EVE Search - Blasterthron. and how to fix it.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Blasterthron. and how to fix it.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Lucus Ranger	Posted - 2006.04.20 10:13:00 - [31] lol Dark, and you just about got it right
Gabriel Karade	Posted - 2006.04.20 10:18:00 - [32] A nice fat reduction in CPU requirements and off comes the co-processor, on goes another magnetic field stabilizer. Damage boost right there. And it doesnÆt boost the Dominix (no CPU trouble there) in any way, unlike how a flat damage increase to the turrets would. ---------- - Office Linebacker -
Sniper FC	Posted - 2006.04.20 10:47:00 - [33] You what would be better then all these changes???!?!?! making the Teir 3 gall bs and blaster boat, bonus's of say CPU reduction of x% per gall bs lvl and X% increase to blaster range per gall bs lvl. or a mwd bonus like the thorax!!! I haven't played with blasters yet, as im still using 425's, but a dedicated blaster bs would be nice :) ----------------------------------------------- Want to join a fun corp that do most things in eve Join "suicidal" channel and have a chat
Kaeten	Posted - 2006.04.20 11:03:00 - [34] I want more damage on m blasters
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.04.20 11:33:00 - [35] imo one of the biggest problems is trying to fit the 100mn MWD, with its 75CPU and massive cap drains both the 25% penalty and the massive amounts of cap used per burst! if the CPU on the 100 mn mwd is reduced to 50 and the cap used per cycle is decreased [perhaps to half] Decrease 100mn MWD cap use by a lot: Decrease its cpu from 75 to 50. Decrease blasters cap use by 25% [if the mwd gets a massive cut in cap use, if not then this needs to be at lest 50%] decrease blaster CPU use by 10%] OR decrease blaster cpu by 20% decrease cap by 50-75% increase tracking somewhat so i can orbit at full speed at my optimal and not miss BS half the time Another option would be to increase the -5% cap skill to guns to -10% or introduce a second gun cap skill. this would make sense since the tanking changes useing as much cap as lasers/hybrids do its had a big effect on us. the u would need to still look at cpu and tracking -------------------Sig----------------------- Decrease blaster CPU useage Decrease Hybrid cap useage Balance all weapon systems DO IT SOON
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.04.20 11:38:00 - [36] Edited by: Gronsak on 20/04/2006 11:38:26 update: Originally by: Tuxford This will be fixed largely with a blaster changes which btw I have already started working on and if we had a working testserver you would see the changes. -------------------Sig----------------------- Decrease blaster CPU useage Decrease Hybrid cap useage Balance all weapon systems DO IT SOON
Ras Blumin	Posted - 2006.04.20 11:41:00 - [37] Originally by: Gronsak gun for gun, AC do more damage than blasters on a tempest! Isn't that only with high damage t2 ammo? A dirty job - Released 2006.01.02
dalman	Posted - 2006.04.20 11:48:00 - [38] Originally by: Ras Blumin Originally by: Gronsak gun for gun, AC do more damage than blasters on a tempest! Isn't that only with high damage t2 ammo? AC on tempest gets higher damagemod/time than blaster on mega. So, yes, with T2 ammo AC do more damage than T2 ammo blaster. With T1 EMP vs AM, the blasters do 4-7% more DPS than equivalent AC. But with the stupid fitting reqs on blasters atm one can't really compare them like that, more 'fair' to compare electron vs d650 and ion vs 800 (and then the AC do more damage). Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me
Hellspawn01	Posted - 2006.04.20 11:49:00 - [39] Edited by: Hellspawn01 on 20/04/2006 11:50:57 Originally by: Spartan239 Originally by: Dark Shikari How about: -10% cap usage on medium blasters -25% cap usage on large blasters +10% tracking on medium blasters +25% tracking on large blasters -10% CPU usage on medium blasters -10% CPU usage on large blasters. even with that deimos cant fit 5x ions, med nos mwd scram web and a med rep Wrong. You can fit that all to a deimos, you just need Adv. weapon upgrades lvl5 and the right modules. I¦m using such a setup myself. About the topic, when I look at Farjung¦s movies, I dont understand how you all can complain about blasterthrons. Either he is doing something right or you are doing something wrong. I fully agree that hybrids use too much cap but the tracking is fine as it is Imo. Ship lover
dalman	Posted - 2006.04.20 12:01:00 - [40] Originally by: Hellspawn01 About the topic, when I look at Farjung¦s movies, I dont understand how you all can complain about blasterthrons. Either he is doing something right or you are doing something wrong. The answer is that his targets are 95% complete n00bs. I had a fight yesterday that kinda shows what his topic is about. I myself is maxed out skillpoint-wise to fly a blasterthron. But I don't, as it's complete crap. So, when a blasterthron pilot challenged me for a 1vs1 I gladly accepted: We started at 5km range (and he had web, so he pretty much got excellent - well aimed hits all the time). As we started so close, he had not fitted any MWD nor AB on his mega - I on the other hand had a MWD on. With all the fitting that freed up, he had fitted 7x T2 Neutrons with 3x damagemods. And he still didn't really stand a chance of winning. (and yes, I was in a 'cheap T2 fitting' and not in my 'pimped' ship and clone)(and yes, he had 5 L T2 drones as well). Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me

Ras Blumin	Posted - 2006.04.20 12:10:00 - [41] Edited by: Ras Blumin on 20/04/2006 12:10:53 A dirty job - Released 2006.01.02
Porro	Posted - 2006.04.20 12:10:00 - [42] Farjung uses faction mods that use less cpu to get a better fitting on, its the only way to get a decent fit atm. ---------------------------------------------------- (22:01:14) (Sangxianc) you, porro, have madder skillzors than i, sang, do
Spartan239	Posted - 2006.04.20 12:38:00 - [43] Originally by: Porro Farjung uses faction mods that use less cpu to get a better fitting on, its the only way to get a decent fit atm. Yup, personly I dont have the isk to spend 300+ per megathron I lose I post on the forums for MaxSuicide that makes me cool? Originally by: Dark Shikari Dragonball Z> all other anime
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2006.04.20 12:41:00 - [44] I hate it when good suggestions are ruined by the people who want OMGWTFPAWNMOBILE!!!111!!1! You want to fit them easier. You want it easier to run them. You want tracking better so you hit + better. You want damage mod increase... All those changes together is not a balanced idea, sure Mega should be good close range, but too many changes will just make it a garenteed win. Remember there are two other races ships besides the Mega and Tempest. CPU decrease and Cap decrease should be good, the ship gets a tracking bonus but from what I see most battles are approach target web + shoot so why the fuss about tracking? Is it just for better hits so you get even more damage that way ? Once those changes are done see if people can fit the ships better and test them. To many changes creates to many unforseen possibilities. p.s. I'm guessing because Tempest typically uses more NOS it affects mega's cap more, so if CCP get around to nerfing NOS the mega will gain from that as well as bringing the Domi down to earth.
Odda	Posted - 2006.04.20 12:52:00 - [45] All ho say blasters are balanced watch the last figth in this vid. You also se how f** owerpower the raven tank are vs the megas http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=320941
Hellspawn01	Posted - 2006.04.20 13:05:00 - [46] Can someone do some math about the cap usage of 7x Electrons/Ions/Neutrons plz. Btw, it would help to reduce the cap usage penalty of close range ammo instead of reducing the cap usage of blasters. Ship lover
genes	Posted - 2006.04.20 13:07:00 - [47] Originally by: Vishnej Edited by: Vishnej on 20/04/2006 07:39:46 Here's what I want for blasters: Keep them hard to fit CPU-wise Keep them hard to fire cap-wise Keep them hard to bring into battle, range-wise But make them hit harder than anything else, make them track better, and give a bigger bonus to the harder to fit ones. Tracking +50% (and bonus +7.5%) Med damage +5% Large damage +10% Ion damage +5% Neutron damage +10% Fixing the cap and the CPU and the everything else just turns them into decent "Guns", not decent "Blasters". There's a close parallel with autocannons, and a moderate damage boost is a good fix. It just means that you fit a CPU mod or a cap mod or a nanofiber instead of a damage mod. People appear to find something wrong with fitting auxillery mods, even after the stacking penalty made them useful. Right now, an AC tempest is about even with a blasterthron in terms of capabilities - it does slightly less damage at slightly greater range. But the fitting is completely off - the blasterthron uses 10x the cap for guns and much more cpu and grid. I say, keep them diverse, don't turn them into autocannons, but change them so that the fitting is worthwhile. Boosting medium blasters would be the stupidest thing ever. click
Kaffeine	Posted - 2006.04.20 15:08:00 - [48] Originally by: genes Originally by: Vishnej Boosting medium blasters would be the stupidest thing ever. click That graph is a tad misleading. Most fights don't start at 5k. Also, notice how the Brutix only does max damage at like 0k from opponent.
infraX	Posted - 2006.04.20 15:32:00 - [49] Assume I am talking about Tech II guns throughout. Large blasters use far too much CPU and Capacitor when considering you need to fit an MWD and Heavy Cap Injector in order to use them A) at their intended range. and B) for a length of time that will allow you to kill something and perhaps run a bit of a tank at the same time. You kind of also need 2 large armour reps to be on par with the tanks of most other battleships. The megathron as today's leading blaster battleship does not have enough CPU (even with maxed out skills) to fit all this stuff. It's not doable with even the smallest and least damaging of the large blaster class (electrons). Forget about videos you have seen - Farjung is using an extremely expensive (faction) loadout in his movies and although he manages to fit all the modules I am talking about, he is STILL only using Electron Blaster Cannon II's (the worst) in his setup. I'm not asking to be able to fit Neutron II's with an insane tank and 2 damage mods and all the rest of it, but it would be nice to be able to attempt a decent setup with Ion II's - but at the moment, it's NOT even doable with Electron II's. I know I've probably repeated what others have already said, but I think it needs to be said as many times, as many different ways as possible so that something gets done about it. Large blasters definitely need a CPU nerf and possibly even a slight Cap nerf (considering they use ammow ASWELL and use MORE cap than lasers - once you take into account Amarrian ship bonii). Hopefully the tracking buff that the Megathron is due to receive will fix the tracking and damage issues faced. (are any other ships getting a tracking buff too? - will this make them better than they are now and so the Megathron will STILL be behind in tracking, even with a new buff?) It would be nice to get a Dev response on this thread, as they have confirmed they were 'looking at' CPU usage on large blasters, but nothing has been mentioned for a while nor confirmed.
Kyguard	Posted - 2006.04.20 15:36:00 - [50] The damage on blasters is fine tbh. However, the cap usage, tracking, and cpu req need to be fixed. But ffs, keep the damage the same. They already wtfpwn most things. God is on the side with the best artillery.

genes	Posted - 2006.04.20 16:43:00 - [51] Originally by: Kaffeine Originally by: genes Originally by: Vishnej Boosting medium blasters would be the stupidest thing ever. click That graph is a tad misleading. Most fights don't start at 5k. Also, notice how the Brutix only does max damage at like 0k from opponent. Correct! And that why the brutix can easily fit an mwd and a cap injector so it can BBQ any other bc even tho they dont start close to eachother.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.04.20 16:45:00 - [52] Originally by: genes Correct! And that why the brutix can easily fit an mwd and a cap injector so it can BBQ any other bc even tho they dont start close to eachother. An MWD doesn't make the Brutix fast. A brutix is never fast [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
Farjung	Posted - 2006.04.20 17:14:00 - [53] Originally by: Hellspawn01 Can someone do some math about the cap usage of 7x Electrons/Ions/Neutrons plz. Btw, it would help to reduce the cap usage penalty of close range ammo instead of reducing the cap usage of blasters. Formatting might come out a bit screwy ;\|. Assumed relevant skills: rapid firing 5, controlled bursts 5, gunnery 5 (ofc). Reload is not factored in. Null has same cap usage as AM No damage mods: Void (cap/s) / Null (cap/s) 7 Electron II: 24.3 / 19.4 7 Ion II: 27.0 / 21.6 7 Neutron II: 30.1 / 24.1 1 t2 damage mod: Void (cap/s) / Null (cap/s) 7 Electron II: 27.2 / 21.7 7 Ion II: 30.2 / 24.1 7 Neutron II: 33.6 / 26.9 2 t2 damage mods: Void (cap/s) / Null (cap/s) 7 Electron II: 29.9 / 23.9 7 Ion II: 33.2 / 26.6 7 Neutron II: 37.1 / 29.7 Just to put that in perspective, a heavy diminishing nos drains 10 cap/s, a large armor repairer II drains 35.6 cap/s. --- Reckless Wave of Mutilation
Zysco	Posted - 2006.04.20 17:22:00 - [54] rofl... so a neutron II, with 2 damage mods and void, uses more cap/sec than a LARGE REP II. AND WE HAVE 7 GUNS. New Petition Inc Vid
Wizie	Posted - 2006.04.20 17:29:00 - [55] Originally by: Zysco rofl... so a neutron II, with 2 damage mods and void, uses more cap/sec than a LARGE REP II. AND WE HAVE 7 GUNS. OMG Drunkeh.. read again. its 7 guns use that much cap :p Still kinda ghey.
Toksin	Posted - 2006.04.20 17:51:00 - [56] How about this... Reduce CPU usage of each gun by 4-8 CPU per. On a 7 gun setup, that would clear 28-56 CPU up. Which can make a difference. + Reduce Cap usage by 3-7 on each gun. This would make a nice difference. + Increase Large Blaster damage by 5%. That's all. Tracking, IMO, is fine, with a web. Maybe I'm wrong. But, I think that those 3 things, in conjuction, could boost the Mega enough to make it viable, but not OMGWTF boost'D. --------------- My views do not reflect the views of my corp, or my own views.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.04.20 17:59:00 - [57] Originally by: Zysco rofl... so a neutron II, with 2 damage mods and void, uses more cap/sec than a LARGE REP II. AND WE HAVE 7 GUNS. Well i did calculate once that neutrons II + void use half the cap that xl booster use(maybe t2, don't remember). And they cry how they cannot permatank. WTF i want to be able to permashoot only. Die, die, die.
Wizie	Posted - 2006.04.20 18:53:00 - [58] Originally by: Toksin How about this... Reduce CPU usage of each gun by 4-8 CPU per. On a 7 gun setup, that would clear 28-56 CPU up. Which can make a difference. + Reduce Cap usage by 3-7 on each gun. This would make a nice difference. + Increase Large Blaster damage by 5%. That's all. Tracking, IMO, is fine, with a web. Maybe I'm wrong. But, I think that those 3 things, in conjuction, could boost the Mega enough to make it viable, but not OMGWTF boost'D. CPU/Cap reduction is good... Dmg increase isn't needed. Tracking bonus will def help.
Xune	Posted - 2006.04.20 18:55:00 - [59] Originally by: Farjung Originally by: Hellspawn01 Can someone do some math about the cap usage of 7x Electrons/Ions/Neutrons plz. Btw, it would help to reduce the cap usage penalty of close range ammo instead of reducing the cap usage of blasters. Formatting might come out a bit screwy ;\|. Assumed relevant skills: rapid firing 5, controlled bursts 5, gunnery 5 (ofc). Reload is not factored in. Null has same cap usage as AM No damage mods: Void (cap/s) / Null (cap/s) 7 Electron II: 24.3 / 19.4 7 Ion II: 27.0 / 21.6 7 Neutron II: 30.1 / 24.1 1 t2 damage mod: Void (cap/s) / Null (cap/s) 7 Electron II: 27.2 / 21.7 7 Ion II: 30.2 / 24.1 7 Neutron II: 33.6 / 26.9 2 t2 damage mods: Void (cap/s) / Null (cap/s) 7 Electron II: 29.9 / 23.9 7 Ion II: 33.2 / 26.6 7 Neutron II: 37.1 / 29.7 Just to put that in perspective, a heavy diminishing nos drains 10 cap/s, a large armor repairer II drains 35.6 cap/s. you know what sucks ? i did that calculation before and no one lissend to me :( i realy need to get myself a name :P purr¦s and snuggles up to Far cant you please sneak my name into your next video somehow so i get famous too ? ^^
Wizie	Posted - 2006.04.20 19:03:00 - [60] Originally by: Xune Originally by: Farjung Originally by: Hellspawn01 Can someone do some math about the cap usage of 7x Electrons/Ions/Neutrons plz. Btw, it would help to reduce the cap usage penalty of close range ammo instead of reducing the cap usage of blasters. Formatting might come out a bit screwy ;\|. Assumed relevant skills: rapid firing 5, controlled bursts 5, gunnery 5 (ofc). Reload is not factored in. Null has same cap usage as AM No damage mods: Void (cap/s) / Null (cap/s) 7 Electron II: 24.3 / 19.4 7 Ion II: 27.0 / 21.6 7 Neutron II: 30.1 / 24.1 1 t2 damage mod: Void (cap/s) / Null (cap/s) 7 Electron II: 27.2 / 21.7 7 Ion II: 30.2 / 24.1 7 Neutron II: 33.6 / 26.9 2 t2 damage mods: Void (cap/s) / Null (cap/s) 7 Electron II: 29.9 / 23.9 7 Ion II: 33.2 / 26.6 7 Neutron II: 37.1 / 29.7 Just to put that in perspective, a heavy diminishing nos drains 10 cap/s, a large armor repairer II drains 35.6 cap/s. you know what sucks ? i did that calculation before and no one lissend to me :( i realy need to get myself a name :P purr¦s and snuggles up to Far cant you please sneak my name into your next video somehow so i get famous too ? ^^ Get lost Xune.. I had to pay him with a free oral job and a Vindicator.... I earned that spot in his Vid.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.