EVE Search - Small beam lasers ?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Small beam lasers ?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Helmut 314	Posted - 2005.04.03 15:05:00 - [1] Can we have the grid requirement dropped a bit, please ? To fit 4 medium beams I have to fit 2 MAPC to the frigate ingame with the largest grid all categories: the Retribution. Thats just not right. Since you are taking away the medium pulse usefulness we need an option, and dual light beams/pulse isnt it. ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Gareth Angel	Posted - 2005.04.03 15:14:00 - [2] While you're at it, with 2 mapc's, fit at least Med Beams II then. And my Retribution WILL keep its 4 Medium Pulse II's anyhow. They will NOT be useless after the changes, but maybe that's just me. Only thing that will happen is that you get less range, do fewer damage with Radio lenses (that goes for the Beam Lasers JUST AS WELL), and therefore have to switch lenses more often. Get used to it, and plz stop the whining about the 'pulse laser nerf' okay?
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.04.03 15:26:00 - [3] Edited by: Nyxus on 03/04/2005 15:29:56 I agree with Helmut - beam lasers, especially small and medium desperately need to be tweaked down a bit in the fitting department. Beams give a tiny bit more range and optimal than pulses and negligible extra damage for 1/2 the tracking and untenable grid requirements. When the Assault frigate can't fit 4 without 2 MAPC's then something is wrong. @ Gareth - Actually Gareth, why don't you stop whining about the whiners? Hemlut's post solely concerns BEAM lasers and not pulse - YOU are the only one who has whined in this thread, and it's kinda pathetic. It is a plain statement of fact that pulses are not as useful as they were, and asking that beams are adjusted to make them more fit easier on a ship is not a whine. I am not sure who is more irritating. The "don't nerf megapulse- they are balanced" whiners or the "Nerf lasers back to the stone age cuz I suck" whiners. In the end both camps are like being in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded. Well thought out, logical posts that are grounded in numbers and hard data are useful and good debate fodder. Please stick to them so we can have discussions that are useful and interesting. Nyxus
Julien Derida	Posted - 2005.04.03 15:30:00 - [4] Originally by: Gareth Angel While you're at it, with 2 mapc's, fit at least Med Beams II then. And my Retribution WILL keep its 4 Medium Pulse II's anyhow. They will NOT be useless after the changes, but maybe that's just me. Only thing that will happen is that you get less range, do fewer damage with Radio lenses (that goes for the Beam Lasers JUST AS WELL), and therefore have to switch lenses more often. Get used to it, and plz stop the whining about the 'pulse laser nerf' okay? Why the flaming? I don't think anyone (not even Selim) would argue against small beam requirements being looked at. The Medium Beam IIs especially are insane. As the original poster said, they are impossible to fit even on Retribution. Beams need comparible fitting requirements to the other long-range frig guns (with the usual racial PG vs CPU bias of course). ---------------------------------------- Artistic Director & Chief Diplomat - FRICK
Other Minion	Posted - 2005.04.03 16:16:00 - [5] Its more then just a power problem. Medium Beam II can't even hit another frig when running radios at at long range.
Helmut 314	Posted - 2005.04.03 16:34:00 - [6] I have no problem hitting frigs with medium beams, the problem is fitting the beams to my ship. Tracking and range are just fine, all they need is a small grid adjustment. ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Selim	Posted - 2005.04.03 17:51:00 - [7] Medium beam (S) need to be dropped by 2 powergrid each. Dual light beams are fine powergrid-wise, though.
Helmut 314	Posted - 2005.04.03 18:52:00 - [8] Edited by: Helmut 314 on 03/04/2005 18:52:47 2 mw is not enough, 3 would be a better number. That would put medium beam II at 15 MW and medium beam I at 13 MW, still more than all other frigate weaponry, but still enough to fit on the top amarr frigates. One MAPC would be enough on a Retribution. Dual light beams are not an issue, the medium beam is. ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Gareth Angel	Posted - 2005.04.03 19:42:00 - [9] Omg - I'm FLAMING now? Hardly, but if that's the way you wish to see it, fine. Plz don't say the original post was only about the Beam Lasers, as you should be able to read clearly that Helmut wrote "Since you are taking away the medium PULSE usefulness". In my view, he's saying that the med pulses are useless after the nerf, and now he wants the med beams to be twitched for better fitting. Isn't it a little bit the same as that Neutron Blasters are harder to fit then Ions? You just have to modify your setup. Use an extra mapc or power diag instead of that damage mod, and you'll be just fine fitting the med beams. And to Nyxus - the only one not complaining about my post is Helmut himself. Maybe he's the only one that understood my intentions... Thank you for the judgement.
Phades	Posted - 2005.04.03 20:40:00 - [10] Originally by: Gareth Angel Omg - I'm FLAMING now? Hardly, but if that's the way you wish to see it, fine. Plz don't say the original post was only about the Beam Lasers, as you should be able to read clearly that Helmut wrote "Since you are taking away the medium PULSE usefulness". In my view, he's saying that the med pulses are useless after the nerf, and now he wants the med beams to be twitched for better fitting. Isn't it a little bit the same as that Neutron Blasters are harder to fit then Ions? You just have to modify your setup. Use an extra mapc or power diag instead of that damage mod, and you'll be just fine fitting the med beams. And to Nyxus - the only one not complaining about my post is Helmut himself. Maybe he's the only one that understood my intentions... Thank you for the judgement. Except for the fact that beams and pulses are not in the same turret catagory like your blaster comment, in addition fitting 2 of the meduim beam lasers is like fitting 3 of any other turret, that is a huge margin even for ships like the retribution that do have more grid. However, they also use alot of cpu like other long range turrets. This also helps reduce the options the ship can fit, due to the low cpu it has compared to other ships of the same class. Also, if the ship had any desire to use a afterburner or fit a nos or a smart bomb in the hi slot, it would require another aux power core and most likely a co-processor. Arguing that using 40% of the low slots of any small ship dedicated to only fitting the guns is incorrect, especially when that is the only defining trait of the ship compared to others of the same class.
1man army	Posted - 2005.04.04 02:57:00 - [11] i agree with this also, please keep this post alive, i can fit a full rack of 280mm's on a minmatar destroyer with 1 mapc, but can't even come close with that with beams on the amarr destroyer. i have to train another race with their long range weapons now because the devs didn't look at why no one uses the small/med beams when they nerfed the pulses. -----------------
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.04.04 05:01:00 - [12] Edited by: Nyxus on 05/04/2005 03:04:37 COERCER: PG 75pg CPU 160tf Med Beam Laser II PG 18pg8=144PG REQUIRED* CPU 21 tf=166TF REQUIRED Medium Pulse Laser II PG 12pg8=96PG REQUIRED* CPU 17tf8=136PG REQUIRED* THRASHER: PG 70pg CPU 170tf 280MM T2 Arties PG 13pg8=104PG Required* CPU 16tf8=128TF Required* Here the problem is spelled out clearly in black and white. A Thrasher can fit a full rack of 280mm II's with 2 MAPC and still have plenty of pg and cpu to fit the rest of the ship out nicely. To me, this is how it should be. With it's damage bonus the Thrasher rips up frigs and has decent manuverability to boot. Now look at the coercer. Even if you fit 3 of the 4 low slots with MAPC's you can barely get enough grid to fit all the Beams. Not to mention that you are short on cpu as well. Oh yea, you can't fit anything else on your ship either. This is a clear example of why beam lasers need to be tweaked. Now look at the pulses. They are the weaker short range weapon, yet they have pg requirements only 1 less pg than the stronger long range projectile weapon. Amusingly enough, they actually have a higher tf requirement than the projectile too. The beams are even worse off as they are FIVE TF higher per gun than thier immediate projectile counterpart - and the Minmatar ship has more CPU than the Coercer to begin with. No reasonable person can look at this and say that it's balanced, or that beams are even possibility at this point. Please adjust the fittings on Beams so that they are more in line with the rest of the long range weapons, and are able to be fit onto frigs/cruisers with the same ease as the other races long range weapons. Nyxus
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.04.04 05:33:00 - [13] More on why Small Beams are underpowered and overfitted. Medium Pulse II's Activation cost 4.44 Energy powergrid usage 12 MW Cpu usage 17tf Rate of fire 3,5 sec Optimal range 8400m Damage modifier 3,6x Accuracy falloff 2000m Trackingspeed/accuracy 0,197 rad/sec Signature resolution 40m Medium Beam Laser II Activation cost 7,22 Energy powergrid usage 18MW Cpu usage 21tf Rate of fire 4sec Optimal range 12000m Damage modifier 3,6x Accuracy falloff 4000m Trackingspeed/accuracy 0,1 rad/sec Signature resolution 40m So for the ENORMOUS fitting requirements the beams require over the pulses, and 3 more mw used per shot, a slower rof, as well as half the tracking you get: 1500m more optimal 2000m more falloff ......and everything else is the same. No extra damage. Nada. Nothing. Please...no one used Small Beam lasers for a reason. It should be clear why. I can throw the comparison to 280mm II's up as well if you want to see em. With the reduction in pulse effectiveness, please give us an alternative to fit. Cruisers suffer these same problems. Clearly, adjustments need to be made. Nyxus
Gaius Kador	Posted - 2005.04.04 05:36:00 - [14] Amen ----------------------------------------------
Tonya Nastee	Posted - 2005.04.04 05:41:00 - [15] Originally by: Nyxus ......and everything else is the same. No extra damage. Nada. Nothing. Nyxus True. As it stands now, you are always better of by using pulses and just using medium to long range ammo instead. Hell with all the extra grid / cpu, you can slab some damage mods or/and increase your tanking. There is no reason to use beams on non BS sniper setup. Even with the pulse nerf, it will be pulse over beam on frig/cruiser anyday. -Tonya
Helmut 314	Posted - 2005.04.04 15:50:00 - [16] Yes Gareth, I wrote usefulness and I stand by that. 30% off on optimal makes small pulse lasers more dangerous to use, thereby limiting their usefulness. The lasers are medium range weapons primarily, thats where they excel. Medium range for small pulse lasers approaches blaster ranges with the best crystals fitted. If I want to go that close blasters or autocannon are better. Thats what I mean by usefulness. ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Ratzap	Posted - 2005.04.04 17:53:00 - [17] I agree. I'm a hybrid man but I recently got an Amarr Navy Slicer and I can't fit beam lasers, the PG requirements are just too high. I ended up putting 3 150mm rails on it to get decent range :-/ It's an Amarr ship tho damnit! I want to be able to fit beams. Ratzap
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.04.04 18:24:00 - [18] I am going to compare the Beam lasers directly to thier projectile counterparts, as they seem to be the best matchup. Beams should be similar to Arties, but with higher tracking, lower overall damage, and a slightly higher rof. I like to use the destroyers for comparison because they both have the exact same job to do, with pretty much the same loadouts barring the slot differences. With this comparison you can be semiconfident that you will be comparing the guns rather than the ships themselves. As seen above, the Coercer (Amarr) has 5 more pg while the Thrasher has 10 more CPU. Medium Beam Laser II Activation cost 7,22 Energy powergrid usage 18MW Cpu usage 21tf Rate of fire 4sec Optimal range 12000m Damage modifier 3,6x Accuracy falloff 4000m Trackingspeed/accuracy 0,1 rad/sec Signature resolution 40m 280mm Howitzer II's Activation cost 0 Energypowergrid usage 13MW Cpu usage 16tf Rate of fire 10,5sec Optimal range 12000m Damage modifier 6,9x Accuracy falloff 8750m Trackingspeed/accuracy 0,066rad/sec Signature resolution 40m Conclusion: Small Beams need some love. Desperately. The beams fire a little over twice as fast as the 280's with twice the tracking. The 280's do twice as much damage and cost nothing to fire. In addition the accuracy falloff is twice what the beam lasers are. So far, this seems pretty balanced. The thrasher gets a damage bonus, the Coercer gets an extra turret and a cap use reduction. Still looks good. Fitting is where the gross unbalancing occurs. With both turret's status and ship stats being almost mirrors you would think that the fitting reqs would be as well. That would be incorrect. Beams need: FIVE more grid PER GUN to fit FIVE more cpu PER FUN to fit Please recall that the poor little Coercer has 5 more PG and 10 LESS tf than the Thrasher. In order to fit a full rack of guns it would need FORTY MORE grid and cpu than the Thrasher. Giving the Coercer 40 more grid & cpu simply isn't an option, not to mention that all the other Amarr frigates suffer from the same problems. My suggestions for Beam tweaking are as follows: Reduce Powergrid need on beams to 14mw or 15mw per gun. Amarr guns should be a bit higher, and to fit a full rack of T2 Beams you would still need to fit a MAPC like the other Destroyers. Reduce CPU reqs to 14tf or 15tf. This is only a bit less than the Thrasher, but would free up some cpu to try to tank the Coercer if you wanted to (as is the Amarr strengths - turrets and armor). As it is, the Thrasher has more cpu, needs less cpu, and has extra mids for scrambling, etc. These guns appear to be mirror images of each other, and on a one-to-to basis are fairly balanced. The fitting requirements need to mirror each other as well. This would balance both turrets out nicely. Please sign to show your love for tha Beams and desire to balance them. If you disagree or have another idea please post that as well. Constructive critisism and discourse is good for the players as well as CCP. Nyxus
Helmut 314	Posted - 2005.04.04 21:19:00 - [19] Originally by: Ratzap I agree. I'm a hybrid man but I recently got an Amarr Navy Slicer and I can't fit beam lasers, the PG requirements are just too high. I ended up putting 3 150mm rails on it to get decent range :-/ It's an Amarr ship tho damnit! I want to be able to fit beams. Ratzap Blasphemy! You wont see me flying my Slicer with anything but lasers! ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Akaviri	Posted - 2005.04.04 22:50:00 - [20] Originally by: Nyxus Med Beam Laser II PG 18pg8=188PG REQUIRED* CPU 21 tf=166TF REQUIRED 188 = 144 218 = 168 ````````````` _ \|\_ ````````````` \` oo\ ````````_____/ =__Y= `````` /` `````` ) `_``` / ` , ``` \/\_.(\_/) ((____\| `` )_--\ \_-`(x.x) `------'`------` `--` (> <) Kitty pwns Bunny!
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.04.05 03:07:00 - [21] update the correction, thanks Akaviri. Math and trade runs during wartimes is hard heh. Shifts the numbers, but the same problems remain, and the overall point does not change. Give small beam lasers some love! Nyxus
1man army	Posted - 2005.04.05 18:47:00 - [22] wish more people would post on here to keep this alive :/ it is a big problem that the devs need to recongise. -----------------
Famine Aligher'ri	Posted - 2005.04.05 19:09:00 - [23] No screw that you laser wielding fruits! Just said this in another post too! You get 12000 range with a 4second STOCK RoF plus good Tracking and you use CRYSTALS! That's elite! You got a "Autocannon" RoF/Better Tracking with almost a "Arty" Damage. I stress Almost, I think the Beam II's have what 3.9 Dam mod? With a 1.5-2Second RoF with your skills or mods you have a AWSOME DOT! So quit your *****ing :P Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri -The Frig-
1man army	Posted - 2005.04.05 19:26:00 - [24] hope you're not serious. 280mm arties have 12km base optimal also, and longer acc fall off, autocannons have 0.315 tracking as the beams have 0.1 tracking speed. the beams have a 4 sec rof. with base attributes on a 280mm 2 you get a 8.28 dps for 1 gun and a 10.8 for a med beam 2, but the minmatar ships get a rof and/or dmg bonus to pull that on top which barely any tech1 amarr frig/destroyer has and plus the minmatar can fit more. so how do you think that is fair? -----------------
Famine Aligher'ri	Posted - 2005.04.05 20:11:00 - [25] Originally by: 1man army hope you're not serious. 280mm arties have 12km base optimal also, and longer acc fall off, autocannons have 0.315 tracking as the beams have 0.1 tracking speed. the beams have a 4 sec rof. with base attributes on a 280mm 2 you get a 8.28 dps for 1 gun and a 10.8 for a med beam 2, but the minmatar ships get a rof and/or dmg bonus to pull that on top which barely any tech1 amarr frig/destroyer has and plus the minmatar can fit more. so how do you think that is fair? Ok just taking what you said from your quote. Using correct stock numbers. 280 II = 6.9 DPS, RoF 10.5 RoF (Not Stock) MBL II = 3.6 DPS, RoF 4.0 (Not Stock) 4 / 10.5 = 2 known shots 3.6 + 3.6 = 7.2 DPS to every 6.9 DPS. So the MBL does more damage over all in time (DoT). Where the 280 does more damage per 1 shot. Now with more shots comming from the MBL you get more chances of a "Critical Hit" and or MORE "Critical Hits" per fight. Being you're shooting more shots than your opponent. Now you said, Minmatar ships get a RoF/DMG Bonus as well. Which is true. A damage bonus would push there DPS per 1 shot over your 7.2. Rifter = 2 Low slots 5% velocity and Damage bonus Punisher = 4 Low slots 10% to cap usages and 5% cap recharge Vigil = 3 Low slots 5% velocity and Targeting range Crucifier = 3 Low slots 10% to cap usage and 5% to CPU Rifter vs Punisher and Guns : They have a 5% bonus to damage. Yet you have 4 Low slots to make up for it. They have only 2. Vigil vs Crucifier : The vigil has the same low slots however no damage mod. There for your stock guns do more damage with equal damage mods in lows. Inty vs Inty - Only case you have is the Claws mad 10% damage bonus with same low slots as the Amarr Inty. Over all the MBL II is a elite weapon that has Arty OP range with a good DPS and Tracking compared to the Arty. That means something. I have to goto "Autocannons" to get the DoT I want. I have to sacrifice "Range" for "RoF". Being my ships don't have RoF bonus's. Not a lot have "RoF" and a "Damage Bonus" all in one. So I don't know what you're talking about. Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri -The Frig-
Shenrogar	Posted - 2005.04.05 20:14:00 - [26] Edited by: Shenrogar on 05/04/2005 20:19:56 Edited by: Shenrogar on 05/04/2005 20:17:16 bah, i fly nothing but frigs and i think beams are fine the way they are, should weapons that fire lasers with enough energy to burn through a ships armor use a bit more PG anyways, i dont use beams much but if i feel the need to i am only 2 PG short frim 4 tech 2 medium beams on my retribution, and if they made the PG use lower on them (they would have to mod pulses as well) then you would need MPAC's to fit anything other then your guns, so instead why not just mount 2 medium beams and a couple pulses, its not the easiest to hit close fast orbiting frigs with beams anyways, but i use pulses anyways so it doesnt make much of a difference to me. Mind you i dont see a problem with lowering the grid use. i would also like to say that if you just train your skills your lasers will fit a bit better, and certain annoying people who call lasers overpowered are definitely wrong, they arent stronger they arent weaker, lasers are basically the middle in all stats. And famine, add in good skills and projectiles will do more damage over time. because even a 10% increase in damage on projectiles will increase their damage a lot more then the same 10% on lasers. If you feel like it im sure everyone can argue all day but there isnt really a point as noone here is really looking at the advantages skills can impose.
Helmut 314	Posted - 2005.04.05 21:09:00 - [27] Well, the issue isnt the damage of medium beams, but how hard they are to fit. ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Meridius	Posted - 2005.04.05 21:18:00 - [28] Heavy Beam II require 19% more PG then Heavy Pulse II Medium Beam II requires 50% more PG then Medium Pulse II This is clearly not broken as the numbers are uh wait a sec... ________________________________________________________
Selim	Posted - 2005.04.05 22:31:00 - [29] Indeed... Raise Heavy Beam II powergrid! (/sarcasm incase meridius doesnt notice it)
Meridius	Posted - 2005.04.05 22:34:00 - [30] Originally by: Selim Indeed... Raise Heavy Beam II powergrid! (/sarcasm incase meridius doesnt notice it) Selim FTL ________________________________________________________

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.