Still it seems most pilots in eve don't want INSANE tracking. Example: Medium turrets being able to track frigates. I know because I've suggested it and many don't like the idea. That's the kind of tracking increase he would need to do what he's on about (100% or more and lower signature resolution I would assume, without really checking)...

Forums tried to eat my post. C&P ftw.

Base stats pulled from EveWiki for 3 comparable BS-sized close range weapons. They all have the same RoF (7.875sec).

Given the same target flying in indentical fixed orbits around a ship with identical bonuses/skills, one with a Neutron Blaster II, an second with an 800mm Repeating Artillery II, and a third with a Mega Pulse Laser II.

optimal | falloff | tracking | DamMod |
Neutron II | 7.2km | 10km | .0433 rad/s | 4.2 |
Mega Pulse II | 24km | 8km | .03375 rad/s | 3.6 |
800mm Rpt II | 4.8km | 19.2km | .0432 rad/s | 3.234 |

the blaster will hit more frequently until it gets well out into falloff.

Lasers have the longest total engagement range in this group, and will apply effective dps from early on until the target begins to out track their guns.

Seems like large ACs have the same tracking as its comparable blaster. But they have the worst damage multiplier of the 3.

The only imbalance I see is the near identical tracking between AC and blaster. Gimp AC tracking, buff blaster tracking, or some combination of the two. Since tracking is less affected when at range, and AC have long falloff, I would buff blaster tracking by about .01 to .053.

Forums tried to eat my post. C&P ftw.

Base stats pulled from EveWiki for 3 comparable BS-sized close range weapons. They all have the same RoF (7.875sec).

Given the same target flying in indentical fixed orbits around a ship with identical bonuses/skills, one with a Neutron Blaster II, an second with an 800mm Repeating Artillery II, and a third with a Mega Pulse Laser II.

optimal | falloff | tracking | DamMod |
Neutron II | 7.2km | 10km | .0433 rad/s | 4.2 |
Mega Pulse II | 24km | 8km | .03375 rad/s | 3.6 |
800mm Rpt II | 4.8km | 19.2km | .0432 rad/s | 3.234 |

the blaster will hit more frequently until it gets well out into falloff.

Lasers have the longest total engagement range in this group, and will apply effective dps from early on until the target begins to out track their guns.

Seems like large ACs have the same tracking as its comparable blaster. But they have the worst damage multiplier of the 3.

The only imbalance I see is the near identical tracking between AC and blaster. Gimp AC tracking, buff blaster tracking, or some combination of the two. Since tracking is less affected when at range, and AC have long falloff, I would buff blaster tracking by about .01 to .053.

Webbed targets now fly 300% faster than they used to do and you promote a 1% tracking increase?

Balancing the game according to spreadsheet-symmetry is thw wrong way to do it imo. We have to ask ourselves what we want blasters, ACs and pulses to do, what roles they should fill and then work towards that while accepting that if some guns excell in one area they might, or should, rather suck in another.

Webbed targets now fly 300% faster than they used to do and you promote a 1% tracking increase?

Balancing the game according to spreadsheet-symmetry is thw wrong way to do it imo. We have to ask ourselves what we want blasters, ACs and pulses to do, what roles they should fill and then work towards that while accepting that if some guns excell in one area they might, or should, rather suck in another.

300%? Changes to stasis webifier, never effected tracking that severely. The fact that someone pulled out those random figures to substantiate their argument, is a joke.

With all that said. This is a massively multi-player game. Weapon systems that only operate @ short distances are not very viable in real world naval, air and mechanized combat. Why does it make sense in space? The whole concept is flawed. Blasters were not created to fill a niche (solo). They fell into that niche, because blasters are terrible most everywhere else.

You quit school after 4th grade or something?

.043 + .01 = .053, or a 23.26% increase. Learn math. Damn, that's not even algebra. Barely prealgebra. Decimals and percentages along with a bit of division.

You quit school after 4th grade or something?

.043 + .01 = .053, or a 23.26% increase. Learn math. Damn, that's not even algebra. Barely prealgebra. Decimals and percentages along with a bit of division.

I laid those stats out in spreadsheet style to make the comparisons easier to see/visualize. Since blasters are meant to be extremely short range high dps weapons, they should have better tracking than autocannons. This will also help them to hit orbiting targets at their optimal.

Hell, light electron blasters can't even hit a BS orbiting at 4000m for more than about 90% of the time. That is seriously screwed up.

oh I surely know what I want from blasters: shotguns shooting nuclear warheads, but unable to scratch paint at 10km+

300%? Changes to stasis webifier, never effected tracking that severely. The fact that someone pulled out those random figures to substantiate their argument, is a joke.

As far as i understand it most people who argue for a fix for blasters are not complaining about small blasters.

I can peronally only express myself about large blasters because I rarely use medium sized ones.

I was only referencing 'Small Electron Blasters'. Because some have suggested reducing range of blasters further (medium and large blasters), which is ********. Atleast, without a 90% stasis webifier to hold a target relatively still. Damage application would suffer from slight fluctuations in range.

Because some have suggested reducing range of blasters further (medium and large blasters), which is ********.

Range reduction?
Sure, let's make them point-blank weapons, so we can only apply damage IF our hull is intimately hugging the target's hull.