Originally by: FutureTroll5000

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

If blasters got "fixed" people would still whine about them because they don't like balls to the wall pvp blasters demand.

---

ah therein lies the crux. blaster fighting requires something that a blob will not cater to. not in the current state of game performance.

they are truly fuct.

---

Originally by: Fredfredbug4

---

Blasters are fine apart from tracking issues. The real problem is the ships that you put them on. They are too slow to close in. An average PVPer would be able to determine that the gallente slow boat is trying to melt their face with blasters and follow up by kiting them to death.

---

Originally by: Sir Drake

---

I know those shield buffer setups work but imho thats a bloody sad way to go for Gallente.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Because you only have a <1km window in which you can apply full damage. MWD on top of something (say at like 10m) and you'll miss more than you hit even if he stays still. If he's moving you need to keep him at pretty much exactly your optimal, or you're not going to be getting much of that damage blasters are supposed to be good for. What's more is simply approaching a target means they track you just fine as well, and blasters actually don't have dps that's that great when compared to lasers. A pulse geddon only does ~8% less raw dps than a mega and has ~10% more ehp, IIRC the mega would theoretically still win because of resists in a 1v1, but it was a matter of less than 3 seconds. Given that blasters are really bad in fleet engagements, you'd think that they'd be notably better in a 1v1 situation. Unfortunately you'd be wrong.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

---

This what happens in an EFT maths fight. In reality I find I have little problems out damaging my opponents.

---

Proof or stfu.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

In the last 3 months your most used ships are the hound, cane, and vengeance.

If blasters are fine why AREN'T you using them?

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Proof or STFU.

---

Originally by: Sigras

---

So what you're saying is that a 30 million isk harby did nearly twice as much damage as your 100 million isk deimos . . . got it.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

So beating two canes fitted with AC which according to you are so much better doesnt show blasters are just as good in the right hands?

---

FFS learn to quote.
How exactly did you "beat" these canes? If you're referring to the ones you were flying with (as in, in terms of damage applied) one has to question the information when you have a guardian ODing one of the canes. Either they weren't shooting the target, or they got there late, or they were doing something stupid. Not to mention the fact that this doesn't really show the performance of blasters. You did 7k damage, congratu****inglations. You could have done that with just about any ship(yes even a cane), and the fact that the harb did 10.5k damage to the same target means you weren't even the top contributor.
Your KM proves exactly nothing except that you're looking at its information with the ASSUMPTION that blasters are good, and coming up with excuses as to why this mail does not reflect that, rather than looking at it objectively, and seeing that in that case the harb was clearly the better ship for the job, and that you don't actually HAVE proof of a situation where blasters were the ideal weapon.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

You're still making excuses though. In order for your point to be valid, you have to have some sort of PROOF that blasters not only did sort-of-ok, but actually OUTPERFORMED all other kinds of turrets. Their are situations in which lasers shine, there are situations in which projectiles shine, and there are situations in which missiles shine, unfortunately, there aren't really any situations where blasters shine, pirate faction ships excluded.

What's more is that the km you linked shows one of the canes being ODd by a freaking logistics ship. Saying you did more damage than a cane when a logi can make that same claim doesn't prove anything.

If you want to prove that blasters are fine, you have to prove it. To prove it, you have to show them outperforming the other weapon systems (because if you really think blasters are good, then you must be using them in situations where they shine right?) and you have to do it with some sort of regularity.
I'll give you an example:
The helios makes a great pvp frig, partially because no one expects it to be pvp fit, and partially because dem mids make for lots of ewar. Proof can be seen here, here, here, and here.
The performance is immediately visible, no excuses need to be made, and the KMs speak for themselves. (and before you ask no, they don't quite do the ship justice, but I won't go on about details of those fights I can't prove, because that goes against the very idea of proof)

---

Originally by: The Djego

---

May by people would take you serious if you would have something more to contribute to the topic than "I think blasters are fine, and I used them a few times, all your numbers must be wrong by my limited personal experience with them".

Just a opinion from somebody that flown the ships a bit back in the days as a general bread and butter pvp baseline instead of "lol look I didn't score last place in damage done on this KM". If there are reasons to don't bring the hulls to small gang/solo fights, even fully maxed out on the skill side, because other hulls/weapons just do the same better in 9/10 cases, the concept is not fine, regardless of your opinion that was disproved by numbers more than one time.

---

Originally by: The Djego

---

Originally by: Kelio Rift

---

After these many arguments I've seen here, I still say that blasters are fine, those who don't want to put effort into them to make them work, fine by me. Fly whatever ship you want to, just don't whine about blasters.

---

The effort in pvp should start with picking the right ship for the job, and there isn't really a job where the blaster ship would be a good choice(except hugging undocks).

It is to slow, it is just bad at any possible combat range(including close range), it is a cap hug, expensive to fit(cpu), primary in every fight, a glass cannon in any fit that actually provides a damage advantage at all, has not gtfo and in the end not even the ship you want to bring as a damage dealer in your gang, because other ships do this far more relay able outside the "everything starts at zero, everything hits for full damage" illusion many people have in pvp.

If you put said effort into your pvp you will out damage it in next to every fight with a proper flown med range damage dealer. It is to weak to justifies his own use in his niche(what is solo/small scale DD) and pretty much pointless outside of it.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

If its so bad why do people primary it rather than all of the "good" ships?

---

Easy kills and/or bad FCs

---

Originally by: Sable Schroedinger

---

um... Gal and Mini ships have sginificantly weaker tanks than Cal and Amarr

---

Originally by: Sable Schroedinger

---

...yes, but theres more to this than EHP, there is also speed and range (as mentioned in this thread and many of its equivelents)

---

Originally by: The Djego

---

So yeah, your point?

---

Originally by: The Djego

---

Learn to rax tbh

---

Originally by: The Djego

---

Your point?

---

Originally by: The Djego

---

You know how alliance tournament works and that it is a bit different than the PVP on TQ do you?

---

Originally by: The Djego

---

I get it you are just trolling me, gj mate.

---

Originally by: Kelio Rift

---

Don't mention the Thorax/Megathron/Vindicator/Taranis/Daredevil or any epic blasterboats that can be, and must be fitted with blasters, and still are able to kill stuff equiped with other weapon platforms.

If you personally like blasters, just pray to god the many whiners get what they want ("fixing" blasters, which aren't broken, they just need some other tactics to handle) and CCP buffs them. Then they will, and hell I'm sure they will, whine about blasters because they are OP.

---

Originally by: Sable Schroedinger

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

Originally by: The Djego

---

Learn to rax tbh

---

Alliance tournament(even from the time before the QR sledgehammer nerf), this is all you got?

---

Comming from someone who doesnt fly the ship as gives examples of bad pilots not managing to outdamage pirate ships?

What happened in that vid was a mob of rax burned 70km at a speed my rax can go and ripped apart a supposedly invincble setup flown by "elite pvpers". Not even the bad tracking you keep claiming saved those frigates.

---

Originally by: Kelio Rift

---

I did that with my Vindicator, was fun until an Armageddon cyno dropped it with Bombers. Almost the same happened when I returned to the game and didn't notice that the Vindi got an 8th gunslot... but that time it was a Drake and a pack of blackops...

---

Originally by: Kelio Rift

---

(Working!!) Link to your KB or we won't beleive you!!! Seriously, I tried to dig 'em up, but no success, and BC is kinda broken... (Battleclinic's broken?! OMG FIXFIXFIX!!!)

Also tell us your strategy that made your ship/weapon system work. (Not like I don't know the stuff, but many people don't know)

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

I will say that I find the high-fiving/circle jerking thing you 2 have going to be quite entertaining, but I do have one question wrt your megathron:

You're flying in a gang of nano ships, and a gang in which pretty much everyone that's not a logi and not you is using ACs. How exactly does your AC heavy gang doing well suggest that blasters are good?

Come back when you take a fleet of blaster ships out and win some good fights, because all those mails show is that a mega can OD cruisers, and that AC-heavy gangs are good for pvp.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

It also shows the mega can keep up with some of the quickest ships in the game AND has the range and tracking to apply its damage to be usefull to said gang. Thus busting 3 of the myths you belive in.

---

1)With 3 nanos (which is massive overkill in and of itself) a mega aligns in 8.1 seconds. With no mods, a cynabal aligns in 3.6 seconds. You're not really keeping up with anything. BTW, an abaddon with 3 nanos only takes 1 more second to align.

2)How does it prove that blasters work well wrt range and tracking? You got a BS to outdamage a bunch of cruisers, congratulations. That can be done with just about any BS, and shows nothing other than that your gang of AC using ships does well, and you managed to not die.

You've disproven nothing.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Well it IS too slow, I already showed that, and you're comparing LARGE blasters to MEDIUM autocannons, in ganks where you greatly outnumber your targets no less.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

It was fast enough to kill those ships. It had the range to shoot at and deal savage damage to the targets dispite the locking time.

---

It's a battleship. You're comparing a battleship to a cruiser. Do you know what the raw DPS difference between a mega and a cynabal is? Somewhere in the realm of 300% With a damage advantage like that, of course blasters look good. But you know what? A pulse geddon also looks good in that scenario, as does an AC pest or a torp phoon/raven. Compare large blasters to large ACs and large pulses and large missiles, or do I need to point out that despite being a brick compared to the rest of your fleet you still didn't even come close to top damage on the targets smaller than a BC on that roam?

Originally by: baltec1

---

Blasters work and are viable weapons.

---

So why is the rest of your gang using ACs?

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

head in sand

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

head in sand

---

Fact still remains, the blaster ship did its job.

---

Fact still remains that an AC/pulse ship would have done the job better.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

The whinefest is about blasters being bad. The way we measure what is good and what is bad in eve is we compare it to other similar things. You're also flat out lying, because you already admitted to losing out in terms of applied damage a few times because of range, and the main problem with blasters atm is that they do poor damage when compared to their range and the damage of other turrets. Compare a blaster ship to an AC ship, or ideally a pulse ship, THEN tell us all how great blasters are.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

considering most fights happen at below 20km range is indeed not much of an issue. The one time range did come into play my speed got me close enough to start putting in the damage. In a prolonged fight of more than on ship I would have been well within range forthe rest of the fight.

---

Assuming the people you're fighting sit in a tight ball and never move, sure.

Originally by: baltec1

---

AC and pulse have more range but so what? with just about every fight taking place within easy range of blasters anyway it doesnt matter unless you want to kite your enemy. Blasters produce more than enough firepower if you use them correctly to kill your targets.

---

The thing about claiming they have "enough firepower to kill their targets" is that it absolves you of any need for proof. What you have to ask is "how will blasters perform compared to pulses or ACs?" As far as fights being within blaster range, once you're forced to use null you do more DPS with pulses, at higher ranges, with instant ammo swapping, so pulses become provably better. Blasters aren't BAD, all the other guns are just BETTER, which is the problem.

Originally by: baltec1

---

If you cannot use them or dont like them then dont use them, but going out and saying its a useless weapon just makes you sound stupid to people who do use them and get great fun out of them.

---

Relying entirely on your corp to provide you with free kills means you have no real idea of how your weapon of choice performs, and have no business discussing game balance from an experience standpoint. Go out and do some solo pvp, or go out with a gang of all blaster ships, THEN come back and talk about how great you think they are.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

Me and my corpmates have been going out in solo/small gang blaster ships for years. I have been doing roaming in BS for 6 months now which is why I was confident in taking the mega out with such a fast roaming gang. I have also been confident in fighting with a single light blaster on a hauler for a good year now.

---

Go out and do some pvp with a blaster only gang or solo. Then come back and tell us all how great blasters are. You're still coming here arguing that blasters are good based on experience, when you don't actually HAVE any experience using an all-blaster setup.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

I see you failed to read everything I just said.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

2)You can't compare people who fall into the top 0.001% of the playerbase to the average pvper, and balance the game with that in mind. If you really believe that the problem with blasters is that people who use them suck, why aren't YOU posting countless KMs with them showing how you can take them into a fight outnumbered and still win etc etc etc.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

So blasters act differently when this top line of pilots use them?

---

Can you do what the guys at the top of battleclinic can do with blasters? And if you can, why don't you just go out and do that, come back here, post your top 100 battleclinic killboard, and explain how blasters are so fantastic. If you CAN'T do that, then, I guess you've answered your own question haven't you?

Balance that only applies to 0.001% of the player base is not balance. It's like saying SCs are fine, as long as you're in the top 2% of the player base WRT available isk.

Also you've once again conveniently left out the other part of that point I made again: compare top 100 players to other top 100 players; why are so few of them using blasters?

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

In a stright up fight to the death, I am fairly confident that I could kill a 5 year old using nothing but a spoon, even if said 5 year old had a knife. Does this make a spoon a better weapon than a knife?

---

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 23/05/2011 20:05:10
Baltec, I donÆt mean this to offend but your credibility as a Blaster 'expert' is stretched rather thin from just a cursory glance at Eve-kill or Battleclinic.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

I simply do not see the issues some here complain about.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Replace me and a 5 year old with a guy who has spent most of his life doing martial arts and a guy who has not, you have the same scenario.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

You've already admitted to not having used the mega for solo/small gang work. Go out and do it, if you're so confident in its abilities.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

So you admit then that a spoon is just as deadly a weapon as a knife?

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

That has exactly ZERO relevance to balancing. For the weapon systems to be balanced, you have to assume that both pilots are equally skilled (so a nub vs a nub or a vet vs a vet). If blasters require you to be absolutely perfect with your gameplay in order for them to work, and the other weapon systems do not, then blasters are underpowered.

---

Originally by: Cambarus

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

Demanding a buff for a weapon that you cannot use but others can is equaly ******ed. You keep moving the goalposts evey time something punches a hole in your perfect bubble.

Originally by: baltec1

---

Either it doesnt count because of a lack of experience, or it doesnt count because of too much.

---

YOU can't make an argument based on experience if YOU do not have any. This is a completely separate argument from the idea of removing player skill as a variable when discussing balance. If one of the top 100 guys, using mainly blasters, were to show up here and explain HOW blasters can be used well, then I'd listen, because they can provide legitimate insight to what the problems, perceived or real, are. You, on the other hand, cannot. The whole you need experience to argue experience thing is an argument aimed at YOU, not the eve population as a whole. The removal of player skill as a variable is a statement aimed at the eve population as a whole. The idea that the top 0.001% of eve has 1 or 2 people who use blasters in it being used as proof that blasters are fine is absurd, especially when, by it's very definition, the top 0.001% of eve's pvpers have skills in the game that 99.999% of the players will never attain. That's not balanced, not even close.

There's a KM floating around somewhere where some guy killed a thanny with a rifter (thanny was obviously afk but still, the KM is there). By your logic, because SOMEONE can do it means that the rifter is a valid counter for carrier hotdrops.

Originally by: baltec1

---

You are contradicting yourself far too much to have any valid argument anymore.

---

You've been repeating the same nonsense, with slight changes, since you've come here, and my main point to you has always been the same:
Go fly your damn ship, without the help of a 20 man AC gang, THEN come back and tell us how we're all doing it wrong.

---

Not all, just you. There have been several people who have come in here to tell you that you are wrong. Just about everyone can see blasters are a viable weapon and want some tweeks to make them more powerful. You on the other hand seem to have it in your head that nobody can do anything with them. People like you are going to end up getting blasters buffed to OP levels.

Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen

---

others > but the rifle can shoot further? Blasters are close range weapons, treat them as such


others > but the rifle doesn't use cap? If you run out of cap get better cap skills because I have no more issues with blasters than I do with lasers.


others > but the rifle is more accurate at range? The complaint from people here is close range tracking. Blasters dont have issues with tracking at range

others > but the rifle will kill a greater variety of stuff? anything is game for a blaster

others > but there are 19 other guys on the mail and they all used rifles? welcome to the mini age, you are going to see a lot of rust with rifles

Hopefully now you can put on reality-glasses and look back through your posts to come up with a more reasonable argument than 'I get kills with them so they must be fine,' okay?

---

Originally by: Swynet

---

No one is saying blasters are totally useless,

---