Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 13/04/2009 01:52:45
Lol, what are you smoking?

220s dont hit **** if it moves at 5km/s close range. In order to hit a ceptor doing that speed, you have to be at least 15km away...


Apart from that, its logical that autocannons have better tracking than blasters as their optimal range is much lower than blaster optimal.

If you compare the numbers, blasters track too good compared to ACs already

---

Originally by: 5pinDizzy

---

I don't know if just more powergrid will make the eagle not worthless.

Personally I've found tracking wise that blasters can miss battlecruisers that are 10km out moving at normal speed with tracking mods on.

Also found rails can miss frigates a lot even at 100km with sniper fit,

---

Originally by: Alxea

---

Talk to Radhard in game. You want to try it out? Be my guest on the king of hurricanes.

http://blade-alliance.com/killboard/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=39125

---

Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

Originally by: Alxea

---

Talk to Radhard in game. You want to try it out? Be my guest on the king of hurricanes.

http://blade-alliance.com/killboard/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=39125

---

Way to waste my time, thanks.

Looking at the 26 interceptor kills your friend got, I see almost all of them are of the gangbang type in 0.0, so its safe to assume the interceptors (quite a lot of them AB-fit and other assorted lolfits I see that dont even come close to 3km/s) were trying to burn out of a bubble and thus reduced their transversal themselves.

Ships and weapons used are interesting too, somehow I'm not convinced about that inty-slaughtering hurricane of doom

---

Originally by: Alxea

---

Nav 5, ceptor 4, mwd skills 4, full speed modded ceptor 2 OB, 2 NF, 2 polly's, all T2. no web on me. And !pop!. I'm done arguing with you. Beleave what you want. This is going no place fast cus things just go through one ear and out the other cus nothing is there.

---

Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

Apart from that, its logical that autocannons have better tracking than blasters as their optimal range is much lower than blaster optimal.

If you compare the numbers, blasters track too good compared to ACs already

---

Originally by: Raimo

---

Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

Apart from that, its logical that autocannons have better tracking than blasters as their optimal range is much lower than blaster optimal.

If you compare the numbers, blasters track too good compared to ACs already

---

The flaws in your logic are rather funny. What about AC falloff, or effective range?

---

Originally by: Alxea

---

Auto-cannon's work off extreme falloff range. They are not a weapon used for optimal range. All auto cannons have a high falloff. For example medium auto cannons can get 30km ranges np.

---

Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

The fun part is, if you compare these 2 ships the blaster boat outdamages the AC boat from 0km up to 25km range

---

Originally by: Jaina Proudmoar

---

Blasters are fine, Deimos is terrible.

Discuss.

---

Originally by: McEivalley

---

Blasters are terrible.

---

Originally by: McEivalley

---

Auto-cannons, compared to blasters, are very powerful. They have longer ranges, better tracking, a better ROF and don't require the tremendous amounts of cap blasters suck out per volley, especially when discussing high-damage ammo like AM, Void and even the "long range" version t2 Null.

And although Null is relatively far reaching, the x0.25 tracking penalty forces you to rely on a fast tackling, webbing ship, and is a moot point considering it on an eagle, that is the slowest HAC in the game, has no tracking bonus to hybrid guns, usually can't efficiently tackle without hurting his tank seriously AND if you do risk the tackle mods on it, you need to be at 10km or less range (not including overheating/faction), which is half the range you get with Null, a range that other kinds of ammo will hit, do more damage and have 4 times better tracking with... Since trans-speed is a major issue in such ranges, you don't want to use Null at all.

I believe the solution is not in bringing their stats to about the same level, since it would make the game boring. Instead, I would like to see blasters have a better signature resolution, and the tracking should be in par with AC. If you have the most powerful short range weapons in the game, but you can't hit anything, you won't use them, and people vote with their feet (i.e. ship of choice) on that topic constantly.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

blasters have better tracking than lasers...

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Did you forget to check that the t2 Pulses on an Abaddon does have up to 60-70% lower tracking than the t2 Neutrons on a Mega in the Neutrons optimal range?.

---

Quote:

---

I would then call the Lasers for broken then IF you take the Blasters for broken because of the tracking.

---

Quote:

---

Within the 10 km range, the Blasters Mega have a very good tracking. And i have never had problems to hit smaller ships than BS'es in the Blaster Mega.

---

Quote:

---

Ofc, at the med range the Lasers have where the Blasters can't hit, then the tracking of the Lasers there will be much better than the Blasters tracking.

---

Quote:

---

Frig sized ships can be problematic to hit, but all Large weapons should have problems to hit frigs anyways.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Edited by: NightmareX on 13/04/2009 14:11:27

Originally by: McEivalley

---

Blasters are terrible.

---

Did you forget to check that the t2 Pulses on an Abaddon does have up to 60-70% lower tracking than the t2 Neutrons on a Mega in the Neutrons optimal range?.

Blasters already have much better tracking than Lasers before bonuses.

I would then call the Lasers for broken then IF you take the Blasters for broken because of the tracking.

Within the 10 km range, the Blasters Mega have a very good tracking. And i have never had problems to hit smaller ships than BS'es in the Blaster Mega.

Ofc, at the med range the Lasers have where the Blasters can't hit, then the tracking of the Lasers there will be much better than the Blasters tracking.

Frig sized ships can be problematic to hit, but all Large weapons should have problems to hit frigs anyways.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 13/04/2009 17:06:06

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Did you forget to check that the t2 Pulses on an Abaddon does have up to 60-70% lower tracking than the t2 Neutrons on a Mega in the Neutrons optimal range?.

---

Did you forget that the Abaddon has a much higher optimal range, and that when comparing the weapons at optimal the MP II is actually able to hit ships twice as well as Neutron II? Additionally, the actual distance to get past MP II tracking is significantly higher than the distance to get through Blaster tracking, if you're going for 'getting under their guns'. With blasters you have to travel ~5km, with lasers you have to travel 45km. Biiiiiggg difference there.

Additionally, with a blaster ship, you have to 'ride the edge' of your tracking to try and maximize DPS, and there's a really steep drop on the inner edge when things get too far in. Well then the obvious answer is to stay a bit further out so that you have a little bit of room to manage your transversal, but when you start doing that you find that you should have been in a laser ship because now you're in falloff and outdamaged by the laser ship that's still in optimal.

Quote:

---

I would then call the Lasers for broken then IF you take the Blasters for broken because of the tracking.

---

The only way this would be a valid argument is if lasers and blasters had the same optimal range or the same intended use. They don't. You make the assumption that lasers are supposed to engage at the same range as blasters. They are not, and in fact, if the blaster ship can get under the laser range, I'd say that even a blaster BS should be relatively untrackable.

Quote:

---

Within the 10 km range, the Blasters Mega have a very good tracking. And i have never had problems to hit smaller ships than BS'es in the Blaster Mega.

---

That's because you've never flown them on TQ, as you admitted in the 65 page blaster thread in Ships & Mods.

Quote:

---

Ofc, at the med range the Lasers have where the Blasters can't hit, then the tracking of the Lasers there will be much better than the Blasters tracking.

---

This shouldn't be an "of course". If anything, lasers should have *much* worse tracking at range, because they *are* at range.

Quote:

---

Frig sized ships can be problematic to hit, but all Large weapons should have problems to hit frigs anyways.

---

Hitting frig sized ships at range is really easy... guess which weapon platform hits at range?

As usual, trying to muddy the water there NMX.

-Liang

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

Electric Universe NightmareX, maybe when you start using Blasterships on TQ, you can comment on them.

---

Originally by: NightmareX AKA Electric Universe

---

stuff....

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

Originally by: NightmareX AKA Electric Universe

---

stuff....

---

I changed it to 'what's the point', because it's pointless arguing with you.

A. You don't fly either the Mega or the Amarr on TQ, so have no real combat knowledge in them.
(If you didn't know, sisi combat and TQ combat are worlds apart. )

B. You're just plain stupid, it's like banging ones head against the wall. So I'm not. Cya

---

Quote:

---

Anyway shooting AT optimal+falloff is just silly, no Vaga pilot does that.

---

Quote:

---

I'm still not convinced of your autocannon/ blaster tracking logic, tho I do agree that pulses rule a bit too much atm. I'm a Blaster guy so I talk about them tbh.

---

Originally by: Skjorta

---

Currently.
Ac's = mediocre range (falloff =/= optimal), good tracking, bad damage
Pulse = good range, good damage, good tracking (only due to range!)
Blasters = good damage, good tracking, bad range

---

Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 13/04/2009 23:44:27
From my personal experience, weapons used is a completely worthless stat, as I'm pretty sure my warp disruptor II doesnt do any damage, but my killmails regularly say I killed (and scored damage) with it. So we can dismiss the "weapons used" part as totally inaccurate already, more so since most ships have gun/missile hardpoints and dronebay, which skews the stats.

Seeing that the first battleship to show up on the list at rank 5 is in fact a Megathron, large blaster platforms cant be all that bad (at least according to that statistic).

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

1. Did you forget that i was talking about the tracking in the Neutrons optimal range?. I was not talking about how good the Lasers was with the tracking at med ranges, i was talking about how the tracking was at 5 km for Pulses, like when someone is close to you.

---

Quote:

---

2. I have tried a geddon & Abaddon with pulses and compared them to a Neutron Mega. I then got someone in a Hurricane to orbit me at 5 km. Then i webbed the Hurricane with all of the ships and did shoot the Hurricane. I did kill the Hurricane though.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

When you find out that the tracking, DPS, EHP, sig radius, speed, resists, slot layout, capacitor, drones and the rest of the stats and things are exact the same on Sisi as it is on TQ, then i will not call you for stupid.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

The point was not that i had much experience in flying them on TQ, the WHOLE point is that the tracking, DPS etc etc is the same on TQ and Sisi, so i don't need to waste isk and probably risk a ship just to test how the tracking is on TQ, when i can do it on Sisi for free.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Good post.....
-Liang

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Lots of talk about Sisi and optimal range

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

1. So if your getting a Hurricane up on your ass that orbits you at either 2.5 km or 5 km. When things like that CAN happen, then i'm comparing the tracking on Blasters and Pulses at those 2 ranges. I can't just start to compare the the tracking at the lasers optimal range then. Because the comparsion would be totally wrong then if i want to find out how the tracking is for the Mega, Abaddon and Armageddon when shooting a target at 2.5 km or 5 km.

Now i hope you get that, because that's what i have been doing.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

1. So if your getting a Hurricane up on your ass that orbits you at either 2.5 km or 5 km. When things like that CAN happen, then i'm comparing the tracking on Blasters and Pulses at those 2 ranges. I can't just start to compare the the tracking at the lasers optimal range then. Because the comparsion would be totally wrong then if i want to find out how the tracking is for the Mega, Abaddon and Armageddon when shooting a target at 2.5 km or 5 km.

Now i hope you get that, because that's what i have been doing.

---

Stupid comparison because in gang combat (TQ combat) the cane will be well and truly webbed.


The rest is pretty much a pointless rant so not worth responding to.

---

Originally by: Ad Valorem

---

Well between NoobmareX derailing another thread and the usual suspects coming into a BLASTER thread to whine about missiles or Projectiles it seems this thread will also degenerate into a crapfest.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

1. So if your getting a Hurricane up on your ass that orbits you at either 2.5 km or 5 km. When things like that CAN happen, then i'm comparing the tracking on Blasters and Pulses at those 2 ranges. I can't just start to compare the the tracking at the lasers optimal range then. Because the comparsion would be totally wrong then if i want to find out how the tracking is for the Mega, Abaddon and Armageddon when shooting a target at 2.5 km or 5 km.

Now i hope you get that, because that's what i have been doing.

---

Stupid comparison because in gang combat (TQ combat) the cane will be well and truly webbed.

---

Originally by: Seishomaru

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

1. So if your getting a Hurricane up on your ass that orbits you at either 2.5 km or 5 km. When things like that CAN happen, then i'm comparing the tracking on Blasters and Pulses at those 2 ranges. I can't just start to compare the the tracking at the lasers optimal range then. Because the comparsion would be totally wrong then if i want to find out how the tracking is for the Mega, Abaddon and Armageddon when shooting a target at 2.5 km or 5 km.

Now i hope you get that, because that's what i have been doing.

---

Stupid comparison because in gang combat (TQ combat) the cane will be well and truly webbed.

---

Sorry But now you crippled completely your own argument. If TQ fights the target is always trully webbed. Up to the point that a hurricane at 2 km won't be a problem for pulses..


WHY IN HELLL ARE YOU COMPLAINIGN ABOUT BLASTERS TRACKING???


Sorry but now You did dig your own grave...

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

1. And if i'm more of a solo PVPer who like to sit at gates to catch lone targets, then what?. It's not like the Hurricane is going to be truly webbed then fool.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

1. So if your getting a Hurricane up on your ass that orbits you at either 2.5 km or 5 km. When things like that CAN happen, then i'm comparing the tracking on Blasters and Pulses at those 2 ranges. I can't just start to compare the the tracking at the lasers optimal range then. Because the comparsion would be totally wrong then if i want to find out how the tracking is for the Mega, Abaddon and Armageddon when shooting a target at 2.5 km or 5 km.

Now i hope you get that, because that's what i have been doing.

---

Quote:

---

2. Yes i was able to kill it with no problems. My skills are very nice in Blasters, so i have had no problems with them at all after the web and speed nerf. I have still been able to hit smaller targets in the Neutron Mega pretty good that are orbiting me.

---

Quote:

---

the Megathron Federate Issue

---

Quote:

---

But it just shows that a Mega can track hell of a good when it' in the 5 km range. And it's ALOT more than Lasers can do at this range.

---

Quote:

---

3. I don't bring in PVP experience from TQ here when i'm finding out what kind og ship that have the best tracking etc etc. Getting one in a Hurricane to orbit your Mega, Abaddon or Armageddon and then find out how the tracking is, is something that is fully acceptable to do on Sisi, because it would be the exact same if i had done the same on TQ. I don't need to be on TQ to just test out the tracking.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

NMX, you're (IMO) displaying symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect. See, you're so incompetent at the game that you just don't understand why the tests you're running on Sisi are irrelevent - despite virtually everyone in Eve telling you how and why.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

NMX, you're (IMO) displaying symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect. See, you're so incompetent at the game that you just don't understand why the tests you're running on Sisi are irrelevent - despite virtually everyone in Eve telling you how and why.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Edited by: Childstar on 14/04/2009 12:27:57

Originally by: NightmareX

---

1. And if i'm more of a solo PVPer who like to sit at gates to catch lone targets, then what?. It's not like the Hurricane is going to be truly webbed then fool.

---

Your not a solo pvper though, in fact your not even a TQ pvper of any description and if you were you would not be sitting solo on a gate in a BS of any description you total tool.

Why dont you just crawl back to sissi and post your pimped navy mega fit in local im sure the noobs will be impressed, until they realise you have had it for at least 7-8 months and never had the balls to fly it on TQ.

Still im sure when you get it moved again on the next mirror there will be more noobs to waggle it at and try to impress....

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

NMX, you're (IMO) displaying symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect. See, you're so incompetent at the game that you just don't understand why the tests you're running on Sisi are irrelevent - despite virtually everyone in Eve telling you how and why.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

NMX, you're (IMO) displaying symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect. See, you're so incompetent at the game that you just don't understand why the tests you're running on Sisi are irrelevent - despite virtually everyone in Eve telling you how and why.

---

Then explain to me why many of the tests i do on sisi have alot to say for me on TQ?.

---

Originally by: JadeMako

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

NMX, you're (IMO) displaying symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect. See, you're so incompetent at the game that you just don't understand why the tests you're running on Sisi are irrelevent - despite virtually everyone in Eve telling you how and why.

---

(golf clap)
Oh, well played sir, also well spotted - ladies and gentlmen we have an accurate diagnosis!

---

Originally by: JadeMako

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

NMX, you're (IMO) displaying symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect. See, you're so incompetent at the game that you just don't understand why the tests you're running on Sisi are irrelevent - despite virtually everyone in Eve telling you how and why.

---

Then explain to me why many of the tests i do on sisi have alot to say for me on TQ?.

---

Nobody can

thats the point nightmare, you simply can't understand - read the wiki. It is simply impossible to explain it to you because you refuse to accept any other outcome.

Incompetent is a harsh word but eerily accurate.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Oh look, the tears.

Can i have more tears to?.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Oh look, the tears.

Can i have more tears to?.

---

Are these the best comments you can up with when ppl are trying to help you with your condition?...

The NightmareX-Sissi effect.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Oh look, the tears.

Can i have more tears to?.

---

Are these the best comments you can up with when ppl are trying to help you with your condition?...

The NightmareX-Sissi effect.

---

No u......

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Oh look, the tears.

Can i have more tears to?.

---

Are these the best comments you can up with when ppl are trying to help you with your condition?...

The NightmareX-Sissi effect.

---

No u......

---

Is this all you have to say?...

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

No u......

---

Is this all you have to say?...

---

And this is all you can say to my reply?.

To scared to just admit it that you have the same symptoms lol?.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Edited by: Childstar on 14/04/2009 16:16:22

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

No u......

---

Is this all you have to say?...

---

And this is all you can say to my reply?.

To scared to just admit it that you have the same symptoms lol?.

---

I quote stats and reralistic scenarios, you talk about sissi pimped fits, faction ships with stupid faction fits and unrealistic 1 v 1 scenarios....

There is no comparison.

The NightmareX-Sissi effect.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Quote me in this topic where i said anything about a pimped fits or STFU with your lies.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Quote me in this topic where i said anything about a pimped fits or STFU with your lies.

---

Sow me where i say you said that in this thread or you STFU.

So in your mind another topic = a totally differant you with totally differant opinions to ALL the other threads you have posted in?.

Same clueless and total fool, differant thread....

The NightmareX-Sissi effect

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Don't bring in something in this topic that i have never said in this topic please, and don't bring in something from other replies here to, KTNXBAI.

---

Originally by: Raimo

---

Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

(...)

---

Like said Mega seems to be up there fitting Rails, I guess it still does a passable sniper and it's what a lot of people have trained. No warp disruptors or webs on there m8.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Edited by: Childstar on 14/04/2009 16:30:24

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Don't bring in something in this topic that i have never said in this topic please, and don't bring in something from other replies here to, KTNXBAI.

---

Why not they are all your stupid opinions?.


Unless you are willing to admit how stupid and tarded they are....

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

For you they are ******ed, but for me, they are fine. Because for me, it's how my life on TQ is working when i'm playing on there.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Edited by: Childstar on 14/04/2009 16:40:02

Originally by: NightmareX

---

For you they are ******ed, but for me, they are fine. Because for me, it's how my life on TQ is working when i'm playing on there.

---

You do not play on TQ and you even admit it, you have never flown a normal blaster mega on TQ let alone your navy mega you are a worthless waste of space and so are your posts and opinions...


The NightmareX-Sissi effect.

Anywat on topic:

IF solo BS pvp was worth doing i suppose blasters would need more tracking but as it stands eve is just to well populated to allow solo BS to be worth using.

As such large blasters/blaster BS need a boost to help them to be better gang ships instead.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

What did i say?, yes i did say the tests i do on Sisi is all worth for me because of the way i play EVE ON TQ and that's the reason why the tests i do are totally fine for me to do on Sisi.

LEARN2READ.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Edited by: Childstar on 14/04/2009 16:42:54

Originally by: NightmareX

---

What did i say?, yes i did say the tests i do on Sisi is all worth for me because of the way i play EVE ON TQ and that's the reason why the tests i do are totally fine for me to do on Sisi.

LEARN2READ.

---

You do not play on TQ and you even admit it, you have never flown a normal blaster mega on TQ let alone your navy mega you are a worthless waste of space and so are your posts and opinions...


The NightmareX-Sissi effect.

Anyway on topic:

IF solo BS pvp was worth doing i suppose blasters would need more tracking but as it stands eve is just to well populated to allow solo BS to be worth using.

As such large blasters/blaster BS need a boost to help them to be better gang ships instead, and tracking is not really important in gang combat due to the prevalance of webs.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

So this is not TQ PVP?. Killmail, Killmail 2, Killmail 3, Killmail 4.

---

Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

Meh, I guess I did already explain it but well...

---

Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

NightmareX, Childstar, would if be asked too much to take this to a private convo?

Nobody cares about your flamewar really.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Edited by: Childstar on 14/04/2009 16:52:20

Originally by: NightmareX

---

So this is not TQ PVP?. Killmail, Killmail 2, Killmail 3, Killmail 4.

---

So you have just proved that you have 0 killmails with a blaaster BS?.

Thank you for making mine and others points.

Congrats...


The NightmareX-Sissi effect

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Did i show my kills from all the time, or did i show my kills from the last kills i had?.

Oh noes, NightmareX haven't used a Blaster ship in those killmails, he have never used a Blaster ship then, yeeeeaaahhh.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

WWAAAAA MOMMY THE BAD MAN CALLED ME NAMES IT WWWAAAAAA

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Edited by: Childstar on 14/04/2009 16:58:13

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Did i show my kills from all the time, or did i show my kills from the last kills i had?.

Oh noes, NightmareX haven't used a Blaster ship in those killmails, he have never used a Blaster ship then, yeeeeaaahhh.

---

0 killmails for a blaster BS on any killboard in eve makes my point you clown.

Or post say 50 or so kills you got with a mega on here if you can.

Originally by: NightmareX

---

WWAAAAA MOMMY THE BAD MAN CALLED ME NAMES WWWAAAAAA

---

Go away you sad pathetic little child.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

How many times do you have to forget that before you finally can remember it?.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

IF solo BS pvp was worth doing i suppose blasters would need more tracking but as it stands eve is just to well populated to allow solo BS to be worth using.

As such large blasters/blaster BS need a boost to help them to be better gang ships instead, and tracking is not really important in gang combat due to the prevalance of webs.

A increase in cpu on the mega, PG and maybr cpu on the hyperion and a increate in blaster dmg output in the 10-20km range would help a lot.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

The only thing i agree on here is to increase the CPU on the Mega.

That's all it need. Nothing more.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

The only thing i agree on here is to increase the CPU on the Mega.

That's all it need. Nothing more.

---

You only know that because you were SHOWN in the other thread about the fitting issues on the mega as you were so clueless you did not know how to fit one, and even that took pages to get into your stupid head.

And the problem is you are so arrogant and stupid that you yet again are ignoring ppl who fly megas on TQ and again are trying to tell you things you do not understand.

Maybe you should STFU and let ppl educate you yet agaion instead of making stupid and clueless claims.

---

Originally by: NightmareX AKA Electric Universe

---

Like the time when i had the Megathron Federate Issue on sisi and .....

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

NMX, you're (IMO) displaying symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect. See, you're so incompetent at the game that you just don't understand why the tests you're running on Sisi are irrelevent - despite virtually everyone in Eve telling you how and why.

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

Originally by: NightmareX AKA Electric Universe

---

Like the time when i had the Megathron Federate Issue on sisi and .....

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

NMX, you're (IMO) displaying symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect. See, you're so incompetent at the game that you just don't understand why the tests you're running on Sisi are irrelevent - despite virtually everyone in Eve telling you how and why.

---

OMG yes.
But because of that, he'll just keep returning to threads, no matter how ridiculous, he may make himself look.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Yeah, but what does fitting issues have with Blasters to do?.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

And the problem with you are that you don't read replies like this: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1016708&page=65#1948

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Edited by: NightmareX on 14/04/2009 17:16:51

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

Originally by: NightmareX AKA Electric Universe

---

Like the time when i had the Megathron Federate Issue on sisi and .....

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

NMX, you're (IMO) displaying symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect. See, you're so incompetent at the game that you just don't understand why the tests you're running on Sisi are irrelevent - despite virtually everyone in Eve telling you how and why.

---

OMG yes.
But because of that, he'll just keep returning to threads, no matter how ridiculous, he may make himself look.

---

1. The thing with the Megathron Federate Issue is just a very good example on how good the tracking is on the Blasters.

2. So you say Child doesn't have this to?.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Edited by: Childstar on 14/04/2009 17:19:04

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Yeah, but what does fitting issues have with Blasters to do?.

---

Large blasters fit on BS you tool you balance the entire thing not just a single item.

Originally by: NightmareX

---

And the problem with you are that you don't read replies like this: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1016708&page=65#1948

---

I read it hours ago and you are the one with the problem with reading others posts, he says theres not much wrong with smaller classes of blasters and i do not disagree with him.

BS blasters though are being limited to undock ganking is a problem as it is a very limited role and one ANY of the other BS can do and the only reason ppl use the station gank as a example is cos its the only thing that blasters do not suck at.

Theres nothing wrong with comparing 2 BS to each other and i notice how he does not go into detail as to why he thinks it is wrong...supprise supprise.

As far as my main is concerned i have posted with it and have way way over 2000 kills in many types of ships including blaster BS.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Go away you idiot, how many ppl need to tell you that your a total tosser before you get a clue?.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

1. ORLY?. Do you think i'm dumb?. But LOLOL, the Blasters it self are fine. It's the ship who have fitting issues that CAN make a ship to not perform well. But still, Blasters as a weapon is totally fine mister smartypants.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

2. Didn't you read what he did say about when he was in RR gangs with the Blaster Mega?.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

And yes, you are reported for calling me for names.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

And yes, you are reported for calling me for names.

---

Here we go again.....

PS: here is another excuse for you to report me...YOU ARE A LIAR, TROLL AND IDIOT.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

And yes, you are reported for calling me for names.

---

Here we go again.....

PS: here is another excuse for you to report me...YOU ARE A LIAR, TROLL AND IDIOT.

---

Yeah here we go again WITH YOU HERE.

It was you that started it all. I was just talking with Liang about the things i tests on Sisi, and then you comes with lies and stuffs i have never said.

Congrats for starting a new flame war.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

1. ORLY?. Do you think i'm dumb?. But LOLOL, the Blasters it self are fine. It's the ship who have fitting issues that CAN make a ship to not perform well. But still, Blasters as a weapon is totally fine mister smartypants.

---

The CPU issue on the mega is just ONE of the problems with blaster BS you tool, try looking at the big picture.

Originally by: NightmareX

---

2. Didn't you read what he did say about when he was in RR gangs with the Blaster Mega?.

---

I saw it and just because they do not suck at station ganking does not mean they do not have a problem.

Any BS can station gank, and just because ppl in empire can use war decs to limit the sort of gangs they will be facing and it allowing them to camp undock points does not make the blaster BS a good ship.


You found one person who even at himself says that blasters are very limited but you think it changes anything that has already been covered?.


Why point out that one person instead of the dozens that disagree?.....

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

And yes, you are reported for calling me for names.

---

Here we go again.....

PS: here is another excuse for you to report me...YOU ARE A LIAR, TROLL AND IDIOT.

---

Yeah here we go again WITH YOU HERE.

It was you that started it all. I was just talking with Liang about the things i tests on Sisi, and then you comes with lies and stuffs i have never said.

Congrats for starting a new flame war.

---

JUST BECAUSE YOU DID NOT SAY THEM IN THIS THREAD DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE NOT SAID THEM, OR ARE NOT RESPONSABLE FOR THEM.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

2. For them they don't have problems with the Blasters Mega. They are working very good for what the Blasters are designed to do. That's what you don't understand. MISTER SMARTYPANTS.

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

* cough * NightmareX, if you find yourself losing an argument, your first line of defence in threads, is to call people names.
Then you completely ignore the argument and go off on a tangent, claim you were right, and everyone else is stupid, clueless, idiots, trolls, etc. etc.

But the irony in your post, would be lost on you I guess.

This is the reason why arguing with you is pointless.
You'll rant and rave at my post no doubt, but I will not be replying.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

2. For them they don't have problems with the Blasters Mega. They are working very good for what the Blasters are designed to do. That's what you don't understand. MISTER SMARTYPANTS.

---

Get a clue about the relaity of TQ combat.

Blaster BS are virtually obsolite as far as effectivness is concerned apart from station ganking and even at that the other BS are as good tbh.

And do not act like you care about who that guy is, you would link a post from a 5 min old noob if you thought it would support your stupid case, and his post does not really even do that much.

---

Originally by: Prez21

---

Yes blasters have poor range and are only used in certain circumstances and pulses give you quite alot more flexibilty and still pretty good dmg......

yes lasers seem to be number 1 at the minute but that hasnt always been the case and it seems its amarrs turn to be number 1......

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Edited by: NightmareX on 14/04/2009 17:54:38

Originally by: Childstar

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

2. For them they don't have problems with the Blasters Mega. They are working very good for what the Blasters are designed to do. That's what you don't understand. MISTER SMARTYPANTS.

---

Get a clue about the relaity of TQ combat.

Blaster BS are virtually obsolite as far as effectivness is concerned apart from station ganking and even at that the other BS are as good tbh.

And do not act like you care about who that guy is, you would link a post from a 5 min old noob if you thought it would support your stupid case, and his post does not really even do that much.

---

I'll listen to him over anybody else.

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

He is wrong, blasters are poor choices for almost all forms of BS pvp and those they are ok at lasers are just as good if not better.

What a supprise, you found somebody who's post you can twist into summat its not...and its now your gospel....

---

Originally by: Childstar

---

Edited by: Childstar on 14/04/2009 18:04:40

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Edited by: NightmareX on 14/04/2009 18:02:48

Originally by: Childstar

---

He is wrong, blasters are poor choices for almost all forms of BS pvp and those they are ok at lasers are just as good if not better.

What a supprise, you found somebody who's post you can twist into summat its not...and its now your gospel....

---

So why should i listen to you that are an alt of someone with no balls to post with your main, and not him?. Your an alt to someone who are only cheast beating over your 2k kills.

If you say he's wrong, then i can for sure say you are wrong to.

---

GOOD for you and im sure when you hit puberty you will find a even more worthwhile argumentative style...

You are such a juvinille clown....

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Sigh, can you two stop trolling game dev? This forum has far stricter rules than Ships & Mods, and you're both likely to get a permaban

-Liang

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

If there is not trolling, then there will not be many replies from me either.

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

If there is not trolling, then there will not be many replies from me either.

---

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

If I may be so bold, as to suggest you should stay away from these topics completely.
For your own sake.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

If I may be so bold, as to suggest you should stay away from these topics completely.
For your own sake.

---

Not as long you and Childstar are lying about me.

So you have to choose.

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

If I may be so bold, as to suggest you should stay away from these topics completely.
For your own sake.

---

Not as long you and Childstar are lying about me.

So you have to choose.

---

Please point out when I lied.

It's not my reputation and image that's being tarnished here.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

You might not be the one who are lying here, but you are telling me to stop doing things when you are doing the exact same thing as me as you say i'm doing.

It's to just say words and tell peoples to shut up etc etc. But the things is that you just say it without even giving a reason for it.

So that's why i say to you that you should stop lying / telling others to stop doing things that you are doing your self.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Edited by: NightmareX on 14/04/2009 18:32:44

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

If I may be so bold, as to suggest you should stay away from these topics completely.
For your own sake.

---

Not as long you and Childstar are lying about me.

So you have to choose.

---

Please point out when I lied.

It's not my reputation and image that's being tarnished here.

---

You might not be the one who are lying here, but you are telling me to stop doing things here as you say i'm doing when you are doing the exact same thing as me.

It's to just say words and tell peoples to shut up etc etc. But the things is that you just say it without even giving a reason for it.

So that's why i say to you that you should stop lying / telling others to stop doing things that you are doing your self.

So as i'm saying, just stop with all of those things you are doing now, before it's to late. Remember, this is not the Ships and Modules section of the forum.

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

You might not be the one who are lying here, but you are telling me to stop doing things when you are doing the exact same thing as me as you say i'm doing.

It's to just say words and tell peoples to shut up etc etc. But the things is that you just say it without even giving a reason for it.

So that's why i say to you that you should stop lying / telling others to stop doing things that you are doing your self.

---

Everything I've posted so far, had a reason, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Please show me when I lied.

---

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

If I may be so bold, as to suggest you should stay away from these topics completely.
For your own sake.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

WHY are you telling me that?, and not Childstar?.

That's one of the reasons why i looks at you now for being against me for a purpose.

If you can tell Childstar to shut the hell up to, then i'm happy with it.

Now, please post better next time so we don't confuse you for things that are not right. Right?.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Ok here is something that i really wonder about:

Originally by: Rhadamantine

---

If I may be so bold, as to suggest you should stay away from these topics completely.
For your own sake.

---

WHY are you telling me that?, and not Childstar?.

That's one of the reasons why i looks at you now for being against me for a purpose.

If you can tell Childstar to shut the hell up to, then i'm happy with it.

Now, please post better next time so we don't confuse you for things that are not right. Right?.

---

Originally by: lecrotta

---

That you do, that i do, that he did, and you said, so i said blah blah blah blah.

Just stop NOW dude you look a bigger and bigger madman every time you post.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: lecrotta

---

That you do, that i do, that he did, and you said, so i said blah blah blah blah.

Just stop NOW dude you look a bigger and bigger madman every time you post.

---

Says the alt that also have many many alts.

Oh, btw, this is provided by someone in a corp called Burn Eden. I tank the guy who eve-mailed me this one.

2008.07.20 19:56
lecrotta's main char is sophisticatedlimabean. Jsut saw you had a forum smack match with him a while back. We kicked him from our corp for a number of reasons, but did manager to see who all his alts were via API.

2008.07.20 21:14
His other chars are:

sophisticatedlimabean
andnowthenews
marakor

murina
labrata
lecrotta

graalum

Enjoy.

How does it feel to be pwned LOL?.

---

Originally by: lecrotta

---

The dates on those posts seem a little old though.

---

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.

---

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?.

---

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.

---

Originally by: lecrotta

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

I can only bet that you have more alts than that now.

---

I do, plenty of them.

---

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.

---

Originally by: NightmareX

---

Originally by: lecrotta

---

I can only bet that you have more alts than that now.

---

I do, plenty of them.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them

---

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...

---

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?.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Amantus

---

Real men don't need to get into blaster range.

---

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.

---

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).

---

Originally by: Jade TX

---

(bitter rant)

---

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...

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Heavy Pulse Laser II: 4000 + 12000 * 0.5 * 0.08125 = 650 m/s @ 8000 m

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Lilith Velkor

---

This pretty imbalanced however.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

To achieve proper balance between the turrets, we need to look at tracking@optimal.

---

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

---

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.

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

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.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

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.

---

Let's look at this anther way:
- Lasers track at 8.5km what blasters track at 4.5km. This means that lasers trade 4km of close range for the ability to hit at longer ranges and track much faster/smaller ships.
- Lasers are not meant for close range engagements, therefore your argument that "if lasers are fine then blasters are too" is utterly false. The advantages of range not only come from damage projection (not having to MWD about to deliver your DPS) but also from having a much wider kill zone (the implication here is that people have to cross alot more terrain to get under your guns, and you don't have to do as much micromanagement of your own range and transversal)
- Blasters are meant for close range engagements, and thus have very poor damage projection and a very small kill range. While it would take 30s to cross a Geddon's kill zone, it might take 2s to cross a Mega's kill zone. Blasters literally have to walk a knife's edge in order to be able to stay at the right range (not so close that you can't track and not so far away that falloff eats too heavily into your DPS).
- If blasters are into falloff much at all, then lasers are simply a better choice despite having lower tracking. The penalties of falloff are almost incomprehensible.

Goum, it's somewhat inarguable: either lasers are incredibly OP or blasters *AND* autocannons need boosting.

-Liang

---

Originally by: Jaina Proudmoar

---

It's already known that Large Autocannons suck and Large Pulse rocks.

Blasters are still fine and have great DPS with acceptable tracking. Try flying a Maelstrom before complaining about large blasters.

---

Quote:

---

- Lasers track at 8.5km what blasters track at 4.5km. This means that lasers trade 4km of close range for the ability to hit at longer ranges and track much faster/smaller ships.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

- Lasers are not meant for close range engagements, therefore your argument that "if lasers are fine then blasters are too" is utterly false.

---

Quote:

---

Blasters are meant for close range engagements, and thus have very poor damage projection and a very small kill range. While it would take 30s to cross a Geddon's kill zone, it might take 2s to cross a Mega's kill zone.

---

Quote:

---

- If blasters are into falloff much at all, then lasers are simply a better choice despite having lower tracking. The penalties of falloff are almost incomprehensible.

---

Quote:

---

Goum, it's somewhat inarguable: either lasers are incredibly OP or blasters *AND* autocannons need boosting.

---

Originally by: NightmareX
2. LOL, when you read point 1 i wrote, who are the stupid one now then[)

---

?.

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Quote:

---

- Lasers track at 8.5km what blasters track at 4.5km. This means that lasers trade 4km of close range for the ability to hit at longer ranges and track much faster/smaller ships.

---

This is incorrect, with the exception of the edge of scorch ranges where blasters no longer have enough falloff to hit, blasters have the ability to track just as well or better than lasers in all instances. If the question is "can i hit smaller and faster ships" the blaster ships, in nearly all situations, come out on top.

---

Quote:

---

Way to entirely miss the point.

---

Quote:

---

This entirely ignores the effect of webs, scramblers, extra med slots and long range tech 2 ammo for the blaster pilots. The optimal on scorch is 45km, the optimal on Antimatter is 5 and its all within web range. Even at that largest disparity its not near the numbers you listed.

Quit the polemic bull****.

---

Quote:

---

The penalties for falloff are not nearly incomprehensible. In fact they're quite easy to comprehend.

---

Quote:

---

Ah ha ha ha ha ha.

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

This is incorrect, with the exception of the edge of scorch ranges where blasters no longer have enough falloff to hit, blasters have the ability to track just as well or better than lasers in all instances. If the question is "can i hit smaller and faster ships" the blaster ships, in nearly all situations, come out on top.

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Way to entirely miss the point. The person was complaining about blaster tracking then saying that pulse tracking was not a drawback.

The only way that pulse tracking can "not be a drawback" is if blasters track fine. If blasters have problems tracking, then pulse lasers with even less tracking will have even more problems.

---