EVE Search - Large blaster tweaks

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Large blaster tweaks - c'moon TomB!

» 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)
Ante	Posted - 2006.02.06 05:36:00 - [31] Originally by: Dash Ripcock Yes please, I'd like to be able to fit Ion Blasters to my Deimos without gimping my setup (like my Taranis or Mega or, well any other blaster ship really). Yes!
Face Lifter	Posted - 2006.02.06 06:04:00 - [32] As relatively experienced mega pilot, my only gripe with large blasters is that the damage they do is not good enough. Fitting is fine, tracking is fine, optimal and falloff are fine, cap usage is fine. All these values make blasters what they are meant to be. But the damage these guns do is a bit short considering all the disadvantages. With all the difficulty of using blasters, I believe we should get the benefit of higher damage. I'd say that giving large blasters a flat 20% more damage wouldn't make them overpowered. It would just make them good short range weapons for battleship. I know many people like to look at raw dps calculations when comparing guns. With blasters raw dps doesn't work, because blasters are very sensitive to tracking and short optimal range. During a 30 second battle, at least half the time blasters won't be operating at optimal condition.
Zysco	Posted - 2006.02.06 07:11:00 - [33] Originally by: Face Lifter As relatively experienced mega pilot, my only gripe with large blasters is that the damage they do is not good enough. Fitting is fine, tracking is fine, optimal and falloff are fine, cap usage is fine. All these values make blasters what they are meant to be. But the damage these guns do is a bit short considering all the disadvantages. With all the difficulty of using blasters, I believe we should get the benefit of higher damage. I'd say that giving large blasters a flat 20% more damage wouldn't make them overpowered. It would just make them good short range weapons for battleship. I know many people like to look at raw dps calculations when comparing guns. With blasters raw dps doesn't work, because blasters are very sensitive to tracking and short optimal range. During a 30 second battle, at least half the time blasters won't be operating at optimal condition. I disagree with everything you say here. Blasters do fine damage, I do over 930 dps with my setup and I dont have max gunnery skills or bs 5 or t2 drones. Tech 2 ones are ridiculously unbalanced CPU wise, they use wayyy too much cap, and they track like **** even with the megas bonus.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.02.06 07:13:00 - [34] Originally by: Face Lifter As relatively experienced mega pilot, my only gripe with large blasters is that the damage they do is not good enough. Fitting is fine, tracking is fine, optimal and falloff are fine, cap usage is fine. All these values make blasters what they are meant to be. But the damage these guns do is a bit short considering all the disadvantages. With all the difficulty of using blasters, I believe we should get the benefit of higher damage. I'd say that giving large blasters a flat 20% more damage wouldn't make them overpowered. It would just make them good short range weapons for battleship. I know many people like to look at raw dps calculations when comparing guns. With blasters raw dps doesn't work, because blasters are very sensitive to tracking and short optimal range. During a 30 second battle, at least half the time blasters won't be operating at optimal condition. Yay, that's it,exactly. Geddon with mp II does 430dps, mega with ions 450 and 480 with neutrons, ac tempest does something like 430 too, i think. I use no guns... i smack to death.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.02.06 07:48:00 - [35] Originally by: Zysco I disagree with everything you say here. Blasters do fine damage, I do over 930 dps with my setup and I dont have max gunnery skills or bs 5 or t2 drones. Tech 2 ones are ridiculously unbalanced CPU wise, they use wayyy too much cap, and they track like **** even with the megas bonus. Tracking would help alot, but we would actually hit frigs then and ccp cannot allow that, only caldari can do that, remember. Oh and it is hard to push mega over 1k dps even with t2 drones. It takes bs5, ogresII(with interfacing 5) and 2x dmg mod to get over 1k with ionsII and void ammo. I use no guns... i smack to death.
Odda	Posted - 2006.02.06 08:30:00 - [36] I have flown a blasterthon for almost 1 year now. and the BIGGest problem is as they all say, Tracking and Falloff and the Shortopptimal range. 80% of the time you DONT Land below 15k of a target, and you need to mwd to opptimal, in thath time almost evry ship whil have taken down your shields and startet to eat tru your armor!
Leam	Posted - 2006.02.06 08:40:00 - [37] This has already been discussed with all the points possible long ago. Someone even made great dmg charts of all the weapons. Blasters need a tweak, thank god devs realized, so just wait. I bet tomb will throw us a bone as soon as he's ended playing with his new yaarrware.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.02.06 08:48:00 - [38] wait wait... till eve 2? Or maybe eve 3? I use no guns... i smack to death.
El Yatta	Posted - 2006.02.06 08:53:00 - [39] Originally by: Maya Rkell Edited by: Maya Rkell on 05/02/2006 20:31:35 Originally by: ParMizaN Originally by: Maya Rkell No change unless it's ONLY large blasters! meds arent performing brilliantly either as far as i know (i dont use t2 blasters though..) Meds are competitive. Smalls are more than fine. A couple of the med-blaster mounting SHIPS need tweaking, but that's another topic. Ditto T2 amo being crazy-broken - another topic. Oh and El Yatta? Claws are good for reasons other than blasters being poor (indeed, a Blasterrannis still has a significantly higher DPS). And, for reference, my T1 cruiser of choice is and allways has been the Thorax :P The reason the claw is good is because it /looks/ good, ooh yeah. Oh, and "a couple of med blaster blatforms" - there are only two, the thorax and the Deimos... ---:::---
Emsigma	Posted - 2006.02.06 09:53:00 - [40] Originally by: danneh <3 2 rcu II's for 8 tachs 4tl, our turn will come someday =) I think we discussed this b4 on MSN danneh :) Apoc with 2x rcu, 8x tach2 and 3x heat sink t2 still deals 20% more damage than a megat with 7x 425mm t2 and 4x mag stab t2, so who cares if you have to fit 2x rcu2 then? :) ---------- // emsigma
Valea Silpha	Posted - 2006.02.06 14:13:00 - [41] The problem that i see with it is that to mount a viable blaster set-up you have to go with a pathetically small tank, which is obviously to do with fitting. The problem is that if you make a blaster set-up more *****ble so that the mid-skilled pilots can mount them, it means the higher-skilld pilots are laughing. Yes, the deimos should have more grid, and big blasters should be less CPU intensive, but you have to be careful when suggesting these chagnes, becuase they have to be relevent to everyone. Drop the fitting by too much and everyone has neutron set-ups doing obscene damage. Don't drop them by enough , and only the top of the tree pilots will have viable set-ups. IMHO they probably have not chaged them yet for this reason.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.02.06 15:20:00 - [42] Originally by: Emsigma Originally by: danneh <3 2 rcu II's for 8 tachs 4tl, our turn will come someday =) I think we discussed this b4 on MSN danneh :) Apoc with 2x rcu, 8x tach2 and 3x heat sink t2 still deals 20% more damage than a megat with 7x 425mm t2 and 4x mag stab t2, so who cares if you have to fit 2x rcu2 then? :) Meh why use apoc... geddon with 2x rcu II can fit 7x t2 tachs and 4x dmg mods... And does omg more damage than any rail setup and probably close to some blaster setups. I use no guns... i smack to death.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.02.06 15:22:00 - [43] Originally by: Valea Silpha The problem that i see with it is that to mount a viable blaster set-up you have to go with a pathetically small tank, which is obviously to do with fitting. The problem is that if you make a blaster set-up more *****ble so that the mid-skilled pilots can mount them, it means the higher-skilld pilots are laughing. Yes, the deimos should have more grid, and big blasters should be less CPU intensive, but you have to be careful when suggesting these chagnes, becuase they have to be relevent to everyone. Drop the fitting by too much and everyone has neutron set-ups doing obscene damage. Don't drop them by enough , and only the top of the tree pilots will have viable set-ups. IMHO they probably have not chaged them yet for this reason. Even neutrons don't do obscene damage anymore. I think that geddon can actually have better dmg with MP and usable setup, while neutron setups on mega are more of undock thing. I use no guns... i smack to death.
Sun Ra	Posted - 2006.02.06 15:34:00 - [44] They just need slightly less cap usage and maybe drop the cpu usage. As for not being able to neutron thron with a full tank without power modules... what a shame, set up right outdamage a autopests tank, wheres if we struggle to fit 800mm on our temepst only for them work out worse than dual 650mm Arcane Frankologies - 'plz stop guys it's xmas'
Jon Xylur	Posted - 2006.02.06 15:55:00 - [45] I seriously they'd make Blasters viable. Meds could us e a little tweaking too. I seriously doubt the changes ahppen during this year or even this millenia tho. After all, we're talking about Gallenet ships, as in NOT CALDARI, and the devs are too busy making trading cards and esuring that the Raven will remain the ultimate solo BS pwning OMBWFTBBQ-mobile.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.02.06 16:13:00 - [46] wehat is this ** about trading cards. i assume ur taking the **. since eve players tend to be 18+. anyways. lower CPU requirments. lower cap requirments lower PG requirments so that they are lower then AC [atm neutrons use more pg and cpu then 800mm. and ffs electrons use more cpu then 800mm ] with lowered pg/cpu/cap perhaps it can compete with the other close range ships by being able to fit ions + tank.
Sun Ra	Posted - 2006.02.06 16:19:00 - [47] Mega pilots also seem to forget their drones help alot no drones drones YOu can start doing damage at a further range with your drones. Blaster DO NOT need anymore tracking, damage, range added just lower the cpu making fitting cheaper and easier and drop the cap as well as its abit OTT for a ship that needs to use its mwd so much. If you also notice 800mm ac and dual 650mm ac look like the same bloody gun. Mega pulse arent so uber if you take resistance into the factor, but hey they got nice range so its balanced Arcane Frankologies - 'plz stop guys it's xmas'
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.02.06 16:33:00 - [48] Originally by: Sun Ra Mega pilots also seem to forget their drones help alot no drones drones YOu can start doing damage at a further range with your drones. Blaster DO NOT need anymore tracking, damage, range added just lower the cpu making fitting cheaper and easier and drop the cap as well as its abit OTT for a ship that needs to use its mwd so much. If you also notice 800mm ac and dual 650mm ac look like the same bloody gun. Mega pulse arent so uber if you take resistance into the factor, but hey they got nice range so its balanced none of the more experienced blasterthron pilots are asking for a damage increase, it is like u say. not required. a cpu decrease is badly required and i cant see a single person disagree with taht also range although very poor is somewhat make up with more damage then other short range guns. tracking imo could be slighty boosted. since orbiting a BS at the ions optimal of 3.5km means u miss or get ** hits often. just allow it to hit good with mega orbiting another BS at its optial and max speed. but if it makes it too easy to hit frigs ect then dont bother. cap useage again is ***** crazy. atm its like being nosed by 3.5heavy nos when u activeate ur guns. that needs a massive decrease. yes we have drones. 5 heavy can be fielded. but the arma can field 5 heavy. temp can field 3 heavys. raven can field 3 heavys. so we just got 2 more heavys then the rest bar armaged and unlike arma or even to an extent the ac temp we are so low range we cannot allign and shoot u gotta get close and stay close. unlike the armaged or temp we got 400sig vs the 340 and 360?. unlike the temp or raven we cant choose dmg type.
keepiru	Posted - 2006.02.06 16:35:00 - [49] Originally by: Meridius Well imo the cap usage should be cut in half so it's the middleground in cap use between projectiles and lasers. I'd like to see this change affect all sizes. Tracking changes on the other hand should only affect large blasters. ^^^^^^ This man speaks the truth. ------------- Please fix the stacking algorythm, it's a disgrace!
Face Lifter	Posted - 2006.02.06 16:57:00 - [50] My perspective is this: make the damage of blasters be worth putting up with all the disadvantages they have. What most of you are asking is the opposite: make the blaster disadvantages milder so they better correspond to current damage output. The reason why I prefer not to go ahead with popular idea is that such changes make blasters more like other guns. It creates uniformity rather than making something that stands out
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.02.06 17:00:00 - [51] Originally by: Face Lifter My perspective is this: make the damage of blasters be worth putting up with all the disadvantages they have. What most of you are asking is the opposite: make the blaster disadvantages milder so they better correspond to current damage output. The reason why I prefer not to go ahead with popular idea is that such changes make blasters more like other guns. It creates uniformity rather than making something that stands out this too would work increase the damage output to the point that all its disadvantages are bareable since it does so much damage but the problem with that is. ok great if u land within 15km. what if ur in 25km. ur dead before u get to ur neeeded 10km range
Zysco	Posted - 2006.02.06 17:01:00 - [52] Originally by: El Yatta Originally by: Maya Rkell Edited by: Maya Rkell on 05/02/2006 20:31:35 Originally by: ParMizaN Originally by: Maya Rkell No change unless it's ONLY large blasters! meds arent performing brilliantly either as far as i know (i dont use t2 blasters though..) Meds are competitive. Smalls are more than fine. A couple of the med-blaster mounting SHIPS need tweaking, but that's another topic. Ditto T2 amo being crazy-broken - another topic. Oh and El Yatta? Claws are good for reasons other than blasters being poor (indeed, a Blasterrannis still has a significantly higher DPS). And, for reference, my T1 cruiser of choice is and allways has been the Thorax :P The reason the claw is good is because it /looks/ good, ooh yeah. Oh, and "a couple of med blaster blatforms" - there are only two, the thorax and the Deimos... Brutix, Astarte.
Liu Kaskakka	Posted - 2006.02.06 17:07:00 - [53] Originally by: Face Lifter My perspective is this: make the damage of blasters be worth putting up with all the disadvantages they have. What most of you are asking is the opposite: make the blaster disadvantages milder so they better correspond to current damage output. The reason why I prefer not to go ahead with popular idea is that such changes make blasters more like other guns. It creates uniformity rather than making something that stands out I kind of agree with the gentleman above. Sure, cap usage needs to be looked at, as well as fitting issues. But rather than increase range/tracking, make em hit so hard that it makes up for the downsides. King Liu is RIGHT!!
GoGo Yubari	Posted - 2006.02.06 17:17:00 - [54] Edited by: GoGo Yubari on 06/02/2006 17:18:33 Ok, ok, ok ... Just DON'T NERF THE VELATOR. Oh, and like the Astarte isn't too uber already, but sure. Boost it, 'cause I'm gonna fly it real soon.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.02.06 17:20:00 - [55] Originally by: Zysco Oh, and "a couple of med blaster blatforms" - there are only two, the thorax and the Deimos... Brutix, Astarte. Tbh,i'd rather fit rails on brutix. Especially because that would free some slots for EW. And astarte ... is better with rails too. And deimos too :) I use no guns... i smack to death.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.02.06 17:20:00 - [56] Originally by: Liu Kaskakka Originally by: Face Lifter My perspective is this: make the damage of blasters be worth putting up with all the disadvantages they have. What most of you are asking is the opposite: make the blaster disadvantages milder so they better correspond to current damage output. The reason why I prefer not to go ahead with popular idea is that such changes make blasters more like other guns. It creates uniformity rather than making something that stands out I kind of agree with the gentleman above. Sure, cap usage needs to be looked at, as well as fitting issues. But rather than increase range/tracking, make em hit so hard that it makes up for the downsides. and be called pirmary more often then a scorp? omg its a blasterthron, it does 1k DPS but its got paper tank. pirmary ftl as a b-thron pilot i wouldnt mind but the dmg increase needed in its current state is a LOT. ie it should beat a torp raven from 15km start and for that u gonna need 20% dmg increase and i dont think there will be a non galante not whining about that.
Liu Kaskakka	Posted - 2006.02.06 17:25:00 - [57] Originally by: Gronsak but its got paper tank Yes, the blaster fitting needs to be sorted so you can fit a proper tank to boot. King Liu is RIGHT!!
Nafri	Posted - 2006.02.06 17:26:00 - [58] Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Liu Kaskakka Originally by: Face Lifter My perspective is this: make the damage of blasters be worth putting up with all the disadvantages they have. What most of you are asking is the opposite: make the blaster disadvantages milder so they better correspond to current damage output. The reason why I prefer not to go ahead with popular idea is that such changes make blasters more like other guns. It creates uniformity rather than making something that stands out I kind of agree with the gentleman above. Sure, cap usage needs to be looked at, as well as fitting issues. But rather than increase range/tracking, make em hit so hard that it makes up for the downsides. and be called pirmary more often then a scorp? omg its a blasterthron, it does 1k DPS but its got paper tank. pirmary ftl as a b-thron pilot i wouldnt mind but the dmg increase needed in its current state is a LOT. ie it should beat a torp raven from 15km start and for that u gonna need 20% dmg increase and i dont think there will be a non galante not whining about that. then double my autocannons DPS pleaase
Dreez	Posted - 2006.02.06 17:41:00 - [59] Here`s a simple solution concerning the dmg on blasters. Take all the t2 guns for BSs, make calculations on which weapons has the hardest hits and the best overall DPS. Then check this info about blasters, and if the L-Neutrons are not that superior to the other guns in DPS, then CCP needs to either change the info or the blasters. Current Location: In my Blasterthron chasing TomB with a blowtorch
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.02.06 20:37:00 - [60] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Gronsak and be called pirmary more often then a scorp? omg its a blasterthron, it does 1k DPS but its got paper tank. pirmary ftl as a b-thron pilot i wouldnt mind but the dmg increase needed in its current state is a LOT. ie it should beat a torp raven from 15km start and for that u gonna need 20% dmg increase and i dont think there will be a non galante not whining about that. then double my autocannons DPS pleaase and that is why a lone dmg increase would not be acceptable.

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.