|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Chi Quan
Perkone
   |
Posted - 2009.05.26 02:21:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 26/05/2009 02:23:10
sorry, wrong answer, pls ignore (or delete if mod)
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 20:08:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Ranvaldy
Edited by: Ranvaldy on 29/05/2009 19:34:50
I didnt read all but this whole thread is a big fail. SOME weapons need balancing(i heard large projectiles are weak) not the entire weapon system 
Edit:Dont u dare touch my energy weapons 
how can you make such a statement than? right now lasers are very FOTM. enjoy it while it lasts.
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:48:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 02/06/2009 11:09:51
Never said it was BAD rr ship. Just said it was not as perfect as you made it.
Quote:
Just how perfect can one ship be ffs?.
Those are your words. And i said already: if it goes for rr it loses DPS. It has capacitor issues (how long can you perma rr and fire before your cap dies and you are useless?). But like above, i NEVER said its bad. I just said i will take geddon over aba any day and thats exactly what i do. Fly rr geddons because i dont like abaddon and its cap dependancy. plus i'd hate to remove turret to fit rr.
what would be a better choice than? does any other rr ship have overall less cap issues AND better range/damage coverage AND better tank?
while other have issues of, "oh dam, i can't apply my dps properly" or "oh dam my tank is failing" on top of cap issues, all you say is "me no wants to give up a gun".
and why are you talking about remote reps here when the topic is about guns?
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.07 22:16:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Electric Universe
Well crying for a boost on Large Blasters tracking just so you can hit frigs and cruisers much better when CCP nerfed the webs some time ago JUST to prevent Large guns from hitting the frigs and cruisers good is also trolling hard.
before making wild assumptions (again), try some numbers. even a 50% boost in tracking won't make a noteworthy dps difference on the aforementioned targets.
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 10:14:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ocularus Dothumiter
If anything, give gallente a speed boost.
that does not feel right, as minmatar are the speed race, plus not all gallente ships need a helping hand, only the ones using blasters.
Originally by: Yankunytjatjara
So trolls, do you want to trade the gallente typical tracking bonus for the amarr typical cap use one?
don't be mistaken, the bonus is there to add some skillLVL dependency to the ships, amarr ships have inherently good capacitors and armor, and let's not forget the other good stats(comparing the omen and the thorax), like sig radius and scan resolution.
back to the cap use, COMPARE the typical cap use of blasters with that of pulses (srsly run the numbers loaded with ammo ofc), and you'll see that there is no big difference (i'd post the numbers, but i have no eft on hand).
look at the recently changed apoc: it used to have a cap bonus, than that extra cap was integrated into the ship and it got a range bonus, now it is overall the best sniper BS (hell, it can snipe with PULSES)
Originally by: Yankunytjatjara
the gallente can choose, webs, track comps, cap boosters
that is utterly wrong, use blasters without a web and you might as well downgrade one ship-size, because overall you'll do more damage (without a damage bonus, mind you) with those due to a bad tracking/range ratio and high sig res. tracking comps are useless when using blasters, that slot is better filled with a web (since you mostly HAVE to fight within web range). cap boosters are and were mandatory, or you'll cap out (you still do, but it happens hopefully after most important stuff is dead), without an mwd you might as well just stay home. the mwd is for getting in range, else blasters do 0 damage.
so you have 3 mandatory slots, put in a point/scram and you have 4 (btw, the thorax has only 3, which one do you discard?).
Originally by: Yankunytjatjara
So trolls, do you want to trade the gallente typical tracking bonus for the amarr typical cap use one?
let me run the numbers, i'll tell you (my guts tell me it actually might be better, but not by a large margin)
Originally by: Yankunytjatjara
Since you all say that tracking and cap are not relevant, that should be no problem right. Trolls.
don't take it out of the context, tracking is irrelevant in gangs where someone will have a web (or some) on the target AND if you have range coverage. the range coverage is important.
we blaster users don't want the weaknesses of the ships completely removed, it's what always defined them, you always had to get in range to use blasters for example, we want a BALANCED TRADE OFF FOR OUR WEAKNESSES. right now the trade offs don't balance out. |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 23:25:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Allen Ramses
* An increase in blaster rotation would increase tracking across the board for all ship sizes. This would be a bad idea. Instead, a 33% increase in optimal would do well to balance out the tracking-at-optimal variable.
I don't understand the bold part, please explain. You meant tracking instead of rotation maybe?
Originally by: Allen Ramses
* A 25% reduction in pulse optimal with a 50% reduction in falloff would nerf pulses just enough to not make them ridiculous anymore. They can keep their DPS, but their range has to be nerfed.
Scorch and nano-age-25%-tracking-boost were the biggest issues iirc, no?
Originally by: Allen Ramses
* ACs need a significant DPS boost. I'm thinking in the area of 33% more alpha, but a 10% reduced ROF. This equates to a 21% DPS boost, and gives ACs their alpha advantage back.
Those were Artilleries not Autocannons iirc. And DPS was not an issue there, just Alpha.
and, cap analysis is on the way, LR FTL 
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 15:31:00 -
[7]
i encourage every one to do a sketch of how damage should be distributed along the various weapon systems. maybe this will lead to more insight.
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.22 09:36:00 -
[8]
i think Nostredeus Morphius illustrated the persumed overall damage distribution quite well (i suppose this is raw weapon dps of t2 long range ammo, without any tracking/sigres/ship bonuses applied, yes?).
the pulses will have a higher range once you put them on the apoc. |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 09:35:00 -
[9]
Originally by: deathstriker seven
2 x mfs t2.
...
3 x hs t2.
hmmm... maybe plainly upping blaster damage isn't that bad an idea.
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 13:50:00 -
[10]
Originally by: deathstriker seven
2. Anybody who mentions tracking as a issue in a discussion about RR gang BS fits is obviosly the clueless one.
it SHOULD not be an issue, indeed. if it IS however, something is amiss, right?
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
|
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 21:53:00 -
[11]
Originally by: deathstriker seven
A intersting blinkered view and snip of my post...
in between those numbers, one needs to make some sort of suggestion.
Originally by: deathstriker seven
Originally by: Chi Quan
it [tracking] SHOULD not be an issue, indeed.
Its not so the fact is asking questions about if it was is a pointless waste of time.
if you have 5+ webs on the target, it isn't yes, but 5+ webs means you are no longer in a small gang. you don't take a blaster boat to situations with plenty of support, amarr ships are and always were better in those situations.
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 18:01:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 02/07/2009 18:02:23
at the end, both will most likely run out of charges at the same time, as the mega needs the cargo for ammo.
Edit: WOOOT! the forums finally let me post something
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 12:23:00 -
[13]
the bonus to webstrength from blasters is odd, really, likewise a web could give a bonus to blaster tracking (and wouldn't produce blaster huggins)
but here is a question: why use webs at all? should they be mandatory to blaster, laser or ac use?
if you ask me they should not be mandatory, but optional.
what should webs do? until today they were used to reduce enemy transversal (tracking computers should do this) and before the nerf to glue your enemy to place (which is still done with multiple webs).
how about removing stacking for webs and only allowing the strongest to apply, no matter the number?
add some tracking and sigres to acs and blasters and nerf scorch a bit, voila.
ot: i'm really getting the hang of the abbadon, that thing beats everything. i'm starting to wonder what purpose was originally intended when it was created, because it surely has both tank and gank to boot.
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 11:23:00 -
[14]
t2 ammo seems to follow a "one-size-fits-all" mindset. you have a lower-tracking-mid-range one and a more-damage-low-range-low-tracking one. this does not suit all guns and is overall odd.
to The Djego: i know how blasters operate, i have flown blaster ships. i am just speaking my thoughts here.
webs are indeed currently needed to keep your target where you want it (they don't do it that good after the last nerf), but what if something else could help you keep the desired range, thus doing away with their role of an anchor?
----
Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
|
|
| |
|