Anyway, I've long noticed what you're pointing out. Don't forget the new Tier 3s, propagation of range bonuses, and rebalanced/buffed ships that dramatically increase the amount of damage flying all over the battlefield. I mostly agree. I'd go a bit further and say a few things:
- Gang links (but not gang bonuses or mindlinks, IMO) should be massively nerfed almost across the board. 50% bonuses are absurd in a game where months of training yields a mere 2%.
- Scram and web range should be extended as well, but point range should be extended more.
- Local active tank modules (reps/boosters) should have their effectiveness dramatically boosted.
- Mobility should not have base effectiveness improved.
- Passive tanking should not have base effectiveness improved.

-Liang

Anyway, I've long noticed what you're pointing out. Don't forget the new Tier 3s, propagation of range bonuses, and rebalanced/buffed ships that dramatically increase the amount of damage flying all over the battlefield. I mostly agree. I'd go a bit further and say a few things:
- Gang links (but not gang bonuses or mindlinks, IMO) should be massively nerfed almost across the board. 50% bonuses are absurd in a game where months of training yields a mere 2%.
- Scram and web range should be extended as well, but point range should be extended more.
- Local active tank modules (reps/boosters) should have their effectiveness dramatically boosted.
- Mobility should not have base effectiveness improved.
- Passive tanking should not have base effectiveness improved.

-Liang

1.) Off-grid boosting should be nerfed, thats a pretty known thing for any1, ON-grid boosting should still be worth doing (perhaps with a dimishing effect, more ppl, less buff)

5.) Passive tanking isnt a real issue (yet)

increasing scram range can only end in tears

Umm. LOL.

The thing with this fight is that you are comparing a T1 crusier to one of the best BC's in game even with the stat adjustment (not a nerf more of a rebalance IMO.) they both use the same class of weapons (i.e medium projectiles) but the cane has multiple TE fitted and 1.5x the weapons with a dual damage bonus.

He was also probably fitted with the largest guns of the class. He way out damages you and projects as the same level. You went into this fight knowing you were overwhelmed and held him long enough for you buddy to come in and finish him of. TBH you did the best that would be expected of you in that situation GF.

Changing points would have the potential to completely throw out the balance between brawling and kiting way more than it it now. Currently a kiter being caught by a brawler is dead. A brawler being kited is pretty much dead (best case he forces the kiter off) you probably could have disengaged at any point but decided to hold for your buddy to finish him of, good choice. This was probably the best outcome for this fight so I don't see how your suggestion is better than what happened really.


EDIT: Forgeting OGB and other stuff as they have always thrown out balance of 1v1 situations which this pretty much was.

care to elaborate?
I cannot recall a single time, on any toon, that iwe been beaten or had any problem with passive TANKING (as in, shield power relays/purger tanks)

If ur talking about shield passivly recharging iwe always seen that as a pve niche confined mostly to drake/rattlers.

Stuff

You are still fighting withing the same class of ship i.e. medium just one half class bigger I'e BC over cruiser. What ever you can do in you stabber the cane will do better apart from raw speed. vOv It can out damage you get similar range due to better fitting abiltiy and tank way better than you. Your AF v BS is a totally different scenario and has no bearing on what you are arguing for here.

Simple fact of the matter is you probably had the best outcome of that engagement that you could expect with the tools you used for it. The stabber v cane is too similar a tool set that in this case yes bigger did equal better.

Don't get me wrong i'm not saying you didn't fight well and if your opponent was less skilled you could well have survived but given the match up you described I fail to see any argument to changing the stats of points/tackle other than you didn't want to lsoe your ship. I love the stabber myself i think it's great ship but in that fight I would expect to lose 9 of 10 enagements 1v1. Not the right tool for the job you are describing. Simple

You have no logical argument against my post. I used the fight as an example - believe it or not i can afford to loose a few douzen stabbers without bothering. My point was that ships OF THAT TYPE are unable to do what they where designed to do simply because warp disruptors are dictating the range of the fight more than the ships/pilots involved. That's fine, unless everyone can fight effectively in that range, regardless of ship type.

Passive means cap-less/Non-Active. Purger rigs and extenders are PVE only REGEN tanks, based on the peak regen stat of shield.

Good enough?

The new ranges i think would make more sense would be:
T1 - 25km
T2 - 30KM
Fac - Up to 33KM

1.) Off-grid boosting should be nerfed, thats a pretty known thing for any1, ON-grid boosting should still be worth doing (perhaps with a dimishing effect, more ppl, less buff)

No, Fon. The problem is that gang links are damn near required to get "reasonable" ranged tackle. I think everyone knows there's a problem when blasters outrange point range.

-Liang

No, Fon. The problem is that gang links are damn near required to get "reasonable" ranged tackle. I think everyone knows there's a problem when blasters outrange point range.

-Liang

It's more like saying that even the shortest range weapons in the game, completely unbonused, outrange an unlinked T2 disruptor.

I don't see that being true. If anything, this may come as a result of CCP's weird policy of constantly giving ships more and more grid/CPU so that they always pick the heavier guns. I remember playing with plain tech1 points (tech2 didn't exist) and don't recall point range as an issue, although there already were scorch and barrage. Neither Blasters nor ACs outrange tech2 points without adding TEs. Which weaponry has got excessive range in your opinion?

[Stabber, Stabber 220's 2xTE 2xGYRO]

Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II

Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
10MN Microwarpdrive II
Warp Disruptor II

220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

[Thorax, Thorax Neutrons 2x TE 2xMFS]

Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Damage Control II

Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Large Shield Extender II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hammerhead II x5

When exactly unlinked tackle became lacking in terms of range?

I, for one, can say exactly when EVE became overtanked. Surely every issue can be traced down to its origin.

You're illustrating the problem, but not in the way you think you are. Everyone seems to think the Talos gets a range bonus, but it doesn't. the "standard" Talos fits don't even stack up TEs to get range either. So would it help if I'd specified "Hyperion", "Megathron", "Naga", or "Rokh" instead? The fact of the matter is that ranges have been creeping up for many years while point range has stayed steady. The problem is so bad that even unbonused blasters quite thoroughly outrange unlinked point range.

That is to say: you're saying that getting ranged tackle should require a special ship. And I totally agree. Unfortunately, that range is far beyond the 24km we have now.

While I'm familiar with the talos not getting a range bonus, I suppose I forgot that all the other tier 3's do get range bonuses. And yeah, blasters overall, and null ammo specifically has been improved to the point that most blaster ships can fit neutron blasters standard and project damage quite well. The talos can do it with no modifiers other than ranged ammo. But that same performance/projection looks a lot less impressive on less mobile platforms like the mega and hype. The Naga and Rokh have range bonuses and will be fit with tracking enhancers, so they're just doing what they're supposed to do. As you remember, back before hybrids were buffed, they had lingering tracking issues, really terrible damage projection, fitting issues, and hybrid-boats were slow. The complaint was that even if the blasterboat could catch the winmatar ship shooting him in falloff, by the time the blasterboat caught up, the autocannon ship would have already done significant damage, and the slightly better dps of blasters was would never be enough to overcome that disparity, as the autocannons also did more damage at close range. CCP boosted blasters in the usability department as an alternative to making them do so much dps they would be worth using despite the issues.

Obviously this isn't just about blasters, its that any ship with guns and shields loads up on TE's for that sweet sweet damage application. Unless its a frigate because they don't have the spare slots.

So if T2 warp disruptors get boosted to 30km, does that mean 15km can be the range of a standard t2 web?

Now they both have a 5% damage bonus and the secondary bonus reflects their usage. The stabber has a falloff bonus for kiting, the thorax has a tracking bonus for closer range combat (i guess that's why it has it...). The main discrepancy is the that the stabber is using medium guns instead of large ones, like the thorax. But it's not possible to get 425's on the stabber without seriously gimping the EHP by a factor of 10-20%. It's borderline made of paper as it is. But here's a graph of their dps in 0-25km without the stabbers missiles being used or the thoraxes drones being used (so bonused slots only).

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii606/B1zmark/StabberVersusThoraxNoDrones_zpsbd75bbfb.png

So its basically 22km before the stabbers range bonus becomes useful. Beyond that the story is very 1-sided in favour of the stabber. It has very reliable damage up to around 40km... but since disruptors only go to 24km... that doesn't make any difference.

Oh btw, here's the graph with missile launchers/drones included. But this proves nothing other than the new stabber is trash. And yes, im serious. The rupture is still a better stabber than the stabber due to the combat range of 24km and the Stabbers general sucky slot/turret layout.

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii606/B1zmark/StabberVersusThoraxwithDrones_zps32d89063.png

So i'm struggling to see how range bonused ships will ever be viable with current combat ranges when brawlers can easily achieve these effective ranges and still have triple the DPS of kiting ships up close. Speed is the only real advantage kiting ships have, but 1 mistake and that advantage is gone. A brawler can make many mistakes in a fight and only has to get 1 slingshot right to win the fight.

Be careful when referring to 'winmatar' btw. Much of what you base your hatred on revolves around gang links and faction mods when you don't have either.

So he goes through a long, complicated, and well thought out argument. It's carefully laid out. You agree with every detail individually, and combined. Then you come up with a completely wrong conclusion.

Amazing.

-Liang

No, you were pretty out and out with your particular bias. You basically said "I'm a brawler and I think kiters should be easy prey".

-Liang

- Scram and web range should be extended as well, but point range should be extended more.

Anyway, I've long noticed what you're pointing out. Don't forget the new Tier 3s, propagation of range bonuses, and rebalanced/buffed ships that dramatically increase the amount of damage flying all over the battlefield. I mostly agree. I'd go a bit further and say a few things:
- Gang links (but not gang bonuses or mindlinks, IMO) should be massively nerfed almost across the board. 50% bonuses are absurd in a game where months of training yields a mere 2%.
- Scram and web range should be extended as well, but point range should be extended more.
- Local active tank modules (reps/boosters) should have their effectiveness dramatically boosted.
- Mobility should not have base effectiveness improved.
- Passive tanking should not have base effectiveness improved.

-Liang

I'll leave the rest for tomorrow (kinda late here), but I think this is a bit of a bad idea, Liang. Blaster brawlers depend on getting in your face to do anything - if you extend the Scram range, you severely weaken their ability to get up close and personal, thereby effectively neutralizing their dps - this is obviously less true for autocannons (good falloff) and pulse lasers (scorch).

Ok. do a graph for when you kill his drones but you stil get to shoot your missiles. Also when you are comparing two pretty much identical layout ships then you have to factor racial differences into it as well.

In this secenario I agree the stabber is very likely to be taken down by the thorax. This is where player skill comes into it as you have a 24km point range which gives you a 2km window to hold un OH'd point and be at an advantage. also remember though with periodic OH'ing you extend that to 28km giving you a much larger window of advantage.

None of this support the original argument of increased point ranges. Just that your window is less than in a similar setup ship.

These are also only for 1v1's in a gang situation the desire for extended point range is probably not even required...that is what tackle is for.

he's and idiot.

There are more of these than any other player out there!

You still have a range advantage on the thorax. It is just that your margin for error is much less with your range advantage being used up in the last 2km of your point range. This is were selective OH'ing or faction/boosted webs will give you a clear advantage. If the standard point range is increased to say 28-30km as suggested then you are immediatly at a greater advantage vs the thorax.

Between the two ships posted I think there is a fair trade off. kite v kite it balances out. The only reason I can see to increase point range would be if brawlers instantly wipe the floor with kiters when they are at range.

Are you on crack? Maybe taking some bad acid?

For a start, people being an idiot is NOT A REASON TO HAVE AN UNBALANCED GAME.

The range advantage DOESNT EXIST. You have never in your life piloted a ship like the stabber if you think holding 22km+ is possible. Btw he STILL out damages you at 22km. With drones it's game over.

Watch the video i linked, watch how the ranges change in a fast VS fast fight (thorax IS a fast ship). Good look if you think you can hold 2 KM distance like you state. You have proven, in that single point, you have no idea what you are talking about.

And btw i've flown the 'ranis for years as well as long range ceptors like the crow. I'm not sitting on 1 side of the fence here. I'ma guy who has perfect gallente and minatar skills and right now i see no point in flying minmatar cruisers when, due to *DISRUPTOR RANGE*, the gallente ones are better in every way

Am i going to stop flying a faction point cynabal? No. But thats the point (pun intended), 30km disruptor range makes that ship viable. If it has a 24km point it's close to worthless when compared, ISK for ISK agaisnt a plethora of other ships of varying prices.

What you are describing is a variation due to racial differences NOT an issue with point range. Get your arguments defined properly before you accuse people of being drug addicts.

I to fly the stabber and it is quickly becoming on of my favourite ship tbh. I often hold range on brawlers and have also done so on kite cruisers. I have died to kite cruisers in my stabbers by making piloting errors. I never claimed it was easy or that it was reliable. Range changes in fast ships are what make it a game of skill more than stat points. I never claimed the thorax is a slow ship. In fact I'm currently fitting up a couple on the recomendation from a corp mate that it flys like a stabber. You are reading too much into my arguments.

However you have not given an reason for points to have extented ranges that hold up to any logical rational counter argument.

Cynabal with faction point is not an argument to increase all point range. It is an expensive pirate cruiser with an expensive fit....of course it is going to be powerfull you can't make the stabber as effective as a cyna without pouring isk into it. This is NOT an argument for increased point range.

Once again you are trying to give reason to increase point range on a flawed argument. When you can formulate some rational reason for increased point range I'll respond.

The only reason you have given to extend point range is my stabber got blown up by someone in a ship that can kill me in my prefered engagement range.

We have finally reached "blaster are op, buff nanos/kiters" stage. If anyone said it two years ago...

- Local active tank modules (reps/boosters) should have their effectiveness dramatically boosted.

Long story short: Brawling ships can be fit for more speed and projection - but kiting ships are limited by combat range and will never be able to brawl more effectively than a close range ship.

This is very dangerous. You don't want to create a situation where solo PVP or small gangs of small stuff can be permatanked. You had this issue when ASBs were first introduced.

I'm of the opinion that active tanks can never be balanced to be truly effective in PVP without breaking situations with low incoming DPS.

The proposal is that active tanking becomes viable without links. But I guess you must really love your links now, eh?

Ed: The irony of you defending links is not lost on me. I guess that means you don't AWOX your link pilots anymore?

No, the reason as clearly stated in the OP, subsiquent replies and by other people is this:

New modules, ship and weapon balancing has resulted in a marked increase in range for all weapons. Rigs and Tracking enhancers (the later being buffed shortly to include missile) both give large bonuses to range. However despite the range of weapon increasing for several years, no increase has been made to the base range of tackle.

Without fitting faction point and/or gang links, range bonused ships cannot take advantage of their bonuses. They are forced to commit inside a range that ALL unbonused ships are able to fight at without any increase in DPS over these ships. These 'close-range' ships, however, have other bonuses that make up for the lack of range which makes them simply *better* options when not flying faction/linked.

Making any sense?

You're illustrating the problem, but not in the way you think you are. Everyone seems to think the Talos gets a range bonus, but it doesn't. the "standard" Talos fits don't even stack up TEs to get range either. So would it help if I'd specified "Hyperion", "Megathron", "Naga", or "Rokh" instead?

Anyway, I've long noticed what you're pointing out. Don't forget the new Tier 3s, propagation of range bonuses, and rebalanced/buffed ships that dramatically increase the amount of damage flying all over the battlefield. I mostly agree. I'd go a bit further and say a few things:
- Gang links (but not gang bonuses or mindlinks, IMO) should be massively nerfed almost across the board. 50% bonuses are absurd in a game where months of training yields a mere 2%.
- Scram and web range should be extended as well, but point range should be extended more.
- Local active tank modules (reps/boosters) should have their effectiveness dramatically boosted.
- Mobility should not have base effectiveness improved.
- Passive tanking should not have base effectiveness improved.

-Liang

When tracking enhancers added 30% falloff to every gun in the game. Did you not read my OP? *sigh* TL;DR replies as usual.

Isn't the problem rather a beyond-point reach ontop of a beyond-cruiser speed on a BC hull with BS turrets?

It's the constant reminder why you shouldn't design on basis of popularity, because popular is often wrong and stupid.

Breaking news: Tracking Enhancers are overpowered!

So you basically insist that a game-breaking module should induce further changes, potentially game breaking as well? That's like asking to increase local tank values because both passive tank and RR logistic tanks are so amazingly OP. Oh, wait - some do suggest.

But how about we fix core issues themselves instead? Otherwise this pseudologic may lead to sheer comedy, where instead of just fixing ASB CCP tries to bring the rest of the EVE in line with that OP crap.

So i'm struggling to see how range bonused ships will ever be viable with current combat ranges when brawlers can easily achieve these effective ranges and still have triple the DPS of kiting ships up close. Speed is the only real advantage kiting ships have, but 1 mistake and that advantage is gone. A brawler can make many mistakes in a fight and only has to get 1 slingshot right to win the fight.

I don't see anyone noting that one of issues with OPs story is that everyone has agreed that Stabber drew the shortest stick in cruiser rebalance. So its not a "typical fight".

I don't see anyone noting that one of issues with OPs story is that everyone has agreed that Stabber drew the shortest stick in cruiser rebalance. So its not a "typical fight".

TE's are balanced. Before they where only good on sniping ships and Amarr.

Balanced? It's a pretty brave statement, given how they provide 30% falloff bonus, exceeding the one of corresponding rigs, which is not the case for optimal range boosting. 15% optimal bonus is balanced, so is the 9.5% tracking one. 30% fallof is plain stupid.

Realistic value is somewhere in between 0% (which was the reason why they were not used much prior Dominion) and current 30% (which is the reason they are used way too much). I'd say, 15% falloff bonus will be pretty good.

falloff isn't a 1:1 ratio for damage. It's number have to be high to work.

Stuff

While I agree with this statement, it's worth mentioning that a very high falloff number gives the ability to project damage even further than the optimal based setup. It's not substantial damage, but it doesn't have to be really. I think the nano Talos does a great job of showing that.

-Liang

Kiting ships loose tackle, DPS and tank for range. This old fashioned days of nano fleets tearing people apart are long gone. Tier 2 BC fleets, T3's, Logistics, E-War frigs and triage have ended them. Please realise that kiting is not as deadly as you remember because people learned to play.

I am actually shocked people think i'm being but-hurt over loosing a stabber. The fight i gave an example of was because IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. I'm not debating that the result was favourable for my side, i agree 100%. But it highlighted something that didn't make sense.

SO since you're hating on a real situation, I'll go back to theory-crafting since you love it so much on these forums. Thorax VS Stabber. Both in the same class and specialisation of ship. Here are the 2 fits im running. Both are Twin extended fits using long range ammo - which it common for this class of cruiser. Here are the fits.

[Stabber, Stabber 220's 2xTE 2xGYRO]

Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II

Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
10MN Microwarpdrive II
Warp Disruptor II

220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


[Thorax, Thorax Neutrons 2x TE 2xMFS]

Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Damage Control II

Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Large Shield Extender II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hammerhead II x5

All the Minmatar ships drew the short end of the straw. They're pretty much universally bad. :-)

-Liang

agreed, the stabber should probably just be getting a full 10% falloff bonus instead of a gimp one, and "LOL HE CAN"T FIT 425's" laughingwhores.jpg

You've still got the faction cruisers and command ships.

Meh, I don't fly Minmatar anymore. Except the Cyclone.

-Liang

Ed: Caldari or Amarr... though Gallente gets some occasional love too.

falloff isn't a 1:1 ratio for damage. It's number have to be high to work.

Tell that CCP who gave falloff rigs the same bonus with locus ones. Also, range bonused ships all have 10% per level at max, there are no ships with +20% falloff per level, so v0v. Taking all the things into careful consideration we surely come to conclusion that the only inconsistent one is TE.

The only valid reply on when exactly tackle became lacking of range refers to TE, so it's actually very reasonable to discuss this particular module. Else other contributing factors should be brought into attention. Like range values of neuts and remote reps, drone control range, minimal warp distance and so on.

What you seem to be missing is that the conversation basically evolves as follows:

- taclking is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- weapons outrange it
- due to what?
- TEs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs are irrelevant!!

The only valid reply on when exactly tackle became lacking of range refers to TE, so it's actually very reasonable to discuss this particular module. Else other contributing factors should be brought into attention. Like range values of neuts and remote reps, drone control range, minimal warp distance and so on.

What you seem to be missing is that the conversation basically evolves as follows:

- taclking is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- weapons outrange it
- due to what?
- TEs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs are irrelevant!!

No, that's not at all the way it's going. It's more like this:
- taclking is too dependent on gang links
- ok, why?
- many/most weapons outrange it without links, and links are just too ******* amazing - whether they're on grid, off grid, limited, or unlimited
- due to what?
- a lot of stuff
- nerf everything in the game that's been introduced in the last 5 years?
- nah, that's ******* stupid.

-Liang

This. Especially on the gang links vs training time front... and I have a maxed out link alt.

- tackling is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- my short-range weapons aren't the only ones outranging points anymore
- due to what?
- blaster buffs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs were ok before blasters were buffed!

Also in the same discussion, links are op but point base stats should be buffed to linked level.

Training time for a booster is ridiculously long. Taking all of the leadership skills to 5 (minus mining), and cybernetics to 5 takes roughly 215 days with +5's and in a Cha/Wil remap. Then you have to take into account how long it takes to train up to use a t3 effectively as a booster platform. Now take into account that T3s are getting a hard nerf on boosting. Then look to command ships and see it will take even longer to train for them than it did a t3.

The problem isn't with the amount of boost you get. The problem is with OFF GRID BOOSTING. If you actually had to field a command ship with links in a fight boosting would definitely not be as rampant as it is now in small gang warfare.

The simple solution to off grid boosting is change it to where the amount of boost you get is dependent upon how far from the actual booster you are. On grid you get 100% of the bonus, 100k off you get 50% of the bonus, off grid you get 25% of the bonus (arbitrary numbers pulled out of my ass). I have proposed this as a solution to off grid boosting before, but CCP will probably never touch it because of how many alt accounts would immediately unsub.

The only valid reply on when exactly tackle became lacking of range refers to TE, so it's actually very reasonable to discuss this particular module. Else other contributing factors should be brought into attention. Like range values of neuts and remote reps, drone control range, minimal warp distance and so on.

What you seem to be missing is that the conversation basically evolves as follows:

- taclking is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- weapons outrange it
- due to what?
- TEs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs are irrelevant!!

They're running out of things to whine about, so their new whine apparently is that TE autocannons aren't owning non-TE autocannons under 24km.....when you have a massive EHP disadvantage. Blasters get good and suddenly they want to push tackle range out to where they know they'll never get scrammed by a slower ship.

They're running out of things to whine about, so their new whine apparently is that TE autocannons aren't owning non-TE autocannons under 24km.....when you have a massive EHP disadvantage. Blasters get good and suddenly they want to push tackle range out to where they know they'll never get scrammed by a slower ship.

It's interesting to reply to thread where OP was talking about how kiters own brawlrs every day of the year yesterday, and today see this.

Something tells me that one of the problem (if that's a problem) is that aside from some officer points (lol), we have the same tackle for all sizes of ships there, while their weapon range differs pretty significantly, so what, for example, works for frigates can work the other way round for larger ships.

Obviously, I'm not going to suggest any changes here. After all, we have so much EVE balancing made aroung gangs (including specialist extended tackle that ranges from Inties to Gallente recons to intrdictors, not to mention swarm of frigs to supplement your main fleet if you have "green" manpower to spare) that making suggestions about 1v1 scenario or similar ones will probably get us nowhere.

Training time for a booster is ridiculously long. Taking all of the leadership skills to 5 (minus mining), and cybernetics to 5 takes roughly 215 days with +5's and in a Cha/Wil remap. Then you have to take into account how long it takes to train up to use a t3 effectively as a booster platform. Now take into account that T3s are getting a hard nerf on boosting. Then look to command ships and see it will take even longer to train for them than it did a t3.

This argument was worthless when it was applied to Titans and it's worthless here. Neither cost nor training time are of any great significance in balancing. Liang is absolutely right, gang links are massively overpowered, whether on grid or off. The worst offenders are probably the sig radius and tackle range links, but even the ewar strength Info link is hugely overpowered.

And yes, I have a maxed link character too...

Ever seen a Guardian in a C6 Wolf-Rayet wormhole with links?

Base signature: 70m
c6 Wolf-Rayet effect: 35m
Loki links w/ mindlink: 22.7m
Just Loki links: 45.4m
For comparrison, a Merlin has a base of 39m and a fit SR of 51.8 (1x MSE II 3x CDFE I)

But that's just a cruiser, how about a Battleship? What about a Navy Apocalypse? With the Loki links, you're looking at 259m, down from a base of 400m

I have a fully maxed out boosting alt. I have literally got everything in the leadership tree to V, except Fleet Command which is IV. I can also fly all the command ships and all the T3s except the Gallente ones. I have a LOOOONG time invested in these linking skills. They are ridiculously over the top and need nerfed.

No, he was arguing that they're ridiculously overpowered and need a nerf... at least, that's what the last sentence says.

-Liang

Aye. I can completely agree. :)

-Liang

Over-all we're saying that combat stats wont increase, by any means, to above what they are today with links. But the base numbers will move closer to links on some modules and downright simply nerf other linked modules, without touching the modules base effectiveness.

Print it. Make it happen.

So you still think that being able to tackle a slower, close range ship from outside it's effective range while still doing damage with close range weapons and maintain this state permanently due to speed difference is the ideal balance?

We had this situation, and it was fixed. This was exactly the reason why Null was buffed.

If you are significantly slower and less agile, can't apply any dps beyond scram range after your drones are shot, all those turrets mean nothing. This was the situation, a plated blaster boat simply couldn't do anything when being kited. Mechanics-based 100% win, or imbalance.

Cue to Retribution- blaster ship can try to fight back using long range ammo and manual piloting. eve though it can't point the kiter. Kiter can still win on virtue of piloting skill, and disengage at will. Player skill vs player skill, or balance.

Do you now understand your motivation better?

I proved your first argument false pages ago, go look up the fits. You're twisting stats to support your argument.

But if you think you can win a fight by sitting still and shooting Null, there's really no need to discuss things further.

True, I fly only Gallente and always will, but your killboard is 100% kiting ships. Mine is both brawlers and kiters, or ships that can do both. I know exactly how retardedly easy kiting is in a fight where you have more range and speed than your opponent, and on top of that you can leave any time you like.

It only becomes interesting if the slower ship has a chance, which is the current status quo.

Please tell us how your Drake piloting confirms your experience on flying plated blaster boats.

Brutix: 60k EHP, 440 Gun DPS (9k Op+Fall), 890 M/s

Brutix: 55k EHP, 520 Gun DPS (22k Op+Fall) 1150 M/s -and all with a 2% PG implant

I can tell you right now which one i would rather fly. The first one is a 1600mm trimark build. The second is an LSE+Invuln+3xExtender build.

So i'm sorry that plating your ships and fitting no sort of long range tackle, projection or speed isn't working out for you. But this game isn't about the vacuum you live in, it's about the game as a whole.

Being plated means nothing since you can sit stationary and deal more DPS than the kiting ship and will have more EHP.

Those losses include exactly two of ships that we are talking about, and the second one you lost to kiting tier 3s.



wut, I've just been saying that now it's not a 100% suicide to fly brawlers, like it used to be.

So now you are saying that brawling doesn't work, but you still want long point range to be longer? In the earlier post you wrote that



So, which way is it?

And to prevent this thread from derailing into kb scrutiny and minuscule details and personal stuff, I repeat my argument:

With current tackle & weapon ranges, kiter vs brawler combat is balanced, the outcome depends on the individual skills of the pilots. If long point range was extended, brawlers would once again be defenceless.

I'm all in for variety in the battlefield. Variety is only possible if different styles are all viable.

Fine, then i'll repeat: You have a miniscule ammount of experience compared to most people taking part in this thread. Your grandiose claims are not abcked up due to the broken logic you employ and the lack of common sense applied when reading other peoples statements.

You skim peoples posts and already have your reply in your head before even finishing them. Really think - THINK - about what people are writing and maybe you'll have an epiphany.

I have no idea where you base your claims on my lack experience, neither you point out any flaws in my logic or lack of common sense, and you completely failed to counter my argument.

I read all your posts and they are confused (claiming contradicting things), filled with extremely heavy bias (kiting is leet and brawlers are stupid), manipulating stats to your advantage (the fits you posted) and now finally, ad hominems.

And I'm just saying that extending long point range would result in imbalance, if you are willing to explain why you think this would not happen, I'm all ears. If you want to instead have a pissing contest about posting logic and reading comprehension, find another forum, or someone who is on your rather unimpressive level.

This is one of those polarised arguments where the arguments end up going round in circles.

My feeling is that base T2 point range is fine. Frig combat feels well balanced around short point range and a lot of rebalancing mainly in regards to Hybrids in particular the Null change make Hybrids more viable throughout the 24km range. A tackle ship as outline by the OP's example being able to hold point long enough for support while still risking being driven off/destroyed sounds balanced.

That said ship speeds and EHP in the Rebalanced classes are up and this affects fight duration/ how long point can be held for.

I feel Tech one point range could be increased by 2km at least, this closes the gap too T2 especially when overheated.

The comments about needing to maintain Disrupter overheat longer than scram are valid and I would also support reducing the heat damage. This should enable overheating for longer while still not allowing long range disruption Indefinitely.

It is possible that the overheat range modifier could be changed to 25%, again this increases point range for a limited period of time out to 30km for T2.

I think these are relatively practical changes without large scale changes in ships and mods.

T1 range with 22km base and 25% overheat = 27.5km

T2 range with 25% overheat = 30km

You complaints seem to be specifically in regards to Shield Kiting Blaster ships with Neutrons and dual tracking enhancers is this not a case of one shield kiter being better within a certain range than another. The other posters complaints seem to be in regards to how your changes would affect armour brawlers which rarely have gun size and DPS projection advantages to the extent you are suggesting.

You should have enough time to gain an advantage, at some point yes you will also have to leave or commit to the fight.

If you are allowed to kite and maintain point indefinitely then something like this is almost a guaranteed win in your fitting example and may have held that cane.

[Stabber, New Setup 1]
Damage Control II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Warp Disruptor II
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Optimal Range Disruption Script
Large Shield Extender II

425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Light Missile

Medium Projectile Burst Aerator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

That said I find the stabber quite poor and was surprised itGÇÖs fall off bonus was only 7.5%.

I don't see how what you're saying makes any sense. I have access to links literally any time I want, and have both a Tengu and Loki stationed in Amamake for just that purpose. I even have an extra computer to run them on so it doesn't interfere with my main PVP account.

But instead I'm pushing for the links to not play such a strong role in tackle and active tanking. It's not to my advantage, really, so... maybe you're just being a ******* idiot with that accusation? :)

-Liang

Ed: I also have an Eos and Damnation, and jump clones one jump out to power them. A Proteus is 4 jumps out, and the Legion is 6. I have max skills for all leadership, T3s, and Command Ships. Access to whatever leadership bonus, completely maxed out, is a trivial issue for me. Hell, with a small amount of effort (moving an alt from Amarr to Amamake) I can run full T3 gang links by myself across my 4 accounts.

I don't see how what you're saying makes any sense. I have access to links literally any time I want, and have both a Tengu and Loki stationed in Amamake for just that purpose. I even have an extra computer to run them on so it doesn't interfere with my main PVP account.

But instead I'm pushing for the links to not play such a strong role in tackle and active tanking. It's not to my advantage, really, so... maybe you're just being a ******* idiot with that accusation? :)

-Liang

Ed: I also have an Eos and Damnation, and jump clones one jump out to power them. A Proteus is 4 jumps out, and the Legion is 6. I have max skills for all leadership, T3s, and Command Ships. Access to whatever leadership bonus, completely maxed out, is a trivial issue for me. Hell, with a small amount of effort (moving an alt from Amarr to Amamake) I can run full T3 gang links by myself across my 4 accounts.

Piece of **** ******* forum ate my post because I'm a nubtard. A real pity, it was a good post.

The quick and dirty......

Liang, you are not and have not and will not be the only person with links. I have the same link capabilities as you.

We're in the tracking enhancer shield tank age. You know armor is hurting right now, and getting worse by the minute. Extending point range WITH the proliferation of links would make the situation worse. Boost tech 2 warp disruptor to 40km and nerf the link to 20% and you still have tech 2 warp distruptors with republic fleet linked range. I do not fancy the idea of being kited at 50km by anything and everything. If you're gonna point me at that range you'd best have potential shiny loot.

Oh but armor will get a buff eventually! Oh right sure, I've heard that one before. Look at me and my 1200m/s cruiser! I sure do hope I can cover the XX,XXXm distance between the end of his warp disruptor and the optimal of my scram!

That's hard enough sometimes at a difference of 13,200.

The quick and dirty......

Liang, you are not and have not and will not be the only person with links. I have the same link capabilities as you.

We're in the tracking enhancer shield tank age. You know armor is hurting right now, and getting worse by the minute. Extending point range WITH the proliferation of links would make the situation worse. Boost tech 2 warp disruptor to 40km and nerf the link to 20% and you still have tech 2 warp distruptors with republic fleet linked range. I do not fancy the idea of being kited at 50km by anything and everything. If you're gonna point me at that range you'd best have potential shiny loot.

Oh but armor will get a buff eventually! Oh right sure, I've heard that one before. Look at me and my 1200m/s cruiser! I sure do hope I can cover the XX,XXXm distance between the end of his warp disruptor and the optimal of my scram!

That's hard enough sometimes at a difference of 13,200.

Why are you deliberately misunderstanding my posts? My desire is to shift certain bonuses away from links and towards the base items. This means that all the SP I've dumped into Leadership and all the ISK I've dumped into link ships and a POS is rendered much less powerful. This is in no way to my benefit.

-Liang

I don't see how giving everybody the ability to kite at 40km would be better than just the loki linked guys doing it at 40km. Even while boosting scram range at the same time. that would create some 20km kiting setups that kite you with a scram.

And then you think they'll eliminate the Interdiction Maneuvers ganglinks? What, so the tier 3 bc gangs won't have to bring gallente recons anymore?

And as usual you are ignoring my point and mentioning your links again. Please stop using that as an excuse.

----->How would extending warp disruptor range NOT be an overall nerf to armor tanking? <------

ROCK OUT WITH YOUR GLOCK OUT

didn't you forget something?

-Ares Desideratus

Woah, I can't believe Liang forgot his/her signature! I didn't even notice.

I didn't forget. It wasn't worth wasting the time on it.

-Liang

Fair enough. Also, do you mind if I inquire as to your gender? Out of a chauvanistic habit I assume that almost everyone on the internet is male, yet your avatar is a female, and your name lends no gender to itself (that I am able to observe). I just don't want to address you incorrectly and I'd rather not have to type his/her, or s/he, etc.

If you don't want to post it though, doesn't matter.

There is a major problem when the game when the shortest range short range weapons outrange T2 point range.

-Liang

Only if you are talking about BS sized weapons?

I can't get out to T2 point range and do decent damage with medium sized weapons.
Maybe skills or my fit is lacking but if I want to hit out to T2 point range with Heavy Neutron blasters then I pretty much gimp any damage or tank (armour) to do so.

I can't see any reason to increase point range becasue BS sized short weapons can reach out to point range, thats what tacklers are for.

You're obviously not trying at all if you can't break good damage with medium blasters at 24km.

-Liang

Null with a pair of TEs will easily put you out there.

-Liang

Ed: I was looking at an Eagle, but a Deimos should easily work as well. Looks like ~350 DPS out of a Thorax at 24km as well.

Why are you deliberately misunderstanding my posts? My desire is to shift certain bonuses away from links and towards the base items. This means that all the SP I've dumped into Leadership and all the ISK I've dumped into link ships and a POS is rendered much less powerful. This is in no way to my benefit.

-Liang

But, you want to give the complete and total advantage to the kiting ships. Why the hell ever fly anything else?

No.

Because you don't feel like it that day? Because the play style doesn't appeal to you?

I'm a kiter and brawlers should be easy prey.

Then let me rephrase that.

Wouldn't increasing the gap between long points and scrams be a nerf to brawlers?

That supposed to mean.........



?

Not really.

My most commonly used weapon is the small neutron blaster II.

So increasing the gap between long points and scrams wouldn't make it harder for the brawlers to catch? With links scrams are 16km overloaded and disruptors are 43.

If they were that range by default, you don't think it would make it harder for 1200m/s ships with scrams to catch 2200m/s ships?

Because everyone uses links all the time already, right?

And mine is probably the Rocket Launcher II, but that's only on this character and we've already agreed that we both have other accounts and other characters that we use pretty often......

The new ranges i think would make more sense would be:
T1 - 25km
T2 - 30KM
Fac - Up to 33KM
Scram/web - unchanged.

Absolutely no. That would kill blasterships.
regards,

rob

Comments:
- A lot of people use links all the time, right? :)
- A 16km scram is pretty powerful considering its perma-CC nature.
- You keep saying that kiters should get a tackler - but somehow the brawler shouldn't?

I've been very open for well over a year that my favorite ships are the Blaster Harpy and Blaster Talos.

-Liang

Ed: I love how you keep QQing about how links are overpowered but we can't fix the situation because it would nerf your play style. On the other hand, I am directly asking CCP to nerf 4 of my characters.

You're obviously not trying at all if you can't break good damage with medium blasters at 24km.

-Liang

And if both sides lose their tacklers, who is the most disadvantaged?

Won't matter too much if you're blapping frigates out of the sky from 40km away anyway. And you're the one qqing about how you need to be further away from the scawy scwams.

Heavy Neutron blaster II + Null + one TE gives you 7,2+11,4 km. Hence only half damage at 18,5 km, this leaves you with about 15% of your initial damage at 24km. That's not what i call "good damage".


regards,

rob

I'm looking at a Thorax with 9+16 with my skills and no implants.

regards,

-Liang

Ed: The point stands: weapon ranges are high enough that even the closest range of the close range weapons are budging up against and exceeding (unlinked) tackle range. My proposal is to shift the benefit from the links to the base module - nothing more.

Liang are you trolling?

Shield Kiting Thorax with Neutrons, dual magstabs and dual TE does 350dps at 20km, this of course includes the damage from 5 hammerhead IIGÇÖs. Null range with 2 TE is 8.2+14km.

Again I can certainly I understand a slight change in Tech 1 point range and boost in the overheating effects duration of long points but allowing ships to hold point at long ranges indefinitely is a nerf to armour brawlers who do not get that range, speed and dps projection and would have other consequences at the frigate level (where I would argue it is well balanced) and battleship level where small ships could kite indefinitely outside heavy neut range and still immune to BS weapons, would require adjustment of all point range bonused ships. I just do not see the benefit in giving every one link level points.

This thread is allegedly about dps projection of Kiters but it seems directly aimed at the Null changes that brought close range weapons systems such as Autocannons and Blasters closer together.

Thorax can do 457dps at 24km but that is with 200m rails and drones, that and the shield blaster thorax are kiting setups not brawlers and will lose in a brawl to proper brawlers. I have seen very few mentions of long range weapon systems and the effects point changes might have.

No.

-Liang

My DPS numbers quoted are at the specified range and take into account fall off.

My point is that there needs to be a cross over point between long range and short range weapons. Point range needs to allow short range weapons to out damage long range ones to a certain distance were the advantage changes in the case off blasters and rails this still takes place under 20km. Overheating tackle gives the long range ship a period of time where it has a further advantage but only for a limited period of time, allowing a kiting ship to point indefinitely while immune to damage due to range and possibly speed advantages is not balanced.

Again I support some change but your numbers especially combined with even nerfed links are way to high.

It would sure as hell. In most cases armor means no TEs. Without TEs no small/med Blaster would have the range to fight tackle.


regards,

rob

Tracking computers. That is all.

My DPS numbers quoted are at the specified range and take into account fall off.

My point is that there needs to be a cross over point between long range and short range weapons. Point range needs to allow short range weapons to out damage long range ones to a certain distance were the advantage changes in the case off blasters and rails this still takes place under 20km. Overheating tackle gives the long range ship a period of time where it has a further advantage but only for a limited period of time, allowing a kiting ship to point indefinitely while immune to damage due to range and possibly speed advantages is not balanced.

Again I support some change but your numbers especially combined with even nerfed links are way to high.

You don't have to spare medslots on most ships. Especially not on those supposed to armortank. QED: It's a nerf to armor.


regards,

rob

No.

-Liang