|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spugg Galdon
   |
Posted - 2009.11.01 16:19:00 -
[1]
i agree that blasters need fixing. At the minute they are horrifying. They are the close range extreme damage weapon that can't hit a space station if you have any transversel. I mean what is going on there? Blasters should be terrifying. Your counter is simple. Stay out of thier range. However if you slip into optimal it should pretty much be game over. A tracking bonused ship ie megathron, should never miss when in fall off and rarely miss in optimal with max skills vs similar sized target with average speed unless you are being td.
To summerise,
Blasters need a huge boost to tracking
Blasters need a slight boost to base damage
Leave webs alone. Pirates are getting them to go with blaster boats so i worry that they will become super powerful, which they should be anyway with these fixes.
Leave blaster range as is. Its perfect if blasters had these fixes
For the love of eve. Fix t2 heavy damage ammo. The draw backs vs benefits are terrible.
Thank you and goodnight
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 00:26:00 -
[2]
Yes. If they keep the draw back of -%50 tracking and up the damage ALOT it would work well.
CCP have a month to implement changes and test them before dominion is deployed. I know there is alot happening this expansion but this is a simple fix that can be heavily tested and deployed within this time frame.... Come CCP... give us our blasters back!
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 20:02:00 -
[3]
Yes yes yes.
Exactly what blasters need. Don't nerf lasers... they work very well (aprt from scorch ammo, I mean WTF??)
Blasters need much much better tracking.
Blasters need a slight boost to damage so that they ARE the heavy damage weapon
Blaster boats shouldn't have very high agility, just slightly better base speed to close range. Seems as blaster boats usually are plated which slows them right down and just not fast enough to be nano'd (even though being very fast in a blaster boat makes you useless)
C'MON CCP... Get this fixed for dominion. PLEEEEEAAAASE!!!
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 22:46:00 -
[4]
 Quote:
Uh no way.
Lasers take a **** bag of cap to fire. Most Amarr ships aren't even cap stable ONLY firing their guns. The Hybrid capacitor usage is just too small for it to be able to focus energy that far (or in this case launch something). Increasing their damage or range will make the already-overpowered Gallente battleships even more overpowered.
Yes Lasers are cap dependent. However they do not require ammo. Hybrids require both
Yes Amarr ships are cap stable. L3rn2fit
We don't want extra range as a whole.... we want better tracking with a bit more damage
Gallante battleships are not overpowered. They used to be a bit nasty but are now hopeless. If you need evidence of this... Megathrons are now so cheap if you buy one undock and blow it up with full insurance you make a profit
Quote:
You're all forgetting that blaster gunships usually have a superior drone bay. For example the Zealot's 0 drone bay, the sacrilege's 15(15 band) drone bay VS the Ishtar's 125+250(125band) and the Deimos' 50.
If Gallente weapons were just as versatile as lasers what would the Amarr have?
Gallante weapons will not be as versatile as lasers... They will still have next to no range. Drones can be easily destroyed and then you lose your dps in drones.
At the minute, lasers can do almost the same ammount of damage as blasters but and epic range. Blasters can't even hit their target at their optimal range and only slightly outdo lasers in damage.
Please... just better tracking and a smidge more DPS... its an easy fix... get it into sisi for testing please!!
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 21:36:00 -
[5]
@ Nafiy Gnaw.....
Thanks, you saved me a whole lot of ranting when I got home from work after reading the flaming I got.
@ Alfons Richthofen......
Please remove the offensive remark from your post. It is neither constructive or acceptable.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 03:37:00 -
[6]
Alfons.... you're missing the point.
Blasters can NOT track their targets when in their optimal range. Unless the target is bigger than the gun (cruiser shooting a BS) or stood perfectly still. The argument is that the EFFECTIVE (not theoretical EFT) DPS is hopeless. The weapon system is flawed in that it is supposed to be used within 3 - 6 km but can't hit titan (yes I have exagerated) if transversal is anything above 100. For the short range weapon of eve this is not right. The short range weapon should be able to track its targets within its optimal. Fall off isn't really an option as te weapons range is hopeless and just going 500m into fall off drops your DPS rapidly.
All we ask is that blasters be able to track their target. A smidge more base damage too but tracking is the priority.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 15:49:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Spugg Galdon on 09/11/2009 15:49:06
An "honor tank" diemos?
This thread is not to discuss ships but weapons... and EFT warrioring doesn't help. Again Theoretical DPS isn't effective (actual) DPS.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 10:29:00 -
[8]
bump
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 14:15:00 -
[9]
Well the CSM failed to find a solution to the Hybrid weapon system problems. This was mostly due to a poorly written wiki that linked to a third party website wich could be edited at any time.
To that end I'm gonna throw together what should of been in the wiki here
Hybrid weapons are underpowered due to several factors. To keep things simple I'll seperate both problems into BLASTERS and into RAILGUNS.
<BLASTERS>
> They suffer from very short range with only 10% more DPS than Pulse lasers which have 3x the range
* Range should NOT be adjusted as this is a drawback of blasters
> Base damage of blasters must be increased to bring back the "Extreme Close Range" advantage that blasters are supposed to have. The old Gallante saying of "Wait till I get in range" no longer applies as it is laughed at by everyone saying "I can kill you long before you get in range".
> Although off topic, the set of BLASTER BOATS need to be revised but should be done with reference and balance to a blaster overhaul.
> Whilst at the range they are supposed to excell at they suffer from poor tracking due to the tracking formula being too simple. People say that this is a piloting problem however having to reduce your transversal to be able to hit means that you become an easier target too rendering using short range weapons to "get under the guns" of longer range weapons pointless.
> An extension to the tracking problem is attempting get into that "sweet spot" which is EXTREMELY small (less than 500m difference either way)
> A boost to tracking however needs to be thoroughly balanced and tested to prevent Megathron pilots being able to hit an AF pilot.
> A damage boost to overloading blasters has been suggested. I like the idea but needs to be thoroughly looked into.
> Ammo types of Blasters needs a revision (not to change damage types, THERM/KIN is here to stay. Different ammo types should offer real advantages in different fields instead of mostly just different optimal range)
<RAILGUNS>
> Railguns don't seem to have any identity. They have horrifying tracking, poor DPS and only moderate range
> T2 ammo needs revision however is a separate topic
> Any suggestions to railgun improvements because I'm struggling for good ideas that have reasonable advantages and drawbacks.
HYBRIDS in general have no real advantage over other weapons systems. The prime evidence for this is the fact that people tend to be happy to fit unbonused weapons systems to ships over their bonused hybrid weapons systems. [LASER FEROX] [LASER LACHESIS] although it doesn't have a hybrid bonus[Projectile Myrmidon] I'm sure there are more.
I would NEVER personally fit Hybrid weapons to ships that get a bonus to projectile/lasers.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.01.08 17:57:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
not the blasters are the problem. lasers and scorch are. reduce laser dmg and nerf scorch range => problem solved.
I disagree. Lasers seem to work very well and SCORCH is one of the only T2 ammo's that actually work properly.
|
|
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 12:21:00 -
[11]
Bump
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 11:37:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe
Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 07/05/2010 22:16:05
change all active tanking bonuses to 10%
10% is too much. 9% is a much better figure. Also the rep amount bonus needs to be changed to rep amount and remote rep recieved
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 14:16:00 -
[13]
Yes, balance the blaster boats themselves first. They should be very fast, maybe even the fastest ships in their class, but only in a straight line. Give them a lot of inertia or something so they can charge at enemy ships at very high speed but cannot turn very tightly. This will mean that minnie ships retain their racial feel of very high agility and speed.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 12:47:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Spugg Galdon on 12/05/2010 12:48:24
Look, Leave the high agility and good speed to Minmatar ships, Give the Gal blaster ships a higher speed and greater inertia/lower agility. So blaster ships can out run anything but a nano, but they have a turning circle of a moon. Making piloting skill key rather than just clicking "keep at range" or "orbit at".
I really think straight line speed is key and looks like the balls to the wall, full frontal naked assault Gal war fighting ideology seems to be.
Edit: Terribad England
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 16:23:00 -
[15]
I mentioned a penetration mechanic in the railgun thread but was told NO NO NO NO NO! by Liang.
To be honest it didn't look overpowered or unbalanced. The only tank type that suffered more than any other would be the passive shield tank. Could that be your "DOT"?
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 16:49:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Spugg Galdon on 20/05/2010 16:51:50
Originally by: Bagehi
Edited by: Bagehi on 20/05/2010 16:34:13
Originally by: Spugg Galdon
I mentioned a penetration mechanic in the railgun thread but was told NO NO NO NO NO! by Liang.
To be honest it didn't look overpowered or unbalanced. The only tank type that suffered more than any other would be the passive shield tank. Could that be your "DOT"?
Damage Over Time. It would impact all tanks similarly. What a penetration mechanic would do is turn everything a hybrid shoots into a hull tanker. There are fewer mods to support hull tanks, which is why only real men hull tank. It would take a ton of work to rebalance all the ships.
Imagine killing a Titan or Super Carrier simply by bypassing their normal tank (which usually has HP modifiers and resists at 90+%) and ripping through their hull that has no modifiers and can't get resists past 60%. The bigger the ship, the more vulnerable they would be to a penetration mechanic unless CCP followed the hybrids with massive boosts to hull HP on pretty much all ships. This would be the weird situation created by a penetration mechanic.
And what about structures? Would hybrids bypass the reinforce mechanic or would they be left with a noticeable nerf whenever they shoot something that reinforces?
No thats not how my idea worked at all. My idea for a penetration mechanic didn't just bypass tanks. Give me a minute, I'll copy and paste it from the railgun thread.
Its a bit long to transfer over and spread over a few posts. Its easy to find, its on pages 24 and 25 of the railgun thread. As you will see its not a simple "I Win" mechanic.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 18:12:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Bagehi
I read it in the railgun thread when you originally posted it. You modified the penetration mechanic suggested long ago to be like the mechanic in place for <25% shields. Your idea was better than the old idea. I still worry how that would impact tanking as your idea would be a rather significant nerf to shield tanks (who have paper thin armor) and have max effectiveness (all shield tanks benefit from passive tank) at 30% shields (which would be passing a lot of damage into their weak armor/hull tanks).
Yes but most of the volley would be hitting the shield in a buffer tank anyways as the mechanic puts most of the volley there by sharing it out in a ratio according to Shield:Armour:Structure. A heavy shield buffer tank tank ratio could be 5:1:1 so if a penetrating hit was scored which is chance based, 5 parts of damage would hit shields and 1 part would hit armour. That 1 part then had a modifier of 50%. So for ease a volley of 6 damage, 5 hits shields and 0.5 hits armour. After applying resists this ammount of damage bleed through could be acceptable as a boost to hybrids. Its just lateral thinking instead of MOAR DAMAGE!
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.05.22 07:18:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Spugg Galdon on 22/05/2010 07:18:49
So boost speed and give blaster boats moar utility? I still think they shouldn't be as agile as minnie ships, just faster straight line speed. Blaster damage also needs to be increased, Within that zone of death vs a blaster boat should be a zone of death.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 10:17:00 -
[19]
I think we need to be careful about giving blasters a massive damage boost. Although this may work and balance out the disparity between the weapons systems, the problem of fights becoming very short due to massive dps is likely to occur.
There needs to be a rebalance of effective DPS amongst the weapons systems. This may mean a slight nerf to the effective dps of both lasers and projectiles along with a slight buff to blaster dps. Also, the fix probably needs to have something more than just damage and tracking. How about a rework of the current ammo
The current ammo for hybrids offers little choice. You either have lots of damage at close range or not much damage at long range. All the ammo inbetween offers is slight changes in range and the odd bonus to capacitor usage. Meaning they have no real value and is the reason why almost everyone just uses antimatter and iron.
What if, like projectiles, we give hybrids some variation in ammo. I don't mean changing damage types but I mean to give hybrids some real options for ammo types to use. For example, a damage type that offers a tracking bonus but has a drawback of range reduction and low damage output. One type of high damage ammo that does massive shield damage but low armour damage and a one that does the opposite (base shield/armour damage). I'll set some examples up in another post so that this doesn't become a wall of text.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.09.18 19:53:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jahpahjay
The dialogue I've seen in this thread is quite well thought out, imo. Most people are of the opinion that increasing blaster dmg would be the best way to go, and I agree it would be nice--but then again any improvement(s) would be nice.
At the moment, longer ranged weapon systems can kite shorter ones, and I'm all for that since it creates interesting strategies. What I would like to see happen is for the opposite to also be possible--that shorter ranged weapon systems (blasters in this case) being able to get under the tracking of longer ranged guns of the same class size (missiles are naturally immune to this issue, as they are also usually immune to kiters). At the moment, it is not feasible due to the poor tracking of blasters and that most blaster boats cannot control distance as well because they are either lacking in enough base speed and/or are armor tanking (which slows down these ships further).
So quite a few things need to be fixed. That being said, the first thing that needs to be fixed are the blasters so that we can have a good basis for judging what else needs to be brought in line on these ships with actually balanced weapon systems.
My proposal, as some others have already stated, is to increase the tracking speed a lot, and dmg somewhat as well. At least then we can have some real opportunities for creating strategies, like the longer ranged weapon systems can.
You have the right idea but you can't boost blaster tracking much, if at all, as ships like the Megathron will be able to track frigates. AC's hold an issue as they have the same theoretical tracking as blasters but far more range (yes I know its fall off but fall off is effective)and AC's get tracking boosting ammo.
Damage is the real goal. Boost damage to be extreme in blaster range. Very high DPS would give a stealth tracking boost as even slight hits would cause heavy damage. Maybe a slight nerf of AC tracking for overall weapon balancing. Then its a case of ship rebalance. ie blaster boats should be VERY fast in a straight line but slow to turn. Basically a blaster boat would "charge" into range and attempt to destroy the target very quickly with overwhelming firepower
Also, Like I've said before, rework the ammo so that it offers real useful bonuses. One for plain short range DPS. One for heavy Alpha strike but low ROF. One for tracking. One for falloff and one for optimal.
|
|
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 09:09:00 -
[21]
As I have said earlier in this post the best fix would be to play around with the ammo, not so much the guns. Why? Well, hybrids are a mix of laser and projectile weapons. However they have all the drawbacks of both and very few advantages.
Also, turrets are a "constant". They have fixed attributes. These attributes are slightly modified by character skill. They are also heavily modified by ship bonuses. However these bonuses are very 'static' and bind ships to certain roles.
Now, ammo is the variable in the turrets performance. However the current state of hybrid ammo is very unilateral. The only two weapon attributes ammo currently effects are range (with damage) and cap use. Projectile ammo gets selectable damage type, range (+ damage) and tracking enhancing ammo. Why not use the ammo to create vastly different weapon attributes.
For example:
One ammo type could effect alpha strike (Massive damage but very slow rate of fire).
One ammo type could effect tracking (Low damage with high tracking)
One ammo type could effect optimal and another falloff.
Along with range and capacitor usage stats there are also the base shield and base armour damage stats. One high damage close range ammo could specialise in very high shield damage with very low armour damage and vice versa.
This will make all the "middle" ammo types have a purpose too.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.11.08 19:04:00 -
[22]
CSM have got this issue on their (very long) list of fixes. However prioritisation is low and they suggested an increase in range 
Nevermind eh? Maybe someone somewhere in CCP is working on it and has a very good intuitive fix in the secret back store
|
|
|
| |
|