| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Humphrey Goff
   |
Posted - 2009.05.21 09:56:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: NightmareX
Lasers isn't more important than 3 other weapon systems. Just make the Lasers to be more balanced to the 3 other weapon systems instead.
Problem solved then .
There is some truth in this.
The problem is also the world geometry, most close range fights simply happen in the 20-30km range where lasers is just much better than everything else.
I also dont understand why a small disadvantage at extreme close range justifies an extreme advantage at other ranges.
Maybe gal/min/cal ships is meant to have tracking disrupters in their extra utility slots, but that is just damn hard to manage compared to raw firepower 
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 10:47:00 -
[92]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 21/05/2009 00:34:34
Dont forget exploration - its also laser buff (no ammo use!). Also invention: more scorch for laser users and cheaper guns! Im sure that "coalition of coalitions" is also laser buff - as we know they are mainly gang weapons and gangs of 1500 people are best place for lasers. Ofc nano nerf is also laser buff - everything is easier to hit. Blackops boost is also laser boost - THE REDEEMER! is laser boat!.
To sum up: are you stupid or just playing one?
Sorry what do you want me to reply to? You didn't make a point.
You spouted a load of nonsense and said. "That's you that is, that's what you sound like."
EVERY of my line has a point (at least on exactly same level as yours does). If medium drone nerf was lasers buff (thats what you posted, wasnt it?) so is exploration change, BOps change and almost all other changes.
And while we are at drones:
Medium drone users in gallente line:
- Vexor
- Ishtar (rarely, heavies were better 90% of the time)
- Domi (same as ishtar)
Medium drone users in amarr line:
- Arbi
- Pilgrim
- Curse
- Apoc
- Abaddon
Hmmm geee i wonder who got hit harder here. Blaster buff then it is.
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 12:40:00 -
[93]
Direct buffs to BS lasers/lasers.
1. Tracking buff, just before the nano nerf.
A. Allowing pulse to hit cruiser sized NANO ships at range BEFORE they were speed nerfed.
B. Reducing the number of med sized cruiser hull gang vs gang pvp.
2. EM resistance changes.
A. Increased laser DPS.
Indirect buffs to BS lasers and nerfs to BS blasters.
1. Nano nerf:
A. Made range the new "tertiary tank".
B. Increased the use of BS gang fighting especially RR.
2. Web nerf:
A. Making solo BS pvp virtually non-existant due to small ships easily kiteing BS turrets.
B. Also making med-large gang BS pvp the only viable option.
3. Population density:
A. More ppl same space = a increase in gang styles of pvp.
B. A reduction in available solo targets for all sizes of solo ships.
4. Reduced mwd cap penalty/speed reduction.
A. Givinging laser ships more overall cap to fire guns with.
B. Also reducing the speed MWD gave makes blaster ships take longer to get into optimal.
C. Reducing MWD speed also increased the cap usage blaster BS need to get into range by needing more cycles.
More recent/upcoming changes that give buffs to BS lasers and nerfs to BS blasters.
1. ECM range reduction:
A. ECM optimal is now within BS pulse range.
B. Also increasing the effectivness of RR BS gangs.
2. Agility reduction:
A. All classes of ships taking a agility reduction, meaning those that need to manouver into optimal are slower to do so and use more CAP mwding.
B. Amarr having a MASSIVE optimal need to manouver the least so spend more time outside of others optimal.
C. Ships other than lasers spend more time manouvering into optimal so doing less dps.
|
NightmareX
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 13:40:00 -
[94]
Originally by: honey bunchetta
Direct buffs to BS lasers/lasers.
1. Tracking buff, just before the nano nerf.
A. Allowing pulse to hit cruiser sized NANO ships at range BEFORE they were speed nerfed.
Yeah and now that tracking buff isn't needed, so yeah, take that tracking boost away.
By doing this, you will fix pretty much everything.
The tracking boost to Lasers was meant to be able to hit smaller ships better, because the cruiser sized ships was so fast.
And now, the speed is nerfed, so what's the point with the tracking boost Lasers got then?. Lasers are just overpowered atm because of that.
And to the other nerfs to Blasters as you told.
Murina, can you please tell me why alot of players are still doing an excelent job in a Blaster BS today even after those nerfs?.
Is that because Blasters are crap, or is it because Blasters are very good?.
The answer is easy. Blasters are totally fine and players who are smart just find new ways to use their Blaster BS'es in.
If Blasters had been as crap as you 'think' they are, then i also think Darknesss and many other Blaster BS pilots in the alliance i'm in would say Blasters are crap to if they had been crap. But the fact is that Blasters is fine.
I see no complains in alliance chat or corp chat that Blasters are crap or poor. I have never seen it either.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Gavin Darklighter
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 14:00:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 21/05/2009 14:02:43
Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 21/05/2009 14:00:24
Originally by: NightmareX
I like the webs as they are now, but it wouldn't hurt to take them to 70%. I'm all in for that.
But saying 50% tracking boost to Blasters and 30% to Autocannons is asking to get the frigs and cruisers unpopular against BS'es again. Or it will make the frigs and cruisers useless against BS'es then. Like they was earlier.
70% webs would be even better than a 50% tracking bonus, especially against a smaller ship that fits a scram and no web of its own. The problem is it would be a tracking boost to ALL large weapons, which would do nothing to help the balance of lasers against blasters and ACs.
A 50% tracking boost to blasters would make it a lot harder to speed tank a mega in web range, but it would still be very easy for a frigate to do and HACs that do not fit an afterburner would still have the option to kite the blaster ship due to its extremely limited range. IMO the ability to track well inside web range should be the blaster advantage.
A smaller tracking boost to ACs would make them slightly more difficult to speed tank as well, and their "very slight" range advantage over blasters makes them harder to kite too. This would make them able to hit reasonably well at close and medium range, but not as well as the other two turret types in their optimal ranges.
Even with a 100% boost to blaster tracking all it takes is one arbitrator with a couple of TDs to knock it back down to worse than it was before such a boost. TDs are devastatingly powerful against a turret battleship.
signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan |
NightmareX
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 14:13:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 21/05/2009 14:02:43
Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 21/05/2009 14:00:24
Originally by: NightmareX
I like the webs as they are now, but it wouldn't hurt to take them to 70%. I'm all in for that.
But saying 50% tracking boost to Blasters and 30% to Autocannons is asking to get the frigs and cruisers unpopular against BS'es again. Or it will make the frigs and cruisers useless against BS'es then. Like they was earlier.
70% webs would be even better than a 50% tracking bonus, especially against a smaller ship that fits a scram and no web of its own. The problem is it would be a tracking boost to ALL large weapons, which would do nothing to help the balance of lasers against blasters and ACs.
A 50% tracking boost to blasters would make it a lot harder to speed tank a mega in web range, but it would still be very easy for a frigate to do and HACs that do not fit an afterburner would still have the option to kite the blaster ship due to its extremely limited range. IMO the ability to track well inside web range should be the blaster advantage.
A smaller tracking boost to ACs would make them slightly more difficult to speed tank as well, and their "very slight" range advantage over blasters makes them harder to kite too. This would make them able to hit reasonably well at close and medium range, but not as well as the other two turret types in their optimal ranges.
Even with a 100% boost to blaster tracking all it takes is one arbitrator with a couple of TDs to knock it back down to worse than it was before such a boost. TDs are devastatingly powerful against a turret battleship.
I see where you want to go. But i was still hitting a Pilgrim that had dual tracking disrupted me. He was orbiting me at 2-3 km at a speed of 250 m/s. The Pilgrim was ofc webbed.
But even then when i was dual tracking disrupted, i was still hitting him. But not good enough to break his tank.
Yes this was right after the web nerf on sisi.
I think the tracking on Large Blasters is good enough tbh.
I just think there is some crap in the whole tracking formula that makes Blasters / Autocannons in some situations to be crap. So i rather see the tracking formula fixed before anything.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 14:41:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Ignition SemperFi on 21/05/2009 14:42:13
posting in a thread where torps were boned and no one cares. back to the subject at hand
BS sized autocannons need looked at, scorch needs a sligh reduction in tracking, Pulse need their optimal increased. I believe this would allow for more ships to get under the tracking of large pulses (which i <3 btw thou).
The other problem is you have to choose as a blaster pilot to either a) fit a warpscram and web or b) warp disruptor and web. (hell caldari blaster pilots usually dont even have a slot for a web so be happy) Yes, could increase their tracking but now your ability to BBQ smaller ships increases greatly and this is why i cant support this issue. This is where i believe its not as much the tracking of a mega or let alone a hype that needs looked at but the tracking formula itself.
Also take into account the dmg you can apply with a mega, while still being able to utilize a utility highslot, whether RR or a neutralizer (which btw destroy's Amarr cap intensive boats) where as the geddon has even worse fitting issues than the mega, and has only 3 midslots. or we look at the abaddon, which is a cap monster with a giant passive tank but much smaller drone bay and is teir 3
all in all do i believe the blaster mega should be able to bring amazing amounts of DPS to bear in its range, yes. Should it be able to deal with cruisers, hardly at all. Yet a warpscrammed and webbed cruiser will generally melt under your your antimatter or null. Now could you be warpscrammed as well, yes and just like everything else in eve... there is a counter to your rock and a counter to my paper or scissors.
TLDR: Boost Bs sized autocannons, SLIGHTLY tweak scorch tracking, fit a warp scram + web, and give large blasters a 5% dmg boost... so if and when you can hit it, you are outperforming everything in your range. You wont get back your OP blaster mega of the past, we all adapt. and FFS fix the tracking formula
----
People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Space Vikings |
1072
Fliegerkorps
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 15:15:00 -
[98]
well agreed.. having a gun only effective between 2km - 4.5km without decent advantages really suck.
-boombastica !- |
Gavin Darklighter
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 15:56:00 -
[99]
Originally by: NightmareX
But i was still hitting a Pilgrim that had dual tracking disrupted me. He was orbiting me at 2-3 km at a speed of 250 m/s. The Pilgrim was ofc webbed.
But even then when i was dual tracking disrupted, i was still hitting him. But not good enough to break his tank.
Yes this was right after the web nerf on sisi.
I think the tracking on Large Blasters is good enough tbh.
I just think there is some crap in the whole tracking formula that makes Blasters / Autocannons in some situations to be crap. So i rather see the tracking formula fixed before anything.
That Pilgrim must have been range disrupting you then since a cruiser sized target at 2km-250m/s is a hard target to track with blasters without any disruption. With double tracking disruption you wouldn't have touched him unless his EWar skills were trash. Also he could have just as easily stayed at 8-9km with double range disruption and never taken a single hit.
signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan |
london
Gallente
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 17:07:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Anyone who has flown blaster BS a LOT knows that the only way to really do effective damage is to be just under optimal range (say, 4km for Neutron IIs and max skills with faction antimatter) and have both the shooter and the target sit *dead still*. Any transversal *at all* will wreck your DPS, and this is BS vs. BS. It only gets worse when you're shooting at a smaller target.
It's not like an Abaddon or Geddon where a BS can be going 3-400m/sec transverse at 15km and you're still hitting it for 100% effective DPS, or zapping cruisers at 2km/sec at 35km away.
Ask yourself this: is it reasonable to expect an Abaddon to be able to hit a Cruiser flying at 1500-2km/sec at 30-40km for 80-90% effective DPS using T2 ammo? If the answer is yes, then shouldn't it also be reasonable for a Mega (which has a tracking bonus, no less) to hit a Cruiser flying at the same speed at 12-18km and do the same relative DPS with similar ammo?
Everything in Eve is a tradeoff. Lasers have big benefits and great capability, so to ACs. Blasters right now are sucky because lasers can do their job at their range at 90-100% efficiency plus continue to perform at what are for blasters extreme ranges. Heck, a while back I instapopped a Harpy or Hawk (can't remember exactly which) with my Abaddon at 45km+. When it happened I thought the guy warped off when I lost lock. I couldn't believe it.
lasers are awesome. I want blasters to be awesome in their own area of operation as well: extreme close range. Right now they're not.
Amen, brotha.
|
|
|
Xorth Adimus
Caldari
The Perfect Storm
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 19:41:00 -
[101]
Simple:
1. Fix falloff so that it is effective for guns that need to use it (A/cs / blasters).
2. Give some longer range hybrid and projectile ammo real bonus's (ie positive falloff effects). That way everyone won't just use antimatter / EMP 90% of the time! 
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 21:36:00 -
[102]
Right now, Blasters largely need help because their role has been taken over by lasers. Having a damage advantage from 0-6km and being totally outclassed past 6km speaks pretty poorly for battleship sized blasters.
IMO, there are three possible fixes:
- Increase blaster base damage by some non-trivial amount. This gives more DPS in range but accepts the current percentage of damage lost due to having "poor" tracking for range, and the damage lost for range.
- Increase blaster base tracking. This gives more DPS close in and is an indirect nerf to smaller ships that hope to get under blasters.
- Significantly nerf laser tracking so that their damage envelope starts a bit further out.
I'm a fan of a bit of all three (slightly more tracking, a medium damage boost, and a medium laser tracking nerf). No, lasers are not supposed to be WTFPWN at 10km. If you wanted to engage at 10km, you should have brought a blaster ship.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
fuxinos
Caldari
Guys 0f Sarcasm
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 21:55:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Right now, Blasters largely need help because their role has been taken over by lasers. Having a damage advantage from 0-6km and being totally outclassed past 6km speaks pretty poorly for battleship sized blasters.
IMO, there are three possible fixes:
- Increase blaster base damage by some non-trivial amount. This gives more DPS in range but accepts the current percentage of damage lost due to having "poor" tracking for range, and the damage lost for range.
- Increase blaster base tracking. This gives more DPS close in and is an indirect nerf to smaller ships that hope to get under blasters.
- Significantly nerf laser tracking so that their damage envelope starts a bit further out.
I'm a fan of a bit of all three (slightly more tracking, a medium damage boost, and a medium laser tracking nerf). No, lasers are not supposed to be WTFPWN at 10km. If you wanted to engage at 10km, you should have brought a blaster ship.
-Liang
1st one shouldnt be considerd, since 1300Dps from a Megathron is more then enough already. You should still take into account that people still fly solo or very small gangs were you have a good chance of landing directly on top of your opponent.
A Mega dealing more then 1300Dps would be pretty ridicoules in this case.
I agree, a little range boost would help, bot no damage boost.
|
ZENZATION
MeMento.
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 22:32:00 -
[104]
Originally by: fuxinos
1st one shouldnt be considerd, since 1300Dps from a Megathron is more then enough already.
Why? Is there some magic line at 1300 dps that shouldnt be crossed? You do understand that laser battleships do 94% of the damage at three times the range right?
|
Inari Valar
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 23:43:00 -
[105]
Large blasters could use a bit more dps, but would really benefit from a change to the tracking formula.
Ship size should have a HUGE impact on close-range tracking. If the ship is 1500m long, and only 500m away from my BS, it shouldn't matter how fast the thing is going. I should be able to hit it. A re-working of the tracking formula to account for ship size vs range at closer ranges would help mitigate a lot of the tracking problems ships have up close (and the horrible 0 range issue)
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 00:10:00 -
[106]
Originally by: fuxinos
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Right now, Blasters largely need help because their role has been taken over by lasers. Having a damage advantage from 0-6km and being totally outclassed past 6km speaks pretty poorly for battleship sized blasters.
IMO, there are three possible fixes:
- Increase blaster base damage by some non-trivial amount. This gives more DPS in range but accepts the current percentage of damage lost due to having "poor" tracking for range, and the damage lost for range.
- Increase blaster base tracking. This gives more DPS close in and is an indirect nerf to smaller ships that hope to get under blasters.
- Significantly nerf laser tracking so that their damage envelope starts a bit further out.
I'm a fan of a bit of all three (slightly more tracking, a medium damage boost, and a medium laser tracking nerf). No, lasers are not supposed to be WTFPWN at 10km. If you wanted to engage at 10km, you should have brought a blaster ship.
-Liang
1st one shouldnt be considerd, since 1300Dps from a Megathron is more then enough already. You should still take into account that people still fly solo or very small gangs were you have a good chance of landing directly on top of your opponent.
A Mega dealing more then 1300Dps would be pretty ridicoules in this case.
I agree, a little range boost would help, bot no damage boost.
Yeahhhh... no.
The theoretical maximum 1300 DPS Megathron is fiction. As an example I was out in 0.0 a few weeks back with a maxed out gank Neutron Blasterthron with 3x magstab IIs and 5x Berserker IIs (yeah, I know, not Ogre IIs, but the targets were ratting Sanshas and more thermal damage wasn't going to help). The point being is that even with an all gank setup, I still wasn't seeing 1300 DPS due to the fact that I'm not going to fit the better part of 3/4 billion ISK in implants for 2x 5% damage implants when I know as soon as I get bubbled I'm podded. I even sacrificed all of my anti-tackle capability (light drones) for a 5th heavy drone, just to maximize my DPS for the quick gank. It still wasn't enough. I still got tackled, I still died, and it's all due to the Blasterthron not doing enough DPS to get in, make a kill and get out before I'm tackled by 5-6 HICs, dictors and inties.
Max gank ships are super specialized and few and far between. The Blasterthron I was running had ZERO tank on it, because as soon as I'm tackled, I'm dead, tank or no tank. Real 'combat' setups with a worthwhile tank won't be doing *anywhere NEAR* 1300 DPS. These days if you can break 900 DPS you're doing really well, particularly givin the increased tanks due to rigs etc. My Abaddon will do more on-target real world DPS at all ranges, drones or no drones, than my Blasterthron will. The main differences between the Abaddon and Blasterthron at this point are flexibility of movement as far as getting back to a gate etc.
Bellum Eternus
Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 05:52:00 -
[107]
Originally by: fuxinos
1st one shouldnt be considerd, since 1300Dps from a Megathron is more then enough already. You should still take into account that people still fly solo or very small gangs were you have a good chance of landing directly on top of your opponent.
A Mega dealing more then 1300Dps would be pretty ridicoules in this case.
I agree, a little range boost would help, bot no damage boost.
fuxinos
Caldari
Guys 0f Sarcasm
I'm guessing you're role playing with that post, what with your corp name and all.
Regards
Mag |
Kyguard
Amok.
Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 06:44:00 -
[108]
I think everyone was hoping you'd go away.
Internet anonymity ftl
-
|
NightmareX
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 11:11:00 -
[109]
Edited by: NightmareX on 23/05/2009 11:12:16
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
Originally by: NightmareX
But i was still hitting a Pilgrim that had dual tracking disrupted me. He was orbiting me at 2-3 km at a speed of 250 m/s. The Pilgrim was ofc webbed.
But even then when i was dual tracking disrupted, i was still hitting him. But not good enough to break his tank.
Yes this was right after the web nerf on sisi.
I think the tracking on Large Blasters is good enough tbh.
I just think there is some crap in the whole tracking formula that makes Blasters / Autocannons in some situations to be crap. So i rather see the tracking formula fixed before anything.
That Pilgrim must have been range disrupting you then since a cruiser sized target at 2km-250m/s is a hard target to track with blasters without any disruption. With double tracking disruption you wouldn't have touched him unless his EWar skills were trash. Also he could have just as easily stayed at 8-9km with double range disruption and never taken a single hit.
No he was using 2x Tracking Disruption Scripts on me. He told it to me after the fight.
Before he started to use the Tracking Disruptor on me, i almost killed him. I took him right down to like 20% armor in 2-3 volleys when he was orbiting me at that distance and speed. But after he took on the TD's, i couldn't him enough to break his tank. But was still hitting him lightly.
But then i was using a +5% to tracking implant though. But still, i was still hitting him.
And like i have said earlier to, i have never had any issues with the tracking on Blasters. They have been working perfectly for me everytime i have tested / used Blasters.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 11:43:00 -
[110]
Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 23/05/2009 11:12:16
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
Originally by: NightmareX
But i was still hitting a Pilgrim that had dual tracking disrupted me. He was orbiting me at 2-3 km at a speed of 250 m/s. The Pilgrim was ofc webbed.
But even then when i was dual tracking disrupted, i was still hitting him. But not good enough to break his tank.
Yes this was right after the web nerf on sisi.
I think the tracking on Large Blasters is good enough tbh.
I just think there is some crap in the whole tracking formula that makes Blasters / Autocannons in some situations to be crap. So i rather see the tracking formula fixed before anything.
That Pilgrim must have been range disrupting you then since a cruiser sized target at 2km-250m/s is a hard target to track with blasters without any disruption. With double tracking disruption you wouldn't have touched him unless his EWar skills were trash. Also he could have just as easily stayed at 8-9km with double range disruption and never taken a single hit.
No he was using 2x Tracking Disruption Scripts on me. He told it to me after the fight.
Before he started to use the Tracking Disruptor on me, i almost killed him. I took him right down to like 20% armor in 2-3 volleys when he was orbiting me at that distance and speed. But after he took on the TD's, i couldn't him enough to break his tank. But was still hitting him lightly.
But then i was using a +5% to tracking implant though. But still, i was still hitting him.
And like i have said earlier to, i have never had any issues with the tracking on Blasters. They have been working perfectly for me everytime i have tested / used Blasters.
Considering you are a notorious liar i doubt this ever happened at all.
But even if it did:
1. He was a idiot for not being at range and using range scripts in his TD'd.
2. He did not set his orbit or his transversal properly at the close range he orbited you.
But as i said you have been proved a liar on so many occasions on this and other topics i doubt it happened at all.
|
|
|
NightmareX
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 13:22:00 -
[111]
Edited by: NightmareX on 23/05/2009 13:26:09
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 23/05/2009 11:12:16
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
Originally by: NightmareX
But i was still hitting a Pilgrim that had dual tracking disrupted me. He was orbiting me at 2-3 km at a speed of 250 m/s. The Pilgrim was ofc webbed.
But even then when i was dual tracking disrupted, i was still hitting him. But not good enough to break his tank.
Yes this was right after the web nerf on sisi.
I think the tracking on Large Blasters is good enough tbh.
I just think there is some crap in the whole tracking formula that makes Blasters / Autocannons in some situations to be crap. So i rather see the tracking formula fixed before anything.
That Pilgrim must have been range disrupting you then since a cruiser sized target at 2km-250m/s is a hard target to track with blasters without any disruption. With double tracking disruption you wouldn't have touched him unless his EWar skills were trash. Also he could have just as easily stayed at 8-9km with double range disruption and never taken a single hit.
No he was using 2x Tracking Disruption Scripts on me. He told it to me after the fight.
Before he started to use the Tracking Disruptor on me, i almost killed him. I took him right down to like 20% armor in 2-3 volleys when he was orbiting me at that distance and speed. But after he took on the TD's, i couldn't him enough to break his tank. But was still hitting him lightly.
But then i was using a +5% to tracking implant though. But still, i was still hitting him.
And like i have said earlier to, i have never had any issues with the tracking on Blasters. They have been working perfectly for me everytime i have tested / used Blasters.
Considering you are a notorious liar i doubt this ever happened at all.
But even if it did:
1. He was a idiot for not being at range and using range scripts in his TD'd.
2. He did not set his orbit or his transversal properly at the close range he orbited you.
But as i said you have been proved a liar on so many occasions on this and other topics i doubt it happened at all.
Murina, is trolling / moaning / using your big ass mouth all you can do?.
I have a tips to you, if you have nothing more than doing the 3 things over, i suggest you get the hell out of this topic.
AND NEVER COME BACK.
You add nothing to this topic anyways. Your only here to call peoples for names and tell others here that they are liars when someone doesn't agree with you.
The thing i wrote over have happened and you just have to live with it. And because it have happened, it was good enough evidence to see that the tracking is good enough, FOR ME.
You have one more warning before i send a report on you for calling peoples for things here.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 16:26:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Terra Mikael on 23/05/2009 16:28:05
seriously, I don't see what's wrong with them. On sisi I used a dual web hyperion to take down an assault frigate. Was lots of lulz. and no, I didn't use drones and I had a full rack of neutron blasters, no tracking computer, a single plate buffer, and a ****load of damage mods.
Edit: Idea - why not change the tracking bonus to a web bonus. I with dual webs, it could make things interesting...
________________________________
Originally by: Lone Gunman
Yes overpowered would be giving a ship with the Covert ops cloak the ability to fire say..Torpedos, now that would be overpowered. But CCP would |
NightmareX
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 16:35:00 -
[113]
Edited by: NightmareX on 23/05/2009 16:35:28
Originally by: Terra Mikael
Edit: Idea - why not change the tracking bonus to a web bonus. I with dual webs, it could make things interesting...
Intresting idea yeah.
But what about the Kronos then?, will the Kronos get back to 99% web strenght then?.
The Kronos doesn't really need 2x Web bonuses though heh.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 16:58:00 -
[114]
No idea. It was just one of those ideas that came out of nowhere. Let bellum work out the details, i'm too ****ing lazy.
________________________________
Originally by: Lone Gunman
Yes overpowered would be giving a ship with the Covert ops cloak the ability to fire say..Torpedos, now that would be overpowered. But CCP would |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 18:13:00 -
[115]
Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 23/05/2009 11:12:16
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
Originally by: NightmareX
But i was still hitting a Pilgrim that had dual tracking disrupted me. He was orbiting me at 2-3 km at a speed of 250 m/s. The Pilgrim was ofc webbed.
But even then when i was dual tracking disrupted, i was still hitting him. But not good enough to break his tank.
Yes this was right after the web nerf on sisi.
I think the tracking on Large Blasters is good enough tbh.
I just think there is some crap in the whole tracking formula that makes Blasters / Autocannons in some situations to be crap. So i rather see the tracking formula fixed before anything.
That Pilgrim must have been range disrupting you then since a cruiser sized target at 2km-250m/s is a hard target to track with blasters without any disruption. With double tracking disruption you wouldn't have touched him unless his EWar skills were trash. Also he could have just as easily stayed at 8-9km with double range disruption and never taken a single hit.
No he was using 2x Tracking Disruption Scripts on me. He told it to me after the fight.
Before he started to use the Tracking Disruptor on me, i almost killed him. I took him right down to like 20% armor in 2-3 volleys when he was orbiting me at that distance and speed. But after he took on the TD's, i couldn't him enough to break his tank. But was still hitting him lightly.
But then i was using a +5% to tracking implant though. But still, i was still hitting him.
And like i have said earlier to, i have never had any issues with the tracking on Blasters. They have been working perfectly for me everytime i have tested / used Blasters.
out of curiosity, what ship were you in and on what server? (i have the sneaking suspicion it was not a large blasters sporting one and not on tq, i which case: GO AWAY OR POST ON TOPIC)
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Murina
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:16:00 -
[116]
Originally by: NightmareX
Murina, is trolling / moaning / using your big ass mouth all you can do?.
No but even if it was all i could do it would be preferable tpo reading your lies.
Originally by: NightmareX
1. He was not an idiot. He was testing my tracking while he was orbiting me.
2: So orbiting at 2-3 km while using 2x TD's with tracking disruption scripts is not a good way to avoid getting hit?.
And also, he was using a Warp Scrambler II and an Afterburner. So i couldn't MWD then.
He needs to work on his TD skills cos i just tested the same scenario and even with my mains PERFECT gallente pvp skills and flying a mega the only things really hitting the pilgrim even when i had it webbed were my drones.
Originally by: NightmareX
Everytime someone tell you something like this, the players are either stupid or clueless.
Nope, most other ppl i listen to if they talk sense, YOU i never believe cos you have lied way to many times and made up way to much crap about things you do not understand.
It was only in the last thread on "ships and modules" that was about these problems that you were shown and learned how to fit a mega properly for TQ pvp but you think your some sort of authority on them.......
|
NightmareX
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 23:08:00 -
[117]
Edited by: NightmareX on 23/05/2009 23:15:03
Originally by: Murina
Edited by: Murina on 23/05/2009 20:28:25
Originally by: NightmareX
Murina, is trolling / moaning / using your big ass mouth all you can do?.
No its not, but even if it was all i could do it would be preferable to reading your lies.
Originally by: NightmareX
1. He was not an idiot. He was testing my tracking while he was orbiting me.
2: So orbiting at 2-3 km while using 2x TD's with tracking disruption scripts is not a good way to avoid getting hit?.
And also, he was using a Warp Scrambler II and an Afterburner. So i couldn't MWD then.
He needs to work on his TD skills cos i just tested the same scenario and even with my mains PERFECT gallente pvp and turret skills and flying a mega the only things really hitting the afterburning pilgrim even when i had it T2 webbed were my drones.
Originally by: NightmareX
Everytime someone tell you something like this, the players are either stupid or clueless.
Nope, most other ppl i listen to if they talk sense, YOU i never believe cos you have lied way to many times and made up way to much crap about things you do not understand.
It was only in the last thread on "ships and modules" that was about these problems that you were shown and learned how to fit a mega properly for TQ pvp but you think your some sort of authority on them.......
Ohhh, look, Murina strikes back with his awesome post with all of the truth.
Anyways.
Nr 1. If your not trolling moaning or using your big mouth, then please stop doing what your doing now.
Nr 2. His TD skills was maxed. Not sure what you have been testing, but the pilot i was testing against was doing everything right. And yeah, when i said i was hitting him, i wasn't saying i was hitting him all the times. But i was still hitting him with my Ion Blaster Cannon II's with a +5% to tracking implant.
Nr 3. About lying. Your not the best one to talk about lying. Because when it's about lying, then your the best one to lie about how Blasters is. You just want your ipwn machine back. And now after they nerfed the webbers, your just epicly bitter because you can't instapwn frigs and cruisers.
And if you still dont know it. The tracking on the Larghe Blasters are still totally fine. Maybe you should cry about getting the tracking formula fixed instead where the problems are?.
Originally by: Chi Quan
out of curiosity, what ship were you in and on what server? (i have the sneaking suspicion it was not a large blasters sporting one and not on tq, i which case: GO AWAY OR POST ON TOPIC)
Does it matter what server i was on?. The tracking is 100% the same on both servers.
The ship i was using was both a Megathron and a Megathron Federate Issue on Sisi.
If you can do nothing more than crying about sisi and that, or that i was using sisi to test out a valid game mechanig that is used over TQ everywhere, then i don't know, but maybe you should shut up instead and just accept that the tracking on TQ and Sisi is 100% the same.
So why whine about it?. Maybe you should go lose a Blaster Megathron to a noob over it?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Quixis
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 06:18:00 -
[118]
Originally by: NightmareX
Does it matter what server i was on?.
Actually it does, fights are not treated in the same manner as on TQ.
Plus, I'm not sure what brownie points you expect to gain, just because you pilot a Fed issue Mega.
It is risk free sisi after all.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 06:26:00 -
[119]
Nightmare-
If all you're going to do is turn my thread into a flamewar then just stop posting in my thread.
Bellum Eternus
Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
NightmareX
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 11:14:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Nightmare-
If all you're going to do is turn my thread into a flamewar then just stop posting in my thread.
Bellum, i'm just telling how Blasters works for me. And because i use them right, i have no issues with them at all.
Is that so hard to understand?.
And no. I'm not turning this into a flame war here. Maybe it might end up in a flame war with Murina here though. But it's still not me that are doing that.
Just to let you know some things here. A tracking boost will not happen for Blasters, because that goes against the web nerf. A DPS boost will not happen either, because Blasters are already the king of DPS. A range boost on Blasters will not happen to, because that goes against to be the shortest range weapon system in EVE.
The ONLY possible thing i see as possible to change is the webbers. Also to change them from 60% to 70%. Doing more than that is going way to far after how CCP want the PVP to be now.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |