EVE Search - Blasterthron breakdown, ship vs ship, now and after possible

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Blasterthron breakdown, ship vs ship, now and after possible

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.28 20:03:00 - [1] Edited by: Sarmaul on 28/03/2006 20:03:35 Originally by: Admiral IceBlock Originally by: Slink Grinsdikild Originally by: Admiral IceBlock well a 10% falloff bonus instead of tracking bonus on megathron, reduction in cap usage and a 25% boost to tracking overall will help. bigger falloff then the sooner you can start firing? Why break Tempest/Mega balance when you could just fix blasters instead? And since when is the Megathron the only Blaster boat? what balance? and since when? the dominix is a DRONE ship, not a blaster ship like the megathron. domi has the same hybrid damage bonus as the mega, it just gets a hefty drone bonus instead of a tracking one edit: bah beaten Originally by: Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.28 20:22:00 - [2] btw, artillery needs it's damage mod doubled Originally by: Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.28 20:27:00 - [3] Originally by: Zysco Originally by: Sarmaul btw, artillery needs it's damage mod doubled Its not funny anymore sorry, I'm doing my gronsak impression Originally by: Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.28 22:16:00 - [4] the megathron should own everything inside 10km, including ravens. It will still have problems with mwding tempests and nos domis, then every close-range ship generally has issues with nos domis :), and the mwding tempest should be and is the blasterthron's achilles exhaust. So: Cap Reduction Fitting Reduction Damage Increase Same Range Possibly swap the tracking bonus for a mwd bonus (not sure if the guns will be able to hit ** at that range without the tracking bonus). Do the same for the deimos - it should own everything inside 6-7km, and again it will get spanked by faster ships with bigger range (in this case the vagabond). Originally by:** Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.29 07:36:00 - [5] Originally by: Adrian Steel Originally by: KilROCK Edited by: KilROCK on 29/03/2006 07:28:36 I dare you to come up with one setup that uses 'more damaging guns' that won't need a power modules with a semi decent setup. Since when should do those power hungry accessories (like NOS) become an essential module all of a sudden? since every other ship is fitting nos and the mega has the most cap problems in the first place Originally by: Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.29 08:26:00 - [6] Originally by: KilROCK Edited by: KilROCK on 29/03/2006 08:24:36 Originally by: dabster 2 med reppers isn't going to tank whole lot of stuff :o Watch Trey's vid. those are med reppers?!?! Originally by: Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.29 08:32:00 - [7] btw, dual med rep = 1 large rep with far lower fitting requirements Originally by: Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.29 08:49:00 - [8] Originally by: dabster I think we can say that hijack is successfully performed now eh not really, everyone's still taking about megathron & fittings for it :/ Originally by: Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.29 11:40:00 - [9] Originally by: Gauss Belloid I dont fly megathrons so bear with me here but couldnt some of the problems be solved by boosting the 100mn mwd? Its a beast of a module to fit and is rarely used because of it which is a shame cause it adds so much fun to the game instead of all that static align and shoot crap atm. Maybe lower the fitting and penalties as well as cap use? This doesnt solve the issue of autopest vs Blasterthron I realize that but I think it could benefit the game anyway - seeing more ppl actually using the modules. tbh I would rather see the stupid 25% cap penalty removed from mwds completely Originally by: Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.29 11:44:00 - [10] Originally by: Sun Ra Edited by: Sun Ra on 29/03/2006 11:42:01 Edited by: Sun Ra on 29/03/2006 11:40:33 er a blasterthron useless with out a mwd, and megas alreadt get a bonus for it. Pretty much everyone in my corp fits one, be it a mega a tempest or a raven mega gets a bonus for tracking and damage... Originally by: Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.29 11:53:00 - [11] so you're basically concluding that the only way to fly gallente's tech1 tier2 bs is to fit it with a **-load of faction modules? sounds broken to me. Originally by:** Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".

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.