Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Umega
Solis Mensa
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 19:10:00 -
[1]
...I'm actually not serious.
But am I the only one to notice how well blasters have done throughout the tourny?
I personally never understood the cries for blaster boost.. it has always remained the highest dps turret weapon system in the game. What do people want, more range while it keeps its overly impressive dps? Then we'll have cries for proj/laser boosts once again.
I personally just notch it up to gallente fav pilots watching laser, then proj boost plus varies speed nerfs. But blasters themselves.. really, not a damn thing wrong with them if you used as they intended.
---------------------------------------- -Treat the EVE Market like you're a pimp and it is your 'employee'.. freely fondle it as you wish and make it pay you for it- |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 19:19:00 -
[2]
Yeah in a situation where you know you're going to start really close to your opponent they're great.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 20:49:00 -
[3]
Blasters are great against still sitting targets but due to their short range, any amount of speed gets increasingly magnified in radial velocities and tracking starts to fail. They have superb raw damage but miserable damage application. -------- All I want is a better mankind.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 20:59:00 -
[4]
I've been pretty surprised by the number of blaster BS's and lack of torp BS's. Even the ships which I would have expected to fit torps [CNR, Golem] aren't.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 21:06:00 -
[5]
Blasters are just as nasty as they have always been, only thing that changed is the blaster ships now have to rely on additional external tackle to maximize their effect (ie. MOAR webs!).
Dystopia all but proved that you don't even need to have a ship with damage bonuses in order to be able to murder at will with blasters - all you need is the tackle, the more the merrier.
Blasters lose a good chunk of their power when the extra tackle is not available, making travel time and turret tracking a rather large issue in some cases.
For Gallente who were once the solo kings of all time this sudden shift to needing others has been a hard blow
|
VanNostrum
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 21:24:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Liang Nuren I've been pretty surprised by the number of blaster BS's and lack of torp BS's. Even the ships which I would have expected to fit torps [CNR, Golem] aren't.
-Liang
I'd assume that is cos since you can have frigate sized ships doing similar dps with torps (bombers) it is not feasible to spend points on torp BS as blaster and laser BS can have better tank and do better dps with tacklers' assistance.
|
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 22:07:00 -
[7]
Tournament pvp != TQ pvp Also you shouldn't count the vindi (a lot of the blaster ships fielded were vindis) as a regular blaster ship, as it's more or less what a blasterboat SHOULD be. 90% webs allow it to hold people down/track flawlessly with blasters, and a bigger base damage bonus allows it to actually put out a significantly higher amount of dps than, for example, a pulse geddon.
The main problem with blasters isn't that they lack range, or tracking, it's that they lack DPS. Sure, they're one of the highest dps platforms in the game (torps are still better though), but the difference between a similarly fit mega and geddon is only about 12% (IE assuming identical skills and the same number of damage mods/drones).
Also the geddon outdamages the megathron past 7km assuming the mega has AM loaded, and ODs it at ALL ranges if null is being used.
Also the only way for blasters to be effective is if the target is already heavily tackled (9km point + web at the bare minimum) AND the blaster ship has to commit to any fight it gets in. If you've already got the tackling power to hold someone down well enough for blasters to do their thing you may as well just bring a torp ship, since you get more DPS, at greater range, with variable damage types. |
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 22:27:00 -
[8]
Edited by: The Djego on 13/06/2010 22:30:34
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida For Gallente who were once the solo kings of all time this sudden shift to needing others has been a hard blow
Well there is still tons of other stuff you can do with gallente blaster ships in PVP.
But yeah, CCP decided that close range is far to deadly(funny since mostly nano pilots stated it and close range pilots protested) and so we have it.
Originally by: Cambarus Tournament pvp != TQ pvp Also you shouldn't count the vindi (a lot of the blaster ships fielded were vindis) as a regular blaster ship, as it's more or less what a blasterboat SHOULD be. 90% webs allow it to hold people down/track flawlessly with blasters, and a bigger base damage bonus allows it to actually put out a significantly higher amount of dps than, for example, a pulse geddon.
QFT ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 22:28:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 13/06/2010 22:29:44
Originally by: VanNostrum
Originally by: Liang Nuren I've been pretty surprised by the number of blaster BS's and lack of torp BS's. Even the ships which I would have expected to fit torps [CNR, Golem] aren't.
-Liang
I'd assume that is cos since you can have frigate sized ships doing similar dps with torps (bombers) it is not feasible to spend points on torp BS as blaster and laser BS can have better tank and do better dps with tacklers' assistance.
Let me clarify my comment a bit. I was commenting not only on the fact that there haven't been more torp ships fielded in place of blaster ships, but also that the missile ships which could have fielded torps didn't. The points were already spent, so they might as well maximize the point usage, so to speak.
Really, I'm sure that someone would comment on standard launcher bombers as well - its really just about as fail.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
VanNostrum
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 22:40:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 13/06/2010 22:29:44
Originally by: VanNostrum
Originally by: Liang Nuren I've been pretty surprised by the number of blaster BS's and lack of torp BS's. Even the ships which I would have expected to fit torps [CNR, Golem] aren't.
-Liang
I'd assume that is cos since you can have frigate sized ships doing similar dps with torps (bombers) it is not feasible to spend points on torp BS as blaster and laser BS can have better tank and do better dps with tacklers' assistance.
Let me clarify my comment a bit. I was commenting not only on the fact that there haven't been more torp ships fielded in place of blaster ships, but also that the missile ships which could have fielded torps didn't. The points were already spent, so they might as well maximize the point usage, so to speak.
Really, I'm sure that someone would comment on standard launcher bombers as well - its really just about as fail.
-Liang
whoa! standard missile launchers on bombers? lol thats comedy gold which match was that in?
|
|
Commander Criton
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 05:59:00 -
[11]
If anything the Alliance Torny has shown that people are favoring long to mid range weapons Arties and missiles being heavily used followed by lasers and last blasters. Close range battles in the Torny dont make much sense too me its best to keep at range of the other team members and the logistic ships and that is what teams seem to favour. Blasters have a very short range and high dps but also use a good amount of cap so something needs to be done to offset the cost of using them thats all people have a problem with.
|
Veliria
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 10:22:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 13/06/2010 22:29:44
Originally by: VanNostrum
Originally by: Liang Nuren I've been pretty surprised by the number of blaster BS's and lack of torp BS's. Even the ships which I would have expected to fit torps [CNR, Golem] aren't.
-Liang
I'd assume that is cos since you can have frigate sized ships doing similar dps with torps (bombers) it is not feasible to spend points on torp BS as blaster and laser BS can have better tank and do better dps with tacklers' assistance.
Let me clarify my comment a bit. I was commenting not only on the fact that there haven't been more torp ships fielded in place of blaster ships, but also that the missile ships which could have fielded torps didn't. The points were already spent, so they might as well maximize the point usage, so to speak.
Really, I'm sure that someone would comment on standard launcher bombers as well - its really just about as fail.
-Liang
Indeed, all Ravens and its variants seem to be Cruise fitted. I can only surmise this may have to do with E-War and tackle. If a frig tackled a Raven and many ships of interest (worth shooting) are out of range, then the Raven was essentially traded in for a frigate.
Still, torps should be seen more on ships, maybe the fear of not being able to use them due to E-War/Tackle is too big and they'd rather use Cruise (which also provides derp-a-derp FoFs). I do believe I saw one Typhoon fitted with them once, but that's about it (or was it the discophoon...).
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 10:51:00 -
[13]
The Torpedo vs. Cruise question might have something to do with ECM (and damps) which is notoriously heavy in the tourny. Cruise has FoF variants and torpedoes do not, some dps is better than none especially when you add the requirement of tank.
|
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 13:27:00 -
[14]
torps have also the problem of sig and range, cruise missiles do ok dmg even on bs and perform better on smaller ships (who generally are the most numerous)
range is another problem, if your opponents start at 50km good luck closing range with a raven, not to say if they start to kite and can outrange you
about blasters personally i think they are fine, the problem with the complain is that blaster pilots where not used to tracking, lot of pilots just used to hit approach, mwd, web and the enemy went boom (well kinda) now, with lower webber strenght, is not anymore the case (at least in some situations)
maybe pulse are a bit too good but other weapon systems looks kinda balanced to me
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
Tub Chil
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 08:45:00 -
[15]
A lot of people are talking about "fixing blasters" but I just don't understand how to fix them I played with EFT, fitted neutrons on rifter and compared with 200mm-s neutrons do more damage, even on a ship that gets 5% damage boost (all V char) I tried 425mm autos vs medium neutrons on cyclone which has 5% turret rate bonus, difference was just few DPS so what to do with blasters? if give them extra range or falloff we'll need to nerf DPS, because otherwise we get uber killer guns if we nerf DPS, blasters will become lasers or acutocannos with different animation, what's the point of that?
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 10:13:00 -
[16]
Edited by: 1600 RT on 16/06/2010 10:14:58 blasters are fine increasing their damage would require a range nerf to dont mess with AC. increasing their range would require a dps nerf for the same reason.
if anything they could get a slight tracking buff like 15% also i think hybrid weapons use too much cap considering amarr ship bonus they use the same cap of laser (while hybrid weapon ships have worse cap than amarr ships), cut the cap usage by half
the only problem i see with blaster is pulse laser theyr dps/range/tracking mix its just too good
|
Wacktopia
Dark Side Of The Womb Focused Intentions
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 11:33:00 -
[17]
Originally by: 1600 RT if anything they could get a slight tracking buff
This. Blasters are fine, they were just "nerfed" when the web speeds were changed. Increase the tracking to account for this and balance will be restored.
|
Smabs
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 11:34:00 -
[18]
Small blasters I think are pretty much right. The mediums need a bit of a buff, though. It's a bit weird that ions have more fitting requirements than 425 autocannons whilst having the same amount of tracking, less range, cap usage and only slightly more damage to compensate.
Anyway the alliance tournament is a bit of a special case and can't really be compared that much to normal pvp.
|
Rastigan
Caldari Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 11:43:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Tub Chil
I tried 425mm autos vs medium neutrons on cyclone which has 5% turret rate bonus, difference was just few DPS
The real difference to using autocannons was, no cap usage, 1/2 the fitting requirements, choice of damage types, being able to hold 2 to 3 times as much ammo, and of course being able to engage with extreme falloff range. If you just look at EFT damage then I guess blasters are fine.
|
1Ekrid1
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 15:26:00 -
[20]
Originally by: 1600 RT Edited by: 1600 RT on 16/06/2010 10:14:58 blasters are fine increasing their damage would require a range nerf to dont mess with AC. increasing their range would require a dps nerf for the same reason.
if anything they could get a slight tracking buff like 15% also i think hybrid weapons use too much cap considering amarr ship bonus they use the same cap of laser (while hybrid weapon ships have worse cap than amarr ships), cut the cap usage by half
the only problem i see with blaster is pulse laser theyr dps/range/tracking mix its just too good
true now that blaster tracking and webs re nerfed, they could stand to do 75% the cap use of lasesrs, and they'd be just about right then. lasers are supposed to take the most cap. There's 1, repeat 1, frigate in the T1 lineup designed to be a suicide tackler. the rest are for COMBAT. so don't tell me to tackle when I'm in a combat T1 frig. OR tell CCP to fix their mess. |
|
CeneUJiti
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 17:00:00 -
[21]
A "slight tracking buff" will achieve (almost) nothing. Consider the difference in target speed (and transversal) with 60% and old 90% webs. That is 4x difference, a 15% or 25% tracking buff to blasters would be barely felt. It would take a ridiculous 400% tracking buff to reach same tracking compared to targets transversal as in "old" times.
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 17:05:00 -
[22]
So, people see for example, Vindicators doing well, in a highly idealised environment and immediately assume this applies across the board to 'blasters'. Consider for a moment, how Vindicators have been boosted within the last year before jumping to the any conclusion on the overall 'health' of blasters:
1)More damage 2)More webbing power .. ...
m'kay...
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 20:24:00 -
[23]
Originally by: CeneUJiti A "slight tracking buff" will achieve (almost) nothing. Consider the difference in target speed (and transversal) with 60% and old 90% webs. That is 4x difference, a 15% or 25% tracking buff to blasters would be barely felt. It would take a ridiculous 400% tracking buff to reach same tracking compared to targets transversal as in "old" times.
blaster hit theyr intended targets just fine (targets of the same size) 90% webs was removed to make frigs useable.
a 15% and thats already alot will give the blaster the edge on close range tracking where they should stay. other than that they dont deserve that much love
|
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 22:27:00 -
[24]
Originally by: 1600 RT
Originally by: CeneUJiti A "slight tracking buff" will achieve (almost) nothing. Consider the difference in target speed (and transversal) with 60% and old 90% webs. That is 4x difference, a 15% or 25% tracking buff to blasters would be barely felt. It would take a ridiculous 400% tracking buff to reach same tracking compared to targets transversal as in "old" times.
blaster hit theyr intended targets just fine (targets of the same size) 90% webs was removed to make frigs useable.
a 15% and thats already alot will give the blaster the edge on close range tracking where they should stay. other than that they dont deserve that much love
Blasters don't need more tracking, they need more damage. Blasterthron only ODs a geddon by 12% inside ~3km. At 7km their damage is equal (still well within web+scram range even without overheating) |
LonTas 5
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 22:31:00 -
[25]
Edited by: LonTas 5 on 16/06/2010 22:33:31 Edited by: LonTas 5 on 16/06/2010 22:33:02 Edited by: LonTas 5 on 16/06/2010 22:32:26 Edited by: LonTas 5 on 16/06/2010 22:31:21 Edited by: LonTas 5 on 16/06/2010 22:31:10 Blasters need more tracking They still fail at close range. Blasters need more DPV. They still fail because the Volley is still low. Blasters need less cap use. They still fail as AC use no cap and have better damage application. Blasters>still>fail. Playing with text is FUN! LoNtAs 5 |
Bomberlocks
Minmatar CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 23:24:00 -
[26]
One of my favourite matches in the tourney so far has been the Caldari Blaster setup (can't remember who it was offhand) with a nano-blaster Rokh, Bloa (Blaster Moa) and Blaster Ferrox. That team did very well, partly because they utilised a very nice feature of Caldari Hybrid ships: bonuses to optimal range, which, in the tourney meant they were getting good damage out to ranges that are normally the preserve of Mini ships.
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 01:08:00 -
[27]
Originally by: CeneUJiti A "slight tracking buff" will achieve (almost) nothing. Consider the difference in target speed (and transversal) with 60% and old 90% webs. That is 4x difference, a 15% or 25% tracking buff to blasters would be barely felt. It would take a ridiculous 400% tracking buff to reach same tracking compared to targets transversal as in "old" times.
Because pilots cannot be expected to pilot their ships to reduce transveral?
------------------ For Medicinal Use Only. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |