| 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) |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
   |
Posted - 2009.06.30 13:50:00 -
[631]
 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 |
deathstriker seven
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 14:52:00 -
[632]
Originally by: Chi Quan
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.
Its not so the fact is asking questions about if it was is a pointless waste of time.
|
Nostredeus Morphius
Minmatar
Judgement.
Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 18:28:00 -
[633]
Originally by: The Djego
Edited by: The Djego on 30/06/2009 09:26:16
Im not realy shure where you want to go with the range penalty, since your examples donŠt make this mutch sense in practical piloting(no offence here, your examples are look a bit strange since they allready donŠt work so good with the current invironment).
Holding your Hac at 13-15km is pure suizide vs a Mega because you try to outmanuver a Mega at a point where it hits you perfectly well(any serious Hac pilote should know this, Gedon/Abaddon basicly the same with the exeption that damage donŠt fades past 20km), you will stay at 20km or even go 22-23 km to get a proper chance to stay in this fight as long as possible(you still will have a point where you need to burn away against Neutrons + Null).
Thats bascily what I writen down before, the Mega is more effective out of Web range than within Web range vs smaller stuff...
Basicly it is a improvement of Blasterships in her combat environment(web range) to a point where you have again a advantage of close range(instead of only taking all the disavantages) and other ships might consider to stay out of Web range again so the focus goes back to catching targets by good piloting instead of toying around with them in web range. Beeing more flexible vs small stuff and the ability to dedicate combat range, once the web is applied within Web range helps a lot and bring the ships closer to where they where pre QR from ballance/gameplay point of view.
It also scales well, from solo where it would be most effective, to small gang where you can improve your role as heavy tackler till bigger gangs(where it would not change mutch at a point where multiple webs are on the target).
I have to say, I believe you are a very experienced player with a lot of interesting ideas (if your scrapheap posts are anything to go by) which is why I am putting the appropriate time into these suggestions.
I believe that with my proposed changes you will find minmatar ships fighting in their optimal of around 12km much more frequently (or just above that when in fall off) and their only advantage (in a combat situation, not which advantages ac's have over blasters) over galante would be to keep out of range of their blasters and still do a decent amount of damage.
To dictate this range and keep out of blasters way they will use their superior capacitor use to run the MWD more as well as webs to reduce the ability for blasters to catch up.
If blaster boats were able to reduce speed better than the minmatar ac boats at the same range the mechanic will not work and minmatar will be as dire as they are currently.
Of course I am assuming the changes I have suggested are considered for large ac's, which is only natural.
By reducing the range of the galante boats webs minmatar will still be able to kite them using a single web. If a minmatar boat fell within the reduced blaster boat web range it would not be able to dictate range against them any longer and would therefore have a much harder time and eventually fall into blaster optimal.
This also applies some what to hac's and recons.
I see no down side to not reducing the range of web's, it still provides blasters with all of the advantage of stronger webs in their optimal and even most of their optimal + 1x falloff. (assuming certain ammo types)
But as well as that it also allows T2 cruiser to hold shorter distances when combating bs's (yes of course a T2 cruiser pilot may choose to fly at the distances you have posted but this gives them a larger reaction time and options) and therefore allowing them to increase the tracking required by those battleships to do any real damage. (seeing as tracking uses radial velocity)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the rr argument goes tracking is not an issue if assuming the only ships in the opposite gang are also rr bs's otherwise it does play a role, all be it a small on
|
The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 20:28:00 -
[634]
Edited by: The Djego on 30/06/2009 20:29:50
Originally by: Nostredeus Morphius
Originally by: The Djego
stuff
Originally by: Nostredeus Morphius
I have to say, I believe you are a very experienced player with a lot of interesting ideas (if your scrapheap posts are anything to go by) which is why I am putting the appropriate time into these suggestions.
Well thx.
I know the Web strenth bonus sounds compleetly crazy(serious it looks compleetly out of place and out of the common ship ballence). The main reason for this idea is, many people where against the hole tracking\DPS improvement because of the RR gang situation(where the Mega is quite situational, it canŠt hurt to have 1-2 in your gang but in many situation a Amarr BS is more handy for the gang by my experience). The web bonus donŠt improves the RR gang BS, it improves that what clearly seperate gallente ships from amarr ones(solo play and more flexiblity in the target selction with limited tackle like it was pre QR).
The issues might not be this important to many people but if you are ready to fight real 1o1s against resonable fitted, good piloted ships and max skilled chars it realy fast displys his flaws. This is my personal benchmark, a blastership should be as good as the pilote in 1o1s, you win/lose by piloting once both players field resonalbe setups. Last one was actualy a 5km/s stabber vs my Thorax(both chars 50M+ SP and heavy speced, pre QR) we both did some minor mistakes but I could beat him in structure, since I managed to web him once for a couple of seconds. That doesnŠt mean a blastership is superior in this fights, but it can win this fights if you manage to do the piloting a bit better than your oponent.
Originally by: Nostredeus Morphius
I believe that with my proposed changes you will find minmatar ships fighting in their optimal of around 12km much more frequently (or just above that when in fall off) and their only advantage (in a combat situation, not which advantages ac's have over blasters) over galante would be to keep out of range of their blasters and still do a decent amount of damage.
To dictate this range and keep out of blasters way they will use their superior capacitor use to run the MWD more as well as webs to reduce the ability for blasters to catch up.
The 12km sounds like a medium AK scenario. The problem with this is you want more range, preferable 5km+(outside of scram/web range) to prevent to get scramed or webed at all with a overheated MWD cycle. In a Stabber/Vaga you wonŠt have scram/web what puts you to a serious disavantage once webbed. What matters here is the speed advantage and the awareness to not get to close in the end, shure you will do bad damage but your oponent will do next to zero.
On a Rupture for example this issue is not realy there. You got a EHP + range advantage against a DPS advantage in a 1o1 scenario. Even with a stronger Web this fight would be won/lost by skills/implants and the first 10 Seconds once you enter Web range(by the timing and the range you will end up to each other once web + scram is active), it is actualy this equal that I ended up with 10% structure against a max skilled Rupture on sissi(with a anti explosive rig and both overloading form the start/max skills/trying to outmanuver each other).
Well my personal sugestion was/is to bring T1/faction amno on par with the other amnos and increase DPS dealed at optimal+falloff to 50-60% with a falloff rework(including reducing the falloff of BS blasters a bit). With this Aks gain 10% more DPS at point blank and 20-30% at optimal+falloff. Aditional to this a slight improvement of Falloff with bigger gun tiers(like on the other weapons systems, a bigger gun should give you a range advantage, what isnŠt optimal for AKs).
Artis need her clip size doubled and more alpha in exchange for ROF(DPS should also a bit higher about 5-10%).
----
Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus
Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 21:53:00 -
[635]
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 |
The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 22:38:00 -
[636]
Originally by: Nostredeus Morphius
If blaster boats were able to reduce speed better than the minmatar ac boats at the same range the mechanic will not work and minmatar will be as dire as they are currently.
Of course I am assuming the changes I have suggested are considered for large ac's, which is only natural.
By reducing the range of the galante boats webs minmatar will still be able to kite them using a single web. If a minmatar boat fell within the reduced blaster boat web range it would not be able to dictate range against them any longer and would therefore have a much harder time and eventually fall into blaster optimal.
Well kiting should happen out of web range, not within(or at least to a point where the Blaster ship can dictate range if it donŠt screw up and ends up in 5km+ screnarios for sub BS blasters). On the frig and cruiser level this is still mostly won/lost by the point you apply web/scram. If you finished your MWD cycle(before you enter web range so less than 10s MWD running) put scram/web on as soon as you enter web range with a Thorax, if not try to bump and apply it after this, in a Rupture you will watch the speed closely and try to envade the path of the Rax(avoid the bump and apply scram/web as soon it starts to drop under the 200m/s mark and reached max distance).
For example the Thorax lands around 3km of the Rupture, it takes around 40 Seconds(with the web strenght role bonus) to get to 2km where you can deal max DPS with a Electron fitting in this case the Rax will start a bit off but actualy can compensate it with the higher speed in web range.
If this ends at 5-6km you alleady won this round in resonalbe fitted Rupture, since before the Thorax can actualy apply more DPS the fight will allready be over(including the option to wast 10 Seconds of DPS by switching to Null).
I agree that this donŠt works for large Aks vs large Blasters atm, but the Phoon got the option to outcap the oponent at close range and the mael to outtank it, it is mostly the pest that is lacking here(ofc it can kill a Blastership with double web or TDs if played right, still it lacks a deacend advantage in the end).
Originally by: Nostredeus Morphius
This also applies some what to hac's and recons.
I see no down side to not reducing the range of web's, it still provides blasters with all of the advantage of stronger webs in their optimal and even most of their optimal + 1x falloff. (assuming certain ammo types)
But as well as that it also allows T2 cruiser to hold shorter distances when combating bs's (yes of course a T2 cruiser pilot may choose to fly at the distances you have posted but this gives them a larger reaction time and options) and therefore allowing them to increase the tracking required by those battleships to do any real damage. (seeing as tracking uses radial velocity)
You are right it is a streght improvement what would be out of place if you are not slower than Minmatar ships or have a worse DPS\EHP ballance than Amarr/Caldari ship.
I know that this should be not a stand alone change, but also happens with a improvement of Aks at the same time, to keep the ballance between Mini/Gallente ballance while improving both to the level of lasers. Not actualy matching her ranged DPS advantage but filling the small gang/solo role better by being flexible with range or simply being more flexible at close range.
For the T2 Cruiser, well the only T2 cruiser that would have it is the Diemost. Last time I used it was to salvage a recon wreck in a belt and got visited by a rupture and rifter, first one died, last one get away. The Diemost isnŠt a bad ship at itself but it is a bad ship for his price tag and copared to the Ishtar.
----
Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus
Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 08:51:00 -
[637]
Originally by: Nostredeus Morphius
This also applies some what to hac's and recons.
I see no down side to not reducing the range of web's, it still provides blasters with all of the advantage of stronger webs in their optimal and even most of their optimal + 1x falloff. (assuming certain ammo types)
But as well as that it also allows T2 cruiser to hold shorter distances when combating bs's (yes of course a T2 cruiser pilot may choose to fly at the distances you have posted but this gives them a larger reaction time and options) and therefore allowing them to increase the tracking required by those battleships to do any real damage. (seeing as tracking uses radial velocity)
You are right it is a streght improvement what would be out of place if you are not slower than Minmatar ships or have a worse DPS\EHP ballance than Amarr/Caldari ship while all of them outranging blasters.
I know that this should be not a stand alone change, but also happens with a improvement of Projektiels at the same time, to keep the ballance between Mini/Gallente while improving both to the level of lasers. Not actualy matching her ranged DPS advantage but filling the small gang/solo role better by being flexible with range or simply being more flexible at close range.
For the T2 Cruiser, well the only T2 cruiser that would have it is the Diemost.
Yes it would gain a improved ability to reduce DPS by orbiting BS, but you actualy donŠt realy want to go solo against most BS in your Diemost anyway since a single Neut will kill you by leaving you without DPS in web\scram range. In gang fights you will have enught Webs on you that anything will hit you well. A Ishtar is allready far superior for something like this, since it can fit dualrep tank, a cap booster and a second Web or TD. I canŠt see a issue with this on the Deimost since the ship is allready somewhat lacking for a HAC.
----
Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus
Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
1072
Fliegerkorps
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 09:41:00 -
[638]
after playing arround eft a bit more..
I totally gave up
in 2 months I will max all skills for amarr bs. Actually near half of my corp is cross training amarr..
Everybody will be flying same ships, how cool is that !
-boombastica !- |
Siona Windweaver
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 10:31:00 -
[639]
Edited by: Siona Windweaver on 01/07/2009 10:31:25
Originally by: 1072
after playing arround eft a bit more..
I totally gave up
in 2 months I will max all skills for amarr bs. Actually near half of my corp is cross training amarr..
Everybody will be flying same ships, how cool is that !
(Off topic post)
Start training or create Minmatarr alt for the inevitable boost. The ones that created Amarr characters 3 years ago are now reaping the rewards of their patience.
|
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 14:05:00 -
[640]
Originally by: 1072
after playing arround eft a bit more..
I totally gave up
in 2 months I will max all skills for amarr bs. Actually near half of my corp is cross training amarr..
Everybody will be flying same ships, how cool is that !
If the only data available is an indication, in some months you'll discover some problems and revert that tendency. This reverse tendency is already quite obvious in the only available graphs.
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=666
|
Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Corp 1 Allstars
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 15:31:00 -
[641]
So who actually uses the Abaddon for RR gangs? Have you seen it's speed with trip plates and trip trimarks?
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
deathstriker seven
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 16:14:00 -
[642]
Originally by: Grarr Dexx
So who actually uses the Abaddon for RR gangs?
Check the tri kb's they use them and so do many others.
Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Have you seen it's speed with trip plates and trip trimarks?
18ms slower than the mega at non mwd speed and 140ms slower at mwd speed, so hardly significant considering its available range allows it to never need to mwd after the initial burn if its a member of the gang jumping into a camp.
|
deathstriker seven
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 16:24:00 -
[643]
Originally by: Mohenna
If the only data available is an indication, in some months you'll discover some problems and revert that tendency. This reverse tendency is already quite obvious in the only available graphs.
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=666
Are you blind?.
ARMAGEDDONS
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/devblog/img/popblog/tier1bslrg.jpg
Fron january 07 until october 08 the usage of geddons has been steady and hovering around 20-22% but from november 08 to march 09 it has climbed to hover around 24-25%.
APOC
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/devblog/img/popblog/tier2bslrg.jpg
The apoc had a slump from feb 07 to july 08 and then from august 08 to march 09 it climbed from 10% to 15%.
So just to ask you what reverse tendancy are you seeing on these graphs or is it just wishful thinking?.
It would be better if they had included tier 3 BS because the abaddon is obviously such a popular ship while the hyperion kinda sucks tbh.
|
Nostredeus Morphius
Minmatar
Judgement.
Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 18:49:00 -
[644]
Woah, slow it down...
The Djego:
I assumed you were only applying this change to large blaster boats not every galante ship that uses blasters...
If that change (which likely wont happen because ccp have a tendency to not make anything outside of their mould (as in the number of bonuses a ship gets)) is applied to anything other than battleships I am more against it than I would be to ******.
However if what you have said was just an example, to be applied to battleships not cruisers then I will let it slide ^^.
I do suggest that we come up with a different acceptable change for blasters because quite frankly they are never going to give galante battleships a role bonus and no the other races imo.
(even if people want it)
|
The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 22:50:00 -
[645]
Edited by: The Djego on 01/07/2009 22:50:56
Originally by: Nostredeus Morphius
stuff
Best idea fix the forums first, I hate it if you lose your hole post over and over again. 
Well I think i did kind of explaining how 1o1s with med Blasters vs AKs work and why it would be a slight advantage instead of the I win button you see in it and still ruled by the better pilote in the end.
For the BS you need it to get a advantage at close range(sub 5km) so you could actualy state again that the Blaster BS is leathal in Web range(to a point you could say more leathal that a Laser ships, what is not the case atm).
For the Cruisers/BCs you need it to have a chance to actualy not loseing simply because your target moves away during the fight and you constantly droping in DPS to a point where you canŠt win anymore.
Well ok lets say it is a terrible idea(at least in the way CCP fixes or nerfes things what is normaly a general change leaving weak stuff still broken and bosting strong stuff a bit to mutch).
You have following options on Blasters:
1. Range -> pointless, we allready have Lasers
2. Tracking -> works, overpowers Blaster BS out of web range, still donŠt fixes the range issues on medium Blaster ships
3. DPS -> allways works, but works the best for gang scenarios since you lack the ability to apply your full DPS solo, still not fixing the range issues or makes you a superior close range ship compared to other ships
4. boost range on medium Blasters -> works, but works also for the worse pilote, that means it is a fare bigger issue against AK fits since outranging in web range would not work anymore
5. leave it as it is, still lacking a deacend advantage and donŠt gives you a serious reason to prefere a blastership in the Cruiser\BC\BS class out of very limited situations what provide a tackeled target and you starting off in Optimal(where solo is also limited it still provides a role that beside of Minmatar, what use diffrent tactics here, canŠt be filled better by most Caldari\Amarr ships)
I had tons of posts with cons\pros and Im at the topic for nearly a year now(since it QR first hits Sissi). Blaster ships donŠt fit very well in the current speed\web\range setting, give them enught improvement to make them good, overpowers them at the same time in another situations, adding minor buffs donŠt changes anything in the end since beeing better but not good enught is preaty mutch worthless(like the tracking advantage atm that isnŠt big enught to make a huge diffrence at close range and compleetly useless in gang fights since ships with more range will also do next to full damage to a multiwebbed target).
It is preaty mutch next to impossible to bring back blaster ships into a state where they are a resonable choice without beeing OP with pure general tweaks around the Blaster itself.
The Web Bonus(even if it looks compleetly out of place) has less unintendet side effects than other tweaks and simply boost blaster ships in a role where they where good and atm preaty mutch lacking.
----
Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus
Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Lijhal
Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 08:27:00 -
[646]
how about to implement 2 different tracking modifiers, one for optimal and one for falloff, for each turret weapon system ?
Blasters would gain a boost to optimal tracking, AC's would gain a boost to falloff tracking and so on ...
only a idea..
|
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's
Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 08:40:00 -
[647]
Originally by: deathstriker seven
It seems to me that a typical setup for a blaster mega is this:
(I got the fit from the TRI KB).
HIGHS
7 x neutron blaster T2.
1 x solace RR.
MIDS.
1 x best named mwd.
1 x t2 point.
1 x t2 best named web.
1 x t2 best named heavy injector.
LOWS.
2 x mfs t2.
2 x anp t2.
1 x dcu t2.
2 x best named plates.
+ 3 x armour rigs.
This gives it 832 turret dps at 4.5km and 118,338 ehp.
While a easily available abaddon fit like this:
HIGHS
7 x mega pulse t2
1 x T2 RR.
MEDS
1 x best named mwd.
1 x best named point.
1 x best named web.
1 x heavy cap injector t2.
LOWS
3 x hs t2.
2 x best named plates.
1 x eanm
1 x dcu.
+ 3 x armour rigs.
This gets 802 turret dps out to 15km (300% more range for only 30dps lost compared to the mega) and 149,678 EHP (31,340 more than the mega) and has better overall resists (no explosive hole).
All's fine and well, except for the fact that the abaddon is a tier 3 BS while the mega is a tier 2. Also, the mega gets all bonuses to its weapons (as other tier 2 BSs) while the abby, much like other tier 3 BSs, has a split bonus - 1 to weapons usage and the other for defence (resists, in the abaddon's case).
A true comparisson (which would actually, probably, strengthen your case) is to compare the between the hyperion and the abaddon, or between an Apoc and Mega.
Insert clever remark where? |
The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 15:41:00 -
[648]
Originally by: McEivalley
Edited by: McEivalley on 02/07/2009 09:28:05
Edited by: McEivalley on 02/07/2009 08:48:46
- Edit: I've replied to a post at the top of the page, only to discover the page hasn't load fully and so it has been answered already. So I've decided to comment on other things I've read following it.
Regarding nerfing the webs range - the whine from rapier/huggin pilots will shake the forums, and rightfully so. Screwing up with the minmatar's pride&joy EWAR like that will make us all sad pandas, especially when it comes to stopping people from burning back to gates.
TBH, after giving it some serious thought, the only way I see blasters becoming more useful is not just by improving their tracking speed or playing with their optimal or falloff, or even increasing their damage output. What I think blasters should have over other weapons is signature resolution. A much smaller signature resolution. That means that if you can track it, the chances of doing high quality damage will increase significantly.
Let me, shortly, explain why. Webs aren't the natural ewar for gallente - scram is. Shutting down the mwd of another ship reduces its sig res to its normal levels. Since blasters already have superior tracking to any other, you still find many blaster boats "wasting" a med slot on a web while they should have used it for more valuable mods that don't see any usage on blaster boats, due to the fact that in very short ranges tracking becomes a serious problem, especially for medium and large sized guns (as in other than blasters). Making a long story short, blasters should be the answer to any close range sig tanking with the use of just points and scram.
Actualy it was about increasing Web strenght to tweak dedicated blaster ships directly(by a additional role bonus).
The range reduction was added by a 2. party and as I tryed to explain it would not make mutch sense(for the mentioned points around Blaster vs Ak ship 1o1s it still would not be a I win button only gives the Blaster ship the ability to adjust range instead of the Ak ship in the same situation once both applyed Scram\Web in the Cruiser\BC class).
Actualy the Gallente Ewar are sensor dampners.
Changing the signature resulution of Turrets would equal a tracking boost. Double tracking or halve the signature resulution of a Turret makes no diffrence in the tracking formula, is the same result in the end. 
hit chance = ((1/2)^((((Transv/(Range*Tracking))*(Sig_Res/Sig_Rad))^2) +((max(0,Range-Optimal))/Falloff)^2))
----
Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus
Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 16:59:00 -
[649]
lol idea for blasters: take actual null, decrease damage to standard AM add web strenght +5% each gun web range -5% each gun with stacking penality on both bonus and malus should come out some decent numbers.
im not really serious but could be a idea
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 17:06:00 -
[650]
Originally by: deathstriker seven
It seems to me that a typical setup for a blaster mega is this:
(I got the fit from the TRI KB).
HIGHS
7 x neutron blaster T2.
1 x solace RR.
MIDS.
1 x best named mwd.
1 x t2 point.
1 x t2 best named web.
1 x t2 best named heavy injector.
LOWS.
2 x mfs t2.
2 x anp t2.
1 x dcu t2.
2 x best named plates.
+ 3 x armour rigs.
This gives it 832 turret dps at 4.5km and 118,338 ehp.
While a easily available abaddon fit like this:
HIGHS
7 x mega pulse t2
1 x T2 RR.
MEDS
1 x best named mwd.
1 x best named point.
1 x best named web.
1 x heavy cap injector t2.
LOWS
3 x hs t2.
2 x best named plates.
1 x eanm
1 x dcu.
+ 3 x armour rigs.
This gets 802 turret dps out to 15km (300% more range for only 30dps lost compared to the mega) and 149,678 EHP (31,340 more than the mega) and has better overall resists (no explosive hole).
the main problem i see is almost the same dps at 1/3 of the range.
about the hp difference is because abaddon is a tier 3 BS and have a tank bonus, also will run out of booster way before the mega.
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 18:01:00 -
[651]
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 |
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 09:12:00 -
[652]
Originally by: 1600 RT
lol idea for blasters: take actual null, decrease damage to standard AM add web strenght +5% each gun web range -5% each gun with stacking penality on both bonus and malus should come out some decent numbers.
im not really serious but could be a idea
I like this, it blends well with my 'fix the t2 ammo' idea. But make it Void, Null is used and has received much praise in this thread.
5% per weapon may be a bit high, but the actual number can be tweaked. Basically, dmg bonus->x% web strength bonus, tracking malus->x% web range malus.
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 12:02:00 -
[653]
Originally by: Mohenna
Originally by: 1600 RT
lol idea for blasters: take actual null, decrease damage to standard AM add web strenght +5% each gun web range -5% each gun with stacking penality on both bonus and malus should come out some decent numbers.
im not really serious but could be a idea
I like this, it blends well with my 'fix the t2 ammo' idea. But make it Void, Null is used and has received much praise in this thread.
5% per weapon may be a bit high, but the actual number can be tweaked. Basically, dmg bonus->x% web strength bonus, tracking malus->x% web range malus.
ya meant to speak about high damage useless T2 ammo.
and yeah numbers where a bit random but you go the idea.
|
Nostredeus Morphius
Minmatar
Judgement.
Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 15:49:00 -
[654]
Originally by: Mohenna
Originally by: 1600 RT
lol idea for blasters: take actual null, decrease damage to standard AM add web strenght +5% each gun web range -5% each gun with stacking penality on both bonus and malus should come out some decent numbers.
im not really serious but could be a idea
I like this, it blends well with my 'fix the t2 ammo' idea. But make it Void, Null is used and has received much praise in this thread.
5% per weapon may be a bit high, but the actual number can be tweaked. Basically, dmg bonus->x% web strength bonus, tracking malus->x% web range malus.
Basically as long as it also has the penalty then sure why not, you will need to tweak the numbers though because I am sure this could be abused by having a certain number of blasters and a certain number of lasers for example.
You know have 3 blasters to get the 15% web strength and have the rest lasers or blasters with other ammos in them.
And you will have rapiers/huggins with blasters on them for extra strength... of course this could be a good thing and possibly a laugh too ^^
|
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 11:25:00 -
[655]
Edited by: Mohenna on 06/07/2009 11:25:33
ZOMFG the idea survived the weekend we reached a consensus
edit: maybe bonus x% penalty 2x%?
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 12:23:00 -
[656]
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 |
1072
Fliegerkorps
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 19:37:00 -
[657]
Edited by: 1072 on 06/07/2009 19:37:30
it was half of us.. but right now its on...
all members of our corp started training for abaddon
we all agreed on very same fitting as well
2 minie pilots
1 caldari
2 gallente
how fun is that ! yay.. zzz
-boombastica !- |
The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 08:37:00 -
[658]
Originally by: Chi Quan
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.
You need to put your ship in range and after this control this range and the tansversial between both ships till a point where you can score next to full DPS(beeing not able to do this gets you killed usely) in a Blastership. A tracking computer can increase the range or the tracking of the turrets, a target painter can increase the tracking(by sig increasement) but both mods canŠt provide the ability to control range and trasversial(even if the 60% Web isnŠt this good at it to).
A Web is and will be mandatory on a blasterships since you need it to actualy apply the DPS. Also by removing the ability to stack webs you would nerf Huggin/Rapier and the ships with 5 med slots by a huge amount, while the effect in the most common fights(small gangs) where lots of webs are on the target will be minimal(you have ships at diffrent ranges and tons of Drones vs smaller suff here anyway).
---
The web bonus on Null would be pointless, on small and med guns you use Null if you got a range problem not a tracking one(you can track on the ranges you use Null perfectly well with blasters). With large blasters you wonŠt be in Web range anyway if you use Null.
Also you canŠt win serious fights with Null within web range because you lack the DPS to do so(in fights where you win by outganking before you run out of HP).
Shure it could be usefull on void, but actualy only switches the situation we got atm from usefull faction amno and useless void to usefull void and usesless faction Amno.
The advantage should be on the ship, not on the amno in the first place and the close range amnos should have mutch more damage than faction or better tracking with reduced damage to give them a role again(against gangs/bigger ships or against small ships) that is big enught to consider it in the first place.
----
Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus
Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 10:04:00 -
[659]
Originally by: The Djego
Shure it could be usefull on void, but actualy only switches the situation we got atm from usefull faction amno and useless void to usefull void and usesless faction Amno.
Not really, the faction ammo would not have any drawbacks first, and bring a bit more dps second. I really like the idea.
|
The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 10:48:00 -
[660]
Originally by: Mohenna
Originally by: The Djego
Shure it could be usefull on void, but actualy only switches the situation we got atm from usefull faction amno and useless void to usefull void and usesless faction Amno.
Not really, the faction ammo would not have any drawbacks first, and bring a bit more dps second. I really like the idea.
Void does a bit more DPS(diffrence is minor, while FN AN offers a bit more damage vs Amarr/Mini armortanks).
If you keep the 50% tracking malus it becomes preaty pointless in the end(what is the main point why void is compleetly trash) since it is useless for solo(where you would need the stronger web) and useless for gangs(since you will allready have serveral webs on the target) that 35% strength increase would not change a thing, only cost you 50% tracking.
----
Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus
Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
| |
|
| 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 |