Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 18:46:00 -
[121]
Edited by: NightmareX on 14/04/2009 18:47:15
Originally by: lecrotta The dates on those posts seem a little old though.
Yeah they are old and doesn't have Childstar in that list. So just add that to the list to. Then we have a complete list over you alts.
Anyways, are we going to be on topic?, or are you guys still gonna troll and lie about me all the time?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 18:47:00 -
[122]
Edited by: lecrotta on 14/04/2009 18:49:18
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: lecrotta The dates on those posts seem a little old though.
Yeah they are old and doesn't have Childstar in that list. So just add that to the list to. Then we have a complete list over you alts.
Wanna bet?.
At any one time i have 5 or more accounts running, but then i never have denied if im asked who my main is unlike you so go ahead and make your list....
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 18:48:00 -
[123]
Edited by: NightmareX on 14/04/2009 18:51:15
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: lecrotta The dates on those posts seem a little old though.
Yeah they are old and doesn't have Childstar in that list. So just add that to the list to. Then we have a complete list over you alts.
Wanna bet?.
I can only bet that you have more alts than that now.
And also, if you want to prove it, then you better post your own list of you alts. If not, then the list of the alts i posted is still your alts + Childstar.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 18:51:00 -
[124]
Edited by: lecrotta on 14/04/2009 18:50:49
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: lecrotta The dates on those posts seem a little old though.
Yeah they are old and doesn't have Childstar in that list. So just add that to the list to. Then we have a complete list over you alts.
Wanna bet?.
I can only bet that you have more alts than that now.
I do, plenty of them.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 18:53:00 -
[125]
Edited by: NightmareX on 14/04/2009 18:53:36
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: NightmareX I can only bet that you have more alts than that now.
I do, plenty of them.
Why do you have so many alts though?.
I can play fine with NightmareX and the alt Fatality Killer i have on the same account as me.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 18:57:00 -
[126]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 14/04/2009 18:53:36
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: NightmareX I can only bet that you have more alts than that now.
I do, plenty of them.
Why do you have so many alts though?.
I can play fine with NightmareX and the alt Fatality Killer i have on the same account as me.
Don't forget Electric Universe (possibly on another account). Has your corp vetted that account's API for spies, btw? ;-)
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 18:58:00 -
[127]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: lecrotta I can only bet that you have more alts than that now.
I do, plenty of them.
Why do you have so many alts though?.
I can play fine with NightmareX and the alt Fatality Killer i have on the same account as me.
So you borrowed the account you used electric on then?....bad boy.
I have alts cos of lots of accounts, murina is a support toon with logistics, commandd ships ect, along with a builder isk maker account ect ect.
Not all of us fly on sissi where things are 100 isk each like you do...
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:01:00 -
[128]
Edited by: NightmareX on 14/04/2009 19:02:22
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: lecrotta I can only bet that you have more alts than that now.
I do, plenty of them.
Why do you have so many alts though?.
I can play fine with NightmareX and the alt Fatality Killer i have on the same account as me.
So you borrowed the account you used electric on then?....bad boy.
I have alts cos of lots of accounts, murina is a support toon with logistics, commandd ships ect, along with a builder isk maker account ect ect.
Not all of us fly on sissi where things are 100 isk each like you do...
At least, i can test all kinds of PVP styles on sisi. You have to use days, weeks maybe months to go through all kinds of PVP styles. And probably waste tons of isk by doing that on TQ.
It takes me one question in local to test one type of PVP style. And it's FREE.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:04:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Murina on 14/04/2009 19:04:18
Originally by: NightmareX
At least, i can test all kinds of PVP styles on sisi. You have to use days, weeks maybe months to go through all kinds of PVP styles.
It takes me one question in local to test one type of PVP style.
I test on sissi (and i mean test) you just play.
Then you should have been an expert on every type of pvp in the game and every ship long ago and be playing on TQ by now......instead of hiding on sissi still...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:29:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 14/04/2009 19:04:18
Originally by: NightmareX
At least, i can test all kinds of PVP styles on sisi. You have to use days, weeks maybe months to go through all kinds of PVP styles.
It takes me one question in local to test one type of PVP style.
I test on sissi (and i mean test) you just play.
Then you should have been an expert on every type of pvp in the game and every ship long ago and be playing on TQ by now......instead of hiding on sissi still...
I TEST ships out.
That's what i have been doing all the time i have been on Sisi.
Oh, so your saying your testing on sisi, then because you say i don't test on sisi, then i can say that your playing ONLY on sisi to.
Deal?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
Childstar
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:46:00 -
[131]
Originally by: NightmareX
Oh, so your saying your testing on sisi, then because you say i don't test on sisi, then i can say that your playing ONLY on sisi to.
Deal?.
No deal you are a ranting idiot. NoobmareX spankage |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:54:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Childstar
Originally by: NightmareX
Oh, so your saying your testing on sisi, then because you say i don't test on sisi, then i can say that your playing ONLY on sisi to.
Deal?.
No deal you are a ranting idiot.
Ok kid, your playing on Sisi to then.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 21:00:00 -
[133]
Cleaned.
Please stay on topic.
Please do not take matters into your own hands when faced by off-topic or trolling posts. If this is the case, please either file a petition under Other Issues-Forums or use the report function above every post. This ensures that the Community Team will be aware of any problem post, user or thread and can act accordingly.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 21:27:00 -
[134]
I preaty mutch think a solution around the web power would be the best for blaster ships(face it a ship dedicated to web range by his weapons and playstyle needs a advantage here). Something like a 70-75% web on Blaster ships.
Diffrent to improved tracking it will limit the advantage to web range and will slove other issues of Blaster ships also.
As someone that knows what happes with a smaller ship out of web range in front of a Null loaded Neutron Mega I realy think we shouldnŠt boost tracking further but focus more on the actual combat range of Blaster Ships and her use of the Web to make kills happen. This still leaves the option to be relative save out of web range and helps blaster ships that make it into web range. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 21:40:00 -
[135]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 14/04/2009 21:43:20
Originally by: The Djego I preaty mutch think a solution around the web power would be the best for blaster ships(face it a ship dedicated to web range by his weapons and playstyle needs a advantage here). Something like a 70-75% web on Blaster ships.
Thats never gonna happen though, for the obvious reason it being completely overpowered.
Not only because that would put too much pressure on cruisers orbiting the blaster battleships again, but also because you would make it impossible for any other ship to leave a blaster ships death bubble regardless if it has the speed advantage or not.
Besides, they'd need to lose one of their bonuses to make room for the web bonus, so taking the Mega for example, either dropping the tracking bonus (-> back to square one really), or the damage bonus (basically the same loss, just around another corner).
|
Jade TX
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 23:49:00 -
[136]
Edited by: Jade TX on 14/04/2009 23:52:39
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 14/04/2009 21:43:20
Originally by: The Djego I preaty mutch think a solution around the web power would be the best for blaster ships(face it a ship dedicated to web range by his weapons and playstyle needs a advantage here). Something like a 70-75% web on Blaster ships.
Thats never gonna happen though, for the obvious reason it being completely overpowered.
Not only because that would put too much pressure on cruisers orbiting the blaster battleships again, but also because you would make it impossible for any other ship to leave a blaster ships death bubble regardless if it has the speed advantage or not.
Besides, they'd need to lose one of their bonuses to make room for the web bonus, so taking the Mega for example, either dropping the tracking bonus (-> back to square one really), or the damage bonus (basically the same loss, just around another corner).
I think thats the point already with a blasterboat equipped with a scrabler and a web. Pretty hard to leave the range of a afterburnered blaster boat. Since your mwd is off and your ship is reduced to the speed of a snail. Get over it. Oh and a Kronos has a effective at max 99.9% web bonus already. So its already happened. Whine whine whine...
Once the agility changes happen it will make unconsentual combat all that much sweeter. Cus then I can pop people like you that much quicker that just run run run. Ohhh I hope you don't have a updated clone as well. I pop people anyways even if they give me money. |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 00:05:00 -
[137]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/04/2009 00:17:52
Originally by: Jade TX (bitter rant)
Hmm, interesting alt you have there. Did we just pod you out of a slave set by any chance
Back on topic tho, fit a scram and web already, and you're there. And btw, afterburner on blasterboats = fail
|
Tyrkisk Peber
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 00:58:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Jade TX Oh and a Kronos has a effective at max 99.9% web bonus already. So its already happened. Whine whine whine...
Uhm, even if i'm a noob, i know that this statement is wrong.
The Kronos doesn't have 99.9% web strenght, it have 90% now after the web nerf.
|
Apollo Artemis
Baptism oF Fire
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 01:52:00 -
[139]
Just to redirect the discussion back to the original post:
What I meant with 'broken' was that it seems that the game mechanics do not reflect the specs of the guns. Blasters are supposed to be high damage close range weapons with great tracking, but in reality they miss things that they shouldn't. I'm not really asking for a boost in specs but just a look at how the tracking works. Maybe it's the way EVE looks at mass vs volume. Volume should play a factor in tracking; if a big target gets closer it takes up more of the horizon so should negate some potential increase in transversal. Getting a missed hit from a frigate hugging a battleship seems ridiculous when that target is taking up half of it's horizon.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 02:40:00 -
[140]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/04/2009 02:41:57 There are a few things that might explain the difficulties you are experiencing:
1) if you are at 0m distance, there is a bug in the tracking formula that makes you miss 100% of the time
2) tracking problems increase exponentially while distance is reduced, i.e. moving below your optimal range will give you severe trouble in tracking (in fact, you should never ever be below optimal range, there is nothing to gain, and a lot to lose)
3) transversal velocity =/= radial velocity, while common belief is transversal velocity is what matters, in fact radial velocity is the important figure
4) tracking penalities on high-damage t2 ammo, if you are using Void by any chance that is your problem right there
5) even short 'spikes' in radial velocity can hurt your tracking a great deal, especially when you are very close you need to take great care in maneuvering to keep it low at all times
Some things you can do if anything else fails:
-> move out of your optimal range into falloff, it may strike experienced blaster pilots that are used to the old 90% webs as odd, but a few hundred meters into falloff doesnt hurt your dps much, and vastly increases tracking at the same time. As a general rule, 15%-20% into falloff is only a marginal hit in dps and pays off greatly in tracking.
-> switch down ammo type one level, antimatter gives a -50% optimal range penalty, while your guns are typically geared to track well at their unmodified optimal range. especially if your skills are not maxed, this might give you just the boost you need.
-> fitting either a midslot or lowslot tracking mod, or even a tracking rig (I know its a harsh sacrifice in fitting, still if it enables you to score consistent good hits it might be worth the mid/low/rigslot, on ships with limited slots rigs are probably the way to go)
|
|
Gaogan
Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 17:52:00 -
[141]
I agree, tracking of blasters is screwed. When ratting in my deimos I have to approach a bs to 2000m, come to a full stop, web the bs, paint the bs, and STILL I miss sometimes. I used to have to slow down to half speed without ab in an ishkur to not miss like crazy while orbiting at optimal.
The problem is that it makes no sense for a weapon that can ONLY operate at closer range to have worse tracking than longer range weapons, even at the closer end of their range.
If you look at the tracking at effective range on the 3 weapons systems, where effective range is optimal + 0.5 falloff, you really start to see the craziness.
Heavy Neutron Blaster II: 5000 + 3600 * 0.5 * 0.1 = 430 m/s @ 4,300 m 220mm Vulcan Autocannon II: 2160 + 8000 * 0.5 * 0.1175 = 596.9 m/s @ 5080 m Heavy Pulse Laser II: 4000 + 12000 * 0.5 * 0.08125 = 650 m/s @ 8000 m
Giving up the option of doing some damage at longer range is a fair trade for doing more damage at close range, but you should not also have to put up with horrible tracking that often misses even under ideal conditions at that range. Autocannons have better tracking than pulse lasers because they need it to operate in their closer range. Blasters should track better than autocannons for the same reason. If anything, autocannons could use a little more tracking to compete with pulse lasers, and blasters need quite a bit more.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 19:56:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Gaogan
Heavy Neutron Blaster II: 5000 + 3600 * 0.5 * 0.1 = 430 m/s @ 4,300 m 220mm Vulcan Autocannon II: 2160 + 8000 * 0.5 * 0.1175 = 596.9 m/s @ 5080 m
Actually I dont see a problem there, factoring in that ACs get a lot less damage output it is pretty balanced.
Quote:
Heavy Pulse Laser II: 4000 + 12000 * 0.5 * 0.08125 = 650 m/s @ 8000 m
This pretty imbalanced however.
|
Gaogan
Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 05:17:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Actually I dont see a problem there, factoring in that 220mm ACs get a lot less damage output compared to heavy neutrons it is pretty balanced.
As I said before, what you gain in peak damage with blasters, you give up in the option to do nearly as much damage at higher range with ac. Remember that blasters only do more damage at their optimal, assuming equal tracking. Range vs. damage is supposed to be the tradeoff; you should not also have gimp tracking as well. At their optimal and certainly at optimal + 0.5 falloff, blasters should track at least as well as ac. In order of tracking at their optimal to optimal + 0.5 falloff, it should go blasters, ac, pulse, not the other way around.
|
Gaogan
Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 21:22:00 -
[144]
Bump.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 21:53:00 -
[145]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 27/04/2009 22:13:01
Originally by: Gaogan In order of tracking at their optimal to optimal + 0.5 falloff, it should go blasters, ac, pulse, not the other way around.
No, ACs need better tracking than blasters, more peak dps is a massive advantage close-range, thats why ACs get the tracking advantage. Remember both have to be able to work in optimal range, hence higher tracking on ACs.
Apart from that, looking at blasters using null vs ACs using barrage, the dps@range argument seems rather weak to me, considering single-bonused blasters and double-bonused ACs even...
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 22:43:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
This pretty imbalanced however.
No, its not. Relative tracking is pointless. What matters is tracking at the range you are at. The blaster that hits 430m/s @ 4300, will hit 860 m/s @ 8300. Considerably better than the lasers.
There is a reason that laser pilots always try and reduce transversal.
There is pretty much nothing wrong with blaster tracking.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 02:40:00 -
[147]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 28/04/2009 02:43:40
Originally by: Goumindong
No, its not. Relative tracking is pointless. What matters is tracking at the range you are at. The blaster that hits 430m/s @ 4300, will hit 860 m/s @ 8300. Considerably better than the lasers.
The blaster/autocannon however is already deep into falloff, and suffering a severe damage loss, while the pulse laser is still in optimal.
To achieve proper balance between the turrets, we need to look at tracking@optimal. Currently the penalty with lasers for going considerably below their optimal range is irrelevant in pvp, thats a problem for the guns that need to compete at close-range.
On the other hand, tracking is not the only way to get it in-line, just lowering dps on lasers would do it as well.
|
Jaina Proudmoar
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 03:38:00 -
[148]
Blaster tracking is just fine.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 08:22:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
The blaster/autocannon however is already deep into falloff, and suffering a severe damage loss, while the pulse laser is still in optimal.
Uhh yea, that is because lasers are supposed to have a longer range than blasters and autocannons.
Quote:
To achieve proper balance between the turrets, we need to look at tracking@optimal.
No, you don't need to look at tracking @ optimal. You do not because you cannot have a fight with two ships different distances from each other.
You have the same effects with long range guns, which are, by the "tracking at optimal" statistic, wildly overpowered.
Quote: Currently the penalty with lasers for going considerably below their optimal range is irrelevant in pvp, thats a problem for the guns that need to compete at close-range
Considering that the penalty for lasers for getting under their optimal range is low tracking and considering that you just said that that penalty is "irrelevant in pvp" then any reasonable person must conclude that the tracking of blasters is just fine.
Why? because the tracking of blasters is higher than the tracking of lasers and so if the penalty isn't a problem for lasers, then the higher tracking that blasters have cannot be causing them more problems than the tracking on the lasers.
You cannot have it both ways.
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 09:34:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Goumindong
Quote: Currently the penalty with lasers for going considerably below their optimal range is irrelevant in pvp, thats a problem for the guns that need to compete at close-range
Considering that the penalty for lasers for getting under their optimal range is low tracking and considering that you just said that that penalty is "irrelevant in pvp" then any reasonable person must conclude that the tracking of blasters is just fine.
Turrets need looking at especially BS turrets, now that can be in regard to range, tracking, max optimal damage or even by adjusting the ships they are fitted on in some way but the fact is things are off balanced and it needs adjusting.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |