| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Trader20
   |
Posted - 2009.04.20 19:23:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Trader20 on 20/04/2009 19:23:45
Since the last blaster vs pulse thread got derailed I want to start a new civilized thread on the close range weapons system of Eve Online.
The weapons that will be compared in this thread are, Auto Cannons, Pulse lasors, and Blasters. Torps will be discussed in another thread.
Now if you are posting please keep in mind that we are talking about pvp gang combat, PvE is another thread. Please refrain from insults and be respectful.
Here are some topics you can cover in your post. You don't have to mention all of them I'm just trying to give you some ideas.
A. Why a certain turret needs a buff/nerf
B. Solutions to fix a certain turret
C. Personal Experiences
D. Reason why a certain turret in overuse/underused.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 22:25:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Prez21
Originally by: el caido
Pulse are fine. Autos are fine. Blasters need a substantial damage and/or tracking boost.
This is the problems with these types of threads, too many people who dont actualy have any idea what there talking about just come here trying to boost there preferred turret type without any understand about how the turrets compare.
How can you say autocannons are fine but blasters need a tracking or dmg boost, when they track better and do more dmg then autocannons, especialy when used on a mega with its tracking bonus? I think blasters are ok and perform the job they was designed to do very well, which is deal high dmg at close ranges, unfortunatly they are getting alittle overshadowed by the fact that pulses put out almost as much dps but at ranges which are more suited to todays pvp. I would also like to see improved tracking on autocannons so minmatar ships could hit better when traveling at high speeds and actualy make use of there speed advantages, there isnt much point in going fast if you cant hit anything.
I never understood why a/c track simular to blasters when Min ships are supposed to be the high velocity orbiting race and Gal ships are supposed to be dual web and approach race. A/C T2 ammo really needs a boost to tracking speed to fit Min ship playstyle.
Is the capless turret and awsome damage type expl/kin worth the damage reduction you get when fighting in falloff? I only fight in falloff when fighting blaster ships because I need to avoid their optimal but when fighting pulse ships I mwd to 0km and fight in optimal because you can't really stay out of a pulse apocs optimal while dealing damage with A/C.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 22:31:00 -
[3]
What about this crazy idea for blasters. For T2 ammo a reduction in mwd cap usage or boost in mwd speed. This would give blaster boats the ability to get into range without burning all it's cap/boosters but it would still make blasters the close range, high damage turrets. Just like javelin nerfs your speed, void would boost your speed or reduce you mwd cap usage.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 23:42:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Trader20 on 20/04/2009 23:44:38
Liang any reason you and ur alt are derailin a productive thread or are you just bitter about something and feel like ruining this thread?
Also COAD is that way if you want to defend your subpar alliance........
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 23:49:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Warrio
Edited by: Warrio on 20/04/2009 23:21:06
Originally by: Trader20
lasors
So Trader20 is an alt for someone who wanted to have a whine about pulse lasors but didn't want to be seen to be starting a "whine thread".
Also ITT: Liang catches many of the unsuspecting in her troll net.
Do you see any whine about lasers (sorry for the prevoius spelling). If you think pulse lasers are balanced then please post in this thread and explain to us. I thank you for you productive comments but your trolling is unwelcomed.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 23:59:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Wideen
Originally by: Trader20
What about this crazy idea for blasters. For T2 ammo a reduction in mwd cap usage or boost in mwd speed. This would give blaster boats the ability to get into range without burning all it's cap/boosters but it would still make blasters the close range, high damage turrets. Just like javelin nerfs your speed, void would boost your speed or reduce you mwd cap usage.
lol a REAL bonus on t2 ammo? that's unheard of mate.. then I want a jump drive bonus for Gleam, because it's that bad
Well I tried a little deductive logic to solve that problem. The problem with blasters is range, so to reduce that problem you can either
A. Close the gap faster
Example: Mwd bonus to speed or cap (this will help on plated blaster ships)
B. More range
Example: Buff blaster optimal or falloff
Blaster tracking to me isn't that important because its playstyle is.....mwd in, dual web, unload,..... so tracking isn't an issue when your target is dual webbed. So if it is easier to get into range, then blasters would be much more popular. So thats where I came up with a bonus to speed.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 00:02:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kingwood
Edited by: Kingwood on 20/04/2009 23:56:42
Lasers need to be nerfed
Good point on how lasers are op, thanks for your imput. 
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 02:26:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Trader20 on 21/04/2009 02:34:04
In your opinion, which turret relies the most on tracking to deal damage? I think the turrets that primarly fight outside of web range need better tracking.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 02:54:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Trader20 on 21/04/2009 02:54:47
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Quote:
Please vacate this thread.
Tracking becomes much easier as you move away from a target. It's in the formula.
No ****. That's my point.
Quote:
Hit quality decreases in falloff. You won't get excellent hits at optimal + falloff.
Advising someone to use target painters or tracking computers when using autos and blasters is just plain dumb.
You mean that you actually have to think in combat and do something other than approach target -> F1-f8? How horrible.
Tracking mods exist in game for a reason.
But isn't that how blaster pilots should deal with targets....approach,web,unload. Maybe Min have a different approach but theirs no reason for a blaster pilot to orbit a target when they should have them webbed down and moving as little as possible.
|
| |
|