EVE Search - It's time to rebalance the weapons.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

It's time to rebalance the weapons.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
bubbly bird	Posted - 2009.06.03 11:58:00 - [361] Edited by: bubbly bird on 03/06/2009 11:58:03 The fact is that when one ship (tach II apoc) can be sniper fitted so its optimal is virtually at max range and its dps is also way above ALL other snipers as well as having one of the best base tracking figures on its turrets to go with that DPS and range advantage says clearly things are out of balance.
5pinDizzy	Posted - 2009.06.03 12:03:00 - [362] Originally by: CCP Mitnal I would be happy with a troll free discussion culminating in a round up of the issues rather than a lock You mean like the "consensus" you got from the "Balancing - Identifying problems" thread where the majority of the stuff brought from popular opinion got ignored and the thread got buried?
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.06.03 12:23:00 - [363] Originally by: Nuts Nougat Originally by: Deva Blackfire Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 03/06/2009 00:46:33 Actually it was tracking boost+(huge)damage boost at same time that made stuff stupid. 5% damage boost+10-15% tracking should be easily doable. Too late now for me to number crunch tho. Thing is: if you want to fix blasters do not touch damage, it screws waaaaay too many things up. Also on the ACs. 5% damage across the line, slight faloff boost and now... ze tempest: why not change its bonuses towards damage. 10% damage bonus/level (instead of 5% rof 5% damage) and add another 5/7,5/10% faloff/lvl bonus. Up drone bay to 100-125 at the same time. Effect? Tempest still wont be the best damage dealing platform but: you get more-less same DPS from ACs (loses rof but gains 50% damage at lvl5 and another 5% from AC buff) and at the same time gets huge faloff + some more all round damage from drones. Result? Better AC boat with 2 spare hislots (for neuts/nosf warfare), better sniper boat (both range boost from faloff and higher alpha from damage instead of ROF). Just a late night idea tho + i've never flown a pest ;p So i might be totally missing it. What ya think? EDIT: actually i think it wouldnt need larger drone bay after all those changes. current pest is 670gun dps (rf emp) 3+20range. After changes it would be around 670dps but at 3+30 range and 3+45 on barrage. Hmmmm.... barrage hitting up to 80km? ;p O well just an idea. This, except put in optimal instead of falloff bonus. Make it a long range arty platform. Apoc, raven, mega all shoot out to 200km, should the tempest which is also a tier2 bs be different? because Falloff can fill that gap and help AC. Specially if you also make range mods affect faloff as well as range. Imagine with THAT change and a 10% flaoff per level. Tempest arties woudl be 152 Km Optimal and 102 km falloff! That woudl be excelent but still balanced. They would have good range coverage, .. even logner than a megatron... but with a more modest damage curve.
Galan Undris	Posted - 2009.06.03 12:40:00 - [364] Originally by: Seishi Maru because Falloff can fill that gap and help AC. Specially if you also make range mods affect faloff as well as range. Good on paper, but it doesn't hit the issue. The problem is pulses having a very large engagement envelope and still pump out 2nd highest "paper"-dps. Extending ACs falloff will not balance them against pulses unless it pushes decent dps beyond pulse's engagement range, but it will make a much bigger impact on AC vs Blaster combat. That's not what we want as Blasters vs ACs isn't far off where they should be, and a significant falloff boost would skew it a lot in favor of ACs. If pulses are to keep their big engagement envelope, then the other short range weapons need to be buffed inside their current roles (both shorter range). Either that, or pulses need to have either their dps or envelope reduced (tracking or optimal).
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.06.03 13:04:00 - [365] Originally by: 5pinDizzy Originally by: CCP Mitnal I would be happy with a troll free discussion culminating in a round up of the issues rather than a lock You mean like the "consensus" you got from the "Balancing - Identifying problems" thread where the majority of the stuff brought from popular opinion got ignored and the thread got buried? Amen, Brother!
Nuts Nougat Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.06.03 13:45:00 - [366] Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 03/06/2009 13:55:48 Originally by: Seishi Maru because Falloff can fill that gap and help AC. Specially if you also make range mods affect faloff as well as range. Imagine with THAT change and a 10% flaoff per level. Tempest arties woudl be 152 Km Optimal and 102 km falloff! That woudl be excelent but still balanced. They would have good range coverage, .. even logner than a megatron... but with a more modest damage curve. Falloff can never fill that gap... Either way, arty dps is crappy enough, no need to make it even crappier by trying to shoot people in falloff. Even with 100km falloff by the time you're at 50km you're already losing about 30%? damage... the already crappy 300dps becomes 200dps... Might as well bring an eagle then, shoots out to 200km at about same dps, burns out of the bubble faster, aligns out faster. Yes, falloff would give you the possibility of engaging at more than 150km, but if I wanted to be actually more useful than a lolhac I'd have to be <160km anyway... Make maelstrom a dedicated AC boat. People say active tank is **** anyway, lose the booster bonus, give it falloff bonus. Or give optimal bonus to the mael and falloff bonus to the tempest... Give minmatar one ship that can shoot out to 200km at arty dps, it's bad enough already. Falloff just makes it horribad. Also as a fun fact: Tempest/mael fitted with 6 optimal modules (3 rigs, 3 TE/TC) does the exact same dps with arty as a tempest/mael fitted with 3 falloff and 3 optimal modules at 200km. Though it's effective range is a bit longer, by the time falloff setup starts to show advantage both setups are at under 150dps though. Might as well bring my apoc then, with level 3 skills it does better, and with higher tracking... Now don't get me wrong, i think ACs need fixing too, but just a falloff bonus like this will never be enough, and won't help artillery either. Falloff is just horrible like that. You can't just buff raw dps either, because then it'll outdamage everything at point blank and people will whine again. Best idea would be increase base AC falloff to 40km (lose some tracking to prevent them raping frigs at 100km... Though i guess if a pulse apoc can do it, why not a tempest? :D) and base artillery falloff to 80km though. This would make the % falloff per level bonus worthwhile and make ACs interesting to use. With rigs ACs would be able to outrange scorch megapulse on a geddon/abaddon, albeit at half the dps they put out. And arty would shoot out to 200+km at 200dps, which is still less than any other race, but at least you're not getting outperformed by a bloody hac. As for the amount of bonus, keep 10% on the vargur, leave tempest as it is. That way the vargur will have 112km with barrage (comparable to pulsepoc but crap dps, more tracking, and can still scratch your paint at 200km), tempest at 75km, both without falloff rigs. DPS stays crap, but at least you have the range the use your "superior minmatar speed" to stay out of your enemies effective range. But, those are the falloff numbers currently on siege projectiles, so I guess that's not happening either :P ---
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.06.03 13:59:00 - [367] Originally by: Nuts Nougat Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 03/06/2009 13:55:48 Originally by: Seishi Maru because Falloff can fill that gap and help AC. Specially if you also make range mods affect faloff as well as range. Imagine with THAT change and a 10% flaoff per level. Tempest arties woudl be 152 Km Optimal and 102 km falloff! That woudl be excelent but still balanced. They would have good range coverage, .. even logner than a megatron... but with a more modest damage curve. Falloff can never fill that gap... Either way, arty dps is crappy enough, no need to make it even crappier by trying to shoot people in falloff. Even with 100km falloff by the time you're at 50km you're already losing about 30%? damage... the already crappy 300dps becomes 200dps... Might as well bring an eagle then, shoots out to 200km at about same dps, burns out of the bubble faster, aligns out faster. Yes, falloff would give you the possibility of engaging at more than 150km, but if I wanted to be actually more useful than a lolhac I'd have to be <160km anyway... Make maelstrom a dedicated AC boat. People say active tank is **** anyway, lose the booster bonus, give it falloff bonus. Or give optimal bonus to the mael and falloff bonus to the tempest... Give minmatar one ship that can shoot out to 200km at arty dps, it's bad enough already. Falloff just makes it horribad. Also as a fun fact: Tempest/mael fitted with 6 optimal modules (3 rigs, 3 TE/TC) does the exact same dps with arty as a tempest/mael fitted with 3 falloff and 3 optimal modules at 200km. Though it's effective range is a bit longer, by the time falloff setup starts to show advantage both setups are at under 150dps though. Might as well bring my apoc then, with level 3 skills it does better, and with higher tracking... Now don't get me wrong, i think ACs need fixing too, but just a falloff bonus like this will never be enough, and won't help artillery either. Falloff is just horrible like that. You can't just buff raw dps either, because then it'll outdamage everything at point blank and people will whine again. Best idea would be increase base AC falloff to 40km (lose some tracking to prevent them raping frigs at 100km... Though i guess if a pulse apoc can do it, why not a tempest? :D) and base artillery falloff to 80km though. This would make the % falloff per level bonus worthwhile and make ACs interesting to use. With rigs ACs would be able to outrange scorch megapulse on a geddon/abaddon, albeit at half the dps they put out. And arty would shoot out to 200+km at 200dps, which is still less than any other race, but at least you're not getting outperformed by a bloody hac. As for the amount of bonus, keep 10% on the vargur, leave tempest as it is. That way the vargur will have 112km with barrage (comparable to pulsepoc but crap dps, more tracking, and can still scratch your paint at 200km), tempest at 75km, both without falloff rigs. DPS stays crap, but at least you have the range the use your "superior minmatar speed" to stay out of your enemies effective range. But, those are the falloff numbers currently on siege projectiles, so I guess that's not happening either :P run the nubmer before throwing things off. A tempest liek that at 170 km would have MORE damage than a megatron at same range. And at 220 km would be so far ahead of the magatrron that woudl not even be funny.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.06.03 14:17:00 - [368] Originally by: Galan Undris Originally by: Seishi Maru because Falloff can fill that gap and help AC. Specially if you also make range mods affect faloff as well as range. Good on paper, but it doesn't hit the issue. The problem is pulses having a very large engagement envelope and still pump out 2nd highest "paper"-dps. Extending ACs falloff will not balance them against pulses unless it pushes decent dps beyond pulse's engagement range, but it will make a much bigger impact on AC vs Blaster combat. That's not what we want as Blasters vs ACs isn't far off where they should be, and a significant falloff boost would skew it a lot in favor of ACs. If pulses are to keep their big engagement envelope, then the other short range weapons need to be buffed inside their current roles (both shorter range). Either that, or pulses need to have either their dps or envelope reduced (tracking or optimal). that can be corrected by restorign one of the origianl features of ulse lasers. LOW tracking. Remove the old boost of 25% to pulse tracking. Done .. the lasers while havign a wider envelope of engagement will be very bad under 10 km
Nuts Nougat Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.06.03 14:22:00 - [369] Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 03/06/2009 14:21:49 Originally by: Seishi Maru run the nubmer before throwing things off. A tempest liek that at 170 km would have MORE damage than a megatron at same range. And at 220 km would be so far ahead of the magatrron that woudl not even be funny. And still well behind the apoc. I think that tells a lot tbh... ---
Deva Blackfire D00M.	Posted - 2009.06.03 14:55:00 - [370] Originally by: Nuts Nougat Best idea would be increase base AC falloff to 40km (lose some tracking to prevent them raping frigs at 100km... 50km with skills, 75km with barrage? Sorry mate but thats not "outdamaging" apoc. Thats up to 120-140km frig killer = using ACs at sniping range. Not gonna happen. And thats even without thinking about "faloff bonus". Thats also around 300dps at 78km (barrage) without mounting any modules (except for 3 gyrostabs). Even apoc cant reach that far without tracking boosts. Its just another dream world, same as "70% blaster damage boost". Well i even think that in my idea 10%/lvl was too much (especially after looking @ 45km faloff on barrage). But i guess problem is not guns but ship itself when we look at pest. Some want it to be arti boat, others ac boat. I guess CCP should decide what role tempest does fit. I always saw it as fast AC/cap warfare boat (due to 2 free hislots), others as typical cheap arti boat (dunno why tho, iirc mael is better arti boat anyways). Not saying a word about phoon coz its quite decent ship.

Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.06.03 17:46:00 - [371] Originally by: Deva Blackfire 50km with skills, 75km with barrage? Sorry mate but thats not "outdamaging" apoc. Thats up to 120-140km frig killer = using ACs at sniping range. Not gonna happen. And thats even without thinking about "faloff bonus". Thats also around 300dps at 78km (barrage) without mounting any modules (except for 3 gyrostabs). Even apoc cant reach that far without tracking boosts. ?????? That is totally on par with the weapon characteristics, and would give it all the same bonuses as Pulse lasers currently enjoy on an Apoc. So you must be saying that the Apoc with Pulses is OP. And come on now, a frigate at 140km (opt + 2 x Falloff) away from a bunch of BS's is not going to be saying.. "Oh Noes, I am in AC range." Some of your arguments are pretty freaking thin dude. Give me a break.
FU22 Beyond Transcendence	Posted - 2009.06.03 18:04:00 - [372] Edited by: FU22 on 03/06/2009 18:04:09 Warning Mega Post: Ok imo the weapons need to work as the following: Lasers: -Most range (Which it is now) -Most cap requirement (which it is now) -Good damage -Average tracking Blasters: -Least range -About quarter/half cap requirement as lasers -Insane damage (like it is now) -A bit extra tracking to lasers but NO MORE Missles: -basically exactly how they are now Projectiles: -Less range then lasers but a bit more then blasters -No cap requirement except t2 ammo -Less damage then lasers/blasters but a bit extra then missles -Good tracking The damage type they deal should be the same as it is now obviously. That too me looks pretty balanced... Missles have the least because of being able to switch out for whatever damage type they want and basically having pretty good range already. I do think that the projectiles need a bit of love to sort them out, i'm not really sure whats wrong with them but as i am aware they need a bit of love Imo leave blasters and lasers alone, they are fine. Stop ur whining that your megathron can't kill frigates orbiting at 500m, lasers can't do it either As a side note, damage increase on blasters? are you having a laugh? 99% of the time fights end up at point blank range, thus blasters at full damage, more then that will turn the weapons into even more of a **** up. Ok I think i'm done EDIT: post bugged a bit and buggered up paragraphs
Deva Blackfire D00M.	Posted - 2009.06.03 18:09:00 - [373] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: Deva Blackfire 50km with skills, 75km with barrage? Sorry mate but thats not "outdamaging" apoc. Thats up to 120-140km frig killer = using ACs at sniping range. Not gonna happen. And thats even without thinking about "faloff bonus". Thats also around 300dps at 78km (barrage) without mounting any modules (except for 3 gyrostabs). Even apoc cant reach that far without tracking boosts. ?????? That is totally on par with the weapon characteristics, and would give it all the same bonuses as Pulse lasers currently enjoy on an Apoc. So you must be saying that the Apoc with Pulses is OP. RAGERAGERAGE Now read up and you will see that the proposed idea is AFTER boosting ACs BASE faloff to 40km (so 2x boost) and then adding ANOTHER 1,5x faloff bonus to ship. This means the range gets increased 3x before we even include skills and barrage. 60km faloff on EMP? Yes apoc has that range on guns. It pays with decent cap use + worse tracking + needs to use lows to get that far. FYI apoc range is 62+10 maxskill (no TEs). TBH if ya want to do this, sure go for it. Just kill tracking to level of pulse lasers. Either long range weapon with poor tracking or short-mid with good. And sitting 80km from it in frig? I would be worried if it was bomber or EAS.
bubbly bird	Posted - 2009.06.03 18:47:00 - [374] Originally by: FU22 Warning Mega Post: Ok imo the weapons need to work as the following: Lasers: -Most range (Which it is now) -Most cap requirement (which it is now) -Good damage -Average tracking In other words the 2 most important attributes of range and damage they get: The best by far in range. And apart from a tiny window at 4-6km (that they still do very very high dmg) they also do the highest dps from like 6-55km?. But the 2 least important cap (cos of injectors) and tracking (cos of webs) they have very small down sides. Originally by: FU22 Blasters: -Least range -About quarter/half cap requirement as lasers -Insane damage (like it is now) -A bit extra tracking to lasers but NO MORE 1. How do you consider blasters to have insane dmg?, i think the only insane thing here is you if you do. 2. They need a LOT more tracking than lasers. Originally by: FU22 Projectiles: -Less range then lasers but a bit more then blasters -No cap requirement except t2 ammo -Less damage then lasers/blasters but a bit extra then missles -Good tracking So less range than lasers AND less dmg?..... Let me guess you fly amarr?.............
Nostredeus Morphius Minmatar Beyond Transcendence	Posted - 2009.06.03 18:51:00 - [375] Lets be honest here, most people are trying to push forward their own agenda and not many people are actually considering balance here. This really is becoming an opportunity for lots of people to try and make their race the best instead of an opportunity for all for all of us to come to a final decision on what should happen. If we can come to a consensus(or a general yeah this seems good lets try it out, sure I have misgivings about some points but I will give it a go on the test server) the CCP may actually whack it into the next test server build and we can see what works and what doesn't. So lets look at what the general consensus is in this thread (not including the "lol lets give ac's optimal" and "lol lets give blasters the ability to mash up frigs at 20km" posts) From what I can tell anyone who flies Amarr often is generally happy with it, and a lot of people who seem to not fly Amarr are also saying it's fine but it wouldn't hurt giving it a 5%-7.5% tracking decrease. (some people are crying that they need a massive nerf - see bottom of post) Just looking through the thread again it seems that most Blaster pilots are using this opportunity to voice concerns about the tracking of Blasters due to the web nerfs, and otehrs are using this opportunity to make their mega's into DDD wielding titans and are suggesting large damage boosts. Lets assume the second group of people are brain damaged or have only been playing a month and want to know why their mega doesn't poon Jita. In which case the general consensus is to increase tracking a bit, the average number seems to be 7.5%-10% to compensate for the web nerf. On to the third gunnery system; Auto canons, it seems as if most people are pushing for either an optimal increase, a falloff increase, a damage increase or multiples of the three. This weapon system is one I know a lot about as it is the one I have used most since starting the game a long time ago, so I feel qualified to give a suitable summary. Auto cannons have always been about dictating range, coming in close when you want to go under the tracking of lasers and going out to a distance when you want to avoid the damage of blasters. This used to be great (it was one of the reasons they were the most used weapon in PvP) but then the nano nerf came in and with it came the speed nerf that Minmatar effectively took, this meant that it was harder to dictate ranges and therefore difficult to take advantage of auto cannons. So how can we fix this? Well the easiest solution is to give minny the ability to nano but to be fair I believe that not only has that ship sailed but if it came back to port you would make minny lol op. Therefore the question becomes how do we fix this without giving minny the ability to nano? You need to make it so that Auto cannons can dictate range sooner and apply the damage faster so that instead of travelling at a faster speed dictating range they travel at a slower speed and can still dictate range. Of course a slower speed means they will be able to dictate range for less time and should therefore put down more damage than they used to over that period of time. (Smaller amount of time + larger damage output) = (larger amount of time + smaller damage output) We also have to make sure that Auto Cannons don't become overpowered when placed on heavily tanking ships with their increased damage (although heavily tanking armour ships are slow and can't dictate range well), therefore we need to keep the damage increase mild. Giving Auto Cannons a falloff and damage bonus will help them to dictate range again as well as apply the same amount of damage as they used to over the decreased period of time. Fall off buffs need to be large to have any noticeable effect and therefore should be in the region of 20% to 25% increased fall off. Damage buffs are immediate generally but in the case of Auto cannons in fall off are less effective, therefore a damage increase of 10% should do. ---------------- ASS movie for your viewing pleasure.
Nostredeus Morphius Minmatar Beyond Transcendence	Posted - 2009.06.03 18:51:00 - [376] Sorry for having to use two posts but if I don't explain everything clearly enough some slightly less gifted people than most of you will cry about it. The reason why I didn't suggest an optimal range buff is it doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't allow auto's to dictate range it simply increases their damage over their previous range, fall off however limits the impact of a damage buff whilst also allowing the dictation of range. To summarise Lasers - 5% to 7.5% trackign decrease (general consensus) Blasters - 7.5% to 10% tracking increase (general consensus) Auto cannons - 20% to 25% fall off increase 10% damage increase (general consensus with some personal opinion) Thanks for reading, I may post again concerning long ranged weapons more specifically the artillerys. ---------------- ASS movie for your viewing pleasure.
bubbly bird	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:00:00 - [377] Edited by: bubbly bird on 03/06/2009 19:03:53 Originally by: Nostredeus Morphius To summarise Lasers - 5% to 7.5% trackign decrease (general consensus) Worthless as in gang combat webs make tracking unimportant. Originally by: Nostredeus Morphius Blasters - 7.5% to 10% tracking increase (general consensus) Also pretty worthless for the same reason as the laser tracking nerf would be, unless you want to make blasters into solo ships again and then tracking needs to be increased by a crap tonne more than 10%. Originally by: Nostredeus Morphius Auto cannons - 20% to 25% fall off increase 10% damage increase (general consensus with some personal opinion) Mayber but i have not done the math.
Electric Universe The Choir	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:09:00 - [378] Edited by: Electric Universe on 03/06/2009 19:15:06 I'm in for a 7.5% tracking boost to Large Blasters AS LONG it doesn't goes into easy mode for frigs and cruiser instakilling. Even if they boost the tracking by 7.5%, you still have to work hard to kill frigs and cruisers before i accept that boost. It should not be easy to do that now anyways. We have to test that out on Sisi to see how it is. I already know how easy it can be to kill cruisers pretty easily and the same with frigs (to some points) if your a very experienced Blaster pilot. If a 7.5% tracking boost is easily killing frigs and cruisers, then i will go totally against it again then. Because the web nerf was to prevent Large Blasters for example to kill frigs and cruisers so easily, like they did before the web nerf. Even if 0.1% tracking boost would go towards frigs and cruiser instakilling, then i would still be very very against it. But don't touch the DPS on the Blasters EVER, because it's good enough by a good margin. And don't touch the range on Blasters to. Blasters is the shortest range weapons in EVE. Originally by: bubbly bird Edited by: bubbly bird on 03/06/2009 19:03:53 Originally by: Nostredeus Morphius To summarise Lasers - 5% to 7.5% trackign decrease (general consensus) Worthless as in gang combat webs make tracking unimportant. I just have to LOL hard to that. Oh wow, so how is a tracking boost to Blasters important then?. Gang combat makes tracking unimportants as you say when the targets gets webbed. So how will a tracking boost to Blasters help then?. If a tracking boost to Blasters will help there, then for sure a tracking nerf to Lasers will also help in that situation.
Rhadamantine Game Community	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:14:00 - [379] Just out of curiosity, which weapon system do you use Electric Universe? I've tried to look you up, but have not found any information. So far I actually like the route this thread has taken, it's far more constructive than most.
bubbly bird	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:15:00 - [380] Edited by: bubbly bird on 03/06/2009 19:16:19 Originally by: Electric Universe I just have to LOL hard to that. Oh wow, so how is a tracking boost to Blasters important then?. Gang combat makes tracking unimportants as you say when the targets gets webbed. So how will a tracking boost to Blasters help then?. If a tracking boost to Blasters will help there, then for sure a tracking nerf to Lasers will also help. You may have loled but you still edited out the part that explained it.... Maybe if you had left the bit you just deliberatly edited out you would understand.......

Rhadamantine Game Community	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:23:00 - [381] OK, but with the complexity of the game, wouldn't actual use of a weapon system give you more information about it? I don't use Blasters, so therefore I don't feel able to make comment on them. So far I've seen many that do use them, asking for a damage boost. I tend to relate to those tbh and that is not meant as a disrespect to you, just how I see it.
bubbly bird	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:24:00 - [382] Edited by: bubbly bird on 03/06/2009 19:28:42 Originally by: Electric Universe Originally by: bubbly bird Edited by: bubbly bird on 03/06/2009 19:16:19 Originally by: Electric Universe I just have to LOL hard to that. Oh wow, so how is a tracking boost to Blasters important then?. Gang combat makes tracking unimportants as you say when the targets gets webbed. So how will a tracking boost to Blasters help then?. If a tracking boost to Blasters will help there, then for sure a tracking nerf to Lasers will also help. You may have loled but you still edited out the part that explained it.... Maybe if you had left the bit you just deliberatly edited out you would understand....... Still, dreaming for a tracking boost more than 10 max is never going to happen. You know exactly what will happen if Blasters gets more than 10% tracking boost. Your a dumb monkey if you don't see what will happens then. But like i said, i'm in for a 7.5% tracking boost as long it doesn't make it into easy mode when it's about killing frigs and cruisers again. Why post % figures and make claims of what should and should not be done without actually testing their effectivness first.
Electric Universe The Choir	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:34:00 - [383] Edited by: Electric Universe on 03/06/2009 19:36:22 Originally by: bubbly bird Edited by: bubbly bird on 03/06/2009 19:28:42 Originally by: Electric Universe Originally by: bubbly bird Edited by: bubbly bird on 03/06/2009 19:16:19 Originally by: Electric Universe I just have to LOL hard to that. Oh wow, so how is a tracking boost to Blasters important then?. Gang combat makes tracking unimportants as you say when the targets gets webbed. So how will a tracking boost to Blasters help then?. If a tracking boost to Blasters will help there, then for sure a tracking nerf to Lasers will also help. You may have loled but you still edited out the part that explained it.... Maybe if you had left the bit you just deliberatly edited out you would understand....... Still, dreaming for a tracking boost more than 10 max is never going to happen. You know exactly what will happen if Blasters gets more than 10% tracking boost. Your a dumb monkey if you don't see what will happens then. But like i said, i'm in for a 7.5% tracking boost as long it doesn't make it into easy mode when it's about killing frigs and cruisers again. Why post % figures and make claims of what should and should not be done without actually testing their effectivness first. Many that use Large Blasters every day that i know about doesn't cry that they have problems to kill frigs and cruisers or other ship types. They just say it's much harder to kill frigs and cruisers, but are still killing them, because they know how to do it right. I'm sure they know how good the Blasters is and they are actually testing the Blasters good enough to say Blasters is fine. For what Blasters are designed to do, they are 100% fine atm. The only reason you scream for a boost to Blasters is ONLY because of Lasers. But then, everybody knows that Lasers are a little overpowered today. So it's just stupid to compare Blasters to Lasers then.
bubbly bird	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:38:00 - [384] Originally by: Electric Universe Uhm, LOL, your doing something very wrong then. No im not you just have no idea how these systems operate. Originally by: Electric Universe You still have to work really hard to be able to kill a frig with Large Blasters. It's very possible to kill a frig in a BS with Large Blasters ONLy if your smart enough. Not if the frig pilot has a brain its not and you would know that if you had ever flown a blaster BS. Originally by: Electric Universe RING RING, the bell is ringing. The web nerf was to prevent ships with Large Blasters or other ships with Large guns to kill frigs and eventually cruisers easily. RING RING, you and others in this thread and others have gone on and on about how blaster ships are supposed to be solo ships and then you say they should suck against virtually every ship in the game that is smaller than they are. MAKE UP YOUR MIND YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH. Originally by: Electric Universe And now your going omg omg i can't kill a frig easily in a BS with Large Blasters. OMG GIVE THE BLASTERS A BOOST. Personally i could not give a toss about blasters easily hitting frigs id rather see blaster BS being boosted so they are more effective in the only sort of combat BS really have available to them...GANG COMBAT. But you tend dribble on about blaster BS supposedly being solo ships and if that is the case they should be made to be effective solo shoips and have the ability to destroy small ships reasonably easily in their optimal. SO AS I SAID MAKE UP YOUR MIND ARE YOU GONNA BOOST THEM TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE SOLO SHIPS OR MORE EFFECTIVE GANG SHIPS.
bubbly bird	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:43:00 - [385] Edited by: bubbly bird on 03/06/2009 19:46:52 Originally by: Electric Universe Many that use Large Blasters every day that i know about doesn't cry that they have problems to kill frigs and cruisers or other ship types. They just say it's much harder to kill frigs and cruisers, but are still killing them, because they know how to do it right. A easy claim to make but i have yet to see anybody jump into this thread to back you up with a recient and long list of kills against frigs ect while they were flying solo blaster BS..... Myself along with others are getting tired of your constant "i know ppl who know ppl who iz uber blaster BS solo pvpers so every thing is fine and anybody who disagrees suxors at pvp" bull. So to coin a popular EVE phrase "PROOF OR STFU".
Electric Universe The Choir	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:47:00 - [386] Edited by: Electric Universe on 03/06/2009 19:52:30 Originally by: bubbly bird Originally by: Electric Universe Uhm, LOL, your doing something very wrong then. No im not you just have no idea how these systems operate. Originally by: Electric Universe You still have to work really hard to be able to kill a frig with Large Blasters. It's very possible to kill a frig in a BS with Large Blasters ONLy if your smart enough. Not if the frig pilot has a brain its not and you would know that if you had ever flown a blaster BS. Originally by: Electric Universe RING RING, the bell is ringing. The web nerf was to prevent ships with Large Blasters or other ships with Large guns to kill frigs and eventually cruisers easily. RING RING, you and others in this thread and others have gone on and on about how blaster ships are supposed to be solo ships and then you say they should suck against virtually every ship in the game that is smaller than they are. MAKE UP YOUR MIND YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH. Originally by: Electric Universe And now your going omg omg i can't kill a frig easily in a BS with Large Blasters. OMG GIVE THE BLASTERS A BOOST. Personally i could not give a toss about blasters easily hitting frigs id rather see blaster BS being boosted so they are more effective in the only sort of combat BS really have available to them...GANG COMBAT. But you tend dribble on about blaster BS supposedly being solo ships and if that is the case they should be made to be effective solo shoips and have the ability to destroy small ships reasonably easily in their optimal. SO AS I SAID MAKE UP YOUR MIND ARE YOU GONNA BOOST THEM TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE SOLO SHIPS OR MORE EFFECTIVE GANG SHIPS. To the first thing. I for sure knows how they work. I know Large Blasters isn't supposed to kill frigs and cruisers as easily as you want them to kill them. 2nd thing. Alright, the player is smarter than you. And that means he knows 100% how to kill you and you will have poroblems then. And because your in a BS, your not supposed to kill him so easily anyways. Any players in whatever ship that is smarter than you can kill your Blaster Mega with no problems. 3rd thing. And then you goes bawwwww Solo PVP doesn't exist today if we tell that a Blaster Mega is a good Solo / Small PVP ship. So is there a point to say it's a good solo pvp ships if you moan bawwww solo PVP is dead all the time then?. 4th thing. In gang combat where we use Blaster Megas today in RR gangs are very very effective if a skilled and experienced player are piloting that Blaster Mega. It have been shown billions of times and still yhou want the Blasters to be even better. Deva posted several links to the Tri kb earlier where he did shows how effective an RR gang with Blaster Megas and RR geddons can be. If Blasters gets a boost bigger than 7.5% to tracking, it will just be to good / overpowered. And will just be FOTM and OP again. Originally by: bubbly bird Edited by: bubbly bird on 03/06/2009 19:46:52 Originally by: Electric Universe Many that use Large Blasters every day that i know about doesn't cry that they have problems to kill frigs and cruisers or other ship types. They just say it's much harder to kill frigs and cruisers, but are still killing them, because they know how to do it right. A easy claim to make but i have yet to see anybody jump into this thread to back you up with a recient and long list of kills against frigs ect while they were flying solo blaster BS..... Myself along with others are getting tired of your constant "i know ppl who know ppl who iz uber blaster BS solo pvpers so every thing is fine and anybody who disagrees suxors at pvp" bull. So to coin a popular EVE phrase "PROOF OR STFU". My proof is: Ask Darknesss or Leilani Solaris for example if you have the balls to get the proof smashed into your face yourself. I'm sure they will teach you how to use Blasters right if they have the time to do it.
Lord Eremet	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:51:00 - [387] I would rather see that CCP fixes the tracking formula first before they give any ship a tracking boost. Then when thats done they could do a fair comparison of all races guns and boost/nerf tracking as they see fit. More damage for blasters? Auto-cannons need at least a 10% increase before blasters do. That "identify problems-thread that CCP moved elsewhere (I assume they did it because they don't want to spend resources at fixing it) clearly showed that the General consensus is that projectiles is one of 3 big things that need fixing. If thats not enough for CCP then nothing never will be. Deva, the Tempest is the fleet ship for artys. Maelstrom is to big and cumbersome to be in fleets and the shieldtanking bonus is just lol in that area. AC's is the way to go with it rigged with ambits.
Nostredeus Morphius Minmatar Beyond Transcendence	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:54:00 - [388] I have to laugh at how much you all flame each other, you do realise that as a business CCP is not as likely to respond in a thread where everyone is bickering like little kids. Originally by: bubbly bird Edited by: bubbly bird on 03/06/2009 19:03:53 Stuff... Okay I want to respond to this as best as I can for you, basically you are looking at the balance of the weapon systems as separate entities. They are all related so their changes should be related, the tracking decrease on the lasers is not for the lasers as much as it is for the other two weapon systems, at the moment lasers (as someone correctly said) are best from about 8km+ if auto canons are to dictate range to lasers they need to do that safely within that 8km therefore the lasers could acceptably loose a bit of tracking and it wouldn't effect them too much. I want to say at this point that I am happy leaving lasers alone but that the consensus is to reduce their tracking, which is what I put in the brackets. Blasters will need to be able to contend with ships within their optimal, personally I see little wrong with them but a slight tracking increase wont hurt them and that seems to be the general consensus. Also you say you haven't done the maths, seeing as the weapon systems are linked you clearly have little to no data to work from and therefore scientifically speaking you are not likely to be right in your opinion. ---------------- ASS movie for your viewing pleasure.
Electric Universe The Choir	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:55:00 - [389] Originally by: Lord Eremet I would rather see that CCP fixes the tracking formula first before they give any ship a tracking boost. Then when thats done they could do a fair comparison of all races guns and boost/nerf tracking as they see fit. Yes, this is something i have said many times here already. I know there are issues in the tracking formula that makes Blasters for example in some situations to be poor. But hey, it's not Blasters fault. So before i eventually accept a 7.5% tracking boost to large Blasters, then i want to see the tracking formula fixed. And then lets see how each weapons are performing.
bubbly bird	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:55:00 - [390] Originally by: Electric Universe To the first thing. I for sure knows how they work. I know Large Blasters isn't supposed toi kill frigs and cruisers as easily as you want them to kill them. I already told you i think that solo pvp is dead for BS so i do not care if BS blasters can easily hit frigs. Originally by: Electric Universe Alright, the player is smarter than you. And that means he knows 100% how to kill you and you will have poroblems then. And because your in a BS, your not supposed to kill him so easily anyways. Any players in whatever ship that is smarter than you can kill your Blaster Mega with no problems. Its not about being smarter its about basic piloting knowledge and the ability of the ships allowing frigs to easily tackle and hold a BS while remaning immune. Originally by: Electric Universe And then you goes bawwwww Solo PVP doesn't exist today if we tell thast a Megathron is a good Solo / Small PVP ship. So is there a point to say it's a good solo pvp ships if you moan bawwww solo PVP is dead all the time?. Thats the point, solo B pvp is dead so the ships that were used for it need adjusting to be better at what is now avaiulable for them. Do try to keep up. Originally by: Electric Universe In gang combat where we use Blaster megas today in RR gangs are very very effective if a skilled and experienced player are piloting that Blaster Mega. it have been shown billions of times and still you want the Blasters to be even better. Just because they CAN be useful does not mean things are balanced. Originally by: Electric Universe Deva posted several links to the Tri kb where he did shows how effective an RR gang with Blaster Megas and RR geddons can be. And he is also one of the ppl asking for buffs/adjustment.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.