EVE Search - boost blaster tracking (slightly) CCP

All Channels

Ships and Modules

boost blaster tracking (slightly) CCP

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
wallenbergaren	Posted - 2009.08.04 21:11:00 - [91] Dude, how is the tracking fine?
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.08.04 21:28:00 - [92] Edited by: Grimpak on 04/08/2009 21:29:09 Originally by: wallenbergaren Dude, how is the tracking fine? what do you want to hit with large blasters? interceptors? assault frigates? in all honesty, large blasters hitting battleships at point blank seem to work atm. they work a bit harder to hit battlecruisers and even more for cruisers, but still somewhat doable. anyways, perhaps it is jumping into conclusions, but upping the damage instead of tracking seems to be the more reasonable way to do it. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.08.04 21:36:00 - [93] also totally forgot that this is a thread about med blasters point still stands tho. boost to tracking should be minor, comparing to boost in damage. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.08.04 21:48:00 - [94] Were blasters overpowered before webs were nerfed...?
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.08.04 22:37:00 - [95] Originally by: Malcanis Were blasters overpowered before webs were nerfed...? no. altho some people might say that they were. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
nakKEDK Gallente tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.08.04 23:32:00 - [96] blasters need more falloff or optimal tbh . k
Lan Balhaan	Posted - 2009.08.04 23:49:00 - [97] projectiles have low optimal high falloff hybrids have medium optimaly medium falloff lasers have high optimal and low fall off missiles are... missiles :) i think balancing conversations should keep separate the long and short range weapons. what i think is causing a lot of the imbalance is how unbelievably goos scorch is comapred to other T2 ammo. nerf scorch a bit! blasters are alright, maybe a bit more damage, and give acs more more falloff.
Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.08.05 04:13:00 - [98] This.. blasters dont get anywhere near the same benefit from range mods and rigs as the other weapons. Null doesnt get a huge benefit from optimal range like scorch, and it gets its damage reduced unlike barrage. A slight tweak to Null ammo could go a long way w/o affecting anything else. Originally by: Lan Balhaan projectiles have low optimal high falloff hybrids have medium optimaly medium falloff lasers have high optimal and low fall off missiles are... missiles :) i think balancing conversations should keep separate the long and short range weapons. what i think is causing a lot of the imbalance is how unbelievably goos scorch is comapred to other T2 ammo. nerf scorch a bit! blasters are alright, maybe a bit more damage, and give acs more more falloff.
AstroPhobic Divine Retribution	Posted - 2009.08.05 04:33:00 - [99] Originally by: Rastigan Null doesnt get a huge benefit from optimal range like scorch, and it gets its damage reduced unlike barrage. Uh, barrage doesn't get damage reduction? From what?
Solid Prefekt Haven Front	Posted - 2009.08.05 04:36:00 - [100] Originally by: Rune v3nus atleast increase the tracking of said blasters so that they can hit assault frigates in close orbit when they are at their native speed anyone with me on that one? Not with you. AFs are already next to useless (for most situations) and the one thing that makes them interesting (ability to orbit close and not die) you want to nerf. To even consider nerfing AFs I find funny.
Ender Flagrante Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.08.05 05:42:00 - [101] Originally by: nakKEDK blasters need more falloff or optimal tbh . THIS. The essential problem with blasters is that battleships are now slower, less agile, and have worse acceleration than they used to be. Given the low optimal + falloff of blasters, blaster ships almost always need to burn towards their target to apply damage. This is not a problem when your targets are close, but battlefields are not static. New targets will often appear 30km or more away from you and it is in these all too frequent occurrences that the problems with blasters become painfully obvious. A battleship with Neutron Blaster IIs cannot hit a new target appearing 45km away using Null. In order to get within Null's optimal, the blaster battleship would have to MWD towards the target for 30+ seconds, either being killed or severely damaged in the process. In the meantime, the blaster ship's fleet mate in an Abaddon is doing full damage with Mega Pulse + Scorch. Unless CCP changes battleship speed and acceleration back to their previous state (not going to happen) increased range is the only way to fix this problem. Originally by: Lan Balhaan projectiles have low optimal high falloff hybrids have medium optimaly medium falloff lasers have high optimal and low fall off I agree that this is how it SHOULD work, but that isn't how it actually works right now. Here are the base stats for the largest T2 short range guns for comparison: Neutron Blaster Cannon II: 7200m optimal + 10000m falloff 800mm Repeating Artillery II: 4800m optimal + 16000m falloff Mega Pulse Laser II: 24000m optimal + 8000m falloff The Mega Pulse Laser II has an optimal that is 3.33 times higher than the Neutron Blaster Cannon II and 5 times higher than the 800mm Repeating Artillery II, yet it's falloff is 0.75 times that of the Neutron Blaster Cannon II and 0.5 times that of the 800mm Repeating Artillery II. The truth is that projectiles have low optimal and medium falloff, hybrids have low+ optimal and low+ falloff, and lasers have high+ optimal and low falloff. Here's my proposed change. All largest BS weapon systems optimal + falloff = 32km. Leave lasers as is. Make the base stats: Neutron Blaster Cannon II: 16000m optimal + 16000m falloff 800mm Repeating Artillery II: 8000m optimal + 24000m falloff Mega Pulse Laser II: 24000m optimal + 8000m falloff Here's how that would look with max skills and high damage ammo and long range ammo: Neutron Blaster Cannon II + Antimatter: 10000m optimal + 20000m falloff Neutron Blaster Cannon II + Null: 25000m optimal + 25000m falloff 800mm Repeating Artillery II + EMP: 5000m optimal + 30000m falloff 800mm Repeating Artillery II + Barrage: 10000m optimal + 45000m falloff Mega Pulse Laser II + Multifrequency: 15000m optimal + 10000m falloff Mega Pulse Laser II + Scorch: 45000m optimal + 10000m falloff Okay, so it's pretty clear that CCP has a hard-on about falloff and thinks it's way better than optimal (hence Trajectory Analysis being a x5 skill and the current nerfed based falloff of blasters and auto-cannons). Honestly though, even I can see how a Neutron Blaster II hitting at 40k for 100 to 200 dos might be overpowered. So, lets nerf the boost to falloff by 50%. That gives us the following base stats: Neutron Blaster Cannon II: 16000m optimal + 12000m falloff 800mm Repeating Artillery II: 8000m optimal + 16000m falloff Mega Pulse Laser II: 24000m optimal + 8000m falloff And here are our skilled stats + ammo: Neutron Blaster Cannon II + Antimatter: 10000m optimal + 15000m falloff Neutron Blaster Cannon II + Null: 25000m optimal + 18750m falloff 800mm Repeating Artillery II + EMP: 5000m optimal + 20000m falloff 800mm Repeating Artillery II + Barrage: 10000m optimal + 30000m falloff Mega Pulse Laser II + Multifrequency: 15000m optimal + 10000m falloff Mega Pulse Laser II + Scorch: 45000m optimal + 10000m falloff Good, I think. Much better than we currently have, anyway. Maybe a bit more of a falloff boost?
AstroPhobic Divine Retribution	Posted - 2009.08.05 05:53:00 - [102] I'm confused by the above post. You increased blaster range significantly but only slightly modified the optimal of autocannons. Which will do just about nothing for them, and they'll be even more useless in their current state. It seems like the weapon systems should be dominant in the following areas: Close range: Blasters Mid range: ACs Long range: Lasers Close to mid range (??): Missiles Currently it's more like Close range: Blasters, Missiles, Lasers Mid range: Missiles, Lasers Long range: Lasers Your changes would make it more like Close range: Blasters, Missiles, Lasers Mid range: Blasters, Missiles, Lasers Long range: Lasers
Ender Flagrante Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.08.05 06:15:00 - [103] Originally by: AstroPhobic I'm confused by the above post. You increased blaster range significantly but only slightly modified the optimal of autocannons. Which will do just about nothing for them, and they'll be even more useless in their current state. Yeah, I totally get that. Maybe it would help to understand that I was offering two alternatives: one where all falloff was significantly boosted and one where it was only slightly boosted. I think the best solution might be somewhere in between the two proposed extremes. Maybe something like: Base Neutron Blaster Cannon II: 16000m optimal + 14000m falloff 800mm Repeating Artillery II: 8000m optimal + 20000m falloff Mega Pulse Laser II: 24000m optimal + 8000m falloff Neutron Blaster Cannon II + Antimatter: 10000m optimal + 17500m falloff Neutron Blaster Cannon II + Null: 25000m optimal + 21875m falloff 800mm Repeating Artillery II + EMP: 5000m optimal + 25000m falloff 800mm Repeating Artillery II + Barrage: 10000m optimal + 37500m falloff Mega Pulse Laser II + Multifrequency: 15000m optimal + 10000m falloff Mega Pulse Laser II + Scorch: 45000m optimal + 10000m falloff Better? Honestly, it seems to me like the Minmatar problem is more the base damage modifier than the range.
Djerin Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.08.05 09:08:00 - [104] Originally by: Malcanis Were blasters overpowered before webs were nerfed...? No, because back then everyone was nano'ing their grandmothers wheelchairs and pvp in it. You could only kill them if they somehow f*cked up and got webbed+scrammed. But you didn't need blasters for that, because they were paper-thinly tanked as they were relying on not getting hit in the first place. Blasters were almost as bad back then as they are now, just for different reasons. ---- Sarmaul's crosstrainorgtfo
Evanglion Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.05 11:14:00 - [105] Hi ccp, nerf AF's and boost lasor trackerings please, i cant hit them from 5000m while they are orbiting me!!!11 so unfar..
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2009.08.05 14:55:00 - [106] Originally by: Evanglion Hi ccp, nerf AF's and boost lasor trackerings please, i cant hit them from 5000m while they are orbiting me!!!11 so unfar.. Should have gone to spec savers. Regards Mag's
Trigos Trilobi Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.08.05 15:20:00 - [107] Originally by: AstroPhobic It seems like the weapon systems should be dominant in the following areas: Close range: Blasters Mid range: ACs Long range: Lasers Close to mid range (??): Missiles I've always viewed it more so that the lasers and blasters both have their 'dominion', while acs are built around using the minmatar mobility advantage to exploit the weaknesses of the other weapon systems. Hence they have high tracking, comparable to blasters so they can run circles around laser boats at close range and on the other hand they have long falloff so they can exploit the short range of blaster ships. In this sense I don't see it's possible to increase blaster range too much, I think already the situation is such that the range where large acs surpass large blasters in damage is dangerously close to 24km if not past it. Even if you have a tackler and can sit at 30km+ to capitalize on your supposed range advantage, you'll be doing cruiser level damage at which point there are some pretty valid concerns on wether you should've brought a bs at all.
Joe Forumtroll	Posted - 2009.08.05 16:18:00 - [108] I`ve been playing MMORPGs for too long and I`m aware that the first impulse when a game mechanic doesn`t go your way is to whine a storm on forums. Hell, every thread that doesn`t contain noob questions is a whine thread in disquise. HOWEVER, if you really really want to affect the Development process of EVE and have a say in the changing and shaping of core game mechanics I can give you an advice. You RAGEQUIT!!! That`s the most effective way and eventhough I was gonna troll (that`s the whole purpose of this alt`s exitence) this is an serious and honest advice and I know this to be effective from personal experience. When you cancel EVE sub you get a popup and you have an option to type some text explaining your reason for quiting. This is where you strike. If you want a mechanic change you strike the company where it hurts.... the wallet? When enough people do it you come back after few months to check on a new expansion and what do you know, some game mechanics were also changed, you know, the ones you biatched aboout. Forum whining is for amateurs. Ragequiting is pro. Glad to help.
AstroPhobic Divine Retribution	Posted - 2009.08.05 16:46:00 - [109] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: AstroPhobic It seems like the weapon systems should be dominant in the following areas: Close range: Blasters Mid range: ACs Long range: Lasers Close to mid range (??): Missiles I've always viewed it more so that lasers and blasters both have their 'dominion', while acs are built around using the minmatar mobility advantage to exploit the weaknesses of the other weapon systems. Hence they have high tracking, comparable to blasters so they can run circles around laser boats at close range and on the other hand they have long falloff so they can exploit the short range of blaster ships. In this sense I don't see it's possible to increase blaster range too much, I think already the situation is such that the range where large acs surpass large blasters in damage is dangerously close to 24km if not past it. Even if you have a tackler and can sit at 30km+ to capitalize on your supposed range advantage, you'll be doing cruiser level damage at which point there are some pretty valid concerns on wether you should've brought a bs at all. I agree that this is how things would work in a perfect world. That said, looking at current mobility concerns (mwding battleships got even slower, greeeat), which are typically limited to bs sized ships, it's extremy difficult to balance a weapon system on being in "the faster ship" and "dictating range". I'll edit in some more later but you get my point
Ender Flagrante Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.08.05 22:46:00 - [110] Originally by: AstroPhobic I agree that this is how things would work in a perfect world. That said, looking at current mobility concerns (mwding battleships got even slower, greeeat), which are typically limited to bs sized ships, it's extremy difficult to balance a weapon system on being in "the faster ship" and "dictating range". I'll edit in some more later but you get my point So, in your perfect world, Minmatar AC ships would be able to counter both Blaster and Pulse ships. Why am I not surprised? Your second comment is spot on, though. BS are simply too slow to dictate range. A short-range only weapon system is ALWAYS going to be screwed.
AstroPhobic Divine Retribution	Posted - 2009.08.06 01:15:00 - [111] Originally by: Ender Flagrante So, in your perfect world, Minmatar AC ships would be able to counter both Blaster and Pulse ships. Why am I not surprised? Certainly not. There is no "counter" - battleships don't fight each other solo. A wise man once said, "there are no 1v1s in eve". He was right. Ships should be compared to each other in typical scenarios, not mythical 1v1s. That said, minmatar is "the solo race" so I don't see why the hell not. They're exclusively terribad in everything fleet related (and I don't mean gate camps), so their solo performance should be above the other races.
Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.08.06 03:05:00 - [112] Originally by: AstroPhobic Originally by: Rastigan Null doesnt get a huge benefit from optimal range like scorch, and it gets its damage reduced unlike barrage. Uh, barrage doesn't get damage reduction? From what? Sorry I didnt clarify.. Both Null and Scorch, do less damage than the highest damage t1 ammo, Barrage does the same damage as EMP.
arbiter reformed Minmatar Annihilate. Avarice.	Posted - 2009.08.06 03:37:00 - [113] pulses = med range, blasters = close range, projectiles = need of boost Signature graphics that may only contain your character name, corporation logo, corporation or personal slogan or other text that is directly related to your in-game persona, or content directly related to Eve Online. All content must be in good taste.Applebabe
AstroPhobic Divine Retribution	Posted - 2009.08.06 03:58:00 - [114] Originally by: Rastigan Originally by: AstroPhobic Originally by: Rastigan Null doesnt get a huge benefit from optimal range like scorch, and it gets its damage reduced unlike barrage. Uh, barrage doesn't get damage reduction? From what? Sorry I didnt clarify.. Both Null and Scorch, do less damage than the highest damage t1 ammo, Barrage does the same damage as EMP. Indeed, but at the same time quite the opposite. Barrage is in line with other ammo, EMP does 9% less DPS than other close range ammo. It's not barrage holding an advantage, it's EMP holding a disadvantage.
wallenbergaren	Posted - 2009.08.06 09:42:00 - [115] Originally by: Grimpak Edited by: Grimpak on 04/08/2009 21:29:09 Originally by: wallenbergaren Dude, how is the tracking fine? what do you want to hit with large blasters? interceptors? assault frigates? in all honesty, large blasters hitting battleships at point blank seem to work atm. they work a bit harder to hit battlecruisers and even more for cruisers, but still somewhat doable. anyways, perhaps it is jumping into conclusions, but upping the damage instead of tracking seems to be the more reasonable way to do it. What I want to be able to do is hit web / scrammed frigs with my thorax. I've picked many fights with cruisers in cheap frigates and they haven't had insane problems hitting me orbiting at 500 with an ab (webbed). When I'm in my 'ceptor and tackling a cruiser I stay the fk out of web range because if I don't then I die. When I'm in a thorax the 'ceptor will own me at all ranges if I fit blasters. Do the math yourself, scram + web on a ceptor and you still won't hit him at your optimal with med blasters. The only thing you can use against him are light drones, but you don't have room for that in the thorax. Give it 25m3 more drone space or something I fail, etc...
Grimpak Gallente Noir.	Posted - 2009.08.06 09:58:00 - [116] Originally by: wallenbergaren Originally by: Grimpak Edited by: Grimpak on 04/08/2009 21:29:09 Originally by: wallenbergaren Dude, how is the tracking fine? what do you want to hit with large blasters? interceptors? assault frigates? in all honesty, large blasters hitting battleships at point blank seem to work atm. they work a bit harder to hit battlecruisers and even more for cruisers, but still somewhat doable. anyways, perhaps it is jumping into conclusions, but upping the damage instead of tracking seems to be the more reasonable way to do it. What I want to be able to do is hit web / scrammed frigs with my thorax. I've picked many fights with cruisers in cheap frigates and they haven't had insane problems hitting me orbiting at 500 with an ab (webbed). When I'm in my 'ceptor and tackling a cruiser I stay the fk out of web range because if I don't then I die. When I'm in a thorax the 'ceptor will own me at all ranges if I fit blasters. Do the math yourself, scram + web on a ceptor and you still won't hit him at your optimal with med blasters. The only thing you can use against him are light drones, but you don't have room for that in the thorax. Give it 25m3 more drone space or something I fail, etc... then try to hit a bit farther. AC's suffer from the same problem --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Max Tux	Posted - 2009.08.06 10:46:00 - [117] weapon systems shouldn't all be the same if you want to get close in the face and do damage, use blasters and Tackle if you want to be mid range use Lasers, if you want to be able to operate at either ( with reduced damage ) use Projectiles. optimal and fall off of weapons is as designed. missiles are the dark horse but MEH! maybe tracking may need a slight tweak, but imo 90% of the porblems is people expecting their weapons to work the same as another class. Tech 2 ammo could do with a look at TBH, missile ammo is pretty good, but the others need some work
Trigos Trilobi Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.08.06 10:59:00 - [118] Originally by: wallenbergaren When I'm in my 'ceptor and tackling a cruiser I stay the fk out of web range because if I don't then I die. When I'm in a thorax the 'ceptor will own me at all ranges if I fit blasters. Do the math yourself, scram + web on a ceptor and you still won't hit him at your optimal with med blasters. That's a bit odd considering blasters track considerably better than pulses and about the same as acs. So, if you can't hit a webbed and scrammed inty with medium blasters, you aren't going to hit it with acs or pulses either.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: 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.