be helped. The Tempest has entirely different advantages than the Megathron. Use it as such. And if you're going to bother fitting blasters on a Tempest, why not just fit DHP2s or MP2s? Better at everything, but needs a bit of cap and grid. I have a DHP2 Typhoon that is pretty fun. i dont fly it, sometimes for duels on sisi with dual neut, and watching enemy slowly die to pity dps. If you don't fly it then you're not allowed to whine about it. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Severice Crushed Ambitions	Posted - 2009.04.09 09:50:00 - [18] Kill void tracking penalties. I only use it when i'm being too cheap to buy medium faction ammo. Kill void tracking penalties. Reduction in range + tracking penalties = you don't hit jack. Bellum Eturnus had an awesome idea: 5) The tracking formula is horribly broken at close range and something needs to be done with it. Personally I think that the effective sig radius of a target needs to climb exponentially as range is reduced, but only for guns. This way as you approach 0m effective range your signature radius becomes infinite and you hit for 100% damage at 0km. i can sign off on that one hundred percent. Do it. Here's the raw deal for blaster boats. High damage, have to be close in. When you're that close your often primary because they know they can web and disrupt you and your the last one who can get out. There is no "run away" option for a blaster ship. So you have to live with the fact your primary. So your too damn close to be allowed to live, and your damage is just too good (even with the current issues) to say "yeah i can ignore you for later". And top it all off, with you get neuted and your dead.
london Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.04.09 12:24:00 - [19] Originally by: Bellum Eternus 1) The Hype's slot layout is fine. It's 5th mid flexibility is what makes it unique. 2) The Hype doesn't need more PG or a bonus change to do more DPS. All large blasters need a DPS increase. That will fix what is wrong with the DPS issue. 3) I agree that if Null had damage closer to Antimatter then it would be useful, while still being different from a Geddon with Scorch. It would do higher damage, but with a different/shorter optimal/falloff curve. The tracking penalty could be reduced as well. 4) Void just needs to do more damage. Lots of it. It's tracking and cap use are horrible. It needs to do a LOT more DPS. 5) The tracking formula is horribly broken at close range and something needs to be done with it. Personally I think that the effective sig radius of a target needs to climb exponentially as range is reduced, but only for guns. This way as you approach 0m effective range your signature radius becomes infinite and you hit for 100% damage at 0km. Couldn't agree more.
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Eclats de verre	Posted - 2009.04.09 12:56:00 - [20] All blasters (and ACs for several models) have too low tracking compared to their range. You can just well overtrack yourself by moving your own ship with an AB. So, it's not even worth thinking shooting smaller targets. By overtracking myself, I mean that an electron blaster deimos with a 1600mm plate and an AB will miss partially a hurricane while orbiting it, it looks plain stupid to me. Same can be said of the hurricane's 220mm ACs in that fight. So, IMHO, it lacks tracking for a proper close range fight. PS : I don't fly large, I only laugh when I orbit at close range with something like a deimos. I can feel your pain at the total lack of tracking. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Ryusoath Orillian Minmatar INDUSTIENCE	Posted - 2009.04.09 13:22:00 - [21] Originally by: Bellum Eternus 5) The tracking formula is horribly broken at close range and something needs to be done with it. Personally I think that the effective sig radius of a target needs to climb exponentially as range is reduced, but only for guns. This way as you approach 0m effective range your signature radius becomes infinite and you hit for 100% damage at 0km. Oh wow, man you have been right every time when i read your threads. Your Videos were fantastic. You are one of the very very few forum posters that i like and agree with. and now this, this.... GENIUS. i never read this anywhere before, but i have never heard a more perfect solution. It has no flaws at all, it makes logical and even scientific sense. CCP Do this now. never leave these forums. and make a new video, unless you are waiting for blasters to be good again.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.09 16:01:00 - [22] Edited by: Raimo on 09/04/2009 16:01:41 EVSCO killboards seem to be pretty widespread already, it seems most of EVE PVP is in there. Look at their FOTM weapons list: (Top 20) Only 2 light Blasters on the whole top 20, no mediums or heavies... Might this be because (especially) medium and heavy blasters, the T2 ammos and/ or the blaster boats need some love? ---
Ephemeron North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.04.09 16:52:00 - [23] Originally by: Ryusoath Orillian Originally by: Bellum Eternus 5) The tracking formula is horribly broken at close range and something needs to be done with it. Personally I think that the effective sig radius of a target needs to climb exponentially as range is reduced, but only for guns. This way as you approach 0m effective range your signature radius becomes infinite and you hit for 100% damage at 0km. Oh wow, man you have been right every time when i read your threads. Your Videos were fantastic. You are one of the very very few forum posters that i like and agree with. and now this, this.... GENIUS. i never read this anywhere before, but i have never heard a more perfect solution. It has no flaws at all, it makes logical and even scientific sense. CCP Do this now. never leave these forums. and make a new video, unless you are waiting for blasters to be good again. Hold your premature ejaculations. The idea is on good track but it isn't perfect. Exponential formulas are very difficult to balance in a game, it would become to sensetive to distance. At long ranges, say 20+ km, that exponential sig radius would become virtually 0. You can tweak the formula and just shift that 0 up a few more km. Depending on the coefficients that you introduce to make sniper weapons work, blasters would have a big range of 100% tracking for all guns. Linear solutions work best in games, with minimum and maximum cut off ranges
Dr Resheph Amarr YOU ARE NOW READING THIS LOUDLY	Posted - 2009.04.09 17:21:00 - [24] Edited by: Dr Resheph on 09/04/2009 17:22:25 Originally by: Bellum Eternus 1) The Hype's slot layout is fine. It's 5th mid flexibility is what makes it unique. As unique and wonderful as a Tempest right? Originally by: Bellum Eternus 2) The Hype doesn't need more PG or a bonus change to do more DPS. All large blasters need a DPS increase. That will fix what is wrong with the DPS issue. No. All blasters don't need a DPS boost, that's called power creep and only ensures that every other weapon gets a boost. It's called cyclic history, and anyone who thinks boosting leads to fixes is incapable or unwilling to think in the long term. Hyperion's 500mw powergrid advantage over the Megathron doesn't even compensate for the 8th turret. An Ion setup with dual reps, mwd and injector fits on the Megathron, but doesn't fit on the Hyperion without additional rigs, modules or implants. So without doing anything, it's already underpowered in a relative sense. A massive powergrid increase would make it capable of using Neutrons with an active tank, which have an inherent 6-7% dps advantage over the preceding tier. Drones could then be dropped to 50mbit (with 150m3 bay). Originally by: Bellum Eternus 3) I agree that if Null had damage closer to Antimatter then it would be useful, while still being different from a Geddon with Scorch. It would do higher damage, but with a different/shorter optimal/falloff curve. The tracking penalty could be reduced as well. You're just thinking of damage. I'm thinking of damage type. ** the range, part of the reason Tempest doesn't compete well with the Megathron anymore is because of Null. As a blaster pilot, I never wanted, asked, nor pleaded for more range. That defeats the entire purpose of the platform. For as long as range bonuses are in place, damage increase is impossible - otherwise, who would use Antimatter? Originally by:** Bellum Eternus 4) Void just needs to do more damage. Lots of it. It's tracking and cap use are horrible. It needs to do a LOT more DPS. It's tracking and cap are horrible because of the damage it does. T2 ammo doesn't need to do damage above what T1 offers at all, it needs to provide specialization and functionality that T1 can't. With Null, you have an obvious thermal damage focus. The only reason I didn't say Void should become 85% kinetic is because Antimatter already does a lot of kinetic and it would be redundant. Originally by: Bellum Eternus 5) The tracking formula is horribly broken at close range and something needs to be done with it. Personally I think that the effective sig radius of a target needs to climb exponentially as range is reduced, but only for guns. This way as you approach 0m effective range your signature radius becomes infinite and you hit for 100% damage at 0km. You're clueless in two ways. First, that would never allow you to hit at 0m because it wouldn't be changing the tracking formula. And zero multiplied by anything is still zero. Second, if you think massive signatures help, then you don't know how the transverse calculation is broken. You're only saying it's broken because you've read other people state the same, and it's a convenient argument to use. But a gimmick like the one you just proposed does nothing. And the people who followed up on that with glorious praise are about as dumb as highschool cheerleaders.
Dr Resheph Amarr YOU ARE NOW READING THIS LOUDLY	Posted - 2009.04.09 17:25:00 - [25] Originally by: Raimo That's a horrible idea. RANGE RANGE RANGE RANGE RANGE RANGE RANGE not fair. I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of you being a sniveling blasterpilot-wannabe. Go train for your precious lasers if you can't be a manly man.
Manfred Rickenbocker The Elliance	Posted - 2009.04.09 18:11:00 - [26] Originally by: Ephemeron Hold your premature ejaculations. The idea is on good track but it isn't perfect. Exponential formulas are very difficult to balance in a game, it would become to sensetive to distance. At long ranges, say 20+ km, that exponential sig radius would become virtually 0. You can tweak the formula and just shift that 0 up a few more km. Depending on the coefficients that you introduce to make sniper weapons work, blasters would have a big range of 100% tracking for all guns. Linear solutions work best in games, with minimum and maximum cut off ranges Exponential shouldnt be too bad, what matters is the cutoff point. At what range does does the sig radius increase and remain fair? That golden point is the issue. Should it be relative to the actual gun type, properties, ship size, and/or ship size difference? Without those considerations you could have battleships hitting frigates because the frigates are too close and their sig balloons. Continuing with the current formulae, Id would guess that the golden point would have to combine ship size/signature vs. gun signature differences (so battleships dont hit frigates). Im not too keen on how the tracking formula works, but it seems it doesnt factor in that feature enough. Id propose an alternate. This is the future right? Tracking should affect rate of fire, not actual accuracy. If something was orbiting me over my tracking, realistically I would track in an opposite direction and lead my shots. What should affect to-hit and hit quality should rely on the differences in gun size to target size. That seems to be similar to how missiles operate currently: target speed reduces missile damage vs. a turrent losing ROF/DPS, and explosion radius modifies DPS further on small targets vs. signature radius on small targets. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.10 04:26:00 - [27] Originally by: Dr Resheph useless crap I CBA to requote everything point by point. Summary: If you want a 4 mid 7 low blaster ship, fly a Megathron. Yes, large blasters need a DPS increase. The small difference in peak DPS when compared to Mega Pulse IIs isn't enough to differentiate it from the MP2s. They need to do significantly more DPS than the MP2s at close range in order for them to be worth using when compared to MP2s etc. If you're fitting a dual rep setup on the Hype you're doing it wrong. Blah blah T2 ammo blah blah. W/E. T2 ammo sucks and needs to be fixed. No, I didn't miss anything, and I do understand how the tracking formula works. Yes, I do understand that if you simply increased the sig radius of the target as it grew closer to the ship the guns would still miss due to the oversimplified tracking formula. Who said to leave the formula the way it is? I was simply trying to express an idea in it's simplest forms so people like yourself could easily grasp the general principle instead of my delving into precise mechanics changes with respect to reconstructing the tracking formula so that it would be appropriate for blasters. Tl;dr: stfu and stop being pedantic. You're only regurgitating your crap because you can't see past your own position. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.10 05:50:00 - [28] Edited by: Raimo on 10/04/2009 05:50:45 Originally by: Dr Resheph I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of you being a sniveling blasterpilot-wannabe. Go train for your precious lasers if you can't be a manly man. You didn't read the part where I wanted improved DPS and tracking up close with Void and/or in general? I love to hug them and melt them as much as the next guy, but if laser users can do nearly the same DPS from out of point range there indeed is something wrong. Unless lasers are nerfed to be inline with other guns the slight Null range increase comnbined with the up close improvements would give a bit of much needed flexibility to us in gangs. And IMO med blasters/boats definitely need looking into as well. ---
Kunming T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core	Posted - 2009.04.10 13:09:00 - [29] Actually I only wanted to know if there is any change coming or planned and what it is? There are multiple topics about blasters in Ships & Modules already and we all know the pro and con arguementations. Though as a matter of fact, I DO like some of the ideas here alot; especially the tracking formula one. And I'm sure us blaster pilots would whine less if void was useful, basically the most dmging weapon can not use its high end ammo for the intended purpose. Considering its huge drawbacks, you will never become a solopwn machine with void anyway. - Quantum Rise... nerfing the unnerfable! Sponsored by CCP
Hereon Herinnger Gallente Nolra Corp	Posted - 2009.04.10 15:04:00 - [30] Originally by: Raimo Edited by: Raimo on 09/04/2009 16:01:41 EVSCO killboards seem to be pretty widespread already, it seems most of EVE PVP is in there. Look at their FOTM weapons list: (Top 20) Only 2 light Blasters on the whole top 20, no mediums or heavies... Might this be because (especially) medium and heavy blasters, the T2 ammos and/ or the blaster boats need some love? While I support some love to blasters, this claim is flawed. There are 4 weapon systems, each with 2 variants (like blasters and rails). So in the top 20 weapons used, each variant should have an average of 2.5 weapons in the top 20. Blasters are slightly weaker, so they get 2, while rails for example get 3. So while medium/large need some love, by this count light blasters are overpowered if anything.
Gwydion Telcontar Gallente Ixion Defence Systems Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.04.10 15:34:00 - [31] Originally by: Hereon Herinnger While I support some love to blasters, this claim is flawed. There are 4 weapon systems, each with 2 variants (like blasters and rails). So in the top 20 weapons used, each variant should have an average of 2.5 weapons in the top 20. Blasters are slightly weaker, so they get 2, while rails for example get 3. So while medium/large need some love, by this count light blasters are overpowered if anything. Talk about flawed... there are actual counts that can be used. Counting the occurance in the top 20 is highly skewed. Excluding missiles from the list (who PvPs with missiles? :P) ... AC 40394 Pulse 13835 Blaster 10174 Rail 18690 Beam 15560 Artillery 13921 Even these numbers aren't really accurate cause they combine sizes. A true comparison will list by type (racial, range) and by size. But you wouldn't want to do that cause large and medium blasters aren't represented in the list at ALL. NOONE is using them, I wonder why.
Xorth Adimus Caldari The Perfect Storm Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2009.04.11 17:53:00 - [32] Edited by: Xorth Adimus on 11/04/2009 17:54:36 null You're looking at it wrong. This is just 'the cycle of nerf' Current target: Caldari EW ships or as I call them the 'useful caldari pvp ships'. Just look at amarr a year ago, then look now! Large blasters are screwed so they won't be nerfed, so eventually everything else will be nerfed to suck as much as large blasters (and or large projectiles). If you really have to use large blasters use a neutron blaster mega at optimal+. Gallente nerfed: Sensor boosters nerfed All drones nerfed Medium drones super nerfed MWD nerfed Webs nerfed Start training gallante now and beat the rush for when everything else is nerfed too! Nerfing is easier then fixing so please continue to enjoy your cross-training and give CCP more time and money!
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2009.04.12 01:43:00 - [33] You can increase the damage of blasters but not the platform as a whole. Take it from someone who flies Taranis, Deimos and Blasterthron almost exclusively. If you boost blaster damage, there should be an equivalent decrease in drones. I wouldn't mind a pure blaster ship, but most of the people whining about them are looking for the complete opposite. When it comes to ships, the only one that I consider seriously flawed is the Hyperion. Astarte is a bit redundant but the same goes for most Field Command Ships.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.12 02:11:00 - [34] Originally by: DigitalCommunist You can increase the damage of blasters but not the platform as a whole. Take it from someone who flies Taranis, Deimos and Blasterthron almost exclusively. If you boost blaster damage, there should be an equivalent decrease in drones. I wouldn't mind a pure blaster ship, but most of the people whining about them are looking for the complete opposite. When it comes to ships, the only one that I consider seriously flawed is the Hyperion. Astarte is a bit redundant but the same goes for most Field Command Ships. The whole point is to increase the peak damage output of the large blaster BS platform as a whole. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
emf Amarr Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2009.04.12 02:42:00 - [35] Who the hell fights at 10-20km anyway? How do you get any kills at all fighting at 10-20km? Why isn't anyone mentioning fixing webs? They need to be back to their old 90% vs large targets, maybe make them affected by sig radius or something.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.12 05:00:00 - [36] Originally by: emf Why isn't anyone mentioning fixing webs? They need to be back to their old 90% vs large targets, maybe make them affected by sig radius or something. Oh dear, that would have great potential if done carefully... Instead of the whole "scram switching off MWD" fiasco (No long point on 3 mid short range boats so really no initial tackle = no solo) you could have webs that web BS more, webs that web frigs less except if they have an inflated sig from using a MWD, then they would be webbed even more. Genius! ---
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.12 05:27:00 - [37] Originally by: Raimo Originally by: emf Why isn't anyone mentioning fixing webs? They need to be back to their old 90% vs large targets, maybe make them affected by sig radius or something. Oh dear, that would have great potential if done carefully... Instead of the whole "scram switching off MWD" fiasco (No long point on 3 mid short range boats so really no initial tackle = no solo) you could have webs that web BS more, webs that web frigs less except if they have an inflated sig from using a MWD, then they would be webbed even more. Genius! If anything it should work inversely. Super slow BS don't need to be webbed any further. Smaller ships need to be webbed more than larger ships. Frankly I don't see what it would hurt to just bump the webs to 70%. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.12 08:19:00 - [38] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Raimo Originally by: emf Why isn't anyone mentioning fixing webs? They need to be back to their old 90% vs large targets, maybe make them affected by sig radius or something. Oh dear, that would have great potential if done carefully... Instead of the whole "scram switching off MWD" fiasco (No long point on 3 mid short range boats so really no initial tackle = no solo) you could have webs that web BS more, webs that web frigs less except if they have an inflated sig from using a MWD, then they would be webbed even more. Genius! If anything it should work inversely. Super slow BS don't need to be webbed any further. Smaller ships need to be webbed more than larger ships. Frankly I don't see what it would hurt to just bump the webs to 70%. Well, I kinda agree but I was trying to point out a possible mechanic to replace the idiotic need to fit a short point on blaster boats... ---
Gabriel Karade Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil	Posted - 2009.04.12 09:52:00 - [39] Kunming, all that has been said recently is that a general balancing thread will probably appear sometime after Easter. Originally by: Bellum Eternus 5) The tracking formula is horribly broken at close range and something needs to be done with it. Personally I think that the effective sig radius of a target needs to climb exponentially as range is reduced, but only for guns. This way as you approach 0m effective range your signature radius becomes infinite and you hit for 100% damage at 0km. I've been pushing for something to change, or at least acknowledgment of a problem on this front for a long time, been a muted response so far. Originally by: Ephemeron Exponential formulas are very difficult to balance in a game, it would become to sensetive to distance. At long ranges, say 20+ km, that exponential sig radius would become virtually 0. You can tweak the formula and just shift that 0 up a few more km. Depending on the coefficients that you introduce to make sniper weapons work, blasters would have a big range of 100% tracking for all guns. Linear solutions work best in games, with minimum and maximum cut off ranges Ln[Afalloff/range] Sig Radius was a pretty good solution. Another was modifying the base hit chance by 1/[exp(x/2)], where x = range/1000 in metres. That had no effect outside 10km, minimal outside of 5km, and huge effects in the 1-2km range. A linear solution would of course, make much more sense, but would probably require chopping the tracking formula and pretty much starting from scratch. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.12 14:39:00 - [40] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Frankly I don't see what it would hurt to just bump the webs to 70%. Ooh, even better, scrap the scram disabling MWD, bump webs back to 90% and give ABs a partial web immunity so that the effective webbing is 60% like now... - Or anything to give the 3-4 mid blaster boats their long points back tbh. ---
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2009.04.12 15:47:00 - [41] I've not only seen that graph before, but made it before. Suggesting there is something to improve about blaster warfare is not a carte blanche to fill with wishful thinking. Your problem is the complete and total inability to recommend long term solutions. Increasing blaster damage is not one of them, its a guarantee that you're going to be fixing something else in a year. Btw, you missed the Phoon which totally owns for theoretical DPS.
Spurty Caldari Amok. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.04.12 16:56:00 - [42] Interesting snap shot to the start of a fight and I do love graphs Some fights go one for over 5mins, add that into your graph and add running out of cap around the 3rd or 4th minute ;0 Amarr boats are terribly cap unstable unless you remove the point and web, even then you'll be capping out with 8guns blazing away. I can't believe drones don't completely destroy the dps values more (no reloading, any damage type). The Domi should be able to nail stuff at up to max sentry range as well. Hmm just checked the bonuses, megas and geddons don't get drone dps bonuses. Interesting. Originally by: Butter Dog I think you'll find that 10 seconds > 1 month
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.04.12 17:28:00 - [43] Originally by: Severice Kill void tracking penalties. I only use it when i'm being too cheap to buy medium faction ammo. Kill void tracking penalties. Reduction in range + tracking penalties = you don't hit jack. Only if you take the penalties away from HAIL as well... ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.12 19:27:00 - [44] Originally by: emf Who the hell fights at 10-20km anyway? How do you get any kills at all fighting at 10-20km? Why isn't anyone mentioning fixing webs? They need to be back to their old 90% vs large targets, maybe make them affected by sig radius or something. Because webs were WRONG at 90%. 90% is very overpowered (that coming from a rapier pilot) Now they are ok. It a great change. But ccp just forgot to adjust other things taking in consideration this change. What I think CCP should do is massively boost Target Painters to like 80%. They woudl be then the moduel to use when you want to HIT a small target.. not webs. While webs would be used to tackle only
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.12 22:14:00 - [45] Originally by: DigitalCommunist I've not only seen that graph before, but made it before. Suggesting there is something to improve about blaster warfare is not a carte blanche to fill with wishful thinking. Your problem is the complete and total inability to recommend long term solutions. Increasing blaster damage is not one of them, its a guarantee that you're going to be fixing something else in a year. Btw, you missed the Phoon which totally owns for theoretical DPS. Long term solutions? Blasters by 'design' are supposed to have superior peak DPS (when compared to all other weapon systems) at very short range. The 'long term' solution to the 'problem' is to ensure that this differentiation is indeed intact. Right now it's not. As for the Phoon- the graphed fits are realistic PVP fits, not some comedy fit with all the lows filled with gyros and BCUs. I know full well what the Phoon is theoretically capable of, it just as no relevance in the conversation, or anything else for that matter. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.13 05:54:00 - [46] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Severice Kill void tracking penalties. I only use it when i'm being too cheap to buy medium faction ammo. Kill void tracking penalties. Reduction in range + tracking penalties = you don't hit jack. Only if you take the penalties away from HAIL as well... Why not, all T2 ammo should be looked at I guess. Tho Scorch seems to be fine. :P ---
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.04.13 07:33:00 - [47] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 13/04/2009 07:36:45 Originally by: Bellum Eternus If anything it should work inversely. Super slow BS don't need to be webbed any further. Smaller ships need to be webbed more than larger ships. Frankly I don't see what it would hurt to just bump the webs to 70%. Thats a really one-sided point of view. Webs got the nerfbat because they killed small ships survivability. It doesnt hurt a BSs survivability to get webbed 99% as much as a 60% web hurts a frigate. As large ships have generally much better weapon ranges than small ships it would be logical to have them affected more, keeping a frigate pinned to a position on the battlefield isnt nearly worth as much in terms of tactics as keeping a BS there. 60% for everyone is fine though, I did hate it much when it was announced but turned out it was one of the best things to happen to the game for quite some time.
McEivalley Fallen Angel's Blade.	Posted - 2009.04.13 10:24:00 - [48] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Raimo Originally by: emf Why isn't anyone mentioning fixing webs? They need to be back to their old 90% vs large targets, maybe make them affected by sig radius or something. Oh dear, that would have great potential if done carefully... Instead of the whole "scram switching off MWD" fiasco (No long point on 3 mid short range boats so really no initial tackle = no solo) you could have webs that web BS more, webs that web frigs less except if they have an inflated sig from using a MWD, then they would be webbed even more. Genius! If anything it should work inversely. Super slow BS don't need to be webbed any further. Smaller ships need to be webbed more than larger ships. Frankly I don't see what it would hurt to just bump the webs to 70%. Agreed, since bigger ships are more powerful and the webber is the same module for them all. Unless you go another step forward and make different kinds of webs. A 100MN webber would kill BSs to no speed, but would be useless against ceptors. While a 1MN webber would force ceptors to a complete halt, but would be shrugged off by a BS. A 10MN might be less effective for the radical sizes, but would catch its own size as effectively. I would also give the 100MN webber a shorter range, while boost the range of the 1MN. Do - don't die trying.
Kunming T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core	Posted - 2009.04.13 11:28:00 - [49] Thx folks, I see the bigger picture much clearly now. Originally by: DigitalCommunist I've not only seen that graph before, but made it before. Suggesting there is something to improve about blaster warfare is not a carte blanche to fill with wishful thinking. Your problem is the complete and total inability to recommend long term solutions. Increasing blaster damage is not one of them, its a guarantee that you're going to be fixing something else in a year. Btw, you missed the Phoon which totally owns for theoretical DPS. DC why do u think a dmg increase to blasters wouldnt fix the situation? After all blaster boats would still have all the drawbacks, those being: 60% webs (inability to hold target), super short range (loss of total DMG when not at optimal), high cap use (cap unstable fits), high mass (low acceleration), etc. If we would suggest the vaga needs more dmg, that would be up for discussion, as it has other things (or had; I dont know right now) going for it. But all that the blaster boats have going for them is being king in DMG and they are not, how can a dmg increase be wrong in this case? - Quantum Rise... nerfing the unnerfable! Sponsored by CCP
NightmareX Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil	Posted - 2009.04.13 12:33:00 - [50] Originally by: Kunming After all blaster boats would still have all the drawbacks, those being: 60% webs (inability to hold target), super short range (loss of total DMG when not at optimal), high cap use (cap unstable fits), high mass (low acceleration), etc. Uhm, if you first look at the Blaster Megathron, and then you look at the Pulse Abaddon. Then you don't call the Blaster Mega for cap unstable dude. The Pulse Abaddon use 2400 cap ONLY by the 7x guns after 43.3 seconds, while the Mega / Navy Mega with 2x MFS II's use 955,5 cap every 46 seconds by only using the guns. So lets say that the Abaddon doesn't have to use the MWD. And then we look at the Mega / Navy Mega again. First the Mega / Navy Mega use 955.5 cap every 46 seconds with the guns only. And then we use the MWD for 2 cycles, and that's 955.5 cap on the guns + 594 cap per cycles on the MWD. So that will be 955.5 + 1188 = 2143,5 cap used. But you can still use the RR one time to on the Mega / Navy Mega. And the RR use 189 cap per cycle. So you can then use it one time to within those 46 seconds. So 2143,5 + 189 = 2332,5. And that's lower cap usage on the Mega / Navy Mega after all that than the Abaddon have after 43 seconds by ONLY shooting with the 7 guns. That's even without using the RR the Abaddon have to. In other hand, the Abaddon om nom nom nom nom the cap. That's the ship that is really cap unstable. Not the Blaster Mega. Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise
Obsidian Tiger	Posted - 2009.04.13 13:14:00 - [51] Edited by: Obsidian Tiger on 13/04/2009 13:16:49 forums
Kunming T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core	Posted - 2009.04.13 13:15:00 - [52] UHmm I cant make much out of your math TBH. But to remind you this is not only about large blasters or abaddon vs mega.. its about blasters as a general weapon system, their dmg and tracking issues in light of the recent changes. BTW I have both blasters and lasers maxed so this is not an "existantial" issue for me, but rather a flavour thing. I dont know about numbers but from experience and feeling, blasters just dont cut it atm and I keep flying pulse boats as they give me the same performance (sometimes even more) for more tactical options in gang warfare. Also if blasters were still so uber, we would just have some cowboy post his breath taking blaster action as a video and shut us whiners up But we have the complete opposite, blaster pilots moaning left and right and even devs stating something is not right. I just wanna figure out what the key element in blaster-failure is and a possible fix, or what CCP has in mind. This can be increased dmg as I suggested, some sort of armor penetration maybe (sounds interesting but too uber maybe), or a complete change in the blaster doctrine (very unlikely). - Quantum Rise... nerfing the unnerfable! Sponsored by CCP
Kunming T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core	Posted - 2009.04.13 13:16:00 - [53] damn stupid forums ^^ - Quantum Rise... nerfing the unnerfable! Sponsored by CCP
NightmareX Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil	Posted - 2009.04.13 13:32:00 - [54] Kunming, the stats over was meant to be for 8 guns on the Abaddon. Gonna edit the reply to get it right. Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise
Seishomaru	Posted - 2009.04.13 15:35:00 - [55] People that say an Abaddon is superior in every way to a megathron have never fought against a tempest (hint 2 heavy neuts + tracking disruption). And no Cap injector WON'T cut against 2 Neuts. Blasters and AC do have issues, but its not a black and white extreme thing as some people suggest. Just a few subtle adjustments will be enough.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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.