| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Faramir
   |
Posted - 2005.12.23 00:06:00 -
[1]
In this thread you said you would look into blasters "soonTM".
I saw in Oveur's latest blog there was going to be a patch early january. "In addition to that, a small client patch is being assembled for deployment in the first week of January." and was wondering if the "blaster-loving" would be in that patch.
Hoping for a yes or no on the subject, so I know if i should get my hopes up and my blasters polished!Sorry to be impatient, but I wouldn't mind an easier way to set up my blasterships!
Thx,
Faramir
|
Sun Ra
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 00:34:00 -
[2]
Hold on i thought autocannons SUCKED ? 
We're coming for you |
Menelak Faf
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 00:36:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Sun Ra
Hold on i thought autocannons SUCKED ?
Autocannons are fine, fix artillery.
Where are all of the cruiser sized faction mods, CCP? |
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 00:45:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Menelak Faf
Originally by: Sun Ra
Hold on i thought autocannons SUCKED ?
Autocannons are fine, fix artillery.
Well I wouldn't say no to a slight autocannon boost :)
-------------
Please make Minmatar overpowered, CCP |
Lansfear
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 01:05:00 -
[5]
We can only hope.
|
Faramir
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:05:00 -
[6]
This thread is about blasters, silly hijackers.
And I am hoping our own Tom Bombadil will have an answer for us for christmas 
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:09:00 -
[7]
Autocannons are not fine, they need a DPS boost (as numbers proved in another thread), and something needs to be done about their ammo and energy consumption possibly, too.
Loading sig, please wait... |
Ian Logalus
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:14:00 -
[8]
This thread is about blasters not about friching DPS for autocannons :)
The changes TomB announced aren't even damage wise, only fitting and capuse. in my opinion the capuse and CPU use is little too high, PG is fine compared to the other races.
|
Forsch
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:15:00 -
[9]
Actually it's beam lasers that need fixing. They use way too much grid (most noticeable on frigates) and take too much energy to fire (most noticeable on battleships).
Please fix them so it's actually worth using them in PvP.
|
Grimwalius d'Antan
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:19:00 -
[10]
Small blasters are fine, Large blasters are very questionable, and medium blasters are all messed up.
|
Maggot
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:19:00 -
[11]
"Oh please please please,
Let me get what I want this time"
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:28:00 -
[12]
Everything has its downsides. Just because something has a drawback doesnt mean it needs 'fixing'.
It's when things dont work well in relation to eachother that there needs to be a fix.
Blasters need fixing in regards to fitting, and possibly range, a little.
Autocannons need fixing, see above.
Artillery needs fixing as regards to its DPS (and ammo capacity as an extension).
Everything else is fine.
Loading sig, please wait... |
Maggot
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:44:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Maggot on 23/12/2005 11:43:58
Nope blasters are rubbish, their dps in range does not compensate for the range limitations and cap usage. Never mind the fitting requirements and tracking.
In general (ignoring fitting requirements, tracking, ammo changing etc) the area under the graph of dps vs range should be pretty much equal. Currently this integral for blasters is pathetic.
|
Sentani
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:44:00 -
[14]
the damage of large blasters are abit bleak considering that its maximum range is 10km
____________
The cargo bay is overloaded and cannot be made to fit Expanded Cargohold I.
It is currently only capable of fitting 8772.12 units and it is currently jammed full with 9558.33 units. |
MrCjEvans
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:49:00 -
[15]
i was in a deimos fighting a rupture and it had only 1 tracking disrupt, which meant i couldn't hit for crap with motion predict 5 etc, so either blasters really do suck, or tracking disrupts are way to over powered.
|
Face Lifter
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 12:13:00 -
[16]
I remember long time ago CCP Hammer was releasing graphs of how various guns do damage over distance. Blasters did the most damage, but their damage advantage over other short range guns was only by a few %. Basically, blasters don't have a significant damage superiority.
They have very limited range and high cap usage.
If devs don't want to give blasters significant superiority in damage, they shouldn't have such severe penalty on range and cap use.
|
Thomdril Merrilin
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 13:05:00 -
[17]
Well Small blasters are fine imo, however Medium and Large are totally screwed!
The DPS/Grid(formediums)/Cpu all need looking atm imo.
Originally by: Oveur
EVE Online - even the forums have PVP 
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 13:37:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 23/12/2005 13:45:41
Originally by: Maggot
In general (ignoring fitting requirements, tracking, ammo changing etc) the area under the graph of dps vs range should be pretty much equal. Currently this integral for blasters is pathetic.
For blasters, not for blasterships.
Ex: average dps of HAC accross long range (ignoring flight time, tracking, other stuffs).
Damage of main weapons
Average damage of main weapons accross 150km
Damage of main weapon + drones
Damage of main weapon + drones accross 150km
Damage of main weapon + drones + heavy missiles
Damage of main weapon + drones + heavy missiles accross 150km
I'd think that this part could be a bit misleading because of the fitting problems some ships have. I don't really see how someone is going to fit a muninn like that, and using damage mods also changes the whole picture (as it mixed weapon ships do relatively less damage than the others).
The cerberus with its range looks very impressive, actually often ranged ships have a higher integral (it doesn't matter if you normalize the integral by dividing by the same total range) than close range ships. Damage isn't trade with range by a 1:1 ratio, so short range ships have a lower damage/m than ranged ships when considering long distances.
But, yeah, the general idea is still that the extra damage isn't worth the range sacrifice, and at this point you have to consider tracking/flight time, which also changes the picture.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
---
Spreadsheet - Damage @ range.
Check for updates/known issues, feedback welcome. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |