EVE Search - Nerf lasers?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Nerf lasers?

» 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 .. 19 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.06 22:53:00 - [91] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Kane Starkiller Originally by: SuiJuris *CCP has a longstanding history of vast* Overnerfing**, all evidence points it would happen again. I hope to God you're wrong this time factual data proves otherwise Also, their overnerfs are always directly in relation to community whines. God forbid any carefull, incremental, and well reasoned adjustments occur.
Omarvelous Destry's Lounge Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2009.08.07 04:37:00 - [92] Originally by: Kismo Originally by: Omarvelous Its a simple solution: ... agility/speed ... I could live with that, but I think there might have to be a (small) weapons adjustment anyway. Well I have T2 large hybrids so I won't complain about some adjustments regardless. - Maybe further penalize scorch's tracking. - Add more falloff to NULL - Improve tacking/falloff on large projectiles (get EMP ammo inline with other racial high damage short range ammo). The slower BS game means BS are now purely used for gank and tank. That's a role the slot arrangement of Amarr/Caldari have an advantage at. Considering the vastly more popular use of armor in RR fleets - the Amarr have a distinct advantage. - Increase speed/agility on BS. - Improve BS close range weapon tracking. Those two factors ought to improve the 'solo with BS' option, which the slot arrangement of Gallente/Minmatar BS favor. Important Internet Spaceship League Wants You
Kismo	Posted - 2009.08.07 04:56:00 - [93] Originally by: Omarvelous Well I have T2 large hybrids so I won't complain about some adjustments regardless. - Maybe further penalize scorch's tracking. - Add more falloff to NULL - Improve tacking/falloff on large projectiles (get EMP ammo inline with other racial high damage short range ammo). The only thing about getting EMP in line with the other ammos is that I don't really want to give up the disproportionate damage on high end faction ammo (2.3 pts more on RF Carb Lead than AN Radio and CN Iron). This is the only thing that keeps the Muninn in shouting range of the other two ships at 100km. Sigh, of course I'm deluding myself here. It would be nice if it actually worked that way, though. Also, looking to the Rokh, I would argue that Null needs both optimal and falloff (affecting both the Diemos and Beagle/Rokh). It seems to me that there's no really good reason to fly the Rokh. Quote: - Increase speed/agility on BS. - Improve BS close range weapon tracking. By close range, I assume you mean blasters and ACs? Sure. As it stands, though, ships effectively don't move when there's multiple webs and a scram on them, so I'm not so sure tracking's that big of a deal. But, the game was more fun when I was able to move around (nano phooooooon). Maybe bring some of that back.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.08.07 05:06:00 - [94] Originally by: Kismo Also, looking to the Rokh, I would argue that Null needs both optimal and falloff (affecting both the Diemos and Beagle/Rokh). It seems to me that there's no really good reason to fly the Rokh. Blue pills and crystal sets are damn good reasons to fly a Rokh.
Kismo	Posted - 2009.08.07 05:08:00 - [95] Originally by: Omara Otawan Blue pills and crystal sets are damn good reasons to fly a Rokh. Blue pill... blue pill... crystals.... OHHHH!!! Active tanking. Fail. Gimmeh dat Slave baby! ;-)
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.08.07 05:10:00 - [96] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 07/08/2009 05:13:21 Originally by: Kismo Blue pill... blue pill... crystals.... OHHHH!!! Active tanking. Fail. Gimmeh dat Slave baby! ;-) Slaves -> Mega. Buffer tanks are all nice and stuff, but a decent active shield tank BS wipes the floor with that one on one, actually might even wipe the floor with 2 of them.
Foulque Divine Retribution	Posted - 2009.08.07 05:12:00 - [97] Originally by: Canis Trucido ok you got me, I actually like the pilgrim the most, but my messege is still true You're clearly ******ed then and your opinion is worthless. ________
Kismo	Posted - 2009.08.07 05:18:00 - [98] Originally by: Omara Otawan Slaves -> Mega. Buffer tanks are all nice and stuff, but a decent active shield tank BS wipes the floor with that one on one, actually might even wipe the floor with 2 of them. I prefer the phoon or pest, and I've fought crystal'ed blue pill'ed Rokhs and stomped their ass. Something about "no cap" and "lol". Hard to catch through the explosions. ;-)
Forranz Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.08.07 05:33:00 - [99] If they nerf lasers, they needa nerf the drake first.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.08.07 05:35:00 - [100] Originally by: Kismo I prefer the phoon or pest You've lost me there...
Kismo	Posted - 2009.08.07 05:40:00 - [101] Originally by: Omara Otawan You've lost me there... The sails. They make me scream "Yaarrrr!!!". My wife cringes a little bit every time I undock.
MataHarry Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.08.07 07:24:00 - [102] Uh..obviously you never lived through all the changes CCP made to make amarr what they are now nor did you live through all the hell that amarr had to live through to get to where they are now. Nerfing lazors now would simply be like trudging through the same swamp we have already been through. Not only that but it would be the stupidest thing CCP could do since they spent god knows how many man hours CORRECTING them only to **** that all away and start right back over. Good luck with your nerfing of Amarr lazors...it aint happening Enhancing or adjusting MAYBE but there wont be a nerf.
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.07 08:05:00 - [103] Originally by: Forranz If they nerf lasers, they needa nerf the drake first. Your logic utterly escapes me. And most everyone else probably.
dalmety	Posted - 2009.08.07 09:31:00 - [104] OH please leave us alone. When i first joined this game like 4 years ago armarr ruled. then we had like 3 years of being the worst race. the only good ships we had for a time was the pilgrim and curse and then they got nerfed too. finally i can take a ship iunto a fleet and do some good, and u wanna start sending us back down again. prev posts are right, all we have are our lazors, bugger all else, we get jammed sooooo easily, we have no secondary weapon system like bonuses to drones, and are main weapon system sucks so much cap that we have to train V high skills and generally rig to be effective. Olease let us have some fun for a bit longer:)
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.08.07 10:32:00 - [105] Originally by: Seriously Bored Anywhere in the middle of those extremes, lasers should have the advantage against hybrids. What you're describing almost sounds like balance to me. If you could hot swap your guns I would agree with you.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.08.07 10:41:00 - [106] Originally by: MataHarry Uh..obviously you never lived through all the changes CCP made to make amarr what they are now nor did you live through all the hell that amarr had to live through to get to where they are now. Nerfing lazors now would simply be like trudging through the same swamp we have already been through. Whatever you may have endured in the past does not justify current game imbalances.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.08.07 10:50:00 - [107] Originally by: baltec1 Every type of Ewar going and neuts... Aren't Neuts part of Amarrian EWAR? Tracking disruptors are Amarrian too. So what are you talking about? Damps, Target painters(lol), ECM (we still have the falcon(we as in everyone that is not Amarr)). Ok then, lets trade. You can have all the EWAR and Neuts, and we will take away your Gank/Tank and ability to field a decent sniper.
dalgett	Posted - 2009.08.07 10:50:00 - [108] Is it just me or is Nerfing in general a rather childish way of dealing with a problem. eg, "its not fair his guns are better than mine" so lets mess them up. Surely its far more logical to improve the lacking guns and bring things into balance. This may be hgarder to do but taking the easier option is not gonna get anyone anywhere. lasors were boosted cos they were ****, nerfing them will just be going backwards and re-instating an old problem. then we are gonna have all of us armarr on here pleading to have them boosted and round we go again. why not change things for the long term for a change so we dnt have to go through this every month.
Emperor Ryan Amarr Imperial Syndicate Forces	Posted - 2009.08.07 11:55:00 - [109] The Ops Post is really Lacks sufficient information of evidence. The facts are simple, Long range lasers track very well, Close range is where other ships can really fly 'Under your guns' and seeing as Minnie, who use Close range ac's and Gall who use Close range blasters Orate right under lasers guns, you can argue that lasers wont hit anything under the 5km mark on large turrets unless the target is not mobile. There is nothing wrong with Lasers, Move along. - Emperor
Chi Quan Bibkor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.08.07 11:59:00 - [110] lasers were boosted in context of other bugs: nano and huge em resists on armor/explo resist on shields. nano is gone now, and you see shield tanks in pvp. and as some wise person pointed out the, issue is more with lage pulses and scorch, not simply lasers in general. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love
Chi Quan Bibkor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.08.07 12:11:00 - [111] Originally by: Emperor Ryan The Ops Post is really Lacks sufficient information of evidence. The facts are simple, Long range lasers track very well, Close range is where other ships can really fly 'Under your guns' and seeing as Minnie, who use Close range ac's and Gall who use Close range blasters Orate right under lasers guns, you can argue that lasers wont hit anything under the 5km mark on large turrets unless the target is not mobile. There is nothing wrong with Lasers, Move along. let me dig up a graph posted in one of the other threads Here see how big the difference between the different gun types is below web range? getting under another bs's guns with another bs is not an option, the difference is insignificant. if you take the better tanks of amarr into consideration along with "lol range/tracking in gangs" it is simply not a point of argument. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.08.07 12:41:00 - [112] Originally by: dalgett Is it just me or is Nerfing in general a rather childish way of dealing with a problem. eg, "its not fair his guns are better than mine" so lets mess them up. I don't think anyone is asking for Large pulse lasers to be messed up. Just scaled back a bit to make AC's and Blasters more competitive. Currently there is about 1% of situations that AC's can out damage Pulse lasers. That is not equity. When a LR HAC using LR Faction ammo, has only marginally better range then a SR BS, it just seems a bit strange. And then you see the devs answer ideas about Tracking scripts and falloff while mentioning the Vagabond, and how crazy that would be if they could fit Falloff scripts. The whole thing doesn't make any sense.
Trigos Trilobi Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.08.07 13:06:00 - [113] Originally by: dalgett Is it just me or is Nerfing in general a rather childish way of dealing with a problem. eg, "its not fair his guns are better than mine" so lets mess them up. Surely its far more logical to improve the lacking guns and bring things into balance. This may be hgarder to do but taking the easier option is not gonna get anyone anywhere. Nerfing one thing is often smarter than buffing several others, just to keep things simple. This is especially true if the only reason to not nerf something is "nerfing stuff is childish" or any other variation of "nerfs are bad, buffs are good". In any case it's the relative numbers that count, absolute stats don't mean anything until they're put in context. Therefore you end up in the same spot, wether you nerf one thing or buff all others, the first one is just simpler and less prone to produce unforeseen side effects. Quote: lasors were boosted cos they were ****, nerfing them will just be going backwards and re-instating an old problem. then we are gonna have all of us armarr on here pleading to have them boosted and round we go again. Lots of other things have changed since. For example, back in revelation 2 (?) or somewhere there, lasers were given +25% tracking since they supposedly weren't hitting fast stuff well enough, but since then we've had a pretty hefty speed nerf. That'd suggest that lasers are now pretty obviously tracking too well, and that's also evident if you look at some graphs comparing lasers vs other turrets, or try going under the guns of a laser ship in practice.
Johan Sabbat R.E.C.O.N. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.08.07 13:16:00 - [114] Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 06/08/2009 17:03:37 If we are being realistic, a nerf to pulse lasers is pretty much inevitable. Not because its necessarily the best solution, but because everyone and their dog are training for it right now. If it is overused, it gets nerfed, like ECM, like nano, etc. Naturally all the people that jumped on the FOTM train wont like it, this never stopped a nerf in the past though. Just for kicks, here is a fleet layout (can post scanner screenshots if you insist) from a bigger engagement, only battleships, only friendly fleet: Typhoon x3 Tempest x2 Dominix x3 Megathron x15 Apocalypse x4 Abbadon x6 Armageddon x19 -------------- Amarr x29 Gallente x18 Minmatar x5 Caldari x0 (granted in that scenario Scorp would be a flying coffin, Raven largely obsolete due to missile flight time, only Rokh would be a choice) If you ask me, once one races BSs are used more than all the other races BSs combined, this is a clear sign of the nerfbat incoming at speed. This tells me that the Caldari have cross trained to Amarr when faced with the prospect of learning a gunnery weapons system and the over arching 'requirement' that fleet BS must be armour tanked. I think that these figures suggest a boost is required to Caldari BS for fleet work rather than a laz0r nerf.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.08.07 13:45:00 - [115] Originally by: Johan Sabbat I think that these figures suggest a boost is required to Caldari BS for fleet work rather than a laz0r nerf. I don't think things are that bad concerning lasers when it comes to fleet warfare. The Mega and the rokh, I think are both competitive for DPS/EHP. I think most people that are talking nerf are talking about pulses/scorch, not beams. All of these whines get mixed up together. Minmatar need buffing when it comes to Fleet/Sniper fits. The rest seems ok to me. It is with SR BS's that people start calling nerf.
Yarinor	Posted - 2009.08.07 14:03:00 - [116] Originally by: Bibbleibble Originally by: Artemis Rose Bring back the old NOS, that should do it Then all the Amarr pilots will just fly curses and pilgrims instead I want my nos domi back :/
Eli Porter Amarr Altruism. Avarice.	Posted - 2009.08.07 14:19:00 - [117] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: dalgett Is it just me or is Nerfing in general a rather childish way of dealing with a problem. eg, "its not fair his guns are better than mine" so lets mess them up. I don't think anyone is asking for Large pulse lasers to be messed up. Just scaled back a bit to make AC's and Blasters more competitive. Currently there is about 1% of situations that AC's can out damage Pulse lasers. That is not equity. I agree Large Projectiles need a buff, but Blasters not being competitive enough? Like I said earlier in this thread: Quote: You'll have to explain this to me. In a straight short range BS vs. BS fleet fight, Gallente have more DPS comparing the Mega and Geddon due to damage type, about the same EHP, and Mega has less cap issues. Geddon, and Amarr BS's in general, have the range advantage for dealing with nuisance of enemy medium support outside of the BS blob and in Scorch range. In long range BS vs. BS fights, the damage type isn't as important due to more shield tankers, but the majority is still armor tanking, making the mega almost as good as the Apoc, which is made for long range engagements unlike the Mega which can fill both SR and LR roles. Instead of nerfing, buff Minmatar.
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2009.08.07 14:39:00 - [118] Originally by: Eli Porter I agree Large Projectiles need a buff, but Blasters not being competitive enough? Like I said earlier in this thread: Quote: You'll have to explain this to me. In a straight short range BS vs. BS fleet fight, Gallente have more DPS comparing the Mega and Geddon due to damage type, about the same EHP, and Mega has less cap issues. Geddon, and Amarr BS's in general, have the range advantage for dealing with nuisance of enemy medium support outside of the BS blob and in Scorch range. In long range BS vs. BS fights, the damage type isn't as important due to more shield tankers, but the majority is still armor tanking, making the mega almost as good as the Apoc, which is made for long range engagements unlike the Mega which can fill both SR and LR roles. Instead of nerfing, buff Minmatar. When you said that before, I said this : Originally by: Seriously Bored That actually sounds about right. In a very short range BS fight, Gallente should have the advantage with blasters. In a very long range fight, Gallente (and turret Caldari, let's not forget) should have the advantage. Anywhere in the middle of those extremes, lasers should have the advantage against hybrids. What you're describing almost sounds like balance to me. So...maybe that means I'm agree with you? I do think that Blasters need more tracking, however. They have huge damage but a very tiny range. They should be able to kill anything within that range. In any case, like your average forum whiner, I started a thread in the Assembly Hall for this topic (it may have been the wrong forum). I'm not asking for anything to be nerfed, but for things to be balanced in respect to each other. Rebalance Turrets According to Principles I've encountered some stupidity, but check out the graphs in one of the later posts. I didn't "nerf" lasers at all for them, and it ended up looking very balanced to me.
Johan Sabbat R.E.C.O.N. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.08.07 14:48:00 - [119] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: Johan Sabbat I think that these figures suggest a boost is required to Caldari BS for fleet work rather than a laz0r nerf. I don't think things are that bad concerning lasers when it comes to fleet warfare. The Mega and the rokh, I think are both competitive for DPS/EHP. I think most people that are talking nerf are talking about pulses/scorch, not beams. All of these whines get mixed up together. Minmatar need buffing when it comes to Fleet/Sniper fits. The rest seems ok to me. It is with SR BS's that people start calling nerf.
AstroPhobic Divine Retribution	Posted - 2009.08.07 15:01:00 - [120] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: MataHarry Uh..obviously you never lived through all the changes CCP made to make amarr what they are now nor did you live through all the hell that amarr had to live through to get to where they are now. Nerfing lazors now would simply be like trudging through the same swamp we have already been through. Whatever you may have endured in the past does not justify current game imbalances. Oh the RL parallels, it makes me laugh. :D

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