EVE Search - [ISSUE] Blasters 2.0

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[ISSUE] Blasters 2.0

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.10.25 13:23:00 - [1] So, for the over 9000th time, I'm going to complain about how blasters need to be boosted. For their current damage output, they do not have enough range to be effective. They're supposed to be a "cross" between pulse lasers and autocannons, therefore, their optimal and falloff should be a bit higher than 0kms (ok, I'm exagerating, but you get my point). This makes blaster boats highly inneffective in combat, such as the Deimos, for example. I've stopped flying them for PVP completely, because they just get slaughtered (mainly because of the fact that it is indeed a crappy ship overall). And, on that note, I'd choose a Vagabond over a Deimos anyday to PVP in, or even a Zealot. But anyways, the Deimos isn't the subject of this post. The fact that you can hit up to 45km with Pulse Lasers and Scorch ammo (and still do a lot of damage) is pretty overpowered compared to the not-so-powerful-anymore, range-defficient blasters. Solution: Either increase blasters' damage to match their ridiculous range or increase their ridiculous range to match their damage. I feel like I've covered most of the aspects in this post, so, support (or flame) away!
Juliette DuBois	Posted - 2009.10.25 13:42:00 - [2] Edited by: Juliette DuBois on 25/10/2009 13:43:26 If you increase range you crowd out autocannons completely (in BS level this is actually already true). Damage increase at point blank, maybe but it¦s more like lasers doing too much real dps. You could increase speed but not agility of blaster boats, allowing them to close on targets bit faster. Maybe.
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.10.25 13:49:00 - [3] Originally by: Juliette DuBois Edited by: Juliette DuBois on 25/10/2009 13:43:26 If you increase range you crowd out autocannons completely (in BS level this is actually already true). Damage increase at point blank, maybe but it¦s more like lasers doing too much real dps. You could increase speed but not agility of blaster boats, allowing them to close on targets bit faster. Maybe. I agree with your post, but Autocannons are getting boosted in Dominion :) Now, I don't know how that's gonna turn out, but yes, I think that to Lasers (and even ACs, regarding the falloff) they are underpowered. And yes, increasing speed would be an awesome solution to this problem. Thank you for your feedback!
Fille Balle Ballbreakers R us	Posted - 2009.10.25 16:40:00 - [4] Originally by: Xahara I agree with your post, but Autocannons are getting boosted in Dominion :) Now, I don't know how that's gonna turn out, but yes, I think that to Lasers (and even ACs, regarding the falloff) they are underpowered. And yes, increasing speed would be an awesome solution to this problem. Thank you for your feedback! But what about Caldari ships? I know their intended for use with railguns, but their bonuses also apply to blasters. I think a boost to optimal is the easiest solution, allthough that would be against the filosophy of blasters. Increased tracking and damage would be more in line with the intended function of blasters.
Don Pellegrino	Posted - 2009.10.25 17:32:00 - [5] Quote: Solution: Either increase blasters' damage to match their ridiculous range or increase their ridiculous range to match their damage. Absolutly true. The recent changes to the Vigilant (+60% hybrid damage) and how great it works shows us what the blasters should really be. They need to do more damage (20-25% more), keep the current range. About the Deimos, it needs to have a definite purpose. Right now, it is absolutly worthless with blasters, a Brutix is a dozen times cheaper to lose and does exactly the same thing. I suggest giving the Deimos even more damage or more speed or more range, but something to make it worth flying over a Brutix.
Maxsim Goratiev Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2009.10.25 18:25:00 - [6] Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 25/10/2009 18:26:21 Medium blasters have embarrassing range. Large blasters aren't as bad. PS: i don't like when i sit at point blank range next to a webbed amarr ship, and it does nearly as much damage with lasers. An Armageddon with 7 mega pulse laser 2's, 5 t2 ogres and 3 damage mods deals ~1150 dps with all skills at lvl 5, and higher damage ammo type. Megathron with 7 neutron blaster cannons 2 and 5 t2 ogres deals 1200 damage with 3 damge mods and void ammo.. Range of mega (optimal+falloff) is 27km, range of geddon is 55 km.. that is with long-range ammunition. With Armogeddon having 2 times grater range, this is not right. Fix Destroyers
Anna Kommenos	Posted - 2009.10.26 01:10:00 - [7] so nerf amarr pulse dps, or start fitting them on your megathrons and deimioi extending hybrid range woulf effectively make them pulse lasers with expendable ammo, which would then result in the inevitable whine of "why do ammar get no ammo usage? blasters should have that too!" the problem aint the blaster being underpowered, as its meant to be short range and v.high dps. the problem is the pulse being overpowered....if infact there is a problem, i cba researchign it myself.
TimMc Brutal Deliverance Extreme Prejudice.	Posted - 2009.10.26 12:01:00 - [8] Maybe if we all start fitting brutix and deimos with lasers CCP will listen.
Rico Minali Sons Of 0din Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2009.10.26 12:06:00 - [9] Agreed, blasters are a bit pants. Put up the damage and particularly tracking and they are fine. They are pretty much intended for fighting at 0, so make it work... Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Crotch Goblin	Posted - 2009.10.26 14:44:00 - [10] Easy fix, give us back 90% webs and don't listen to the idiots that can't grasp the concept of staying out of web range. I still can't believe CCP gave in to all you whiny pilots crying about getting ****d because you went into web range.

Nestor Laurenitis Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.10.26 17:16:00 - [11] Confirming I want to hit people harder.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.10.26 18:06:00 - [12] Oh noes my short-range weapon is short-ranged! The problem is lasers, and Scorch in particular. It's always better to nerf than to boost, it avoids power creep and creates entertaining whine threads.
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.10.26 21:32:00 - [13] Lots of great ideas here! Keep posting guys! :) Lets hope CCP listens to our whines :)
Stil Harkonnen	Posted - 2009.10.26 22:54:00 - [14] Originally by: Gypsio III Oh noes my short-range weapon is short-ranged! The problem is lasers, and Scorch in particular. It's always better to nerf than to boost, it avoids power creep and creates entertaining whine threads. oh noes my short ranged weapon is in many cases out damaged by long range weapons which are supposed to be short range weapons. of course we're whining to get boosted....
Fantom Lancer	Posted - 2009.10.27 04:10:00 - [15] up!
Ablack77	Posted - 2009.10.27 06:38:00 - [16] Agreed /supported
Zadook Nanoo	Posted - 2009.10.27 06:39:00 - [17] /support
eliminator2 Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.27 08:51:00 - [18] Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 25/10/2009 18:26:21 Medium blasters have embarrassing range. Large blasters aren't as bad. PS: i don't like when i sit at point blank range next to a webbed amarr ship, and it does nearly as much damage with lasers. An Armageddon with 7 mega pulse laser 2's, 5 t2 ogres and 3 damage mods deals ~1150 dps with all skills at lvl 5, and higher damage ammo type. Megathron with 7 neutron blaster cannons 2 and 5 t2 ogres deals 1200 damage with 3 damge mods and void ammo.. Range of mega (optimal+falloff) is 27km, range of geddon is 55 km.. that is with long-range ammunition. With Armogeddon having 2 times grater range, this is not right. ever tryed ORBITING your oponent instead of sat at 0km not moving ----------------------------------------------- I met Eliminator1..... I chewed it up, and spat it out. Now, he is my minion. I kill miners and mission runners people say, I call them target pra
pHenomena1337	Posted - 2009.10.27 10:57:00 - [19] Edited by: pHenomena1337 on 27/10/2009 10:57:27 Supported Moar damage at the same range should be fine. Edit: Large blasters are okay. ---------------------------------------------
Alexis Zalman	Posted - 2009.10.27 14:22:00 - [20] Edited by: Alexis Zalman on 27/10/2009 14:21:54 Originally by: pHenomena1337 Moar damage at the same range should be fine. Edit: Large blasters are okay. No, they are not. Pulse geddons/baddons can shoot poses, blaster battleships can't. 10 optimal/17 falloff w/AM L, 20 optimal/30 falloff with null will bea lot closer to lasers, which still get 45 optimal with T2 range ammo AND better tracking. Large blasters useless for anything but solo. And such changes will not make them any better at it, just make them an option for fleets. And deimos has been dead for a long time, just get a zealot...

Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.10.30 15:15:00 - [21] Keep the feedback coming, guys! :)
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2009.10.30 18:19:00 - [22] Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 30/10/2009 18:19:45 Blasters can barely outDPS pulses, and they have massively shorter range. That is not right. Fix Destroyers
IIIAsharakIII Solstice Systems Development Concourse Distant Drums	Posted - 2009.10.30 20:06:00 - [23] Move blasters to the highest tracking position. Leave pulses as they are, maybe lower tracking a little due to their range bonus. This will give gallente blaster boats a "uniqueness" to them which will also make them deadly. They still have to climb up to within 5km range, but from there on in, blasters should be king.
Neliel Soifon	Posted - 2009.10.30 21:44:00 - [24] Agreed, pulse are awsome, they got tracking, range and damage. Blasters are simply not powerfull enough for their extremely short range: either boost the damage output or increase the range.
HairySack Hangin	Posted - 2009.10.31 00:22:00 - [25] Originally by: Crotch Goblin Easy fix, give us back 90% webs and don't listen to the idiots that can't grasp the concept of staying out of web range. I still can't believe CCP gave in to all you whiny pilots crying about getting ****d because you went into web range. I agree wholly with this guy. Make webs useful again. Currently even a rapier/huginn has to throw multiple webs on a target just to begin slowing them down. If I decloak my rapier (with max skills) at 10km from an inty and it immediately MWDs away, by the time I lock and throw my webs on it the ship is already at 40km and if I overheat it can still coast beyond maximum range of even faction webs before they begin to slow appreciably. Blasters, now... their tracking could definitely use a boost to make fighting at point blank with one suicide (even for a frig v/ bs), but leave their range alone.
Maleficent's Heart Section XIII Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.10.31 09:11:00 - [26] /support
Kain Lemaire	Posted - 2009.10.31 09:57:00 - [27] Edited by: Kain Lemaire on 31/10/2009 09:57:21 Originally by: Xahara Solution: Either increase blasters' damage to match their ridiculous range or increase their ridiculous range to match their damage. /support
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.10.31 10:20:00 - [28] I would prefer more damage than more range. But yeah, atm, blasters need a boost really bad.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.10.31 11:18:00 - [29] Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 31/10/2009 11:20:08 Originally by: eliminator2 Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 25/10/2009 18:26:21 Medium blasters have embarrassing range. Large blasters aren't as bad. PS: i don't like when i sit at point blank range next to a webbed amarr ship, and it does nearly as much damage with lasers. An Armageddon with 7 mega pulse laser 2's, 5 t2 ogres and 3 damage mods deals ~1150 dps with all skills at lvl 5, and higher damage ammo type. Megathron with 7 neutron blaster cannons 2 and 5 t2 ogres deals 1200 damage with 3 damge mods and void ammo.. Range of mega (optimal+falloff) is 27km, range of geddon is 55 km.. that is with long-range ammunition. With Armogeddon having 2 times grater range, this is not right. ever tryed ORBITING your oponent instead of sat at 0km not moving You Noob , its the only way to use blasters efficiently atm. Try orbiting something within blasters optimal then speak again . And no your frigate orbiting BS doesnt count. Blasters Needs a buff badly , their dps(on paper) output is not even close to compensate for their pathetic range and inability to properly track targets in their optimal. While with large blasters issue isnt that great , small and medium are broken badly. I suggest : Their range should stay the same but - increase their dps or - increase tracking or - bring back 90% web with slightly tracking increse or - nerf lazors
Good Advice	Posted - 2009.10.31 14:25:00 - [30] I'd say that blasters need to be changed entirely and give something new to the gun field. Currently, Lasers have their niche, Projectiles are getting reworked to allow for some nice damage switching, but blasters work just like lasers, just worse. Changes to Blasters: Rewrite description to say they are a high damage weapon that has difficulty hitting at anything but close range. Increase damage by 50% Increase tracking by 300% Reduce optimal to 1 Tweak falloff to slightly less Change +optimal modifiers on ammo to +falloff Now, blasters do incredible damage at close range, but have difficutly hitting anything and damage decreases with every km of range. It turns blaster ships into close range death dealers that suck for anything past 5km or so. I'm ok with that.

Raimo Red Federation	Posted - 2009.10.31 15:01:00 - [31] Supported, small blasters are somewhat ok (mostly due to some great hulls to slap them on) but med and large blasters do need loving, or their bonused ships or the metagame. I never went with the Amarr bandwagon yet but incidentally I started to go for med projectile spec just as the boost was announced and can quite fast crosstrain lasers after that... Join RvB!
Nick Bison Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.11.01 05:46:00 - [32] Edited by: Nick Bison on 01/11/2009 05:46:04 Med & Large Blasters need some assist. Either that or the Deimos needs a + to PG and Speed
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2009.11.01 16:19:00 - [33] 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
nafiy gnaw	Posted - 2009.11.01 17:46:00 - [34] Originally by: Spugg Galdon 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 Remove the -50% tracking penalty of void ammo, should work?
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.01 18:12:00 - [35] Originally by: nafiy gnaw Originally by: Spugg Galdon 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 Remove the -50% tracking penalty of void ammo, should work? Still, Void damage is not enough. But that's a good thought, maybe boost Hybrid ammo, especifically Void and Null, and definitely way more tracking.
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2009.11.02 12:11:00 - [36] void reduces range and tracking, from that i conclude that it is designed to be used against larger tangets, e.g. frigs against bs, of bs against caps. Currently there damage is too low. Fix Destroyers
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2009.11.03 00:26:00 - [37] 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!
Shawn Dikarri Hot Drop inc.	Posted - 2009.11.03 03:28:00 - [38] /support Think of the blasters in Eve as a shotgun in Counter Strike or Halo. You gotta move fast or blind side someone to really poon them. Aside the KDR being negative, it sure is funny! In eve, I do not feel this way with the blasters' properties. Its either tank or gank of course, you cant do both I know this but there could be an upper with tracking (better hits). I dont know how to fix it, but Im sure y'all can figure something out. My 2cents
Dors Venabily	Posted - 2009.11.03 11:29:00 - [39] Originally by: Stil Harkonnen Originally by: Gypsio III Oh noes my short-range weapon is short-ranged! The problem is lasers, and Scorch in particular. It's always better to nerf than to boost, it avoids power creep and creates entertaining whine threads. oh noes my short ranged weapon is in many cases out damaged by long range weapons which are supposed to be short range weapons. of course we're whining to get boosted.... Worked for Amarr
Morar Santee	Posted - 2009.11.03 17:36:00 - [40] Blasters do really need some fixing. - a tiny bit more damage - a lot better tracking - make Gallente blaster ships the most agile (will be relativated by plates/trimarks anyway) Makes for nicely working blaster-boats. In their current state, I just stopped flying them.

Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2009.11.03 20:02:00 - [41] 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!!!
Alfons Richthofen Caldari Die Luftwaffe	Posted - 2009.11.04 08:19:00 - [42] 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.
Ivanna Nukya Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.04 08:45:00 - [43] I agree blasters need a boost, either more range or more punch. medium blasters need more range for sure.
Alfons Richthofen Caldari Die Luftwaffe	Posted - 2009.11.04 11:39:00 - [44] 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?
nafiy gnaw	Posted - 2009.11.04 12:32:00 - [45] Originally by: Alfons Richthofen 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? And the Ishtar has more or less 0 guns and the deimos is just pure broken whether used with blaster or railguns?
OzDeaDMeaT The Goodies	Posted - 2009.11.04 16:11:00 - [46] Agreed. Im tired of seeing PvP noobs flyin around in Caldari ships with FoF missiles and do AFK PvP cause my Deimos can't lay down damage from even abit of range. (Especially with T2 Blaster Ammo). Supported Eve-au.com News Reporter
The Djego Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.04 18:17:00 - [47] Edited by: The Djego on 04/11/2009 18:18:04 In general throw a role bonus(37.5% web strength increase, what makes 60% webs 75% webs) on dedicated blaster ships(thorax, diemos, brutix, Astarte, Mega, Hype) and balance from there(what only leaves minor things). You will end up with good solo ships, deadly close range PVP machines and make them own at short range again instead of being only handy caped with range. Simply the same thing you had pre QR. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Nick Bison Gallente Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.11.04 20:17:00 - [48] Edited by: Nick Bison on 04/11/2009 20:18:42 Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev void reduces range and tracking, from that i conclude that it is designed to be used against larger tangets, e.g. frigs against bs, of bs against caps. Currently there damage is too low. Let's see: Void -25% range, -50% tracking speed, -50% falloff, +25% cap and IIRC also slows the boats overall speed when loaded. Great formula for disaster when flying a blaster boat.
Nick Bison Gallente Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.11.04 20:57:00 - [49] Hey CSM members. Where do you all stand on this one? Curious as to wether or not this will make it to your recommendations section. Any info is appreciated
EdvensoR	Posted - 2009.11.05 04:26:00 - [50] Just replace these bonuses: Deimos - stupid mwd-cap-penalty bonuses (and increase capacitor capacity) Brutix/Eos/Astarte/Hyperion - armor rep bonus for Stasis web bonus like Kronos?

Blastil	Posted - 2009.11.05 15:18:00 - [51] Edited by: Blastil on 05/11/2009 15:18:23 I would like to point out a few different problems with blasters. Blaster tracking is fine, I have no problems hitting targets, however these must be addressed. 1.) all ships which deploy them do not receive the bonuses required to make them work. the Deimos can't fit an effective buffer tank without gimping its speed, and can't fit an active tank at all. Additionally it lacks the cost effectiveness to fit a glass cannon setup like a Thorax. this is a problem with some other blaster boats, but the Deimos shows it the worst. so revist the bonuses and ship designs for gallente. 2.) Give me like 3KM more to play in optimal? FFS, if i orbit at 2500 M I hit at optimal, but if I orbit at 4000 M I hit for **** all. that's just not right. (level 4 and 5 skills...) basically a slight buff to optimals. this could even be handled with gallente ships.
Vestus Regula The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.11.05 18:14:00 - [52] More damage, more tracking, more range on medium / small variants.
Gary Goat Yakuza Corp THE R0NIN	Posted - 2009.11.05 19:14:00 - [53] Yes i agree 100% with the OP. In regards to the deimos i'd like to see the following changes: Switch the MWD bonus for an AB speed bonus like the AFs on sisi have Switch the falloff bonus for a tracking bonus It will give the deimos a unique role and allow it complete range control within scrambler range. You'd also have the option to try to disengage if things go bad. You might even be able to fit somthing in that utility hi slot with the lower fitting cost of the AB
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.05 21:46:00 - [54] Originally by: Gary Goat Yes i agree 100% with the OP. In regards to the deimos i'd like to see the following changes: Switch the MWD bonus for an AB speed bonus like the AFs on sisi have Switch the falloff bonus for a tracking bonus It will give the deimos a unique role and allow it complete range control within scrambler range. You'd also have the option to try to disengage if things go bad. You might even be able to fit somthing in that utility hi slot with the lower fitting cost of the AB You know what, I love this idea. I would actually fly a Deimos if it had such bonuses :)
Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.06 17:25:00 - [55] When the speed changes hit the server and everything slowed down and webbers were changed I said "okay what's a reasonable amount of time for CCP to realize that my gallente bs's are screwed over and I'll give em that time to 'fix' the problem before I do something drastic." The goal was 60 days. I will now make fun of the ammar race for the rest of this post. 60 days hit and nothing, so I said "well, I hate missiles, and I don't want to fly duct tape into battle so that leaves ammar and their L4Z0Rz of death..." So I started training ammar, with the notion that by the time I could fly ALL ammmmarr ships with level 4 skills they would fix gallente and I can keep flying the ships I've known and loved for the last 3+ years till the nerf. But no, months have ticked by and I looked up today. I can fly every single amaaaaaaaaaaaaaar ship in the game except capitals and I can use full tech 2 on both. But still not even a peep about 'fixing' gallente.... k... So here I am, I LOVE my blaster boats. Charge up to an enemy, double web them to gumby in winter mode and lay down some JUSTICE!!!!. Yeah that's how it used to be. Now it's charge up to enemy slowly (MWD nerf) but fleets are still the same distance apart it seems! Oh noes! So more of my precious capacitor is gone. Finally get in range and 'HA HA!' I exclaim as I fire my web on that damn other bs going 800m/s he'll slow to 100 m/s like before! nope. He's still going 400 m/s. (webber nerf) So obviously I need a second web to get the same effect, np opens EFT and has 4 mids to work with k, webber check, cap injector check, scram check, mwd 100mn check. "hrm, seems I don't have enough slots." And can't take anything off, interesting." Well I could work with the tacklers but warping around even once messes up any plan. I could take off my scram, but then he could just warp off. I can't take off my capa injector or I won't last more then 2 minutes in combat, of which 4 to 5 mintues will be spent mwding into the super close range. Well I can throw that idea out the window :) Even with 3 CCC rigs this thing gets a tad expensive whether hyper or mega. And when people see you going that close in, your going to get primaried into the stone age. I don't want this to come off as whiny, it's more of a 'well, I hope they take a look at it at least!' Many people have brought this issue up before and it hasn't been addressed. Hopefully with enough 'supports' CSM will at least address the issue many of us seem to be having. As for me? I'm flying aaammmarr till it's fixed. Do I like aarrmammar? Not really, lasers are cool and all but I love the thump of a railgun tearing the air (that doesn't exist) in space like a giant... air.. ripping... device. With laz0rs I get to hit from 30km, and usually tear apart the megat's trying to close the gap long before they arrive. Even with our similar 'close range fits'. So my ammamaamrmrrrrhickuprrars battleships, and such have my attention. I hope CCP will at least 'consider' fixing the gallente issues atm. And I hope the my beloved blaster boats get some loving :) Till then tho... -AMARARRARRRAAAAAAAR Victor! laugh damn you, LAUGH! Atlas Head Diplomat CEO - Di-Tron Heavy Industries ~~Carebear~~ Pvper?!?!?
Dograzor	Posted - 2009.11.06 20:37:00 - [56] /signed Fix blasters soon please.
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2009.11.06 22:46:00 - [57] 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!!
Alfons Richthofen Caldari Die Luftwaffe	Posted - 2009.11.07 09:42:00 - [58] Originally by: nafiy gnaw Originally by: Alfons Richthofen 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? And the Ishtar has more or less 0 guns and the deimos is just pure broken whether used with blaster or railguns? Lv5 skills used: Zealot has 0 drones and 5 guns (276 dps, scorch, 1039.5pg/5 slots used, 34+5 range) Ishtar has 5 drones and 3 guns (475 dps no guns, 0pg/slots used, 85km drone range, sentries do similar damage) Quit crying you sack of sht, till heavy drones take power grid and slots, your argument is completely stupid. The Ishtar doesn't have to fit a single thing to worry about damage while the Zealot needs to sacrifice 3 low slots to compare to the Ishtar's damage. Also gunboats have to worry about tracking when something gets too close too, the Zealot can't track any kind of frigate that tackles it up close while the Ishtar can neut the *** out of it and sic drones on it. The only change that should be done to the Deimos is another medium slot for a web and maybe one less high slot in exchange.
Walmatar	Posted - 2009.11.07 15:54:00 - [59] Buff tracking, and what the hell, give them a sig res boost as well.
nafiy gnaw	Posted - 2009.11.07 17:38:00 - [60] Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 07/11/2009 17:42:03 Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 07/11/2009 17:41:10 Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 07/11/2009 17:40:57 Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 07/11/2009 17:38:32 Originally by: Alfons Richthofen Originally by: nafiy gnaw Originally by: Alfons Richthofen 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? And the Ishtar has more or less 0 guns and the deimos is just pure broken whether used with blaster or railguns? Lv5 skills used: Zealot has 0 drones and 5 guns (276 dps, scorch, 1039.5pg/5 slots used, 34+5 range) Ishtar has 5 drones and 3 guns (475 dps no guns, 0pg/slots used, 85km drone range, sentries do similar damage) Quit crying you sack of sht, till heavy drones take power grid and slots, your argument is completely stupid. The Ishtar doesn't have to fit a single thing to worry about damage while the Zealot needs to sacrifice 3 low slots to compare to the Ishtar's damage. Also gunboats have to worry about tracking when something gets too close too, the Zealot can't track any kind of frigate that tackles it up close while the Ishtar can neut the *** out of it and sic drones on it. The only change that should be done to the Deimos is another medium slot for a web and maybe one less high slot in exchange. Hail, EFT warrior for the win. You DO realise that what looks good in EFT dont necessarily mean its gonna be useful in battle? 1: Heavy drones require 80-100 seconds (and that is with drone navigation lvl5) to travel 85km to target. I can align and escape in a Frieghter 5 times in 100 seconds. A sniper that actually requires 80 seconds to touch its target? lol. 2: Sentry drone is instant but only Curator hits to 70km and its the worst damage Sentry,a sniper HAC can easily hit 100km and laugh at the sentry as a stationary sentry is just completely incapable of chasing down any thing. 3. Same old argument: You can destroy drones(easily), you cannot destroy someone's turrent. 4. A drone boat cannot agro anyone at station or Gate in low-sec otherwise its byebye omfpwned drones. And that is 95% of the battle in low-sec cannot be fought in a Ishtar. And, your argument just fails: A 85KM sniper is never a good sniper, let alone it rely on drones to "snipe", lol. Neither is calling someone a bag of whatever add any weight to your argument, if you have any sort of argument in the first place. Which is, a big fat NO. -nafiy

Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:36:00 - [61] @ 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.
Cpt Branko The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.08 00:02:00 - [62] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 08/11/2009 00:02:11 Blaster problems, in my view: (1) A problem with all sub-BS ship fitting and bonuses. On all ships, there is one type of blaster worth fitting: the neutron blaster. Everything else, and you do not in fact have that significant damage advantage over other weapon systems up close (making blasters pointless). This is a problem, because all sub-BS ship (bar Mega) cannot fit neutron blasters without fitting mods and paper EHP. This results in a line of ships which are worthless at ranges they're supposed to dominate at, namely point blank, excepting the odd drone ship. Take the Brutix: the only way you'll get a BC which has a damage advantage up close is by fitting neutrons, 3 MFS and a shield tank. As a result, you get a paper-thin ship which even when it does get to its optimal range (aside from horribly dying to anything smaller then it) dies to proper BCs which can in fact gank and tank at the same time. Myrmidon works much the same way, although gets a better (passable generally) tank in return for a smaller DPS advantage over its opponents up close. It also has a, for PVP purposes, stupid active rep bonus. For solo work, low DPS is a horrible idea, for gang work active repping is generally a bad choice on top of low DPS being a horrible idea. Frigates are plagued with split weapon systems or being Tier 2 in case of Incursus. Thorax is plagued by inability to fit buffer and neutrons. Vexor is good because drones plus small guns work on the ship, thanks to the dps output of the bonused 75m3 drone combination. Diemost is a 110 million Thorax. It also suffers from ******ed fitting, not to mention that the idea of a point blank HAC is probably bad anyway. Astarte has all the Brutix problems, again. The ship if fit for tank becomes trash because of damage output. If fit for gank, it's too paperthin. (2) Generic problem with up close damage of blasters. Current DPS figures of competing ships are such that you only have some form of advantage over them with neutrons, and even then the advantage is very minute at best. Combined with fitting issues, it means that you can often kill blasterboats in their optimal (I fly Minmatar and do it all the time - after one point I decided that kiting blasterboats is tedious when you can just reload to Hail and show them who's boss at 1km), not to mention the horrible death if they have to actually sustain damage while closing range. The damage advantage is just a bit too low as it is. Anyway, for a fix... I'll run out of characters, wait ;) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Alfons Richthofen Caldari Die Luftwaffe	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:45:00 - [63] Originally by: nafiy gnaw Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 07/11/2009 17:42:03 Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 07/11/2009 17:41:10 Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 07/11/2009 17:40:57 Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 07/11/2009 17:38:32 Originally by: Alfons Richthofen Originally by: nafiy gnaw Originally by: Alfons Richthofen 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? And the Ishtar has more or less 0 guns and the deimos is just pure broken whether used with blaster or railguns? Lv5 skills used: Zealot has 0 drones and 5 guns (276 dps, scorch, 1039.5pg/5 slots used, 34+5 range) Ishtar has 5 drones and 3 guns (475 dps no guns, 0pg/slots used, 85km drone range, sentries do similar damage) Quit crying you sack of sht, till heavy drones take power grid and slots, your argument is completely stupid. The Ishtar doesn't have to fit a single thing to worry about damage while the Zealot needs to sacrifice 3 low slots to compare to the Ishtar's damage. Also gunboats have to worry about tracking when something gets too close too, the Zealot can't track any kind of frigate that tackles it up close while the Ishtar can neut the *** out of it and sic drones on it. The only change that should be done to the Deimos is another medium slot for a web and maybe one less high slot in exchange. Hail, EFT warrior for the win. You DO realise that what looks good in EFT dont necessarily mean its gonna be useful in battle? 1: Heavy drones require 80-100 seconds (and that is with drone navigation lvl5) to travel 85km to target. I can align and escape in a Frieghter 5 times in 100 seconds. A sniper that actually requires 80 seconds to touch its target? lol. 2: Sentry drone is instant but only Curator hits to 70km and its the worst damage Sentry,a sniper HAC can easily hit 100km and laugh at the sentry as a stationary sentry is just completely incapable of chasing down any thing. 3. Same old argument: You can destroy drones(easily), you cannot destroy someone's turrent. 4. A drone boat cannot agro anyone at station or Gate in low-sec otherwise its byebye omfpwned drones. And that is 95% of the battle in low-sec cannot be fought in a Ishtar. And, your argument just fails: A 85KM sniper is never a good sniper, let alone it rely on drones to "snipe", lol. Neither is calling someone a bag of whatever add any weight to your argument, if you have any sort of argument in the first place. Which is, a big fat NO. -nafiy A sniper zealot can't aggro at station either, a sniper zealot can't do sentry damage at 80km, a sniper zealot can't chase down an enemy due to it's lack of defenses, EFT is a perfect valid damage presenting tool. And I never said Ishtars were better snipers, I just said their DPS was high with a large optimal. And I like how you completely left out the parts that you have no argument against, like how the Ishtar and Deimos are completely superior at closer ranges anyways. EFT works just fine, hate you superior "i can do it myself hurr my math is better than computers" f4gs.
nafiy gnaw	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:08:00 - [64] Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 08/11/2009 21:11:55 Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 08/11/2009 21:10:45 Originally by: Alfons Richthofen A sniper zealot can't aggro at station either, a sniper zealot can't do sentry damage at 80km, a sniper zealot can't chase down an enemy due to it's lack of defenses, EFT is a perfect valid damage presenting tool. And I never said Ishtars were better snipers, I just said their DPS was high with a large optimal. Lol What? Do you even pvp? Which sentry goes to 80 km? Sine when is heavy drones good at taking on HACs? Originally by: Alfons Richthofen And I like how you completely left out the parts that you have no argument against, like how the Ishtar and Deimos are completely superior at closer ranges anyways. EFT works just fine, hate you superior "i can do it myself hurr my math is better than computers" f4gs. And tell me, how is Deimos and Ishtar being superior at close range? The only way a Deimos can outdamage a Zealot is to fit neutron blasters couple with void ammo. Void ammo gives a -50% in tracking (which does NOT show up on the DPS of EFT) means at close range, against anything that has a transversial velocity (such as, a Zealot), it does pathetic damage. And thats exactly the reason why this thread exist. People are moaning because blasters are supposed to be superior at close range but they are actually not. So while a blaster Deimos looks although it has a higher DPS, in a real close-range fight it does -less- DPS. No, I cant do maths better than a computer, but what I can do better is use my brain and battle experience and a computer cant do that. Oh, forgot to mention, you cant even seem to use EFT, with all skills at V, with 2 heat sinks II and heavy pulse laser II, a Zealot actually does 406 DPS with Scorch. Even with no heat sinks Zealot with HPII does 301 DPS. So please tell me where does your 276 comes from. Also, when equipped with the 75km sentry drone Warden II and no guns, a Ishtar does 338 damage. That is actually LESS than a 5-gun Zealot. -nafiy
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:16:00 - [65] Originally by: Alfons Richthofen stuffs First of all, the Ishtar is not a good sniper HAC, as you'll be moving/aligning somewhere all the time, leaving no option for the use of sentry drones, because you'll just fall out of range of scooping them. Second, on the Zealot vs Deimos argument, the Zealot can do instant damage at a variety of ranges, with quite a bit of tank, while the Deimos, to actually be used, needs to have a 1600mm plate and needs to burn towards its opponent to actually apply damage, while its speed isn't that good either. Of course, there's a lot of variables to take into account, such as warp-in distance and whatever. But, in general, blaster boats could use more base speed/reduced mass or a significant boost to damage or (look up the thread for some awesome suggestions). Also, a Zealot vs Deimos fight is actually a dumb example, because the zealot is a sniper and has range bonuses, while the Deimos is not really geared to be a sniper (although it can fill that role) and it's supposed to be an "In Yo' Face!" gankboat. And, for that role, I can say that a Shield Brutix (before you start flaming me for even combinating those two terms, go and check it out yourself. They're pretty good boats), although it doesn't have the agility and speed of a Deimos, in terms of numbers, it has a similar tank, much more damage output and it doesn't suffer from plates' penalties. So, past that, I want to bring up a especific thing that's been bothering me a bit, which is Gallente Command Ships, nomenately, the Astarte. I believe the armor rep bonus should be upped to 10%, because right now, it is not worth the buck. I reckon it's role is for small gang warfare, so, that small rep bonus doesnt do the trick, compared to the almighty Absolution... But anyways, that's an issue worth a whole different thread. This one is about boosting blasters.
Alfons Richthofen Caldari Die Luftwaffe	Posted - 2009.11.08 21:18:00 - [66] Originally by: nafiy gnaw Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 08/11/2009 21:11:55 Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 08/11/2009 21:10:45 Originally by: Alfons Richthofen A sniper zealot can't aggro at station either, a sniper zealot can't do sentry damage at 80km, a sniper zealot can't chase down an enemy due to it's lack of defenses, EFT is a perfect valid damage presenting tool. And I never said Ishtars were better snipers, I just said their DPS was high with a large optimal. Lol What? Do you even pvp? Which sentry goes to 80 km? Sine when is heavy drones good at taking on HACs? Originally by: Alfons Richthofen And I like how you completely left out the parts that you have no argument against, like how the Ishtar and Deimos are completely superior at closer ranges anyways. EFT works just fine, hate you superior "i can do it myself hurr my math is better than computers" f4gs. And tell me, how is Deimos and Ishtar being superior at close range? The only way a Deimos can outdamage a Zealot is to fit neutron blasters couple with void ammo. Void ammo gives a -50% in tracking (which does NOT show up on the DPS of EFT) means at close range, against anything that has a transversial velocity (such as, a Zealot), it does pathetic damage. And thats exactly the reason why this thread exist. People are moaning because blasters are supposed to be superior at close range but they are actually not. So while a blaster Deimos looks although it has a higher DPS, in a real close-range fight it does -less- DPS. No, I cant do maths better than a computer, but what I can do better is use my brain and battle experience and a computer cant do that. Oh, forgot to mention, you cant even seem to use EFT, with all skills at V, with 2 heat sinks II and heavy pulse laser II, a Zealot actually does 406 DPS with Scorch. Even with no heat sinks Zealot with HPII does 301 DPS. So please tell me where does your 276 comes from. Also, when equipped with the 75km sentry drone Warden II and no guns, a Ishtar does 338 damage. That is actually LESS than a 5-gun Zealot. -nafiy Zealot does 301 with multifrequency, I used scorch ammo because (276) people are crying about the range being too huge. A Zealot with 75km range cannot do 338 damage even with 3 heat sinks and Aurora ammo, so it's not less than a 5 gun Zealot firing at the same range. (Heavy Beam Laser II) And the Deimos is superior in close range because it has DRONES, 5 MEDIUM TECH II HAMMERHEADS. A scrambled Zealot with hammerheads and hybrids on it will die VERY fast to a Deimos. The Gallente specialize in close quarters combat so don't try to change that. With Federation Navy Antimatter a Deimos also will hit harder than a Zealot with Amarr Navy Multifrequency even without drones.
nafiy gnaw	Posted - 2009.11.08 22:01:00 - [67] Edited by: nafiy gnaw on 08/11/2009 22:01:54 And a Full Neutron-fit Deimos will just die faster than anybody when scrambled, your point? Ever wondered why the Deimos was called the Diemost?
Tyslas	Posted - 2009.11.09 01:57:00 - [68] /support
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2009.11.09 03:37:00 - [69] 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.
Razzor Death Antares Shipyards Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.09 08:41:00 - [70] do something already...

FU22 Imperium Signal Corps Underworld Excavators	Posted - 2009.11.09 09:29:00 - [71] Not supported, if anything a SLIGHT range increase on blasters or a slight range nerf on scorch so people stop their complaining.
Taudia Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.09 10:22:00 - [72] In order to keep the flavor difference between ACs pulse and blasters, but get blasters in-line with regard to performance, blasters damage need to be raised a bit. The difficulties associated with not being able to deal damage at speed disruption range (10-13km) is a huge disadvantage over lasers and ACs.
Nim Mizer Voices of War Event Horizon.	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:37:00 - [73] /support Jst take a look at the Killboards. Deimos vs Zealot has 1:10 ratio. I'd always prefer a Brutix > Deimos.
Al'kanree	Posted - 2009.11.09 13:56:00 - [74] lol guy crying about Deimos try this setting in short range. [Deimos, dps] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Armor Explosive Hardener II Cap Recharger II Warp Scrambler II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Drone Link Augmentor I Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Medium Anti-EM Pump I Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I Hammerhead II x5 Only 723 dps (with the drone) in short range and the tracking is not too bad. no the blaster is correct no supported
Taudia Gallente Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.09 14:52:00 - [75] Originally by: Al'kanree Edited by: Al''kanree on 09/11/2009 14:17:49 lol guy crying about Deimos try this setting in short range. [Deimos, dps] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Armor Explosive Hardener II Cap Recharger II Warp Scrambler II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Drone Link Augmentor I Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Medium Anti-EM Pump I Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I Hammerhead II x5 Only 723 dps (with the drone) in short range and the tracking is not too bad. [Deimos, dps long range] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution 10MN Afterburner II Drone Link Augmentor I 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I Warden II x2 About 318 DPS Better than zealot no the blaster is correct no supported You think a 150 mil boat with 700 dps at 5km but no tank whatsoever is good? try comparing it to the Brutix or the Ferox and see if you find anything the deimos does better than the two (aside from a little damage).
Al'kanree	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:02:00 - [76] Quote: You think a 150 mil boat with 700 dps at 5km but no tank whatsoever is good? try comparing it to the Brutix or the Ferox and see if you find anything the deimos does better than the two (aside from a little damage). Yes it's true. But he try to compare the zealot again the deimos to say the blaster or railgun are not good.He say the zealot are more dps in short range. It's false and it's also false for the long range. For me they are no problem with the hybrid turret with gallente (but they are certainly some problem with the caldari)
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:49:00 - [77] 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.
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:49:00 - [78] Originally by: Al'kanree EFT Warrioring So, you need 2 Tracking Enhancers to actually be efficient? That doesn't seem efficient at all to me. Also, if the Cruiser size difference in Blasters vs Pulse Lasers is that big, then why is this not translated into Large Blasters aswell? Blasters still need a tracking boost to justify their damage and Large ones need a damage boost, on top of that. So, here you go, if you like numbers: [Armageddon, gank] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Adaptive Nano Plating II Adaptive Nano Plating II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 100MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L [empty high slot] Large Trimark Armor Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I Ogre II x5 1088 DPS over 25km (15+10) [Megathron, gank] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 100MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Scrambler II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L [empty high slot] Large Trimark Armor Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I Ogre II x5 1148 DPS over 17.5km (4.5 + 13), even though you would be shooting only in falloff... The difference in DPS is barely noticeable, whilst the range is entirely different. If I were to choose between an Armageddon or a Megathron to go with in a large fleet battle, I would definitely choose the first one, for various reasons: Megathron doesn't have enough damage output and tracking to justify its choosing (even though it has a tracking bonus); Armageddon can hit targets at a much superior range; Armageddon can switch ammo in 1 second and hit over 55km; Megathron doesn't have enough speed to catch up with targets to apply damage; what else? The only good thing is that it has 1 more mid slot for any miscellaneous module... Could fit a TC there, but would have to downgrade 1 EANM for an Adaptive Plating, reducing tank ability.
Cpt Branko The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.10 01:49:00 - [79] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 10/11/2009 01:53:05 Originally by: Spugg Galdon 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. If all you're asking for is tracking then you still end up with useless ships. The tracking problem isn't really there unless you're doing something wrong or shooting smaller ships then you. Maybe with two AB frigates fighting each other... maybe. You must be simply doing something horribly wrong. I have little problems tracking ships of same size using ACs loaded with Hail M, which track about 50% worse then blasters with CNAM and have a yet shorter optimal and falloff then neutrons. Range is more of a issue, but that is how blasters work. Lack of real DPS advantage in realistic fits compared to competitors is more of a issue then anything else. Damage and ships (and fitting) in general is the problem. Also, you cannot separate ships from the weapons. Bad ship bonuses need to go. Armor rep bonus, I'm looking at you specifically. (alternatively, introduce dual reps as one module and reduce fitting requirements of reps in general, so ships can fit damage and tank) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Taudia Gallente Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:04:00 - [80] Originally by: Cpt Branko Range is more of a issue, but that is how blasters work. Lack of real DPS advantage in realistic fits compared to competitors is more of a issue then anything else. Damage and ships (and fitting) in general is the problem. Also, you cannot separate ships from the weapons. Bad ship bonuses need to go. Armor rep bonus, I'm looking at you specifically. (alternatively, introduce dual reps as one module and reduce fitting requirements of reps in general, so ships can fit damage and tank) The first paragraph there sums it up pretty well as I see it. Even with comparable damage bonuses, blasters deal inferior damage at inferior range compared to lasers. The armor rep bonus is not nearly as bad as the MWD cap penalty bonus though - medium size blasterboats aren't going to win fleet battles, so the dps they are likely to be subject to isn't too large for a good active rep tank to have an effect and switching it to a res bonus takes a lot of the flavor away. Perhaps an AB bonus instead?

Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.16 14:51:00 - [81] C'mon, guys! This needs to be a Threadnaught so CCP actually pays attention to this issue! Keep the feedback coming! :)
Bevil Smyth Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.16 15:31:00 - [82] /supported medium and large blasters specifically seem to be pretty lacking these days. Tracking + Damage boost seems like the most reasonable suggestion, leave range in its niche. im seeing less and less med/large blasters on ships these days and its a real shame. ============================ 2003 and still alive!
Denga Vulture Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.16 18:48:00 - [83] /support
Cpt Branko The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.16 19:42:00 - [84] From my understanding of racial balance, blasters are supposed to rule within the short confines of their optimal - but now they only do so (in med/small level in particular) if you gimp your buffer to the point where you're much more fragile then ships with 30-50% more EHP then you. Making your ship a glass cannon to get 15%-20% more DPS sucks, when you're already outranged by a factor of 2-3. A blasterboat landing within his optimal should have a heavy advantage to compensate for its (in comparison) horrible range along with locked damage types and cap-using weapons. Now that isn't so, because either the ships suck (which they sort of do, since rep bonus is incompatible with doing DPS), the guns suck (neutrons don't, but everything below that doesn't have a real DPS edge over competition and gets a horrible drop in range, and neutrons have horrible horrible fitting requirements). These are the problems which need fixing in some way. Give me some incentive to kite a blasterboat (or train for one if I want to do short-range ganking). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Korvin	Posted - 2009.12.11 13:50:00 - [85] The Hybrid turrets need some love, blasters and railguns. i tried to compare guns with their advantages here, but still much things to be discussed.
Cearain	Posted - 2009.12.14 17:14:00 - [86] Blasters do seem to be a pretty weak weapon. Your opponent will always have an easy plan of trying to keep range and if they can you are dead. If he sees you took the 10 seconds to load null he can move in and your transversal sucks. So you must dedicate resources to closing range but your tank often won't hold when you do. I agree the tracking should either be enhanced or the tracking of lasers and autocannons should be nerfed or a bit of both. The damage should be boosted a bit too.
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2009.12.14 18:40:00 - [87] Originally by: Korvin The Hybrid turrets need some love, blasters and railguns. i tried to compare guns with their advantages here, but still much things to be discussed. The double tracking on a eam laser surprised me alot.I fail to see any reason for it.
darkmancer	Posted - 2009.12.15 00:34:00 - [88] supported --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong
Bellum Eternus Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.15 10:24:00 - [89] Edited by: Bellum Eternus on 15/12/2009 10:25:51 I see a lot of people posting in this thread arguing that blasters are just fine, but I don't see any of those same people with very many, if any, kills using blaster ships. Or kills of any sort for that matter. If you don't have solid experience flying blaster ships, and indeed solid experience flying most if not all races ships and ship sizes in PVP, you have no business posting in this thread. Zero. NONE. Since Dominion I think that the balance between lasers and projectiles is at a really good point. Lasers are the benchmark by which all other guns are now judged, and projectiles now have some unique features like real working damage selection with high damage ammo and improved falloff and tracking and so on. The damage curves actually end up being unique enough that each weapon system has it's own advantages and disadvantages. The goal of improving blasters- Blasters don't need more range. That's not their role. Short range is FINE. Leave the range alone. They're role is to do massive amounts of damage at extreme short range, and be able to hit reliably inside this small envelope of performance. Boost blaster tracking to whatever point is needed to guarantee hits within their optimal range and boost blaster damage to the point that it's significantly more powerful than the next highest DPS weapon at that short range (probably lasers) by about 35-45%. Yes, you heard right- 35-45%. Blasters need to work as well at point blank range as scorch works at long range. In other words, no other gun system should even be in the same league as blasters when fighting at extreme close range. Don't like having your face melted off? Then don't close to within 4km of a blaster ship. Problem solved. T2 ammo is another issue, but T2 short ranged ammo needs to be addressed as well. Right now the damage difference between T2 guns/ammo and T1 guns and faction ammo is extremely small. Too small in fact. T2 ammo needs to have it's penalties removed and it's damage increased by a large margin so that the combination is clearly superior to T1 guns and faction ammo. As an example, Void should have the tracking penalty removed. The longer optimal and shorter falloff make it unique, as does the higher cap use, but it should have significantly higher base damage than faction antimatter to make up for the higher cap use. Similar changes need to occur for Conflag and Hail. Blasters need a lot more tracking and a lot more damage. Not range. We have lasers and ACs for range. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Al'kanree	Posted - 2009.12.15 14:26:00 - [90] Edited by: Al''kanree on 15/12/2009 14:27:48 Edited by: Al''kanree on 15/12/2009 14:26:22 Quote: Posted - 2009.12.11 13:50:00 - [85] - Quote Report The Hybrid turrets need some love, blasters and railguns. i tried to compare guns with their advantages here, but still much things to be discussed. Hey guy The beam as a good tracking ok. But look also the need in capa for that the double of the rail gun. One weapons is not only dps and tracking but also How it's possible to fit your ship. In first time you complaining about blaster and now you are in the railgun. It's not exactly the same weapons

Zhula Guixgrixks Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations	Posted - 2009.12.15 16:45:00 - [91] Yes for a well balanced but significant dmg boost. No tracking boost for blasters. It would ruin life of smaller ships orbiting bigger one, rendering them useless again.
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2009.12.22 10:29:00 - [92] bump
MoeJoe Green The Black Legionnares Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 12:09:00 - [93] Bump! Please, fix my blaster boats. Oh, and fix my Gallente drone boats by fixing the damn drone orbit bug
Brengholl	Posted - 2009.12.22 21:24:00 - [94] the blasters need a significant DPS boost, to compensate for the laughable range and pathetic effective tracking or they need a significant tracking boost so they really become close-range rulers currently they completely fail except in EFT where you get pretty numbers (and those are actually on average only 10% higher than other races) the railguns dont do much better either, i dont fly snipers so im not talking about pvp here, but railguns are realy bad for pve where the combat is at medium ranges... noone needs the max possible 200km range in pve, and in 30-70 km railguns fail... tracking anything at less than 30km is almost impossible (ok) and the dmg at 70km is just bad (not ok). Add to that the galente-stopping sleeper AI said to be implemented soon(tm) into missions and the galente wil fail at ... well everything (thank god for hospital domi)
Kaldoreign CNexus	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:44:00 - [95] /signed Blasters may seem great but they can't compete with any other weapon; lasers ( better range and dps), missiles ( range and tracking with precision ammo), projectiles have good tracking and nice dps along with decent range. Also, since blasters don't have range it sucks to have to fit them on a pve BC/HAC/CS or t3 proteus. Railguns have laughable dps and blasters have pathetic range... Drones are okay but with new npc AI they are getting constantly attacked in anomalies. Give us some sort of solution, since atm most pilots are flying gallente ships with completely different fits - shield tanked myrmidon, minmatar projectile turrets.. The only thing that remained are drones, for now.
fleecee	Posted - 2009.12.23 08:26:00 - [96]
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.12.24 17:13:00 - [97] Up again for everyone to see it!
Meyr Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.12.25 07:35:00 - [98] Edited by: Meyr on 25/12/2009 07:36:36 +1 for many of the reasons mentioned. Blasters are simply a joke, railguns aren't much better. As a group, Hybrid Turrets need some serious attention given to them the same as Projectiles just received. Also, as much as I hate to swing the nerf bat, Lasers DO need to be brought more in-line with other turret weapon systems. When they have similar tracking, vastly superior range, and 95% of the damage, why fly anything else? Eve University - Send us your noobs, we'll send you back well-educated noobs!!
MEM0 Red Core	Posted - 2009.12.27 04:41:00 - [99] First of all i love blaster's have done for years but they really need some love now Some ideas -Give blasters 10-15% more base damage to all blasters keep range the same -5% Speed and agility boost to blaster boats Thorax/Deimos/Brutix/Eos/Astarte/Megathron/Hyperion (Kronos)? -Void ammo remove tracking penalty altogether reduce range bonus to 15-20% keep falloff the same increase cap use by 5%-10% increase Void damage by 5-10% -Give all blaster boats 5-10% more capacitor capacity as mwding into range really really hurts your cap -Tracking bonus for blasters 20-35% -Deimos keep the bonus's how they are now but remove a low and add a mid this ship really needs a web with the damage increaee above lossing a low should be fine And before someone says train Amarr/Minmatar i have done and you know what a blaster boat would still be my first choice For those people that are saying blaster's are fine they damn well are not so dont post about them if you have no idea hello Bellum long time since i've been on the bad end of your blasters trained amarr yet?
Hot Tubes Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.27 16:12:00 - [100] Tracking boost needs to be handled delicately. It shouldn't go back to the period when a Mega could seriously mess up cruisers without tracking issues (though the web nerf may have been more than enough on its own to rectify this). Back on topic, BOOST BLASTORZE. There's no sane reason to choose them unless they're the only weapon you have trained and you can't fly ships of other races.

Kaldoreign Caldari CNexus	Posted - 2009.12.31 02:53:00 - [101] For great justice, bump for blasters.
bastet 666	Posted - 2009.12.31 23:52:00 - [102] Edited by: bastet 666 on 31/12/2009 23:55:14 CCP when you will aknowladge that 10% more dps is not worth 3X less of optimal range than lasers ? And what if something moves in less than 1,5km (with 2km optimal of medium blasters) , you cant track propely unless you hold still and your target is webbed and scrammed( thank you web nerf ) . And gallente ships with self repair bonus. In order to use a bonus on ship you have to downgrade guns insalny low becuase you lack of powergrid, which negate even this pathetic 10% more dps bonus than other guns. AND Its obviosuly better to fit something diffrent than blatsers( or rails in taht matter) on ships with no bonus to hybrid guns. I belive it says something about how blasters are broken. There is much more issues. The whole gallente needs a redesign including freaking lp store and armor stuff that is no better than t2 but 10X more expensive and just clogging your database as if you have nothing better to do with your resources.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2010.01.03 06:10:00 - [103] Originally by: MEM0 First of all i love blaster's have done for years but they really need some love now Some ideas -Give blasters 10-15% more base damage to all blasters keep range the same -5% Speed and agility boost to blaster boats Thorax/Deimos/Brutix/Eos/Astarte/Megathron/Hyperion (Kronos)? -Void ammo remove tracking penalty altogether reduce range bonus to 15-20% keep falloff the same increase cap use by 5%-10% increase Void damage by 5-10% -Give all blaster boats 5-10% more capacitor capacity as mwding into range really really hurts your cap -Tracking bonus for blasters 20-35% -Deimos keep the bonus's how they are now but remove a low and add a mid this ship really needs a web with the damage increaee above lossing a low should be fine And before someone says train Amarr/Minmatar i have done and you know what a blaster boat would still be my first choice For those people that are saying blaster's are fine they damn well are not so dont post about them if you have no idea hello Bellum long time since i've been on the bad end of your blasters trained amarr yet? Sadly, CCP has pretty much broken my will to champion blaster fixes that they so badly need. I now have large pulse spec 5 and soon to have large autocannon spec 5. It'll take nothing short of a miracle to get me out of my Mach and into my Vindi given the current state of the game.
schniefer Good Company	Posted - 2010.01.03 14:07:00 - [104] /supported
chatgris Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.01.03 19:23:00 - [105] Edited by: chatgris on 03/01/2010 19:23:28 More damage, keep the tracking as it is so that you can't wtfpwn all sizes of ships in a mega.
agram tabris Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.01.04 03:14:00 - [106] Edited by: agram tabris on 04/01/2010 03:14:36 so many solutions offered by pilots...and sooo many devs stil sleeping about it... /supported! -> give blasters increase in range or decrease range on any other close range weapon system ingame.. -> make blasterboats faster so they can get in range quickly...make them able to fill the role they're intended to... no sig.
Cadian Smith	Posted - 2010.01.04 13:48:00 - [107] /Signed
Qing Jao Salvation Army.	Posted - 2010.01.04 14:56:00 - [108] /supported Selling "Qing Jao" for this exact reason honestly... playing about on the test server I lost about 10+ Deimos's and killed nothing. Arazu's are crap too, I almost NEVER see them flown because damps are crap and they dont tank and they only get 4 mid slots so not much to do with there. I'm gonna be going Minmatar or Amarr, I've been thinking Amarr really tho. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Salvation Army. - Doing The Most Good
Ogogov	Posted - 2010.01.04 18:46:00 - [109] Both blasters and railguns need looking at. Hybrids are already tactically limited due to their static damage types (Kin/Therm) Blasters do not do enough damage to sell them over pulse lasers Railguns have no advantage over artillery or lasers due to low alpha, awful tracking and mediocre dps.
Khanstruct United Miners and Manufacturers Co. High Treason Alliance	Posted - 2010.01.05 19:04:00 - [110] Supported

Tuvar Hiede Snuggle Muffins	Posted - 2010.01.05 20:05:00 - [111] I agree with high dps short range in theroy, but a large neut. AM having a 4500 opt. If I recall os abit rediculas considering its a BS class weapon. I think a minor buff on optimal would seriously help, but dropping laser range would help as a balance in addition. If they want to look at ammo as a balance increase the opt. Percentage on Null from 80% to maybe 120%? I still support weapon changes in general though
Theac Osiris	Posted - 2010.01.05 23:35:00 - [112] Supported. I've always heard that blasters are supposed to be the ultimate short-range weapon, but when other weapon systems do nearly as much DPS at significantly longer range, and when blasters can't track very well at their optimal, they are not doing their job. I'd prefer a major buff to blaster tracking, and a minor increase to DPS relative to the other turret systems (which might just mean a nerf of lasers/ACs). Gallente boats have enough troubles getting into blaster range-it's ridiculous when their supposed DPS advantage turns out to be minor on paper and nonexistent in practice.
Morgoth Twilight	Posted - 2010.01.06 02:55:00 - [113] Edited by: Morgoth Twilight on 06/01/2010 02:57:47 Originally by: Brengholl the blasters need a significant DPS boost, to compensate for the laughable range and pathetic effective tracking or they need a significant tracking boost so they really become close-range rulers currently they completely fail except in EFT where you get pretty numbers (and those are actually on average only 10% higher than other races) the railguns dont do much better either, i dont fly snipers so im not talking about pvp here, but railguns are realy bad for pve where the combat is at medium ranges... noone needs the max possible 200km range in pve, and in 30-70 km railguns fail... tracking anything at less than 30km is almost impossible (ok) and the dmg at 70km is just bad (not ok). Add to that the galente-stopping sleeper AI said to be implemented soon(tm) into missions and the galente wil fail at ... well everything (thank god for hospital domi) Dear CCP. This friend of mine and me often talk about eve during coffee drinking rituals that often occur in our society. And quite often he whines "Gallente sucks" "Blaster sucks" "Don't bother to use failguns" and more similar comments. And please do try to balance stuff cuz he doesn't like to be pwned by Minmatar ships and give those players a chance to play the game and not spend time on forum whining or even worse switch on Caldari.
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.01.07 14:15:00 - [114] 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.
infernobot89 First Flying Wing Inc Primary.	Posted - 2010.01.08 04:18:00 - [115] /signed
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2010.01.08 09:59:00 - [116] not the blasters are the problem. lasers and scorch are. reduce laser dmg and nerf scorch range => problem solved.
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.01.08 17:57:00 - [117] 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.
Dariah Stardweller	Posted - 2010.01.08 18:08:00 - [118] All hail this idea!
Zachary Sikorsky Sikorsky Trading	Posted - 2010.01.09 07:10:00 - [119] /yep signed
sir gankalot	Posted - 2010.01.09 15:55:00 - [120] Yes.

Kassa Daito Capital Construction Research	Posted - 2010.01.11 06:33:00 - [121] Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks Yes for a well balanced but significant dmg boost. No tracking boost for blasters. It would ruin life of smaller ships orbiting bigger one, rendering them useless again. I tend to agree with you. Blaster boats could be a low range, average-tracking DPS monster and fill a good niche role utilizing tackle and approach to reduce transversal and apply signficanlty more DPS at short range. Minmatar have a wide range variety that they function at (better performance inside tracking of other races or outside range of Gallente) In short-range weapon engagements: Minmatar would win the fast-orbiting short range fights Amarr win the medium range slugfests Gallente rip things apart if they get up close and control movement They do need more than the current 10% difference though and the ability to fit a bit more tank or a faster base speed (I'd lean toward the latter). It'd take a lot of playtesting to determine the "magic numbers" but having 20% better base damage than other races and more inertia but significantly more thrust might be an interesting direction to go. They can get within range faster but still require significant tackling to keep minmatar from outmaneuvering them while Amarr still try to kite and kill on approach. Originally by: Meyr Also, as much as I hate to swing the nerf bat, Lasers DO need to be brought more in-line with other turret weapon systems. When they have similar tracking, vastly superior range, and 95% of the damage, why fly anything else? Personally, I think most of the Amarr OP cries are due to the tracking of pulses and reducing that a bit to give us worse short-range DPS against fast targets might be warranted but the mid range DPS with scorch and a low-heavy slot layout are the only selling points of the whole Amarr fleet (no ammo for structure bashing is kinda nice too but not extremely important in the long run). If you take that away then the whole race is useless. Laser ships do have some disadvantages but I think the biggest difference is that all of ours tend to have the same solution: "bring other ships to the fight too" while the issues of blaster boats (more travel time and shorter range) are only magnified as the number of ships involved in the fight increases. Gallente do make significantly better solo ships than Amarr (The Curse being an exception) but Amarr make better fleet ships. * Armor tanked T2 Minmatar ships laugh at you and your pathetic attempts to damage them with EM/Therm. * T1 Amarr ships are mostly one-trick ponies with the same trick. They have good wide-range DPS and good tank but no real utility or variation beyond gank-focused, tank-focused, or "both but hard to fit". * Amarr ships have very few midslots. Most can't tackle for themselves and still operate a prop mod for any significant time period or larger ships have to drop the useful Sensor Booster. * Amarr ships are generally quite slow since we can't ever get away with a DCII instead of a plate (mostly relevant on sub-BS ships). * Amarr ships often have little dronebay space. * Nothing resembling useful ewar outside the Curse (Gallente can't claim much better ewar but it is better). * Long range weapons are useful too and come with the "race selection" package. Fly more with larger groups and you'll see more Megathrons out on the field, though I think Apocs still usually outnumber them. * Cap bonus instead of combat bonus on many ships. Laser ships have disadvantages over hybrid ships, please stop taking a turret away from its ship layouts and bonuses unless you're also going to say that nothing in EVE can successfully fit lasers because they suck your Hurricane/Drake cap dry in seconds. Blasters need a buff, but if you take scorch + long range pulses out of the picture then Amarr are going to need a base DPS boost to make up for the massive loss of effective range and then we would be stepping on your toes even more. ** Disclaimer: Author sometimes spell checks but is not responsible for sins of commission, omission, emission, transmission, or submission. Flowers, bricks, or any other form of feedback appreciated
Kassa Daito Capital Construction Research	Posted - 2010.01.11 07:22:00 - [122] Edited by: Kassa Daito on 11/01/2010 07:28:11 Originally by: Spugg Galdon > 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) 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. All of the below assumes it is a small engagement (3 or less on each side). Blasters and autos are NOT fleet weapons and Pulses rule medium gang warfare (5-10 on each side) when used in quantity. Long range weapons are more useful for anything larger. I don't think tracking vs other long range weapons is the problem. You can easily run under the guns of any long range weapon system without running under your own. If you can't pull this off, just keep reminding youself that you don't need to run at full speed at all times. For short range guns it doesn't matter if you do your max DPS unless unless you'll cap out before they die otherwise. If you are doing more DPS at a given range than they are then you are winning the DPS portion of the fight. If you are fighting Amarr, run in close and take the tracking penalty because it will hurt them much more than you. Sadly, Minmatar autos have comparable range and better tracking than you so reduce your transversal as much as possible and try to stay within your range so you can apply more DPS than their autos. As an Amarr pilot, I seldom orbit unless I'm facing someone with larger than me or with long range weapons. I either keep at range or start running away immediately, otherwise I'll hurt myself more than him/her. I haven't used blasters since pre-RMR days so I can't say they are/aren't balanced but I hate it when people complain that "I can't click on orbit at my optimal and kill stuff" like the other ship isn't supposed to shoot back. The Lachesis is a very special case in that its EWAR puts it in a very spoecific band of ranges (close enough to disrupt and far enough to be untargetable) where lasers hit perfectly. The Ferox gets a range bonus, no damage bonus, and a tank bonus: a set of bonuses that are generaly associated with a large fleet ship, which it would perform better at if it were an armor tank. ** Disclaimer: Author sometimes spell checks but is not responsible for sins of commission, omission, emission, transmission, or submission. Flowers, bricks, or any other form of feedback appreciated
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.01.13 12:21:00 - [123] Bump
crimson fire	Posted - 2010.01.13 21:33:00 - [124] I SO agree with this post. Hybrids need some love, its not even funny anymore CCP hear our cry!
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.01.18 15:44:00 - [125] Don't let the thread die! :)
James Tritanius	Posted - 2010.01.18 15:57:00 - [126]
Amras Arnatuile	Posted - 2010.01.18 16:45:00 - [127] Support
RootEmerger	Posted - 2010.01.18 18:42:00 - [128]
Arthur Black SoE Roughriders Electus Matari	Posted - 2010.01.20 17:54:00 - [129] Let me start off by saying that I love my blasters and have generally little experience with lasers, so feel free to ignore whatever I say about them (which isn't much). I am entirely open for the suggestion that the best blaster boost is a pulse laser nerf, but I think that's equally hard to do "right". The recent projectile changes seem to be a success though. I'd like to propose some ideas that could work together. Firstly, there's not much wrong with blaster damage. Yes, it probably needs to be taken up a notch to compensate vs. laser range or AC falloff. I would even be willing to trade a tiny bit of range for that (not much though!). A slight increase to tracking also seems appropriate, to give them the distinct advantage at the ranges they are meant for. However, some of the numbers mentioned here are just way out there (50%?, 300%?, no way). What I'd really like is a "hybrids 2.0". Given blasters short range, they are currently the only short range weapons that can't do meaningful damage outside of web range, and they are even not welcome in certain fleets where you are required to hit at ~20 by simply switching ammo (large guns). Rails have to come in and fill the gap. Given projectile's alpha strike and the range of beams (I realize that might be much thanks to the Apocalypse though), how about making rails the medium range of the "long range weapons" with better tracking and DPS than both projectiles and beams? I.e. beams become the long range weapon with the most range, but suffers from tracking, projectiles have alpha but shorter range and rails ends up in the middle with decent tracking and good DPS. As is, the Rokh for instance reach ridiculous distances with little effort, but do little damage. Shorter-ranged rails with more DPS would probably make it a very nice mid-to-long range sniper. To get the Megathron to do the same, you would have to sacrifice damage mods for range mods to reach the same distance, balancing out the DPS advantage of the Megathron's bonus. The Apocalypse would end up being the new Rokh (if beam range is boosted overall) - ridiculous range, but little damage . I have no absolute idea on how to fix that. Perhaps swap its range bonus for a damage or tracking bonus? This type of rails would also mean that a rail Deimos would be a viable option for those that aren't comfortable with the up-close range of blasters. Finally, how about re-doing short range T2 ammo entirely - Even less range then they have today (Void range perhaps half of that of AM for instance?), far less damage (again, half of AM?), but a massive tracking bonus. That would be across the board, not just for hybrid ammo. The goal would be for a ship, especially one with a tracking bonus, to be really dangerous to ships one class smaller than itself orbiting it (Zealots orbiting a Megathron at 500 for instance). Even ships without tracking bonus would have a chance (AFs orbiting a Deimos at 500 for instance, if blasters in general are given a slight tracking boost). Granted, this should not be a "I win!" button. AB AFs would still be very difficult to hit, and this does not at all change anything with regards to signature radius. This idea was presented to me a while back, and it's been taking hold ever since (at least the first part, the "goal" stated is taking it further than its progenitor did I suppose). And finally, tanking... That's part of the price you pay for face-melt damage and what makes us blaster pilots. I love my Deimos, even with the little tank it has. Most pilots knows its damage potential. That's a good tank in itself. Otherwise, range decides. Either the Deimos runs away or your opponent is in scrambler range. Tank doesn't matter either way
Fak Jaelt Cabal Armaments	Posted - 2010.02.27 22:41:00 - [130] /supported The mobility requirements that blaster platforms need in order to be useful are unbalanced with the amount of effective damage that they can put out currently. Start with a boost to blasters, then we can look at tweaking individual ships.

JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2010.02.27 23:20:00 - [131] Actually CSM pointed at the iceland meeting that gallente are inferior comparing to other races . Theres still hope.
Lykouleon Trust Doesn't Rust Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.01 06:29:00 - [132] ffs balance blasters better already Quote: CCP Mindstar > Sorry - I've completely messed all that up. lets try again
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.03.05 22:58:00 - [133] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Actually CSM pointed at the iceland meeting that gallente are inferior comparing to other races . Theres still hope. This! Oh, and bump :)
Vizirion	Posted - 2010.03.06 08:15:00 - [134] Really hope they'll do it in new expansion.
Tortugan Internal Anarchy	Posted - 2010.03.06 08:48:00 - [135] There will never, should never be perfect balance between races. If Gallente got buffed, it'd be complaints about Caldari. If Caldari got buffed, we'd hear whines about Amarr being slow as crap and having terrible tracking. Yes- your ideas have merit. In fact, blasters/rails are in many ways weaker than other weapons. But not game-breakingly so. IMO quit wasting time on buffing/nerfing weapons. If you want to talk about something that could use rebalancing, how about the completely disproportionate use of falcons over other recons? But that's another thread. If you want to keep wasting time making sure that no weapon system is the weakest, sure- boosting blasters is the way to go. While we're at it, can we start planning ahead on how to boost missiles? :D
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2010.03.06 13:14:00 - [136] Originally by: Tortugan There will never, should never be perfect balance between races. If Gallente got buffed, it'd be complaints about Caldari. If Caldari got buffed, we'd hear whines about Amarr being slow as crap and having terrible tracking. Yes- your ideas have merit. In fact, blasters/rails are in many ways weaker than other weapons. But not game-breakingly so. IMO quit wasting time on buffing/nerfing weapons. If you want to talk about something that could use rebalancing, how about the completely disproportionate use of falcons over other recons? But that's another thread. If you want to keep wasting time making sure that no weapon system is the weakest, sure- boosting blasters is the way to go. While we're at it, can we start planning ahead on how to boost missiles? Die troll ( in-game )
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.03.07 13:51:00 - [137] Keep the feedback rollin' fellas! In the meanwhile, up!
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.03.09 18:46:00 - [138] To the top!
Luciana Arcadia	Posted - 2010.03.09 18:50:00 - [139] Wants === People who can't type correctly annoy me.
Thatkidnamedrocky	Posted - 2010.03.09 18:52:00 - [140] hybrid guns suck Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes.

Emmerik	Posted - 2010.03.09 18:53:00 - [141] I do agree... Blasters really need a boost...
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.03.10 18:30:00 - [142] Moar supports!
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.03.24 03:23:00 - [143] Comparing close turrets I see blasters need love: Lasers - they can deliver good DPS at very flexible range. For example medium Pulses can shoot from 6km to 23km at their OPTIMAL. Auto cannons - does not eat capacitor, have tiny PG requirements, very good tracking, SWITCHABLE damage type. It is very painful to hit in resist weakness. T2 long range ammo allow to shoot near 20km for medium AC. HIGH SPEED of Minmatar ships allow to dictate tactics. Blasters - consume CAP, fixed damage type (kinetic and thermal are not resist holes), tiny optimal+faloff (even with NULL it is like Pulse with high damage close AMMO), tracking speed is like AC. For example about medium AC and Blasters: 1nd and 2nd tier AC even faster comparing appropriate blaster analog (180mm VS Electron, 220mm VS Ion). It is strange, is it? So what have I missed? Oh... Gallente drones. Do you realize it is limited use? Do not play with EFT dps figures. Drones need time to reach target, they have speed (sometimes target is faster then drones), they have HP (it means they can die), not only Gallente ships have drones. So. Gallente have largest DPS only in EFT. All disadvantages of blasters do not cost this DPS difference. My proposal: - Blasters should have more damage and more tracking speed. (Caldari should gain less blaster bonuses because their ships are faster, see bellow) - Gallente ships should have more basic speed. I will explain why. Gallente ships are armor tanked. So plates eat agility, armor rigs eat speed - how can slow ship to reach optimal? Minmatar ships are fast, Caldari are faster because they do not need armor rigs and plates, Amarr ships have more chances to deliver their DPS due their flexible ammo range + instant change.
Tyremis The Perfect Storm Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.24 16:56:00 - [144] Supported Gaylente are totally broken atm
fuksamatta 'chu	Posted - 2010.03.25 01:21:00 - [145] not even just deimos, brutix, rannis, etc... blaster boats in general are not worth flying to an extent if you have minmatar(0 cap use) or amarr(sick dps/range). Hell, i'd almost rather fly a caldari missle boat and start training at ground zero just look at a autocannon myrm as a prime example, there's no way in hell someone would give that up for a blaster myrm. The real problem is lasers, autocannons, and even the assault missles(to an extent) are also short range.. but all of these have a realistic damage potential when being used around 15km away... blasters and blaster boats fall far short
Ankhesentapemkah	Posted - 2010.03.25 08:53:00 - [146] Funny how I attempted to raise the tracking part of this issue a year ago and the CSM voting it down back then! Strongly supported! --- Click banner for info!
mikeh24 Harbingers of Chaos Inc. Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.25 19:54:00 - [147] I use to fly solely gal but now I mainly fly ammar because the range bonus for the ammar compleatly out weigh the damage of blasters in relation to how slow the gal ships are
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.04.30 20:09:00 - [148] No, I did not forget about my own thread, so it's going back to the top! Boost blasters or boost gallente gunboats in general :)
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.01 00:03:00 - [149] This is a terrible and ill thought out idea that will either do nothing to help blasters or ruin the concept of racial balance in EVE For more info, see below. -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2010.05.01 00:16:00 - [150] Ahhh, the good old blaster thread, how I love thee... not really. I've been telling everyone for years how crap blasters are and how much they need a damage boost, and now that someone else is saying the same thing (lol) everyone suddenly agrees? Anyhoo... What blasters don't need: range buffs. What they do need: massive damage and tracking increases. Right now the AC/laser balance is just wonderful. ACs have damage choice and plenty of range, lasers have great range and plenty of DPS and quick change ammo. Scorch range is insane. What blasters need is a nice 50% DPS increase across the board, a little more optimal for small and mediums and a 100-200% tracking boost. - Originally by: Bellum Eternus That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.

Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.05.01 00:44:00 - [151] Originally by: Goumindong This is a terrible and ill thought out idea that will either do nothing to help blasters or ruin the concept of racial balance in EVE For more info, see below. I too love constructive criticism :) @Bellum, while I love your support, I do believe that such a boost would probably be game breaking, although I'm pretty sure you're kidding ^^. But still, a boost is needed, nonetheless.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:39:00 - [152] Originally by: Xahara I too love constructive criticism :) There isn't an argument to be constuctive about. Its just "waaaaa". But I was not joking that you should read the link -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.05.01 12:12:00 - [153] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Xahara I too love constructive criticism :) There isn't an argument to be constuctive about. Its just "waaaaa". But I was not joking that you should read the link Whatever, mate. If you say that the changes proposed are going to break racial balance or break blasters, you're wrong. Blasters and railguns are already broken. Let me give you a good example: There's an op scheduled and you're going POS bashing. Your FC asks for Battleships that can hit at 50km, which is pretty much short range, really. Now, you're a gallente pilot and you think: "Alright, I'll be fine, I'll just use Railguns for this." So, you arrive at the battlefield and realize all those armageddons, apocs, abaddons, typhoons, tempests and maelstroms are all using short range weapons, probably coupled with t2 long range ammo. And you're sitting there thinking: "Great. My contribution to this fleet is next to nothing, since im using rails with short range ammo, so I can only really hit at 27+24 and im already playing in deep falloff, so my accuracy is cut down by 50%. I love being Gallente". Granted, this example is a perfect illustration of how there is indeed racial flavour and how some guns are for each situation. Now, if what CCP wants is that blasters are better for small gang warfare, well great, but then, give more speed to gallente ships so they can reach targets faster (just an example of a proposed change). And if CCP does think that blasters are suited for less blobbage, then boost railguns. Again ladies and gentlemen, I'm all open for constructive arguments on these thoughts.
Crazy KSK	Posted - 2010.05.01 12:48:00 - [154] Edited by: Crazy KSK on 01/05/2010 12:50:14 Edited by: Crazy KSK on 01/05/2010 12:49:57 first of all i support this there is some imbalance but not only in blasters I think there should be one whole expansion on balancing all the races all the weapons and all kinds of tanking i know this may sound like a bit much but its really necessary!
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.01 16:30:00 - [155] Originally by: Xahara There's an op scheduled and you're going POS bashing. Apoc: Mega Pulse II Scorch : 584 DPS @ 50km Mega: 425 Rail II NON FACTION Antimatter: 468 DPS @ 50km. Oh noes!!!! Now it isn't as good as a Geddon since that can field bouncers just as well as the Mega can. But the Geddon isn't as close to cap stable as either... The reason that people like Amarr ships for POS bashing is not that they do a lot of DPS(after all, minnie POS are pretty popular) its because they never have to reload and so once you get a cap stable pos basher you can go afk while you kill the thing. Quote: Now, if what CCP wants is that blasters are better for small gang warfare, well great, but then, give more speed to gallente ships so they can reach targets faster (just an example of a proposed change). You clearly didn't read the link. Here is one that isn't in my sig so you don't miss it. Quote: . And if CCP does think that blasters are suited for less blobbage, then boost railguns. There is nothing wrong with railguns. Its already been shown in the railgun thread that the Rokh is the best fleet sniper in the game. -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
Saltzz	Posted - 2010.05.01 16:31:00 - [156] +1
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.05.01 17:03:00 - [157] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Xahara There's an op scheduled and you're going POS bashing. Apoc: Mega Pulse II Scorch : 584 DPS @ 50km Mega: 425 Rail II NON FACTION Antimatter: 468 DPS @ 50km. 468 DPS at 50 km? Do you mean at 36+30km? Unless you want to waste slots with some TEs just to be on par with the other BSs... Besides, try fitting a 425mm Megathron designed to shoot at 50 km that can also fit RRs. It doesn't work. You have to use 350mm, which are even worse. Originally by: Goumindong Oh noes!!!! Now it isn't as good as a Geddon since that can field bouncers just as well as the Mega can. But the Geddon isn't as close to cap stable as either... The reason that people like Amarr ships for POS bashing is not that they do a lot of DPS(after all, minnie POS are pretty popular) its because they never have to reload and so once you get a cap stable pos basher you can go afk while you kill the thing. Another reason for choosing lasers over hybrid guns, am I right? Quote: You clearly didn't read the link. Here is one that isn't in my sig so you don't miss it. I will read it when I have time, thanks. Quote: Quote: . And if CCP does think that blasters are suited for less blobbage, then boost railguns. There is nothing wrong with railguns. Its already been shown in the railgun thread that the Rokh is the best fleet sniper in the game. I strongly disagree with this. The Rokh is not the best fleet sniper. It's the best fleet 'tickler'. It doesn't shoot bullets, it shoots BB pellets. In any case, thank you for being more constructive this time.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.01 17:31:00 - [158] Originally by: Xahara 468 DPS at 50 km? Do you mean at 36+30km? Unless you want to waste slots with some TEs just to be on par with the other BSs... Besides, try fitting a 425mm Megathron designed to shoot at 50 km that can also fit RRs. It doesn't work. You have to use 350mm, which are even worse. Oh, well then that cuts down significantly the DPS of the Apoc(was an 8 gun version used) if you're demanding RR fits. I mean, in that case, run a Dominix. Its a great RR ship. Quote: I strongly disagree with this. The Rokh is not the best fleet sniper. It's the best fleet 'tickler'. It doesn't shoot bullets, it shoots BB pellets. This is because you do not know what makes fleet snipers good. -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:26:00 - [159] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Xahara 468 DPS at 50 km? Do you mean at 36+30km? Unless you want to waste slots with some TEs just to be on par with the other BSs... Besides, try fitting a 425mm Megathron designed to shoot at 50 km that can also fit RRs. It doesn't work. You have to use 350mm, which are even worse. Oh, well then that cuts down significantly the DPS of the Apoc(was an 8 gun version used) if you're demanding RR fits. I mean, in that case, run a Dominix. Its a great RR ship. Quote: I strongly disagree with this. The Rokh is not the best fleet sniper. It's the best fleet 'tickler'. It doesn't shoot bullets, it shoots BB pellets. This is because you do not know what makes fleet snipers good. Most snipers engage at a range of about 170-180km. There's no need for a ship that hits 220+ and does minimal damage when you can get one that hits at 180km and has 2x the damage.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.05.01 20:04:00 - [160] Xahara just ignore Guomi ,he tries to attack every topic which tries to bring hybrids back to usefull lvl. Btw Guomi's good fleet sniper cant run its guns more than 3.5mins from full cap ,that should show how good he is at balacing. In short ignore him.

Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.01 21:48:00 - [161] Originally by: Xahara Most snipers engage at a range of about 170-180km. There's no need for a ship that hits 220+ and does minimal damage when you can get one that hits at 180km and has 2x the damage. Rokh does 320 DPS @ 190km. So you're saying you have a 640 DPS sniper @ that range? Somehow i doubt it. Oh, and DPS is not everything. Seriously, go to the other thread, we've been over this many times. -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
unloadedx16 Hearts Revolution	Posted - 2010.05.02 05:11:00 - [162]
Major PewPew The Dark Horses	Posted - 2010.05.02 11:55:00 - [163] tired of being unable to hit targets for the first half of fights...they need range, give them that.
Gwydion Telcontar Ixion Defence Systems Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2010.05.02 16:25:00 - [164]
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.02 17:07:00 - [165] Edited by: NightmareX on 02/05/2010 17:18:44 Like Goum said, the DPS is not everything in fleets. Those who thinks DPS is everything is basicly a noob when it's about PVP and fleet fights. Peoples today looks at EFT and looks at how much DPS each ships does. And then goes omg, the Rokh / Tempest sucks donkey balls because the DPS on them sucks compared to other ships. But i'm sorry to tell you this, but EHP and speed and how agile your ship is is very important in fleet fights to. Why do you think i choose a Tempest over a Maelstrom in those big fleet fights we have?. It's because it's way faster and quite alot more agile than the Maelstrom. Yes my Tempest is shield tanked. So it's not getting slow because of armor plates and that. The Maelstrom with the setup we use here only have 8-9k more EHP and 500-600 more Alpha than the Tempest. But those extra 8-9k EHP abd 500-600 more alpha is not worth it over how much faster and how much more agile the Tempest is over the Maelstrom. Once you get bubbled, then you need to get out of those bubbles rather quickly if you want to survive. The Tempest also do more DPS than the Maelstrom inside 84 km. Because the Tempest with 6 guns with the skills at level 5 included is the same as 7.5 guns, while the Maelstrom have 8 guns. But the reason the Tempest do more DPS inside 84 km is because it can fit 2x HML's to. So i'll say NOT SUPPORTED.
Ogogov	Posted - 2010.05.02 17:30:00 - [166] Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 02/05/2010 17:21:14 Like Goum said, the DPS is not everything in fleets. Those who thinks DPS is everything is basicly a noob when it's about PVP and fleet fights. Peoples today looks at EFT and looks at how much DPS each ships does. And then goes omg, the Rokh / Tempest sucks donkey balls because the DPS on them sucks compared to other ships. But i'm sorry to tell you this, but EHP and speed and how agile your ship is is very important in fleet fights to. Why do you think i choose a Tempest over a Maelstrom in those big fleet fights we have?. It's because it's way faster and quite alot more agile than the Maelstrom. Yes my Tempest is shield tanked. So it's not getting slow because of armor plates and that. The Maelstrom with the setup we use here only have 8-9k more EHP and 500-600 more Alpha than the Tempest. But those extra 8-9k EHP and 500-600 more alpha is not worth it over how much faster and how much more agile the Tempest is over the Maelstrom. Once you get bubbled, then you need to get out of those bubbles rather quickly if you want to survive. The Tempest also do more DPS than the Maelstrom inside 84 km. Because the Tempest with 6 guns with the skills at level 5 included is the same as 7.5 guns, while the Maelstrom have 8 guns. But the reason the Tempest do more DPS inside 84 km is because it can fit 2x HML's to. So i'll say NOT SUPPORTED. Clearly Guomingdong (or wahtever) lives in a fantasy world where you can maneouver and react realistically in fleet fights. Practically speaking, what happens in a fleet fight is you bring the most DPS you can because if you're primaried, you're dead in 30 seconds and that's assuming you even load grid before you get podded. ALL the fleet fights I've ever participated in have had the bubble usually collapse before my client has registered its even there due to lag. Also LOL for fitting HML in a fleet :p additional Forum 5 minute posting delay SUCKS.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.02 17:49:00 - [167] Edited by: NightmareX on 02/05/2010 17:50:38 Originally by: Ogogov ALL the fleet fights I've ever participated in have had the bubble usually collapse before my client has registered its even there due to lag. Also LOL for fitting HML in a fleet :p To the first thing. Well, i haven't had any problems to load grid even in those big fleet fights we have. Yes it takes a little time to load the grid. But once your in the grid and fighting, then it can be good to have a fast and agile ship if YOU get bubbled. And to the last thing. What would you fit on a Sniper fitted Tempest instead then when you have exactly 624,75 powergrid left if you take the 2x HML's away from my Tempest. Would you fit a LRAR / LST instead that would be used maybe 2% out of the 100% your in a fight instead of using the HML's that can be used like 50% out of 100% in a fight?, since you can hit smaller targets like dictors and frigs and those kind of ships.
Naomi Knight Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.05.02 18:27:00 - [168] Originally by: Gwydion Telcontar Supported because NightmareX is a moron. totally agree
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.02 18:36:00 - [169] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Gwydion Telcontar Supported because NightmareX is a moron. totally agree http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1311336&page=1#11
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.02 21:19:00 - [170] Edited by: Goumindong on 02/05/2010 21:21:43 Originally by: Ogogov Originally by: NightmareX Clearly Guomingdong (or wahtever) lives in a fantasy world where you can maneouver and react realistically in fleet fights. Who are you responding to? Also, in a fleet fight, one of the participants is likely to be where he wants. Even if you cannot determine which one that will be, you can still design fleets around the practice of being where you want to be better than your enemy. Quote: Practically speaking, what happens in a fleet fight is you bring the most DPS you can because if you're primaried, you're dead in 30 seconds and that's assuming you even load grid before you get podded. If you're in a situation where EHP does not matter then DPS does not matter. And I find it funny that you claim that EHP doesn't matter in situations where you can't shoot back Any time any ship on your side is getting targeted and shot or attacked with any weapon, EHP matters. Sometimes EHP matters less than other things, sometimes more. Survivability and Effectiveness optimization depend mainly on the predicted call order your opponent will be using. In situations where you know you're going to be called first, you're better off with more survivability, ditto DPS if you're called last. This assumes you opponent is rational and is calling in a manner that generally attempts to take as much effectiveness out of the fight as quickly as possible. But, within ship types, there is no way to differentiate between any two pilots except meta knowledge (for instance if you know some pilot always goes full gank, or if you know your enemy likes to call alphabetically by name, A first), and because of this, efficient fits within ship types are homogeneous unless there is meta-knowledge involved. Any pilot in an Apoc has the same chance as anyone else of getting called and so whatever method you're using to determine where on the EHP/DPS spectrum you design will always land in the same place for each ship. Over an entire fleet of ships this reduces down to maximizing the combination of survivability and effectiveness. This is the only place where outgoing damage is maximized and each ship has the same fit. With both DPS and EHP as important as the other* and when this is done for all long range snipers(I.E. 190km snipers) the Rokh is the clear winner (Efficient Apoc is 312 DPS W/ 98k EHP @ 190km, Rokh is 321 DPS w/ 126k EHP @ 190km) *sometimes it can be efficient for both parties to fit against meta-knowledge and for the people using that calling heuristic to use it. If for instance the losses derived from calling ships inefficiently and hitting super-tanked "A names" is overcome by the ease of target calling this can still be a solution for both parties. edit: For more information, please see this section of this post. -- Did you get that thing i sent you?

Ogogov	Posted - 2010.05.03 00:23:00 - [171] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 02/05/2010 21:21:43 Originally by: Ogogov Originally by: NightmareX Clearly Guomingdong (or wahtever) lives in a fantasy world where you can maneouver and react realistically in fleet fights. Who are you responding to? Your persistence in posting misinformation, deflection and general rubbish that has no bearing on the OP? Quote: Also, in a fleet fight, one of the participants is likely to be where he wants. Even if you cannot determine which one that will be, you can still design fleets around the practice of being where you want to be better than your enemy. Rrrrright because fleets never warp in blobs. Strike one. Quote: Quote: Practically speaking, what happens in a fleet fight is you bring the most DPS you can because if you're primaried, you're dead in 30 seconds and that's assuming you even load grid before you get podded. If you're in a situation where EHP does not matter then DPS does not matter. And I find it funny that you claim that EHP doesn't matter in situations where you can't shoot back Strike two. That's so completely idiotic, illogical and nonsensical you can't even really expect anyone to post a rational reponse to it. I'm claiming that DPS does matter - much more so than EHP - because the more incoming DPS you can focus onto a single target will almost automatically kill it before it even has an opportunity to respond. 400 BS shooting at ONE target? And you're claiming EHP matters? Maybe if you're talking EHP's in excess of 500k, which would be a dreadnought, or a carrier but for a BS sized target? quite often bubbled? please. It's a joke to claim that 800 or so extra EHP is going to make a blind bit of difference with even a small number of hostile battleships focusing fire - this is also the reason why active local tanking in general is ineffective in anything other than solo/small gang/pve situations. Quote: Any time any ship on your side is getting targeted and shot or attacked with any weapon, EHP matters. Sometimes EHP matters less than other things, sometimes more. Yes, that extra half second before you pop really helps. Quote: Survivability and Effectiveness...words...words.. Ok that's a very wordy way of saying you want to maximize performance of your fits and nothing else. You're not really advocating anything more than common sense. Of course I want to fit as much tank as I can, however since it is no longer ye olde days of yore where the benchmark was fitting enough EHP to tank a Titan DDD. In a fleet fight with 800 total BS, 400 on each side who are both calling one primary at a time, who do you think will win? even if the non-tanking side only out-dpses by 50 or so units each, the multiplication effect will wind up being equal to bringing an extra 18 BS or so along. It's ridiculous to claim EHP matters a damn when you compare it against incoming DPS from 400-odd hostile ships. And finally, what does any of this garbage you keep posting about fleet fights actually have to do with BLASTERS?
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.03 00:39:00 - [172] Edited by: Goumindong on 03/05/2010 00:39:14 Originally by: Ogogov Your persistence in posting misinformation, deflection and general rubbish that has no bearing on the OP? That is a person? Quote: Rrrrright because fleets never warp in blobs. Strike one. That has no bearing on whether or not one side or another is at its ideal range. Quote: Strike two. That's so completely idiotic, illogical and nonsensical you can't even really expect anyone to post a rational reponse to it. I'm claiming that DPS does matter - much more so than EHP - because the more incoming DPS you can focus onto a single target will almost automatically kill it before it even has an opportunity to respond. Strike Three. At any time that you have enough DPS to kill a target before it has a chance to respond your DPS has as little bearing on the target as its EHP. If you have 400 BS as you say then each BS could be doing 100 DPS with a 4 second refire rate and you would still kill the target in 1 second 400 ships with 400 volley each volleys(100 DPS @ 4 second re-fire) through 160k EHP per volley. So, in your claim, any DPS over 100 does not matter because your mass of ships is going to waste the other side anyway, 160k EHP is way more than any fleet battleship is going to have. So more DPS is totally a waste! Except no one believes that, its foolish. So why do you believe that having more EHP doesn't matter when having more DPS does? That claim is so fundamentally insane that its almost pointless to discuss. Targets die when the amount of damage they take reaches their EHP. If a targets EHP doesn't matter then no amount of DPS does either because something is happening here that breaks the fundamental rules of the game that say "damage is subtracted from hit points; when a ship hits 0 hit points it explodes" Your claim literally rests on a presumption that big numbers are big and holy molely look at those big numbers! Its bull. Quote: Ok that's a very wordy way of saying you want to maximize performance of your fits and nothing else. You're not really advocating anything more than common sense. Of course I want to fit as much tank as I can, however since it is no longer ye olde days of yore where the benchmark was fitting enough EHP to tank a Titan DDD. In a fleet fight with 800 total BS, 400 on each side who are both calling one primary at a time, who do you think will win? even if the non-tanking side only out-dpses by 50 or so units each, the multiplication effect will wind up being equal to bringing an extra 18 BS or so along. It's ridiculous to claim EHP matters a damn when you compare it against incoming DPS from 400-odd hostile ships. And finally, what does any of this garbage you keep posting about fleet fights actually have to do with BLASTERS? Actually the simulation that Laing ran in the other thread pretty clearly demonstrates that EHP * DPS is the clear winner. In a fleet fight with 400 BS on each side extra EHP matters just as much as extra DPS. And it has as much to do with blasters as hybrids have anything to do with blasters. The guy whining that hybrids were terrible brought it up and so I am refuting it. -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
Luna Cii	Posted - 2010.05.03 02:45:00 - [173] Originally by: Ogogov Strike two. That's so completely idiotic, illogical and nonsensical you can't even really expect anyone to post a rational reponse to it. I'm claiming that DPS does matter - much more so than EHP - because the more incoming DPS you can focus onto a single target will almost automatically kill it before it even has an opportunity to respond. 400 BS shooting at ONE target? And you're claiming EHP matters? Maybe if you're talking EHP's in excess of 500k, which would be a dreadnought, or a carrier but for a BS sized target? quite often bubbled? please. It's a joke to claim that 800 or so extra EHP is going to make a blind bit of difference with even a small number of hostile battleships focusing fire - this is also the reason why active local tanking in general is ineffective in anything other than solo/small gang/pve situations. The goal of a fleet fight is to get the enemy fleets hit points to zero before your fleets hit points reach zero. Your fleet can increase its chances by bringing either more hit points or more damage. An extra 800 EHP amy not help YOU, personally, if you are called primary, but it will help your fleet.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.05.03 06:45:00 - [174] Originally by: Luna Cii Originally by: Ogogov Strike two. That's so completely idiotic, illogical and nonsensical you can't even really expect anyone to post a rational reponse to it. I'm claiming that DPS does matter - much more so than EHP - because the more incoming DPS you can focus onto a single target will almost automatically kill it before it even has an opportunity to respond. 400 BS shooting at ONE target? And you're claiming EHP matters? Maybe if you're talking EHP's in excess of 500k, which would be a dreadnought, or a carrier but for a BS sized target? quite often bubbled? please. It's a joke to claim that 800 or so extra EHP is going to make a blind bit of difference with even a small number of hostile battleships focusing fire - this is also the reason why active local tanking in general is ineffective in anything other than solo/small gang/pve situations. The goal of a fleet fight is to get the enemy fleets hit points to zero before your fleets hit points reach zero. Your fleet can increase its chances by bringing either more hit points or more damage. An extra 800 EHP amy not help YOU, personally, if you are called primary, but it will help your fleet. Realy?:O My experience completly disagree with this.
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition	Posted - 2010.05.03 10:14:00 - [175] Funny how fast a blaster thread turns into a rails + fleet thread. Not that we already have such a thing right here in AH. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Noillia Durmot Thundercats RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.03 10:24:00 - [176] I still can't believe CCP hasn't done something about this. It's been an ongoing theme for about 4 years now. The solution is simple. Keep blasters as short range and difficult to use as they always have been but make them worth fitting none the less. High DPS and fast tracking. Job done. ================================================ ...any persons living or dead are entirely coincidental. Noi.
Ogogov	Posted - 2010.05.03 13:43:00 - [177] Edited by: Ogogov on 03/05/2010 13:45:33 Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 03/05/2010 00:39:14 Your claim literally rests on a presumption that big numbers are big and holy molely look at those big numbers! Its bull. Not really, when the incoming DPS is so extreme that it will waste ANY local tank that isn't a capital ship in seige/triage mode or a Titan. Quote: Actually the simulation that Laing ran in the other thread pretty clearly demonstrates that EHP * DPS is the clear winner. In a fleet fight with 400 BS on each side extra EHP matters just as much as extra DPS. No, EHP doesn't matter as much as DPS because the incoming DPS will fry the target before it has a reasonable chance to respond - granted mostly due to limitations of lag, but there we have it - that's the practical application. And once again with a fantastic DUH I'm not advocating pure glass cannon fits, of course you want as much EHP as you can get out of your ship, but that's really secondary to fitting for as much dmg as possible to get on top of killmails whilst hoping and praying the opposing FC doesn't call you primary. Quote: And it has as much to do with blasters as hybrids have anything to do with blasters. The guy whining that hybrids were terrible brought it up and so I am refuting it. But hybrids are terrible, almost as terrible as you are at actually addressing salient points and keeping on topic :) Originally by: The Djego Funny how fast a blaster thread turns into a rails + fleet thread. Not that we already have such a thing right here in AH. Absolutely - mostly because some people would rather post something completely unrelated in the hope that people will stop paying attention to the thread rather than actually sticking to the OP. In that regard, sorry for biting - but the stupid, it burned.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.03 16:51:00 - [178] Edited by: Goumindong on 03/05/2010 16:55:25 Originally by: Ogogov Absolutely - mostly because some people would rather post something completely unrelated in the hope that people will stop paying attention to the thread rather than actually sticking to the OP. Ask the OP why he wants to discuss 50km engagement ranges link Quote: Not really, when the incoming DPS is so extreme that it will waste ANY local tank that isn't a capital ship in seige/triage mode or a Titan. If that is the case. If you have so many ships that you waste anything, then the DPS of any ship doesn't matter either. That is the key that you're not seeing. If EHP doesn't matter then neither does DPS. If DPS doesn't matter the only thing that matters is whether or not you are in range to hit your enemy. Quote: but that's really secondary to fitting for as much dmg as possible to get on top of killmails Ahhh, that is what its really about isn't it? Its not about bringing the best ship to win the fight, its about your electronic phallus. Edit: You see, getting on top of killmails does not win fights. Its gets you on top of killmails. We aren't here to determine which ship you fly when you can't afford a convertible. We are here to determine whether or not they're good ships. And the problems with the ships are not due to weapon types. For more information, see the link in my sig -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
Veronique deEstelle 3M Industries	Posted - 2010.05.03 17:32:00 - [179] boost blasters^^
Ogogov	Posted - 2010.05.03 18:48:00 - [180] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 03/05/2010 16:55:25 If that is the case. If you have so many ships that you waste anything, then the DPS of any ship doesn't matter either. That is the key that you're not seeing. DPS matters regardless of EHP, because the additive power of many players shooting at a single ship is greater than the capacity of any single local tank, and that's the key that you are not seeing. Quote: Ahhh, that is what its really about isn't it? Its not about bringing the best ship to win the fight, its about your electronic phallus. Edit: You see, getting on top of killmails does not win fights. Its gets you on top of killmails. We aren't here to determine which ship you fly when you can't afford a convertible. We are here to determine whether or not they're good ships. Funny, because I was under the impression that being higher on the killmail means you contributed more, proportionately, to destroying that target, thus delivering more firepower more effectively and killing the enemy quicker, so they are unable to shoot back with their already-having-been-destroyed ships, thus rendering your EHP argument moot. And no, we're not here to determine whether or not they're good ships. I'm here because I've already determined hybrids are poorly balanced - apparently I'm not alone in that conclusion - and I'm asking for a good discussion on how to fix them. Which you aren't providing. Quote: And the problems with the ships are not due to weapon types. For more information, see the link in my sig Why on earth would I want to subject myself to that?

Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.03 20:32:00 - [181] Originally by: Ogogov DPS matters regardless of EHP, because the additive power of many players shooting at a single ship is greater than the capacity of any single local tank, and that's the key that you are not seeing. No. I am seeing what happens when you add up DPS. But if you increase EHP by 1% it has the same effect as decreasing the DPS of every ship of your opponents fleet by 1%. If you have 20% more EHP then it takes 20% more DPS to kill you in the same time frame. Which is the same as your opponent having 20% less DPS. Quote: Funny, because I was under the impression that being higher on the killmail means you contributed more, proportionately, to destroying that target Such Guardians and Falcons are worthless mirite? Besides the inherent inefficiencies involved using that as a metric (damage types come to mind) you're discounting the effect of people shooting you on your fleets damage. Imagine for a second that you are shot first in a fleet compared to if you're shot last. If you're shot first the amount of damage that you do is equal to the time it takes the enemy to kill you multiplied by your DPS. If you're shot last the amount of damage that you do is equal to the time it takes to kill every ship in front of you multiplied by your DPS. This means that when you increase your EHP if you're called early you increase the total damage that everyone in your fleet does. This portion of your contribution does not show up at the top of killmails. It does not make you look like a hero. but it does win fleet fights, and that is what makes fleet ships good. And that must be accounted for when examining whether or not ships are good Quote: I'm here because I've already determined hybrids are poorly balanced So you came to a conclusion using uncritical methods and you're surprised that someone is going to challenge that? Quote: Why on earth would I want to subject myself to that? Because you care about understanding EVE enough to have these discussions Note: Targeting delays are a symmetrical issue that apply to both DPS and EHP equally. I.E. if you're destroying ships fast enough that the limiter for destroying ships becomes your lock time, then that same reduction in effectiveness that is applied to a targets EHP is applied to your DPS. -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
Ogogov	Posted - 2010.05.04 00:18:00 - [182] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ogogov DPS matters regardless of EHP, because the additive power of many players shooting at a single ship is greater than the capacity of any single local tank, and that's the key that you are not seeing. No. I am seeing what happens when you add up DPS. But if you increase EHP by 1% it has the same effect as decreasing the DPS of every ship of your opponents fleet by 1%. Lolwut? You're confusing resists with EHP, I think. 1% EHP of a 100k tank would be 1k more Effective Hit Points. How is that going to matter when you're getting hit by 400,000dmg in alpha strike? That's going to give you an extra microsecond? Quote: If you have 20% more EHP then it takes 20% more DPS to kill you in the same time frame. Which is the same as your opponent having 20% less DPS. Quote: Funny, because I was under the impression that being higher on the killmail means you contributed more, proportionately, to destroying that target Such Guardians and Falcons are worthless mirite? also words... words...... words....hurfblurf... No, you're pretty wrong. Then you might as well add lag back into the equation which brings DPS back into the equation as the dominant arbitrating force because the team that is doing more damage (alpha OR dps) will destroy more ships faster and 'win' in this extremely simplistic, hypothetical engagement that still has utterly no bearing on the OP. You've clearly put alot of effort into this but at this point I'm going to leave you with the last word because it's quite clear you've Forrest Gumped the argument and run off the pitch and onto some train tracks.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.04 04:40:00 - [183] Originally by: Ogogov Lolwut? You're confusing resists with EHP, I think. 1% EHP of a 100k tank would be 1k more Effective Hit Points. How is that going to matter when you're getting hit by 400,000dmg in alpha strike? That's going to give you an extra microsecond? A 1% increase in EHP will require 1% more DPS to kill you within the same time frame. Whether that timeframe is a millisecond or ten. If your targets have 100k EHP and you're doing a 400,000 alpha strike, then 75% of your DPS is pointless. Clearly you only needed 100k alpha and you have 400k. Anything over the 100k alpha is then wasted If you're saying that "omg the alpha is so high that their hit points never matter" then at the same time "omg the alpha is so high that our DPS doesn't matter either". Quote: Then you might as well add lag back into the equation which brings DPS back into the equation as the dominant arbitrating force because the team that is doing more damage (alpha OR dps) will destroy more ships faster and 'win' in this extremely simplistic, hypothetical engagement that still has utterly no bearing on the OP. If you add lag back into the equation then that reduces the effectiveness of your DPS just as much as it reduces the effectiveness of your hit points As for the OP. It appears, as we can see from page 6(The OP's posts on it, near the top). That the OP thinks that battleship engagement range within 50km is what we're discussing (and that, for some strange reason he thinks AC's can reasonably hit that far without TE's) and is a valid "scope" that it makes sense to talk about the "blaster" problems. This is to say that the strength of railguns is within the scope of "blaster" problems and that makes this discussion relevant. I mean hell, this is taken directly from the OP Quote: Currently, Gallente ships are a very hard choice for large fleet engagements, since blasters don't hit far enough, thus forcing us to use failguns instead (see what I did there?). Let me put some ratio numbers in here: _____________ The fact of the matter is this: You don't know what you're doing. You don't know why there is a problem with blasters. And you cannot hope to fix it before you educate yourself about the game that you're playing. Blasters have not fallen in strength since their heyday. Other weapons have not seen significant advancements that would put them out of commission. In the heyday of blasters 45km scorch still existed and the Geddon still had 8 low slots and 5 heavy drones. In the heyday of blasters, vagabonds still out-ranged and out-sped deimos. In the heyday of blasters the Rupture was still better than the Thorax. In the heyday of blasters, the Tempest still had its versatility and range advantages over the Mega. In the heyday of the blaster you were still better off in a nano-domi. None of that changed. What changed was how people play the game. And blasters will never be what you want them to be until people stop playing the game the way they do now and they forget the knowledge that led them to make other choices. That last bit is a little harsh, there are boosts that can make blaster boats good again. But they don't have to do with damage or tracking or web speed, or AB boosts or any other sorts of convoluted junk. They have to do with making blaster ships proficient at prosecuting solo/small gang PvP and with systems that encourage those types of gangs to exist You would know this if you bothered to read the paper that I pointed you towards. But you don't because you don't seem interested in actually fixing the problem, you seem interested in getting a cookie. After which you're going to ***** that it wasn't as sweet as it ought to have been. -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
Royaldo Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch.	Posted - 2010.05.04 04:54:00 - [184] Im not sure what heyday you are talking about. But before changes to siege launchers, added hp's to all ships, projectile ammo and clips, changes to tracking enhancers, before nanos first came around...you know back then... blasters rocked.
Mimiru Minahiro	Posted - 2010.05.04 05:18:00 - [185] Edited by: Mimiru Minahiro on 04/05/2010 05:19:16 Originally by: Goumindong In the heyday of blasters 45km scorch still existed and the Geddon still had 8 low slots and 5 heavy drones. In the heyday of blasters, vagabonds still out-ranged and out-sped deimos. In the heyday of blasters the Rupture was still better than the Thorax. In the heyday of blasters, the Tempest still had its versatility and range advantages over the Mega. In the heyday of the blaster you were still better off in a nano-domi. None of that changed. What changed was how people play the game. Goumi is correct that these things were around back in the "heyday" of blasters (minus the ruppy being "better" than the rax... to some degree that is subjective. They both were/are good boats at different play styles). BUT, to be perfectly fair in our dissimination of information: -base EM/EXP resistances got changed (only a "nerf" to Gallente as hybrids dont shoot either type. But they do have drones so its not that drastic....so long as you are in the situations where drone use is truely viable) -During that same patch amarr got a 15%dmg boost in addition to the resist change. (this may have been to Lg. Guns only...i forget tbh) -90% webs were nerfed. Yes a web'd ruppy was still faster than a web'd Rax prior to the nerf; however the speeds at which a ruppy could drift into falloff if caught meant that more dmg could be applied. This is coupled with the fact that at close range the speed (while faster than a Rax) was not sufficient to cause blasters tracking issues -since the "heyday" (where according to Goumi the Ruppy was better than the Rax)projectiles have recived boosts to dmg and tracking. IMO blasters/rails are not OMGcrappy in reality. However, the power creep that has occured leaves them slightly lacking even under prime conditions for thier use. They do not need large buffs to be competative.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.04 05:55:00 - [186] Originally by: Royaldo Im not sure what heyday you are talking about.[...]...you know back then... blasters rocked. 1) Changes to tracking enhancers boosted blasters relative to lasers and missiles. Also boosted AC's more, but that advantage was irrelevant 2) Adding HP to ships makes blaster ships better not worse. Any time you extend the length of fights you increase the strength of high damage/short range weapons. 3) Nano's didn't "Come around". They were always there. People just did not understand how strong they were. Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro -base EM/EXP resistances got changed This doesn't have as large an effect as you would think on the viability of lasers compared to blasters in the area where blasters could have an advantage. Mainly it served to make scorch better, but scorch isn't typically used in small fights as much as it is in larger ones(except as an opener). In those instances lasers were better anyway. For the sphere of influence of blasters, the changes were much smaller since it was dampened by the thermal damage on MF and drones. Quote: -During that same patch amarr got a 15%dmg boost in addition to the resist change. (this may have been to Lg. Guns only...i forget tbh) This simply did not happen. There was no strict damage boost to Amarr for any weapons. There was a tracking boost( a big one), but that had little effect on applied damage intra class. And even with relative tracking blasters have a big advantage. Quote: -90% webs were nerfed. Yes a web'd ruppy was still faster than a web'd Rax prior to the nerf; however the speeds at which a ruppy could drift into falloff if caught meant that more dmg could be applied. This is coupled with the fact that at close range the speed (while faster than a Rax) was not sufficient to cause blasters tracking issues The drift on webs has nothing to do with the amount it slows you down. If they were drifting out of web after then they're drifting out of web after. The rupture was not better than the Rax simply because of webs. The Rupture was better simply because it was better at everything that the Rax did. Quote: -since the "heyday" (where according to Goumi the Ruppy was better than the Rax)projectiles have recived boosts to dmg and tracking. Bonuses to damage and falloff yes, not bonuses to tracking(bonuses to ammo you won't ever use does not increase your tracking) The "laser changes" that made a difference(with respect to the strength of blasters) was really the boost to the zealot from a 4 turret ship that was worthless to a 5 turret ship that had a role. The omen also got boosted but it wasn't really enough to make it not **ty. The reason that Amarr battleships were good after was not because they got boosted, but because they were good before. Quote: (minus the ruppy being "better" than the rax... to some degree that is subjective. They both were/are good boats at different play styles**). [...] IMO blasters/rails are not OMGcrappy in reality. However, the power creep that has occured leaves them slightly lacking even under prime conditions for thier use. They do not need large buffs to be competative. The issue is that people have realized that that play style that the rax occupied is weak. Not that it was not weak before. If you got rid of all the laser and AC changes(barring the Zealot), people would still prefer pulse ships and AC ships over blaster ships. People do not realize why this is the case and cannot reconcile that choosing a race should be about choosing what you want to do rather than changing their choice of race to do what they want is why none of these solutions will fix anything, or will break more in the process. Its why the blanket laser changes were bad, its why the blanker projectile changes were bad, and it will be why blanket blaster changes will be bad if they go through. -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
ShahFluffers Gallente Ice Fire Warriors	Posted - 2010.05.04 06:12:00 - [187] I am going to briefly throw myself into this verbal melee while I'm good and drunk. Originally by: Goumindong If your targets have 100k EHP and you're doing a 400,000 alpha strike, then 75% of your DPS is pointless. Clearly you only needed 100k alpha and you have 400k. Anything over the 100k alpha is then wasted If you're saying that "omg the alpha is so high that their hit points never matter" then at the same time "omg the alpha is so high that our DPS doesn't matter either". All of the FCs that I know will opt to go "overkill" and launch all 400k of that DPS at on target rather than waste time wondering how much of a tank the enemy ships have or many of his/her ships will be needed to kill each one of the enemy's and call separate targets for different squads, etc. So yeah, once you go over a certain amount of people on either side of a battle (I'm talking more than 100 on either side) then unless you are in a capital, any tank is pretty much worthless. Once you bring those numbers down to something more sane (say, 20 on 20?), then EHP becomes a VASTLY bigger factor. That said, I do wonder what this has to do with blasters. Originally by: Goumindong The fact of the matter is this: You don't know what you're doing. You don't know why there is a problem with blasters. And you cannot hope to fix it before you educate yourself about the game that you're playing. Good sir, I took the liberty of checking your killboard. You have never once used a Gallente ship. Or blasters or railguns for that matter. All you have every flown have been Amarr laserboats and Rifters. This leads me to conclude that you have been using EFT numbers this whole time and have no real experience in actually using them in a real combat environment. I invite you to try flying nothing but Thoraxes, Brutixes, and Megathrons for a month using ONLY hybrid weapons. Let us see how well you fare. Originally by: Goumindong Blasters have not fallen in strength since their heyday. Other weapons have not seen significant advancements that would put them out of commission. However blasters, and hybrids in general, have not been given any "buff" either... not like the other weapon systems. Originally by: Goumindong What changed was how people play the game. And blasters will never be what you want them to be until people stop playing the game the way they do now and they forget the knowledge that led them to make other choices. Player choices were also fueled, in part, by changes made the game as well. They go hand-in-hand. When lasers were buffed people realized that, in exchange for a 10% to 15% decrease in damage, they could fire at 3x the range of blasters and completely avoid the 10km "zone of death." And if anyone got too close to their "medium range" laserboats, scram/web them and tracking no longer an issue. Originally by: Goumindong ... there are boosts that can make blaster boats good again. But they don't have to do with damage or tracking or web speed, or AB boosts or any other sorts of convoluted junk. They have to do with making blaster ships proficient at prosecuting solo/small gang PvP and with systems that encourage those types of gangs to exist I've said it before, I'll say it again: as EvE grows and gains new players solo combat will become rarer and rarer. Why? Because people find safety in numbers. It's human nature (I call it the "herd effect"). And even if you try to artificially prevent this people will find ways around it (always have, always will). This leaves Gallente boats in a odd situation as they are technically geared towards small scale/solo combat. So you are right in that fixing blasters and/or hybrids in general won't "fix" things with the game overall. But it is simpler to tinker with one weapon systems and to see what happen rather than to screw with an entire line-up of ships, much less the game mechanics themselves. And none will guarantee anything. _______________________ "Just because I look like an idiot doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.04 06:36:00 - [188] Edited by: Goumindong on 04/05/2010 06:47:55 Originally by: Goumindong If you got rid of all the laser and AC changes(barring the Zealot), people would still prefer pulse ships and AC ships over blaster ships. I want to take a little bit of time to explain why this might be true. Imagine for a second a game that looks like so. P1 and P2 are the players, C and H are the choices and (X,Y) represents the payoffs to player 1 and player 2. P2 C H P1 C (0,0) (-1,1) H (1,-1) (0,0) Such that if player 1 chooses C and player 2 chooses C, each person has a payoff of 0. Now, in this situation the obvious choice to do the best is to choose H. If payoffs are changed such that the game now looks like so. P2 C H P1 C (0,0) (-1,2) H (2,-1) (0,0) The obvious choice is still to choose H. This is what the changes to lasers and AC's largely were. the problem was that before the changes, people were not seeing the game as I described above, but were seeing the game as if it was advantageous to choose C. Only after the changes did they realize that H was the better choice, even though H was a better choice all along This is roughly what has happened here. I mean, before the laser changes what were the problems with lasers? If I was to be believed the problems lay in issues with downfitting, capacitor use for new players, the ease of fitting omni tanks, and the fact that the sub-bs ships sucked ass(harbinger excluded). I have certainly changed my views since then. I have become more in favor of boosting cruisers in radical ways, i have given up on the whole "making lasers not totally suck for newer players" thing. And I care less about omni tanks(and their effect on Minmatar or Amarr) for a variety of reasons. But the point still stands. The changes to lasers that went through had little effect on the strength of laser ships(probably only really having an effect of boosting the Harbinger) relative to others. It did not boost the things that needed to change (Omen, Prophecy, Maller, Punisher, etc still suck) because those things even after the changes were not good enough to reasonably use and did boost the things that didn't need to be changed (anyone saying that the Abaddon or Geddon needed to have more true DPS was smoking illicit substances). The same can be said for minnie and the projectile changes. Did the Rupture, Rifter, Vagabond, and Hurricane really need range expansion and damage increases? Did the Tempest, Maelstrom, and Typhoon? Could changes to the Maelstrom/Pest have been made to make the Mael a better sniper and the Pest a better AC ship without boosting the rest of the ships? Yea, i bet that could have happened. But it didn't, and its because people whether good intentioned or not, keep thinking that they can just change damage and tracking on a whole class of items and make things "good again" This is what blanket changes to blasters/railguns will be. If you do it you will just be setting up the next stupid whine about how some other weapon system is underpowered(probably still blasters frankly) -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.04 06:46:00 - [189] Originally by: ShahFluffers So yeah, once you go over a certain amount of people on either side of a battle (I'm talking more than 100 on either side) then unless you are in a capital, any tank is pretty much worthless. Once you bring those numbers down to something more sane (say, 20 on 20?), then EHP becomes a VASTLY bigger factor. The point was that both tank and damage is pretty much worthless in that situation. Since you have so much overkill anyway neither matters. But eventually it will matter as you say, and when it does, they both matter and they both matter in the method that I described Quote: I invite you to try flying nothing but Thoraxes, Brutixes, and Megathrons for a month using ONLY hybrid weapons. Let us see how well you fare. And you think that would change if you just increased their weapon strength? Yea, it would not. Also, blasters are after missiles, medium AC's and Recons. Blasters don't fit my play style and probably won't for quite a while. Not an issue with them per se as it is me making a choice. Even if they were boosted as you want i would not choose them Quote: This leaves Gallente boats in a odd situation as they are technically geared towards small scale/solo combat. So you are right in that fixing blasters and/or hybrids in general won't "fix" things with the game overall. But it is simpler to tinker with one weapon systems and to see what happen rather than to screw with an entire line-up of ships, much less the game mechanics themselves. And none will guarantee anything. Easier to tinker with them? No. Its much harder to tinker with them than it is to tinker with individual ships. When you tinker with one ship, one thing in the system changes. That you're simply doing it 3-4 times doesn't matter. When you tinker with weapons, everything in the system changes, even what you don't want to change Its actually much easier to change the system to encourage people to fight in smaller groups than you think. But if you want to do that you might have to attempt to understand how people make choices relating to how large their gangs are. The link in my sig might be informative to that point. -- Did you get that thing i sent you?
Gravaton Cleric	Posted - 2010.05.04 07:00:00 - [190] Agreed, Blasters hould be upgraded. All I am saying is the blaster need some serious tweaking to bring it in line with other turret type weapons!

Amongrimm	Posted - 2010.05.04 11:27:00 - [191] i miss the "omg that megathron is approaching me!"-moments... supportet: blaster dps boost; need for close-facemelting weapon NOT supportet: range boost; no need for another midrange weapon
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.04 12:40:00 - [192] Edited by: NightmareX on 04/05/2010 12:41:26 Originally by: Amongrimm i miss the "omg that megathron is approaching me!"-moments... Sorry to say it, but that time is over long time ago. You wont see a Blaster Mega like that again. The reason for it is the few HP boosts that CCP have done. But still, i can still feel a little like that when i'm facing a Neutron Mega in my Dual 650mm Tempest. So it's still scary in that way.
ma perke	Posted - 2010.05.04 13:55:00 - [193] blasters need change - more damage&tracking; less range deimos needs more ehp to make it alive during approach to target
Amongrimm	Posted - 2010.05.04 15:10:00 - [194] Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 04/05/2010 12:41:26 Originally by: Amongrimm i miss the "omg that megathron is approaching me!"-moments... Sorry to say it, but that time is over long time ago. You wont see a Blaster Mega like that again. The reason for it is the few HP boosts that CCP have done. [...] sure a neutron mega isn't that funny sitting next to u and firing away, but not much scarier than an abaddon or a raven (examples) which both have that bbq-sphere of the mega but bigger ones^^ I just think mega and other blaster platforms should be much more of a threat when in optimal than other mid range ships.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.04 15:41:00 - [195] Edited by: NightmareX on 04/05/2010 15:42:06 Originally by: Amongrimm Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 04/05/2010 12:41:26 Originally by: Amongrimm i miss the "omg that megathron is approaching me!"-moments... Sorry to say it, but that time is over long time ago. You wont see a Blaster Mega like that again. The reason for it is the few HP boosts that CCP have done. [...] sure a neutron mega isn't that funny sitting next to u and firing away, but not much scarier than an abaddon or a raven (examples) which both have that bbq-sphere of the mega but bigger ones^^ I just think mega and other blaster platforms should be much more of a threat when in optimal than other mid range ships. Well, when we are talking Mega vs Tempest here, then in fact the Mega is 5 times more scary than the Abaddon is to my Tempest, simply because the EM and the Thermal resists on the Tempest is quite high and the Abaddon doesn't do much damage to me then. It's the same with other ships that takes EM and Thermal damages. This is tested many times. I'm not even scared to 2x Raven's that shoot EM torps, because last time that happened, i tanked both of them, since my EM resist is pretty high, so i tanked them with 1x LAR II.
Cyan Cure	Posted - 2010.05.05 09:27:00 - [196] Edited by: Cyan Cure on 05/05/2010 09:31:48 Hey, I'm comming back to the game after a long break, so i might be a bit rusty, but i'd like to add my 2 cents to the argument. The problem is in the ships. You can have an awesome armor repair amount or tracking, but in the end of the day you only have one bonus to damage, you move with the speed and grace of a brick in a bucket of tar and have minimal effective range. Gallente ships (partialy because of blasters, but mostly because of the ships' design) are easy to exploit, when going into fight with Minmatar and Amarr ships you know you're going in with a handicap, they'll do damage sooner and you won't be able to balance that cause you don't do much more damage overall, if they can pull range on you, you'll die without chances to win, going against Caldari blaster boats is kicking yourself in the balls, because they have your DPS and alot better tank. Ofcourse all of this applies to Caldari too, but they're alot more effective with Null in scrambler range, also they have easier time fitting Ion guns due to low PG requirement on shield tank. I'd simply reduce the mass of Gallente and Caldari blaster boats, because i can't wrap my head around the fact that ships with lowest range are one of the slowest. Also, Goumindong and NightmareX, your elaborated examples matter only to you and don't matter on a daily basis. I don't have much to work with here, but it doesn't seem you have any experience with blasters at all.
RP McMurphy The CULT OF DAMNED	Posted - 2010.05.05 10:53:00 - [197] Edited by: RP McMurphy on 05/05/2010 10:53:43 Originally by: Goumindong And you think that would change if you just increased their weapon strength? Yea, it would not. Also, blasters are after missiles, medium AC's and Recons. Blasters don't fit my play style and probably won't for quite a while. Not an issue with them per se as it is me making a choice. Even if they were boosted as you want i would not choose them dude, u just admited that u are not using blasters, u never were and never will. So in this case, u are arguing against blaster buff just because u are either afraid of blasters beeing better then they are now and your tactics of killing blaster boats with range and better dps will become obsolete or u are afraid that u will have to skill some other weapons too to use them in some situations.. Anyway, i think blasters should be death bringers, and that is FAST and HEAVY death bringers. They were until two things happened: HP buff all accross the universe and web nerf. With first, we couldnt do anymore hit, melt, run tactics, u have to stay there and risk it to be: blobed or get problems with tracking since webs cannot hold stuff still anymore. With second, even if u got into "fair" equal fight, any sane pilot will start orbit u and slowly moving away, thus causing problems with tracking and sooner or later get into your falloff where your eft dps doesnt count anymore. I was specced pilot for gallente and i respecced to amarr and minie just because gallente became slowest hitters and meh when it came to fighting. I still rather choose lasers beacuse it gives me engagement range of 45km with scorch, 15km with MF for 90% dps of 5km ranged blasters, or projectiles for engagement range of 30km with short range ammo, good tracking and no cap usage, while ships are fast and agile.
Mayyee	Posted - 2010.05.05 13:01:00 - [198] strongly supported! long range weapons I give a crap about, but if blasters get their chainsaw-of-eve-flavor back... OMG close range weapons would be so balanced and each with its own flavor, sweet!
Lucus Ranger Gallente Special Ops	Posted - 2010.05.05 17:53:00 - [199] Completely supported. I want to fly my blasterships again, even though I do love my lasers and autos lol. /Prince of Darkness at your service.. Disclaimer: None of my ideas or posting reflects my Alliance/Corp in any
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.05 19:11:00 - [200] Originally by: RP McMurphy dude, u just admited that u are not using blasters, u never were and never will. So in this case, u are arguing against blaster buff just because u are either afraid of blasters beeing better then they are now and your tactics of killing blaster boats with range and better dps will become obsolete or u are afraid that u will have to skill some other weapons too to use them in some situations.. If you've bothered to read what i've wrote on the issue(see link in sig) you will know that that clearly is not the case. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance

Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.05 19:40:00 - [201] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: RP McMurphy dude, u just admited that u are not using blasters, u never were and never will. So in this case, u are arguing against blaster buff just because u are either afraid of blasters beeing better then they are now and your tactics of killing blaster boats with range and better dps will become obsolete or u are afraid that u will have to skill some other weapons too to use them in some situations.. If you've bothered to read what i've wrote on the issue(see link in sig) you will know that that clearly is not the case. Goum likes the status quo, but wants artillery nerfed a bit so his lasers are the best choice in all situations again. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.05 20:09:00 - [202] Originally by: Bagehi Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: RP McMurphy dude, u just admited that u are not using blasters, u never were and never will. So in this case, u are arguing against blaster buff just because u are either afraid of blasters beeing better then they are now and your tactics of killing blaster boats with range and better dps will become obsolete or u are afraid that u will have to skill some other weapons too to use them in some situations.. If you've bothered to read what i've wrote on the issue(see link in sig) you will know that that clearly is not the case. Goum likes the status quo, but wants artillery nerfed a bit so his lasers are the best choice in all situations again. What? Seriously, what is it with you and lying? The changes that I proposed boost blaster boats specifically, cruisers specifically, frigates specifically, and the only changes to laser ships (bar frigates and cruisers) are nerfs -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.05 21:38:00 - [203] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Bagehi Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: RP McMurphy dude, u just admited that u are not using blasters, u never were and never will. So in this case, u are arguing against blaster buff just because u are either afraid of blasters beeing better then they are now and your tactics of killing blaster boats with range and better dps will become obsolete or u are afraid that u will have to skill some other weapons too to use them in some situations.. If you've bothered to read what i've wrote on the issue(see link in sig) you will know that that clearly is not the case. Goum likes the status quo, but wants artillery nerfed a bit so his lasers are the best choice in all situations again. What? Seriously, what is it with you and lying? The changes that I proposed boost blaster boats specifically, cruisers specifically, frigates specifically, and the only changes to laser ships (bar frigates and cruisers) are nerfs I'm not sure where the "lie" was. "Battleships are largely balanced." = you like the status quo for BS. You want local reps to be boosted to handle instant damage = indirect nerf to artilleries. If your argument is that lasers are not the best choice in PVP, I guess that can be debated. Overwhelmingly, most people would argue that lasers are the best choice in PVP though, bar mid-range, where high damage artillery ships shine. At the same time as boosting local reps, you switch the local rep bonuses from several Gallente ships with the resist bonuses on several Amarr ships. Net change? Amarr have bonuses for the new and improved local reps and Gallente are left with incompatible fitting options (higher built-in resists mean a plate is a better choice than resistance mods, but plates slow your ship down which you don't want on a blaster ship). You are arguing against a boost for blasters in this thread, remember, yet claiming you propose a boost for blasters? These points withstanding, I agree that cruisers and frigates need to be reworked as the roles laid out for them in 2003 have been completely overshadowed or removed by other ships since that time. Oh, I also don't agree with this "nerf T2" talk. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.05 21:50:00 - [204] Originally by: Bagehi "Battleships are largely balanced." = you like the status quo for BS. And what did I change about BS balance? You didn't actually check did you? Quote: You want local reps to be boosted to handle instant damage = indirect nerf to artilleries. Uhhh. Are you reading the same thing that I am reading? Because that is not what I suggested and that is not what would happen in either case Quote: At the same time as boosting local reps, you switch the local rep bonuses from several Gallente ships with the resist bonuses on several Amarr ships. Net change? Amarr have bonuses for the new and improved local reps and Gallente are left with incompatible fitting options (higher built-in resists mean a plate is a better choice than resistance mods, but plates slow your ship down which you don't want on a blaster ship). Uhh, yea you didn't read it did you? Not only did I not suggest that(neither boosting local reps in that manner, or giving Amarr those bonuses), but to suggest that resistance bonuses are worse than rep bonuses. Man what? You should just hang your hat in shame at that one. Seriously, you should not be having any discussion on balance if you think that one. Quote: You are arguing against a boost for blasters in this thread, remember, yet claiming you propose a boost for blasters? I am arguing against a boost for blasters. Because boosting blasters is a terrible idea. It will not fix the problem and will simply create more whines, just like the laser boosts and the AC boosts. Quote: Oh, I also don't agree with this "nerf T2" talk. What "nerf t2" talk? No one suggested that. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
Frances Ducoir Gallente Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Panda Team	Posted - 2010.05.05 22:23:00 - [205] Edited by: Frances Ducoir on 05/05/2010 22:26:41 Why dont you just STFU?! You can lament all day long here GouminDONG, blasters will get boosted. Its only a matter of time... so please for the sake of god... STFU. And people... stop replying to him. He is a fanatical anti-gallente troll (and some kind of wannabe-assembly-hall-celebrity). According to the time he spends trolling gallente-balancing related threads he has absolutely no life at all. He is doing such since years now! You can't argue with him, because he will always find another excuse and twist your words, so just ignore him. snip Signiture remoted because it contained profanity - hutch
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.05 22:40:00 - [206] Edited by: Bagehi on 05/05/2010 22:40:41 Originally by: Goumindong And what did I change about BS balance? You didn't actually check did you? You made the Maelstrom a more agile battleship (because turning was apparently a problem). You gave the Mega longer lock range and increased scan strength (neither matter if the ship can't get into range). You made the Hype slightly faster, which is a slight boost to a solo blaster fit. Originally by: Goumindong Uhhh. Are you reading the same thing that I am reading? Because that is not what I suggested and that is not what would happen in either case "For battleships, the fitting of repair/boosters units needs to be brought down closer to the level of 1600mm plates/extenders..." This is a huge boost to local reps: the ability to fit more reps than could be fit previously. Originally by: Goumindong Uhh, yea you didn't read it did you? Not only did I not suggest that(neither boosting local reps in that manner, or giving Amarr those bonuses), but to suggest that resistance bonuses are worse than rep bonuses. Man what? You should just hang your hat in shame at that one. Seriously, you should not be having any discussion on balance if you think that one. Astarte gets resists, loses reps. Absolution gets reps, loses resists. Brutix gets a resist bonus, loses rep bonus. While I'm at it, WTF Omen? Originally by: Goumindong I am arguing against a boost for blasters. Because boosting blasters is a terrible idea. It will not fix the problem and will simply create more whines, just like the laser boosts and the AC boosts. I highlighted the part where you agree with me. You don't want to boost blasters, you think a little more speed or a little extra targeting range/strength is what they need. Originally by: Goumindong The changes that I proposed boost blaster boats specifically Small boosts that are diminished when you also boosted other ships. Originally by: Goumindong What "nerf t2" talk? No one suggested that. You want to cut the skill requirements for them. Effectively, everyone who has put the time in to use them will be left with having trained to level 5 (if you forget doing this, the jump from lvl4 to lvl5 is extremely long) as being a minor boost in damage. Making T2 the "baseline" means the training people put in does not provide as much of an advantage as it used to. Less advantage = nerf. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2010.05.05 22:43:00 - [207] Do not feed the troll
Frances Ducoir Gallente Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Panda Team	Posted - 2010.05.05 22:44:00 - [208] do NOT argue with goumindong snip Signiture remoted because it contained profanity - hutch
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.05 22:50:00 - [209] Originally by: Frances Ducoir do NOT argue with goumindong Sometimes I think he sincerely believes this stuff (I mean, he wrote a 19 page document) and a little rational criticism is all it will take for him to realize that he is wrong. Then he argues that the Rokh is bordering on being an overpowered ship. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Frodo Zsakos	Posted - 2010.05.05 22:58:00 - [210] Originally by: Bagehi Originally by: Frances Ducoir do NOT argue with goumindong Sometimes I think he sincerely believes this stuff (I mean, he wrote a 19 page document) and a little rational criticism is all it will take for him to realize that he is wrong. Then he argues that the Rokh is bordering on being an overpowered ship. No the rokh is truely an op ship it was proven with math ,why cant you still accept it?

Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.05 23:05:00 - [211] Edited by: Goumindong on 05/05/2010 23:14:07 How about we continue this here. No need to clutter this thread with discussions that are not towards the merits of the proposal in the OP, which is about increasing the range or damage on all blasters because of a perceived inadequacy of the weapons. Originally by: Bagehi Sometimes I think he sincerely believes this stuff (I mean, he wrote a 19 page document) and a little rational criticism is all it will take for him to realize that he is wrong. Then he argues that the Rokh is bordering on being an overpowered ship. If only you had rational criticism. Still waiting on that explanation for how Repair Amt bonus > Resist bonus by the way ;) Originally by: Frodo Zsakos No the rokh is truely an op ship it was proven with math ,why cant you still accept it? The nickname for EVE has always been "spreadsheets online". And its not because the math doesn't correspond to the gameplay. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
Mimiru Minahiro	Posted - 2010.05.06 02:50:00 - [212] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro -base EM/EXP resistances got changed Mainly it served to make scorch better, but scorch isn't typically used in small fights as much as it is in larger ones(except as an opener). Quote: -During that same patch amarr got a 15%dmg boost There was no strict damage boost to Amarr for any weapons. There was a tracking boost Quote: -since the "heyday" (where according to Goumi the Ruppy was better than the Rax)projectiles have recived boosts to dmg and tracking. Bonuses to damage and falloff yes, not bonuses to tracking Not much time so will make this quick: 1) EM/EXP resist nerf: This resulted in a 18% increase in dmg for scorch and 12%increase for MF. (these numbers are rough..its 18.4ish% and 11.5ish. dont have a calculator atm so did it in my head) 2) For some reason a dmg increase sticks out in my head for large lasers...but i may be remembering an effective dmg increase from tracking given fits/fights at the time. Its been a few years since i thought about it 3)Check patch notes for Dominion. tracking was increased for arty to get the variation between tiers correct. This is why i said "projectile". I agree with: 1)The playstyle inherrent in blaster boats is largely out of fashion, or as you say "weak". Blanket Boosting tracking and/or dmg wont make it a stonger playstyle unles you overbuff...which would just be breaking everything else. BUT... "better/Stronger/more popular" playstyles were boosted in dmg and tracking...which just serves to make a sub-par style even more worthless. Giving hybrids a boost can at least return some of the ground lost.
Krathos Morpheus Legion Infernal	Posted - 2010.05.06 04:09:00 - [213] EVEwatch Sidebar soon "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. "
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.06 05:12:00 - [214] Edited by: Goumindong on 06/05/2010 05:12:35 Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro 1) EM/EXP resist nerf: This resulted in a 18% increase in dmg for scorch and 12%increase for MF. (these numbers are rough..its 18.4ish% and 11.5ish. dont have a calculator atm so did it in my head) This assumes that you're always shooting at armor and that you have no drones. For instance, lets look at a harbinger shooting at a Brutix that only has a DCII for a tank. Before the change the Brutix had roughly 34,600 EHP against a harb with scorch loaded. After, 32,980. A difference of 4.91% This damage advantage clearly goes up when the % of hit points in armor goes up(for whatever reason), but its never so pronounced as the simple "vs armor" numbers would suggest. Quote: 2) For some reason a dmg increase sticks out in my head for large lasers...but i may be remembering an effective dmg increase from tracking given fits/fights at the time. Its been a few years since i thought about it No such analysis was done, and if it were it would be very suspect. Quote: "better/Stronger/more popular" playstyles were boosted in dmg and tracking...which just serves to make a sub-par style even more worthless. Giving hybrids a boost can at least return some of the ground lost. This doesnt mean that ships cant be modified if a boost occurs. The tracking bonus on mega/ranis could be removed if a general tracking buff was implemented for example. Or removing turret slots from drone boats, or.... you get the idea. See, that is the thing. It would not return some of the "ground lost". The boosts did not make them gain any real ground in terms of what was best. You still don't have a reason to choose blaster boats. This is why I said that if you completely undid the laser and AC changes it would not change peoples preference for lasers or ACs over blasters. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
Mimiru Minahiro	Posted - 2010.05.06 08:08:00 - [215] Edited by: Mimiru Minahiro on 06/05/2010 08:08:56 Originally by: Goumindong For instance, lets look at a harbinger shooting at a Brutix that only has a DCII for a tank. Before the change the Brutix had roughly 34,600 EHP against a harb with scorch loaded. After, 32,980. A difference of 4.91% This damage advantage clearly goes up when the % of hit points in armor goes up(for whatever reason), but its never so pronounced as the simple "vs armor" numbers would suggest. ............See, that is the thing. It would not return some of the "ground lost". The boosts did not make them gain any real ground in terms of what was best. You still don't have a reason to choose blaster boats. This is why I said that if you completely undid the laser and AC changes it would not change peoples preference for lasers or ACs over blasters. On the first point i cannot check your numbers because i do not have an old version of eft handy and i do not have the inclination at the moment to work it out by hand. However, assuming that your numbers are correct it only stands to reason that shooting any ship that has a bulk of its HP in structure/shield with a DCU II would see less % benefit given the 60% resist of a DCU II and the fact that base EM shield resist was not changed. Thus why a gank brutix and/or only fitting a DCU sees a smaller net change, and why when you fit plates the numbers scew back towards the 18/12%figure. A harbinger shooting another harbinger would see a larger % gain by comparison... unless cookie cutter fitting is LSE's on Harbs now. With that said EMP/fusion/hail/barrage/etc... got a boost during that resist nerf by virtue of it hitting armor and/or shields harder (no change on the structure buffer tanks though). Then things got boosted for projectiles just recently. Re: your objection to the Lost ground argument: If you argue that boosting blasters dmg and/or tracking will not change the fact that we will have no reason to chose them over AC's or Pulse,then there is little reason to object to a boost in the first place. You can be confident that such a boost, even a large one, is absolutely worthless in terms of what is "best". Now if you argue that such changes (large boosts for example)would be detrimental then suddenly blasters are "best" at something.... and considerably enough better than anyother option that they break eve. This is what you have said in earlier posts. Can you please clarify your argument for me? I find it unclear.
Cyan Cure	Posted - 2010.05.06 08:52:00 - [216] There is so much EFT bulls**t here, i have nothing left to puke with, but my own intestents.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.06 09:16:00 - [217] Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro On the first point i cannot check your numbers because i do not have an old version of eft handy and i do not have the inclination at the moment to work it out by hand. I did it with the current. Its why i only used the DC. 1 Tech 1 adaptive Magnetic plating with 0 compensation skills = 50->60% em resists on armor. Damage Control's resists are not stacking penalized and so the base works when its activated. If we go to 3 trimarks, DC and 1600mm plate the difference becomes 56,166 EHP after, 60,954 before. A difference of 8.5% for scorch. Less for AM. Now i am sure we can break 10% if we consider big active tanks or Zealots(shooting at big armor tanks). But in the end its not that significant. Doesn't mean i agreed with the change, quite the opposite. The point was that we weren't talking a move to domination due to it. Especially since the strength of other damage types in those situations was still quite strong relatively. Quote: unless cookie cutter fitting is LSE's on Harbs now. They're not that uncommon. Quote: If you argue that boosting blasters dmg and/or tracking will not change the fact that we will have no reason to chose them over AC's or Pulse,then there is little reason to object to a boost in the first place. You can be confident that such a boost, even a large one, is absolutely worthless in terms of what is "best". Now if you argue that such changes (large boosts for example)would be detrimental then suddenly blasters are "best" at something.... and considerably enough better than anyother option that they break eve. This is what you have said in earlier posts. Can you please clarify your argument for me? I find it unclear. Small amounts, to the effect to correct for the AC/Laser boosts it won't have much of an effect. That doesn't mean it won't be possible to boost blasters to have an effect. But consider either of those two scenarios. If you boost them a small amount and they're still terrible... nothing changes except the already good Vigilant, Daredevil, and Taranis do more DPS. But now you still need more changes to blasters. So the whines will continue. If you boost them a lot then you will overboost things and move things out of whack and then you will get whines from laser users or AC users. And that is what is being asked for here. Either a boost to damage or a boost to range. A boost to damage can have significant consequences for ships that don't have as many issues. A boost to range would be paradigm breaking. An example of what I am attempting to describe might be this. Imagine that a strength of 6 is the "proper strength for a ship" and there are 5 ships that use the weapons ranging from strength from 1 to 5. If you boost the system such that the ships in the middle (str 3) hit the proper strength then you have a set of ships from 4 to 8. Two of which are still underpowered, one of which is just right and 2 of which are now overboosted. Rather than do that, its better to evaluate each ship individually and ask why its not performing and what it needs to perform without breaking the paradigms. The answer IMO is pretty clearly that the thorax and hyperion need speed and agility and that the Brutix needs to be brought in line with the tier 2 BC's. But that is not what is requested, so i cannot give my support and will continue to argue against such changes. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2010.05.06 10:18:00 - [218] It is much easier to boost hybrids then cut back those ships which become ops(note that ccp didnt do this to laser/projectile ships which are op atm). Currently 90% of hybrid ships are lacking efficiency and half of them are completly useless. If ccp fix them one by one it is fine with me ,but I cant see how that would happen ,if I look at how they balanced in the past.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 10:45:00 - [219] Originally by: Naomi Knight It is much easier to boost hybrids then cut back those ships which become ops(note that ccp didnt do this to laser/projectile ships which are op atm). Currently 90% of hybrid ships are lacking efficiency and half of them are completly useless. If ccp fix them one by one it is fine with me ,but I cant see how that would happen ,if I look at how they balanced in the past. Awww boohoo, maybe you should find an effective way to use the ships with Hybrid guns then maybe?. It's not all about DPS dude.
Cyan Cure	Posted - 2010.05.06 11:19:00 - [220] Originally by: NightmareX Originally by: Naomi Knight It is much easier to boost hybrids then cut back those ships which become ops(note that ccp didnt do this to laser/projectile ships which are op atm). Currently 90% of hybrid ships are lacking efficiency and half of them are completly useless. If ccp fix them one by one it is fine with me ,but I cant see how that would happen ,if I look at how they balanced in the past. Awww boohoo, maybe you should find an effective way to use the ships with Hybrid guns then maybe?. It's not all about DPS dude. Well, i can argue with you here, blasters are all about DPS. But since i'm really bored i'll add this, log into EVE and play it a bit, for once. Really, buy a ship, like a Cruiser (i'd prefer if it was fitted with blasters, but ev'rything will do in your case, just leave your 50 friends and an FC behind), go for a roam. I mean undock, set your autopilot to 0.4-0.0, set Security Pentalty to 100, throw a dart on the map and go. If you do that, i'll proudly become the first person on the Eve-Online forums that will actually care about what you have to say.

NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 11:35:00 - [221] Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 11:35:42 Originally by: Cyan Cure Originally by: NightmareX Originally by: Naomi Knight It is much easier to boost hybrids then cut back those ships which become ops(note that ccp didnt do this to laser/projectile ships which are op atm). Currently 90% of hybrid ships are lacking efficiency and half of them are completly useless. If ccp fix them one by one it is fine with me ,but I cant see how that would happen ,if I look at how they balanced in the past. Awww boohoo, maybe you should find an effective way to use the ships with Hybrid guns then maybe?. It's not all about DPS dude. Well, i can argue with you here, blasters are all about DPS. But since i'm really bored i'll add this, log into EVE and play it a bit, for once. Really, buy a ship, like a Cruiser (i'd prefer if it was fitted with blasters, but ev'rything will do in your case, just leave your 50 friends and an FC behind), go for a roam. I mean undock, set your autopilot to 0.4-0.0, set Security Pentalty to 100, throw a dart on the map and go. If you do that, i'll proudly become the first person on the Eve-Online forums that will actually care about what you have to say. Well i can agree that Blasters is mostly about DPS. But Blasters already have quite alot of DPS. So it's fine as it is. But i was more thinking on Railguns that the DPS isn't all there. Because if DPS have been all in fleet fights, then my 1400mm Tempest would suck badly. But it doesn't. The Tempest is pretty nice in fleet fights. And Rokh and Mega with Railguns works good in their ways to.
Cyan Cure	Posted - 2010.05.06 12:16:00 - [222] Originally by: NightmareX Originally by: Cyan Cure stuff Well i can agree that Blasters is mostly about DPS. But Blasters already have quite alot of DPS. So it's fine as it is. But i was more thinking on Railguns that the DPS isn't all there. Because if DPS have been all in fleet fights, then my 1400mm Tempest would suck badly. But it doesn't. The Tempest is pretty nice in fleet fights. And Rokh and Mega with Railguns works good in their ways to. I'm impressed. Restraint, not feeding the troll. Anyways, what you have said is the problem we have here. You and Goumindong (he never touched a blaster in his life, so i'm more than happy to ignore whatever he has to say) only think in 0.0 fleet battle terms, not what happens on the daily basis to people using blasters in their T1 frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers. Right now flying blaster boats consists of (hopefully) ramming your target and trying not to overshoot, overloading ev'rything and trying to kill your target before it moves too far away. Not trying to sound like an elitist PvPer here, but most of the time all it takes is to click to the right or left as the opponent and you start the fight at 10km, blasters don't do nearly enough damage even if you'll manage to get into range to make up for that. IMHO what is needed here is redution of mass to some blaster boats, or 'least try it out on Sisi. Again, i'm not an expert on ship balance, but it doesn't seem reasonable that ship with lowest range are also one of the slowest.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 15:11:00 - [223] Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 15:17:09 Originally by: Cyan Cure Originally by: NightmareX Originally by: Cyan Cure stuff Well i can agree that Blasters is mostly about DPS. But Blasters already have quite alot of DPS. So it's fine as it is. But i was more thinking on Railguns that the DPS isn't all there. Because if DPS have been all in fleet fights, then my 1400mm Tempest would suck badly. But it doesn't. The Tempest is pretty nice in fleet fights. And Rokh and Mega with Railguns works good in their ways to. I'm impressed. Restraint, not feeding the troll. Anyways, what you have said is the problem we have here. You and Goumindong (he never touched a blaster in his life, so i'm more than happy to ignore whatever he has to say) only think in 0.0 fleet battle terms, not what happens on the daily basis to people using blasters in their T1 frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers. Right now flying blaster boats consists of (hopefully) ramming your target and trying not to overshoot, overloading ev'rything and trying to kill your target before it moves too far away. Not trying to sound like an elitist PvPer here, but most of the time all it takes is to click to the right or left as the opponent and you start the fight at 10km, blasters don't do nearly enough damage even if you'll manage to get into range to make up for that. IMHO what is needed here is redution of mass to some blaster boats, or 'least try it out on Sisi. Again, i'm not an expert on ship balance, but it doesn't seem reasonable that ship with lowest range are also one of the slowest. To the first thing. Yes, Blasters is very close range weapons, and you just have to live with it. It's how they work. It's like we who use AutoCannons are in 80% of all times in falloff range and have to live with way lower DPS than the EFT shows they have. Simply because when you goes into falloff, you lose DPS. And even then, it's working pretty good that way for AutoCannons. It's just the way how you use the ships with AutoCannons. But to the Blasters again. They do poor damage at more ranges, but the thing is to get inside optimal on your guns fastest possible. Once that happens, you can do insane amount of DPS. Ofc, if you decide to move 15 km to get inside optimal on your Blasters on the target, then it can hurt a bit if you get shoot before you are in optimal. But in most cases, the DPS the Blasters have does so much DPS that they do so much damage that they can manage to kill the target before you die then. Even if you had to move 15 km So it's all about taking risks. Like an Abaddon pilot is doing against an AC Tempest with dual Heavy Neuts orbitin the Abaddon at 1 km. Because the Abaddon wont hit that Tempest any good and the Tempest will tank the Abaddon because if the Tempest is fitted right, it will have a bit high EM and Thermal resists. Or like having a Neutron Mega inside 5 km on your Tempest. That's not fun i can tell you. So it's not only Blaster pilots who have to take risks to get something killed. And no, lowering the Mass on some Blaster boats is not the right way to go.
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.06 16:10:00 - [224] Supported. Tracking speed should be inversely proportional to intended effective range of turret. Other hybrid disadvantages compared to autocannons in small gang/solo warfare. 1. Can't switch damage types. Hybrids are useless against T2 Caldari/Gallente hulls, but projectiles are effective against all T2 ships since they can switch to damage resistance hole. 2. Hybrids use cap. Energy nuetralizer means game over for any Gallente blaster boat. Auto cannons will still deal damage.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 16:14:00 - [225] Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 16:16:12 Originally by: X Gallentius Supported. Tracking speed should be inversely proportional to intended effective range of turret. Other hybrid disadvantages compared to autocannons in small gang/solo warfare. 1. Can't switch damage types. Hybrids are useless against T2 Caldari/Gallente hulls, but projectiles are effective against all T2 ships since they can switch to damage resistance hole. 2. Hybrids use cap. Energy nuetralizer means game over for any Gallente blaster boat. Auto cannons will still deal damage. This is a good example on someone who doesn't understand the advantages and downsides every of the weapon types have and then don't understands the balance between them.
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.06 16:53:00 - [226] What exactly is the downside of an auto-cannon compared to a blaster again?
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 17:03:00 - [227] Originally by: X Gallentius What exactly is the downside of an auto-cannon compared to a blaster again? Fighting in falloff and lose quite alot of DPS?. And on top of it doesn't have quite alot of DPS to begin with.
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.06 17:06:00 - [228] Fighting in falloff is an advantage since the blaster can't hit it. Surely there must be some other reason.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.06 17:09:00 - [229] Originally by: NightmareX Originally by: Cyan Cure Originally by: NightmareX Well i can agree that Blasters is mostly about DPS. But Blasters already have quite alot of DPS. So it's fine as it is. But i was more thinking on Railguns that the DPS isn't all there. Because if DPS have been all in fleet fights, then my 1400mm Tempest would suck badly. But it doesn't. The Tempest is pretty nice in fleet fights. And Rokh and Mega with Railguns works good in their ways to. I'm impressed. Restraint, not feeding the troll. Anyways, what you have said is the problem we have here. You and Goumindong (he never touched a blaster in his life, so i'm more than happy to ignore whatever he has to say) only think in 0.0 fleet battle terms, not what happens on the daily basis to people using blasters in their T1 frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers. Right now flying blaster boats consists of (hopefully) ramming your target and trying not to overshoot, overloading ev'rything and trying to kill your target before it moves too far away. Not trying to sound like an elitist PvPer here, but most of the time all it takes is to click to the right or left as the opponent and you start the fight at 10km, blasters don't do nearly enough damage even if you'll manage to get into range to make up for that. IMHO what is needed here is redution of mass to some blaster boats, or 'least try it out on Sisi. Again, i'm not an expert on ship balance, but it doesn't seem reasonable that ship with lowest range are also one of the slowest. To the first thing. Yes, Blasters is very close range weapons, and you just have to live with it. It's how they work. It's like we who use AutoCannons are in 80% of all times in falloff range and have to live with way lower DPS than the EFT shows they have. Simply because when you goes into falloff, you lose DPS. And even then, it's working pretty good that way for AutoCannons. It's just the way how you use the ships with AutoCannons. But to the Blasters again. They do poor damage at more ranges, but the thing is to get inside optimal on your guns fastest possible. Once that happens, you can do insane amount of DPS. Ofc, if you decide to move 15 km to get inside optimal on your Blasters on the target, then it can hurt a bit if you get shoot before you are in optimal. But in most cases, the DPS the Blasters have does so much DPS that they do so much damage that they can manage to kill the target before you die then. Even if you had to move 15 km. So it's all about taking risks. Like an Abaddon pilot is doing against an AC Tempest with dual Heavy Neuts orbitin the Abaddon at 1 km. Because the Abaddon wont hit that Tempest any good and the Tempest will tank the Abaddon because if the Tempest is fitted right, it will have a bit high EM and Thermal resists. Or like having a Neutron Mega inside 5 km on your Tempest. That's not fun i can tell you. So it's not only Blaster pilots who have to take risks to get something killed. And no, lowering the Mass on some Blaster boats is not the right way to go. Blasters are the shortest ranged weapons on the slowest ships. ACs are on the fastest ships and have longer range. Pulse have fairly insane range and only a slight decrease in damage compared to blasters and AC on ships that are faster and have more armor than blaster boats. Please explain how this is balanced. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Amongrimm	Posted - 2010.05.06 17:15:00 - [230] dont forget torps with insane dps insane range and nice platforms

NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 17:16:00 - [231] Originally by: X Gallentius Fighting in falloff is an advantage since the blaster can't hit it. Surely there must be some other reason. Yeah, and then the Blaster Mega have the advantage again that if he scramble your Tempest and web you and keeps you in his optimal once he's there, then the Blaster pilot have a big advantage to, right?. Each weapon types have advantages over other weapon types that is weak in something, like Autocannons can keep hitting in deep falloff while the Blasters can't really hit you. But if you look the other way. If the Blaster Mega can keep you scrambled and webbed inside 5 km, your in trouble. See where i'm going?.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.06 17:18:00 - [232] Originally by: Amongrimm dont forget torps with insane dps insane range and nice platforms As long as you can wait ~10 seconds for your torps to land. Most close range ships will have fired their second or third shot by then. Torps work best at extremely close range, where other ships have tracking problems but missiles do not. This signature is useless, but it is red.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 17:29:00 - [233] Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 17:36:05 Originally by: Bagehi Except that requires the use of two mid-slots, and assumes the minmatar ship doesn't also have scram+web, and requires the gallente ship to magically be fast enough to catch the minmatar ship and keep it within range. Lets take the Blaster Mega vs the AC Tempest here again. A smart Blaster Mega pilot fit Warp Scramblers instead of Warp Disruptors. But a Tempest pilot doesn't fit a Scrambler, but a Disruptor. So what does this ends up with?, yes, the Blaster Mega can keep you scrambled (keep your MWD disabled) while the Tempest only have the Mega disrupted. So it means that the Tempest can't use the MWD to get out. But the Blaster Mega can use the MWD to get back into optimal of the Tempest if he wants. So it means that the Tempest is dead meat if that happens. So it's all about not being inside web / scram range of the Mega in a Tempest. And that's gonna be as much of an issue as a Mega have to get into web / scram range to the Tempest. Ofc, if you jump into a system and lands 20 km from a Mega, it shouldn't be an issue for the Tempest. But if a Mega warps right on top of your ass, you might be in trouble if your in a Tempest and gets scrambled and webbed by that Mega. Do you understand now what i'm trying to tell here?.
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.06 18:23:00 - [234] Originally by: NightmareX Originally by: X Gallentius Fighting in falloff is an advantage since the blaster can't hit it. Surely there must be some other reason. Yeah, and then the Blaster Mega have the advantage again that if he scramble your Tempest and web you and keeps you in his optimal once he's there, then the Blaster pilot have a big advantage to, right?. I'm coming at if from a smaller ship perspective where time to get out of web/scram range is much less. In vast majority of the cases, the auto-cannon fitted ship will get outside web/scram range and then kite the blaster fitted ship to its death (The Minmatar ship is faster, has as many if not more mid slots for webs/scrams, etc..).
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.06 18:27:00 - [235] Originally by: Cyan Cure Goumindong (he never touched a blaster in his life, so i'm more than happy to ignore whatever he has to say) only think in 0.0 fleet battle terms You also haven't read what I've written have you? The problem with blasters is, explicitly, that they cannot be solo/small gang platforms if they don't have the speed and agility to perform tackling duties and still get damage done. Originally by: Bagehi Blasters are the shortest ranged weapons on the slowest ships. ACs are on the fastest ships and have longer range. Pulse have fairly insane range and only a slight decrease in damage compared to blasters and AC on ships that are faster and have more armor than blaster boats. Please explain how this is balanced. There are only two blaster boats in the entire game that are slower than their pulse laser equivalent. That is the Taranis compared to the Crusader and the Thorax compared to the Omen. Few would claim the Omen is superior to the Thorax and the Taranis is not considered a deficient ship. The Deimos is faster than the Zealot[1657(d) vs 1406(z)], the Hyperion is faster and more agile than any Amarr Battleship, and the Brutix is effectively the same speed as the Harbinger. Some of them might not be fast, or agile enough, but that does not change their actual relative speeds. You ought to respect that when doing your analysis or people won't take you seriously, kinda like when you say that resist bonuses are not as good as repair bonuses(srsly, still waiting for the logic on that one) -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 18:29:00 - [236] Originally by: X Gallentius Originally by: NightmareX Originally by: X Gallentius Fighting in falloff is an advantage since the blaster can't hit it. Surely there must be some other reason. Yeah, and then the Blaster Mega have the advantage again that if he scramble your Tempest and web you and keeps you in his optimal once he's there, then the Blaster pilot have a big advantage to, right?. I'm coming at if from a smaller ship perspective where time to get out of web/scram range is much less. In vast majority of the cases, the auto-cannon fitted ship will get outside web/scram range and then kite the blaster fitted ship to its death (The Minmatar ship is faster, has as many if not more mid slots for webs/scrams, etc..). I see what you mean, but that's Minmatars job to kite. Amarr's job is to keep range. While Gallente's job is to get closest possible fastest possible. And Caldaris job is to just shoot whatever tharget that is from 0 km to 35-40 km and hope the targets is not dead before the torps hit for example.
Liberal Sparrow	Posted - 2010.05.06 18:36:00 - [237] suported why do you suppose 1on1 mega vs tempest? you said mega is more dangerous than abaddon to your tempest. that's true because damage type in other case.. how do you think about meet t2 ship or shield tank ship. in this case, tempest is more useful by choosing damage type. yes.. AC's strength is damage type ,and also Blaster's strength is only DPS but, everybody know that blaster just has a little bit more yes so, DPS must be boosted , and also tracking too
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 18:39:00 - [238] Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 18:45:33 Liberal Sparrow, it was an example to show why Blasters are fine and why Autocannons are fine in their way. And those things with Blasters and Autocannons will still be valid if we are talking 5 vs 5 or 20 vs 20. You still have to get close to your targets in your Mega's fastest possible while the Tempest have to kite other ships that it should avoid to get to close to. But still be within RR range to the others in your gang as much as you can. EDIT: You said that Blasters just have a little more DPS than other weapon types. On paper yes, but try to include resists into it all and don't just look at the EFT DPS, and you will see that a 2x damage mod Neutron Mega does like 5-6% more DPS than a 3x damage mod Abaddon after resists if the Abaddon use 7x Pulses and one RR.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.06 18:57:00 - [239] Edited by: Bagehi on 06/05/2010 18:59:40 Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 18:18:43 Originally by: Bagehi Except that requires the use of two mid-slots, and assumes the minmatar ship doesn't also have scram+web, and requires the gallente ship to magically be fast enough to catch the minmatar ship and keep it within range. Lets take the Blaster Mega vs the AC Tempest here again. A smart Blaster Mega pilot fit Warp Scramblers instead of Warp Disruptors. But a DUMB Tempest pilot doesn't fit a Scrambler, but a Disruptor. So what does this ends up with?, yes, the Blaster Mega can keep you scrambled (keep your MWD disabled) while the Tempest only have the Mega disrupted. So it means that the Tempest can't use the MWD to get out. But the Blaster Mega can use the MWD to get back into optimal of the Tempest if he wants. So it means that the Tempest is dead meat if that happens. So it's all about not being inside web / scram range of the Mega in a Tempest. And that's gonna be as much of an issue as a Mega have to get into web / scram range to the Tempest. Ofc, if you jump into a system and lands 20 km from a Mega, it shouldn't be an issue for the Tempest. But if a Mega warps right on top of your ass, you might be in trouble if your in a Tempest and gets scrambled and webbed by that Mega. But if that Mega had been an Abaddon for example, then the Tempest would never move away from the Abaddon if you want to fight the Abaddon. The Tempest will then MWD as fastest possible really close to the Abaddon and orbit it at 1 km and then shoot him. Do you understand now what i'm trying to tell here?. It's just a basic understanding on how each ships and weapons works. Fixed it for you. A Tempest would likely have neuts as well, so a blasterthron best kill it quick before it has 0 cap (doesn't take long). So, no, a rationally fit AC Tempest would laugh in the face of a Megathron. You don't fly a PVP ship solo without scram and/or nuet and expect to survive against another PVP ship. But, this is 1v1 with PVP ships (which rarely happens). In a gang or fleet, blaster boats are useless. Shooting a miner or ratter can be done as easily in a dustbin with a staple gun as anything else, not a rational niche for a ship if it can be done by any properly fit ship. This signature is useless, but it is red.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 19:04:00 - [240] Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 19:05:52 Bagehi, don't be stupid. Do you know the reason why Tempest pilots doesn't fit a Scrambler?, because most of the time, you have to keep distance. And with distance, you can't keep the targets scrambled. And if you can't keep them scrambled then, they just warps away then. And if you have to get close to an Abaddon or Geddon, it doesn't matter if you have scrambler or a disruptor fitted then, because they aren't going anywhere as long they don't fit scramblers then. But what is the odds to find an Abaddon or Geddon with Warp Scrambler fitted?. Tiny i will say. Yeah the Tempest will most likely have dual Heavy Neuts fitted, but what does that really means to a gang that is full of passive tanked ships that just gets repped by others in your gang?. It doesn't helps that much there. Yes against an active tanked ship or smaller targets, the dual Heavy Neuts will help ALOT against that in most cases.

X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.06 19:36:00 - [241] Originally by: NightmareX I see what you mean, but that's Minmatars job to kite. Amarr's job is to always keep range. While Gallente's job is always to get closest possible fastest possible. And Caldari's job with Missiles is something totally different again than the other 3 races have. Blasters cannot do their job even if they get closest as fast as possible because they can't apply enough effective damage when at optimal because tracking sucks at very close range. Therefore better tracking proposed. QED.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 19:38:00 - [242] Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 19:41:35 Originally by: X Gallentius Originally by: NightmareX I see what you mean, but that's Minmatars job to kite. Amarr's job is to always keep range. While Gallente's job is always to get closest possible fastest possible. And Caldari's job with Missiles is something totally different again than the other 3 races have. Blasters cannot do their job even if they get closest as fast as possible because they can't apply enough effective damage when at optimal because tracking sucks at very close range. Therefore better tracking proposed. QED. If you just sit still and just shoots, then yeah, i see what you mean. But at least use your brain and move around to try and get the transversal down as much as you can. Trust me, it helps alot to move around as much as you can.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.06 19:52:00 - [243] Edited by: Goumindong on 06/05/2010 19:54:47 Originally by: Bagehi Fixed it for you. A Tempest would likely have neuts as well, so a blasterthron best kill it quick before it has 0 cap (doesn't take long). So, no, a rationally fit AC Tempest would laugh in the face of a Megathron. You don't fly a PVP ship solo without scram and/or nuet and expect to survive against another PVP ship. But, this is 1v1 with PVP ships (which rarely happens). In a gang or fleet, blaster boats are useless. Shooting a miner or ratter can be done as easily in a dustbin with a staple gun as anything else, not a rational niche for a ship if it can be done by any properly fit ship. The tempest will die long before the blaster ship is capped out(if the Hyp is in close) This holds true even for a half and half hyperion that is running its rep the entire time, let alone a blaster ship that doesn't have one. Neuts are less about dealing with ships the same size as you, and more about having an option to stop ships that are smaller than you. Originally by: X Gallentius Blasters cannot do their job even if they get closest as fast as possible because they can't apply enough effective damage when at optimal because tracking sucks at very close range. Therefore better tracking proposed. QED. If the blaster ship isn't doing much damage, then neither is the other ship to the blaster boat. This can best be seen with the Mega and Hype. The Mega has a tracking bonus and so has the best relative tracking of any BS in the game. This means that if its missing, so is the other guy, except the other guy is missing harder. The Hype has the space to fit 2 webs. This gives it even better real tracking than the Megathron which has the best raw tracking of any battleship in the game. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.06 20:13:00 - [244] Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:14:19 Sounds good in theory... doesn't work so well in practice. How about just having a blaster have an equal chance at hitting the same target at its intended range as an autocannon does as its intended range? That's it. Not asking for more damage/volley. Not asking for more dps. Not asking for increased optimal. Not asking for increased falloff. Not asking for omni-damage ammo. Not asking for less cap usage. Just asking for equivalent functional tracking ability.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.06 20:34:00 - [245] Originally by: X Gallentius Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:14:19 Sounds good in theory... doesn't work so well in practice. Theory is practice in EVE. Unless you're claiming that there is some bug that is messing up the tracking formula for blasters, claims that you are not hitting as well as others are simply not true. Quote: How about just having a blaster have an equal chance at hitting the same target at its intended range as an autocannon does as its intended range? That's it. Alright, so lets reduce the tracking of blasters... -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.06 20:36:00 - [246] Originally by: Goumindong If the blaster ship isn't doing much damage, then neither is the other ship to the blaster boat. This can best be seen with the Mega and Hype. The Mega has a tracking bonus and so has the best relative tracking of any BS in the game. This means that if its missing, so is the other guy, except the other guy is missing harder. The Hype has the space to fit 2 webs. This gives it even better real tracking than the Megathron which has the best raw tracking of any battleship in the game. No other T1 or T2 Gallente ship has a tracking bonus with the exception of the Tristan (and it's a split weapons platform making the bonus only partially applicable). Is your proposed solution to add a tracking bonus to all Gallente turret boats?
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.06 20:42:00 - [247] Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:45:41 Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:44:47 Originally by: Goumindong Stuff... So neither ship can hit in the blaster ship's intended range. Only the autocannon can hit in the autocannon's intended range. See a problem here? And intended range does not equal optimal range. http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=98499&view=ships_weapons - You don't have much experience flying blaster ships, do you?
Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2010.05.06 20:59:00 - [248] Originally by: X Gallentius Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:45:41 Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:44:47 Originally by: Goumindong Stuff... So neither ship can hit in the blaster ship's intended range. Only the autocannon can hit in the autocannon's intended range. See a problem here? And intended range does not equal optimal range. http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=98499&view=ships_weapons - You don't have much experience flying blaster ships, do you? hehe I have more kills with eagle only as kills he has :P He must have awesome experience from ingame. Same applies to Nightmarix. And they want to say us how good blasters are, they only see those on market or in eft.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.06 21:02:00 - [249] Originally by: X Gallentius No other T1 or T2 Gallente ship has a tracking bonus with the exception of the Tristan (and it's a split weapons platform making the bonus only partially applicable). Is your proposed solution to add a tracking bonus to all Gallente turret boats? And the Taranis. That would leave the Thorax and Brutix without tracking bonuses(Deimos/Astarte have a falloff bonus). But they really don't have tracking problems. Quote: So neither ship can hit in the blaster ship's intended range. Only the autocannon can hit in the autocannon's intended range. See a problem here? And intended range does not equal optimal range. It seems that you did not get the irony in your comment. So let me explain it to you. 1) At the optimal range of AC's they have worse relative tracking than the blasters optimal range. Granted, looking at a ships tracking relative to optimal range is pretty dumb. Really all you care about is its tracking "whatever range you're at now". Which means that blasters track just as well or better than ACs. 2) You specified "hit chance" at "intended range". This is funny because the "intented range" of ACs is in falloff, which lowers hit chance. Such to equalize "hit chance" at each ships "intended range" you would have to reduce the tracking of blasters since blasters hit more often at their intended range than AC's do at theirs. ____ Of course both of those are pretty funny because they both subscribe to the fallacy that two ships can be different distances away from each other. But hey, its the fallacy that you used. So its the fallacy that I am perfectly happy to laugh at you for. Quote: You don't have much experience flying blaster ships, do you? This is not the first time the same pointless allegation has come up. You are describing situations that cannot happen unless you are deficient as a pilot, ship fitter, or a bug exists. That ain't my fault. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.06 21:12:00 - [250] Offhand... Light Nuetron Blaster II: 0.3165 rad/sec Heavy Nuetron Blaster II: 0.1 rad/sec Light 200mm Autocannon II: 0.315 rad/sec Heavy 425mm Autocannon II: 0.1056 rad/sec Functionally the same tracking. Done with your trolling.

Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.06 21:30:00 - [251] Edited by: Goumindong on 06/05/2010 21:30:50 Originally by: X Gallentius Offhand... Light Nuetron Blaster II: 0.3165 rad/sec Heavy Nuetron Blaster II: 0.1 rad/sec Light 200mm Autocannon II: 0.315 rad/sec Heavy 425mm Autocannon II: 0.1056 rad/sec Functionally the same tracking. Done with your trolling. Yes. That was the point. You see, you complained about the relative hit chance at "intended range". The relative hit hit chance is a function of both the intended range and the tracking. Since the intended range for AC's is in falloff, that has an effect on the hit chance of the weapon. Even at 0 transversal, AC ships will be missing at their intended range. I was pointing out that your evaluation was ridiculous. Blasters clearly track just as well as AC's, pulse lasers clearly track worse. Range only has a function when you're describing the optimal range characteristics of the weapon, which is a separate issue all together. If blasters have good tracking then they have good tracking, end of story. Edit: I have just about gotten you to water, lets see if you'll drink. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 21:33:00 - [252] Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 21:37:35 Originally by: X Gallentius Offhand... Light Nuetron Blaster II: 0.3165 rad/sec Heavy Nuetron Blaster II: 0.1 rad/sec Light 200mm Autocannon II: 0.315 rad/sec Heavy 425mm Autocannon II: 0.1056 rad/sec Functionally the same tracking. Done with your trolling. Is this a way to show that you don't know much about how the weapons works at all? Oh, and there isn't anything called: Heavy 425mm Autocannon II or Light 200mm Autocannon II FYI. Sorry to say it, but i have a bad feeling that there are many players here that screams boost Blasters without even understanding how Blasters, Autocannons, Pulses or Torps works at all.
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.06 21:38:00 - [253] The numbers are accurate even if the name is wrong; you agree?
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 21:48:00 - [254] Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 21:48:15 Originally by: X Gallentius The numbers are accurate even if the name is wrong; you agree? Now, look at the optimal range of the Blasters, and then look at the optimal of the Autocannons. Is that a good enough hint for you to realize that the ranges have alot to say on how your tracking is?. Like 800mm AC gun with EMP L. It have 3 km optimal with 0.054 tracking, while Neutron Blaster Cannon II have 4.5 km optimal range and 0.05412 tracking. When the 800mm AC guns gets to 4.5 km where the Neutron Blasters have their optimal, then the Neutron Blaster Cannon II have more tracking than the 800mm AC gun, since the 800mm AC guns are then in falloff. And falloff reduces your hit chance. And then look at Mega Pulse Laser II. It have 15 km optimal range and 0.04219 tracking. Guess what?. At 15 km, the Mega Pulse Laser II have waaaaay way more tracking than 800mm AC guns would ever dream of at 15 km. And this is somerhing you didn't understand?.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.06 21:50:00 - [255] Hit chance, not tracking. Different things. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 21:53:00 - [256] Originally by: Goumindong Hit chance, not tracking. Different things. Yeah, i fixed it in my post.
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition	Posted - 2010.05.06 22:08:00 - [257] I guess it is to much to ask for Goum and NMX free blaster threads, is it? ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 22:13:00 - [258] Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 22:16:17 Originally by: The Djego I guess it is to much to ask for Goum and NMX free blaster threads, is it? When someone just screams BOOST BLASTERS in here and then right after that just shows that they don't have a single clue on how those weapons works or other weapons works. Then yeah, someone have to protest.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.06 23:08:00 - [259] I'm taking this approach: I need a t1 battleship with t2 fitting that can perform really well in small gang roaming pvp. Having Level 5 skills in all battleships and having fought 3000~ battles, I have a pretty good "feel" for what works and what doesn't. Right now, I feel that my best options for close range PvP battleship are the Dominix, Typhoon, and Tempest. Megathron would be pretty down on my list, below Rokh, Geddon, and Abaddon That said, Megathron used to be my 2nd favorite ship - like 3 years ago. The main issue with Megathron, and I suppose with blasters in general - fitting requirements are too harsh. The damage advantage of blasters is completely insignificant in light of all the other variables that need to be considered. Ideally, I want to think that blasters are kings of close range pvp. But that's simply not true. I give up on blasters, except when I decide to fit some electrons on Dominix - as something extra. I adapted by using other ships. I don't believe there can be any meaningful progress regarding Blaster issue while CCP designer suffer from "damage phobia" illness. I don't think they have even acknowledged that they have this problem. It's much easier for playerbase to find work around this issue.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.06 23:18:00 - [260] Ephemeron. Back in the days when the Mega was the king of close range PVP, as you say. It's true. But, 3-4 years ago isn't today. Ships back then wasn't as much balanced as they are today.

Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.05.07 02:09:00 - [261] If you're having problems tracking equivalent sized targets with blasters then you might want to stop fitting afterburners to your megathrons and orbiting at 200m. It would probably help. Giving blasters more tracking doesn't really do much for them. People who regularly experience tracking issues vs similar sized targets just need to learn how to play tbfh. Boosting tracking wouldn't do much to adress the part where blasters get owned by preety much all weapon systems when we discuss similar-sized ships with realistic fits. Originally by: Ephemeron The main issue with Megathron, and I suppose with blasters in general - fitting requirements are too harsh. The damage advantage of blasters is completely insignificant in light of all the other variables that need to be considered. Ideally, I want to think that blasters are kings of close range pvp. But that's simply not true. I give up on blasters, except when I decide to fit some electrons on Dominix - as something extra. I adapted by using other ships. I don't believe there can be any meaningful progress regarding Blaster issue while CCP designer suffer from "damage phobia" illness. I don't think they have even acknowledged that they have this problem. It's much easier for playerbase to find work around this issue. Preety much. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Kvo Vadis	Posted - 2010.05.07 05:23:00 - [262] Originally by: X Gallentius http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=98499&view=ships_weapons - You don't have much experience flying blaster ships, do you? Oh! That is why Goumindong creates posts in Blaster and Rail threads. Saying that Hybrid weapon is ok he protects Lasers from Hybrid boost It is smart
chatgris Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.07 06:27:00 - [263] Well, assuming that - CCP is damage phobic - Blasters should not get more range/falloff, keep them in a short range niche (and weapon types varied) - Blasters should not get a huge buff to tracking, so we don't BBQ frigates left right and center How about lowering the fitting requirements on blasters and/or increasing the pg and cpu of blaster ships? Make blasters similar to autocannons - e.g. the thorax would be able to fit Ion blasters with a 1600 plate + MWD much like the rupture can fit 220's + 1600 plate + MWD. The above would - be a practical increase in dps to blasters (fitting larger guns = more dps) - effectively increase the tank on the slow blasters ships as they get into range (due to fitting room) - keep blasters with their current flavour, and weapons in their current niches All without increasing the paper dps of blaster ships beyond what they can do now, keeping CCP happy with their numbers.
Cyan Cure	Posted - 2010.05.07 07:10:00 - [264] Edited by: Cyan Cure on 07/05/2010 07:10:55 Originally by: Bagehi Blasters are the shortest ranged weapons on the slowest ships. ACs are on the fastest ships and have longer range. Pulse have fairly insane range and only a slight decrease in damage compared to blasters and AC on ships that are faster and have more armor than blaster boats. Please explain how this is balanced. Someone actually understood what i said.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.07 07:55:00 - [265] Originally by: Cyan Cure Someone actually understood what i said. The problem with Blasters lies in the speed to fire range ratio, not in EFT numbers. I'm but a humble alt, but can we PLEASE just ignore Goumindong from now on So i take it you would argue against increasing the speed, agility, and scan res, while reducing the signature of gallente blaster boats? -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.07 08:46:00 - [266] Edited by: NightmareX on 07/05/2010 08:54:24 Originally by: Cyan Cure Edited by: Cyan Cure on 07/05/2010 07:34:53 Originally by: Bagehi Blasters are the shortest ranged weapons on the slowest ships. ACs are on the fastest ships and have longer range. Pulse have fairly insane range and only a slight decrease in damage compared to blasters and AC on ships that are faster and have more armor than blaster boats. Please explain how this is balanced. Someone actually understood what i said. The problem with Blasters lies in the speed to fire range ratio, not in EFT numbers. I'm but a humble alt, but can we PLEASE just ignore NightmareX and Goumindong from now on, i mean the first one only has a bare minimum of knowledge to fly her Tempest in 0.0 BS fleets and the other only flies Amarr in gangs. I'm here, cause i'd like to read about good ideas for fixing Blaster problerms we could present to the CSM and all i can find is this impotent EFT bullsh*t and really weak theorycrafting. It makes me want to slit my wrists. As long you can't counter attack or just counter on what i have said earlier, then you can't say that you all can ignore me or Goum, because what we have said it the fact. And it's absolutely a fact if no one can counter argument it to not be true. And also, it doesn't take long time to fully understand how all of the weapons work ingame. And not only that, but when it's about Blasters, then i know what i'm talking about. Because when you have used Blasters and the other weapon types on Sisi for about 4-5 years, then i think i know how they work. And you also say that i have minimum of knowledge to fly a Tempest. LOL, is that a joke or?.
Dusica Amarr	Posted - 2010.05.07 09:13:00 - [267] Edited by: Dusica on 07/05/2010 09:14:29 Originally by: Xahara Edited by: Xahara on 30/04/2010 22:10:45 So, for the over 9000th time, I'm going to complain about how blasters need to be boosted. For their current damage output, they do not have enough range to be effective. They're supposed to be a "cross" between pulse lasers and autocannons, therefore, their optimal and falloff should be a bit higher than 0kms (ok, I'm exagerating, but you get my point). This makes blaster boats highly inneffective in combat, such as the Deimos, for example. I've stopped flying them for PVP completely, because they just get slaughtered (mainly because of the fact that it is indeed a crappy ship overall). And, on that note, I'd choose a Vagabond over a Deimos anyday to PVP in, or even a Zealot. But anyways, the Deimos isn't the subject of this post. The fact that you can hit up to 45km with Pulse Lasers and Scorch ammo (and still do a lot of damage) is pretty overpowered compared to the not-so-powerful-anymore, range-defficient blasters. Currently, Gallente ships are a very hard choice for large fleet engagements, since blasters don't hit far enough, thus forcing us to use failguns instead (see what I did there?). Let me put some ratio numbers in here: Gun Type - DPS (Dmg Mod X Hi Dmg Ammo / ROF) - Optimal + Falloff - Ratio [DPS X (Optimal + Falloff)] Neutron Blaster Cannon II - 4.2 X 48 / 7.88 - 3,600 + 10,000 - 347,939 800mm Repeating Artillery - 3.234 X 48 / 7.88 - 2,400 + 19,000 - 421,569 Mega Pulse Laser II - 3.6 X 48 / 7.88 - 12,000 + 8,000 - 0.03375 - 438,578 425mm Railgun II - 3.3 X 48 / 9.56 - 28,500 + 24,000 - 869,874 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II - 12.807 X 48 / 40.16 - 24,000 + 35,000 - 903,123 Tachyon Beam Laser II - 5.4 X 48 / 12.50 - 26,000 + 20,000 - 953,856 Solution: Either increase blasters' damage to match their ridiculous range or increase their ridiculous range to match their damage. I feel like I've covered most of the aspects in this post, so, support (or flame) away! EDIT: Moar Numberz. At first glance i see that you did nothing to calculate or account for cap requirements , powergrid and cpu requirements , ammo usage , tracking and damage types and ships that use those types of weapons ... therefor i cant see this viable statistics at all. Eternal Will.
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.05.07 13:43:00 - [268] Originally by: Dusica Edited by: Dusica on 07/05/2010 09:14:29 Originally by: Xahara Edited by: Xahara on 30/04/2010 22:10:45 So, for the over 9000th time, I'm going to complain about how blasters need to be boosted. For their current damage output, they do not have enough range to be effective. They're supposed to be a "cross" between pulse lasers and autocannons, therefore, their optimal and falloff should be a bit higher than 0kms (ok, I'm exagerating, but you get my point). This makes blaster boats highly inneffective in combat, such as the Deimos, for example. I've stopped flying them for PVP completely, because they just get slaughtered (mainly because of the fact that it is indeed a crappy ship overall). And, on that note, I'd choose a Vagabond over a Deimos anyday to PVP in, or even a Zealot. But anyways, the Deimos isn't the subject of this post. The fact that you can hit up to 45km with Pulse Lasers and Scorch ammo (and still do a lot of damage) is pretty overpowered compared to the not-so-powerful-anymore, range-defficient blasters. Currently, Gallente ships are a very hard choice for large fleet engagements, since blasters don't hit far enough, thus forcing us to use failguns instead (see what I did there?). Let me put some ratio numbers in here: Gun Type - DPS (Dmg Mod X Hi Dmg Ammo / ROF) - Optimal + Falloff - Ratio [DPS X (Optimal + Falloff)] Neutron Blaster Cannon II - 4.2 X 48 / 7.88 - 3,600 + 10,000 - 347,939 800mm Repeating Artillery - 3.234 X 48 / 7.88 - 2,400 + 19,000 - 421,569 Mega Pulse Laser II - 3.6 X 48 / 7.88 - 12,000 + 8,000 - 0.03375 - 438,578 425mm Railgun II - 3.3 X 48 / 9.56 - 28,500 + 24,000 - 869,874 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II - 12.807 X 48 / 40.16 - 24,000 + 35,000 - 903,123 Tachyon Beam Laser II - 5.4 X 48 / 12.50 - 26,000 + 20,000 - 953,856 Solution: Either increase blasters' damage to match their ridiculous range or increase their ridiculous range to match their damage. I feel like I've covered most of the aspects in this post, so, support (or flame) away! EDIT: Moar Numberz. At first glance i see that you did nothing to calculate or account for cap requirements , powergrid and cpu requirements , ammo usage , tracking and damage types and ships that use those types of weapons ... therefor i cant see this viable statistics at all. Well, I'm not really the greatest mathematician around, so, I can't factor in everything that there is about guns in a simple ratio. Also, I only really chose to create a DPS/Range ratio, because the rest of the attributes are simply irrelevant in medium/large fleet engagements. Feel free to come up with better numbers.
Syris Anu Evolutionary Pressure	Posted - 2010.05.07 14:24:00 - [269]
Jerick Ludhowe Monsters	Posted - 2010.05.07 15:42:00 - [270] Originally by: Goumindong So i take it you would argue against increasing the speed, agility, and scan res, while reducing the signature of gallente blaster boats? Honestly have not gotten a chance to freshen up on the entirety of the thread however I think this statement pretty much sums up the most reasonable solution to the issue as a whole. I do not think that the issue lies in blasters inherently. The issue lies in the usage of blasters not specificly their individual stats as a module compared to other weapon types of "similar" ranges. I think that the entire line of blaster oriented ships needs to be re-evaluated and have their sig, speed, and agility revamped to allow them to expand their engagement envelope w/o overpowering their primary weapon system compared to other races comparable weapons. Some minor slot changes/additions may potentially be needed as well, entirely another debate though. Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you ***got"

Gneeznow Minmatar Ship spinners inc	Posted - 2010.05.07 15:51:00 - [271] walls of text and lots of arguing on semantics itt but when I fly blasterships in game they seem perfectly fine as close range damage dealers, which is their purpose, so not supported.
Ogogov	Posted - 2010.05.07 16:09:00 - [272] So to recap; People aren't fond of the idea of increasing blaster tracking because that will result in little, if any, practical change in their performance. A straight damage boost is desirable, if only to give us a reason to fit and use them over pulse lasers, however CCP are very leery about allowing fits to top the 1200 DPS 'cap' that seems to exist on most all-gank BS configurations. A range increase would turn Blasters into Autocannons OR Pulses. A tracking bonus on all blaster hulls isn't desirable because it would result in all blaster boats having less flavor and secondly a tracking boost would not be helpful. Reducing blaster fitting requirements is a neat idea but does CCP really want the kind of monstrous EHP coupled with a full rack of neutron blaster II's? I doubt it (despite that being the whole Gallente combat ethos, apparently) Adding 'special effects' such as shield/armor piercing attributes probably isn't doable because the game code isn't smart enough to handle it at this point. Adding a third damage type, or even giving them a fixed omni-damage spectrum.. well, I haven't actually heard anyone refute that idea. Generally speaking it seems to me like the whole combat doctrine CCP wrote for the Gallente faction is a bad afterthought, something they were grubbing around for late at night when they'd already worked out what all the other factions were going to be after they realized "drones drones and more drones" weren't a realistic goal given the technical constraints they had to work within. Then they tried forcing this square peg into the round hole of the game mechanics and guess what? It didn't work.
Mortimer Civeri Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.05.07 16:43:00 - [273] Well, after carefully pondering this topic, I cannot support an across the board buff to Hybrid weapons in general, and Blasters specifically. What is needed is a total rethink of the Gallente race. Their speed is atrocious for the weapons they favor. Gallente are supposed to be the Jason Voorhes, of EVE, instead we get Star Wars kid.
Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2010.05.07 17:26:00 - [274] Originally by: Mortimer Civeri Well, after carefully pondering this topic, I cannot support an across the board buff to Hybrid weapons in general, and Blasters specifically. What is needed is a total rethink of the Gallente race. Their speed is atrocious for the weapons they favor. Gallente are supposed to be the Jason Voorhes, of EVE, instead we get Star Wars kid. Why just gallente , blasters are as much caldari weapons as gallente.
Mortimer Civeri Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.05.07 17:59:00 - [275] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Mortimer Civeri Well, after carefully pondering this topic, I cannot support an across the board buff to Hybrid weapons in general, and Blasters specifically. What is needed is a total rethink of the Gallente race. Their speed is atrocious for the weapons they favor. Gallente are supposed to be the Jason Voorhes, of EVE, instead we get Star Wars kid. Why just gallente , blasters are as much caldari weapons as gallente. No, Blasters are not "just as much" a Caldari weapon, rails are a Caldari weapon. Caldari are fine, and before you go blubbering on about how rails need a boost, and the Rohks DPS sucks, consider this. Caldari fit their "style" of warfare. They are optimized for sniping at long range, and rails compliment their "style". Gallente "style" is to bash you over the head with a big hammer. You can't do that in ships that are the second slowest in the universe, yet if you fit them for speed you basically are made of glass. I can understand where CCP wanted to go with the concept of Gallente, their execution of it has fallen flat. I don't know maybe a 5% bonus to AB/MWD speed boost per level, instead of a ROF bonus.
Min Err	Posted - 2010.05.07 18:05:00 - [276] Wow 10 pages , have Ccp even acknowledge that there is a problem with hybrid/gallente ?? I have been watching this thred since it started and it seem like its just been ignored by ccp and the csm
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.07 18:12:00 - [277] Originally by: Ogogov So to recap; People aren't fond of the idea of increasing blaster tracking because that will result in little, if any, practical change in their performance. A straight damage boost is desirable, if only to give us a reason to fit and use them over pulse lasers, however CCP are very leery about allowing fits to top the 1200 DPS 'cap' that seems to exist on most all-gank BS configurations. A range increase would turn Blasters into Autocannons OR Pulses. A tracking bonus on all blaster hulls isn't desirable because it would result in all blaster boats having less flavor and secondly a tracking boost would not be helpful. Reducing blaster fitting requirements is a neat idea but does CCP really want the kind of monstrous EHP coupled with a full rack of neutron blaster II's? I doubt it (despite that being the whole Gallente combat ethos, apparently) Adding 'special effects' such as shield/armor piercing attributes probably isn't doable because the game code isn't smart enough to handle it at this point. Adding a third damage type, or even giving them a fixed omni-damage spectrum.. well, I haven't actually heard anyone refute that idea. Generally speaking it seems to me like the whole combat doctrine CCP wrote for the Gallente faction is a bad afterthought, something they were grubbing around for late at night when they'd already worked out what all the other factions were going to be after they realized "drones drones and more drones" weren't a realistic goal given the technical constraints they had to work within. Then they tried forcing this square peg into the round hole of the game mechanics and guess what? It didn't work. Gallente were supposed to be big drone boats with close range dps to compliment. Then drones were nerfed. Then they were nerfed again. Then blasters were nerfed. Now Gallente suck because they were over-nerfed. The problem with rails is specifically Gallente. Rails on Gallente ships don't have the range to account for the low DPS. The problem with blasters is specifically Gallente. They have a major range deficit for a small DPS increase. This signature is useless, but it is red.
cadermerin	Posted - 2010.05.07 18:28:00 - [278] about time they got fixed
Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2010.05.07 19:06:00 - [279] Originally by: Mortimer Civeri No, Blasters are not "just as much" a Caldari weapon, rails are a Caldari weapon. Caldari are fine, and before you go blubbering on about how rails need a boost, and the Rohks DPS sucks, consider this. Caldari fit their "style" of warfare. They are optimized for sniping at long range, and rails compliment their "style". Gallente "style" is to bash you over the head with a big hammer. You can't do that in ships that are the second slowest in the universe, yet if you fit them for speed you basically are made of glass. I can understand where CCP wanted to go with the concept of Gallente, their execution of it has fallen flat. I don't know maybe a 5% bonus to AB/MWD speed boost per level, instead of a ROF bonus. lol sure , caldari for sniping is fine ,in your dreams maybe. Amarr does it much better. There is hardly any reason to do less than acceptable dmg at longer ranges than the other races.
Mortimer Civeri Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.05.07 20:03:00 - [280] Originally by: Naomi Knight lol sure , caldari for sniping is fine ,in your dreams maybe. Amarr does it much better. There is hardly any reason to do less than acceptable dmg at longer ranges than the other races. Fine, if lasers are better, then fit lasers on your Rohk. Simple Have fun burning out T2 laser crystals trying to shoot past 180km when a Rohk with rails can get there with non T2 ammo. Seriously, CCP has caved on issues of power creep by whines such as this for far to long. As it stands now Amarr and Minmatar weapons are ballanced. Since hybrids are two races weapons, simply buffing all hybrids will cause balance issues between two races.

Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.07 20:43:00 - [281] Originally by: Mortimer Civeri Edited by: Mortimer Civeri on 07/05/2010 20:14:55 Originally by: Naomi Knight lol sure , caldari for sniping is fine ,in your dreams maybe. Amarr does it much better. There is hardly any reason to do less than acceptable dmg at longer ranges than the other races. Fine, if lasers are better, then fit lasers on your Rohk. Simple Have fun burning out T2 laser crystals trying to shoot past 180km when a Rohk with rails can get there with non T2 ammo. Seriously, CCP has caved on issues of power creep by whines such as this for far to long. As it stands now Amarr and Minmatar weapons are ballanced. Since hybrids are two races weapons, simply buffing all hybrids will cause balance issues between two races. EDIT: one buff with twice the headache, balancing it all later. ... and bringing the discussion back to fixing blasters, which is a far easier discussion than how to fix rails. Blasters need: 1. Easier fitting so the ships can fit more tank. 2. Faster ships. 3. More damage. 4. More range. Pick one or make some combination that brings them to balance with the other weapons in the game. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.05.07 20:55:00 - [282] Originally by: Bagehi 1. Easier fitting so the ships can fit more tank. 3. More damage. That would be my pick. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Mortimer Civeri Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.05.07 20:59:00 - [283] Originally by: Bagehi ... and bringing the discussion back to fixing blasters, which is a far easier discussion than how to fix rails. Blasters need: 1. Easier fitting so the ships can fit more tank. 2. Faster ships. 3. More damage. 4. More range. Pick one or make some combination that brings them to balance with the other weapons in the game. Well 1. and 3. are out, since that will buff blaster Caldari ships too, and 4. will just make it like auto cannons(and another stealth buff for Caldari, with their range bouni). That leaves only, Faster ships, as the buff for Gallente, according to your list.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.07 21:35:00 - [284] Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe Honestly have not gotten a chance to freshen up on the entirety of the thread however I think this statement pretty much sums up the most reasonable solution to the issue as a whole. I do not think that the issue lies in blasters inherently. The issue lies in the usage of blasters not specificly their individual stats as a module compared to other weapon types of "similar" ranges. I think that the entire line of blaster oriented ships needs to be re-evaluated and have their sig, speed, and agility revamped to allow them to expand their engagement envelope w/o overpowering their primary weapon system compared to other races comparable weapons. Some minor slot changes/additions may potentially be needed as well, entirely another debate though. See, this is why i think its so funny that I am attacked. In that thing that I keep pointing you all towards, this is what I have to say on the issue Quote: Blaster ships have an interesting problem. They are designed as solo/small gang ships that are to be very close range. But they do not have any advantages besides their damage output in terms of raw statistics. This makes little to no sense, as was discussed earlier, the closer a ship gets to a solo ship, the better it gets by diversifying its abilities and strengths. Yet blaster ships are specialized towards damage output. A very telling example of this can be seen by comparing the secondary aspects of Deimos with the Zealot. Even if we assume that the two are balanced with respect to primary strength in terms of damage dealing efficiency and hit points, the Deimos ought to be faster, have better signature radius, faster align times, better capacitor, faster locking times, and be harder to jam. Currently, it only wins on align times, jam difficulty, and very marginally on speed. The Zealot is so much smaller in sig radius than the Deimos that the entire tracking advantage from blasters over pulse lasers is eaten away when shooting at each other! For the most part this means that blaster ships need to get a lot smaller, lock faster, have better capacitor, and be even harder to jam than they are now in order for them to properly fill the role laid out for them. Specifically I think the thorax should be one of the fastest and most agile cruisers, the Brutix should be brought up to teir 2 quality, the Hyperion made one of the fastest and most agile battleships, and the deimos be made into an even more specialized thorax(2000m/s, 105 sig, 7.5s/align w/ mdw) But all that you folks see is "boost their damage"... Their damage and hit points really is not the problem. I mean, for goodness sakes, right now, you can make a 28k EHP thorax with 550 DPS. That is strictly better than a 220 gank Rupture(500 DPS 27k EHP). The only problem is that the damned thorax can't ever get in range of anything to kill it. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.07 21:38:00 - [285] Edited by: Bagehi on 07/05/2010 21:39:24 Originally by: Mortimer Civeri Originally by: Bagehi ... and bringing the discussion back to fixing blasters, which is a far easier discussion than how to fix rails. Blasters need: 1. Easier fitting so the ships can fit more tank. 2. Faster ships. 3. More damage. 4. More range. Pick one or make some combination that brings them to balance with the other weapons in the game. Well 1. and 3. are out, since that will buff blaster Caldari ships too, and 4. will just make it like auto cannons(and another stealth buff for Caldari, with their range bouni). That leaves only, Faster ships, as the buff for Gallente, according to your list. Wait, who puts blasters on Caldari ships? And who worries about Caldari blaster fits being over powered? Hybrid Caldari ships get a range bonus and no tracking bonus and these amount to next to nothing when range starts at only a few km and tracking is an issue at that range. Even if you reduce the fitting requirements and increase the damage, no one in their right mind would put blasters on a Caldari ship if they can fly a Gallente ship. @ Goum: like I said, you had some good ideas. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Jerick Ludhowe Monsters	Posted - 2010.05.07 22:04:00 - [286] Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 07/05/2010 22:16:05 Originally by: Goumindong See, this is why i think its so funny that I am attacked. In that thing that I keep pointing you all towards, this is what I have to say on the issue Specifically I think the thorax should be one of the fastest and most agile cruisers, the Brutix should be brought up to teir 2 quality, the Hyperion made one of the fastest and most agile battleships, and the deimos be made into an even more specialized thorax(2000m/s, 105 sig, 7.5s/align w/ mdw) But all that you folks see is "boost their damage"... Their damage and hit points really is not the problem. I mean, for goodness sakes, right now, you can make a 28k EHP thorax with 550 DPS. That is strictly better than a 220 gank Rupture(500 DPS 27k EHP). The only problem is that the damned thorax can't ever get in range of anything to kill it. Awsome Goumindong, seems I see eye to eye with someone at last even if i'm opening myself into a flame target. I think we should diagnose the primary problem ships and attempt to propose some non radical ideas to get the ball rolling on the blatant issue. Now I don't agree with all the stat changes that were posted in your ship revamp however I think there are many good ideas presented in it none the less. So I'm going to try and propose some very simple changes, let me know if you agree or disagree. Thorax: +speed, -mass, - sig The thorax is in itself a great ship as goumindong pointed out when looking at raw stats however I do not think that it has the baseline ship stats needed to allow it to perform as intended. Deimos: + cap, - sig Not even going to get started with this one. We all know it's broke time to fix asap. Brutix: -sig, + speed, +100 grid, +1 high slot, change all active tanking bonuses to 10% Now the Brutix is not a bad ship, don't get me wrong here guys. The issue I have with the brutix is that it's most effective fitting does not even take advantage of it's repping bonus.. Now the Idea behind the added grid and high slot is i'm sure no surprise to anyone with half a brain. Lets get a gang mod + full rack of guns please! Astarte: -sig, +speed, +high slot, mirrior 10% rep bonus change from brutix. Just like the Deimos, I'm lost on how to make this an expensive low ehp ship good at close range combat however I've tried to at least make it viable in very small scale gangs. Reason for the high is the same as the Brutix, guns + gang mod please! Now having far less BS fleet experiance I'm going to leave both the Hyperion and the Mega up to the more experianced posters. I will say that I think that after minor speed/agility tweaks and a 10% rep amount bonus the Hyperion will be one hell of a small gang monsters. Mega is already pretty good in my personal experiences however I'm sure there is something "wrong" with it. Edit: Almost forgot one! Enyo: +cpu Now I know this is not designed as just a blaster boat however i think that it could use a small amount of cpu allowing it to fit dmg mods in certain setups. Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you ***got"
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.08 00:00:00 - [287] Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe Brutix: i don't like the idea of a fast Brutix or Astarte. The reason for this basically has to do with overlap into the realm of cruisers. If you make the Brutix fast then you can achieve cruiser speed/agility with BC type hit points. Even if its low BC type hit points. Don't get me wrong, you can, already and that is a problem. If the Thorax isn't going to have a range advantage on the Brutix then the Brutix and Astarte need to be slow. The core concern for a battlecuiser is being a "heavy" cruiser. And so the speed of the Astarte and Brutix are only really necessary so long as they can catch BC's. And they pretty much can already. The problem with the Brutix is that it is simply not hardy enough compared to the other BC's -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
eliminator2	Posted - 2010.05.08 08:43:00 - [288] support for sexyness ----------------------------------------------- I met Eliminator1..... I chewed it up, and spat it out. Now, he is my minion. I kill miners and mission runners people say, I call them target pra
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.05.08 11:37:00 - [289] 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
Temi Heliz	Posted - 2010.05.08 12:09:00 - [290] Agreed, a Brutix shouldn't have cruiser agility/speed. Blaster boats have more lows than meds. Sounds fair. But you need speed and agility to be efficient with blaster boats; so it's preferable to have: a passive shield tank: not enough meds considering scram & web is quite compulsory. an active armor tanking: the rigs screw your speed, and cap injector is needed Could we leave blasters in their current form, and balance: - Blasters ships slot layout / bonuses (active armor bonus) ? - Armor rig downsides ? Decreasing the mass of these ships would be nice too, but might be too difficult to implement, without creating nano-overpowered boats.

Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.05.08 14:16:00 - [291] 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.
Mortimer Civeri Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.05.08 16:34:00 - [292] Originally by: Bagehi Wait, who puts blasters on Caldari ships? And who worries about Caldari blaster fits being over powered? Hybrid Caldari ships get a range bonus and no tracking bonus and these amount to next to nothing when range starts at only a few km and tracking is an issue at that range. Even if you reduce the fitting requirements and increase the damage, no one in their right mind would put blasters on a Caldari ship if they can fly a Gallente ship. Think on this buttercup: Caldari won't hasve to gimp their tank to put nanos and overdrives in the lows, to get their speed up. Also still able to put mwd/ab, tackling mods, and a respectable tank in their large midslot layout. As for tracking clicking aproach or keep at range virtually cancles out tracking issues. Therefore buffing blasters is a stealth buff for Caldari, not Gallente.
Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2010.05.08 19:23:00 - [293] Originally by: Mortimer Civeri Originally by: Bagehi Wait, who puts blasters on Caldari ships? And who worries about Caldari blaster fits being over powered? Hybrid Caldari ships get a range bonus and no tracking bonus and these amount to next to nothing when range starts at only a few km and tracking is an issue at that range. Even if you reduce the fitting requirements and increase the damage, no one in their right mind would put blasters on a Caldari ship if they can fly a Gallente ship. Think on this buttercup: Caldari won't hasve to gimp their tank to put nanos and overdrives in the lows, to get their speed up. Also still able to put mwd/ab, tackling mods, and a respectable tank in their large midslot layout. As for tracking clicking aproach or keep at range virtually cancles out tracking issues. Therefore buffing blasters is a stealth buff for Caldari, not Gallente. Omg I havent read such stupidity in a long time. can put nanos and overdrives in to the lows? realy?:O come on 1-2 lows just go to reactor controls and it have left with 2-3 for magstabs not nano/overdrives. Large midslot layout?:O where you need 1 mwd 2 tackler gear 1 cap booster and you left with 1 med slot. Any blaster boost wouldnt make caldari hybrid boats op with blaster fits. If you realy think caldari blaster ships are that awesome then bring out your blaster fitted eagle for a trip. I bet you never have flown any caldari ships.
PhantomTrojan	Posted - 2010.05.09 05:09:00 - [294] /signed
Resha Tsvort	Posted - 2010.05.09 10:28:00 - [295] Signed
van Uber Swedish Aerospace Inc	Posted - 2010.05.09 11:16:00 - [296] Edited by: van Uber on 09/05/2010 11:16:52 Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Mortimer Civeri Originally by: Bagehi Wait, who puts blasters on Caldari ships? And who worries about Caldari blaster fits being over powered? Hybrid Caldari ships get a range bonus and no tracking bonus and these amount to next to nothing when range starts at only a few km and tracking is an issue at that range. Even if you reduce the fitting requirements and increase the damage, no one in their right mind would put blasters on a Caldari ship if they can fly a Gallente ship. Think on this buttercup: Caldari won't hasve to gimp their tank to put nanos and overdrives in the lows, to get their speed up. Also still able to put mwd/ab, tackling mods, and a respectable tank in their large midslot layout. As for tracking clicking aproach or keep at range virtually cancles out tracking issues. Therefore buffing blasters is a stealth buff for Caldari, not Gallente. Omg I havent read such stupidity in a long time. can put nanos and overdrives in to the lows? realy?:O come on 1-2 lows just go to reactor controls and it have left with 2-3 for magstabs not nano/overdrives. Large midslot layout?:O where you need 1 mwd 2 tackler gear 1 cap booster and you left with 1 med slot. Any blaster boost wouldnt make caldari hybrid boats op with blaster fits. If you realy think caldari blaster ships are that awesome then bring out your blaster fitted eagle for a trip. I bet you never have flown any caldari ships. Didn't you know? Caldari ships can do everything, simultaneously too.
danvill	Posted - 2010.05.10 11:55:00 - [297] Edited by: danvill on 10/05/2010 11:55:56 so if cc donÆt like the idea of a T1 bs doing more than 1200 dps , they could always make it easier for gallente to reach than other races. one of our biggest problems is we have to be a glass cannon to get the little dps advantage (on paper) over other races. so let say they change our damage mods so we get the same dps from 2 damage mods as we get from 3 now .(thatÆs one lows slot saved for extra plate , resis , nano W/e) and adjust the penalty so that stacking 3 is like stacking 4 now so unless your not planning on taking any damage there is no real point stacking a third damage mod over a plate/resis. just an idea
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.10 15:02:00 - [298] Originally by: van Uber Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Mortimer Civeri Originally by: Bagehi Wait, who puts blasters on Caldari ships? Think on this buttercup: Caldari won't hasve to gimp their tank to put nanos and overdrives in the lows, to get their speed up. Also still able to put mwd/ab, tackling mods, and a respectable tank in their large midslot layout. As for tracking clicking aproach or keep at range virtually cancles out tracking issues. Therefore buffing blasters is a stealth buff for Caldari, not Gallente. Omg I havent read such stupidity in a long time. Didn't you know? Caldari ships can do everything, simultaneously too. Caldari hybrid ships have an "I win" button, that's why almost no one flies them. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.10 18:05:00 - [299] I notice some people discuss improving speed, agility, and weapon tracking. I believe those attributes should be for AC ships. Blaster ships should still be slow and cumbersome, they just need to have high damage as the main advantage over all other weapons. Cause if you improve blaster ships in those other ways, then the next thing we'll see is AC/minmatar 10+ page threads calling for fixes. We should never lose focus of the relationships between 3 close range gun types. Each have advantages and disadvantages, which need to be emphasized, not made more similar.
Mortimer Civeri Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.05.10 18:39:00 - [300] Edited by: Mortimer Civeri on 10/05/2010 18:42:19 Well let's see. A Ferox can probably go 1387 m/s with 3 overdrive II, and a DC II in the lows while fitting 6 heavy neutron II and a lol standard launcher II. A Cyclone can outrun it at ~1750 m/s with the same low slot fitting. Ok, lets look at the armor tankers. The king of the blaster boats the Brutix is the slowest of the bunch at 982 m/s that is with thermal, kinetic, and explosive hardener II's, a DC II, and 3 medium trimark II's. Oh, and you have to fit a RCU in the last low since you can't fit 7 heavy neutron II's and a Y-T8 MWD. The Prophecy barely breaks 1000 m/s With thermal, kinetic, explosive hardener II's, two EANM II's, an ANP II, and 3 medium trimark II's. (BTW I'm trying to keep this all tier I so all you 'apples and oranges' guys can shut up.) Everyone got the same mid-slot fittings with Y-T8 MWD, web, and scram. The Ferox, and Cyclone got 2 Invulnerability II's, with EM II, Thermal II, and CDFE II rigs. The Brutix added a Cap recharger II, while the Prophecy had no spare mid-slot to fit anything else. Of course the Prophecy tops them all with ~74k EHP, then surprisingly the Ferox with ~54k, Brutix with ~52k, and Cyclone with ~42k. The Ferox is able to dictate the engagement with it's speed, and can run in and blast away, run out and recharge a bit of it's shields and run back in again. The only tier one BC able to do that better is the Cyclone.

Liang Nuren Parsec Flux	Posted - 2010.05.10 18:58:00 - [301] Originally by: Ephemeron I notice some people discuss improving speed, agility, and weapon tracking. I believe those attributes should be for AC ships. Blaster ships should still be slow and cumbersome, they just need to have high damage as the main advantage over all other weapons. This is a very valid observation, but ultimately shows that the biggest problems with blasters isn't their raw damage output. It's their ability to apply that damage effectively. This is why we see shield tanked Brutixes and Hypes - because they actually have a prayer of getting into range to deal some damage. So I think that if you don't increase blaster damage agility and speed, then you must dramatically increase their raw damage output (and maybe tracking). And to whoever above said that blasters aren't a Caldari weapon... I LAUGH AT YOU GOOD SIR! -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.10 19:49:00 - [302] Speaking from personal preference as long time battleship user, I'd say a 20% raw dps increase for blaster will make me want to fly Megathrons again, even tho I'll still hate how hard it is to fit one. Likewise, if blaster damage was increased 10%, I may try Mega and Hyperion once, but would stick to my preferred Dominix and Typhoon. Ability to fit heavy energy neutralizer >> extra dps.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.05.11 06:25:00 - [303] Originally by: Liang Nuren This is a very valid observation, but ultimately shows that the biggest problems with blasters isn't their raw damage output. It's their ability to apply that damage effectively. This is why we see shield tanked Brutixes and Hypes - because they actually have a prayer of getting into range to deal some damage. It's not really just that. I mean, just try to fit a Brutix with any sort of armor tank and decent guns (like a neutron/ion mix or full rack of neutrons which you need a grid mod for even with a shield tank). It's just not going to happen, because of the horrible fitting. Plus, you need some speed to actually catch anything and the shield Brutix and Myrmidon have it. Oh, about shield tanking stuff... with the advent of the scram, short range meshes with shield tank really well. For instance, I'm one of the people who has both a HG slaveset and a LG snakeset. Yet when fitting a, eg. short range AC Hurricane I'll very often just go with a shield tank with a scrambler, suck up getting half the EHP in order to be able to catch various speedy trash and hold it there. Look at Myrm fits; you can get a quite fast (particularly with snakes) ship which has very solid EHP and does 850+ DPS on top, to the point where despite having a HG slaveset (enabling you to have 100K EHP on it) if I wanted to go with blasters and stuff I'd go with snaked shieldfit. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.11 06:36:00 - [304] Originally by: Ephemeron I notice some people discuss improving speed, agility, and weapon tracking. I believe those attributes should be for AC ships. Blaster ships should still be slow and cumbersome, they just need to have high damage as the main advantage over all other weapons. Cause if you improve blaster ships in those other ways, then the next thing we'll see is AC/minmatar 10+ page threads calling for fixes. We should never lose focus of the relationships between 3 close range gun types. Each have advantages and disadvantages, which need to be emphasized, not made more similar. I've said this before on the same issue. Skirmish ships can still be skirmish ships even if blaster ships are faster and more agile than them. The key part about being a skirmish ship is not just speed and agility, its speed, agility, and the ability to run when things turn against you. Minmitar ships with their large number of free high slots(Neuts), range that allows them to effectively combat ships outside of web/2pt range, and med slots(shield tank allows more mobility), will still have that advantage even if they are not the fastest ships on the field. Blaster ships can never benefit as much as minmatar ships because if things do go bad, they don't have the neuts to get rid of tacklers, and they're certainly not outside of web/2 pt range even if they run shield tanks and light tackle in order to maximize their speed advantage (which they aren't as good as due to having fewer med slots generally). This means that even if you make blaster ships fast and agile, or faster and more agile than minmatar ships, the minmatar ships will still be the skirmish race and the blaster ships will still be the "Balls to the wall" race. BUT. If you go the other way, and you have the short range ships slower than the longer range ships then there is no reason to ever choose that short range ship. In actual combat, when things are fighting back, no one will ever be in range except other short range ships. Everyone else will be using their higher speed to kite. Since no one is in range except short range ships, the advantage is to choose the longer range ships and kite like them. Its the same strategic choice set that has spawned nano-fits each and every time they have been viable for each and every iteration. It is not a coincidence that they always choose to use long range options(and tracking free options when available) rather than short range. With the trichotomy that we have (consisting of short range/high damage/full tackle, med range/disengable, long range/unagile) if the short range/full tackle range ships are not the fastest, they never become a viable choice compared to the med range/disengagable ships. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.11 06:47:00 - [305] Edited by: Goumindong on 11/05/2010 06:47:46 Originally by: Cpt Branko Oh, about shield tanking stuff... with the advent of the scram, short range meshes with shield tank really well. Edit: All numbers are pre-overloading E.G. Which would you rather have. This Thorax: 28k EHP, 550 DPS, 1112m/s, 10.9 align [Thorax, Plate Gank] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Reactor Control Unit II Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Warp Scrambler II Stasis Webifier II Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Hammerhead II x5 Or this Thorax: 22k EHP, 630 DPS, 1616m/s, 9.3 align [Thorax, Shield Gank Ion] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Overdrive Injector System II 10MN MicroWarpdrive I J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Large Shield Extender II Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Hammerhead II x5 Or this one: 19k EHP, 570 DPS, 1700m/s, 6.8 align [Thorax, Shield Tank Alternate] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II 10MN MicroWarpdrive I J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Large Shield Extender II Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Hammerhead II x5 If these thoraxes are fast and have a relatively decent amount of EHP, why are they sub-optimal (or are they are do people just not understand what they can do with them?) The answer is that they probably are sub-optimal. But that has a lot to do with closing distance/damage/EHP times than it does to do with anything else. And that might be a bit beyond the scope of this topic. (long story short, giving up EHP means that unless they catch something unawares, a combat ship is likely to be able to kill the rax before the rax kills it, and that is in a 1v1 situation where raw damage has more of an advantage over range, as you start to add ships the ability to inflict damage now becomes a bigger deal with the exception of a very few edge cases involving big active tanked ships that can't run away and can't kill cruisers) -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
Alek Row Minmatar Silent Step	Posted - 2010.05.11 14:45:00 - [306] Edited by: Alek Row on 11/05/2010 14:55:32 More faster AND agile than Minmatar? Not Supported. High DPS, better drone bays, speed, how the hell do you disengage from that? Will you have time for it? I understand that blasters/acs need to dictate range and that really should NOT be trivial for BOTH (it is trivial for Minmatar now), but with this it really looks you're just turning the table 180¦, nothing more. Sorry but you can make better than that. You've done it before :-P Play with drones perhaps? OBS: Stupid stuff but speed changes always hurt a bit inside, only reason why I choose Minmatar when I created my 1st char. -------------------- Alek Row
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.05.11 15:43:00 - [307] You've got to be very careful when proposing ships that are both fast and agile, as unless that ship has serious weaknesses in DPS or tank, then it's going to be very powerful. The combination of good speed and good agility produces good acceleration - definable as 0.75 * (max speed with MWD on) / (align time with MWD on). Good acceleration and high speed means that you accelerate more quickly to a higher top speed than other ships, making such a ship very powerful. The Dramiel is a case in point. In general, ships should be fast OR agile. Take Caldari ships, which tend to be agile but slow. This gives them good acceleration but a low top speed, which means that they can pull away from another ship briefly, but then get overhauled in the long run. This is well balanced. But how should the other races be? Minmatar should be the fastest. But if Minmatar is faster, more agile and has weapons with longer range than Gallente, then there is very little reason to fly Gallente, assuming fairly similar tanks and DPS - as is broadly the case. This suggests that Minmatar should not be an agile race, and that Gallente ships should have an advantage in acceleration but a disadvantage in top speed.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux	Posted - 2010.05.11 16:15:00 - [308] Originally by: Gypsio III You've got to be very careful when proposing ships that are both fast and agile, as unless that ship has serious weaknesses in DPS or tank, then it's going to be very powerful. The combination of good speed and good agility produces good acceleration - definable as 0.75 * (max speed with MWD on) / (align time with MWD on). Good acceleration and high speed means that you accelerate more quickly to a higher top speed than other ships, making such a ship very powerful. The Dramiel is a case in point. In general, ships should be fast OR agile. Take Caldari ships, which tend to be agile but slow. This gives them good acceleration but a low top speed, which means that they can pull away from another ship briefly, but then get overhauled in the long run. This is well balanced. But how should the other races be? Minmatar should be the fastest. But if Minmatar is faster, more agile and has weapons with longer range than Gallente, then there is very little reason to fly Gallente, assuming fairly similar tanks and DPS - as is broadly the case. This suggests that Minmatar should not be an agile race, and that Gallente ships should have an advantage in acceleration but a disadvantage in top speed. This is an interesting comment, but I think falls short a bit. Minmatar is the small/fast/agile race, and I hope they stay that way. You cite the Dramiel as proof that something shouldn't have good DPS and be both fast and agile... but the Jaguar and Vagabond (while good) are nothing approaching overpowered - while embodying all of the core concepts of being Minmatar. Even with all that, it wasn't Minmatar that kept people from flying blaster ships - it was lasers (which projectiles have been balanced against recently). IMO I think it depends what role you're trying to go for... and with blaster and laser ships that's the "damage dealer" role. Minmatar ships as a rule don't really fill this role. As I said, there's only a few options: - Make blaster ships able to get to their targets in a timely manner and without expending 2-3 cap booster 800s to do it. (Read: Make them faster and/or more agile) - Make blaster ships have nuts high DPS to offset the time it takes to get into range. - Extend blaster range so that they come into range sooner - Make lasers (and therefore projectiles and torps and pretty much everything else) do less damage. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.11 18:17:00 - [309] Edited by: Ephemeron on 11/05/2010 18:19:15 Quote: - Make lasers (and therefore projectiles and torps and pretty much everything else) do less damage. I want to point out why that would be a horrible idea, in case someone may accidentally take it seriously. Not only that is unrealistic request due to overwhelming protest it would cause from entire community. But you need to understand that tanking has been continuously boosted for last several years, while weapon damage seen much smaller increases. The latest boost was to make 15% buffer rigs for cruisers, bc, frigates very affordable - essentially giving everyone who wants another free Full Grade Slave Set or equivalent shield tank set. Something that normally would cost at least 1500 million now costs 9 mil. And that's just one of the many tanking boosts. And in case it's not clear to some people, excessive tanking ability leads to blobbing - as it both requires more people to efficiently kill the target and gives victim more time to call in friendly blob from nearby. I was under impression we didn't like the blobbing trends.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.11 20:13:00 - [310] Originally by: Liang Nuren Even with all that, it wasn't Minmatar that kept people from flying blaster ships - it was lasers (which projectiles have been balanced against recently). This is entirely untrue. Some people might have thought it was true, but it assumes that gallente should be gang damage dealers. They should not be. The problem has always been ships with longer ranges that cannot be caught by the blaster ships. Quote: IMO I think it depends what role you're trying to go for... and with blaster and laser ships that's the "damage dealer" role. Minmatar ships as a rule don't really fill this role. Bull If you consider blaster ships as a "damage dealer role" then you must also consider minnie in that role. You have to define the roles more closely to properly understand what is happening here. Each of the ships discussed does deal damage as their primary function. Each just does so optimally in different situations. Those different situations are the key. Quote: - Make blaster ships have nuts high DPS to offset the time it takes to get into range. - Extend blaster range so that they come into range sooner - Make lasers (and therefore projectiles and torps and pretty much everything else) do less damage. These are pretty much right out. Falloff means that blaster ship dps increases necessarily nullify non-TE autocannon range. Adding range is also right out, this negates the role of blasters as solo/small gang damage dealers and moves them right into skirmish options. Ditto number three since it has the same effect as number one That means that the only proper response is to make them faster and more agile. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance

Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.11 21:14:00 - [311] Edited by: Ephemeron on 11/05/2010 21:17:11 Originally by: Goumindong That means that the only proper response is to make them faster and more agile. Once again I'm reminded how messed up in the head Goumindong is. I haven't forgotten the Nano Nerf fiasco. The sad part is that CCP game designer seem to be just as messed up as this guy. He simply cannot be reasoned with, cause his logic obeys the rules of some parallel universe, not quite like ours. There's really no point arguing with him. But if the devs are messed up in similar ways and they follow this bad advice, I can assure you that the next big threads are going to be cries of the minmatar. The game will shift one more notch toward boredom, as the differences between ships are erased. Balance through sameness is achieved.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.05.11 23:09:00 - [312] Originally by: Liang Nuren Minmatar is the small/fast/agile race, and I hope they stay that way. You cite the Dramiel as proof that something shouldn't have good DPS and be both fast and agile... but the Jaguar and Vagabond (while good) are nothing approaching overpowered. -Liang I don't think the Vaga is overpowered either. But I do think that the Deimos is underpowered. Given that both of these ships are best utilised in solo or small-gang combat, how should they be balanced against each other? I don't think a Deimos fix will come via fiddling with its DPS - the Deimos would have to have an immense DPS advantage to be rated alongside the Vaga, given the Vaga's mobility and DPS-projection advantages. To me, this suggests that the answer to balancing these ships is something to do with their mobilities. Now it's obvious that the Vaga should be faster than the Deimos. So just leaves acceleration as the advantage that Deimos could have. With reasonable fits, currently they compare like this: Dual-poly Vaga: speed 2750 m/s, average acceleration 298 m/s/s. 800 mm dual-poly Deimos: speed 1712 m/s, acceleration 157 m/s/s. Shield nanoDeimos: speed 1961 m/s, acceleration 226 m/s/s. The problem is - what numbers would a faster-accelerating Deimos have? Let's assume that speeds remain the same. If we give the shield Deimos an acceleration of 350 m/s/s, then it requires a align time with MWD on of 4.2 s, which is probably silly. Alternatively, if we nerf the Vaga's acceleration to 175 m/s/s, then it gets a MWD-on align time of 11.8 s, which would probably give a MWD-off align time of 8.2 s ish. Unfortunately, this, too, is probably silly...
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.11 23:22:00 - [313] Gypsio III, I believe that a 20% damage increase (a free damage mod) would go a long way to helping Deimos, without making that ship overpowered due to its other shortcomings. There's an alternative solution tho - changing MWD bonus to 90% web bonus, it would make Deimos highly desirable in small gang pvp. But then it takes away from Vigilant advantage.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.12 09:30:00 - [314] Originally by: Ephemeron Edited by: Ephemeron on 11/05/2010 21:17:11 Originally by: Goumindong That means that the only proper response is to make them faster and more agile. Once again I'm reminded how messed up in the head Goumindong is. I haven't forgotten the Nano Nerf fiasco. The sad part is that CCP game designer seem to be just as messed up as this guy. He simply cannot be reasoned with, cause his logic obeys the rules of some parallel universe, not quite like ours. There's really no point arguing with him. But if the devs are messed up in similar ways and they follow this bad advice, I can assure you that the next big threads are going to be cries of the minmatar. The game will shift one more notch toward boredom, as the differences between ships are erased. Balance through sameness is achieved. Do you have any argument other than "nuh uh"? or "its goumindong"? Anything other than your unsupported claim that balance will be the way you say? Any change you make is going to have people whine. If you have fast and agile blaster boats people will whine. If you have slow and more damaging blaster boats, people will whine. The question is rather "where do you have balance" and you only have balance with the trichotomous system that we have where the blaster boats are able to catch targets. They will still be sub-optimal in a skirmish gang since they can't run away. They will still be sub-optimal in a big gang because they can't get DPS on target instantly. But they will also not be obsolete solo/small gang where the ability to full tackle and get DPS on a target is a valuable addition. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.05.12 12:47:00 - [315] 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
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.12 14:09:00 - [316] Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2010 14:10:21 High speed with low agility (I.E. high align times) isn't high speed. The advantage to minnie ships will still be that they are typically going to be shield tanked rather than armor tanked and that going into full tackle range necessitates a significantly higher amount of risk than a pilot that does not. In a comparison of a skirmish ship solo vs the blaster solo the blaster indeed will have the advantage(provided the minnie ship isn't using its utility highs wisely), they should. But once numbers start to increase, the ability to get tackles at close range starts to significantly diminish compared to the ability to focus fire. Either the blaster ships have to tackle 1 by 1 in order to focus fire or they have to target ships one by one. The first means that they have to re-close to damage range on each target since the rest of the skirmish gang which is not tackled will be keeping range. Giving up the ability to focus fire is the other option, and certainly not the stronger of the two. Time and time again it has been shown that the "burn towards a target" is a recipe for disaster against longer ranged gangs that are able to take a majority of their gang outside of the range of the opponent. Fast and agile blaster ships do not change that scenario, nor do they effectively change the scenario against a heavy gang of longer ranged ships that is sitting still (since the "first mover advantage" will still outweigh the raw damage advantage. there are also gang homogeneity issues) tears them up. It only changes the game when its a very small gang, where targets can be isolated and a follower will not be slaughtered before it can do effective damage. This is especially true since the only time that blaster ships can field an effective tank(to make them a heavy tackle that might have a chance of surviving in a gang scenario where they have to chase a skirmish gang)they will have to be running armor(not really enough slots for shield for the cruisers) and that means eating up low slots with plates and modules that aren't speed modules... eating away at any speed advantage they are given. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
Belsazzar	Posted - 2010.05.12 16:04:00 - [317] I support this, CCP needs to at least let us know if they agree there is a problem, so we can have an end to this ever recurring subject
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate Sodalitas XX	Posted - 2010.05.12 17:36:00 - [318] Quote: High speed with low agility isn't high speed. i see what you did there... Anyone thought of "charge mode?"" We have triage module, should we have "charge module" that would make your speed go though the roof, but have a big reactivation delay?
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.12 17:59:00 - [319] Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev Anyone thought of "charge mode?"" We have triage module, should we have "charge module" that would make your speed go though the roof, but have a big reactivation delay? It is an interesting idea, but it would mess up PvP dynamics badly. People would us it to get past gate camps, usually charging back toward the gate for jump out. That tactic is already powerful with MWD. But at least MWD can be turned off by scramble. The webs are too weak to stop anything. Such a module would become a must-have for all PvP. It may also lead to new bumping tactics, with unexpected results.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.12 18:32:00 - [320] And this is the issue these threads keep reaching: Blasters can't get a increase in damage because then they are OP when they land on ships in a gank. Blaster ships can't have more speed/agility because then Minmatar ships don't have a speed/agility niche. Blasters can't have more range because then AC (and?) pulse would lose their niche. Railguns can't have more damage because then Caldari railboats become OP at long range and Gallente become OP at medium range. Railguns can't have more range because even though this would fix Gallente, it would render the bonuses on Caldari ships worthless. Hybrids in general cannot have more tracking because that would allow OP fits - blaster BS that kill tacklers and mid-range rail BS/HACs that can kill tacklers. Hybrids (railguns) cannot have penetration as this would make even low damage guns OP in certain situations. So, currently, hybrids remain without a functional niche because there are so many different problems with them that blanket changes will not fix the problem without making something OP. A proper fix would be TL;DR, but CSM isn't willing to go to CCP with a general suggestion for CCP to fix hybrids. Does Assembly Hall have to debate balancing changes for each hybrid ship/gun/ammo? There was already a consensus that hybrids need to be reviewed and balanced. Isn't the actual job of balancing the responsibility of CCP, not assembly hall or CSM? Can't CSM simply tell CCP that hybrids need to be reviewed for balance and leave it in the hands of CCP (with oversight and input - usually given when things hit SISI)? This signature is useless, but it is red.

Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2010.05.12 18:46:00 - [321] Originally by: Bagehi And this is the issue these threads keep reaching: Blasters can't get a increase in damage because then they are OP when they land on ships in a gank. Blaster ships can't have more speed/agility because then Minmatar ships don't have a speed/agility niche. Blasters can't have more range because then AC (and?) pulse would lose their niche. Railguns can't have more damage because then Caldari railboats become OP at long range and Gallente become OP at medium range. Railguns can't have more range because even though this would fix Gallente, it would render the bonuses on Caldari ships worthless. Hybrids in general cannot have more tracking because that would allow OP fits - blaster BS that kill tacklers and mid-range rail BS/HACs that can kill tacklers. Hybrids (railguns) cannot have penetration as this would make even low damage guns OP in certain situations. So, currently, hybrids remain without a functional niche because there are so many different problems with them that blanket changes will not fix the problem without making something OP. A proper fix would be TL;DR, but CSM isn't willing to go to CCP with a general suggestion for CCP to fix hybrids. Does Assembly Hall have to debate balancing changes for each hybrid ship/gun/ammo? There was already a consensus that hybrids need to be reviewed and balanced. Isn't the actual job of balancing the responsibility of CCP, not assembly hall or CSM? Can't CSM simply tell CCP that hybrids need to be reviewed for balance and leave it in the hands of CCP (with oversight and input - usually given when things hit SISI)? This is what I wrote pages ago , hybrid ships/weapons need to be redesigned and CSM only needs to push the issue to CCP . It is CCP job to fix this.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.12 19:44:00 - [322] Quote: Blasters can't get a increase in damage because then they are OP when they land on ships in a gank. I fail to see this as a valid point. Anyone care to enlighten me? I have seen many gank squads in my time, and I have not noticed any emphasis on blasters. Even if you ignore all the practical hurdles of getting perfect blaster damage, it's still only marginally better than ACs and lasers after ship bonuses. And a damage mod makes more difference in ship dps than weapon type. Very few "practical" Gallente ships utilize 3 damage mods (for short range), because that would leave them with very weak tanks. But likewise, all other factions can achieve same type of DPS with 3 damage mods on short range weapons. And actual dps of theirs will match that of blasters when you factor in fall off and tracking. So no, I just don't see any significant differences in practical or theoretical damage output of blasters relative to other ships.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.12 19:59:00 - [323] Originally by: Ephemeron Quote: Blasters can't get a increase in damage because then they are OP when they land on ships in a gank. I fail to see this as a valid point. Anyone care to enlighten me? I have seen many gank squads in my time, and I have not noticed any emphasis on blasters. Even if you ignore all the practical hurdles of getting perfect blaster damage, it's still only marginally better than ACs and lasers after ship bonuses. And a damage mod makes more difference in ship dps than weapon type. Very few "practical" Gallente ships utilize 3 damage mods (for short range), because that would leave them with very weak tanks. But likewise, all other factions can achieve same type of DPS with 3 damage mods on short range weapons. And actual dps of theirs will match that of blasters when you factor in fall off and tracking. So no, I just don't see any significant differences in practical or theoretical damage output of blasters relative to other ships. You are talking about the current situation. The statement is referring to blasters that did more damage than they currently do. Already, when a blaster boat warps to you at 0 (or near 0), they melt your face. If CCP boosted their damage output, there would be giant emo tears and OP outrage. Even a 1% boost to damage would cause this because people talk hypothetical situations on here while disregarding the normal state of affairs (look at all the "not support" posts in this thread). This signature is useless, but it is red.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.12 20:38:00 - [324] Originally by: Bagehi Does Assembly Hall have to debate balancing changes for each hybrid ship/gun/ammo? Yes. The Assembly Hall is not where you go to whine to CCP with no suggestions. Its a place where you can articulate exactly what is wrong and exactly how it can be fixed and exactly why this is so. Why? Whines waste CCP's time. Without clear articulation on what is wrong, why its wrong, how it can be fixed and why CCP has to justify all of the missing points before they can act. If they end up doing it in a way that was contrary to the point of the thread? Well then its back to square one with more whines. Quote: Blaster ships can't have more speed/agility because then Minmatar ships don't have a speed/agility niche Speed and Agility are not "niches". Minmatar are the skirmish race and that niche is maintained even if blaster boats are faster and more agile than the skirmish ships for all the reasons already outlined. If you have two ships. One that has long range and is slow, and one that has medium range and higher damage but is fast. A third ship that is short range must be faster than the medium range ship or it will be obsolete. The medium range ships can kill the longer ranged ships in small gangs. The long range ships can kill the medium and short in larger gangs. The short range ships can kill the long range ships in small gangs... Except that if you have the option of flying a ship that can destroy the long range ships in small gangs and loses to the medium range ships in small gangs, or a ship that can destroy the long range ships in small gangs and ties the medium range ships in small gangs you're always going to choose the medium range ships. Quote: Blasters can't get a increase in damage because then they are OP when they land on ships in a gank. No, they can't get a damage increase because a damage increase is both a range increase(effective DPS @ range goes up over falloff, increasing the distance required by minmatar before they have a damage advantage) which is a no-no, and won't do anything to alleviate the problem of minnie ships obsoleting them in combat except as a function of the range increase. -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate Sodalitas XX	Posted - 2010.05.13 11:04:00 - [325] Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/05/2010 11:06:39 Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/05/2010 11:06:14 Quote: Hybrids in general cannot have more tracking YOu are horribly wrong. Blaster tracking SUCKS. It needs to double to make them effective. It is embarrassing, because when you get to your optimal you cannot hit anything, due to trasversal, so you have to operate in faloff, which reduces your damage. Quote: when a blaster boat warps to you at 0 they melt your face. Because that's not what's suppose to happen, right? And what about those 99% of the cases when you are not sitting with no motion at 0 at the gate and wait to get tackled? Quote: No, they can't get a damage increase because a damage increase is both a range increase again, wrong,get out of 1x faloff and the damage becomes paint scratching, because damage decreases exponentially with range.
Alek Row Silent Step	Posted - 2010.05.13 14:44:00 - [326] Edited by: Alek Row on 13/05/2010 14:46:39 I still think it's a half-assed solution. Minmatar always had the fast, rusty, primitive look'n'feel, maybe niche is not the correct word I would call it a major feature :P All solutions I see are always in the same line of though but with different attributes, replace speed with damage or range or tracking and in the end you just have 'Give it 50% more of X and everything will be ok'. Maybe the solution will be more in the AC line of though, a bit more here, a bit more there, I mean a full weapon system redesign that doesn't change the basic principals of blasters - it must hurt up close. Maybe the 'definition' of close range must be increased just like the range of falloff was a few time ago, give it a bit more range, tracking, damage, and even a bit of speed in some ships if you still have to. I'm not the excel/eve expert guy to do nice graphs to show how much should be given to each weapon/ship to make it work, and a full re-design (calibration) really looks like a very difficult task but they did it to ACs didn't they? Please make it work without giving major features to other races, otherwise in 1 year Gallent will be speed, Amarr shield tanking, Caldari drones and Minmatar target painters - just exaggerating a bit :-P
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.05.13 14:53:00 - [327] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 13/05/2010 14:57:35 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 13/05/2010 14:56:38 Originally by: Goumindong E.G. Which would you rather have. This Thorax: 28k EHP, 550 DPS, 1112m/s, 10.9 align Or this Thorax: 22k EHP, 630 DPS, 1616m/s, 9.3 align The latter, of course. The reason people don't fly shield fit Gallente more is that they suck and don't know how to play. In fact, IF Gallente could fit neutrons without lol RCUs and if they didn't have ships which are sometimes ****ed stat wise (eg. Brutix uses that so potentially useful utility high over Cyclone to get a awesome 10m3 more dronebay, seriously now?), they would (in shield fits) be passable. If they got a DPS boost on top they'd be more then passable. The only Gallente T1 ships which you can fit reasonably with neutrons is the shield Myrmidon and the Megathron, the rest of them require glass-cannon fits or RCUs. Which made sense in the age when the Neutron blaster was the top dog, but laser dps got boosted since that day, AC DPS got boosted, torp DPS got boosted... these fitting stats are completely unjustified in this day and age. By the way; when you look at those (sad) DPS/EHP stats, don't you feel horrible about the fact that a equivalent Minmatar ship has very good odds of BBQ-ing you point blank, or that the Vexor will just the Thorax at any range (most likely a Moa and Arbitrator, too, haha)? That is highly indicative of the fitting (and to some extent DPS) issues I'm talking about. I do a lot of upclose murdering, and I have never considered flying Gallente for that because they simply do not offer a tangible advantage in the zone where they're supposed to be superior. Also, devil's advocate: sub-BS blasterboats would be 11ty billion times better with more mids for shieldtank fits, since shieldtank takes a lot of the blaster woes away, and naturally removal of stupid active rep bonuses which prevent you from fitting damage mods and decent guns if you take advantage of the bonus. No, seriously; most medium sized blaster boats are better with shield buffer as things are (case in point Brutix). People just insist on doing the wrong things, but that's not a ship problem, you still have people who fit purger rigs and SPRs to Drakes and take them out to PVP (granted, fairly rare these days) and complain how Caldari suck. People are just not comprehending how scrambler only for tackle works just fine. Originally by:** Maxsim Goratiev YOu are horribly wrong. Blaster tracking SUCKS. It needs to double to make them effective. It is embarrassing, because when you get to your optimal you cannot hit anything, due to trasversal, so you have to operate in faloff, which reduces your damage. You don't know how to play tbfh, that is not a turret problem.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.13 15:20:00 - [328] Edited by: NightmareX on 13/05/2010 15:20:18 Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/05/2010 11:06:39 Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/05/2010 11:06:14 Quote: Hybrids in general cannot have more tracking YOu are horribly wrong. Blaster tracking SUCKS. It needs to double to make them effective. It is embarrassing, because when you get to your optimal you cannot hit anything, due to trasversal, so you have to operate in faloff, which reduces your damage. ROFL, talk about being a total noob with Blasters. You know there is something called to move around while you fight to lower your transersal right?. If you just sits there and just shoot, you deserve to die in a big ass fire to stupidity. And if you double the Blaster tracking, then what is the point with the web nerf earlier?.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.13 16:54:00 - [329] Edited by: Bagehi on 13/05/2010 16:55:06 Originally by: Cpt Branko I have never considered flying Gallente for that because they simply do not offer a tangible advantage in the zone where they're supposed to be superior. This. Why fly a blaster boat if you can fly an AC or pulse boat? If there isn't an answer, it doesn't have a niche. Originally by: Cpt Branko Also, devil's advocate: sub-BS blasterboats would be 11ty billion times better with more mids for shieldtank fits, since shieldtank takes a lot of the blaster woes away, and naturally removal of stupid active rep bonuses which prevent you from fitting damage mods and decent guns if you take advantage of the bonus. No, seriously; most medium sized blaster boats are better with shield buffer as things are (case in point Brutix). The brutix is a fine example of either-or bonuses (almost like the classic split-weapon Minmatar ships). Potentially this would be different if active tanking was more on-par with buffer/passive tanks. Without work on active armor tanks, Gallente ships would be better off without the rep bonuses. I am guilty of shield+speed+blasters on Gallente ships in most cases. It is simply a better fit for the role they are supposed to fill. However, the comparable Amarr/Minmatar ships do it better because you don't waste bonuses. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Xultanis	Posted - 2010.05.15 05:48:00 - [330] I read a few posts so I apologize ahead of time if I'm repeating anything anyone has said. I've noticed people saying that if the damage is increased then Gallente would be too powerful upclose. However, we all do agree that something has to be done with the damage. I mean even with Void which only does the -25% range instead of the Antimatter(also faction) -60%, the maximum range even with falloff is between 12km and 16km. I would much love for them to increase the damage output outright but then we run into everyone just switching to close gank gallente. If they lower everyones resists to meet the damage output then that doesn't only help gallente out it helps everyone which in turn gets us back to square one. I would suggest of a complete system overhall, which would take way too long and too many resources, but it would be nice to have a completely different combat system. Where you have points to put in whichever resists you want and whatnot but thats for another post of maybe even for EvE II. Who knows. My suggestion to have Gallente ships naturally resisted to the speed reduction of webs and scrams. While increasing their tracking, agility, and normal speed values. This would fix both problems and be pretty simple but I have a feeling everyone is going to say its overpowered. With the mobility amarr lasers and minmater guns would be at a disadvantage because of the movement causing their already low tracking to hurt them in the long run, which would in the end require more pilot capability to even out the transversal when attacking. The other condition would be the webs and scrams, it doesn't help if we can't get in range. If Gallente ships were resisted to webs and scrams speed reductions to a degree then it would help with the range problems. Gallente speed value can only be reduced to 80% of their total speed value. So if the top speed with an AB is 500 then speed doesn't drop below 400 regardless of the amounts of webs on the ship. Same thing with scrams'. Speed can not be lower then 80% of total speed value. If the tracking, speed values, and agility were to increase to meet these needs then I think the whole issue is solved. I know this all sounds a little crazy, more then welcome to omit or change things, but I think it leads to a good direction. This all plays more into pilot capabilities while giving us the tools we need to make up for the horrible damage output. We stay out of low transversal lowering the damage output on us while keeping our damage output pretty much the same. This way everyone damage overall is the same only thing that changes is the mechanic. Well thats it for now. I hope I made some sense. I post when I'm dead tired and I always pray it sounds the way I planned it too.

The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition	Posted - 2010.05.15 08:14:00 - [331] Edited by: The Djego on 15/05/2010 09:39:26 Originally by: Ephemeron Speaking from personal preference as long time battleship user, I'd say a 20% raw dps increase for blaster will make me want to fly Megathrons again, even tho I'll still hate how hard it is to fit one. Likewise, if blaster damage was increased 10%, I may try Mega and Hyperion once, but would stick to my preferred Dominix and Typhoon. Ability to fit heavy energy neutralizer >> extra dps. Even with 20% raw DPS increase I don't see a real point in it, even before QR blaster ships where at least 10% DPS short to overcome similar flown\fitted ships by pure DPS advantage at her range(EHP\DPS wise). The damage is also split into Drones and Guns so it is mostly a 12-16% boost for most ships. Strong point of most good solo ships is not the DPS, it is the flexibility and the ability to leave next to no weaknesses in the offensive and defensive capability to prevent other ships from using them against your(ability to deal with small stuff, some kind of GTFO ability, ability to prevent/counter kitting, not losing all ability's if you get neuted, ability to dedicate range). While blaster ships where not capable of doing some of this things they still had solid mix of it, enough to make them work. That changed with QR. Originally by: Liang Nuren IMO I think it depends what role you're trying to go for... and with blaster and laser ships that's the "damage dealer" role. Minmatar ships as a rule don't really fill this role. As I said, there's only a few options: - Make blaster ships able to get to their targets in a timely manner and without expending 2-3 cap booster 800s to do it. (Read: Make them faster and/or more agile) - Make blaster ships have nuts high DPS to offset the time it takes to get into range. - Extend blaster range so that they come into range sooner - Make lasers (and therefore projectiles and torps and pretty much everything else) do less damage. -Liang I'm quite happy with using ak ships as damage dealers atm, dps difference is not this big after putting selectable damage types in and using the bigger range window. - A bit more speed/agility would be nice, but you will still lose the fights you would lose today so no big change. - What exactly do you think is "nuts high DPS"? Also you still end up with a limited damage dealer for smaller gangs instead of a flexible solo ship. - We already got AKs/Lasers for this. - meh ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Ryan Starwing	Posted - 2010.05.17 02:44:00 - [332] Blasters need a dps buff. They are ment to be face melters and are ment to pwn people if they land on them at 0. Right now lasers and autos do almost blaster dps with alot more uses.
Chi Quan Bibkor Enterprises	Posted - 2010.05.17 12:10:00 - [333] did i support this already? ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love
Dzajic Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2010.05.19 14:14:00 - [334] Like all "hybrids need love" issues, supported.
Decon Ko	Posted - 2010.05.19 21:37:00 - [335] semantically, more a fix than love, supported. -- This: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1248088
Mkah Mvet Chumly Incorporated Beyond-Control	Posted - 2010.05.19 21:44:00 - [336] Either blasters need love or blaster boats need unreasonably high native resists.
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.05.19 23:25:00 - [337] EFT DPS of blasters is fine. The main problem is to apply that DPS. Look at classes in fantasy universe. There are archer, rogue, tank and other. Every class has balance. Tank has low DPS and high defence. Tank can do low damage long time due to defence. Archer makes medium damage at long range. His tank is his speed. Rogue (dagger) has high DPS but very short range. He should has something to apply his high DPS: speed, evasion or other tricks. Otherwise Rogue will die without inflicting damage to target. So I hope you see some parallels. Caldari has range, Minmatar can kite (barrage + TC or TE = good range), Amarr has good buffer tank and good DPS (with scorch they have long range and still good DPS ) Gallente has the shortest range and slightly bigger paper DPS. They have no speed advantage (hull is not the fastest + armor rigs reduce original speed and agility) They have no tank advantage: active tanking is not good with CAP eating weapon, buffer armor tank is not so good as Amarr (little low slots, no armor resist bonuses, waste of active tank bonuses). Shield tank works but it works better on shield ships. Gallente should be fixed. Simple solution: increase damage bonus for Gallente ships from 5% to 7.5% per level. Slightly increase base tracking speed of blasters. Complicated solution: total strategy change for Gallente ships. Base speed increasing, signature decreasing, special bonuses like stasis web speed factor or other - I do not know. BUT it is difficult becouse it interferes with other EVE ships and items.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.20 00:34:00 - [338] Quote: Complicated solution: total strategy change for Gallente ships. Base speed increasing, signature decreasing, special bonuses like stasis web speed factor or other Congratulations on inventing Minmatar I said it before and I say it again: there will be no proper solution to this issue until CCP deals with damage phobia. Any "alternative" solution to blasters, such as the one I quoted, will simply decrease diversity by making things same. Or infringe on special roles of other races, thus guaranteeing future headache of fixing emergent problems with those other races.
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.05.20 01:29:00 - [339] Originally by: Ephemeron Quote: Complicated solution: total strategy change for Gallente ships. Base speed increasing, signature decreasing, special bonuses like stasis web speed factor or other Congratulations on inventing Minmatar I said it before and I say it again: there will be no proper solution to this issue until CCP deals with damage phobia. Any "alternative" solution to blasters, such as the one I quoted, will simply decrease diversity by making things same. Or infringe on special roles of other races, thus guaranteeing future headache of fixing emergent problems with those other races. Do not cut my words from sentence. I indicated that I do not know exact complete solution because it is very difficult. As for me increasing Gallente DPS is not a bad idea. This boost will slightly balance Gallente (but not solve) and will not brake Gallente role of close face eater. Now there is no sense to use blasters because Lasers do 85% DPS at 300% optimal and AC shoot farther with selective damage (on fastest ships in the game). There is only 1 reason to shoot blasters - You do not want to spend several months for other race BS and weapon :) I would completely switch to Amarr or Minmatar if EVE had no Dominix, Ishtar and AC Myrm :)
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.20 16:10:00 - [340] Hybrids could do DOT. That would be a niche no other ship has. It wouldn't match the graphics, but the graphics already don't match the way damage is done already (torps look like AoE but aren't, lasers look like DOT but aren't, projectiles shouldn't instantly hit targets but they do, etc). This signature is useless, but it is red.

Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.05.20 16:23:00 - [341] 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"?
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.20 16:32:00 - [342] 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? This signature is useless, but it is red.
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.05.20 16:49:00 - [343] 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.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.20 17:06:00 - [344] Originally by: Spugg Galdon 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. 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). This signature is useless, but it is red.
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.05.20 18:12:00 - [345] 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!
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition	Posted - 2010.05.20 18:38:00 - [346] Originally by: Ephemeron Any "alternative" solution to blasters, such as the one I quoted, will simply decrease diversity by making things same. Or infringe on special roles of other races, thus guaranteeing future headache of fixing emergent problems with those other races. Putting peak DPS at the target within web range quickly, stop targets at gates solo without gimped tackling range and the ability to control range within web range where things that made blaster ships good at her niche. Putting back the "lethal" in web range for gank style blaster pvp is a long overdone step and provides a lot more diversity than a bit more DPS would do. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.20 19:06:00 - [347] Originally by: The Djego Originally by: Ephemeron Any "alternative" solution to blasters, such as the one I quoted, will simply decrease diversity by making things same. Or infringe on special roles of other races, thus guaranteeing future headache of fixing emergent problems with those other races. Putting peak DPS at the target within web range quickly, stop targets at gates solo without gimped tackling range and the ability to control range within web range where things that made blaster ships good at her niche. Putting back the "lethal" in web range for gank style blaster pvp is a long overdone step and provides a lot more diversity than a bit more DPS would do. My idea for Gallente niche is that operating blasters should be difficult, but those who can manage it, overcome the obstacles, would get rewarded by unparalleled DPS strength. And that means a difference of more than a single damage mod on any other ship. Minmatar should do what you mentioned, be optimized for ease of use as opposed to dps power.
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition	Posted - 2010.05.20 21:40:00 - [348] Edited by: The Djego on 20/05/2010 21:41:02 Originally by: Ephemeron Originally by: The Djego Originally by: Ephemeron Any "alternative" solution to blasters, such as the one I quoted, will simply decrease diversity by making things same. Or infringe on special roles of other races, thus guaranteeing future headache of fixing emergent problems with those other races. Putting peak DPS at the target within web range quickly, stop targets at gates solo without gimped tackling range and the ability to control range within web range where things that made blaster ships good at her niche. Putting back the "lethal" in web range for gank style blaster pvp is a long overdone step and provides a lot more diversity than a bit more DPS would do. My idea for Gallente niche is that operating blasters should be difficult, but those who can manage it, overcome the obstacles, would get rewarded by unparalleled DPS strength. And that means a difference of more than a single damage mod on any other ship. Minmatar should do what you mentioned, be optimized for ease of use as opposed to dps power. I would be the last one agreeing against a DPS boost for blasters, I did fly them with maximum gank all the time. Then again I don't see the point without tweaking close range for blaster ships in favour of the blaster ship again. You request a very very limited small gang tool, I basically do the same, with the difference that the ships would be useful for solo PVP again. Minmatar ships already do what I mentioned. There should not be a minmatar patent of being the all out solo pvp solution. If you are ready to take all the drawbacks and let go gtfo ability there should be a option for people that going in for a kill and are ready to die for it. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.20 21:58:00 - [349] tweaking close range in positive manner would be undoing the Great Nano Nerf. Make webs 90%, remove MWD deactivation for scramble, make ships fast again. That has worked in the past, then CCP had to **** things up. Raw damage is a single factor that can be used to manipulate balance in this case. It is the easiest way that would involve least amount of unexpected errors. Alternative balancing requires adjustment of multiple variables, the consequences of which are harder to predict and harder to tune properly. While I don't doubt that balance can be achieved by adjusting many different factors, I simply find it unnecessary complication. And I don't trust CCP with anything complicated. We gotta keep things as simple as possible for them to get it right.
Soon Shin	Posted - 2010.05.21 05:29:00 - [350] Edited by: Soon Shin on 21/05/2010 05:29:42 Simple the Blasters need MOAR DAMAGE!!!!! You don't need more range,just more damage a perhaps better tracking and/or decrease signature resolution. Blasters have more difficulty blaster smaller ships at their range vs Autocannons and Pulse lasers. I'd say we increase dps by 25-30%, which will reward the player for being able to close into the enemy. A mere 10-15% more than Pulses or Auto's makes it not worth trying to travel towards your enemy and take damage before you can deal damage to them.

Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.05.21 11:27:00 - [351] Edited by: Gypsio III on 21/05/2010 11:32:13 Originally by: Ephemeron Quote: Complicated solution: total strategy change for Gallente ships. Base speed increasing, signature decreasing, special bonuses like stasis web speed factor or other Congratulations on inventing Minmatar. Heh. CCP has only itself to blame for the current mess. It decided projectiles needed a generic boost, apparently on the basis of some kind of comparison with lasers, while ignoring the characteristics of the ships that they were mounted on. That was stupid - the more important comparison is with blasters, as both Minamtar and Gallente ships are best used in solo/small-gang combat. So we got a projectile boost that undeservedly boosted Minmatar ships that were already near the top of the pile - Rifter, Hurricane, Vaga, etc. - while not really fixing the Minmatar ships that actually did need a bit of help. So now we have Minmatar ships that are faster, more agile and possess longer-ranged weapons than Gallente, and, thanks to the importance of being able to choose damage types in small-scale fights, can often simply out-gank their Gallente opponents at close-range as well. Nice one, CCP. I'm not sure that overwhelmingly increasing blaster DPS is the right way out here. Doing that can make blasters overwhelmingly powerful in their niche - but I don't think that's good for the game. Weapons should have an advantage in their niche, but it shouldn't be overwhelming, otherwise combat becomes more predictable and more boring.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.05.21 12:18:00 - [352] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 21/05/2010 12:25:35 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 21/05/2010 12:22:15 Originally by: Gypsio III Heh. CCP has only itself to blame for the current mess. It decided projectiles needed a generic boost, apparently on the basis of some kind of comparison with lasers, while ignoring the characteristics of the ships that they were mounted on. That was stupid - the more important comparison is with blasters, as both Minamtar and Gallente ships are best used in solo/small-gang combat. So we got a projectile boost that undeservedly boosted Minmatar ships that were already near the top of the pile - Rifter, Hurricane, Vaga, etc. - while not really fixing the Minmatar ships that actually did need a bit of help. I told you guys that it would be like that and I got flamed to hell and back because no, projectiles are bad and moar. Actually I have to disagree with you on something, even the bad minmatar ships are solid now (well, OK, except the obvious trash which suffers from tier issues ala stabber and stuff). Even the Tempest is preety cool these days if you use it like a Tier 3 battlecruiser and not a gank/tank battleship (I don't really do sniping). The previously bad ones are now actually rather passable and just fine, the previously good ones are just awesome and tbh are somewhat OP in their respective shipclasses and yes, I fly Minmatar. It worries me that CCP might decide, in their ultimate wisdom, to just blanket-nerf projectiles because tweaking individual stuff is too hard for them. Blasters seem in many ways to be balanced around the state we had in 2007 when they were the ultimate closerange DPS dealers and, for instance, the difficulty of fitting neutrons was there to offset their facemelting capability. Then Amarr got boosted multiple times, then Minmatar got their boost, and so did Caldari a bit previously (torps did, at least). The fact you cannot fit highest tier guns without fitting mods on any sub-bs T1 ship is now completely out of place (both Minmatar and Amarr can). Active tank bonuses on sub-BS ships need to go the way of the dodo, really. Utility high needs to be the norm even at the cost of just blatantly adding 1 more slot to some ships (what? Cyclone has 1 more slot then Brutix already). The guns themselves need a revisit - everything but neutrons has lol DPS and **** range and is really useless, and even neutrons are a bit meh. I think a ship makeover alone with easier fitting would go a looong way. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux	Posted - 2010.05.21 17:33:00 - [353] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 21/05/2010 17:36:57 Originally by: Cpt Branko I told you guys that it would be like that and I got flamed to hell and back because no, projectiles are bad and need moar, and some were claiming what CCP is doing is not enough because of Scorch. First, it was obvious that something had to change, because there were really two "tiers" of weaponry - those that worked and those that didn't. There were plenty of arguments for bringing the overly awesome weapons down to earth, and plenty for boosting the overly sucky weapons up. CCP chose to boost the overly sucky weapons up. The end result was that projectiles are roughly balanced with missiles and lasers while hybrids are getting the shaft. This wasn't necessarily the wrong solution - merely an incomplete one. Quote: Active tank bonuses on sub-BS ships need to go the way of the dodo, really. Bite your tongue. There are ships which it works well on. -Liang Ed: And Gypsio, the only reason that people feel that Minmatar was better at "solo/small gang" PVP was mostly because they were better at avoiding solo and small gang PVP. When you look at the Vaga from the perspective of the Cerb, it looks pretty damn overpowered for solo/small gang PVP. And to a point, you'd be right. But looking at the Cerb from the perspective of a Vaga in a gang with more than 2-3 people and the Cerb starts to look pretty damn overpowered. This is not a problem. -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.05.21 19:35:00 - [354] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 21/05/2010 19:38:41 Originally by: Liang Nuren Bite your tongue. There are ships which it works well on. It doesn't work well on the Brutix or the Astarte because they need the speed and the damage mods and stuff. On paper it works on the Myrmidon, particularly with drugs and stuff but tbh the typical way to die in a solo BC is to get (baited and) blobbed or die in a gang on gang fight, where in both situations nanoing it (particularly if you have snakes) is just much better, and you still kill the usual suspects. So while the rep bonus is somewhat useful sometimes, I'd argue there is a ton of bonuses the Myrm could get which would be much much more useful because so many good setups don't use it at all. I guess they're OK on BS because tank scales much better then DPS as you go up. But anyway, the rep bonus has nothing at all to do on turret ships which need damage mods to be useful. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Fistme	Posted - 2010.05.21 20:28:00 - [355] Or the Brutix and Astarte need more lows.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.05.21 22:05:00 - [356] Originally by: Fistme Or the Brutix and Astarte need more lows. And more fitting and stuff and so on. The thing is this; to get a credibleish active tank for a BC you need a minimum of 5 lowslots (2 reps, 2 eanms or eanm/exp hardener for astarte, dc), which leaves you with exactly 0 lowslots on the, say, Brutix. Which translates into ****poor DPS by virtue of not fitting any damage mods. So let's add one extra lowslot (which would be good), OK, now you can have a magstab, but even if fitting got changed so you can in fact fit cap booster, neutrons, dual reps and mwd (which would be a huuuge fix for the Brutix), we're talking about the difference between 735 DPS for maxed 1 mfs brutix and 848 DPS for maxed 2 mfs Brutix (plated tank requires one low less), or 934 DPS for 3-mfs shield Brutix (which could then fit, eg. dual TEs or TE plus speed mod or stuff). Sure, such a active armor brutix would be modestly useful for someone who does use drugs and have a fancy implant or two, but for it to really make sense the armor rep rig penalty needs to get changed to something other then speed (something irrelevant, preferably, and this should be done anyway). Else when you combine the speed drop and the DPS drop and so on between a shield buffer version and active armor version it's not really worth it for a lot of situations. On the other hand, it could live with a generically useful bonus like, eg. falloff. Or anything gun related for that matter. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Fistme	Posted - 2010.05.21 22:26:00 - [357] rack of ions and 2x rep with 6 lows would be more than enough to bring a dual rep brutix in line with other ganky bcs.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.21 22:47:00 - [358] Originally by: Fistme rack of ions and 2x rep with 6 lows would be more than enough to bring a dual rep brutix in line with other ganky bcs. active tanking BC don't make sense as long as you can get 1.52x more armor for just 6 mil worth of rigs. And the 1600mm plate is significantly better than armor rep. Just calculate how long you need to active repair in order to break even with the plate on HP added - forget the cap requirements 1600mm plate: 4200 hp, 1.25 from skill, 1.52 from rigs, total hp bonus: 7980 medium armor repper: 320 hp over 9 sec (after skill), 1.375 hp ship bonus, 1.2 from combat booster, *1.41 from active boost rigs (stacking penalized), you get: 744.48 / 9 sec or 82.72 hp/sec Therefore, to active repair 7980 you need 96 seconds and about 1715 cap This doesn't even include the added HP bonus from passive HP rigs to base ship armor, which for typical bc adds at least another 2000 hp, while active rigs get nothing like that. So in best case scenario, your active rep plays you your advantage if the battle duration is at least 100 seconds and you don't neuted. And you are willing to pay for boosters. With passive mode you get all those benefits upfront, not 100 seconds later. And if you are in a real pinch, you WANT those hp up front, or you die. Thank's to CCP's carelessness with defensive rigs, making them vastly superior to offensive ones and making them ridiculously cheap, active armor rep has became near obsolete. Since passive armor rigs are so advantages to have, they are nearly a must-have, and that means you have to sacrifice speed, at least 15% less speed. I suppose this is a rant for another topic. But the root of the problem is the same - CCP has incompetent game designers.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.05.21 22:53:00 - [359] Originally by: Fistme rack of ions and 2x rep with 6 lows would be more than enough to bring a dual rep brutix in line with other ganky bcs. Ions and 1 mfs? With ganky BCs? It does 700 dps, ffs, at hugging ranges. Let's compare it to other stuff: - blaster Myrmidon: 846 DPS - HPL Harb: does 823 DPS, can fire all way to disruptor range - FMP/plated/2hs Harb: 669 DPS, again longer ranged - 3 mfs neutron Brutix: 934 DPS - HAM Drake: 719 DPS w Terror Rage (usable vs BCs), 654 DPS w CN terror, again longer ranged - 3 gyro 425mm II 2 neut shiedfit Hurricane: 763 DPS w selectable damage types and much longer range So you do lower end (basically you outdamage FMP Harb and CN terror drake) to gain a active tank which slows you down using weapons which have hugging range (this is sortof important) and that somehow is in line with those ships? I don't think so, tbh. If it could fit neutrons and if armor repair rigs didn't kill speed like they do (which in addition to bad range hurts you even more, since any ship above can preety much kite you with rig penalty in), then you might have a point but this way, no, not really. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.05.22 02:32:00 - [360] Edited by: Goumindong on 22/05/2010 02:34:58 Originally by: Ephemeron 1600mm plate: 4200 hp, 1.25 from skill, 1.52 from rigs, total hp bonus: 7980 medium armor repper: 320 hp over 9 sec (after skill), 1.375 hp ship bonus, 1.2 from combat booster, 1.41 from active boost rigs (stacking penalized), you get: 744.48 / 9 sec or 82.72 hp/sec Overload the rep like any sane pilot would do and it starts to look a lot better. Quote:* So in best case scenario, your active rep plays you your advantage if the battle duration is at least 100 seconds and you don't neuted. And you are willing to pay for boosters. Or you're engaged in more than one fight. Or the fight is not contiguous. Or.... Quote: With passive mode you get all those benefits upfront, not 100 seconds later. And if you are in a real pinch, you WANT those hp up front, or you die. Actually for the most part you just die anyway. The margin on fights you can escape because of plates vs reps is pretty thin when you're flying in very small gangs/solo Originally by: Cpt Branko Ions and 1 mfs? With ganky BCs? It does 700 dps, ffs, at hugging ranges. Tank matters just as much as gank. Quote: Tbh, I wouldn't agree on armor rigs being a must (passive tanking, yes). For a ship like the Brutix the killer really is the speed penalty Again, see how it keeps coming down to the speed aspect? Making them fast and agile will not remove the advantage of skirmish from Minmatar. The advantage of skirmish is to be able to run away and you cannot do that when your effective range is within full tackle(scram/web) range and you have little extra support mechanisms(spare high slots for neuts, etc) -- A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance

Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.05.22 07:18:00 - [361] 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.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.05.22 07:23:00 - [362] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 22/05/2010 07:26:51 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Cpt Branko Ions and 1 mfs? With ganky BCs? It does 700 dps, ffs, at hugging ranges. Tank matters just as much as gank. Yeah, keep parroting that, because that will really end up in a massively useful ship. Except: -In TQ, the best way to lose a solo BC is to get blobbed and die; and bar a skirmish fit, the second best way to deal with this is by having enough DPS to kill it as fast as possible. -People you fight may actually fit a local tank, and if you cannot break it, you're stuck there doing a "who has more cap boosters" match. -Unlike EHP and DPS which are useful always, local tank is useful only while you are primary which really matters, even in small gang situations. Originally by: Goumindong Quote: Tbh, I wouldn't agree on armor rigs being a must (passive tanking, yes). For a ship like the Brutix the killer really is the speed penalty Again, see how it keeps coming down to the speed aspect? Making them fast and agile will not remove the advantage of skirmish from Minmatar. The advantage of skirmish is to be able to run away and you cannot do that when your effective range is within full tackle(scram/web) range Except the part where it does since you can no longer get away, and while the lol idea of stuff like Brutixes becoming the new zoom to it and tackle ship doesn't seem to nerf skirmish of another race to you, it sure does seem that way for me. Particularly since you want to do it by tweaking base values based on armor fit and then assuming people are ****ed enough not to fit it with two speed mods+shieldfit+possibly snakes if they're not poor and be able to catch even a damn vagabond every time. FYI, a shield buffer brutix with 6 lows and a bit more fitting so it doesnt need RCU would already be going 1920m/s heated with OD/nano. That's more then enough to tackle the ships in the same shipclass really quickly (and most non-Minmatar HACs for that matter). Cool story, except players are not that stupid. Well, some aren't. The reasonable change is changing the penalty on armor rep and possibly resist rigs from speed to something irrelevant. Boost base values by a significant amount and yes, of course you break other stuff. And of course it can skirmish, it's called railguns (people don't do this because brutix can't exactly fit railguns well, much in the same way it requires fitting mods for a rack of neutrons and anything really). It's not such a novel concept, people are doing it with medium artillery already. With non-****ed fitting and a extra low it'd be actually fairly solid for this. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition	Posted - 2010.05.22 07:43:00 - [363] Edited by: The Djego on 22/05/2010 07:43:50 Originally by: Ephemeron tweaking close range in positive manner would be undoing the Great Nano Nerf. Make webs 90%, remove MWD deactivation for scramble, make ships fast again. That has worked in the past, then CCP had to ** things up. Raw damage is a single factor that can be used to manipulate balance in this case. It is the easiest way that would involve least amount of unexpected errors. Alternative balancing requires adjustment of multiple variables, the consequences of which are harder to predict and harder to tune properly. While I don't doubt that balance can be achieved by adjusting many different factors, I simply find it unnecessary complication. And I don't trust CCP with anything complicated. We gotta keep things as simple as possible for them to get it right. I to would prefer pre QR stats, even if I flown nearly the hole nano age a plated/trimarked face ** solo BS. It is quite funny that I do use mostly nano setups with ranged dps for exactly the same job this days. shrugs DPS as a number is as meaningless as blaster pvp this days, there is a reason all "pro" blaster pvp is shown with maximum tank and minimum DPS this days. Fixing webs for blaster ships is not complicated or leads to game breaking ships, it simply fixes the meta game and gives blaster ships back his niche. Originally by: Ephemeron Just calculate how long you need to active repair in order to break even with the plate on HP added - forget the cap requirements 1600mm plate: 4200 hp, 1.25 from skill, 1.52 from rigs, total hp bonus: 7980 medium armor repper: 320 hp over 9 sec (after skill), 1.375 hp ship bonus, 1.2 from combat booster, 1.41 from active boost rigs (stacking penalized), you get: 744.48 / 9 sec or 82.72 hp/sec Without slaves, a active tank will remain nearly the same time on the field as a buffer fit(for non comedy active tanks). In many situations unfortunately this will be true in both ways, meaning that it made no real difference going with buffer or active. The problem is that it comes at a huge pricetag of weapon range, flexibility with the fittings, speed(trimarks), slots, dps and being more affected by neuts. With Implants and Combat Boosters it can be effective, but as stand alone on most ships in plain T2 it puts to many drawbacks up in front for something that "might" make a difference in the end. Originally by:* Cpt Branko But anyway, the rep bonus has nothing at all to do on turret ships which need damage mods to be useful. This. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
localhorse	Posted - 2010.05.26 11:28:00 - [364]
crimson fire	Posted - 2010.05.27 18:25:00 - [365] need love
Belsazzar	Posted - 2010.05.27 18:31:00 - [366]
Ryan Starwing	Posted - 2010.05.30 13:48:00 - [367] Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 30/05/2010 13:49:12 If ccp fixes hybrids they fix most gallente and caldari gun boats. Hybrids use both cap and ammo to top it off with a 10 second reload and a fixed damage type. On top of blasters having shortest range in the game and rails having the lowest dps or close to it if they are bonused for damage. Though blasters do deal 10% more dps, and range bonused rails got more range but are limited by the 250km targeting range which the apoc can match. These strengths are not enough to justify the weaknesses. PS:Gallente drone boats and Caldari missile boats =/= Gun boats. tldr:Hybrids suck and need a buff.
Leila Duran	Posted - 2010.05.30 17:40:00 - [368] heal the hybrid.
Sebastian Baseesh	Posted - 2010.05.30 17:44:00 - [369] As a main gallente driver I'd like to see this evened out.
Jaybird Research Group	Posted - 2010.05.30 22:50:00 - [370] yep. [orange]Only one image is allowed to be used in the signature. Second image has been removed. -Hango ([email protected][/oran

Aram Solari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2010.05.31 00:59:00 - [371] Edited by: Aram Solari on 31/05/2010 01:00:38 Agreed. Blasters AND Hybrids on a whole need work.
Enzu777	Posted - 2010.05.31 01:03:00 - [372] plz as a gallente
Ethos777	Posted - 2010.05.31 01:03:00 - [373] plz as friend of a gallente
Ryan Starwing	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:53:00 - [374] Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 01/06/2010 00:54:02 Come on people we need to keep this thread on the 1st page so maby ccp will see it and do some math and figure out that blasters/rails are underpowered and offer nothing over the other weapon systems except 10% more dps/range with all the down sides that the other turret systems have with lowest range/dps.
Qui Chen	Posted - 2010.06.01 06:46:00 - [375] +1
Presbyter	Posted - 2010.06.01 13:21:00 - [376] +1
CrashOveride Malium Imperium	Posted - 2010.06.05 07:38:00 - [377] lets face it.. with the combination of 0 range, 60% webs, and speed nerfs.. blasters are a thing of the past. Fit projectiles like everyone else and win with alpha. Not like like any of it matters in pvpppppp anyway. lock fast and high alpha. minnys win.
z0de The Bastards The Tusker Bastards	Posted - 2010.06.05 13:20:00 - [378] á á
True Trade	Posted - 2010.06.05 13:24:00 - [379] Hear our collective cry! CCP AT LEAST TELL US WE HAVE BEEN HEARD!
WittyName Here	Posted - 2010.06.05 14:58:00 - [380] Supported

The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition	Posted - 2010.06.13 09:53:00 - [381] Edited by: The Djego on 13/06/2010 09:53:35 Bumpski Still waiting for the day CCP puts back solo into solo blaster pvp... ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Terios Corvalis HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2010.06.15 10:42:00 - [382] Edited by: Terios Corvalis on 15/06/2010 10:45:58 Instead of boosting blasters I'm saying it's a good thing that weapon systems for different races has advantages/disadvantages like dps, ROF, falloff, optimal. This game would be pretty boring if only the name and the damage type would be different for all races. Clearly you need the balance these weapon systems tho. Instead of boosting the falloff and optimal of blasters, I think the ship platforms themselves should be changed. For example the typical blaster ship hulls like thorax, brutix, megathron and hyperion and their T2/faction variants should get a 25% base speed bonus, so you still need to get within point blank range to cause a lot of damage, but with a faster ship U would have the chance to do it. Nowadays it's really not a wise thing to pick up a fight for an astarte with a sleipnir, because U wont stand a chance to get in range in time. The same applies for fleet fights, for example 10 cyclones would simply **** 10 brutixes in no time because the brutixes would spend the most of their time by chasing down their targets instead of shooting them.
BFish Bushwhackers Rough Necks	Posted - 2010.06.17 05:17:00 - [383] As a butthurt Gallente pilot I am definitely inclined to agree with this argument. Supported ----------------- -----------------
Joshmanus	Posted - 2010.06.17 11:07:00 - [384] Would be cool if T2 ammo buffed trackingspeed & falloff instead of nerfing it, that would solve quite a few problems id assume.
Aram Yong University of Caille	Posted - 2010.06.19 08:45:00 - [385] Back to the top. I noticed this description on my Neutron Blaster II today. "No other turret class can match the sheer destructive power of particle blasters" Oh really? Autocannon and Pulse Laser equivalents blow the above away and still have SUPERIOR range.
Mihali	Posted - 2010.06.19 11:47:00 - [386] Think the Gallente have been nerfed long enough. Before the speed nerf, people feared our blaster boats, now it's just lolblasters. Stop messing with my slack, pinko. Praise Bob!
Ryan Starwing Gallente Martyr's Vengence Looney Toons.	Posted - 2010.06.20 22:43:00 - [387] bump
Syekuda State Protectorate	Posted - 2010.06.20 22:59:00 - [388] I have to admit, blasters have ridiculous range compared their damage. like op says, more damage or more range. but giving the "role" of the blasters I would go with 25/75 on range/damage if you ask me. More damage is the way to go imo. supported
Kvo Vadis	Posted - 2010.06.20 23:25:00 - [389] Change Gallente boats damage bonus from 5% to 7.5% (Like Vindicator has) It will solve several problems: 1. Quick temporary solution. CCP do not have much time for fine tuning Gallenete race. 2. It will boost hybrid weapon of Gallente ships but not Caldari (Actually Caldari have optimal bonus for all hybrid weapon ships) 3. This boost will not change Gallente tactics as extremely close range fighters. P.S. For those who say "It will not solve the problem of applying DPS" read item "1" P.S.S Cross training to Minmatar ships. They are very good for PVP: CAP independent weapon, fast ships, have slots for neutralizers, selectable damage type, very good range due to falloff, tiny Auto Cannon PG requirements
Psycho symbiosis Blue Sun. Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2010.06.21 07:20:00 - [390] support

Ravinus Brown Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United	Posted - 2010.06.21 08:42:00 - [391] Supported.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2010.06.21 14:17:00 - [392] I have been calling for this change for years and have always been ignored. I suggest we en mass write petitions and spam forums until CCP get tired and change blasters. As an avid blaster pilot I suggest more range over more DPS. I don't care about this nonsense that blasters will encroach on autocannons, because lasers outdamage and outreach all guns anyway. Ridiculous, stupid and time for this to change. If this thread is forgotten I will simply create another one, as I'm tired of this bull****.
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition	Posted - 2010.06.21 14:45:00 - [393] Edited by: The Djego on 21/06/2010 14:47:58 Originally by: Super Whopper As an avid blaster pilot I suggest more range over more DPS. You should not have a lot of issues in a blaster fitted Ibis. If you want more range you can always fly another race or use another weapon. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Isil Rahsen Ferrum Superum	Posted - 2010.06.21 21:01:00 - [394] Supported, though I doubt CCP will do anything about the lopsided turret balance. Pretty much have given up on Hybrids ever being fixed and am now training for Lasers.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2010.06.22 11:30:00 - [395] Bumping this thread to first page.
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari Cruoris Seraphim Exalted.	Posted - 2010.06.22 11:59:00 - [396] posting in a thread full of people refusing to use anything else but blasters and CN antimatter on their ships. Majority of blaster setups I know put out more dps than their AC/pulse counterparts and considering that you need to think about whole picture with warp scramblers/webs, ability to field drones and optimal etc. In fleet again you're supposed to fit railguns in your hybrid ships. Blasters are like... are you like... mentally challenged? Even with railguns gallente ships are generally better choice over caldari equivalents. It's not excuse to boost all guns if some certain ships (like deimos maybe) could use some kind of role oomph. Even deimos is decent ship but ishtar able to field battleship class weapon systems in hac hull is just too lucrative over deimos. But alright it's irc post. Just noticed. :P
Hueijin San Estrale Frontiers	Posted - 2010.06.22 14:25:00 - [397] +1 for all blaster /hybrid fixes
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2010.06.22 18:26:00 - [398] Originally by: Xahara increase blasters' damage to match their ridiculous range supported ...
Veaon	Posted - 2010.06.23 04:39:00 - [399] Support for blaster rebalance, infact support for a overall balance pass/look at gallente in general. Lets keep this thread going
Magna Carta	Posted - 2010.06.24 15:45:00 - [400] As a cross trainer from caldari ships to gallente ships, i was forced to train blasters and railguns as well. Everything was nice and sweet, but when i reached the Marauder type class: Kronos, i started to PVP with the Kronos on the test server. The fitting was good looking and with potential on the fitting screen. But, out on the field, things changed... Encoutering an Autocannon user which shoots aprox 6.000 damage per salvo at every range he was, and i barely hitted him for aprox 1.500 damage per salvo at over 10km, made me think it was something wrong with my fitting. But i see it was not. So: PLEASE FIX BLASTERS !!! Losing ships on Tranquility just because the blasters, it's not PVP, it's slaughter. Thank You

Zensunni Warrior	Posted - 2010.06.27 08:38:00 - [401] Back to the top. Blasters and hybrids in general need help.
Marlona Sky D00M. RED.OverLord	Posted - 2010.06.27 09:17:00 - [402] Anyone look at the fitting requirements of medium blasters? Look at the percentage of DPS that Ion does over Electron blasters then compare that to the power grid too. Same for Neutron over Ion. The DPS goes up a little but the power grid requirement goes up by over 50% on each level. Because I am no spread sheet guru, could someone crunch some numbers and post them showing percentage of DPS vs. power grid?
Ryan Starwing Gallente Martyr's Vengence Looney Toons.	Posted - 2010.06.27 12:51:00 - [403] Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn posting in a thread full of people refusing to use anything else but blasters and CN antimatter on their ships. Majority of blaster setups I know put out more dps than their AC/pulse counterparts and considering that you need to think about whole picture with warp scramblers/webs, ability to field drones and optimal etc. In fleet again you're supposed to fit railguns in your hybrid ships. Blasters are like... are you like... mentally challenged? Even with railguns gallente ships are generally better choice over caldari equivalents. It's not excuse to boost all guns if some certain ships (like deimos maybe) could use some kind of role oomph. Even deimos is decent ship but ishtar able to field battleship class weapon systems in hac hull is just too lucrative over deimos. But alright it's irc post. Just noticed. :P Just to let you know amarr and minmatar can also use drones, and some of them can use them just as well as a gallente blasterboat (the ones with no drone bonus). Also the only time you outdamage those auto/pulse setups using faction close range is when you use neutrons with faction antimatter. Also rails just suck even more then blasters. PS:High fitting requirments+low range+cap use+ammo use+fixed damage types+some tracking issues at optimal+10%-15% more dps=not worth it
Cordran Li Silver Angels Inc	Posted - 2010.06.27 16:09:00 - [404] Supported
Takseen	Posted - 2010.06.27 22:44:00 - [405] Supported. I want to use blasters as a Gallente pilot, but even on bonused ships they're outperformed by pulse lasers in nearly every situation.
Lirey	Posted - 2010.06.28 02:07:00 - [406] Edited by: Lirey on 28/06/2010 02:08:09 I have a char (3 years Gallente). Only Gallente drone ships are usefull. Blasters suck against AC/Pulse. P.S. Rails VS Arty/Beam suck even more
Aram Yong Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2010.06.28 09:55:00 - [407] Bumping to the top. Don't make me crosstrain projectiles.
Rashmika Clavain	Posted - 2010.06.28 11:18:00 - [408] I'd be happy for: -increase on base damage modifier for all blasters -increase on base optimal for hybrids (plus remove the 250km hard cap) -nerf Scorch ammo :P
Takseen	Posted - 2010.06.28 11:22:00 - [409] Forgot to mention that I'm currently crosstraining to lasers for my Dominix, as they're superior to hybrids in practically all respects for PvE.
Pneumon Blaster Interspatial Logistics Rogue Elements.	Posted - 2010.06.29 09:00:00 - [410] Supported. Offering EVE KB's & Websites/Forums incl. hosting for ISK.

Pasadenasman	Posted - 2010.06.29 10:10:00 - [411] gallent = Slow boat inexistent optimal range falloloff? real pwg/cap eater for paper dps ho last things advanced Projectil ammo have a falloff modifier in range with the use of the weapon and gun... advanced blaster ammo have too this bonus on falloff but 25% less than projectil... why not an optimal bonus on advanced ammo, to get in range with the way to play it? Do you think ccp can do it ? yeas they did it... but they nerf the tracking on this ammo \0/ further... the ammo that can gives the more dps in blaster (void)has the optimal ,the tracking and the falloff modifier in negative. Do i mentionned the +25% cap eater just for shooting with this lolammo? Note : Hail medium has too the cap modif in negative. but only 7% with a gun that not requires any cap for shooting and ships has base velocity higher than other ship. So in short, you have a gun/ammo config that be supposed to overpowered other when in range but you have a slow boat that will never get in range... when in range you can't maintain this range. when you may maintain this range you don't have the tracking needed :-) and when you have all above... you don't have any cap to keep shooting target. Switching ammo takes 10sec... You must admit CCP that hybrid is well balanced in game... but for the 2005 eveonline... not for the 2010 game. when ships become more and more fast, more and more powerfull, gallent just stay the same. And this is not because pilots don't have imagination in fitting them... And plz...plz... don't tell me about drones... Last fight i need to give the order "attack" 3 times during the fight... drones are attacking then just sitting on their ass. you have to give the order once more... and more... and more... Post fully supported.
Aram Solari Gallente Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2010.06.29 23:51:00 - [412] Back to the top. Blasters and hybrids in general need a lot of love. As it is projectiles and lasers both out damage and out range blasters.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2010.07.02 01:49:00 - [413] I was thinking, maybe I should petition every single blaster boat I lose because CCP are too lazy to fix this problem. The only thing they might be able to understand is harrassment. GIVE BLASTERS MORE RANGE FFS!!
Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.07.02 02:06:00 - [414] blasters+ range boost = pulses do not brake races tactics balance. blaster boats need damage boost to compensate all disadvantages (range, cap use, fixed damage, big fitting requirements)
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2010.07.03 05:59:00 - [415] Originally by: Fettered Soul blasters+ range boost = pulses do not brake races tactics balance. blaster boats need damage boost to compensate all disadvantages (range, cap use, fixed damage, big fitting requirements) You mean like Autocannons? I demand more range!
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2010.07.03 08:12:00 - [416] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Fettered Soul blasters+ range boost = pulses do not brake races tactics balance. blaster boats need damage boost to compensate all disadvantages (range, cap use, fixed damage, big fitting requirements) You mean like Autocannons? I demand more range! ACs work great. My Mach is brilliant. - Originally by: Bellum Eternus That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2010.07.03 08:21:00 - [417] Originally by: Super Whopper I have been calling for this change for years and have always been ignored. I suggest we en mass write petitions and spam forums until CCP get tired and change blasters. As an avid blaster pilot I suggest more range over more DPS. I don't care about this nonsense that blasters will encroach on autocannons, because lasers outdamage and outreach all guns anyway. Ridiculous, stupid and time for this to change. If this thread is forgotten I will simply create another one, as I'm tired of this bull**. As an avid blaster user, your idea of more range is total crap. More DPS/tracking, same range. - Originally by:** Bellum Eternus That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2010.07.03 14:31:00 - [418] Originally by: Bellum Eternus ACs work great. My Mach is brilliant. Your reading comprehension is in the same category as gaylente ships: pretty bad.
Selenia Atiames	Posted - 2010.07.06 22:21:00 - [419] more damage please! to bring back the "yeah! Im finally in range!!"-moments
Altaman	Posted - 2010.07.06 23:05:00 - [420] +1 Blasterthron like in the old days! more dps and back to 90% webs pls (no need for tracking boosts)

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2010.07.14 02:51:00 - [421] It's ridiculous that the most used used ships now are Amarr ones. CCP really don't care about anyone else and it's ridiculous. Back to first page.
Zensunni Warrior	Posted - 2010.07.14 11:22:00 - [422] Back to the top.
Belsazzar	Posted - 2010.07.15 00:01:00 - [423] From the minutes its pretty clear ccp thinks new content is the big selling point. I dont think they will rebalance the ships. Everyone can agree something is very wrong, but at the same time they can not make everyone happy. The reasoning is why bother.
Arkanor Gallente Ixion Defence Systems	Posted - 2010.07.15 09:00:00 - [424] Originally by: Belsazzar From the minutes its pretty clear ccp thinks new content is the big selling point. I dont think they will rebalance the ships. Everyone can agree something is very wrong, but at the same time they can not make everyone happy. The reasoning is why bother. I hope not, that's a ridiculous stance. I don't want to have to cross-train Amarr
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2010.07.15 14:19:00 - [425] Originally by: Belsazzar From the minutes its pretty clear ccp thinks new content is the big selling point. I dont think they will rebalance the ships. Everyone can agree something is very wrong, but at the same time they can not make everyone happy. The reasoning is why bother. You mean like all the injustice and wrongs in the world, the world will always have bad things, so why would anyone care and try to change things, right? I'm sure Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Louis Armstrong and Che would agree with you their struggles were all a waste of time. Let's go ask Nelson Mandela how that worked out for him. While I can only dream of being as great as one of the ones above it doesn't mean I will give up on this cause.
siC0 b0b	Posted - 2010.07.15 15:17:00 - [426] Anyone who doesn't see major problems with Hybrid turrets and ships using them is just an EFT warrior.
Ryan Starwing Gallente Martyr's Vengence OWN Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.18 03:03:00 - [427] 3 weapon systems that need help Blasters (smalls can work though) Rails (smalls also can work) Rockets (they are called lolkets for a reason)
InColdBlood	Posted - 2010.07.20 18:56:00 - [428] Front page news: Blasters SNAFU
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.07.29 02:44:00 - [429] Revivin' tis topic...
Erik Legant	Posted - 2010.07.29 11:01:00 - [430] Supported

Fragglewump	Posted - 2010.07.30 01:42:00 - [431] [Supported] Galente really do need a boost in pvp and i rally would like to see them get a blaster dmg increase as i do believe they should be in ya face ships. all so why cant they shoot all damage types since its the same as a projectile weapons just with out the gun powder.
DXYOC	Posted - 2010.07.30 13:58:00 - [432]
Dabljuh	Posted - 2010.07.30 17:25:00 - [433] Edited by: Dabljuh on 30/07/2010 17:26:46 I've taken a long and in depth look at the problem of blasters. 1. Tracking. The biggest Problem blasters have is that they have the worst relative tracking out of all the guns out there. At the same time, guns by and large, and especially long range weapons, actually have way too much tracking. As a solution, nerf the tracking of all weapon systems other than blasters. This will seriously screw up mission runners however, whose missions usually involve long range weapons and many small targets. Then again, the most successful mission boats never used hybrids as their primary armament. 2. Blaster platforms. A "Lightning Bruiser" platform that is depending on controlling distance more than any other ship requires speed and agility as well as substantial Ehp to make up for the complete lack of range inherent to the combination of blasters and drones, which are the gallentean doctrine. It is too easy to defeat blaster platforms of the same class by simply staying outside their range. Heavy armor plating is a must for a blaster platform, just to survive the time it takes to get into blaster range when attacking a ship of a bigger, slower class. Heavy armor plating however massively reduces effective speed and agility. Solution: Increase both speed and agility of blaster platforms. The only alternative is to fundamentally change the gallente, without a huge agility and speed, blasters don't work, which means they'd be better off being shield tankers. Range Speed Power Toughness Pick three.
Lilith Vayl	Posted - 2010.08.02 11:20:00 - [434] Supported
Denidil Rape Pillage and Burn	Posted - 2010.08.05 23:33:00 - [435] +1
Kreliaan	Posted - 2010.08.06 02:24:00 - [436] PLEASE DO SOMETHING TO FIX THIS AGING ISSUE, CCP. PLEASE!
Soleil Fournier UNFAITHFUL SHADOWS Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2010.08.06 22:07:00 - [437] Blaster range needs to be improved to around 20-30km With speed being the norm, getting in range and staying in range is a major issue, and more leeway is needed.
Fistme	Posted - 2010.08.06 22:16:00 - [438] Originally by: Soleil Fournier Blaster range needs to be improved to around 20-30km With speed being the norm, getting in range and staying in range is a major issue, and more leeway is needed. ur dumb, pulse range with blaster dps is stupid. moar dmg, not rng bro
Slick O'Hara The Sons of Anarchy.	Posted - 2010.08.06 22:38:00 - [439] Edited by: Slick O''Hara on 06/08/2010 22:41:06 Originally by: Super Whopper It's ridiculous that the most used used ships now are Amarr ones. CCP really don't care about anyone else and it's ridiculous. Apparently the Drake and Hulk are now Amarr ships. Also Che was a racist terrorist, Ghandi was a racist sex fiend and Mother Teresa was a Sadistic extremist who denied the ill comfort and treatment whilst hiding the financial details of her charity, but please spout more crap.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.08.07 09:06:00 - [440] Originally by: Fistme Originally by: Soleil Fournier Blaster range needs to be improved to around 20-30km With speed being the norm, getting in range and staying in range is a major issue, and more leeway is needed. ur dumb, pulse range with blaster dps is stupid. moar dmg, not rng bro 20-30km is to much but more range is right. It needs to be double optimal then what it is right now 15km. That would do two things. First it puts the optimal right between projectials and pulse's were it should be. After that I would wait and see how that go's for a spell. And yes optimal needs inc. Blasters are from the days gone by when BS's could first go 1,200km and from a second age were you could double web effectivaly. Now both thoughs days are gone. I have more ideals after the optimal is inc. But that should be the first step right there. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.

Guilliman R Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.08.07 10:47:00 - [441] 6km blaster range is hilariously bad with AM ammo :(
Ryan Starwing Gallente Martyr's Vengence OWN Alliance	Posted - 2010.08.18 02:25:00 - [442] Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 18/08/2010 02:26:01 Bump PS:The best reason to train gal right now is for angel faction ships.
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.08.18 17:56:00 - [443] Originally by: Rip Minner And yes optimal needs inc. Blasters are from the days gone by when BS's could first go 1,200km and from a second age were you could double web effectivaly. My BS still goes over 1200 m/s(obvious it isn't a mega). A mega in 2006 did 1250-1400m/s, depending on the MWD, before they added mass to the MWDs. A 90% Web was 4 times stronger than a 60% is now. Originally by: Rip Minner Now both thoughs days are gone. I have more ideals after the optimal is inc. But that should be the first step right there. If you want more range there is still Caldari, Amarr or Mini, DPS is quite comparable in general game play. I for myself don't see any reason to increase range, there are a lot ships that can do this already. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Cpt Wisdoom	Posted - 2010.08.29 09:26:00 - [444] Hybrid turrets is inferior now. They combine drawbacks of particle cannons and lazers, while does'nt have any advantage. Hybrids must be busted, cause gallentians gunships is pretty useless nowdays.
crimson fire	Posted - 2010.08.29 19:22:00 - [445] Obviously the first step must be to get CSM involved. Everyone mail your griviances to them, maybe they will hear your cry if you all scream in unison
Viribus Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.08.29 19:30:00 - [446] Originally by: crimson fire Obviously the first step must be to get CSM involved. Everyone mail your griviances to them, maybe they will hear your cry if you all scream in unison >implying the CSM actually does anything and isn't just a place for CCP to direct complaints and placate the masses
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.08.30 17:13:00 - [447] I had originally trained Caldari and Gallente ships across the board. T2 blasters and rails. I tried to argue that these weapons were broken. Nothing happened. So, I trained Amarr across the board. Flying the Zealot now drives home how bad the Eagle and Deimos are. CR Geddon put the Mega in perspective (Mega is terribly inferior). LR Poc just makes the Rokh embarrassing to fly. Training Minmatar now and it seems similar revelations as to the inadequacies of hybrids are in store. I guess, to the people posting support here, don't give up hope, but you really should just train something else for the time being. Hybrids have been the bottom of the pile for over a year now. Don't hold your breath. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Lev Aeris b.b.k	Posted - 2010.08.30 18:15:00 - [448] Edited by: Lev Aeris on 30/08/2010 18:16:17 Hybrids in general are dated / archaic / obsolete with the current game mechanics. I tend to agree that blasters could do with a tracking and damage buff, the range would be fine if they did significantly more damage than say pulse lasers.
Doctero Aperture Harmonics K162	Posted - 2010.08.30 18:30:00 - [449] Supported. Blasters need to do moar damage. Especially since they use vastly more m3 of ammo compared to lasers.
Marcked Buggler	Posted - 2010.08.30 19:40:00 - [450] Edited by: Marcked Buggler on 30/08/2010 19:40:15 Also, can we have blaster long-range ammo fixed??

Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.08.31 07:01:00 - [451] I guess CCP will not return old web effect (-90% webbed ship) CCP will not implement crazy ideas about adding special effects to blasters like shield penetration, stunning effect, webbing effect and other CCP will not give more range to blasters it will blur advantage of laser optimal and AC falloff The more logical is to increase DAMAGE and TRACKING. Make blasters outstanding in extremely short-range engagements if you do not want to change range. As for now I do not see advantage of blasters. Pulses do almost the same damage as blasters (85%) at 300% optimal (400% comparing Scorch VS Null) P.S. Do not send me EFT fits of 1000 DPS Brutix and 1450 DPS Hyperion.
Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2010.08.31 07:09:00 - [452] Originally by: Doctor Aibolit I guess CCP will not return old web effect (-90% webbed ship) CCP will not implement crazy ideas about adding special effects to blasters like shield penetration, stunning effect, webbing effect and other CCP will not give more range to blasters it will blur advantage of laser optimal and AC falloff The more logical is to increase DAMAGE and TRACKING. Make blasters outstanding in extremely short-range engagements if you do not want to change range. As for now I do not see advantage of blasters. Pulses do almost the same damage as blasters (85%) at 300% optimal (400% comparing Scorch VS Null) P.S. Do not send me EFT fits of 1000 DPS Brutix and 1450 DPS Hyperion. Well they could boost ships too and balance out fitting reqs(insane atm:( ) also they could redesing the whole hybrid ammo/gun line just like projectiles imho best is to do both
Uriel Winston	Posted - 2010.09.01 00:29:00 - [453] blaster brutix is FAIL, it will die fast once locked ~ active tank is pretty crap unless you solo 1v1 ~ ~ a cane will orbit a brutix even when scrammed ~ ~ a harb will simply demolish the brutix no need to move around, it can kill it before it flies away ~ ~ if you solo in a brutix you failed, use a myrmidon with acs/pulse next time ~ so yes blasters sucks ass, they have hard time tracking an orbiting bs in optimal. Railguns (or Failguns) will prolly hit for 36.6 damage something moving at 40-50km.... again a pulse can do the same with just more damage. make blaster Shotgun like weapon, ofc Not aoe, just MASSIVE DAMAGE thats whats supposed to be... also "railguns" is lame to deal thermal damage.. explosive is more likely since RAILGUNS USE PROJECTILE AMMO (in reallity that is).
Arnold Predator	Posted - 2010.09.04 05:09:00 - [454] I had to buy a T3 just to use blasters. It gets better dps and tracking do to subsystem layout. To Fix blasters: More damage, same range, much better tracking. Make hybrid guns reload in 5 seconds not 10. A blaster or rail gun has to use ammo, thats just how they work. The ablity to change damage types should be possable too. They are infact half way between normal guns and lazers. T2 ammo is pointless right now so that could use a look into as well. maybe make a ammo that does good damage (80% max) but has + to optmal and falloff. nerf scorch so its got the end all of ammo to shut people up. Not much but just enough to bring the range down a little bit. The above changes would make me happy. My t3 would shoot for over 1000dps, be able to shot anything that flys at it and really be able to dish out the dps, not just say it can...for once.
Grut The Protei	Posted - 2010.09.04 09:51:00 - [455] Originally by: Arnold Predator I had to buy a T3 just to use blasters. It gets better dps and tracking do to subsystem layout. To Fix blasters: I posted a similar solution in another thread. Increase medium / large rail damage by 10% Increase medium / large blaster damage by 15% Reduce reload to 5 seconds Reduce charge size to 1/2 that of projectiles (reducing gun cap accordingly) Devide the ammo into two types at each range; "Gal ammo" One 4:1 thermal to kinetic damage + tracking ( tracking bonus starts around 10% and increases as the ammo range increases) "Caldari ammo" One 4:1 kinetic to thermal damage - cap use ( cap bonus starts around 15% and increases as the ammo range increases) ^^ that puts hybrids inbetween projectiles and rails, they get their own unqiue identity without being worst of both, and they take a little more thought to use. Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know... Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought
Jahpahjay	Posted - 2010.09.04 15:17:00 - [456] Supported I've read some really good ideas in here. Not sure I'm even picky about which ideas to go with--hybrids just need help, period.
Arnold Predator	Posted - 2010.09.05 03:12:00 - [457] Originally by: Grut I posted a similar solution in another thread. Increase medium / large rail damage by 20% Increase medium / large blaster damage by 25% Reduce reload to 5 seconds Reduce charge size to 1/2 that of projectiles (reducing gun cap accordingly) Devide the ammo into two types at each range; "Gal ammo" One 4:1 thermal to kinetic damage + tracking ( tracking bonus starts around 25% and increases as the ammo range Decreases) "Caldari ammo" One 4:1 kinetic to thermal damage - cap use ( cap bonus starts around 15% and increases as the ammo range increases) ^^ that puts hybrids inbetween projectiles and rails, they get their own unqiue identity without being worst of both, and they take a little more thought to use. There I fixed it for you.
Arnold Predator	Posted - 2010.09.05 07:39:00 - [458] I'm going to use a common pvp scenario. 1v1 Hybrids vs Lasers. The combatants this time are Neutron Blasters vs Pulse Lasers both tech 2 (D X H / F) * (O+A) = W D = Dmg mod, H = Highest dmg ammo, F = fire rate in seconds, O = Optimal and A = fAlloff, W= Weapon score Heavy Neutron Blaster II: (4.2 x 24 / 5.25)(1800+5000)=W 1800 because thatÆs half of the guns normal optimal. Have to take into account the -50% optimal you get with antimatter. (100.8/5.25) (6800) = W (19.2)(6800)=W 130560 Weapon score. Tracking of .1 With Null M t2 ammo the weapon Score goes to 167200 [for those who like math thatÆs (4.2 x 22 / 5.25)(4500+5000) Heavy Pulse Laser II: (3.6 x 24 / 5.25) (6000+4000) again 6000 not 12000 due to the -50% you get from multi. (86.4 / 5.25) (10000) (16.4)(10000) 164000 Weapon score Tracking of 0.08125 With Scorch M t2 ammo the weapon score goes up too 332200 [for those who like math thatÆs (3.6 x 22 / 5.25)(18000+4000) So in this match up the guy flying the pulse laser would be 25.6% better of then the guy flying the Heavy Neutron Blaster. (164000/130560) According to these numbers taken from (http://wiki.eveonline.com) heavy pulse lasers put out 85.4% of the damage that neutron blasters do. (16.4/19.2) However Lasers have a 333% longer optimal and a 47% longer over all range then blasters. Now I know blasters are meant as extreme close range weapons but the damage output of lasers compared to there range clearly indicates that lasers are FAR better then blasters. The heavy pulse laser only gives up 14.6% the damage of blasters but can put that dps 333% further then the heavy blaster can. Sound to me like Blasters need to do more damage or have a longer range. Or both. For those who say that lasers have bad tracking, your right they do. Were your arguments about lasers having bad tracking falls apart is that with the range of lasers optimal youÆre less likely to miss due to tracking problems then hybrids. Hybrids need much more tracking then lasers due to there extreme close range nature. The lasers have 81.25% the tracking of hybrid turrets but 47% more range and a 333% better optimal and so tracking is not as big of an issue. (.08125/.1) This indicates to me that hybrid turrets also need a bonus to tracking. DonÆt even get me started about Scorch ammo. A heavy pulse laser with scorch has 10 times the optimal of blasters (18000 vs 1800) shoot for 78% of blasters and has a total range of 323% more then blasters with fall off. (assuming normal antimatter vs scorch)
Arnold Predator	Posted - 2010.09.05 07:45:00 - [459] K so we determined that Blasters are a joke for pvp as you will never be able to make it to optimal before youÆre blown up. Well I want to pvp and all I have is Hybrid weapons left. LetÆs see how Railguns fare in pvp as itÆs our only other option. 250mm Railgun II (3.3 x 24 / 6.375) (14400+12000) (79.2/6.375) (26400) (12.42)(26400) 327888 Weapon score Tracking 0.023 Heavy Beam Laser II (3.6 x 24 / 6.00)(12000+8000) (86.4/6.00)(20000) (14.4)(20000) 288000 weapons score. Tracking 0.033 So again the lasers are a better choice then blasters all around. Shorter optimal, less damage, and worse trackingà. No wonder railguns are called failguns.
Frank Madox Solarwind Interstellar Mining and Production Ltd	Posted - 2010.09.07 09:30:00 - [460] Supported. Hybrids really need some love and perhaps Gallente ship bonuses as well, but thats another topic.

TheWarpGhost	Posted - 2010.09.07 13:39:00 - [461] Im relatively new to the game and even Ive given up on hybrids already. I support a change. * * * Death is it's own reward, but so is chocolate.
Arnold Predator	Posted - 2010.09.08 12:13:00 - [462] Originally by: TheWarpGhost Im relatively new to the game and even Ive given up on hybrids already. I support a change. Hybrids work... on a tech 3.... in pvE... and that's about it.
William Archer	Posted - 2010.09.08 16:48:00 - [463] / support
Gewrixlera	Posted - 2010.09.08 17:49:00 - [464] Mmmm Blasters. In your face ultraviolence, at arms length they tickle. Or at least, that's how I would like to believe in them. Currently they do tickle, at arms length...
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2010.09.09 13:44:00 - [465] Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 09/09/2010 13:44:26 meh.. I will support to making rails most longest range I will also support boosting blaster damage. I really would like to see lock on range beyond 250 without remote boost. I think that would help railguns alot.
Jahpahjay	Posted - 2010.09.09 13:49:00 - [466] Supported
mazzilliu	Posted - 2010.09.10 06:01:00 - [467] i honestly dont remember if this has been raised yet by a csm but i raised this anyways for the next meeting, and if it's a duplicate i can just cancel it. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Fix_blasters_%28CSM%29
Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.09.10 06:57:00 - [468] Edited by: Fettered Soul on 10/09/2010 06:59:48 Edited by: Fettered Soul on 10/09/2010 06:58:26 Originally by: mazzilliu i honestly dont remember if this has been raised yet by a csm but i raised this anyways for the next meeting, and if it's a duplicate i can just cancel it. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Fix_blasters_%28CSM%29 Could you change "Potential Solution". Increasing range for blasters brake its tactical distinction. Please add second Potential Solution: "Increasing DPS and tracking" Pulse Lasers = good DPS at insane range AC = good DPS (using adjustable damage type) at medium range. Good tracking. Blasters = should have EXTREME DPS with EXTREME tracking at VERY CLOSE range (leave range as is). Increasing range for blasters is creating second "Pulse Blaser" P.S. as for now Blasters does not have EXTREME DPS (Lasers do 85% blaster damage at 300% range) and EXTREME tracking (AC have almost the same)
knobber Jobbler Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2010.09.10 22:34:00 - [469] +1
Arnold Predator Gallente	Posted - 2010.09.11 04:57:00 - [470] Edited by: Arnold Predator on 11/09/2010 05:03:16 A way to fix medium blasters By Arnold Predator Very long but has a fix I hope people can agree on. In a previous post I worked some numbers that scored weapons based on damage output and range. In this post I'm going to expand on that a little more and include projectile weapons as well as try to find a way to balance all three turret types we each other. Here are the best of the medium sized turrets. Each is using there highest damage type ammo. 425MM Autocannon II: (3.465 x 24 / 5.625)(1200+9600)=W 1200 not 2400 due to the -50% optimal you get with Phased Plasma ammo. (14.784) (10800) = W (83.16/5.25) (10800) = W (14.784) (10800) = 159667.2 Tracking of .1056 Heavy Neutron Blaster II: (4.2 x 24 / 5.25)(1800+5000)=W 1800 not 3600 due to the -50% optimal you get with antimatter ammo. (100.8/5.25) (6800) = W (19.2)(6800)= 130560 Weapon score. Tracking of .1 Heavy Pulse Laser II: (3.6 x 24 / 5.25) (6000+4000) again 6000 not 12000 due to the -50% you get from multispectral ammo. (86.4 / 5.25) (10000) (16.4)(10000) = 164000 Weapon score Tracking of 0.08125 DPS: 19.2, 16.4, and 14.784 blasters have more DPS over pulse lasers by 17%, and 31% over auto cannons. Blasters should have much more damage over any other weapon type. Range: (optimal + falloff) Auto cannons have the best range over all but itÆs not by much. The range advantage is only 800m longer then lasers and a whopping 4000m longer then blasters. Optimal: Pulse Lasers have a huge advantage on optimal. Pulse lasers have a 6000m optimal apposed to the 1800m of blasters and the 1200m of auto cannons. Optimal: Pulse Lasers have a huge advantage on optimal. Pulse lasers have a 6000m optimal apposed to the 1800m of blasters and the 1200m of auto cannons. Fall off: No surprise here as Auto cannons have the best fall with 9600m, thatÆs 4600m better then blasters and 5600 better then lasers. Tracking: Right now Projectiles have the longest range with the best tracking. (nerf?) Blasters have the lest range but place second in tracking. Blasters need as much tracking as they can get due to there extremely limited range. Lasers have almost the same range as projectiles but the worst tracking. Bump blasters to have better tracking then all there better ranged counterparts to make up for there low range. As range goes down tracking should go up. Not the other way round like projectiles have now. Tech 2 ammo: Right now Scorch is the king of tech two ammo. A Medium Pulse Laser with scorch ammo has a weapons score of 331885. The closest any other turret can get to that score using tech two ammo is the 425mm auto cannon loaded with barrage. Even with barrage the Autocannon is only at 196504 for a score. The best blasters can do is 184800. All tech two turret ammo makes you take a hit on tracking but that hit effects lasers the worst and blasters the most. Scorch gives a 50% bonus to range. The longer the range the less you need to track things do to there slower transverse velocity. Tech two ammo in blasters make not since what so ever as you will never hit anything up closeà there up close weapons. I have some ideas to fix this but I donÆt want to do the maths. So Hybrids have the worst score when compared with Tech 1 or tech 2 ammo. Here are a few examples of why blasters need a buff. The Optimal of lasers is almost longer then the optimal+ fall off of blasters. The 425mm guns have the longest range over all and the best tracking of the entire group there for will almost always hit. In pvp all other weapon types would be able to hit a blaster boat for at least 4K before it was in range. Then once it is finaly in range the blaster boat might not be able to hit anything as its tracking is bad. (This makes for a ship that canÆt hit what it shots at even after itÆs flown though being shot at for 8-9k :(

Arnold Predator Gallente	Posted - 2010.09.11 05:11:00 - [471] Edited by: Arnold Predator on 11/09/2010 05:12:46 Here is my solution to bring medium blasters in line with the other turret types. This is just some thoughts I have had on the subject and the maths I have used. In order to find out whatÆs needed to fix blasters lets look at the numbers. Blasters have the worst score of 130560, pulse lasers the best of 164000. A hybrid turret is a mix of laser (all power) and projectile (only bullet) weapon. A laser weapon is more advanced then a hybrid turret and much more advanced then a projectile one. It would make since to me at least that lasers would have the most advantages over the other two so it makes since that it have the highest over all score. A Projectile weapon should have the lowest score due to its simplistic nature. There for a Hybrid weapon should be right between both. Right now it stands that projectiles have a weapons score of 159667.2, hybrids have a score of 130560 and lasers are at 164000. I see a problem with that hybrid hole. So if my logic is right the new numbers should be more along the lines of 159667.2 for projectiles, 162000 for Hybrids, and 164000 for lasers. In order to bring hybrids (in this case blasters) up to the that new number lets work the equations a little bit. In order to get a score of 162000 we need to decide what we want to change in order to bring that number up. Seeing as most of the people on the forums say that the range needs to stay the same and damage just needs to go up so lets us that. The damage out put needs to be adjusted. So to find the new damage a neutron blaster needs to have to reach our goal we need to take that goal and divide it by the range. So 162000/6800= 23.823529411 so lets call it 23.825 because everyone likes round numbers. Now 23.825 is the new base DPS a neutron blaster does after the buff. That 145% more then the 16.4dps of lasers not the 117% it was before. This is more inline with there lack of range and fixes the problem of lasers giving most of the benefit of blasters but with 3 times the optimal + extra range to boot. Blasters would now be extremely deadly at there extremely close range as they were intended. How does that extra DPS turn into an easy buff for ccp to implement? Well there are a few options to pick from. Either buff the ammo so that it hurts more, or buff the guns themselves. A buff to ammo would have to include all the ammo types and not just one. That would mean changing each ammo type to do more damage. This makes more work then needed. A better, easier way would be to buff the guns themselves. Change the damage modifier on blasters to give them the extra damage they need and all you have to do is adjust the numbers in there description. To find out how much of a change needs to happen lets do some more maths. We have the DPS we want them to shot for (pun not intended) of 23.825. We know that DPS is damage modifier times (D) by highest ammo damage (h) then divided by rate of fire. (R) So: (D x H) / R = DPS So that turns into: (D x 24)/5.25 = 23.825 Or to rework that to what we need it for (23.825 x 5.25)/ 24 = D 125.08125/24=D 5.21171875= D or to round that 5.2114 (I worked the numbers and 5.2114 works best if you round) So we now have all the numbers to re-run the weapons score equation. (5.2114x24)/5.25) x (1800+5000) = Weapons score (23.824)(6800)= W The new weapons score would be 162003.2 not bad for all the rounding I did. What needs to happen to fix blasters is the damage modifier gets adjusted from 4.2 TO 5.2114 and add a little bit to trackingà say 25% more to go with the 25%ish more damage. Blasters would now be useful again as they would have the best damage, the shortest range, and the tracking to (for once) hit something. How hard was that? As I type this as my character is cross training for lasers and amarr ships to fit them too. Untill Blasters get fixedà I donÆt have much choice if I want to pvp.
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.09.11 10:17:00 - [472] 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.
Scandal Caulker	Posted - 2010.09.11 11:13:00 - [473] Edited by: Scandal Caulker on 11/09/2010 11:16:25 Proposal for ammo changes (1st draft) Antimatter currently: offers high damage and -50% range. very similar base shield/armour damage Change: increase base shield damage and lower base armour damage to a ratio of 4:1 Plutonium Currently: offers slightly less DPS than AM but with a -37.5% range bonus & -5% cap usage Change: Increase damage out put to the same as AM but have much higher base armour damage than shields. Ratio of 4:1 again. Increase range drawback to -50% & remove 5% cap bonus Uranium Currently: offers slightly less DPS than plutonium with a -25% range bonus and -8% cap usage Change: Remove range bonus. Add -50% damage bonus with a +50% ROF Bonus Thorium Currently: offers slightly less DPS than Uranium with a -12.5% range and -40% cap usage. Change: remove -40% cap usage bonus. Add 50% tracking bonus. Add -75% range bonus. Lead Currently: offers less DPS than thorium but with no range bonus but a 50% cap usage bonus. Change: Increase Cap usage bonus to -75% (maybe even higher) Iridium Currently: offers less damage than lead with +20% range bonus and -24% cap usage Change: 25% range bonus -25% cap usage Tungsten Currently: offers less damage than iridium with +40% range and -27% cap usage bonuses Change: Remove cap bonus. Add +50% damage bonus with -50% ROF. Keep +40% range Iron Currently: offers less dps than tungston with +60% range and -30% cap Change: no change Void Currently: offers heavy (Blaster) damage with -25% optimal -50% falloff -50% tracking +25% cap usage Change: Remove -50% tracking add +20% ROF and +100% cap usage Javelin Currently: offers Heavy (Failgun) damage with -75% optimal -75% tracking -10% ship velocity Change: remove -10% ship velocity. Add +75% damage -75% ROF. Lower optimal and tracking penalty to -50% Null Currently: offers 75% the damage of Void with +25% optimal and +25% falloff and -25% tracking Change: Increase optimal bonus to +30% and falloff to +40% with +25% cap usage and keep -25% tracking Spike Currently: offers +80% optimal with -75% tracking Change: add +20% falloff How does that sound? Any suggestions?
Arnold Predator Gallente	Posted - 2010.09.11 11:46:00 - [474] Edited by: Arnold Predator on 11/09/2010 11:48:17 My concern is that blasters would just feel like auto cannons but with even less range if you could switch damage types. That's a very big projectile trait to be giving to hybrids. Fail guns would just be faster firing artillery canons. Yes the idea is sound that it would re balance hybrids and make them better but to me it sounds like I would be trading my hybrid weapons for projectile ones that now require cap to use. No thanks. By giving a dps and tracking bump the ranges stay the same as b4 and hybrids can now hit other people. The trick that keeps the balance is the range of both lasers and auto cannons. yes a blaster boat will have way more damage then the other two types but the other two types will be able to shot said blaster boat way before he can shoot back. If your dumb enough to get in close to a blaster boat... your dead, end of story. you also have to take into account that most other ships are faster then gellente ships. So not only do they have longer firing range but they can also keep there target at that range better. look at the numbers for scorch ammo.. they get a 50% range bonus.... a blaster boat would get hit from way, way beyond he range and would have to burn though the incoming fire just to get to range. I think that once he gets there he should get to ****face for all the work he did just to get there.... don't you. Lets say i have to micro at 1000ms for 15k to a target to get him in my range. (optimal+falloff) If the other guy is shooting me for 500 dps during that 15 seconds that means i get hit for 15000 dps before i get in range and can even start to fight back. Thats 15000 dps advantage over when i start shooting back... that's huge. That's also assuming the other guy is at a stand still. If he is flying away from me even a little bit the dps advantage just gets bigger. If he is faster then me... i can never get him unless i get help to slow him down... By giving blasters such a huge boost in dmg and tracking they become great in a fleet. they are the guys that keep frigs at bay when there not being used as the big in your face damage dealer of the gang once they get tackle on the target. if you ran into a blaster boat all by him self it would still be easy to kill him as all you would have to do is pound him from beyond his range.
Scandal Caulker	Posted - 2010.09.11 14:17:00 - [475] I wasn't suggesting a change in damage types. I was suggesting a change in how the ammo could give very different bonuses. Hybrids would still only deal thermal and kinetic damage but for example, antimatter would deal alot more damage to shields and plutonium a lot more damage to armour. A different ammo type can offer very high tracking and another very high ROF or high alpha with low ROF. One could offer very high falloff where another could offer very high optimal.
Jack Icegaard The Omega Project	Posted - 2010.09.11 14:47:00 - [476] Originally by: Arnold Predator (D X H / F) * (O+A) = W D = Dmg mod, H = Highest dmg ammo, F = fire rate in seconds, O = Optimal and A = fAlloff, W= Weapon score ... While I agree with the sentiment that Hybrids needs a boost, I have to point out that your weapon score formula have some major flaws. 1.DPS have the same weight as (optimal + falloff). 2.Optimal have the same weight as falloff. 3.Tracking speed is not a part of the formula 4.Other utilities of the turrets such as reload time and cap-drainage are not accounted for. When the highest tier medium railgun scores 250% higher than the medium blaster perhaps that should give you a hint that your formula is not a very accurate tool to evaluate weapons? Or could we perhaps just give railgun-stats to blasters and all of a sudden they are very good? Posting stuff like this to try to promote a Hybrids buff will likely just be contra productive.
Astroka	Posted - 2010.09.11 18:55:00 - [477] Originally by: Arnold Predator Edited by: Arnold Predator on 11/09/2010 11:48:17 Lets say i have to micro at 1000ms for 15k to a target to get him in my range. (optimal+falloff) If the other guy is shooting me for 500 dps during that 15 seconds that means i get hit for 15000 dps before i get in range and can even start to fight back. You would have been hit for 7500 damage, not 15000 dps.
Arnold Predator Special Situations	Posted - 2010.09.12 02:18:00 - [478] Edited by: Arnold Predator on 12/09/2010 02:18:57 Originally by: Jack Icegaard Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 11/09/2010 15:31:36 Originally by: Arnold Predator (D X H / F) * (O+A) = W D = Dmg mod, H = Highest dmg ammo, F = fire rate in seconds, O = Optimal and A = fAlloff, W= Weapon score ... While I agree with the sentiment that Hybrids needs a boost, I have to point out that your weapon score formula have some major flaws. 1.DPS have the same weight as (optimal + falloff). 2.Optimal have the same weight as falloff. 3.Tracking speed is not a part of the formula 4.Other utilities of the turrets such as reload time and cap-drainage are not accounted for. When the highest tier medium railgun scores 150% higher than the medium blaster perhaps that should give you a hint that your formula is not a very accurate tool to evaluate weapons? Or could we perhaps just give railgun-stats to blasters and all of a sudden they are very good? Posting stuff like this to try to promote a Hybrids buff will likely just be contra productive. Got a better way of ranking weapons then? If so please post it. I agree that the way I was using is not absolutly the best or only way to rank stuff in eve... I just don't know of any other way. Please if someone else has a better way to rank weapons...post it. About changing ammo. i agree with you now.. that does sound like a good idea... I thought you were also talking about changing damage types as well. My bad... I was real tired when reading your post.
Kvo Vadis	Posted - 2010.09.12 10:26:00 - [479] Originally by: Jack Icegaard ... the weapon score formula have some major flaws. 1.DPS have the same weight as (optimal + falloff). 2.Optimal have the same weight as falloff. 3.Tracking speed is not a part of the formula 4.Other utilities of the turrets such as reload time and cap-drainage are not accounted for. ... Posting stuff like this to try to promote a Hybrids buff will likely just be contra productive. It is very difficult to count all factors. For example how can we consider damage type in a formula? Projectiles can adjust damage according a target. It means that real DPS is much higher. How can we consider fitting requirements in a formula? For example AC has tiny PG requirements. It gives big advantage in fitting. The formula does not consider all factors. It is simplified model. But it illustrates common blaster problems very clearly P.S. +1
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.09.12 13:11:00 - [480] Edited by: The Djego on 12/09/2010 13:14:51 Originally by: Fettered Soul Originally by: mazzilliu i honestly dont remember if this has been raised yet by a csm but i raised this anyways for the next meeting, and if it's a duplicate i can just cancel it. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Fix_blasters_%28CSM%29 Could you change "Potential Solution". Increasing range for blasters brake its tactical distinction. Please add second Potential Solution: "Increasing DPS and tracking" Pulse Lasers = good DPS at insane range AC = good DPS (using adjustable damage type) at medium range. Good tracking. Blasters = should have EXTREME DPS with EXTREME tracking at VERY CLOSE range (leave range as is). Increasing range for blasters is creating second "Pulse Blaser" P.S. as for now Blasters does not have EXTREME DPS (Lasers do 85% blaster damage at 300% range) and EXTREME tracking (AC have almost the same) +1 here In general I miss the old days and ways to engage in blaster combat. Where working with a platform that forces a target to point blank pvp did mean something else than flying a slow brick and running into tracking issues, just to perform as bad as anything else at this range. I don't see a huge need of yet another med range gun, however I feel the lack of a true heavy hitter at point blank that is a lot less effected by the "lets make web range less deadly" mindset that was introduced with QR. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.

Portmanteau CTRL-Q	Posted - 2010.09.12 15:55:00 - [481] /signed, more damage, better tracking to hit at least as reliably as other races do in their optimal and that will still leave our slow asses struggling to get near enough to actually apply DPS while the other slow asses (Amarr) enjoy uber optimal to plink away without having to even try to apply failwebs. If something could be done about that which wasn't instant death for smaller targets/tacklers (90% webs again) or impeding on other races (a speed boost) it would be great but IDK what it could be /shrugs
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate Warped Aggression	Posted - 2010.09.12 21:32:00 - [482] Originally by: Doctor Aibolit I guess CCP will not return old web effect (-90% webbed ship) CCP will not implement crazy ideas about adding special effects to blasters like shield penetration, stunning effect, webbing effect and other CCP will not give more range to blasters it will blur advantage of laser optimal and AC falloff The more logical is to increase DAMAGE and TRACKING. Make blasters outstanding in extremely short-range engagements if you do not want to change range. As for now I do not see advantage of blasters. Pulses do almost the same damage as blasters (85%) at 300% optimal (400% comparing Scorch VS Null) P.S. Do not send me EFT fits of 1000 DPS Brutix and 1450 DPS Hyperion. this guy is talcking busynes, as much as i would love mroe range, giveme damage instead plz.
Arnold Predator Special Situations	Posted - 2010.09.13 06:51:00 - [483] Edited by: Arnold Predator on 13/09/2010 06:56:15 I have spent some more time working the numbers on the other weapons sizes. I know the Weapon Score (WS) number is not all inclusive but it does give a good indication of the problem. I use themà if you donÆt want to donÆt. If you know a better way to rate weapons, please post it as this is the best way I know. I added tracking just so people can see it for each weapon type. Keep in mine the further the target is away from you the less tracking you will need. One thing I have not touched on before is that lasers donÆt require ammo in the since of per shot consumable ammo. Add to that that reloading is instant were the other two types require a 10 second reload time. These are yet 2 more advantages to a weapon system that is all ready over powered. Here are the numbers for small tech two weapons. Small Neutron Blaster II DPS: 14.4, Optimal: 900, Falloff: 2500 Range: 3500 Tracking: .3165 WS: 48,960 Medium Pulse Laser II DPS: 12.34, Optimal: 3000, Falloff: 2000 Range: 5000 Tracking: .24525 WS: 61714 200mm Autocannon II DPS: 11.01 Optimal: 600, Falloff 4800 Range: 5400 Tracking: .315 WS: 59875 Again the numbers show that blasters are lacking something. Most people say damage. In one of my last posts I worked out that if the damage modifier on medium blasters was upped from 4.2 to around the 5.2 mark the guns would be much more balanced across the board as far as weapons score goes. LetÆs see if that change would also work on small blasters as well. (5.2x12/3.5)x(900+2500)=60622 That works out to 17.83 DPS, the same range as before, and a new weaponÆs score of 60,622. That would put the buffed neutron blaster right between the score of the 200mm Autocannon and Medium Pulse Laser. The blaster would still be the in your face weapon it was meant to be but would now have the dps to make up for its short range. So itÆs the same easy fixà just bump up the damage modifier of hybrid weapons 1 point to 5.2 Tech two ammo is still unbalanced as a medium pulse laser II with scorch ammo has a weapons score of 124457. The other long range tech 2 ammo for both hybrid and projectile weapons only have a weapons score of 70950 and 85377 respectably. Maybe nurf scorch ammo to bring it back in line to what the other weapons can doà right now it seems a bit over powered due to the 50% optimal bonus it gives. This needs to be looked at and re-balanced.
Arnold Predator Special Situations	Posted - 2010.09.13 07:00:00 - [484] Here are the numbers for the large short range weapons Neutron Blaster Cannon II DPS: 25.6, Optimal: 3600, Falloff: 10000 Range: 13600 Tracking: .0433 WS: 348160 Mega Pulse Laser II DPS: 21.94, Optimal: 12000, Falloff: 8000 Range: 20000 Tracking: .03375 WS: 438857 800MM Repeating Artillery II DPS: 19.712, Optimal: 2400, Falloff: 19200 Range: 21600 Tracking: .0432 WS: 425779 The weapons scores are just as unbalanced here as they are in the other sizes. Not only that, but there are other problems as well. First lets take a look at the weapons score of blasters and try to fix that. So again letÆs see if the new damage modifier of 5.2 would bring blasters more inline to the other weapons. (5.2x48/7.875)x(3600+10000)= 431055à. What do you know... same problem, same solution. So not only would changing the damage modifier up one point fix blastersà it would fix three sizes of them. Second problem, tracking speed. A blaster should have much higher tracking to any other gun due to its low over all range. It makes since then that tracking on blasters should be adjusted so that they have the same chance to hit at there close range as the other weapons that shoot at there longer ranges. The problem I see is that the 800mm repeating artillery has 99.77% the tracking speed of the neutron blaster but 58% more range. Does that stick out as a problem to anyone else? Tech II ammo is still unbalanced here as well. Scorch is still heads and shoulders better then any other tech 2 ammo. When it comes to long range ammo Scorch has a weapons score of 888480, Barrage: 607152, and Null at a very depressing 483276. The high damage ammo scores are also in favor of lasers. Conflagration: 512000, Void: 283670, and Hail at 276000. The long range ammo has 75% normal tracking speed. The high dps ammo takes a 50% tracking hit. So not only do blaster need a buff when it comes to normal ammo, but tech 2 ammo as well. This is just another example why CCP needs to shelf WIS and get back to work on the core elements to there flagship game. Too bad walking in space stations is more important to a mmo about flying space ships thenà you know flying space ships.
Failgun Owner	Posted - 2010.09.13 11:59:00 - [485] I wish you be heard by CSM or CCP
crimson fire	Posted - 2010.09.13 22:39:00 - [486] What really makes this scream to the heavens is that gallente has been left between a rock and a hard place. Both rail, blasters, and t2 ammo is in need of a rebalance. Ive been thinking of offering a few billion in lottery to people who spam CCP with honest complaints. Commit to excellence, recommit to gallente.
Kvo Vadis	Posted - 2010.09.15 23:57:00 - [487] Among medium weapons, Blasters have the lowest DPS at Warp Disruptor range (20km). Because even with long range ammo (Null M) optimal+falloff is 13.4km (Caldari ships have 16.2km) It is difficult to be fast with armor tank on Gallente ships. P.S. HAM - can hit 20km with faction ammo (javelin 30km) 425 AC - 21km with barrage Heavy Pulse - 27km with scorch (Focused Medium Pulse - 23.8km)
D Scan	Posted - 2010.09.16 00:00:00 - [488] Moar blaster damage.
Arnold Predator Special Situations	Posted - 2010.09.16 23:51:00 - [489] Edited by: Arnold Predator on 16/09/2010 23:52:04 please remember to check the box that says: "Check here if you want o give your support to the idea/discussion going on" if you do in fact support the idea and or discussion.
Templar Dane Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2010.09.17 14:13:00 - [490] Originally by: Arnold Predator Tech two ammo is still unbalanced as a medium pulse laser II with scorch ammo has a weapons score of 124457. The other long range tech 2 ammo for both hybrid and projectile weapons only have a weapons score of 70950 and 85377 respectably. Maybe nurf scorch ammo to bring it back in line to what the other weapons can doà right now it seems a bit over powered due to the 50% optimal bonus it gives. This needs to be looked at and re-balanced. How about reworking your "weapon scoring" to account for damage types? You want scorch range nerfed so that it's in-line with barrage and null? There is nothing wrong with the worst-tracking short-range gun that deals the worst damage type (for most pvp situations) having the best damage projection. You want something nerfed, look at the last round of buffs. You know, the weapon system that has excellent tracking, selectable damage types, no cap use, a tech 2 ammo that compares well to scorch...on hulls with multiple utility highs, double damage bonuses, best agility/speed... Get hybrids buffed. Wait for things to settle down, THEN figure out if/what needs nerfed.

X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.17 15:16:00 - [491] Blasters highest fitting requirements on the worst overall fitting ships. Gallente and Caldari have 3rd and 4th best power grids. Gallente have 3rd best CPU (Caldari is best for missiles). I'd be satisfied with easing fitting requirements a bit.
Arnold Predator Special Situations	Posted - 2010.09.18 00:37:00 - [492] Originally by: Templar Dane Get hybrids buffed. Wait for things to settle down, THEN figure out if/what needs nerfed. Fair enough... one thing at a time is fine. But I was just pointing out that scorch is usefull were hybrid tech two ammo... not so much.
Jahpahjay	Posted - 2010.09.18 15:49:00 - [493] 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.
Fistme	Posted - 2010.09.18 15:51:00 - [494] Originally by: X Gallentius Blasters highest fitting requirements on the worst overall fitting ships. Gallente and Caldari have 3rd and 4th best power grids. Gallente have 3rd best CPU (Caldari is best for missiles). I'd be satisfied with easing fitting requirements a bit. aye or at the very leats include fitting requirments and ship fitting oppertunities into the ballance of weapon systems. For example acs do good dmg due to dbl dmg bonusses on many ships and have VERY VERY low fitting requirements as well as no cap use, just too many advantages in comparison to blasters. So in conclusion i support a significant decrease to fitting requirments for blasters or an increase on the grid of blaster intended ships, brutix, astarte, mega needs cpu, and hyperion should at the ver least be able to fit a rack of ions with a dual rep, tripple rep should be what nerfs you to electrons.
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.09.18 19:53:00 - [495] 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.
Zorok LEGI0N SOUL CARTEL	Posted - 2010.09.18 20:53:00 - [496] I give my support to this as well..
Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.09.18 21:51:00 - [497] Originally by: Spugg Galdon 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. Yesterday I tried a shield tanked Hyperion in BS V.S. BS. You can approach very fast to antimatter ammo optimal. But then you start to miss because of tracking. It is ridiculous: you can't hit effectively at long range because of tiny optimal+falloff, you can't hit effectively at close range because of lack of tracking. P.S. BTW look at common minmatar PVP AC fits. They commonly have available low slots for TE. More range and tracking almost for free :)
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.09.19 10:20:00 - [498] Originally by: Spugg Galdon 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. Nonsense you couldn't even hit firgs well with 90% webs under 5km back in the days with a Neutron Mega(and they didn't even got ABs). ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Arnold Predator Special Situations	Posted - 2010.09.19 11:54:00 - [499] Edited by: Arnold Predator on 19/09/2010 11:57:29 Originally by: Spugg Galdon 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. You know this because you having been flying nothing but blaster boats for years in pvp.... Try it then come back and talk.
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.22 15:41:00 - [500] Ninja bump: Weapon Name: PG/CPU Heavy Electron Blaster II (worst T2 medium blaster): 105/28 Heavy Ion Blaster II (medium): 158/33 Heavy Neutron Blaster II (best): 212/35 Dual 180mm Autocannon II (worst): 88/19 220mm Vulcan Autocannon II (medium): 110/22 425mm Autocannon II (best): 154/25 Worst Blaster has higher CPU requirement than best Autocannon, yet Gallente ships have less CPU available than Minmatar ships. Average Gallente Blaster has higher PG requirement than best Autocannon, yet Gallente ships have less PG available than Minmatar ships.

Grut The Protei	Posted - 2010.09.22 16:30:00 - [501] Originally by: Jahpahjay 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. Tracking dosen't matter as much as damage - for one having to actually manage transveral is a player skill, approach - orbit = boring. The problem at the moment is that even managing transversal the damage output is meh, up the damage output and it actually means something to put you ship in the zone. A tracking increase is more solo - as soon as theres more then 2 ships involved damage output is more important, by uping the damage blasters are useful in a slightly larger number of situations. And ofc more tracking = ownage of smaller ships. Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know... Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.22 21:11:00 - [502] Edited by: X Gallentius on 22/09/2010 21:11:50 Another Ninja bump: Weapon Name: PG/CPU Light Electron Blaster II (worst T2 light blaster): 4/9 Light Ion Blaster II (medium): 7/13 Light Neutron Blaster II (best): 10/19 125mm Gatling Autocannon II (worst): 1/3 150mm Light Autocannon II (medium): 2/6 200mm Autocannon II (best): 4/9 Fitting for Worst Light Blaster = Best Autocannon. Fail. Name: PG/CPU Tristan: 38/125 Rifter: 37/125 Catalyst: 60/170 Thrasher: 70/170
Nischara	Posted - 2010.09.22 21:19:00 - [503] a little oil on the fire. see:here TLDR; blasters are underpowered to start with, and then t2 ammo makes them eaven worse
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.23 16:02:00 - [504] For completeness: Weapon Name: PG/CPU Electron Blaster Cannon II (worst T2 large blaster): 1313/47 Mega Ion Blaster II (medium): 1838/56 Mega Neutron Blaster II (best): 2363/61 Dual 425mm Autocannon II (worst): 1375/35 Dual 625 Repeating Artillery II (medium): 1650/38 800mm Repeating Artillery II (best): 2200/41 Name: PG/CPU Megathron: 15500/550 Tempest: 15500/550 Hyperion: 15750/600 Maelstrom: 21000/640
Jahpahjay	Posted - 2010.09.23 16:28:00 - [505] Okay, here's the problem with that idea that tracking is not important: you can't do any dmg to ships you can't track. Why does every person seem to believe that a boost to tracking on blasters will magically make them be able to hit smaller ships? My guess would be that they're used to the way other guns already have proportionally good tracking for the range they fight in, so they rightly think that better tracking on those guns would allow them to hit smaller ships too easily. My friends, blasters do not have this "problem"--as most of you know, the closer a ship is, the greater their transversal velocity. So it will still be beyond blasters to reliably hit smaller ships any better than any of the other guns simply because the transversal velocity will be higher at the ranges the blasters can do anything in. Particularly since they even have a hard time hitting ships of their own size currently. All I'm asking for with a tracking increase is to make blasters actually viable in the range they seem to be built to fight in. What's wrong with making them a tactically different kind of gun than the others? I.e. being actually able to hit ships well at a close range. That being said, it also needs a dps increase to make it worth the time to get in range. Hell, why not even shorten the range somewhat even more just to make sure they HAVE to be close range. I'd certainly sacrifice maybe 25% of the range for proportionally better tracking for it's range and a dps boost.
Dav Varan	Posted - 2010.09.24 16:01:00 - [506] Blasters have 2 major problems the way I see it. 1 There mainly fitted by gallente nubs who dont know what the ships speed control is for ( controlling transversal ). & 2 EFT that tells them they get omgwtfbbqdps for fitting a magstab when a TE would actually work much better in the real world.
Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.09.26 22:55:00 - [507] Originally by: Good Advice ... Reduce optimal to 1 Tweak falloff to slightly less ... How will you apply your damage? How much damage will you get before approaching at 1km? How will you kill minmatar ships? (they a the fastest in the game)
Phony v2 The Praxis Initiative Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.09.27 00:52:00 - [508] agreed ______________________________________________ Yes? You, the idiot in the back, with the dumb question.
Ryan Starwing Gallente Martyr's Vengence OWN Alliance	Posted - 2010.10.04 11:04:00 - [509] I say buff blaster dps by like 20% and tracking by like 5-10%. PS:Bump
NightmareX Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage	Posted - 2010.10.05 01:30:00 - [510] Edited by: NightmareX on 05/10/2010 01:34:15 Originally by: Ryan Starwing I say buff blaster dps by like 20% and tracking by like 5-10%. PS:Bump 20% more DPS?, o.O, jesus freaking christ man, are you thinking before you make ******ed ideas lol? Do you know how crazy the Vindicator is going to be then? Yeah, you have to take the Vindicator into the picture here to. I know Vindicators like to om nom nom Ravens VERY fast today, but taking 100% of the Raven's shield in 2 volleys is way to much tbh. Like i have said earlier, a 5% DPS increase and like 10% tracking increase should be a good start.

Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.10.05 04:36:00 - [511] Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 05/10/2010 01:34:15 Originally by: Ryan Starwing I say buff blaster dps by like 20% and tracking by like 5-10%. PS:Bump 20% more DPS?, o.O, jesus freaking christ man, are you thinking before you make ****ed ideas lol? Do you know how crazy the Vindicator is going to be then? Yeah, you have to take the Vindicator into the picture here to. I know Vindicators like to om nom nom Ravens VERY fast today, but taking 100% of the Raven's shield in 2 volleys is way to much tbh. Like i have said earlier, a 5% DPS increase and like 10% tracking increase should be a good start. First, tell me why 800mil ship should not kill 70mil ship "nom nom VERY fast"? Second, Nightmare can do 80% Vindicator's damage at 300% range. Third, Vindicator's bonus was changed from 25% to 37.5% after people complains. So, Vindicator is just the one fine tuned hybrid weapon ship. Why it is so good in damage? Because it has good dps with OLD GOOD WEBIFIER** (10% velocity factor per level). P.S. Usual gallente ship is much worse. They do not have 37.5% damage bonus and bonused web (ridiculous tracking considering range)
JackStraw56	Posted - 2010.10.05 09:07:00 - [512] Originally by: Arnold Predator Edited by: Arnold Predator on 12/09/2010 02:18:57 Originally by: Jack Icegaard Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 11/09/2010 15:31:36 Originally by: Arnold Predator (D X H / F) * (O+A) = W D = Dmg mod, H = Highest dmg ammo, F = fire rate in seconds, O = Optimal and A = fAlloff, W= Weapon score ... While I agree with the sentiment that Hybrids needs a boost, I have to point out that your weapon score formula have some major flaws. 1.DPS have the same weight as (optimal + falloff). 2.Optimal have the same weight as falloff. 3.Tracking speed is not a part of the formula 4.Other utilities of the turrets such as reload time and cap-drainage are not accounted for. When the highest tier medium railgun scores 150% higher than the medium blaster perhaps that should give you a hint that your formula is not a very accurate tool to evaluate weapons? Or could we perhaps just give railgun-stats to blasters and all of a sudden they are very good? Posting stuff like this to try to promote a Hybrids buff will likely just be contra productive. Got a better way of ranking weapons then? If so please post it. I agree that the way I was using is not absolutly the best or only way to rank stuff in eve... I just don't know of any other way. Please if someone else has a better way to rank weapons...post it. About changing ammo. i agree with you now.. that does sound like a good idea... I thought you were also talking about changing damage types as well. My bad... I was real tired when reading your post. Your choice of formula makes very little sense to me (and I have a degree in math). Saying its good because you can't think of anything better is not a good argument. It's kind of like telling someone you punched their son because you couldn't think of a better child of theirs to punch. At least explain why you think this is a useful way to score weapons. It seems you just took some variables that seemed pertinent, lined them up and threw some *'s and /'s in there. I mean, the first term seems to want to be the damage output and the second term the range, but why does multiplying them together make sense? Why don't you just go ahead and multiply the result by tracking? And then multiply that by the cap penalty
NightmareX Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage	Posted - 2010.10.05 11:32:00 - [513] Edited by: NightmareX on 05/10/2010 11:33:49 Originally by: Fettered Soul Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 05/10/2010 01:34:15 Originally by: Ryan Starwing I say buff blaster dps by like 20% and tracking by like 5-10%. PS:Bump 20% more DPS?, o.O, jesus freaking christ man, are you thinking before you make ****ed ideas lol? Do you know how crazy the Vindicator is going to be then? Yeah, you have to take the Vindicator into the picture here to. I know Vindicators like to om nom nom Ravens VERY fast today, but taking 100% of the Raven's shield in 2 volleys is way to much tbh. Like i have said earlier, a 5% DPS increase and like 10% tracking increase should be a good start. First, tell me why 800mil ship should not kill 70mil ship "nom nom VERY fast"? Second, Nightmare can do 80% Vindicator's damage at 300% range. Third, Vindicator's bonus was changed from 25% to 37.5% after people complains. So, Vindicator is just the one fine tuned hybrid weapon ship. Why it is so good in damage? Because it has good dps with OLD GOOD WEBIFIER** (10% velocity factor per level). P.S. Usual gallente ship is much worse. They do not have 37.5% damage bonus and bonused web (ridiculous tracking considering range) Uhm, i own a Vindicator my self and i have seen what the Vindi can do in damage dealing. I know the Vindicator is supposed to take quite alot of DPS, but my Vindicator are already doing 1450 DPS. And with a 20% DPS boost, my Vindicator will do 1800 DPS with a cheap faction setup. Do you know how freaking overpowered a 300k+ EHP and with around 2500 DPS after the 20% DPS boost the Vindicator is going to be even for a price of 800 mill isk?
Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.10.05 12:44:00 - [514] Originally by: NightmareX I know the Vindicator is supposed to take quite alot of DPS, but my Vindicator are already doing 1450 DPS. And with a 20% DPS boost, my Vindicator will do 1800 DPS with a cheap faction setup + cheap damage implants. Do you know how freaking overpowered a 250k+ EHP and with around 2500 DPS Vindicator after the 20% DPS boost is going to be even for a price of 800 mill isk? And not only that, but think about the bears who will come to the forum and cry like a mofo that someone in a Vindicator popped his Megathron in 15 secs. I said "Vindicator is just the one fine tuned hybrid weapon ship" - It means Vindicator works like a blaster boat should work. This ship has the fair DPS advantage in exchange of the range disadvantage. I expect if CCP boost hybrid weapon (end of 2011,2012....) they will consider ships that become overpowered after boost. Just for now I do not understand some things: Why Blasters have the almost the same tracking as AC. But AC falloff is longer in 2 times? Neutron - 13(AM)&16(Null), 800mm - 24(EMP)&36(Barrage) Why Pulses have 85% blaster damage at 300% blaster optimal (with scorch >400%) Why Rails have less tracking than Tachyon even with 37.5% ship bonus Megathron 425mm - 0.01653, Hyperion 425mm - 0.01202, Tachyon - 0.0174
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.05 17:09:00 - [515] It is in general a good idea to ignore people that try to argument about her slaved multi billion ISK BS as baseline(that also got fixed webs instead the 60% fail most people are supposed to work with) while totally ignoring the shortcoming of all more common T1 and T2 hulls. Btw NMX I can do 1.45k DPS(before heat) in my affordable mega(that I don't fly anymore), that doesn't make it a good solo gank ship or a passable small gang ship in low sec most of the time since you can't put this DPS well on the targets and it is terrible at catching stuff. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Sepheir Sepheron Caldari Legion..	Posted - 2010.10.06 07:48:00 - [516] Originally by: Good Advice I'd say that blasters need to be changed entirely and give something new to the gun field. Currently, Lasers have their niche, Projectiles are getting reworked to allow for some nice damage switching, but blasters work just like lasers, just worse. Changes to Blasters: Rewrite description to say they are a high damage weapon that has difficulty hitting at anything but close range. Increase damage by 50% Increase tracking by 300% Reduce optimal to 1 Tweak falloff to slightly less Change +optimal modifiers on ammo to +falloff Now, blasters do incredible damage at close range, but have difficutly hitting anything and damage decreases with every km of range. It turns blaster ships into close range death dealers that suck for anything past 5km or so. I'm ok with that. Sounds fun lol
Failgun Owner	Posted - 2010.10.07 00:41:00 - [517] Originally by: Good Advice I'd say that blasters need to be changed entirely and give something new to the gun field. Currently, Lasers have their niche, Projectiles are getting reworked to allow for some nice damage switching, but blasters work just like lasers, just worse. Changes to Blasters: Rewrite description to say they are a high damage weapon that has difficulty hitting at anything but close range. Increase damage by 50% Increase tracking by 300% Reduce optimal to 1 Tweak falloff to slightly less Change +optimal modifiers on ammo to +falloff Now, blasters do incredible damage at close range, but have difficutly hitting anything and damage decreases with every km of range. It turns blaster ships into close range death dealers that suck for anything past 5km or so. I'm ok with that. I have better idea. Lets increase dmg by 1000% and reduce optimal to 0.1km with 0.1km falloff. And lets replace name of such turret from "Blaster" to "BUMP of DOOM"
Suitonia Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.10.07 14:34:00 - [518] ---
Arnold Predator Special Situations	Posted - 2010.10.07 23:51:00 - [519] Originally by: JackStraw56 Originally by: Arnold Predator Edited by: Arnold Predator on 12/09/2010 02:18:57 Originally by: Jack Icegaard Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 11/09/2010 15:31:36 Originally by: Arnold Predator (D X H / F) * (O+A) = W D = Dmg mod, H = Highest dmg ammo, F = fire rate in seconds, O = Optimal and A = fAlloff, W= Weapon score ... While I agree with the sentiment that Hybrids needs a boost, I have to point out that your weapon score formula have some major flaws. 1.DPS have the same weight as (optimal + falloff). 2.Optimal have the same weight as falloff. 3.Tracking speed is not a part of the formula 4.Other utilities of the turrets such as reload time and cap-drainage are not accounted for. When the highest tier medium railgun scores 150% higher than the medium blaster perhaps that should give you a hint that your formula is not a very accurate tool to evaluate weapons? Or could we perhaps just give railgun-stats to blasters and all of a sudden they are very good? Posting stuff like this to try to promote a Hybrids buff will likely just be contra productive. Got a better way of ranking weapons then? If so please post it. I agree that the way I was using is not absolutly the best or only way to rank stuff in eve... I just don't know of any other way. Please if someone else has a better way to rank weapons...post it. About changing ammo. i agree with you now.. that does sound like a good idea... I thought you were also talking about changing damage types as well. My bad... I was real tired when reading your post. Your choice of formula makes very little sense to me (and I have a degree in math). Saying its good because you can't think of anything better is not a good argument. It's kind of like telling someone you punched their son because you couldn't think of a better child of theirs to punch. At least explain why you think this is a useful way to score weapons. It seems you just took some variables that seemed pertinent, lined them up and threw some 's and /'s in there. I mean, the first term seems to want to be the damage output and the second term the range, but why does multiplying them together make sense? Why don't you just go ahead and multiply the result by tracking? And then multiply that by the cap penalty Originally by:* JackStraw56 Your choice of formula makes very little sense to me (and I have a degree in math). ok then if you have a dagree in math what would you say is a better formula. I (as well as every blaster boat pilot) would love to read it. If your going to hate on the formula im using why don't you show me(us) a better one instead of just say how bad mine is.
Chris Cochrane Gallente modro R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.10.09 08:00:00 - [520] If the developers of eve are listening, i would like to say, I regret picking gallente, I may even quit playing eve because i wasted so much time training my Toon in Gallente skills. Perhaps one day everyone will realize as I have, as the years go by, that they don't really care about are requests, and only about new features that will attract new customers. Old customer requests aren't worth investing time into, as they are already paying customers. If only the blasters and rails were fixed, a small change like that would make a lot of customers happy, including myself... fly safe, not sorry...

NightmareX Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage	Posted - 2010.10.09 20:46:00 - [521] Originally by: The Djego It is in general a good idea to ignore people that try to argument about her slaved multi billion ISK BS as baseline(that also got fixed webs instead the 60% fail most people are supposed to work with) while totally ignoring the shortcoming of all more common T1 and T2 hulls. Btw NMX I can do 1.45k DPS(before heat) in my affordable mega(that I don't fly anymore), that doesn't make it a good solo gank ship or a passable small gang ship in low sec most of the time since you can't put this DPS well on the targets and it is terrible at catching stuff. But how much tank do you have on the Mega then? I think it have a very poor tank.
Zemkhoff	Posted - 2010.10.10 00:07:00 - [522] Edited by: Zemkhoff on 10/10/2010 00:11:21 Edited by: Zemkhoff on 10/10/2010 00:08:37 Fitting requirements, and tracking imo. Damage scales better when you can fit neutrons, the only problem is that you usually end up severely gimping your fit in some way. You can put Heavy Pulse IIs on a harbinger and still have a 800 plate with room for an MWD if you choose. With a brutix or myrm you can't do this at all. And fitting the best autocannon is hardly ever an issue on a hurricane or similar ship. Things would be a little better if you didn't have to sacrifice an arm and a leg to put heavy neutron IIs on a blaster bonused ship. In fact, this is the only time when I use medium blasters, and that is only on a shield-gank myrmidon. Shield gank brutixes are garbage. Fitting nightmare, less ehp, gimp it with ancillaries to put neutrons, etc. The rest of the time you will do better by fitting 425s instead of ions and 220s for electrons or flying a better ship. Ditto railguns.
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.11 15:57:00 - [523] Originally by: NightmareX But how much tank do you have on the Mega then? 93k Originally by: NightmareX I think it have a very poor tank. The key point in flying gank fitted Blaster BS solo might be not be the tank. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Horrus Khrosian	Posted - 2010.10.11 20:24:00 - [524] Originally by: Chris Cochrane If the developers of eve are listening, i would like to say, I regret picking gallente, I may even quit playing eve because i wasted so much time training my Toon in Gallente skills. Perhaps one day everyone will realize as I have, as the years go by, that they don't really care about are requests, and only about new features that will attract new customers. Old customer requests aren't worth investing time into, as they are already paying customers. If only the blasters and rails were fixed, a small change like that would make a lot of customers happy, including myself... fly safe, not sorry... I have about a year or more trained into hybrid turrets and supports for -caldari- hyrbid ships. I don't wanna hear it. Gallente are lightyears ahead in terms of viable hybrid turret users. Just suck it up and wait for CCP to do something like the rest of us if you're not willing to submit an original thought other than tears. PS. Cross training into angel ships is easy if FOTM makes you feel better.
Chris Cochrane modro R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.10.12 10:16:00 - [525] Originally by: Horrus Khrosian Originally by: Chris Cochrane If the developers of eve are listening, i would like to say, I regret picking gallente, I may even quit playing eve because i wasted so much time training my Toon in Gallente skills. Perhaps one day everyone will realize as I have, as the years go by, that they don't really care about are requests, and only about new features that will attract new customers. Old customer requests aren't worth investing time into, as they are already paying customers. If only the blasters and rails were fixed, a small change like that would make a lot of customers happy, including myself... fly safe, not sorry... I have about a year or more trained into hybrid turrets and supports for -caldari- hyrbid ships. I don't wanna hear it. Gallente are lightyears ahead in terms of viable hybrid turret users. Just suck it up and wait for CCP to do something like the rest of us if you're not willing to submit an original thought other than tears. PS. Cross training into angel ships is easy if FOTM makes you feel better. --- The point I was trying to prove was that the Gallente blasters have crap for range, and the rails have crap for damage, and the drones barely supplement the damage. The Caldari can fall back on there missiles, though this issue affects Caldari as well. The Gallente have no weaponry comparable to the other races that they receive bonuses for to fall back on. As for cross training, that's not the point of the thread, and as for the whining, it was directed towards the developers, if you don't wanna hear it, don't read the thread. =) You'd whine too if a thread that was started a year ago went on like this one, while the changes requested by 161 peeps, replied to by 523 peeps, and read by 19272 people, in this topic are ignored. Also on the August 2010 Prioritization Crowdsourcing (CSM) list, neither blasters, railguns or hybrid guns are mentioned, which is why I would believe the devs aren't interested in fixing the guns in the near future. I would love to be wrong, as it would give me hope for gallente weaponry in pvp.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.10.14 04:36:00 - [526] My own preference would be for slight boosts to blaster tracking, boosts to railgun optimal, moderate boosts to afterburner/MWD effectiveness (and MWD cap penalty) on blaster ships (eg: Incursus/Enyo/Myrmidon/Hyperion), and perhaps an increase in base speed and shield at the expense of armour, structure, PG (how do you expect to get them going faster ;). -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
Bo Tosh	Posted - 2010.10.14 08:04:00 - [527] Supported
irion felpamy Minmatar Assisted Genocide	Posted - 2010.10.14 10:38:00 - [528] Originally by: The Djego Originally by: NightmareX But how much tank do you have on the Mega then? 93k Originally by: NightmareX I think it have a very poor tank. The key point in flying gank fitted Blaster BS solo might be not be the tank. I think this is fundamentaly flawed logic, if you are solo who else are they going to be shoting at? Tank is a very relevant point. Blasters need more tracking, a few ships need more fitting (ferox, brutix?, Hyperion, moa, eagle).
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.17 20:05:00 - [529] Edited by: The Djego on 17/10/2010 20:07:53 Originally by: irion felpamy Originally by: The Djego Originally by: NightmareX But how much tank do you have on the Mega then? 93k Originally by: NightmareX I think it have a very poor tank. The key point in flying gank fitted Blaster BS solo might be not be the tank. I think this is fundamentaly flawed logic, if you are solo who else are they going to be shoting at? Tank is a very relevant point. The point in flying a ship in this fashion is that it improves the ability to make kills vs people that don't want to fight you or people that have a fair chance of gtfo, so it requires a ship that gets the kills done while relaying on as less mistakes of the other pilot as possible. Also it did highly improve the ability shut down sub BS tacklers quick and makes you easy to catch but hard to hold(at least pre QR it did). In my general experience a heavy tank is not this important for a predator. I use even less EHP in my current BS fits. With multiple fights ending in structure I still not feel the need for a better tanking ability since it would be a wast of slots most of the time. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Alberta Wayne Solutions Amalgamated	Posted - 2010.10.18 12:02:00 - [530] Blasters really do need some love.

Freelancer117	Posted - 2010.10.18 19:58:00 - [531] Support the optimal range boost, reason: it seems the optimal range is lacking compared too the guns tracking speed when using the highest hitting ammo (and thus shortest optimal range), this specially happens when using the smallest of the three gun types in every category of size Small/Medium/Large ( e.g. Light Electron blasters, Heavy electron blasters, Electron blaster cannons. moar optimal plz by about 10% (so if its 10km make it 11km etc)
Lemming Alpha1dash1	Posted - 2010.10.18 20:23:00 - [532] +1
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.10.18 23:44:00 - [533] Originally by: Freelancer117 moar optimal plz by about 10% (so if its 10km make it 11km etc) Do you really think +1km of optimal will solve "the blaster problem"?
Marexlovox SLEEPLESS VANGUARD	Posted - 2010.10.19 07:16:00 - [534] I agree, Fix Hybrids Please.
Lirey	Posted - 2010.10.21 02:16:00 - [535] I know the best solution for the blaster problem. Learn other weapon type. It is common now to fit AC on Myrm or Ishtar. P.S. 23h 7m left Large Energy Turret V. Yeeeehaaa!
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.10.21 09:09:00 - [536] 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.
Jahpahjay	Posted - 2010.10.23 00:17:00 - [537] I really really like the idea of using ammo to change the way hybrids work. However, I want to point out that "base" shield and armor dmg stats are not what you think they are. They are only what your average dmg will be against non-modified T1 hulls based on the amount of each of the dmg types you are using, not the minimum amount of dmg you will do against either shield or armor. In order to raise those "base shield" and "base armor" dmg stats you will need to change dmg types. If that is what you are proposing, I vehemently support this Originally by: Spugg Galdon 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.
Fyrar Maan	Posted - 2010.10.23 03:39:00 - [538] Looking at the Hybred turret issue, I decided to analyize the basic numbers of the turrets, such as damage mod, range, capacitance use, cost per shot, etc, and see if I could paint a detailed picture on what is wrong with the blasters. I know you've moved into looking at changing the ammo, but let's step back and take a look. A few assumptions I am making (if you refute these, then this analysis is not for you): -We are looking at all the T2 models. The data for each has been pulled from the Wiki. -Price per shot is the average cost for all the T1 ammo available. -Laser Price per shot is 0 ISK/shot (assuming crystals don't break, like Faction ammo or T2) -We desire the range of Blasters to be between the Autocannons and Pulse Lasers in both falloff and optimal respectively. -Railguns should have close-to equivilent damage as a respective Beam Laser. -There is an issue with the ammo's current arrangement. T2 Turret Analysis Spreadsheet If you don't want to read the Spreadsheet, below are my conclusions: -Blaster Optimal is doubled; falling halfway between Pulse Laser Optimal and Autocannon Optimal. -Blaster Falloff is increased by 36%; again, halfway between Pulse Lasers and Autocannon's Falloff. -This leads total ranges for Blasters to fall between Pulse Lasers and Autocannons. -Railgun Damage Mod is increased by varing degrees (usually .4-.8 modifier) to get a damage closer, but still weaker than, Beam Lasers. -The Capacitance drain reduction on ammo is inconsistant, and I changed it to reflect the Laser crystal capacitance drain reduction. However, the biggest problem is Cost per Shot. While Hybreds appear to pay less per shot on average (not a true average; since I didn't have the time to weigh the averages based on market movement of each ammo type), it is obvious that most Hybred users choose Antimatter, the most expensive type. This means that Hybred users pay about the same as Projectile users (if not more, due to the focus on a single ammo type, which increases demand, and thus prices), and also has to pay with Capacitance, which takes power from other, more vital, systems (such as EWAR, Propulsion, etc). The ammo has no special effects compared to the others. Lasers can switch quickly, but it takes 10 seconds to reload other turrets or change the ammo in there. Projectiles have tracking bonuses based on which type, however, there is no such bonuses for Hybreds. An alteration of the ammo is needed, but what that alteration is needs testing. (Suggestions include Rate of Fire alterations (5%), Falloff bonuses (5-10%), or maybe a various selection of small bonuses that are different for each ammo type, like Tracking (5%)). I hope these numbers help.
hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.24 17:15:00 - [539] I am not supporting this. I don't fly gallente, but I've been butt-**ed by them before. Blasters have high damage and low range. That's how it is. Gallente get drones man! The ishkur for example, yes blaster may get kited by a jaguar, but the drones will still do dps to a jag/inty who orbits past 20k. Ishtar? same **ing thing. if you want longer range on your guns so bad, use railguns. I'm sure hawk and vengeance pilots wish they had 5 light drones to field. Every ship has a problem, every ship has strengths.
neener2u2	Posted - 2010.10.24 20:22:00 - [540] Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj The ishkur for example, yes blaster may get kited by a jaguar, but the drones will still do dps to a jag/inty who orbits past 20k. Ishtar? same ****ing thing.... I'm sure hawk and vengeance pilots wish they had 5 light drones to field. I am sure that the rest of the Gal frig lineup also wishes they had 5 drones. I am also sure that the rest of the gal cruiser lineup wishes it had 125mb of bonused drones. Or are you suggesting that we leave blasters alone and just give all gal boats large amounts of bonused drones?

hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.24 22:30:00 - [541] Originally by: neener2u2 Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj The ishkur for example, yes blaster may get kited by a jaguar, but the drones will still do dps to a jag/inty who orbits past 20k. Ishtar? same ****ing thing.... I'm sure hawk and vengeance pilots wish they had 5 light drones to field. I am sure that the rest of the Gal frig lineup also wishes they had 5 drones. I am also sure that the rest of the gal cruiser lineup wishes it had 125mb of bonused drones. Or are you suggesting that we leave blasters alone and just give all gal boats large amounts of bonused drones? No. I'm saying gallente are fine as it is. If you don't like the enyo, don't fly it. Simple as. Plenty of people use those ships with success.
neener2u2	Posted - 2010.10.24 23:14:00 - [542] Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Originally by: neener2u2 Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj The ishkur for example, yes blaster may get kited by a jaguar, but the drones will still do dps to a jag/inty who orbits past 20k. Ishtar? same ****ing thing.... I'm sure hawk and vengeance pilots wish they had 5 light drones to field. I am sure that the rest of the Gal frig lineup also wishes they had 5 drones. I am also sure that the rest of the gal cruiser lineup wishes it had 125mb of bonused drones. Or are you suggesting that we leave blasters alone and just give all gal boats large amounts of bonused drones? No. I'm saying gallente are fine as it is. If you don't like the enyo, don't fly it. Simple as. Plenty of people use those ships with success. So then why did you try and justify gal boats being fine "because of drone" in the first place again?
hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.25 00:20:00 - [543] Originally by: neener2u2 Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Originally by: neener2u2 Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj The ishkur for example, yes blaster may get kited by a jaguar, but the drones will still do dps to a jag/inty who orbits past 20k. Ishtar? same ****ing thing.... I'm sure hawk and vengeance pilots wish they had 5 light drones to field. I am sure that the rest of the Gal frig lineup also wishes they had 5 drones. I am also sure that the rest of the gal cruiser lineup wishes it had 125mb of bonused drones. Or are you suggesting that we leave blasters alone and just give all gal boats large amounts of bonused drones? No. I'm saying gallente are fine as it is. If you don't like the enyo, don't fly it. Simple as. Plenty of people use those ships with success. So then why did you try and justify gal boats being fine "because of drone" in the first place again? Even the Enyo gets a drone. And has a way better tank than the Ishkur, brah. Thorax has more drones than almost every battlecruiser (save gallente ones, obvs) , so stfu. That's why I tried to justify them because of drone. I didn't mean only ishkur and ishtar. the thorax makes up for the lack of drones with DPS and tank. As does the Enyo. Look, I'm right, ok?
neener2u2	Posted - 2010.10.25 01:47:00 - [544] Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Even the Enyo gets a drone. And has a way better tank than the Ishkur, brah. Thorax has more drones than almost every battlecruiser (save gallente ones, obvs) , so stfu. That's why I tried to justify them because of drone. I didn't mean only ishkur and ishtar. the thorax makes up for the lack of drones with DPS and tank. As does the Enyo. Look, I'm right, ok? Your not good with consistancy are you.
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.10.25 03:08:00 - [545] Edited by: Doctor Aibolit on 25/10/2010 03:10:58 First, Only drone gallente boats are good: Ishkur, Vexor, Ishtar, Myrm, Domi - they have bonuses for drones (Ishkur has just big drone bandwidth). Even Thorax with his 50m BW is a bad ship. Vexor has very good chances to defeat Thorax. Second, Dedicated blaster boats are not good comparing with appropriate tier ship of other races. Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj I'm saying gallente are fine as it is. If you don't like the enyo, don't fly it Excellent solution. CCP please close this thread, Blaster problem is solved!
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.10.25 05:16:00 - [546] I've attempted to go through most of the 19 pages here. I had an idea and wanted to make sure it hadn't been voiced before I threw it out there. First a definition -wrecking hits - they do up to 300% of normal damage on a target. They depend on a lot of different factors to happen. Transversal velocity, weapon damage type vs. target resistances, tracking, ect. Double or triple the chance that railguns or blasters get a wrecking hit. Give blasters a slight tracking boost - say 10%. That doesn't look like much but it would increase the chance of a critical hit and give more damage potential. This would give hybrids a racial flavor. You're wrapping a projectile in a field of some sort and throwing it down range at insane speeds. You can visualize such an object going in one end of a ship and out the other. It increases damage that hybrids currently can do but it isn't guaranteed - over time you'd get higher DPS. At the same time you're not extending range or making hybrids more "lazor-like" in order to compete with other races - you're unique..
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.25 07:30:00 - [547] Originally by: Zarnak Wulf First a definition -wrecking hits - they do up to 300% of normal damage on a target. They depend on a lot of different factors to happen. Transversal velocity, weapon damage type vs. target resistances, tracking, ect. Not really, wrecking hits happen at 1% chance every shoot, and don't affected by transversal or damage types/resistances(beyond the normal calculations). Quote: If your chance-to-hit is greater than 1%, 1% of your shots (all shots, not just hits) will be wrecking hits. If your chance-to-hit is less than 1% then all of your hits will be wrecking hits. Originally by: Zarnak Wulf Double or triple the chance that railguns or blasters get a wrecking hit. Give blasters a slight tracking boost - say 10%. That doesn't look like much but it would increase the chance of a critical hit and give more damage potential. That would only increase damage by 2-4% in a peek dps situation, a bit more in situations you deal less. However it is not even close to create a noticeable effect in the end. 10% tracking is basically a useless change for blasters. It would be like adding 1% falloff to ACs. Originally by: Zarnak Wulf This would give hybrids a racial flavor. No, it would not. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Fyrar Maan	Posted - 2010.10.25 11:35:00 - [548] I think part of the problem is that people don't know where hybred turrets should stand in the larger picture. Everyone has different ideas. Should they sit somewhere between lasers and projectiles in terms of the range bonuses? Where should they sit with their ammo, and how does one tackle their cost per shot? The comparison I did earlier showed that Blasters had about 1.5 times the optiminal range of the Autocannons and 1.5 times the falloff of the pulse lasers; the worst of both worlds in terms of range. This does need to be changed; and I suggest the midpoint between autocannons and pulse lasers; 2x increase in optiminal and a 36% increase in falloff. I think this would handle a majority of complaints, but it still leaves the issue of cost per shot and their ammo.
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.10.25 15:07:00 - [549] Originally by: The Djego Not really, wrecking hits happen at 1% chance every shoot, and don't affected by transversal or damage types/resistances(beyond the normal calculations). Quote: If your chance-to-hit is greater than 1%, 1% of your shots (all shots, not just hits) will be wrecking hits. If your chance-to-hit is less than 1% then all of your hits will be wrecking hits. Originally by: Zarnak Wulf Double or triple the chance that railguns or blasters get a wrecking hit. Give blasters a slight tracking boost - say 10%. That doesn't look like much but it would increase the chance of a critical hit and give more damage potential. That would only increase damage by 2-4% in a peek dps situation, a bit more in situations you deal less. However it is not even close to create a noticeable effect in the end. I threw "double or triple" out there to simply flesh out the idea. If it is a 1% chance for a wrecking hit - what about increasing the chance ten fold to 10% for hybrids? And leave the tracking increase as debatable?
hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.25 18:03:00 - [550] Originally by: neener2u2 Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Even the Enyo gets a drone. And has a way better tank than the Ishkur, brah. Thorax has more drones than almost every battlecruiser (save gallente ones, obvs) , so stfu. That's why I tried to justify them because of drone. I didn't mean only ishkur and ishtar. the thorax makes up for the lack of drones with DPS and tank. As does the Enyo. Look, I'm right, ok? Your not good with consistancy are you. I am good with consistancies. The thorax DOES have more drones than almost every BC. Yet it does have a lack of drones when you compare it to say, a vexor, yet it DOES make up for this with a huge tank. STFU already.

hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.25 18:07:00 - [551] Originally by: Doctor Aibolit Edited by: Doctor Aibolit on 25/10/2010 03:10:58 First, Only drone gallente boats are good: Ishkur, Vexor, Ishtar, Myrm, Domi - they have bonuses for drones (Ishkur has just big drone bandwidth). Even Thorax with his 50m BW is a bad ship. Vexor has very good chances to defeat Thorax. Second, Dedicated blaster boats are not good comparing with appropriate tier ship of other races. Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj I'm saying gallente are fine as it is. If you don't like the enyo, don't fly it Excellent solution. CCP please close this thread, Blaster problem is solved! There was no blaster problem to begin with. The ishkur gets drones. The enyo gets another turret slot and more tank. PICK ONE YOU NUB. The vexor gets drones. The thorax gets a better tank and drones.
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.25 18:10:00 - [552] Originally by: Zarnak Wulf I threw "double or triple" out there to simply flesh out the idea. If it is a 1% chance for a wrecking hit - what about increasing the chance ten fold to 10% for hybrids? And leave the tracking increase as debatable? That would be a 20% dps increase, that sounds a lot, however even with this you are left with the issues created by QR. In general I don't see any real reason to use one without the ability to pin down a target at point blank and hold it perfectly in place for any kind of medium or large blaster ship once you catch it. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Rickhart Gallente	Posted - 2010.10.25 18:41:00 - [553] all of you are forgetting how much cap lasers consume if you guys want a blaster boost your gonna have to increase the cap consumption also
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.25 19:05:00 - [554] Originally by: Rickhart all of you are forgetting how much cap lasers consume if you guys want a blaster boost your gonna have to increase the cap consumption also After the cap bonus it is mostly equal. Also you need far more cap to move the hulls around with the MWD. In my experience cap need is actually higher for most gallente hulls under real combat conditions. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Rickhart Gallente	Posted - 2010.10.25 19:12:00 - [555] are you saying the mwd's consume more cap when their used with a gallente hull?
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.25 19:51:00 - [556] Originally by: Rickhart are you saying the mwd's consume more cap when their used with a gallente hull? No, but there is a serious difference in the need of mwding around with a optimal of 4.5/11km compared to 15/45km in most combat situations... ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Kvo Vadis	Posted - 2010.10.26 01:36:00 - [557] Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj The vexor gets drones. The thorax gets a better tank and drones. Did you play EVE? Gallente drone ships have more tank than Gallente blaster ships. Because Drone ships do not spend low slots for damage mods. Try to play more than free 14 days
neener2u2	Posted - 2010.10.26 01:54:00 - [558] Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj The thorax DOES have more drones than almost every BC. Yet it does have a lack of drones when you compare it to say, a vexor, yet it DOES make up for this with a huge tank. Oh right. I forgot about the huge tank thats possible on the 'rax. 1600 plate + 3x trimarks 4tw right? Oh wait but now you cant fit the medium guns you get bonuses to. Thats ok cuz you fit small blasters amirite? Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj I dont fly gallente I think this sufficiently sums up your working knowledge.
Dro Nee	Posted - 2010.10.26 01:59:00 - [559] Edited by: Dro Nee on 26/10/2010 02:02:15 Originally by: Rickhart all of you are forgetting how much cap lasers consume if you guys want a blaster boost your gonna have to increase the cap consumption also iirc blasters use the same amount of cap/sec as lasers because laser boats get that 10%/lvl bonus. Also: lol troll fights (hjlaskdjfa and Neener)
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.10.26 03:05:00 - [560] Originally by: neener2u2 Oh right. I forgot about the huge tank thats possible on the 'rax. 1600 plate + 3x trimarks 4tw right? Oh wait but now you cant fit the medium guns you get bonuses to. Thats ok cuz you fit small blasters amirite? Yep. You are right. Lets compare Thorax and Rupture for hjgjgfgfgsj. He is new in EVE. [Thorax] It is impossible to fit even 1st tier medium guns. Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Hammerhead II x5 -------------- [Rupture] Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Hammerhead II x3 It is possible to fit 2nd tier (!) medium AC. Same tank, more speed, shoots with zero cap, 2 small neuts, same DPS (with selectable damage)

hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.26 14:36:00 - [561] Doctor, you don't know how to fit ships. The thorax is more than capable of fitting medium guns. The fit I'm staring at right now has 42k ehp, and 450 dps and goes 1100 m/s, with a gun range of 1.5 optimal and 3.8 falloff. The rupture fit I'm staring at right now has 40k ehp, 400 dps, and goes 1200 m/s with a gun range of 1.4 optimal and 11 falloff. Bottom line - it is balanced. The thorax can do whatever the rupture can do, and the thorax can do whatever a stabber can do. The demos can do whatever a vagabond can do. The Ishtar can **** almost anything. Look, I'm right, ok?
Professor Screweyes	Posted - 2010.10.26 14:54:00 - [562] Quote: The demos can do whatever a vagabond can do. HAHAHAHAHA! And there goes any credibility you might have had!
hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.26 15:03:00 - [563] Originally by: Professor Screweyes Quote: The demos can do whatever a vagabond can do. HAHAHAHAHA! And there goes any credibility you might have had! [Deimos, VAGADEIMOS] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Warp Disruptor II Large Shield Extender II Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M [empty high slot] Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Hammerhead II x5 600 dps, 1800 m/s, 26k ehp, good resists, so what are you talking about?
Rickhart Gallente	Posted - 2010.10.26 15:07:00 - [564] wtfbbq maybe?
Rickhart Gallente	Posted - 2010.10.26 15:09:00 - [565] Originally by: The Djego Originally by: Rickhart are you saying the mwd's consume more cap when their used with a gallente hull? No, but there is a serious difference in the need of mwding around with a optimal of 4.5/11km compared to 15/45km in most combat situations... have you ever actually lost a fight against an amarr because the fight started out at 45k?
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.10.26 23:31:00 - [566] Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj [Deimos, VAGADEIMOS] 600 dps, 1800 m/s, 26k ehp, good resists, so what are you talking about? [Vagabond, Vaga] Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Damage Control II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M [empty high slot] Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I Medium Projectile Burst Aerator I Hobgoblin II x5 600dps at 30km falloff or 500dps 44km falloff (selective damage) 2480m/s, 26.8k ehp (84/75/63/69) Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj The demos can do whatever a vagabond can do. I think it is not true. Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj I don't fly gallente Just try it. Gallente EFT numbers are not so bad - it is true.
Natasha Hec Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2010.10.26 23:37:00 - [567] Originally by: Doctor Aibolit Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj [Deimos, VAGADEIMOS] 600 dps, 1800 m/s, 26k ehp, good resists, so what are you talking about? [Vagabond, Vaga] Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Damage Control II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M [empty high slot] Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I Medium Projectile Burst Aerator I Hobgoblin II x5 600dps at 30km falloff or 500dps 44km falloff (selective damage) 2480m/s, 26.8k ehp (84/75/63/69) Good luck actually getting 600dps from a vaga at 30km.
hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.27 13:30:00 - [568] Edited by: hjgjgfgfgsj on 27/10/2010 13:34:54 Quit being stoopid. This topic is about BLASTERS, not about boosting gallente top speed. And the loadout I posted was showing that the Deimos can do damage at 25k with BLASTERS the same way a vaga can with AC, and another fit I could post with the thorax could do more damage at 25k with BLASTERS than a stabber with AC. Why don't you realize that I'm right about blasters and that the deimos' speed and agility have nothing to do with this topic. Yes I said a Deimos can do whatever a vaga can do, but I didn't mean speedwise, obviously. I just meant what I proved, that it can deal lots of damge at 25k with Blasters. Look, I'm right. EDIT - Also, your vaga loadout sacrifices a LSE for an invuln just so you can fit 425mm AC and try and get as much dps as my Deimos loadout. I also notice you fit a DC instead of a nano, which is what the most popular vaga loadout uses.
Korg Leaf Time Bandits.	Posted - 2010.10.27 13:40:00 - [569] Edited by: Korg Leaf on 27/10/2010 13:41:44 Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Quit being stoopid. This topic is about BLASTERS, not about boosting gallente top speed. And the loadout I posted was showing that the Deimos can do damage at 25k with BLASTERS the same way a vaga can with AC, and another fit I could post with the thorax could do more damage at 25k with BLASTERS than a stabber with AC. Why don't you realize that I'm right about blasters and that the deimos' speed and agility have nothing to do with this topic. Yes I said a Deimos can do whatever a vaga can do, but I didn't mean speedwise, obviously. I just meant what I proved, that it can deal lots of damge at 25k with Blasters. Look, I'm right. no you said a deimos can do what a vaga does, which is hit from falloff whilst kiting, she said thats idiotic. I personally would love to see this thorax fit. Also saying stoopid that way certainly makes you look clever
hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.27 14:06:00 - [570] Originally by: Korg Leaf Edited by: Korg Leaf on 27/10/2010 13:41:44 Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Quit being stoopid. This topic is about BLASTERS, not about boosting gallente top speed. And the loadout I posted was showing that the Deimos can do damage at 25k with BLASTERS the same way a vaga can with AC, and another fit I could post with the thorax could do more damage at 25k with BLASTERS than a stabber with AC. Why don't you realize that I'm right about blasters and that the deimos' speed and agility have nothing to do with this topic. Yes I said a Deimos can do whatever a vaga can do, but I didn't mean speedwise, obviously. I just meant what I proved, that it can deal lots of damge at 25k with Blasters. Look, I'm right. no you said a deimos can do what a vaga does, which is hit from falloff whilst kiting, she said thats idiotic. I personally would love to see this thorax fit. Also saying stoopid that way certainly makes you look clever I know I said a Deimos can do what a vaga does, and I know I meant hit from falloff whilst kiting, and I know she said that's idiotic. I also know SHE's idiotic, because the fit I just posted can kite just fine, all you have to do is show up and be a little faster than your target, and with that much damage the fight will be over before he even has a chance of reaching you, not to mention the bonus to MWD CAP use the deimos and thorax get which enables them to run their MWDs far longer than a vaga. Heres the thorax fit. Its got 440 dps, 21k ehp, goes 1400 m/s, and does 230 dps pat 25k. [Thorax, STABBARAX] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Warp Disruptor II Large Shield Extender II Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Hammerhead II x5 An alternative is a nano instead of DCU, but PREFERANCE.

Korg Leaf Time Bandits.	Posted - 2010.10.27 14:11:00 - [571] Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Originally by: Korg Leaf Edited by: Korg Leaf on 27/10/2010 13:41:44 Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Lots of Quoting Interesting idea, problem is past 15k your guns are going to be doing little damage as most of your damage at that point comes from your drones, which as they are the gallente ones are fairly slow
hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.27 14:53:00 - [572] Like I said, Gallente are fine because of drones. No need to fix blasters, unless you want to specifially to fly the Enyo, which is a good little ship regardless.
Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.10.27 15:48:00 - [573] Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Like I said, Gallente are fine because of drones. No need to fix blasters, unless you want to specifially to fly the Enyo, which is a good little ship regardless. No, they aren't because drones aren't as flexible for damage selection as missiles, as useful for large fleet battles and long-range engagements as lasers, projectiles or LOLhybrids, and heavy DPS variants are only useful in the same engagement envelope as autocannons or LOLblasters, and even then are likely to be quickly destroyed in order to negate incoming DPS. In other words, like the other two Gallente weapons systems, they are mediocre at best.
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.10.27 16:05:00 - [574] Outside of the Box Fixes: Increase the damage bonus that a magnetic field stabilizer bestows. There's no reason heat sinks, gyros, and MFS all have to be equal. This plays to tank or gank too. Reduce the fitting requirements for blasters. A sawed-off shotgun is alot easier to carry then the ghostbuster's plasma pack. Remove the penalties for rigs dealing with active armor tanking. Increase the chance of critical hits when using blasters. Noone jumped at this idea though so... After those I would look at tracking before adjusting ranges and such.
Rickhart Gallente	Posted - 2010.10.27 16:25:00 - [575] just compared mega pulse to heavy neutraon and the neutron takes up 400 less pg and only uses up like 7 more cpu than mega pulses so yeah i guess a sawed off shotgun is easier to carry
hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.27 16:29:00 - [576] Originally by: Ogogov Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Like I said, Gallente are fine because of drones. No need to fix blasters, unless you want to specifially to fly the Enyo, which is a good little ship regardless. No, they aren't because drones aren't as flexible for damage selection as missiles, as useful for large fleet battles and long-range engagements as lasers, projectiles or LOLhybrids, and heavy DPS variants are only useful in the same engagement envelope as autocannons or LOLblasters, and even then are likely to be quickly destroyed in order to negate incoming DPS. In other words, like the other two Gallente weapons systems, they are mediocre at best. Alright, it seems you people want to kee arguing even though you are so wrong it's stupid. To those of you wanting a blaster fix, I pose this question: Would you rather fly a cerberus over a deimos/ishtar? Answer that question.
Korg Leaf Time Bandits.	Posted - 2010.10.27 17:01:00 - [577] Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Originally by: Ogogov Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Like I said, Gallente are fine because of drones. No need to fix blasters, unless you want to specifially to fly the Enyo, which is a good little ship regardless. No, they aren't because drones aren't as flexible for damage selection as missiles, as useful for large fleet battles and long-range engagements as lasers, projectiles or LOLhybrids, and heavy DPS variants are only useful in the same engagement envelope as autocannons or LOLblasters, and even then are likely to be quickly destroyed in order to negate incoming DPS. In other words, like the other two Gallente weapons systems, they are mediocre at best. Alright, it seems you people want to kee arguing even though you are so wrong it's stupid. To those of you wanting a blaster fix, I pose this question: Would you rather fly a cerberus over a deimos/ishtar? Answer that question. I would definitely fly a cerberus over a deimos, and the ishtar is slightly irrelevant to this question as we are talking about hybrids and although ishtars can and do use hybrids they arent used as a primary weapon system.
hjgjgfgfgsj	Posted - 2010.10.27 17:08:00 - [578] Originally by: Korg Leaf Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Originally by: Ogogov Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Like I said, Gallente are fine because of drones. No need to fix blasters, unless you want to specifially to fly the Enyo, which is a good little ship regardless. No, they aren't because drones aren't as flexible for damage selection as missiles, as useful for large fleet battles and long-range engagements as lasers, projectiles or LOLhybrids, and heavy DPS variants are only useful in the same engagement envelope as autocannons or LOLblasters, and even then are likely to be quickly destroyed in order to negate incoming DPS. In other words, like the other two Gallente weapons systems, they are mediocre at best. Alright, it seems you people want to kee arguing even though you are so wrong it's stupid. To those of you wanting a blaster fix, I pose this question: Would you rather fly a cerberus over a deimos/ishtar? Answer that question. I would definitely fly a cerberus over a deimos, and the ishtar is slightly irrelevant to this question as we are talking about hybrids and although ishtars can and do use hybrids they arent used as a primary weapon system. That's goofy, man.
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.10.27 17:31:00 - [579] Originally by: Rickhart just compared mega pulse to heavy neutraon and the neutron takes up 400 less pg and only uses up like 7 more cpu than mega pulses so yeah i guess a sawed off shotgun is easier to carry Is it? The races in terms of powergrid for each ship class are ranked: Amarr - Minmatar ------------> Gallente - Caldari That 400 pg is not as significant as it sounds. And of course there's the whole 300% more range for 9% less DPS thing going for pulse lasers.
Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.10.27 19:53:00 - [580] Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Originally by: Ogogov Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Like I said, Gallente are fine because of drones. No need to fix blasters, unless you want to specifially to fly the Enyo, which is a good little ship regardless. No, they aren't because drones aren't as flexible for damage selection as missiles, as useful for large fleet battles and long-range engagements as lasers, projectiles or LOLhybrids, and heavy DPS variants are only useful in the same engagement envelope as autocannons or LOLblasters, and even then are likely to be quickly destroyed in order to negate incoming DPS. In other words, like the other two Gallente weapons systems, they are mediocre at best. Alright, it seems you people want to kee arguing even though you are so wrong it's stupid. To those of you wanting a blaster fix, I pose this question: Would you rather fly a cerberus over a deimos/ishtar? Answer that question. YOUR STRAWMAN IS BAD AND U SHOULD FEEL BAD.

Ryan Starwing Gallente Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.10.27 21:03:00 - [581] For pvp if I had the skills I would rather fly the cerb over diemost and ishtar. The Diemost is called that for a reason. They die the most and are not that useful when alive. Sentry drones are not useable for sniper hac fleets reason you are active aligned out and thus you lose your drones when you warp or die because you chose not to active aligne out. Also Heavies are to slow for close range hac fleets and lose them each time you warp out. So after about 5 minutes of fighting you will be out of yor main damage dealing drones and the op just started; in null sec you cant dock at hostile stations to replenish your drones you have to take it first. PVE Ishtar all the way for guristas (Though you arnt using hybrids just a civy auto cannon or something like that for aggro) PS:Gallente Gun Boat problems is two fold poor ship (powergrid for example) and a poor weapon system. PSS:I dont think I ever seen a hostile eagle(another hybrid boat).
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.10.27 22:38:00 - [582] Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj Yes I said a Deimos can do whatever a vaga can do, but I didn't mean speedwise, obviously. I just meant what I proved, that it can deal lots of damge at 25k with Blasters. Look, I'm right. Vagabond do the same damage at 25 km with faction ammo. But if Vagabond load long range ammo too (as Deimos in your fit) it will do more than x1.5 damage. Comparing pure turret damage in DPS graph it is about 200dps (Deimos) VS 330dps (Vagabond) Originally by: hjgjgfgfgsj EDIT # 2 - Look, I'm not saying that Gallente are a perfect pvp race, I'm just saying that IF you REALLY NEED to boost something, it definatly is not blasters. 90% web was nerfed, nano was nerfed (it was important condition for successful blaster usage - FAST APPROACHING and HOLDING target). After many changes blasters were not revised. It is time to adjust blasters to new EVE combat environment. Last projectile boost was awesome. It is time to revise hybrid weapon. P.S. Take a look on small gangs s in low-sec. Compare percentage of Minmatar/Amarr/Drakes/Gallente.
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.29 13:29:00 - [583] Edited by: The Djego on 29/10/2010 13:33:02 Originally by: Rickhart Originally by: The Djego Originally by: Rickhart are you saying the mwd's consume more cap when their used with a gallente hull? No, but there is a serious difference in the need of mwding around with a optimal of 4.5/11km compared to 15/45km in most combat situations... have you ever actually lost a fight against an amarr because the fight started out at 45k? Since I know how close the fights against good fitted and flown geddon are if you start at 20km or less, chances are pretty good I never engaged one at 45km. Mega(NB, 3MFS): 22 Cap/s Gedon(MP, 3HS): 32.3 Cap/s(+10.3) Abaddon(MP, 2HS): 52 Cap/s(+30) A single MWD Cycle takes 540 Cap and you need 3-4 to cover the common 24-20km distance to a target in a Mega. Time to break even: 2m 40s to the gedon 54s to the abaddon This is only 3 bursts and assuming you only got 1 target. In most fights you will have more than just 1 target and you will need the mwd a lot more than just for 3 cycles to get and stay in range so the cap use is a lot higher most of the the time(before you even consider active tanking). ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Reddx Panther	Posted - 2010.10.30 18:48:00 - [584] Edited by: Reddx Panther on 30/10/2010 18:54:36 Agree with OP, blasters need some love. As they are meant to be the middle ground between AC and Lazorz, i wonder why they suffer from both the AC reloading time (10s) AND the laser lack of choice when it comes to damage types. Blasters/Rails as a middle thing between AC and lasers would make more sense if you had like 5s reload and two different damage type combinations (even if it were more thermal vs kinetic.).
Jahpahjay	Posted - 2010.11.01 16:49:00 - [585] Not that this thread necessarily needs it, but I feel a bump is in order
Aron Grys	Posted - 2010.11.02 03:42:00 - [586] So as bad as it sounds, I think hybrids in general need a gimmick. Sure you could play with the base stats of range or tracking or damage, but then you run the risk of just making more of the same when you run into the other turrets. Instead, give them something that is still of direct benefit, but without homogenizing the turrets still further. Just as an off the wall example: take all the dedicated blaster ships like the Brutix, Deimos, etc. Take away one turret slot, and upgrade the damage bonus from the hull to compensate. Same damage, but now you use a little less cap, have a little easier fitting, and your ship is a little less expensive. You also have a spare utility high, always handy. But wait! This doesn't address the main problem with blasters, which is putting damage on target! True, so maybe that extra utility high can be migrated to a low or a mid. Now that blaster ship has the spare fitting and slot for a speed mod or a web. If you really want to go overboard, reduce the cap usage of blasters a little more to offset the requirement of high usage on the MWD and scram+web. Now you've maintained a unique close range niche for blasters but still boosted them. Obviously this isn't a panacea, but I think this type of solution is far more promising than simply adding 10% more tracking or damage.
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.11.02 14:17:00 - [587] Originally by: Aron Grys ... Obviously this isn't a panacea, but I think this type of solution is far more promising than simply adding 10% more tracking or damage. "10% more tracking AND damage" - is the simple possible solution. All other solutions look pretty complicated without braking existing game. As for Gallente ships it looks strange: 1) Armed with extremely short range weapon you should approach to enemy as soon as possible but ship bonuses and slot layouts tell you to use armor tank that means mass increasing, speed penalties because of armor rigs. 2) First, there are less low slots comparing Amarr ships and there are active tank bonuses on some ships so it supposed to fit ACTIVE ARMOR TANK (if not let’s switch to 5% resists?) – it significantly consumes CAP. Second, MWD is highly recommended module for extremely short range weapon – it significantly consumes CAP. Is it logical to fit CAP consuming weapon on such ships? 3) Lasers (Pulse) shoot farther than Projectiles (AC). Lasers have slower tracking. Projectiles have faster tracking. Ok it is logical. (Mega Pulse on Abaddon = 0.04219, 800mm on Maelstrom = 0.054). BUT now… Projectiles (AC) shoot father than Blasters. Why Blaster tracking = Projectile (AC) tracking? (800mm on Maelstrom = 0.054, Neutron Cannon on Hyperion = 0.05412). It is logical shorter range - more tracking is needed.
Tray LiSans	Posted - 2010.11.02 20:23:00 - [588] Originally by: Doctor Aibolit "10% more tracking AND damage" - is the simple possible solution. All other solutions look pretty complicated without braking existing game. As for Gallente ships it looks strange: 1) Armed with extremely short range weapon you should approach to enemy as soon as possible but ship bonuses and slot layouts tell you to use armor tank that means mass increasing, speed penalties because of armor rigs. 2) First, there are less low slots comparing Amarr ships and there are active tank bonuses on some ships so it supposed to fit ACTIVE ARMOR TANK (if not letÆs switch to 5% resists?) û it significantly consumes CAP. Second, MWD is highly recommended module for extremely short range weapon û it significantly consumes CAP. Is it logical to fit CAP consuming weapon on such ships? 3) Lasers (Pulse) shoot farther than Projectiles (AC). Lasers have slower tracking. Projectiles have faster tracking. Ok it is logical. (Mega Pulse on Abaddon = 0.04219, 800mm on Maelstrom = 0.054). BUT nowà Projectiles (AC) shoot father than Blasters. Why Blaster tracking = Projectile (AC) tracking? (800mm on Maelstrom = 0.054, Neutron Cannon on Hyperion = 0.05412). It is logical shorter range - more tracking is needed. I actually agree on most of this. Blaster range causes a number of other problems that are only compounded by being on armor tanked hulls. If you go active armor tank, you have no cap stability at all. Between the required MWD, tackle, and guns, trying to run any sort of realistic active tank is out of the question in many cases. However, running a buffer tank slows you down significantly, making it even harder to put damage on target. My point is that simply adding some random boost to tracking and damage isn't going to help blasters' primary downfall. Yes blasters could benefit from tracking and damage, but that's just a band-aid fix to help the symptoms of poor damage application, rather than addressing the root cause that is cap-hungry, slow, armor tanked blaster boats. This stew of various problems has all now congealed into a general hybrid failure, and '10% of x variable.' Is not really the cure. The weapon systems and ships need a large overhaul.
Mortimer Civeri Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.11.03 00:02:00 - [589] Originally by: Tray LiSans I actually agree on most of this. Blaster range causes a number of other problems that are only compounded by being on armor tanked hulls. If you go active armor tank, you have no cap stability at all. Between the required MWD, tackle, and guns, trying to run any sort of realistic active tank is out of the question in many cases. However, running a buffer tank slows you down significantly, making it even harder to put damage on target. My point is that simply adding some random boost to tracking and damage isn't going to help blasters' primary downfall. Yes blasters could benefit from tracking and damage, but that's just a band-aid fix to help the symptoms of poor damage application, rather than addressing the root cause that is cap-hungry, slow, armor tanked blaster boats. This stew of various problems has all now congealed into a general hybrid failure, and '10% of x variable.' Is not really the cure. The weapon systems and ships need a large overhaul. ^^This. The Nano nerf, the removal of 90% webs, and don't forget about the speed nerf. Any one of these nerfs would have made blasters difficult (but not imposible) to use effectivly, all together they make blaster boats impractical, except for camping undocks. Blasters and blaster boats need a total overhaul.
Tashia Stargate	Posted - 2010.11.03 06:11:00 - [590] I think it would be interesting to see hull tanking be made viable on Gallente ships. Make it roughly equal to armor tanking, but without the speed drawbacks.

Arnold Predator Special Situations	Posted - 2010.11.08 13:55:00 - [591] Edited by: Arnold Predator on 08/11/2010 13:55:25 Originally by: Doctor Aibolit Originally by: Aron Grys ... Obviously this isn't a panacea, but I think this type of solution is far more promising than simply adding 10% more tracking or damage. "10% more tracking AND damage" - is the simple possible solution. All other solutions look pretty complicated without braking existing game. As for Gallente ships it looks strange: 1) Armed with extremely short range weapon you should approach to enemy as soon as possible but ship bonuses and slot layouts tell you to use armor tank that means mass increasing, speed penalties because of armor rigs. 2) First, there are less low slots comparing Amarr ships and there are active tank bonuses on some ships so it supposed to fit ACTIVE ARMOR TANK (if not letÆs switch to 5% resists?) û it significantly consumes CAP. Second, MWD is highly recommended module for extremely short range weapon û it significantly consumes CAP. Is it logical to fit CAP consuming weapon on such ships? 3) Lasers (Pulse) shoot farther than Projectiles (AC). Lasers have slower tracking. Projectiles have faster tracking. Ok it is logical. (Mega Pulse on Abaddon = 0.04219, 800mm on Maelstrom = 0.054). BUT nowà Projectiles (AC) shoot father than Blasters. Why Blaster tracking = Projectile (AC) tracking? (800mm on Maelstrom = 0.054, Neutron Cannon on Hyperion = 0.05412). It is logical shorter range - more tracking is needed. I also agree with this. Give tracking a little bit of a boost so its between ACs and PLs. Make the ships a little bit faster and call it good. Also some more cap would be nice on the ships designed to active tank. Either that or change the bonus to +5% ris per skill. Could some one write up a proposal and start a new thread or get a csm to look at this. I get off of work in 13 mins and don't have the time right now. I hope we can find a way to get this problem fixed soon. Does the CSM have any ideas on this topic? I have read your logs and I know you have talked to ccp about it in the past but we need to keep on them about it. Hybrids sucking is affecting 1/2 of the races in the game. If you want to salve problems with eve please make this a must for ccp to fix in the summer expantion.
Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.11.08 17:46:00 - [592] Originally by: Arnold Predator Edited by: Arnold Predator on 08/11/2010 13:55:25 Does the CSM have any ideas on this topic? I have read your logs and I know you have talked to ccp about it in the past but we need to keep on them about it. Hybrids sucking is affecting 1/2 of the races in the game. If you want to salve problems with eve please make this a must for ccp to fix in the summer expantion. The CSM has shown absolutely no interest in fixing hybrids or the Gallente faction, and I've never read any indication that any of them have even paid attention to these threads. If you notice, it wasn't even listed on the crowdsource CSM issues to vote on! In other words, CSM fail Gal/Hybrid users and need to pay attention.
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.11.08 19:04:00 - [593] 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
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.11.09 04:12:00 - [594] Edited by: Doctor Aibolit on 09/11/2010 04:12:09 Hybrid guns balance (CSM) Fix blasters (CSM) Hybrid guns balance CSM meeting Do not waste your time - learn Lasers or Projectiles. It is faster than to wait attention for Hybrids.
Verdon Teraskun	Posted - 2010.11.09 05:22:00 - [595] Originally by: Doctor Aibolit [ 17:50:14 ] TeaDaze > Failed 1 for, 8 against You see - learn other weapon Good thing I have the FOTM pulse lasers now...
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.11.11 04:27:00 - [596] Some statistic facts from Top20 http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 : Top 20 killer ships: there are only 2 Gallente ships (Mega - 3rd place, Myrm - 20th place) Top 20 weapons: there is no blaster and surprise - there is 425 Railgun :) ( fleet VS fleet ) P.S. You see - just learn something else. Something else is better than Hybrids
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2010.11.11 12:12:00 - [597] Originally by: Doctor Aibolit Some statistic facts from Top20 http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 : Top 20 killer ships: there are only 2 Gallente ships (Mega - 3rd place, Myrm - 20th place) Top 20 weapons: there is no blaster and surprise - there is 425 Railgun :) ( fleet VS fleet ) P.S. You see - just learn something else. Something else is better than Hybrids i think megathron is that high becuase of tracking bonus , which somehow fix blaters by its own.
Lusulpher Sinister Elite Supremacy.	Posted - 2010.11.12 11:32:00 - [598] Edited by: Lusulpher on 12/11/2010 11:34:19 Originally by: Good Advice I'd say that blasters need to be changed entirely and give something new to the gun field. Currently, Lasers have their niche, Projectiles are getting reworked to allow for some nice damage switching, but blasters work just like lasers, just worse. Changes to Blasters: Rewrite description to say they are a high damage weapon that has difficulty hitting at anything but close range. Increase damage by 50% Increase tracking by 300% Reduce optimal to 1 Tweak falloff to slightly less Change +optimal modifiers on ammo to +falloff Now, blasters do incredible damage at close range, but have difficulty hitting anything and damage decreases with every km of range. It turns blaster ships into close range death dealers that suck for anything past 5km or so. I'm ok with that. ^ This. Also damps don't have a residual effect like ECM jam/neutralizing entire cap does. An Arazu can't cycle through an entire fleet with much more achieved than losing cloak ability and aggressing all the deployed drones. Our dronebays are not the best at refilling our lost flights from roaming/long-range combat...And then our guns don't track, or beat high dps comparisons for long/short range weapons?! Boost Gallente. Gallente victor. Creative Customer Person 7
Failgun Owner	Posted - 2010.11.13 03:29:00 - [599] Ok. We have a chance to start discussion at Public CSM roundtable, november 21st 19:00
Zelot Blueice XTC Cartel	Posted - 2010.11.13 06:23:00 - [600] For sure, although Xahara, you have to consider that Gallente ships are truly made for getting close via MWD's. Look at that Adrestia and its bonuses. ____________________________________________ POS Management Proposal

Praetor Novak Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.11.14 08:35:00 - [601] CCP fix blaster range, it's been a HUGE problem for Gallente pilots for YEARS...
Arnold Predator Special Situations	Posted - 2010.11.14 14:23:00 - [602] Originally by: Praetor Novak CCP fix blaster range, it's been a HUGE problem for Gallente pilots for YEARS... No no no. The problem is tracking, not range. Up the tracking so that we can hit at the shorter distances we fight within. Extending the range would just make blaster even more like pulse lasers.
Fettered Soul	Posted - 2010.11.14 23:25:00 - [603] Edited by: Fettered Soul on 14/11/2010 23:28:53 Originally by: Praetor Novak CCP fix blaster range, it's been a HUGE problem for Gallente pilots for YEARS... It will blur weapon difference. Blaster needs: More tracking Optimal + falloff is the shortest in the game. Why is it challenge to hit an appropriate target at native range? Small DPS boost DPS advantage should correspond with range disadvantage. Pulses shoot 85% of blaster DPS at 300% blaster range - it is not fair (comparing NULL VS Scorch and Barrage ammo difference is more insane). Small DPS boost is needed to compensate approaching time where a blaster boat gets damage without counterattack. More agility for Gallente ships Gallente boats tank armor - it means ships are penalized with speed and agility. Gallente boats are blaster boats - it means they must approach as quick as possible at their tiny optimal range. But these two sentences contradict to each other. Ok fastest ships are Minmatar ships. Lets give some agility (not speed) to Gallente boats to move fast linearly.
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.11.15 18:31:00 - [604] Amazing that a 21 page thread isn't on the CSM list. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1414376
Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.11.15 21:18:00 - [605] Originally by: X Gallentius Amazing that a 21 page thread isn't on the CSM list. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1414376 Teadaze is bringing it up for the CSM now that they have gotten rockets some attention, but it will be part and parcel of a larger hybrids fix.
InColdBlood	Posted - 2010.11.18 16:55:00 - [606] Edited by: InColdBlood on 18/11/2010 17:00:40 I should have never trained for gallente :( Its so demoralising to see so many posts on hybrids go unnoticed come voting time. * Hybrids are not even recognized as a problem! * I wonder why... are gallente a minority of the player base?
Nischara	Posted - 2010.11.18 23:18:00 - [607] because someone at CSM didnt do their job this thread/issue can be found somwhere on the CSM wiki and minutes (i am too lazy to link it now) but if you read that you see that the CSM member said that blasters need more range, and pointed to this thread most of the CSM disagreed that they need more range, so the issue was abandoned, and i agree with them, boosting range is not the answer, then blasters would just be the same as AC and lasers i am, like you amazed that noone in CSM read the whole thread and that noone raised another issue about it
Arnold Predator Special Situations	Posted - 2010.11.19 04:47:00 - [608] Its sad but i look at my 1 year old toon as a giant mistake. I would like to pvp but as of right now every FC just says go back to PVE because im a blaster boat pilot. Even then PVE sucks. Im about ready to give up and trian Projectile weapons. Its sad to think that almost 1/3 of my SP would be for a weapon system i no longer use.
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.11.19 06:02:00 - [609] Originally by: Arnold Predator Its sad but i look at my 1 year old toon as a giant mistake. I would like to pvp but as of right now every FC just says go back to PVE because im a blaster boat pilot. Even then PVE sucks. Im about ready to give up and trian Projectile weapons. Its sad to think that almost 1/3 of my SP would be for a weapon system i no longer use. It is almost impossible to do missions with blasters excepting maybe AE, Damsel and Buzz Kill. Because of range. If you compare 4 Marauders equipped 3 T2 DM + 4 High Damage Turret/Launcher you will see that blasters are not for PVE: Paladin 797DPS at 15+10km (Multifrequency L) and 730DPS at 45+10km (Scorch L) Vargur 763DPS at 3+36km (EMP/Fus/PP) and 700DPS at 6+54km (Barrage L) Golem 825DPS at 30km (t1 torpedo) and 743DPS at 45km (Javelin) Kronos can do 929DPS at 4.5+13km (AM L) and 852DPS at 11+16 (Null L)
crimson fire	Posted - 2010.11.19 23:44:00 - [610] Edited by: crimson fire on 19/11/2010 23:44:18 It really is adding insult to injury when CSM decide to give Rockets some love. As if Caldary is the race with the most pressing problems. At least missiles are nice.

Stig Sterling	Posted - 2010.11.21 18:33:00 - [611] As a typical blaster loving, drone-***** Gallente, I would have to say yes! I have traveled to many worlds, and seen many wonderful things, but now, I take to the stars to claim my place among the gods.
crimson fire	Posted - 2010.11.25 22:26:00 - [612] front page news: Hybrids still suck
Arnold Predator Special Situations	Posted - 2010.11.26 06:47:00 - [613] If they fix blaster by this time next year i would be shocked. It needs to happen but it seams no one cares.
DarkAegix	Posted - 2010.11.26 11:36:00 - [614] Wow, this is an old thread. Blaster have been broken for so long, and they need improvements. Same with railguns. They eat your powergrid and use all your cap. In fact, Gallente ships will need a huge overhaul. Slow ships + close range blasters = CCP can't just increase the optimal, tracking and DPS a little bit. What use are blasters if another other ship can kite you? They don't even do much DPS.... Especially considering that the shield-tanking Minmatar ships can slap on 3 Gyrostablisers and 2 tracking enhancers, which give a huge boost to range. Quick Megathron fitted: Neutron blaster IIs, antimatter Web Scram MWD Tungsten x4 EANM x2 DCU x2 =492dps, 4.5+13km range. 167k ehp. 797m/s Quick Maelstrom fitted: 800mm Repeating arties, EMP Disruptor MWD Invuln Large shield extenders x3 =763dps, 3.5+31km range. 106k ehp. 835m/s Damage at 5km: Mega(499dps) Mael(773dps) Damage at 10km: Mega(405dps) Mael(739dps) Damage at 15km: Mega(252dps) Mael(675dps) Damage at 20km: Mega(124dps) Mael(585dps) Damage at 25km: Mega(55dps) Mael(484dps)
4N631	Posted - 2010.11.27 14:40:00 - [615] NO
Nischara	Posted - 2010.11.29 12:27:00 - [616] down to bottom of page 3 sad
Chris Cochrane The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.12.03 16:36:00 - [617] The new munition changes have remedied the issues with the Gallente weapon systems, whether of not it was beneficial to leave the cap penalty on the Void & Javelin ammo will tell soon enough. For those wondering about the range on the blasters, rails and the DPS; to summary things, Gallente have the highest optimal, a decent fall off on all there guns (that's blasters AND rail guns of all sizes) when compared to the other races. The penalties on there T2 ammo however, gave them a handicap which most Gallente pilots were less then willing to use. The new changes have made the ammo worth using and should appropriately improve the Gallente damage/range. Any issues regarding poor combat with certain Gallente ships should be brought up in a separate thread, and is ENCOURAGED. If you believe the mechanics of the hybrid guns or ammo needs to be tweaked, post it here for all to see. I'm sure the CSM, and CCP are watching.
Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.12.03 16:41:00 - [618] Originally by: Chris Cochrane The new munition changes have remedied the issues with the Gallente weapon systems, whether of not it was beneficial to leave the cap penalty on the Void & Javelin ammo will tell soon enough. For those wondering about the range on the blasters, rails and the DPS; to summary things, Gallente have the highest optimal, a decent fall off on all there guns (that's blasters AND rail guns of all sizes) How do you figure that? That's right, you can't. Because you're wrong. Quote: The penalties on there T2 ammo however, gave them a handicap which most Gallente pilots were less then willing to use. The new changes have made the ammo worth using and should appropriately improve the Gallente damage/range. You're forgetting all other short range T2 ammo also got changed... Quote: Any issues regarding poor combat with certain Gallente ships should be brought up in a separate thread, and is ENCOURAGED. If you believe the mechanics of the hybrid guns or ammo needs to be tweaked, post it here for all to see. I'm sure the CSM, and CCP are watching. Wrong. They have not even remotely remedied the sorry state of hybrids, which remain the bona fide poor man's weapon system of eve.
Fistme	Posted - 2010.12.03 22:28:00 - [619] Originally by: Chris Cochrane The new munition changes have remedied the issues with the Gallente weapon systems, whether of not it was beneficial to leave the cap penalty on the Void & Javelin ammo will tell soon enough. For those wondering about the range on the blasters, rails and the DPS; to summary things, Gallente have the highest optimal, a decent fall off on all there guns (that's blasters AND rail guns of all sizes) when compared to the other races. The penalties on there T2 ammo however, gave them a handicap which most Gallente pilots were less then willing to use. The new changes have made the ammo worth using and should appropriately improve the Gallente damage/range. Any issues regarding poor combat with certain Gallente ships should be brought up in a separate thread, and is ENCOURAGED. If you believe the mechanics of the hybrid guns or ammo needs to be tweaked, post it here for all to see. I'm sure the CSM, and CCP are watching. lol, nose pretty brown eh? every race had their t2 close range ammo boosted...
Chris Cochrane The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.12.04 00:05:00 - [620] Originally by: Chris Cochrane The new munition changes have remedied the issues with the Gallente weapon systems, whether of not it was beneficial to leave the cap penalty on the Void & Javelin ammo will tell soon enough. For those wondering about the range on the blasters, rails and the DPS; to summary things, Gallente have the highest optimal, a decent fall off on all there guns (that's blasters AND rail guns of all sizes) Originally by: Ogogov How do you figure that? That's right, you can't. Because you're wrong. I suppose i should have included the math but to humor you, if you were to compare using the optimals AND falloffs of the 3 turrets from each race in evemon, you'll be able to determine the guns strengths, here let me post some numbers to give an idea of what I'm trying to say: OPTIMAL RANGE: Heavy Neutron Blaster2:3600m - 425MM Howitzer2:2400m - Mega pulse laser2:12km ACCURACY FALLOFF: Heavy Neutron Blaster2:5km - 425MM Howitzer2:9600m - Mega pulse laser2:4km When you stack the numbers you'll see it doesn't matter what the size of the gun is, the variables are quite balanced when you shift up or down between the sizes. If you look at the vagabond it may get 12km with OPT and AF combined on its auto cannons, which is 4 km more then Gallente blasters, But the Gallente receive a higher damage multiplier giving the blasters there edge. The damage mod on the artys is mostly alpha, if you look, you'll see the Minmatar are the poorest DPS ship in extended battles due to there rate of fire on there artys. there auto cannons also have a very poor opt and a slightly less AF on there auto cannons compared to the Gallente. The issue I can see with the Gallente HAC class would be its inability to run around like the vagabond, had it received a speed bonus, most Gallente pilots would excel and they would be worth flying. Before I forget about the Amarr HACs, they have crazy range, and the reason for this is of course that they are not intended to run around, they are a sniper race ^^ They are also prone to cap issues, which balances its high damage and range. Quote: The penalties on there T2 ammo however, gave them a handicap which most Gallente pilots were less then willing to use. The new changes have made the ammo worth using and should appropriately improve the Gallente damage/range. Originally by: Ogogov You're forgetting all other short range T2 ammo also got changed... This is good, they were handicapped just like Gallente ammo, the Gallente javelins and void munitions upgrades make them suitable for combat again. keep in mind I am a Gallente pilot, I believe the source of most Gallente frustration is in the Deimos, it is in need of a serious buff, as is the drone damage on the Domi. I ENCOURAGE someone to start a thread about it as I am not very good with those kinds of things.

Crazy KSK	Posted - 2010.12.04 01:55:00 - [621] Originally by: Fettered Soul Edited by: Fettered Soul on 14/11/2010 23:28:53 Originally by: Praetor Novak CCP fix blaster range, it's been a HUGE problem for Gallente pilots for YEARS... It will blur weapon difference. Blaster needs: More tracking Optimal + falloff is the shortest in the game. Why is it challenge to hit an appropriate target at native range? Small DPS boost DPS advantage should correspond with range disadvantage. Pulses shoot 85% of blaster DPS at 300% blaster range - it is not fair (comparing NULL VS Scorch and Barrage ammo difference is more insane). Small DPS boost is needed to compensate approaching time where a blaster boat gets damage without counterattack. More agility for Gallente ships Gallente boats tank armor - it means ships are penalized with speed and agility. Gallente boats are blaster boats - it means they must approach as quick as possible at their tiny optimal range. But these two sentences contradict to each other. Ok fastest ships are Minmatar ships. Lets give some agility (not speed) to Gallente boats to move fast linearly. exactly that though I think the damage boost to blasters should be rather big on medium and large weapons so a blaster boats can catch up the damage done to them while they where being shot at while getting in range in the time they still have till they die also the speed of gallente ships needs to be buffed a little too just a little I think even though it would make sense for gallente having the weapon with the shortest range to have the fastest ships but but duno
Geanos Phoenix Tribe	Posted - 2010.12.09 18:05:00 - [622] Hey CCP, don't be so cheap. You should hire a permanent balance team that can put up balance patches faster.
Kvo Vadis	Posted - 2010.12.10 05:53:00 - [623] Edited by: Kvo Vadis on 10/12/2010 05:54:57 My proposal: 20-30% Increase blaster tracking Weapon ranges are graded: Pulse(Abaddon+MPII) -> AC(Mael+800II) -> Blaster(Hyp+NCII) 15+10 -> 3+24 -> 4.5+13 Tracking speeds are also graded: Pulse(Abaddon+MPII) -> AC(Mael+800II) -> Blaster(Hyp+NCII) 0.04219 -> 0.054 -> 0.05412 Blaster tracking speed is underpowered. It is almost the same as AC (note: Minmatar ships usually have free low slots for TE for even more tracking) AC VS Pulse - 0.054/0.04219 = about 30% difference Blaster VS AC - 0.05412/0.054 = about 0.2% difference I think tracking difference should be more than 0.2% considering 200% AC falloff advantage. 12.5% Increase Blaster Damage Considering difficulties in applying DPS due to range disadvantage Blasters should have more power to compensate approaching time. Decreasing Blaster CAP use or increasing CAPACITOR capacity (for Gallente ships especially) It is pretty difficult to have cap for CAP EATING weapon, for CAP EATING tank (Gallente ships have active tanking bonuses), for CAP EATING MWD (MWD is only one chance to approach at a blaster range) Gallente boats small speed boost Gallente ships mostly armor tanking. They have penalties from rigs. It is killing ability to use weapon at their range. P.S. Actually I do not care about blasters. Now I have t2 Mega Pulses. They shoot with MF like blasters and they shoot with Scorch like Railguns. I have long and close in one suit. I am sorry for SP invested in Hybrids
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.12.10 09:29:00 - [624] In my opinion, the problem is not that blasters are poor as such, it's that lasers are too good in the point-blank environment where you should be using blasters. Remove the 25% increase to tracking that Pulse got at the height of the nano-silliness. Blasters may still need a bit more damage after that, but it's a start. Rails are an awkward one. There's nothing the matter with the rail-Taranis, and a lot of the Eagle's problems are to do with PG. Maybe a bit more optimal range? That would let the range-bonused Caldari boats use CN ammo more easily, giving them more damage and better tracking than when using Spike.
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.12.10 11:14:00 - [625] Originally by: Gypsio III In my opinion, the problem is not that blasters are poor as such, it's that lasers are too good in the point-blank environment where you should be using blasters. Remove the 25% increase to tracking that Pulse got at the height of the nano-silliness. Blasters may still need a bit more damage after that, but it's a start. Rails are an awkward one. There's nothing the matter with the rail-Taranis, and a lot of the Eagle's problems are to do with PG. Maybe a bit more optimal range? That would let the range-bonused Caldari boats use CN ammo more easily, giving them more damage and better tracking than when using Spike. You would still fly a slow, inflexible ship, that can't control range and hit targets properly at web ranges. It would be still useless and everything that would be archived is that people fly less amarr and more mini. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.12.10 12:01:00 - [626] Originally by: The Djego Edited by: The Djego on 10/12/2010 11:16:27 Originally by: Gypsio III In my opinion, the problem is not that blasters are poor as such, it's that lasers are too good in the point-blank environment where you should be using blasters. Remove the 25% increase to tracking that Pulse got at the height of the nano-silliness. Blasters may still need a bit more damage after that, but it's a start. You would still fly a slow, inflexible ship, that can't control range and hit targets properly at web ranges. It would be still useless and everything that would be archived is that people fly less amarr and more mini. Certainly Minmatar would be a big beneficiary of such a change. Frankly, I think the recent AC changes were a fundamental mistake. But I disagree with the "can't control range and hit targets properly at web ranges" - the problem is getting there in the first place, as you allude to. It's wrong that one race is faster, more agile and has weapons with much longer range. The Deimos is supposed to be balanced with the Vagabond in small-scale fights; but what kinda of crazy changes would you have to make to make those two balanced with each other?
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2010.12.10 12:56:00 - [627] Edited by: The Djego on 10/12/2010 13:00:26 Originally by: Gypsio III But I disagree with the "can't control range and hit targets properly at web ranges" - the problem is getting there in the first place, as you allude to. I would agree that blaster ships are not agile/fast enough. However what is the point of going to combat ranges with blaster ships if any mini hull(in a TE gank setup) will deliver a far better damage projection at her respectable combat ranges(and in 9/10 cases the better damage on the target in the end) than you will archive at point blank with the current 60% webs? Pre QR, many people did think a blaster ships put out far more dps than it actually had. This opinion is mostly based around how people did fit and fly blaster ships and the ability to deliver peak dps(what was impossible for next to any other ship bar puls fits at range) relative easy and predictable. Without this the hole concept itself isn't this hot if you want to bring it for damage, and lets be honest there isn't anything else it has going for it outside of expensive active tanks with a "gank me" sticker on the back. Originally by: Gypsio III The Deimos is supposed to be balanced with the Vagabond in small-scale fights; but what kinda of crazy changes would you have to make to make those two balanced with each other? I'm pretty sure I wrote down a lot about it in the diemost thread on SHC. Main problem of the diemost is that it offers next nothing over other T1 damage dealers at combat ranges and lacks the proper survivability to make it more attractive in this role. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.12.10 14:05:00 - [628] But it's not just the Deimos. Any blaster platform suffers from similar problems. The Thorax is so cheap that arguably its loss is not so much of a blow, but it's still a very ineffective ship. The Brutix is so broken that its greatest hull bonus is often ignored in favor of a second-rate shield buffer, the only thing that can give it enough agility to function as a close range bruiser. As for the Hyperion? people laugh at you for flying these! Again, it's a scaled up Brutix and is more often shield tanked for agility and speed. The only 'viable' blaster ships that you see are the Taranis and Megathron - and even they have enough significant problems that they're a fairly rare sight.
Korg Leaf Time Bandits.	Posted - 2010.12.10 14:23:00 - [629] Originally by: Ogogov But it's not just the Deimos. Any blaster platform suffers from similar problems. The Thorax is so cheap that arguably its loss is not so much of a blow, but it's still a very ineffective ship. The Brutix is so broken that its greatest hull bonus is often ignored in favor of a second-rate shield buffer, the only thing that can give it enough agility to function as a close range bruiser. As for the Hyperion? people laugh at you for flying these! Again, it's a scaled up Brutix and is more often shield tanked for agility and speed. The only 'viable' blaster ships that you see are the Taranis and Megathron - and even they have enough significant problems that they're a fairly rare sight. There are a few viable blaster platforms unforunately they are all on the frigate level, although the megathron is good it still gets outperform by other races bs. Obviously the Vindicator is good.
Kvo Vadis	Posted - 2010.12.10 14:43:00 - [630] Edited by: Kvo Vadis on 10/12/2010 14:44:00 One more addition to blaster change: Blaster weapon PG requirements should be decreased Compare percentage of top-tier turret PG in ship PG: ------ Mega Pulse II on Abaddon - 2475/26250 about 9% AC 800II on Maelstrom - 1980/26250 about 7.5% Neutron Blaster on Hyperion - 2126/19687 about 10.8% (!) ------ Mega Pulse II on Apoc - 2475/25625 about 9.6% AC 800II on Tempest - 1980/19375 about 10.2% Neutron Blaster on Megathron - 2126/19375 about 10.9% (!) You can say: "Hey, 2nd tier ships have different turrent harpoints". Ok lets compare free PG on ships after we place full set turrets and Large Destabilizers (2000 PG) ------ Apoc - after placing 8 Mega Pulse II turrets we have 5825 PG Tempest - after placing 6 AC 800II turrets and 2 Destabilizers we have 3495 PG Megathron - after placing 7 NBCII turrets and 1 Destabilizer we have 2489 PG (!) Hey! LARII needs 2300 PG Compare yourself small and medium AC

danvill Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.12.10 16:26:00 - [631] Edited by: danvill on 10/12/2010 16:33:07 I donÆt think they will ever fix hybrids its been over a year and I have yet to see a CSM/CCP comment . At least give me the option to redistribute my 8mil sp in gal ships and my 9 mil in gunnery. dont drink and drive smoke weed and fly
SkinSin	Posted - 2010.12.10 16:45:00 - [632] Actually, there was a comment from CSM. It went something along the lines of: - "Hey, how about fixing blasters/hybrids, there's a CSM proposal about it" - "There's nothing in the CSM proposal other than 'fix them', so we're going to vote against it on the grounds that there's not enough info" - "More information needed" - "OK. I'll do something about that" And... nothing at all has been done. This is what I wrote in the November prioritisation thread: Originally by: SkinSin Edited by: SkinSin on 15/11/2010 11:38:26 Hybrids: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Hybrid_guns_balance_%28CSM%29 Blasters: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Fix_blasters_%28CSM%29 I notice, however, that these aren't "in process" for the following reasons: Hybrids, it appears that no one has bothered to do any of the work that it was decided was needed. Or even taken details out of the fix hybrids thread in AH. Blasters, only seems to have been added to the list of items on 10 September 2010, but the person who added them seems to have made sure that it will never get passed because they've added no details (and this was one of the reasons the vote for Hybrids failed). It would be nice to actually be able hit stuff with Blasters, although I'm not actually holding out hope of ever getting a fix...!
Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.12.10 21:12:00 - [633] Nice going, CSM. "We can't be bothered to read all those threads with proposals and list them, so let's just stick our fingers in our ears and concentrate on something easy"
fukier The Unpodable Supermen	Posted - 2010.12.12 19:41:00 - [634] here is a thread i stared in fID... its not just for blasters... its a complete hybrid/gallente rework.... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1424543 attero benevolentia! caveo cavi cautum censura! Remember Your Hell Is Someone Else's Heaven
Sekket White-Noise	Posted - 2010.12.12 22:01:00 - [635] Supported. Hybrids and hybrid ships are underperforming across the spectrum.
Alias 6322A	Posted - 2010.12.12 22:25:00 - [636] I think people (including CSM sometimes) forget that it is not our (the players) job to determine the information or values necessary for a fix. That is what developers, programmers, etc. are for. CSM (and this forum) were created to allow players to voice opinions and ideas, not fully invent a patch to save CCP work. That being said, hybrids need a fix. How they need to be balanced goes many different directions, and ultimately needs to be determined by CCP, not players. +1 for having the CSM present to CCP the desire to have Hybrids reviewed for balancing and (of course) actually balancing them. -1 for CSM (or CCP) expecting players to have 'information' as to how to deploy this. That is CCP's job, not ours. We tell you what we think, you either do something about it or say "No". An answer would be nice, either way. 1-1 = 0, hence no progress on this. CSM needs to add to their to-do list asking CCP to review hybrids and bring them into competition with the other weapon systems. There doesn't need to be charts, numbers, values, and such to verify that this issue NEEDS to be presented.
Dare Devel Paxton Industries -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2010.12.13 22:58:00 - [637] Blasters need range increase Rails need a DPS increase How much? I would say it should be balanced alongside proj/laser equivalents. CCP you have made hybrid so ineffective that it is near about redundant.
Cyn0 A17	Posted - 2010.12.21 04:52:00 - [638] bump
Merijin	Posted - 2010.12.21 17:08:00 - [639] I Support this.
Joss56 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.12.21 23:48:00 - [640] Bump NB: It would be simple enough to see in some killmails like one i've seen this week where 80% of battleships use Artys (Amarr/Caldari/gallente) . Gallente ships loosing their bonus by using artys can do more dmg than gallente ships using hybrids (and so bonus). Pathetic situation. ________________________________________________ "You do realise you live on a globe, right? And that there places outside the USA/UK?"

CaralhoAlado	Posted - 2010.12.23 19:02:00 - [641] Originally by: Joss56 Bump NB: It would be simple enough to see in some killmails like one i've seen this week where 80% of battleships use Artys (Amarr/Caldari/gallente) . Gallente ships loosing their bonus by using artys can do more dmg than gallente ships using hybrids (and so bonus). Pathetic situation. True........ Suported
Deviana Sevidon Panta-Rhei Butterfly Effect Alliance	Posted - 2010.12.23 20:16:00 - [642] Edited by: Deviana Sevidon on 23/12/2010 20:16:24 DPS are not the only problem of Hybrids. I still think that Blasters and Railguns could use much more tracking and a slight increase in DPS and Blasters range. Quote: Disclaimer: All mentioned above contains my opinion and is therefore an absolute truth (for me anyway, my universe, muhahaha.....ok, done
Crazy KSK	Posted - 2010.12.23 21:02:00 - [643] what blasters need is a 100% increase in damage and tracking yes I mean it either that or make blaster boats the fastest ships in eve i.e. faster then minmatar ships even better would be to bring gallente on the same speed and agility level as minmatar and boost their weapons by 50% damage and tracking I want to see that the first thing a pilot does when facing a blaster ship is burning away in fear of getting shred before they manage to do anything
HyperZerg	Posted - 2010.12.25 11:18:00 - [644]
JonBorjomi	Posted - 2010.12.26 01:50:00 - [645] my proposal blaster change: * DPS is ok (at least on paper) * 30-40% tracking boost (it has the shortest weapon range! => it should has superior tracking) * 10-20% gallente ship speed boost (it has armor tank! => it should be able to approach fast) * 10-20% blaster turret PG requirements decrease. Amarr ships have a lot of PG, AutoCannons have tiny PG requirements - Gallente do not have so much PG on ships and blaster turrets require too much PG.
Doctor Aibolit	Posted - 2010.12.27 02:45:00 - [646] Last produced Gallente blaster ships are ok: Vindicator and Proteus. But all other blaster ships need to be revised after all changes since web nerf time.
Terazul	Posted - 2010.12.27 05:17:00 - [647] After seeing what a properly fitted autocannon boat can do vs. a hybrid boat of either blasters or rails, I knew something was off. WAY off. This totally needs looking at. It's such a terrible thing.
Tub Chil	Posted - 2010.12.27 06:45:00 - [648] In my opinion blasters need a huge tracking boost. double TE mediums should track almost as well as smaller guns. slight increase of both optimal and falloff. not too much. maybe less cap usage? issue is blaster boats as well. they need PG/cpu increment, so that they can fit top tier guns without fitting issues. blasters use way too much PG/cpu compared to autocannos and at same time minmatar boats have more pg! Minmatar style high utility slots, more speed, maybe proper bonuses? who ever uses repair bonus on Brutix?
Kast0rka	Posted - 2010.12.28 00:21:00 - [649] Gallente blaster boats suck. Please unsuck them. Supported
Crushall The Nintendo Generation Snatch Victory	Posted - 2010.12.28 02:05:00 - [650]

Jahpahjay	Posted - 2010.12.28 04:20:00 - [651] Originally by: Kast0rka Gallente blaster boats suck. Please unsuck them. Supported Then please check the box that says "Check here if you want to give your support to the idea/discussion going on." It's in the window where you write comments.
Modlock	Posted - 2010.12.28 15:59:00 - [652]
MaxCpt Pseudo Operations OWN Alliance	Posted - 2010.12.28 16:21:00 - [653] Indeed blasters need some love.
Rented	Posted - 2010.12.28 20:05:00 - [654]
Jacob Flint	Posted - 2010.12.31 16:06:00 - [655] Thumbs up for a blaster buff (and a railbuff too)
crimson fire	Posted - 2011.01.01 11:27:00 - [656] Here's a gallente fix: Let everyone reallocate the sp to caldari
PTang	Posted - 2011.01.01 19:35:00 - [657] meh
Jericho Ronin	Posted - 2011.01.02 02:37:00 - [658] Edited by: Jericho Ronin on 02/01/2011 02:45:28 Idk if this has ever been suggested but maybe we should change the mobility gall ships such that they can fit plates and still be as fast as they are now. that would make them the fast(but not as fast as minnie and certainly not a sustainable sprint like them. But rather i think they should get the slight buff in dmg and tracking and fitting capacity to fit the buffer they want and the ability to move quickly with said buffer in place. i know itd have to be carefully balanced so they dont become ehp monsters that can nano everywhere but with a weak cap and short range guns theyd be damn good in a sprint/slugfest which is the feel i get from blasters. On another note this would bring gallente ships a bit more use in ahac gangs with their increased ehp and dps. (P.S. i support the rails bleed through thing but only to armor gives them an interesting niche ) edit :maybe make some ships bonus a reduction to plates mass addition?
Skex Relbore Red Federation	Posted - 2011.01.02 18:13:00 - [659] Do something for crying out loud.
Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2011.01.02 20:58:00 - [660] Originally by: crimson fire Here's a gallente fix: Let everyone reallocate the sp to caldari why? caldari blaster ships are even worse than gallente

Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.01.03 14:06:00 - [661] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: crimson fire Here's a gallente fix: Let everyone reallocate the sp to caldari why? caldari blaster ships are even worse than gallente ? Caldari droneboats are also even worse than Gallente
ghatu	Posted - 2011.01.03 17:51:00 - [662] This is a huge post now (20+ pages). It has surely been seen by CCP. Still nothing from CCP? hmm.. I too agree with: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1424543 The storyline is that blasters are to be feared. LOL Not currently. What good is a big shotgun if you need a rifle? Why doesn't CCP randomly parse select killmails and form some statistics. Doing so should show the decline in Gallente ship usage in low sec. The ineffectiveness of using certain weapons in PvP. The various loadouts attempted. It would likely be very revealing. Perhaps way too revealing. They could find a battle they figure should have been won the other way and attempt it on test server. And tweak the stats until it worked as they intended it to. This is the job of CCP, not the players. I pay to have fun and do what I want with my subscription. How dare CCP force us to become free labor for them. They are the ones with the ability to query their databases for the information and statistics they would like. They can formulate and produce testing mechanisms for proofs.
Glyn Davish Aliastra	Posted - 2011.01.03 18:21:00 - [663] I think this accurately reflects the current state of hybrid weapons, and of Gallente ships in general. It's NERF, or nothin'.
Vandiilo Gallente Full Metal Jacket LLC	Posted - 2011.01.04 04:32:00 - [664] Still no word on hybrid turret's getting some love?
Wacktopia Dark Side Of The Womb	Posted - 2011.01.04 15:46:00 - [665] /support
InColdBlood	Posted - 2011.01.04 16:32:00 - [666] Edited by: InColdBlood on 04/01/2011 16:35:00 Edited by: InColdBlood on 04/01/2011 16:34:28 How about this for a solution: Take a look at the word hybrid. It means a melt between two systems. Lets go from there... Why not let ammo deside how the weapon works. If a player loads rail ammo the gun will fire as a rail. If the player loads blaster ammo it will work as a blaster. 2 guns in one. A hybrid. Both rail and blasters suck so much that combined they just about make a decent weapon.
Erik Finnegan Polytechnique Gallenteenne	Posted - 2011.01.08 21:48:00 - [667] +1
Dan Delnucci	Posted - 2011.01.09 00:22:00 - [668] I, Dan Delnucci, support this movment.
Topherak	Posted - 2011.01.09 00:24:00 - [669] This has been a long standing problem. I'll throw my hat in.
Nischara	Posted - 2011.01.09 09:36:00 - [670] Originally by: InColdBlood Edited by: InColdBlood on 04/01/2011 16:35:00 Edited by: InColdBlood on 04/01/2011 16:34:28 How about this for a solution: Take a look at the word hybrid. It means a melt between two systems. Lets go from there... Why not let ammo deside how the weapon works. If a player loads rail ammo the gun will fire as a rail. If the player loads blaster ammo it will work as a blaster. 2 guns in one. A hybrid. Both rail and blasters suck so much that combined they just about make a decent weapon. i love this idea balance the changes so that hybrids suck just like they do now but you can switch between a sniping and short range dps just by changing amo, not refiting a ship that way you get all the penalties of all weapon systems just like you do now but you also have a 2-in-1 weapon system which creates unique tactics and is completely diferent from any other weapons

Jahpahjay	Posted - 2011.01.09 12:11:00 - [671] Originally by: Nischara Originally by: InColdBlood Edited by: InColdBlood on 04/01/2011 16:35:00 Edited by: InColdBlood on 04/01/2011 16:34:28 How about this for a solution: Take a look at the word hybrid. It means a melt between two systems. Lets go from there... Why not let ammo deside how the weapon works. If a player loads rail ammo the gun will fire as a rail. If the player loads blaster ammo it will work as a blaster. 2 guns in one. A hybrid. Both rail and blasters suck so much that combined they just about make a decent weapon. i love this idea balance the changes so that hybrids suck just like they do now but you can switch between a sniping and short range dps just by changing amo, not refiting a ship that way you get all the penalties of all weapon systems just like you do now but you also have a 2-in-1 weapon system which creates unique tactics and is completely diferent from any other weapons And here's yet another good way to fix hybrids! If you're reading this and the other posts about blasters and rails, CCP, there are plenty of options for how to fix hybrids. Just choose one, please.
Merijin	Posted - 2011.01.09 14:31:00 - [672] Originally by: Xahara Edited by: Xahara on 30/04/2010 22:10:45 So, for the over 9000th time, I'm going to complain about how blasters need to be boosted. For their current damage output, they do not have enough range to be effective. They're supposed to be a "cross" between pulse lasers and autocannons, therefore, their optimal and falloff should be a bit higher than 0kms (ok, I'm exagerating, but you get my point). This makes blaster boats highly inneffective in combat, such as the Deimos, for example. I've stopped flying them for PVP completely, because they just get slaughtered (mainly because of the fact that it is indeed a crappy ship overall). And, on that note, I'd choose a Vagabond over a Deimos anyday to PVP in, or even a Zealot. But anyways, the Deimos isn't the subject of this post. The fact that you can hit up to 45km with Pulse Lasers and Scorch ammo (and still do a lot of damage) is pretty overpowered compared to the not-so-powerful-anymore, range-defficient blasters. Currently, Gallente ships are a very hard choice for large fleet engagements, since blasters don't hit far enough, thus forcing us to use failguns instead (see what I did there?). Let me put some ratio numbers in here: Gun Type - DPS (Dmg Mod X Hi Dmg Ammo / ROF) - Optimal + Falloff - Ratio [DPS X (Optimal + Falloff)] Neutron Blaster Cannon II - 4.2 X 48 / 7.88 - 3,600 + 10,000 - 347,939 800mm Repeating Artillery - 3.234 X 48 / 7.88 - 2,400 + 19,000 - 421,569 Mega Pulse Laser II - 3.6 X 48 / 7.88 - 12,000 + 8,000 - 0.03375 - 438,578 425mm Railgun II - 3.3 X 48 / 9.56 - 28,500 + 24,000 - 869,874 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II - 12.807 X 48 / 40.16 - 24,000 + 35,000 - 903,123 Tachyon Beam Laser II - 5.4 X 48 / 12.50 - 26,000 + 20,000 - 953,856 Solution: Either increase blasters' damage to match their ridiculous range or increase their ridiculous range to match their damage. I feel like I've covered most of the aspects in this post, so, support (or flame) away! EDIT: Moar Numberz. Bump
Joss56 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.01.09 14:46:00 - [673] Edited by: Joss56 on 09/01/2011 14:47:08 I've found the solution for me, instead of waiting i'm starting to crosstrain minmatar. In fact gallente race ships/weapons is the tutorial of eve. It shows you what you should never do in the game, train for them ________________________________________________ "You do realise you live on a globe, right? And that there places outside the USA/UK?"
Jaxemont	Posted - 2011.01.10 01:09:00 - [674] Originally by: Joss56 Edited by: Joss56 on 09/01/2011 14:47:08 I've found the solution for me, instead of waiting i'm starting to crosstrain minmatar. In fact gallente race ships/weapons is the tutorial of eve. It shows you what you should never do in the game, train for them Funny, I did the same thing. It started off with me training projectile turrets for my Myrmidon. (Which is a decent enough ship with drone and armor rep bonuses). Then decided to screw it and cross train to Minmatar completely. It only takes 2-3 days to train to a Hurricane (Thank god Battlecruisers isn't race specific). Maybe if enough Gallente capsuleers cross train to some other race, CCP will take the hint that Gallente ships aren't that great? (I still like my Myrmidon though. ) (BTW I like to add things in parentheses if you haven't noticed.)
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2011.01.10 16:25:00 - [675] Look on the bright side. The +5% medium hybrid damage implant (ZGM1000) is dirt cheap!
Joss56 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.01.10 19:00:00 - [676] Originally by: X Gallentius Look on the bright side. The +5% medium hybrid damage implant (ZGM1000) is dirt cheap! I would still be far from my dmg output with autos and no implant. Better w8 and buy the one for autos, best ________________________________________________ "You do realise you live on a globe, right? And that there places outside the USA/UK?"
Lord EmBra Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2011.01.10 20:07:00 - [677] I¦m supporting a buff to blasters (and railguns). There is absolutely no reason why anyone should use hybrid guns over any other turret-weapon in the game today. Things that are bad for weapons are - capacitor usage - short range - low tracking speed Hybrids have all these bad "attributes" + generally have ships that are aimed at active tanking and are slow. While lazoers also have capacitor use, they are compensated by their long range and good tracking + Amarr ships that are generally bonused for passive tanking. ACs have a moderate range (longer than hybrids) but are compensated by having fast ships (minmatar) and projectile doesn't use capacitor + they have a good tracking.
Merijin	Posted - 2011.01.11 10:12:00 - [678] Originally by: Lord EmBra Things that are bad for weapons are - capacitor usage - short range - low tracking speed Hybrids have all these bad "attributes" + generally have ships that are aimed at active tanking and are slow. OMG Lord EmBra, thank you a lot man! Now i know why they are caled "Hybrid", they combine all this things :). But I'm reskilling Minmater rightnow. To bad didn't do this from the start.
Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2011.01.11 10:58:00 - [679] Originally by: Lord EmBra I¦m supporting a buff to blasters (and railguns). There is absolutely no reason why anyone should use hybrid guns over any other turret-weapon in the game today. Things that are bad for weapons are - capacitor usage - short range - low tracking speed Hybrids have all these bad "attributes" + generally have ships that are aimed at active tanking and are slow. While lazoers also have capacitor use, they are compensated by their long range and good tracking + Amarr ships that are generally bonused for passive tanking. ACs have a moderate range (longer than hybrids) but are compensated by having fast ships (minmatar) and projectile doesn't use capacitor + they have a good tracking. you forgot to mention very hard fitting issues which is also true for blasters oh and why blaster ships have to be the slowest deimos is slower than the zealot wtf who tested this ?
Merijin	Posted - 2011.01.18 11:24:00 - [680] bump. Btw I think I have a solution to the Balster and Gallente problem. I start training Minmater!

Joss56 Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.01.18 11:41:00 - [681] Edited by: Joss56 on 18/01/2011 11:46:22 Edited by: Joss56 on 18/01/2011 11:44:12 Originally by: Merijin bump. Btw I think I have a solution to the Balster and Gallente problem. I start training Minmater! You'll get back for your bucks faster training other thing than wait something from CCP about this issue, 2009 people already sayin and nothing donne since so i'm glad i've not spent a second training advanced skils of that **** that are blasters. They just don't know how to fix it, and not ready to change this since they are incapable to find where the problem comes from. Easyer to say: train something else, just a few months subscription thrown by the window because of someones incompetence in this matter. This issue exists now for years, if they can't see it just stop recruiting blind dev's ________________________________________________ "You do realise you live on a globe, right? And that there places outside the USA/UK?"
Jimmy Duce Navy of Xoc	Posted - 2011.01.23 01:30:00 - [682] Blasters, increase tracking /thread
Purple Warlock	Posted - 2011.01.23 01:56:00 - [683] Edited by: Purple Warlock on 23/01/2011 01:57:29 I think I read this somewhere in a dev blog or something but CCP said that they believe blasters are working as they should but they were wondering if the real issue is the fact that there is no way to close in on the enemy fast enough. So really what do you guys think, if there was a way to get close enough to the enemy and not be so ****ed tank wise. would that solve the problem? not sure what they are gonna do bought rails tho
Jamtech Lingo NosWaffle Nostradamus Effect	Posted - 2011.01.23 08:43:00 - [684] Uping the range bonus of the blaster T2 long-range ammo should solve the problem, making it a short to mid-range weapon like the others and not just a short to fail-range
Manta Avoid	Posted - 2011.01.25 07:35:00 - [685] /jiggle Lets :) Fat kids are harder to kidnap
Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.01.25 14:55:00 - [686] Originally by: Purple Warlock Edited by: Purple Warlock on 23/01/2011 01:57:29 I think I read this somewhere in a dev blog or something but CCP said that they believe blasters are working as they should but they were wondering if the real issue is the fact that there is no way to close in on the enemy fast enough. So really what do you guys think, if there was a way to get close enough to the enemy and not be so ****ed tank wise. would that solve the problem? not sure what they are gonna do bought rails tho In this case CCP is provably wrong, as has been discussed on this board many times before, because blasters cannot apply even a fraction of their DPS unless both attacker and target are completely stationary. I understand railguns are clearly a gimp weapons system and were designed to be a pointless afterthought from the get-go (which leaves Gallente without a long-range engagement option), but blasters are clearly referenced many times as the primary weapon system of the Gallente next to drones (which are also terrible in their current state) There is a problem with the weapons themselves, and there is a problem with the ships, and there is a problem in the interaction between the game mechanics and the entire faction's engagement philosophy. That is why there have been at least two "FIX hybrid/gallente" threads on page one of the Assembly Hall, Features and Ideas and Ships and Modules forums for the past four months.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.01.25 17:35:00 - [687] Originally by: Ogogov There is a problem with the weapons themselves, and there is a problem with the ships, and there is a problem in the interaction between the game mechanics and the entire faction's engagement philosophy. As an example: the Vagabond flies much faster, is significantly more maneuverable, and its guns have dramatically more range than the Deimos. Not a fair trade for a slight damage and tracking increase between AC and blasters. The boats need a bonus that negates the impact of armor modules directly by changing either the ships maneuverability and/or their ability to accelerate. I think they are currently one and the same modifier. Minmatar should have maneuverable or high speed, not both. Gallente should have one of these perks to fix their ships. The blasters need to have the sig radius of the weapons decreased and the tracking increased. Or just a straight increase to damage. The negatives of the weapons do not balance the positives. Either decrease the negatives (infringing on other weapons niche) or increase the positives. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Swynet	Posted - 2011.01.26 18:22:00 - [688] Bumpish
Steph Wing Blame The Bunny Reverberation Project	Posted - 2011.01.26 18:44:00 - [689] Hilariously irrelivant numbers and equations in the OP. Blasters do need lovin though.
Weddel Shiva	Posted - 2011.01.26 18:52:00 - [690] +1

Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.26 19:38:00 - [691] In addition to all the problems mentioned, there's another small but noticeable issue: Hybrids damage type is worst for general PvP. A lot of PvP ships are t2/t3 Hybrid damage type is strongly resisted by Gallente and Caldari t2/t3, with weaker resists on Minmatar and Gallente Projectiles have switchable damage types so they can always hit weak resists. That makes it very attractive for PvP in addition to all the tracking and range advantages. Lasers are strongly resisted by Minmatar t2/t3, weakly resisted by Gallente/Caldari, and no extra resists on Amarr t2/t3 Naturally, lasers look more attractive than hybrid damage due to less overlap with t2 resists. In addition to that, majority of sub-battleship PvP ships are shield buffer tanks, which makes lasers more attractive than hybrids. So even when fighting t1 ships without special resists, you are more likely to encounter shield buffers, so you want EM and Thermal damage. Both lasers and projectiles offer that. Hybrids are weaker. This isn't a big thing, but it's worth about 10% damage to me, intuitively. Meaning that if I have a choice between 1 ship with lasers and another identical ship with hybrids and 10% more damage, I'd seriously think about which to choose. And if both ships were identical, 1 dealt laser damage, other dealt hybrid damage - the choice would be lasers 99% of the time
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.01.26 19:47:00 - [692] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/01/2011 19:54:47 Originally by: Ephemeron So even when fighting t1 ships without special resists, you are more likely to encounter shield buffers, so you want EM and Thermal damage. Both lasers and projectiles offer that. Hybrids are weaker. You didnt account for the damage type spread on Emp or the armor and hull portions of t1 shield buffer tanks (which are still a considerable amount of total ehp on these, especially on the BC level). In fact, CN Antimatter is just as good RF Emp against t1 shield buffers. Lasers are much better against shields though, agree there. As far as general damage type goes, kin/therm is a great damage to deal, as it offers decent performance against shield and armor at the same time. There is a reason minmatar pilots regularly default to phased plasma (which is kin/therm) when facing unknown or mixed tank type hostile groups.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.26 20:13:00 - [693] I am aware that there are many cases where EM is not preferred, besides the Minmatar t2 But as someone with lots of experience, I can see that the cases where EM is preferred happen more often than when EM is not desired. If I had to put a distribution percentage on it, I'd say it's about 65% in favor of EM, 35% against And as someone who flew Minmatar on my main for last couple months, with about 200 kills worth, I found that the based combo of ammo is Fusion and EMP. I believe that resorting to Phased Plasma in PvP is for noobs Anyway, I said that wasn't a big issue. It's a small one, about 10% worth.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.01.26 20:36:00 - [694] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/01/2011 20:47:23 Originally by: Ephemeron I believe that resorting to Phased Plasma in PvP is for noobs Well, you believe wrong then. Nothing worse than shooting the primary in a gang, or a solo target you attacked and doing fail damage because you assumed a wrong resist profile. In a solo engagement those 10 seconds to switch ammo or going on with the wrong damage type is going to cost you the fight. Ofc there are those cases that are a complete giveaway, but these days even attacking a Harbinger isnt automatically a case of 'alright lets load fusion'. Emp or Fusion for those fights where you are 110% sure what you are going to engage (i.e. they have Guardians or Scimitars with them, or its a Drake), PP if you cant be sure, Barrage if you want to kite. Edit: And to be frank, using Emp against any battlecruiser other than Drake or Cyclone these days is the true noobish move even if you assume its shield tanked. You lose almost nothing by going for PP instead, and the consequences if you guessed wrong is much less severe. And that is with triple CDFE standard shield buffers, before we even take into account the various cheapskates flying around with dual CDFE + EM rigs, where using Emp is actually worse than PP. Or before the standard triple CDFE buffers overload their invul field in which case PP or Emp makes no difference at all.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.26 21:33:00 - [695] the point is that blasters suck in more ways than one I believe blasters need 20% more damage - all blasters. That would be equivalent of a free damage mod. That would ensure that projectile and laser ships can't overturn that advantage by fitting 1 damage mod of their own. And it would make up for the bad tracking, bad optimal+falloff, hard fitting requirements, energy use, and damage type of blasters. But I'm pretty sure it would fall on death ears at CCP, as they are suffering from collective case of damage-phobia
Jonathan Xavier Discrete Solutions Ltd.	Posted - 2011.01.26 23:28:00 - [696] +1
Slovic Gustav Avatar Dynasty Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.01.27 01:47:00 - [697] Edited by: Slovic Gustav on 27/01/2011 01:49:30 Well the way I see it is that the close range nature of blasters should mean that they should have the best tracking of any system ingame. They should also have the highest dps of any weapon system ingame because of the short range nature of blasters. Just take a look at evekill top 20. Only 1 sub cap ship that is Gallente on the top 20. Only 1 Gallente weapon system on the top 20, and its a cap weapon. As for failguns, I mean railguns I honestly think that they just need a complete overhaul.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.27 01:53:00 - [698] Edited by: Ephemeron on 27/01/2011 01:54:00 it would be a bit unfair if blasters had best damage AND best tracking. It would make them more general purpose, easier to use. Damage should be high, but it should be hard to use. Damage should be high enough to make overcoming tracking difficulties a useful thing. Employ web + scram, take advantage of falloff, try match traverse velocity. Things that take real player skill. Cause if you get high damage and ease of use, then it's unbalanced.
Otto Schultzky Gallente	Posted - 2011.01.27 02:35:00 - [699] Originally by: Otto Schultzky In my humble opinion the best approach to "fixing" hybrid weapons is no a straight damage boost to a weapon system, that would favor Gallente more then Caldari, but an addition/ modification of: Rate of Fire modifier (RoF * x.xx) to hybrid ammo; Base Damage tweak of hybrid ammo, taking into account the RoF modifier; Diversification of % Kin/Thermal base damage(70/30, 60/40, etc.); Modification of exiting cap usage modifier; *Possibly spiting ammo in 3 range gropes (-50%, 0%, +50%)? This way both factions get some what of an even boost?
Slovic Gustav Gallente Avatar Dynasty Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.01.27 03:00:00 - [700] Originally by: Ephemeron Edited by: Ephemeron on 27/01/2011 01:54:00 it would be a bit unfair if blasters had best damage AND best tracking. It would make them more general purpose, easier to use. Damage should be high, but it should be hard to use. Damage should be high enough to make overcoming tracking difficulties a useful thing. Employ web + scram, take advantage of falloff, try match traverse velocity. Things that take real player skill. Cause if you get high damage and ease of use, then it's unbalanced. I agree with you and I think the more diversity in weapon systems the better off PvP will be in the long run. However, the way Gallente ships are currently itÆs really hard to get into range and use blasters how they were ment to be used. If they wonÆt fix the weapon systems (hybrids) or the ships (Gallente) or a combination of both then CCP needs to reconsider and rebalance lasers and projectile based weapon systems and even take a look at missiles. As it currently stands both hybrids and Gallente ships (sub capitol ships) are vastly underrepresented in the grand scheme of things. Just take a look at evekill top 20. ItÆs quite easy to look at game balance from evekill top 20 because people will always gravitate towards what works best because this is a full loot PvP game. People will do anything and take any advantage that gives them a better chance to win. There are so few Gallente based weapon systems and ships because they don't win you fights (except Gallente capitol ships :P).

The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2011.01.27 12:55:00 - [701] Originally by: Ephemeron it would be a bit unfair if blasters had best damage AND best tracking. It would make them more general purpose, easier to use. Damage should be high, but it should be hard to use. Damage should be high enough to make overcoming tracking difficulties a useful thing. Employ web + scram, take advantage of falloff, try match traverse velocity. Things that take real player skill. Cause if you get high damage and ease of use, then it's unbalanced. I would disagree here. The limiter is already the short range(plus fitting, ammo, cap use etc. if you want to include it), what makes it mostly a small gang and solo weapon. In this scenarios it is mostly important that the gun performs a very solid job(better than other weapons in his engagement range and if you play it to the strength of it). It isn't difficult to apply very good damage to heavy tackled or ranged targets with lasers, it isn't difficult to apply damage with projectiles at a very huge range spectrum. This only leaves close range for blasters, where they must outperform other guns by a huge margin, both in the ability to apply damage(mostly by a proper web instead of higher tracking) as well as by superior base damage to make them a viable choice over the other options again. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Swynet	Posted - 2011.01.28 22:00:00 - [702] Edited by: Swynet on 28/01/2011 22:01:26 Originally by: Ephemeron it would be a bit unfair if blasters had best damage AND best tracking. You should petition an GM because their exact answer is "...blasters are intended to have the best tracking and dps at close range of all weapons..." I will no quote the GM because has you know it's against the EULA. The problem is that they don't work like is intended has you just said, and they are incapable to figure out this. Don't ask me wy because has you, all i can say is that either they are blind either none of them has ever used or uses them.
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics K162	Posted - 2011.01.28 23:13:00 - [703] Any news? ____ Racial Active tanking bonuses - fix or replace!
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.28 23:26:00 - [704] Originally by: Pattern Clarc Any news? So far the devs don't even recognize there is a problem. They are looking at the game, but they should be looking at themselves. The devs have a problem, a personal problem that bleeds into bad game design.
Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2011.01.29 08:58:00 - [705] Originally by: Ephemeron Originally by: Pattern Clarc Any news? So far the devs don't even recognize there is a problem. They are looking at the game, but they should be looking at themselves. The devs have a problem, a personal problem that bleeds into bad game design. Oh no, your only good post so far, this is so true. Eve game balance sux. Worst is that there is nobody at CCP who does a thing to make it better. So making these threads wont do anything. Do they care if 90% of ppl agree something should be done about blaster, NO. Thats the problem.
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2011.01.31 11:18:00 - [706] Originally by: Omara Otawan Anyway, TL;DR: Kin/Therm is a decent all around damage type, while it isnt specialized against any particular tanking style there is no situation apart from gallente/caldari t2 where it fails completely. It only fails completely against half the t2 ships in the game. Luckily those T2 ships are fail and hardly anybody flies them in pvp.
Joss56 Unleashed' Fury	Posted - 2011.01.31 18:14:00 - [707] Originally by: X Gallentius Originally by: Omara Otawan Anyway, TL;DR: Kin/Therm is a decent all around damage type, while it isnt specialized against any particular tanking style there is no situation apart from gallente/caldari t2 where it fails completely. It only fails completely against half the t2 ships in the game. Luckily those T2 ships are fail and hardly anybody flies them in pvp. Good point. (and bump) ________________________________________________ "You do realise you live on a globe, right? And that there places outside the USA/UK?"
Jahpahjay	Posted - 2011.02.08 02:37:00 - [708] I'm not sure, but I think people are really starting to give up on anything being changed with hybrids. Nobody sane can keep trying to argue a point if the response continues to be indifference, and/or "works as intended" (which basically means they accomplished their original design, and if it doesn't actually work well in practice that's of no concern to them).
Joss56 Gallente Unleashed' Fury	Posted - 2011.02.08 05:10:00 - [709] Originally by: Jahpahjay I'm not sure, but I think people are really starting to give up on anything being changed with hybrids. Nobody sane can keep trying to argue a point if the response continues to be indifference, and/or "works as intended" (which basically means they accomplished their original design, and if it doesn't actually work well in practice that's of no concern to them). Then all is left to do is to give gallente/hybrids pilots wishing to, the refound of their sp so they don't have to waste more time training other races just because theirs sucks hard rather than for the fun of crosstrain. I can perfectly understand that someone who's playing now since stone age don't care about this issue, he has the choice, while new/fresh players don't, they just get sucked for the 6 first months of their eve experience, and what a pleasent experience. ________________________________________________ "You do realise you live on a globe, right? And that there places outside the USA/UK?"
Alqualonde Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.02.08 09:22:00 - [710] Pulse lasers are better in every way than blasters as far as I can tell.

Merijin	Posted - 2011.02.08 16:01:00 - [711] Bump as well :).
Zephris	Posted - 2011.02.10 17:18:00 - [712] Bump. I am just going to quit EVE until they fix those. kthxbye.
Explosivesonhand	Posted - 2011.02.15 04:43:00 - [713] I'd love to see a better balance of ranges, the damages work out pretty well right now as is. Fully supported.
Kepakh	Posted - 2011.02.16 11:17:00 - [714] Originally by: Xahara Solution: Either increase blasters' damage to match their ridiculous range or increase their ridiculous range to match their damage. Same numbers caused Projectiles being FOTY. I vote NO! for more ignorant changes as such.
Swynet	Posted - 2011.02.16 14:51:00 - [715] Originally by: Kepakh I vote NO! for more ignorant changes as such. Perfect, let's all train Minmatar or Amarr and let Gallente/Caldari for noobs and fresh/easy killmails. Works fine like this atm wy change it? ________________________________________________ Originally by: Goose99 In EVE, PVE can happen anywhere, anytime. Whenever you undock, you subject yourself to involuntary PVE.
Davader	Posted - 2011.02.18 14:51:00 - [716] Support
Skex Relbore Gallente Skexcorp	Posted - 2011.02.18 17:56:00 - [717] At a minimum Blasters need a tracking boost. There is not a single situation in which a Mega out-damages a Tempest or Geddon beyond 12km yet there are plenty where those same ships out damage it under 12km. I can accept super limited range if that limitation comes with an advantage in applied dps at that range. Pretty much all a Laser or Projectile boat needs to do to minimize your DPS advantage is stop moving. Then your massive dps advantage comes down to about 50dps. As far as I'm concerned blasters should have sufficient tracking to hit a similar sized target from 0-Optimal perfectly at realistic traversal. and it should definitley always hit better than AC's or Pulses at those ranges. Yeah I get it Nightmarex a really good pilot can make blasters work against a crappy pilot. A really good pilot can make industrial work in combat against a crappy Dramiel that doesn't make an industrial a combat ship. Blasters make a hell of a lot of sacrifices (cap usage, Ammo consumption, reload time,limited damage type, range) for little or no advantages. And that's just broken.
Swynet	Posted - 2011.02.18 18:27:00 - [718] Originally by: Jahpahjay I'm not sure, but I think people are really starting to give up on anything being changed with hybrids. Whenever you can see the return of CCP's about this matter well yes getting tired of mass useless dev's blogs. Has sisi, deleted. I'm ok to be there if I win something usefull in TQ like blasters/hybrids/gallente ships fix, some sp or just possibility of reallocation of some sp, but since feedback is useless better spend 15min playing any freee fps than spend time on that useless server for useless feeedback resulting in useless decisions that will need patches a few days latter and keep issues like those mentioned in this/other related threads unsolved. ________________________________________________ Originally by: Goose99 In EVE, PVE can happen anywhere, anytime. Whenever you undock, you subject yourself to involuntary PVE.
Styria Strike Amarr Axial tilt The Babylon Consortium	Posted - 2011.02.20 00:38:00 - [719] blasters need a boost!
Taisuke Black	Posted - 2011.03.01 07:22:00 - [720] I was sad when nobody responded to my concept, but here is my idea for how to fix up blasters: The Problem of Hybrids

praznimrak Gallente Level Up	Posted - 2011.03.11 17:14:00 - [721] Fix hybrids
Evet Morrel Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2011.03.12 10:37:00 - [722] yep boost, make'm more so!
Glitch Keyon	Posted - 2011.03.21 21:52:00 - [723] Agreed. I support this. Hybrids/Gallente needs re-balanced and fixed. What's a bit more damage when you can't APPLY that damage?! It's like telling Gimli to fight Legolas. Gimli is very skilled, but he'll never win against Legolas who can just flank him and avoid his strong arm and axe and shoot arrows at him all day.
X Gallentius Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.22 15:41:00 - [724] Edited by: X Gallentius on 22/03/2011 15:43:05 Originally by: Glitch Keyon Agreed. I support this. Hybrids/Gallente needs re-balanced and fixed. What's a bit more damage when you can't APPLY that damage?! It's like telling Gimli to fight Legolas. Gimli is very skilled, but he'll never win against Legolas who can just flank him and avoid his strong arm and axe and shoot arrows at him all day. Great analogy since Gimli would lose a knife fight to Legolas anyways since Gimli would never be able to Legolas with his axe. Give Gimli better tracking!
zerthis	Posted - 2011.03.22 16:47:00 - [725] I would love to use hybrids but frankly they are all around the worst turrets. Bad range, Bad tracking, low damage
Galendil dresi dungeon Technical Coalition Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.23 18:53:00 - [726] Please help the poor space french. - I am just this guy, Ya know?
Swynet	Posted - 2011.03.23 23:56:00 - [727] Originally by: Galendil Please help the poor space french. That's wy they suck and are not close to be upgraded ________________________________________________ Originally by: Goose99 In EVE, PVE can happen anywhere, anytime. Whenever you undock, you subject yourself to involuntary PVE.
zenzion zymurgy	Posted - 2011.03.24 20:24:00 - [728]
Rakamy	Posted - 2011.03.25 06:01:00 - [729] I support this ccp has been ingoing the blaster/rail guns problem for far to long.....fix it now
Kittamaru Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:24:00 - [730] For the love of God, please fix Hybrids!

ManiakMogg	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:46:00 - [731] Totally supported...
Neo160	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:57:00 - [732] I'm a drone guy simply becuase both blasters and hybrids in general have terrible tracking AND terrible damage. hybrids really need some love/re-balancing, as i don't believe its fair to cross train between races just to avoid your own races gun type.
Jerika Bodet	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:54:00 - [733] Supported... Better damage, better tracking, a touch better range and add some speed to blaster boats Gall>Cald>Amarr. Minnies always have speed/agility advantage
Inka Kaoru Perkone	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:28:00 - [734] +1
Arkanon Nerevar	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:33:00 - [735] Supported
Merijin	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:11:00 - [736] Is it our job to develop a fix for this? I (for myself) always tough our "job" is to play and enjoy the game itself. bump !
Nocpor Pas	Posted - 2011.04.02 06:10:00 - [737] Your math is right but consider all the items to close distance. Take a bit of very simple strategy into account and the argument will not hold watter.
Aceshigh0	Posted - 2011.04.02 10:18:00 - [738]
Weynard Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.04.02 17:26:00 - [739]
Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2011.04.02 18:29:00 - [740] Originally by: Merijin Is it our job to develop a fix for this? I (for myself) always tough our "job" is to play and enjoy the game itself. bump ! yes ccp's job is to ignore you and take your money anyway:P

Swynet	Posted - 2011.04.02 18:54:00 - [741] Edited by: Swynet on 02/04/2011 18:56:14 Originally by: Merijin Is it our job to develop a fix for this? I (for myself) always tough our "job" is to play and enjoy the game itself. bump ! And since feedback is useless you can all ways post here if you have some time to waste. The main problem being the we (blaster/rails players) can't enjoy the game. Ho when I mean "we" I'm not talking for 1% nerds really playing with rails and saying to everyone and their cat they're fine, those ones should just stop drugs. I'm talking about all other that post here saying some thing's wrong and who dev's don't give a ** about. ________________________________________________ Originally by:** Goose99 In EVE, PVE can happen anywhere, anytime. Whenever you undock, you subject yourself to involuntary PVE.
Reaver Glitterstim Legio Geminatus	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:45:00 - [742] So there I was in my blaster ship, going toward the enemy NPC I wanted to kill. I wasn't in range, I wasn't in range, I wasn't in range then suddenly I was but before I could fire I bounced off his ship and was out of range again. I tried to crawl my ship slowly into range of him but he just flew away. So I chased him and matched his speed, and with his virtually nonexistant AI he flew in a straight line. And I got in range... Hit! Glancing blow with tungsten! I had my blaster cruiser in a level 4 mission (It was probably an Ishtar or something) and this Machariel NPC was orbiting me at like 3km. It was hitting me but I couldn't hit it. Dunno why, I was in range. And then one time I was firing rail guns from a battlecruiser at level 3 mission frigates. I popped a few but they closed into range and I had to get em with my drones. But the real reason I'm mentioning this is cause I tried to kill one of those defender thoraxes and it just wouldn't die. Every shot took out like 75% of its armor but it just repaired it again before the next shot hit. Well I would have got it eventually, but it started orbiting me within 20km and I couldn't track it anymore. My max range is 40km. --- But seriously, folks, a friend of mine bought several Eagles on the market and reprocessed them to sell the stuff. He made several hundred million isk in profit. True story. Also true is that all good Ferox fits use only missiles, and they all fit on a Drake. -- "[Reaver Glitterstim] I will make your war look like a schoolyard scuffle, FATHER." -Lyra Belacquae telling what my avatar is probably thinking
Rukia Taika	Posted - 2011.04.14 21:59:00 - [743] its been ages that this has been talked about and kicked around. That CCP does not wish to fix the problem due to that many of them play Caldari or Minmitar pilots damn few play gallente. Gallente Hybrid guns need to be fixed. there are several possible solutions for this. 1> give all Gallente a 10% boost on damage. and Blasters a 10% on tracking. 2> Nerf everyone's weapons except the Gallente 3> ALL Gallente Pilots camp Jita and kill anything coming in or out of the gates till CCP fixes this problem. The Gallente are second in technology to the other factions. why does this not show? Better yet would it be horrible to send in a trouble ticket on our weapon damage not working properly? The only thing i see is that if its not fixed the Gallente players will start training up other faction ships and guns but this should not be the solution. we started with Gallente and we should be able to enjoy playing them like any other faction pilot out there.
InColdBlood	Posted - 2011.04.15 11:30:00 - [744] Edited by: InColdBlood on 15/04/2011 11:32:58 It really is time to get angry. CSM just ignored hybrids in their first meeting, how many times do they have to ignore it before we see a angry response? Want to just hope it all happens to change by some magic wave of the wand? The time to get angry is now! Its time to make some noise. We have 2 members in CSM who can see the issue here, the rest never played gallente, becuse they are too busy in their tengu. How often do you see anything but the tengu??? Proteus cant even do as a drone boat and hybrids need a workout. Maybe we should set a date some time in the future and do a happening, like a mass petition to CCP. I doubt they actually read the forums.
Swynet	Posted - 2011.04.15 12:02:00 - [745] Originally by: Rukia Taika we started with Gallente and we should be able to enjoy playing them like any other faction pilot out there. It's exactly my problem. I never had a warning window when I've made my Gall char that if I wanted to have fun I have to cross-train. Great, can I haz my sp back and put it in to another toon/race? -I'll pay, I'm ok take 100Ç on my credit card ccp no problem for that, but at least I'll start having some fun and will always cross train of course but wait: kanid ships are awesome and angel ones are omgftompwnmobiles. Pliz CCP you can do it, it's just some clicks, nothing like if you should make your brains work. ________________________________________________ Originally by: Goose99 In EVE, PVE can happen anywhere, anytime. Whenever you undock, you subject yourself to involuntary PVE.
Rayner Vanguard	Posted - 2011.04.18 19:22:00 - [746] Agree
Merijin	Posted - 2011.04.19 09:16:00 - [747] Quote: Posted - 2009.10.25 13:23:00 Yes we can ! ( Hit the 2 Year of begging CCP to do something)
Maorio	Posted - 2011.04.20 08:59:00 - [748] this is the reason I stopped flying gallente boats (except for their droneboats) all their turret based ships just utterly suck. I made a quik comparison between my mael and a megathron in eft for 2 ratting bs with all skills at 5, both have similar tanks against rats and and are cap stable. a mael get 140 dps more and almost 30k more falloff. the only gallente ship that is able to even get close to a mael with the same tank is a kronos. in short hybrids needs a boost really badly
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2011.04.20 11:10:00 - [749] Originally by: Merijin Quote: Posted - 2009.10.25 13:23:00 Yes we can ! ( Hit the 2 Year of begging CCP to do something) Actually this is not true, post about this issues are even older: Linkage ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
InColdBlood	Posted - 2011.04.20 11:25:00 - [750] http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=14988 THE GAME IS ON: THIS IS THE THREAD TO POST IDEAS IN CSM finally doing what we have been clamoring for, get out the pencil and start the suggestion box. Summit the best ideas generated and hurry op and post any new ones you have been brewing!!!

Gabriel Karade Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.20 12:05:00 - [751] ^ Locked thread? -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Mariner6	Posted - 2011.04.21 02:26:00 - [752] Reading all this depresses a new player like me(1 year old) because I'm coming to realize now that all the time I've put into Gallente has been wasted. I wonder what the stats are on how many players who quit EVE are of the Gallente race when they realize just how bad we suck.
Rens Cheque	Posted - 2011.04.21 12:07:00 - [753] Originally by: Xahara Edited by: Xahara on 30/04/2010 22:10:45 Gun Type - DPS (Dmg Mod X Hi Dmg Ammo / ROF) - Optimal + Falloff - Ratio [DPS X (Optimal + Falloff)] Neutron Blaster Cannon II - 4.2 X 48 / 7.88 - 3,600 + 10,000 - 347,939 800mm Repeating Artillery - 3.234 X 48 / 7.88 - 2,400 + 19,000 - 421,569 Mega Pulse Laser II - 3.6 X 48 / 7.88 - 12,000 + 8,000 - 0.03375 - 438,578 425mm Railgun II - 3.3 X 48 / 9.56 - 28,500 + 24,000 - 869,874 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II - 12.807 X 48 / 40.16 - 24,000 + 35,000 - 903,123 Tachyon Beam Laser II - 5.4 X 48 / 12.50 - 26,000 + 20,000 - 953,856 More bull**** numbers from made up formulas please.
xThugx	Posted - 2011.04.21 12:17:00 - [754] supported, boost hybrids too
Chuc Morris	Posted - 2011.05.13 11:24:00 - [755] Originally by: Mariner6 I wonder what the stats are on how many players who quit EVE are of the Gallente race when they realize just how bad we suck. <- main char Gallente 15M+ Sp cross trained matar, tried a lot of stuff and it's just crap, I just use it for missions and get bored fast. <- Tengu/Hulk pilot 11M+ Sp, now training industrial stuff. Caldari ships have their issues, missiles have their issues but some how I manage to have tons more fun and almost none of the fitting/dps issues I have with my Gallente char. Missiles are not OP but Hybrids really suck and blasters...suck is just the first name. Also if I really want to blast missions all I need is a CNR, sure he'll outperform the navy mega all day long in any case.
tika te	Posted - 2011.05.13 16:01:00 - [756] Edited by: tika te on 13/05/2011 16:01:05 whats the use in high dmg short range blasters when the ships fitting them have serious isues getting in combat range fast enough to actually use the turret weapons...??
Glitch Keyon	Posted - 2011.06.30 00:04:00 - [757] Agreed 100%. Gallente has been, by effect, repeatedly nerfed over the years and it's fallen drastically behind. Hybrid weapons need some love (Gallente needs some love)
Manique Ominous Corp	Posted - 2011.06.30 21:19:00 - [758] Doesn't matter which, hybrids need a bit of love. As a caldari/gallente at heart I decided not to train any hybrids because it is just unfair against lasers/projectile
Red Harvest	Posted - 2011.06.30 21:52:00 - [759] Pulling the shortest and longest range guns from the same weapon type (hybrids) was a bad move to begin with. The synergie with the ship bonuses make any kind change bloody hard to balance. That being said, blaster DO need some serious buffing although i must say that most of the changes should hit the hulls they are supposed to be used on. Neither damage or range are that much of a problem but actually getting into range and applying that damge is.
Kvo Vadis	Posted - 2011.07.06 07:02:00 - [760] I see this thread more than 1 year. No changes :(

Dare Devel Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2011.07.06 08:15:00 - [761] Edited by: Dare Devel on 06/07/2011 08:25:15 I always thought, reading up the Blaster attributes, that they occupy a fulcrum position between Pulse Platform and Autocannon Platform(Attributes below). But the attributes are not average between Autos and Pulse. ---------------------------------------Current-----------------------------------Should Be ---------------------------\|Optimal Range-------Accuracy Falloff\|-----\|Optimal Range-----Accuracy Falloff\| Neutron Blaster 1---------------6---------------------10--------------------12-----------------14 Mega Pulse Laser 1--------------20--------------------8 800mm Repeating Artillery I-----4---------------------19.2 Even the T2 blaster Ammo have a sway towards this (that the Optimal and Falloff are near equal). ----------------------Optimal Range---Accuracy Falloff Hail--------------------[-50%]-------------[-50%] Barrage------------------[0%]--------------[-50%] Conflagration-----------[-50%]-------------[0%] SCORCH------------------[+50%] VOID--------------------[-25%]-------------[-50%] NULL--------------------[+25%]-------------[+25%] If increasing the Damage\Tracking\Cap Consumption for the Blasters will create an imbalance (sarcasm intended) then atleast correct the range attributes. Please do not treat this as a buff, rather it is a correction. We want to be part of a fleet please give us a fair chance. Also Hybrid ammo volume has to be cut by half so that more Cap Boosters can be packed.
Merijin	Posted - 2011.07.21 09:17:00 - [762] Topic starts @ 2009.10.25 Just look t how mutch ccp have done so far ..


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: [one 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.