EVE Search - PETITION boost large blasters

All Channels

Ships and Modules

PETITION boost large blasters

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
bundy bear	Posted - 2005.07.20 12:41:00 - [1] It says in the large neutron blasters description that no other gun can beat the neutron blaster cannon for sheer destructive power. Not only can the megapulse on the geddon out damage this gun on a gank setup but it also outranges the thron. What the thron needs to compete with this is a larger optimal/falloff or a damage increase. I think its sad that a tier II battle ship designed for awesome close range power is outclassed by a tier I battleship.
W0lverine	Posted - 2005.07.20 12:42:00 - [2]
MrRookie	Posted - 2005.07.20 12:46:00 - [3] Although I miss the pint where the Armageddon should outdamage the Mega the reason is simply because the Arma has on extra low slot to play with. On the other hand the Mega has that extra midslot (lol ) I belive that would be the argument of the devs. Besides you can fitt a launcher on the mega. (maybe a rocket launcher if you have enough cpu) _____________________________________________ \o/ I got a siggy... WTB 3x Medium Modulated Pulse Energy Beams http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=139877
Dionysus Davinci	Posted - 2005.07.20 12:54:00 - [4] Originally by: MrRookie Although I miss the pint where the Armageddon should outdamage the Mega the reason is simply because the Arma has on extra low slot to play with. On the other hand the Mega has that extra midslot (lol ) I belive that would be the argument of the devs. Besides you can fitt a launcher on the mega. (maybe a rocket launcher if you have enough cpu) It isn't just that, fit an Armageddon with Mega Pulses and you have a huge amount of grid and cpu left over.
bundy bear	Posted - 2005.07.20 13:06:00 - [5] Can anyone explain why a lvl 1 battleship outranges and out damages a lvl 2 battleship that is designed for raw dmg.
Vee Bot	Posted - 2005.07.20 13:15:00 - [6] Originally by: bundy bear Can anyone explain why a lvl 1 battleship outranges and out damages a lvl 2 battleship that is designed for raw dmg. Yes, firstly the teir one BS has a rof bonus to guns that are usually used with a bonus to cap use only, and secondly it has 8 low slots. The rof bonus overpowers the geddon, its better suited to nos range or somthing good, not a dmg/rof bonus. 8 lows and good normal dmg with pulses is enough already. ------------------ If at first you dont succeed, dont try skydiving.
Eyeshadow	Posted - 2005.07.20 13:23:00 - [7] Edited by: Eyeshadow on 20/07/2005 13:23:07 im inclined to agree. fitting anything other tahn a gank blaster setup on a megathron is damn hard. And even then, the dmg output isnt exactly amazing. It barely outdmgs a geddon in full gank setup too and it doesnt have the range of said geddon either I think a 10% increase in large blaster damage is definately warranted. Either that or a thwack of the nerfbat to the geddon (not megapulse, they are ok now). Make that tough fitting worth while cos atm, it isnt really. U can fit rails and get just as good dmg at longer range Forums: Sharks * MC
Loka	Posted - 2005.07.20 13:31:00 - [8] I like the blasters as they are :D But only in theory. I would be happy to see them usefull even without the necessary of having your target webbed ----->>>>>>>>>>> Increase Tracking this would be enough. The limit range and the huge cap they need, are cool as they are. Its ballanced imo. But hitting with 80 dmg when in your optimal is pathetic :/ Its all because of the tracking ladys and gentlemen. So dont touch anything else. My opinion ofc. _____________________________________ Dead or Alive
W0lverine	Posted - 2005.07.20 13:53:00 - [9] change geddons bonus from 5% to 3% rof
Zaintiraris	Posted - 2005.07.20 14:05:00 - [10] Since you say petition in the title... Anti-signed. I don't want megathrons boosted OR geddons nerfed. --- Originally by: CCP Hammer This game was so much better back before people knew math.
Zarks	Posted - 2005.07.20 14:14:00 - [11] Tech II blasters and all dmg mods, sit at gate and you kill everything passing through. No problem hitting cruisers and you should kill a tech II armageddon also because after the first mwd boost the arma is gonna start missing some of its shots, you wont. Plus you got more hitpoints to play with. Not sure why not more people use blasters, atleast in corp wars. If they are far away use a covert ops, thats what they are for.
LUKEC	Posted - 2005.07.20 15:40:00 - [12] because it costs 2x more than geddon, just with option to get near same dmg(geddon does more still) at 1/3 of his range. The geddon is still way overpowered.
DrunkenOne	Posted - 2005.07.20 15:45:00 - [13] Blasters arent underpowered at all. The geddon (and megapulse still to a lesser extent) are just overpowered. If you boost blasters you would have to boost autocannons as well.
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.07.20 15:57:00 - [14] Having tried both, and inspite of being low-perception Intaki, I have decent skills for both Rail and Blasters I am left with a very simple question: Why even bother fitting blasters (except for very controlled circumstances)? I have observed a death ratio that is more than three times as high in ships fitted with blasters and I have seen no difference in kill ratio. This is aplied to general combat, and not controlled circumstances (unprepared target and a very accurate warp-in). As Seleene said: I'd actually fit blasters on my Megathron if I actually gained something doing it, such as damage, which I don't. (Why? Because your modules will be centered around survival when blasters are fitted and that a 90% range decrease merit less than a 30% damage boost.) -- If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please. Josameto III - Moon 1
Nafri	Posted - 2005.07.20 16:13:00 - [15] Originally by: Ithildin Having tried both, and inspite of being low-perception Intaki, I have decent skills for both Rail and Blasters I am left with a very simple question: Why even bother fitting blasters (except for very controlled circumstances)? I have observed a death ratio that is more than three times as high in ships fitted with blasters and I have seen no difference in kill ratio. This is aplied to general combat, and not controlled circumstances (unprepared target and a very accurate warp-in). As Seleene said: I'd actually fit blasters on my Megathron if I actually gained something doing it, such as damage, which I don't. (Why? Because your modules will be centered around survival when blasters are fitted and that a 90% range decrease merit less than a 30% damage boost.) yep, autocannons and blaster sacrifice range pulses, hu, thy work at 30km Your bla bla hit bla bla for bla bla damage. Wanna have some bubu now?
CptEagle	Posted - 2005.07.20 16:31:00 - [16] Nerf the gankgeddon!
Bombaman	Posted - 2005.07.21 00:32:00 - [17] Pulses already have been nerfed, Its the Hybrids turn this time round isnt it :D
Meridius	Posted - 2005.07.21 00:49:00 - [18] Here's an idea. Unnerf pulses and then nerf the geddon. The geddon is why pulses were nerfed in the first place ________________________________________________________
Solusar	Posted - 2005.07.21 01:20:00 - [19] Originally by: Meridius Here's an idea. Unnerf pulses and then nerf the geddon. The geddon is why pulses were nerfed in the first place Tis the way it needs to be done.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.07.21 02:29:00 - [20] I don't fly mega or geddon, but I like to calculate stuff and look at data. Data shows that a gank mega has only slightly more damage than a gank geddon. However, the gank geddon has way more range compared to mega, the geddon is more versatile, more effective. So I would agree with those who want to increase damage of large blasters. Either that, or nerf damage mod stacking. Personally I think the current damage mod stacking is badly done, it's too powerful and doesn't do the game any good. I wish damage mods carried some kind of penalty on them, or perhaps simply have much more powerful stacking spenalty.
Farjung	Posted - 2005.07.21 03:36:00 - [21] Originally by: Ithildin Having tried both, and inspite of being low-perception Intaki, I have decent skills for both Rail and Blasters I am left with a very simple question: Why even bother fitting blasters (except for very controlled circumstances)? I have observed a death ratio that is more than three times as high in ships fitted with blasters and I have seen no difference in kill ratio. This is aplied to general combat, and not controlled circumstances (unprepared target and a very accurate warp-in). As Seleene said: I'd actually fit blasters on my Megathron if I actually gained something doing it, such as damage, which I don't. (Why? Because your modules will be centered around survival when blasters are fitted and that a 90% range decrease merit less than a 30% damage boost.) Seleene's a wuss though :D. It is sad however that railthrons outperform blasterthrons in pretty much all PvP applications. It would actually be viable if getting under a battleship's guns was a vaguely feasible prospect in a thron, but it really isn't that realistic unless you start the fight already there courtesy of a very nice warp-in. If you've using an MWD to get into the critical sub-5k range where orbitting will really start to harm most BS sized guns' tracking, you're lit up for 10 seconds where they can't help but get anything other than excellent hits, and if you go with an AB instead, you take a while to get into the range where you really do damage. AB + tracking disruptor would be a good combination to take the heat off while you get in close, but then again, how are you going to fit the tracking disruptor without sacrificing web, scrambler or cap injector? All pretty essential if you're going to run anything other than a gank setup. If I were going to suggest some kind of half-baked fix, it would probably be a boost to the tracking of large blasters and AC by ~15% (pulses track more than well enough :\|) and a similar reduction in the tracking of rails, arties and beams. Someone really needs to keep me away from the Taranis
Naal Morno	Posted - 2005.07.21 03:59:00 - [22] I am specalized Gallente and Amarr inty-HAC-BS pilot and must say last time I used Mega with blasters was in controlled situation while at war with other corp. I barely killed their gankageddon...only because I went to extreme setup and had something like 4-5 heavy NOS to suck him dry before I die... Strange thing was I barely killed him (and combat started in sub 10k range)! Regardless, blaster setup is very inferior to armageddon + megapulses as sheer damage output drops that mega most of times before it gets into combat range from anything not point-blank. Signed. Your Heavy Neutron Blaster II perfectly strikes Serpentis Chief Sentinel, wrecking for 660.4 damage.
Sadist	Posted - 2005.07.21 04:13:00 - [23] Originally by: Bombaman Pulses already have been nerfed, Its the Hybrids turn this time round isnt it :D If you nerf hybrids, you have to unnerf Megathron... --------------- Originally by: Dark Shikari "One Trit to rule them all, One Trit to find them, One Trit to bring them all, and in the veldspar bind them"
Selim	Posted - 2005.07.21 04:34:00 - [24] I agree with Farjung, blaster and autocannon tracking should be increased by a large factor.
infused	Posted - 2005.07.21 07:13:00 - [25] Originally by: W0lverine change geddons bonus from 5% to 3% rof Oh yes... that is going to hurt us so much The geddon imo is only good at a close range gank, where a mega is good at close and very far damage dealing... [World Domination] [Patch 3366-3538: Mirror Here]
W0lverine	Posted - 2005.07.21 07:21:00 - [26] Originally by: infused Originally by: W0lverine change geddons bonus from 5% to 3% rof Oh yes... that is going to hurt us so much yes it would
MrRookie	Posted - 2005.07.21 08:09:00 - [27] Originally by: infused Originally by: W0lverine change geddons bonus from 5% to 3% rof Oh yes... that is going to hurt us so much The geddon imo is only good at a close range gank, where a mega is good at close and very far damage dealing... Megabeams gank fine as well _____________________________________________ \o/ I got a siggy... WTB 3x Medium Modulated Pulse Energy Beams http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=139877
Andrew Redburn	Posted - 2005.07.21 09:06:00 - [28] I would suggest increasing tracking by 1/4th or more, plus give it and dmg mod increase of 0.2. That should make it the most devastating damage dealer but still within a very limited range and not against small targets as long as you don't web/nos/target paint a lot.
Ante	Posted - 2005.07.21 09:10:00 - [29] Blasters should do more damage than lasers there shouldn't be any arguing about that. As it stands they don't. To make matters worse it is exceedingly hard to fit a full rack on Gallente ships. Do you all agree?
Fred0	Posted - 2005.07.21 09:19:00 - [30] It's the geddon that's ****** up. A long range geddon will do upwards to 950 dps at 40k making a megabeam geddon the third most damaging bs after the megapulse geddon and blaster mega. It's simply horribly unbalanced in todays eve. I would think that buffing the mega and tempest is not the way to go unless you all want even shorter battles. I was under the impression that everyone wanted longer battles and from that perspective a nerf of the geddon would be the right way to go.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: 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.