Originally by: Rastigan

---

With the falloff buff,on t2 sniping ammo two tracking enhancers gives 425 rails the same optimal + falloff as 1400 arty. You can argue that the rails have higher optimal, but the falloff on the arty will make it hit further out. With close range ammo, the enhancers help arty much more due to the falloff bonus.

---

Originally by: Arrador

---

and who uses tachs for pvp?

---

Originally by: Arrador

---

Sorry to displease you. Did you at least read/view and contemplate the numbers I ran? I qualified my statement and opinion over tachs later on in the post. But just for you - here's an abaddon fit with tachs

Abbaddon - Tachs w/ Aurora
502DPS/3453 Volley - 119km Optimal.

Like I said in my post, merely skews the chart further. Further out DPS's the rest of the battleships and is in Maelstrom's neighborhood of Alpha strike.

---

Originally by: Arrador

---

Forgive me, I fly Hybrid boats - not lasers. I read this forums to get an idea of how other people fly/fit their ships. I've not played against everyone in the game, so my empirical knowledge is quite lacking.

That said. I'd still enjoy reading what you have to say, along with your test beds/setups.

---

Originally by: london

---

Where do you post these comparisons? Do you have a link to your last one?

Cheers

---

Originally by: Proxyyyy

---

decrease the grid usage of hybrids by 50%

---

Originally by: Proxyyyy

---

My post was an attempt at a joke! i guess it didnt go over well = / im pretty sure i have been saying for awhile now that all weapon systems are balanced...

---

Originally by: Xavier Maroquin

---

I was serious... I haven't ever seen a PVP fit (Solo/Gang) which uses rails, or even a mission fit for that matter. In a fleet battle I understand the difference as in scale, so longer range is required, however rails are still underused and underpowered.

---

Quote:

---

(Sees dream of fleet battle where everyone has 2km blasters and MWD's)

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps the problem is in scale... The large rails are fine, but frig and cruiser ones are lacking. I think blasters should be fast firing but weak, while rails are slow firing but very high damage.

---

Quote:

---

Also, the minimum range of railguns is rather lacking.

---

Originally by: Xavier Maroquin

---

I dont know where you get your fits....

---

Quote:

---

And how are projectiles and rails different?

---

Quote:

---

And whats up with you being the only disser on this?

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

So pls stop comparing weapons vs weapons it makes little sense.

---

Originally by: Battlingbean

---

I doubt rails are the easiest to fit when putting them on the ships they are for(rails on an Amarr ship). Just look at the eagle for example. Optimal would be great if you could actually do something with it but at this point its like sniping with a nerf gun. IMO optimal range bonuses are a waste much like kinetic damage only. Most of the time the bonuses are destroyed do to the ammo and then u have a gimped ship.

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

Yes apoc/zealot with beams, which have a much higher dps than rails also nearly twice the tracking to start with
,and optimal bonus make them able to reach or even outrange arties /unbonused rails. Here optimal bonus negates one disadvantage the lower range , while for caldari it doesnt add anything as rails are already have the best optimal,while not much better than the rest.

-you can hit where nobody else can

and do meaningless dmg what nobody wants,
also what are your fleet mates doing while you snipe enemy slooowly down , watching you from safe spot?? And what will the enemy do, wait too?
You would be much better bringing a zealot/apoc and doing acceptable dmg at acceptable range.

-you can use better ammo

sorry to disapoint you but rails can't change ammo in 1 sec like beams can
you have to use iridium or shorter ammo to be able to do spike dmg , with iridium ammo the eagle just outrange zealot(aurora) with some km-s , while having 2/3 of its dmg , it only gets a tracking advantage which is not much as zealot with an radio will have better dps and nearly twice the tracking,
so i wouldnt say that using lower range ammo is realy an advantage for railguns, it is more likely a beam advantage as those can change ammo realy quickly , bring every ammo type as they require much less m3 in your cargo, and possibly you wont run out of crystals during an op /campaign

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Who needs Artillery when you now have 80km+ Falloff with Autocannons? The 30% FO bonus on T2 tracking mods (compared to the 15% to optimal) really does a number to projectiles, where falloff is strictly bigger than optimal.

---

Originally by: Jacob Stov

---

Lasers are that good now for 1 1/2 year. One would think that is enough time for amarr cruiser + BB 5 and large pulse/beamspec 4.
Now stop moaning and start them goddamn skills already.

---

Originally by: Meeko Atari

---

How would adding more range to Rail guns be a good thing?

There is a lock range limit of 249k and there is another weapon system that outperforms Rails at that range limit.

---

Originally by: MarieFrance Tessier

---

The thing that really hurts rails and blasters for PVE is that they don't operate at the same ranges rats do. There are not missions that demand 150km operating range except MAYBE the opening room to WC. There are not Th/Kin weak rats that get close enough for Blasters to ever be relevant. Kronos suffers because it is the only Marauder that can not fit close-range racial weaponry.

---

Originally by: Ophelia Ursus

---

Edited by: Ophelia Ursus on 04/01/2010 13:41:23
As a slightly unconventional solution to the problems with Caldari railboats, how about buffing optimal-scripted tracking computers? At present,a TC with an optimal script is strictly inferior to a TE - they give the same optimal and falloff bonuses (15% and 30%, respectively), but the TC consumes >2x as much CPU, confers no tracking bonus, and requires cap to run to boot. By contrast, when scripted for tracking, a TC II gives a threefold greater boost than does a TE II, which seems like a reasonable tradeoff for its drawbacks. If an optimal-scripted TC II gave a 30% bonus to optimal, a max-skilled Rokh with 3x optimal-scripted TC IIs would get an optimal of 208 km and 369 DPS with CN Lead (or 550 dps at 100 km with CN antimatter), while a max-skilled Eagle (2 optimal-scripted TC IIs) would deliver 270 DPS at 100 km with CN Uranium.

TL;DR - buff TC IIs, fix Caldari gunboats.

---

Originally by: Bibbleibble

---

Now, I hate to argue with the god-king of S&M, but I don't think that would work too well, as sig amps don't give enough targetting range to get the benefit of the extra optimal.

---

Originally by: Meeko Atari

---

It seems to me that all Weapons are being compared to and adjusted to compete with Lasers.

---

Originally by: raukosen

---

Also, gank mega is outdamaged by a gank geddon at 8km LOL
So much for blasters owning close range eh?

Also, looking at RR fits, you won't fit neutrons and in that case 350mm rails outdamage ions at 15km . It's not viable to have a BS with such gimped range

---

Originally by: VanNostrum

---

if lasers are so good why don't everyone fit tachyons and mega pulses to their gallente/caldari BS?

---

Originally by: Arrador

---

Originally by: Ap0ll0n

---

Originally by: Battlingbean

---

Originally by: VanNostrum

---

if lasers are so good why don't everyone fit tachyons and mega pulses to their gallente/caldari BS?

---

I haven't tried but considering how hard it is to fit 425mm to Rokh I suspect there would be serious fitting issues.

---

It¦s not hard to fit 425mm II¦s on a Rokh..

---

I'm guessing you have a 3% powergrid implant.

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

Originally by: Waagaa Ktlehr

---

The best way to boost railguns as a gallente pilot for fleet is to train caldari battleship 5.

---

Dont be stupid that wont help you with snipe hac/bc gangs also the rokh isnt better than the megathorn at all.
learn amarr or minmatar bs to lvl5 + their weapons that would help

---

Originally by: Seriously Bored

---

I see a lot of people who were formerly fighting to get projectiles balanced. I think we need something new to rally around.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

- Blasters do need more Tracking. What's the point of using the close rangiest weapon system in the game if ships your size can evade your turrets not only by flying further away but also by flying closer?

---

Quote:

---

- Rails need more Range wich translates into more DPS at a given range

---

Originally by: grapez

---

Of course, I could be wrong, and if so can someone enlighten me?

---

Originally by: Dr Cedric

---

I'm curious when we're going to start seeing some graphs and extensive damage/balancing calculations...

C'mon guys, get to work so I can start using my Rokh for missions!!

Seriously though, I did do some very primitive graphs on EFT, and all things equal (biggest T2 guns on tier 3 BS with similar damage/tracking mods) Rails have basically no place in the game. Tachyons by far have the best versatility from 0 to 250 km, w/ a very decent DPS at all ranges. 1400 Howy II's don't look too good on paper, but thats because EFT only shows DPS, not alpha on the graph. Rails do basically half the damage over the same range as the Tach's, but don't get any advantage w/ either tracking or DPS, and thats throughout the range.

So, long story short...rails are teh suck! Fix em!

---

Originally by: Dr Cedric

---

Dunno if you were trying to be funny or an A-hole, use more icons

---

Quote:

---

If you'd like to spare me 250M isk/wk, please give me a quick run down of what guns I should use to make a better comparison.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Your *own* transversal that you will necessarily cause just by trying to get close to your intended target destroys any dps advantage of blasters.
...
Tracking is never an issue in situations where everyone is immobile to begin with. But you are using blasters, hence 99.9% of the time you'll be charging the target, and usually at an angle. No matter how many webs you put on a guy, if you're approaching at high speed and an angle, your blasters will miss due to a lack of tracking.

---

Quote:

---

Blasters need a whole massive lot more tracking, extensive calculations have been done on that subject that show this very clearly. Any straight DPS increase would only increase blaster damage at best fractionally because of the tracking issues.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Yes, that's exactly what I am suggesting - a base range buff for all hybrids of about 30%, accompanied by a 25% tracking reduction. A Moa firing Lead at 100km is useless? (50% moa bonus +30% railgun buff +3 tracking enhancers) No, especially railships with range bonuses would profit immensely from a base range buff on railguns - because that gives these optimal bonuses so much more power.

---

Quote:

---

It would give Hybrids a theme - Extreme ranges. Hybrids as a whole would also suffer very much from having no medium range system - complementing the alternatives of drones and missiles.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

I'm not going to argue with you about blasters. Blasters have less relative tracking than the other two weapon systems, anyone can see that.

---

Quote:

---

Your mama

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

What about the poor eagle??? Make a comparison with eagle deimos zealot muninn pls.

---

Quote:

---

Ah, I think I know where you're getting at. At 180km+ you'll always use Spike, and long-reaching ammo like Iridium or Tungsten is useless.

---

Quote:

---

See, here's the problem: Tracking. Iridium Ammo has no tracking penalty. A BS sized gun hits even frigates that try hard at long range.

---

Quote:

---

the Battleship hits [a frigate] with near 100% dps

---

Quote:

---

These figures show very clearly that blasters in general have the lowest amount of tracking

---

Quote:

---

The close range weapon system that by design is going to deal with the highest lateral speeds, deals with it the worst.

---

Quote:

---

Do ACs still count as short-range weapons though?

---

Quote:

---

tl;dr: Nerf all tracking except blasters by 30%. Give Rails 33% more range and nerf their tracking by another 25%.

---

Quote:

---

Any left problem unadressed?

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

The fact that sufficient range trivializes tracking and lateral speeds is exactly what's the problem. I shouldn't, tracking should become the primary issue at long ranges while it shouldn't be an issue at short ranges.

---

Quote:

---

I did my homework. All the figures in my examples have been checked and are correct. It is you who has the audacity to post stuff without having any clue whatsoever. Do your homework or gtfo.

---

Quote:

---

Tracking 0.02 at Calculating at 100kms means you can follow a target incurring 2000 m/s lateral speed of the same signature.

---

Quote:

---

In this example, a 2000 m/s flying frigate is either an Ares with 4 overdrive injectors and probably a faction afterburner, or it's an mwding frigate.

---

Quote:

---

Wrong. They have the exact same absolute tracking as autocannons with EMP or Fusion. Load DU ammo and ACs way outtrack blasters. See, I did my homework, unlike you, you're just talking out of your ass. Pulses have slightly lower tracking, 0.033 compared to 0.043, but they have a 3x higher optimal to begin with (20km vs 6km) while sporting comparable falloff (8km vs 10km) which all just gives them roughly 50% more relative tracking.

---

Quote:

---

That's exactly what I am saying. Rails are way overpowered compared to blasters, but (beam) Lasers track even better than rails (both in absolute and in relative terms)

---

Quote:

---

This is where's the problem - balance wise, Relative tracking should decrease as range increases, yet what's observed is the other way around

---

Quote:

---

If you reduce all weapon systems to battleships, yeah. But all frigate weapon systems operate in scram range half the time. Plus why would blasters require more additional mods to be as effective as other weapon systems? Are you arguing for giving blaster ships more mid slots and more cap?

---

Originally by: Glorious Pride

---

So in summary Liang's fixes are boost Ship bonuses? Caldari/Range Gallente/Damage(not in the way of ROF)

---

Quote:

---

To be honest I have no idea, he said something like that earlier, but I do not exactly care much since he doesn't seem to perceive the problems hybrids have as an underlying hybrid problem but as "omg my rokh can't fit 8 425mms without rigs/RCUs"

---

Originally by: Seishi Maru

---

I am all for game balance, but it must be done without making everything just equal.

---

Quote:

---

...

---

Quote:

---

It's not a problem with the formula, it's a problem with the tracking values and ranges of different weapon systems.

---

Quote:

---

Correct. At 2x Tracking, you have essentially 0% dps, and at 1/2 tracking, you deal roughly 100% dps, barring out-of-optimal effects.

---

Quote:

---

That was exactly the point you dimwit, any frigate trying to approach a battleship from 100kms away is most certainly going to use an MWD, meaning it does get hit as if it weren't using a speed mod at all.

---

Quote:

---

If you're adding 3 Tracking Computers with tracking scripts to a pulse apoc, it suddenly tracks better than a mega, by your insane troll logic somehow making Pulse Lasers the best tracking weapon system?

---

Quote:

---

Apparently Rails are a damage delivery system and blasters are what, EWAR? Are they propulsion mods? Of course they need to be compared, GTFO you goddamned Troll.

---

Quote:

---

You're AGAIN arguing that somehow there's no transversal involved once you web a target, showing your complete lack of understanding of speed tanking. Just because your target isn't moving, doesn't mean there's no transversal. If you're engaging someone with a further-reaching weapon system than you, chances are you're low on ehp by the time you get to put dps on the target. You want to have transversal as high as possible to negate the targets damage.

The problem? It doesn't work. It should, and that needs to be fixed. At transversals a blaster boat starts negating the damage from a pulse boat for example, it negates its own damage by an almost identical degree.

How do you fix it? By giving Blasters far more absolute tracking than to longer reaching weapon systems.

---

Originally by: Julie Thorne

---

the latter explains why people with limited understanding of the game think that blasters have the highest tracking of all weapon systems.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Here's why I disagree: Tracking should not be a "short range mechanic" - Tracking should be THE defining downside of using long range weapon systems. Because you cannot escape a long range weapon system at the long range by moving away or towards the shooter - With battleships, that can be a 200km long trail of tears.

---

Quote:

---

This is a massive reduction in tracking with all weapon systems.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Ah, now I get it. You want it balanced something like this:

-Blasters should deal more dps than any other weapon system, IF they would actually hit, which they wont ever, what with the worst relative tracking and worst range in the game.
-Rails should instapop anyone within 250km range. Tracking should not be an issue with rails. And 250km isn't enough.

Yeah, sounds balanced.

GTFO

---

Originally by: Julie Thorne

---

Oh, sorry, my mistake. I didn't see the expression "blaster battleship" here

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

You said, Tracking isn't and shouldn't be an issue with long range weapon systems.

---

Quote:

---

You said, blasters don't need more tracking because blasters come with a built-in-web-effect that apparently doesn't require additional mid slots. (Hyperbole here, yeah)

---

Quote:

---

So what you are saying is that Rails should not have problems popping frigs at 100kms or less, while blasters should not be popping frigs ever.

---

Quote:

---

Blasters have roughly 1/5th of the range of rails. Shouldn't they be doing 5x the dps?

---

Quote:

---

Is there any mathematical reasoning behind your argument that "tracking is fine, needs more dps"?

---

Quote:

---

And that of course has nothing to do with long range weapons having too much tracking. Not at all. No sir. We should in fact maybe buff tracking on rails!

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

How does range trivialize tracking issues? ... If you double the range, and half the tracking, a ship going at the same transversal will be hit exactly as often as before ... All long range weapon systems simply have far too much tracking to make tracking an issue in current long-range encounters, and that's what needs to be fixed.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Your only actual contribution to the topic so far has been "RIALS R FINE! AMARR LAZORZ ARE WORSE BECOOZ OF FITTIN!" and that's just provably wrong on so many levels it does not warrant any further investigation. I don't think there's any point in interacting with you in any other way than insulting you, in hopes to deter you from trying to interact with this thread any more. Your noncontribution will not be missed, and the complete worthlessness of your presence in this thread shows that you most likely lack the mental faculties to properly understand any rational argument explaining how useless your spam is anyways.

So stop posting, go back to your school for specially talented, pop that ritalin and you might finally get that applied handiworks diploma that your momma wished you'd get on her deathbed, right before she apologized to you for getting drunk and stoned as hell every day when she was pregnant with you. She did probably fail to tell you however, that the syphillis she eventually died from... yeah, she got it from me.

---

Originally by: Hiroshima Jita

---

Personally I would be pretty happy if snipers got a metal rod shoved up their anus. It would be a buff to my playstyle. Do they deserve it? Not particularly.

---

Originally by: Vherr Arkhar

---

I read it. I admit I was just totally misinformed by doing this ancient 'guide to turrets' thing.

If this is all within a single formula - that messes up a lot, doesnt it? So tracking improvement effectively counteracts ****ty resolution.

---

Quote:

---

So is this uselessness in PvE offset by some proper performance in PvP?

---

Originally by: Ogogov

---

I like the idea of exploring a different tracking/sig formula that takes into account range and target visibility - After all, altering CPU/powergrid requirements just give you what... one more gun that won't hit anything anyway?

How about someone (who can code, so not me) throw together a simple simulator for this kind of theorycraft?

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Oh get a job and pay for your game subscription with real money.

They will never ever ever ever change the tracking formula. Maybe in EVE2.

---

Originally by: Asuka Smith

---

it might make them really OP

---

Quote:

---

The main problem I see with hybrids is that they have all the disadvantages of lasers/projectiles, and no upside whatsoever besides range.

---

Quote:

---

However due to the fact that hyrbids are so much inferior to the other weapon systems the fleets organize around the other guns, negating any advantage.

---

Quote:

---

And how often are blasters better than pulse lasers or projectiles? Only when you have a 3:1 advantage and a warp-in at 0, AKA not a "real" fight.

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

Still we dont need to come up with solutions as ccp will do that , we only need to point out the flaws ,what many ppl already done here, it is CCPs turn to do something now.

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

Yeah this is what Im hoping for too. Arties are a little bit op in laggy situations ,but that is not how eve should work so it is fine.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

The Stilettos ACs cause 3x the DPS of the Ares' Blasters and at a longer range too. Obviously we must increase blaster DPS by at least 300%.

---

Originally by: Cor Aidan

---

Big problem I still have with all these threads is I still haven't ever seen or heard a good quantitative definition of "balance" in the first place. Without that, how would you even evaluate if you had balance or not?

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

...

---

Originally by: Hiroshima Jita

---

The one thing Dibuwhatsit was right about is weapon envelopes dictating ship preformance. Lasors are about as good as it gets. Pulses have good damage with the longest optimal ranges of the short range weapon platforms, meaning no damage reduction for fighting at range. They have crappy tracking but at optimals its pretty nice and its actually competetive with blasters down to some range just under 10KM.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Rokh official turret bonuses: 50% optimal
Apoc official turret bonuses: 50% Cap usage, 37% optimal.

If we now translate this into the hidden bonuses, we get this:

Rokh: 25% dps, 30% tracking, 50% cap
Apoc: 25% dps, 30% tracking, 50% cap, 37% optimal

That means that pound for pound, because of the built-in superiority of laz0rz, the apoc is simply a better turret boat. So don't cry about rails being too weak when your ship has a shield tank bonus instead of another optimals bonus.

---

Quote:

---

Trying to fix the Rokh by giving all rails/hybrids a flat dps bonus or something like that, is a BAD, BAD, BAD idea that'll screw with balance, such as making the moa effectively better than the maller.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

IMHO that has more to do with cruiser turrets generally underperforming compared to BS guns. And the amarr don't have much in the way of not-turrets in the cruiser department (ok, arbitrator and sacrilege)

---

Originally by: Hiroshima Jita

---

The point I was working towards is that blasters need a little more than just a dps buff. They need a utilty buff. And w/o making blasters more like the other weapon systems by buffing their range that leaves buffing tracking as the only other option. Making it at least easier to get light tacklers off of them. IDK. Right now hybrids need a little bit of something.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

I prove you wrong and generalize even further. Both the Maller and the Moa suck. A tanking bonus on a cruiser? Cruisers have too little EHP/Grid/Cap to be even considered for a second as alternatives to BCs in a tanking role.

---

Quote:

---

Edit: Mind you, I say tracking is too high, but that's just a synonym for saying "speed tanking is too hard" - A general tracking decrease (especially with BS) would result in cruisers being slightly better tanks, which would make these two cruisers slightly better by comparison.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

You're wrong: The smaller ship has the advantage (or at least: should have) of always being able to dicate range. Even if Blasters had much better tracking allowing them to be effective vs even smaller ships, the smaller ship can still dictate range, staying out of damage envelope.

Right now, Blasters have the worst tracking in the game in relative terms. That means right now they're effectively the worst weapon to use against smaller targets.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Also, since you're going to ask: I used a Mael because it doesn't have bonuses for either weapon system. You need to separate 'blaster vs pulse' issues from 'mega vs rokh' issues.

---

Originally by: grapez

---

It's ideas like this that I think Eve really needs, though. Why only care about paper DPS, tracking, etc., when we could have weapons with unique, if niche, abilities? We need an interesting Eve, "balance" be damned, IMHO.

---

Originally by: grapez

---

Hm, weird, you say successful MMOs have a more diverse set of damage effects?

---

Originally by: grapez

---

There are good ideas, which would make for a more diverse and interesting Eve, would greatly expand the tactical toolkit that gangs have to work with, and would introduce a whole other dimension to Eve PvP, and yet you hate them because those MMOs have them.

---

Originally by: crimson fire

---

At least the bright heads in CCP must finally notice the amount of attention this thread it getting and decide there might be a fire where there is so much smoke!

WAKE UP CCP

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Scientifically speaking, we made differing models.
His model: Absolute tracking is the determining factor in performance vs small targets.
My model: Relative tracking is the determining factor in performance vs any target moving at sufficient transversal.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

You're wrong, again. Are you getting so used to being wrong that it doesn't bother you anymore?

---

Quote:

---

Consider what's a realistic movement scheme for an abba getting jumped by a mega in an SS actually looks like.

---

Quote:

---

Angular Momentum: ~0.000 rad/s

---

Quote:

---

Having a higher relative tracking than another weapon system means you can track a faster ship at your optimal. More importantly: Having roughly double the relative tracking of blasters, Pulses track transversals at half of Pulse-optimal exactly well as Blasters do at Blaster-optimal.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

The braindead squad of course immediately intervened saying "NO! BLASTORS HAVE MOR TRACKIGN THAN RALES AND R BETTAR VS SMALL SHIPS" so I was explaining that for the purpose of figuring out whether something has too much tracking, you don't look at absolute tracking, but at relative tracking.

---

Originally by: grapez

---

This is followed by a bunch of people nitpicking single points or latching onto some minor error and insisting that their way is better, without providing anything of material value to the conversation.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Now you're arguing that pilots shouldn't be able to mount webs and pulses at the same time? Or should webs - even when they come from other ships - make people immune to pulses? What about frigates, these operate in web range almost exclusively? The relative tracking advantage of pulses is the same there!

---

Quote:

---

Of course, this all stems from the basic misunderstanding that you can balance every aspect of the whole game simply by gut feeling rather than trying to break it up into discrete parts that can be methodically analyzed and compared.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Quote:

---

If you don't want cruisers / frigs to be hit by bs ask for a change in the gun siggy / ship siggy formula, don't mess about with tracking 'cause thats not suposed to do.

---

Another pointless addition by someone who doesn't understand that signature and tracking are the same thing.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Nah, I'm just gonna ignore your worthless contributions.

---

Originally by: Jack Icegaard

---

Its all a matter of how you use the word relative tracking (which was the point of my post).

---

Originally by: Cor Aidan

---

For purposes of comparing ability of turrets to track (at constant signature radii), base tracking speed stat is sufficient.

---

Originally by: Seriously Bored

---

Not to nitpick, but Jack, your statement of guns "handling" a certain angular or transversal velocity is where I think people get confused. Many players think that if transversal is below the stat stated on their guns they do full damage, when it is very, very far from the case.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Tracking 0.02 at Calculating at 100kms means you can follow a target incurring 2000 m/s lateral speed of the same signature.

---

Quote:

---

effective transversal (noun): The transversal speed at a given range which, all else equal, will result in a 50% chance to hit.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

ASCII graph time!

---

Quote:

---

The ability of a [smaller] ship to dodge a turret while crossing it's "zone of pain" it is primarily determined by relative tracking.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Expressing yourself in an unusual manner is not the same thing as being undererstimated.

---

Quote:

---

Edit: Also, your new, MWD'd top speed may not actually be as high as 600% due to mass constraints. So chances are you get hit more even after you accelerated to top speed.

---

Quote:

---

What if you could effectively speed tank those guys?

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Because obviously no battleship would ever kill a frigate ever again because they relying solely on their turrets to do that.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Originally by: Seishi Maru

---

It's not a balancing problem if a battleship weapon system can pop frigates reliably from 10km all they way up to 150 without having to so much as refit.

Furthermore, frigates don't need to be able to interact with hostile battleships in any manner, they can always warp away.

---

This is why I don't respect your intelligence or opinion.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

as long as said DefinedRange is Optimal > DefinedRange > Optimal+Falloff

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

...

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

"Halp my ship isnt instantly obliterating everything in a 249km radius! Also, 249km isn't nearly enough!"

Actually, I don't change anything about the system. I just found some methods to fine tune the values of the items within the system.

Omigosh, balance isn't achievable you say? So I guess we should go with "instantly obliterates everything within 249kms" then.

Also, drones. So... not much change from right now.

Missiles have problems, but their #1 problem in PVP is that all combat occurs at either 0km (station camping) or at 249km.

A huge focus on the 100km+ ranges whereas ACs now have a zone of pain of 100km? GOOD JOB BALANCING IT!

****hoc, ergo propter hoc. These situations don't happen because good FCs won't let them happen, exactly because they're so disadvantageous with the current tracking figures.

Lay down the crack pipe.

Right now the only defense of a frig vs a sniper battleship at 100km+ is to warp away before it gets locked, this mandates huge lock times for battleships.

only if everything gets insta-killed anyway is ROF a limiting factor.

---

Quote:

---

Again, entirely different problem. If you think webs should work at 50kms or disruptors at 100, you should make a point about that. I'm working on Turret-vs-turret balance and that has not so much to do with turret-vs-ewar-vs-propulsion-jamming balance.

---

Quote:

---

Currently there is virtually no mobility in the fights as they either start from 249kms away in a bubble or at 0. I want to bring mobility back to combat by allowing smaller ships to change their distance from a target without getting immediately blown up.

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

Just finished a roam in my Eagle. Rails do need more dps, not range. I don't know what Liang is taking lately, but asking for more range in rails is totally and irredeemably wrong.

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

Rails lack in dps within their engagement envelope (the extend of which is sufficient)
Blasters lack in the extend of their engagement envelope (their dps is sufficient)

---

---

Originally by: Jacob Stov

---

Increased range bonus would be a very Caldari way of solving this problem. But now that I sit in deep 0.0 I would prefer a solution that involves easy to produce T2 ammo.
Until recently I thought navy thorium @170 clicks would be everything I need to be happy, but oh those logistic problems.

---

Quote:

---

I already need my personal ammo transport for stupid POS shooting.

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

First of all: Liang, I did in fact read your proposal...
It fails to take into consideration game reality...
Roaming sniperHAC gangs will engage from 0Km out to 110Km (roughly; some can go out to 125Km)...

---

Quote:

---

Let's see what is max dps/ at closest range of properly setup snipers...
It is absolutely ridiculous that the Zealot can achieve higher volley, dps and tracking than both rail snipers...

---

Quote:

---

it is necessary that CCP increases the damage modifier on all rails by at least 15%

---

Quote:

---

I will furthermore ask that if you want to refute my statements, plz provide link to kills made with a sniperHAC

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

It's OK to admit that you hadn't taken this situation into consideration and that you agree that additional damage is needed. As for range, would you give up Munnin's damage bonuses for more range?
If 15% seems unwarranted to you, I would like to hear what level of increase you'd suggest and the logic behind it.

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

Muninn
T2 720mm arties Carb. M (T1) = 209 dps @ 94+36 (1130 volley). Tracking 0.04706

Deimos
T2 250mm rails Spike (T2) = 272 dps @ 84+37 (1014 volley). Tracking 0.01275

I call it prety balanced. What you think?

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

Liang, stop clutching at straws, accept that others have better ideas than you, and look at the tracking and range you get with T1 ammo in the Munnin. It still has the best alpha in the game, how does that make it obsolete?

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

Still, no numbers, no KMs, still just speculating. Once more, proof or STFU.

---

Originally by: Asuka Smith

---

I like how you call a 20% improvement in DPS at pretty much identical ranges in the Hyperion VS. Apoc fitting lolwut overpowered, but an Abaddon with pulse lasers vs. a Megathron with blasters the Abaddon has 500% more range and the same DPS.

---

Originally by: Asuka Smith

---

If you boost range then you obsolete the other ammo.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

That's already the case. Caldari snipers use T1 faction ammo at ranges where everyone else is using T2 already - that 50% optimal goes a long way.

The problem is that using T2 long range ammo doesn't really come with the disadvantage that it should come with - gimped tracking. Yep. Fix tracking in all turrets, and comparatively, caldari snipers are suddenly a lot better with T1 ammo than the others with T2, simply because using T2 [should] severely limit your ability to hit ships with a lower signature radius.

It's been pointed out several times already that synthetic EFT DPS is fairly irrelevant to real sniper work, so maybe that's not the part that should get modified.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

edit: understand my ammo/duration idea. It'd allow you to use iron even without being much worse as a sniper. (due to identical alpha as thorium or lead or whatever the new baseline would be)

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

All while the Rokh with T1 vastly out-tracks all the T2 using battleships by an order of magnitude.

---

Quote:

---

The tracking nerf is as inevitable as the AC falloff nerf in the long term. When that tracking nerf hits, the rokh would realistically outdamage all non-optimal'd sniper battleships at all ranges beyond 100km by the simple virtue of having superior tracking thanks to not having to use T2 ammo.

---

Quote:

---

I've come to the conclusion that caldari snipers do not have a problem that deserves special balancing around them, but would be nicely buffed (relatively speaking) by an overall tracking nerf.

---

Quote:

---

Given your latency in adopting my ideas and thinking they are your own, I figure it's gonna be about 1 week untill you'll announce that a general tracking nerf is in order and that was your idea all along.

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

A 25% damage modifier increase seems the best approach for rails.

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

Once more, until people learn it by heart:
Rails lack in dps within their engagement envelope (the extend of which is sufficient,
Blasters lack in the extend of their engagement envelope (their dps is sufficient)

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

Optimal that exceeds your fleet's optimal is useless, learn to fight in fleets. Fleet BSes and SniperHAcs are not Falcons, what do you know about them? KMs or STFU.

---

Quote:

---

There is a disparity at the shortest range, which your proposal does not cover.

---

Quote:

---

Optimal bonuses that let you use AM at the fleet's range and still do crappy damage are trully useless, I'll point you to your own words. You are asking for even higher damage ammo than AM, but you fail to see that the reason that you need higher damage ammo is the fact that the W/S does not do damage enough.

---

Quote:

---

You obviously and conveniently forget that both Gallente and Caldari railboats have enough range out to max locking range for each boat.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, sure, more dps is exactly what blasters need. Be sure to tell that to everyone that whines and cries that Gallente boats are worthless because they can't apply their dps fast enough because they have to MWD all around the battlefield.

---

Quote:

---

You are right, I find it funny that you can't admit that someone else has a better idea than you.

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

Using your own words. Choke on them.

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

Ehm, have you checked the tracking of rails lately? If I judge from you proposals and your posts here, no. And you call me ignorant? On what authority? The Grand EFT Warrior with no KMs to show?

---

Quote:

---

Just so you know, you need 2 TC in an Eagle to catch up to the performance of a Zealot, either close up or at range. That means there is a problem, you know.

---

Quote:

---

I will repeat this so you can understand it: until you provide KMS with sniperHACs, you are by default ignorant of their behavior. I can make an alt and start spewing fantasies, but I don't need to, I live in 0.0 and go on sniperHAC roams almost every other day. You on the other hand keep refusing to provide any proof of competence. So, I can simply call you incompetent, and be in the right.

---

Quote:

---

You keep trying to pass the optimal on to the railguns, not realizing that if you consider solely game balance those that need a range increase are blasters (especially since the game slowed down).

---

Quote:

---

I wonder why? Possibly your play style is static station and gate camping in low sec with a Falcon alt cloaked at range...

---

Me | Them | Location
Armageddon | Broadsword | 250km off station
Armageddon | Harbinger | Gate
Armageddon | Hurricane | Gate
Armageddon | Rupture | Gate
Armageddon | Arbitrator | Gate
Armageddon | Hurricane | Gate
Armageddon | Pod | Gate
Thorax | Hulk | Belt (Suicide)
Thorax | Hulk | Belt (Suicide)
Arazu | Pod | Safe Spot
Arazu | Drake | Gate
Armageddon | POSMODULES | Moon
Armageddon | Scorpion | Gate
Armageddon | Megathron | Gate
Armageddon | Brutix | Gate
Armageddon | Maelstrom | 150km off station
Armageddon | Myrmidon | 150km off station
Armageddon | Catalyst | 150km off station
Anathema | Pod | Safe spot
Crusader | Ishkur | Belt
Crusader | Scythe | Belt
Crusader | Rifter | Belt
Crusader | Rifter | Belt
Crusader | Rifter | Belt

Quote:

---

Btw, you never did show my proposal wrong; the only thing you did, was to try to pass your speculations and one-sided arguments as true, instead of accepting a proposal based on the overall consideration of engagement scenarios at different ranges.

---

Quote:

---

You took as fact what EFT gave you, without applying to the static performance of the ships involved, the intricacies of each possible scenario, scenarios that pilots in 0.0 encounter almost in every roam.

---

Quote:

---

I consider that blasters need a roughly 10% higher optimal and falloff, no more, so that they are more useful to a gang. Giving them more dps will only benefit the Deimos, not any other blaster boat due to the high falloff bonus. It will also help in the PvE department, but I am not concerned about that, I try to propose balance improvements for PvP.

---

Quote:

---

Occam's Razor, google it.

---

Originally by: Thenoran

---

especially if you end up at 0m where the tracking formula goes bonkers.

---

Originally by: Seriously Bored

---

The reason is that if you try to balance rails around the Rokh alone, you always come back with a Megathron that makes the Apocalypse look impotent. I do appreciate someone trying to support their argument with proper effort, however.

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

I see you went up from your initial proposal of 10% to my proposed 15% damage modifier increase.

---

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

---

P.S. Also, since I live and breath by the numbers, and since you are out to prove how smart you are, MENSA ID and IQ dude, or STFU. Don't bother with your EQ, we can all see that it's under 90.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Read my lips: You're not going to change the game by any amount of whining on the forums.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Also, nice for you to admit why you're posting here.

---