Zahin Vassar
   |
Posted - 2006.05.08 19:48:00 -
[1]
Thanks for the update Tuxford. It's starting to look better. However things should be looked at in context, and looking only at the guns won't fix everything. I have a few points to make:
1) Using Quickfit for dps calculation i get 50.1 dps for 800mm autocannons and 53.2 dps for Neutron Blasters. The blasters like in the graph use 3.43 cap per second at max skills (for roughly 3.1 extra dps), 800mm Repeating Artillery is going to use none at all. That -3.43 cap/second could be used for armor repairing (+5.145 repaired/second) or shield boosting (+3.43 shield/second), but instead it is used for doing +3.1 more dps.
Considering that restoring +5.145 armor/second with 50% resistances across the board requires exactly 10.290 raw dps to be be undone, one can safely say that in their current state blasters eat a lot of cap for very little extra damage.
Now the promised -30% cap useage reduction on blasters: -3.43 cap/second becomes -2.4 cap/second which converts into +3.6 armor/sec or +2.4 shield/sec against 3.1 dps. This is definitely much better, but still less efficient than repairing/boosting when considering shield and armor resistances. Anyway, i won't dabble too deeply into this since i'm not familar with how the devs value dps vs tanking.
2) A dedicated blaster boat needs to have a MWD capacitor penality reduction like the Thorax. Consider swapping the tracking bonus of the megathron with it, or giving such a bonus to the new tier 3 gallente battleship.
3) The working range of blasters is too tight on electron and ion blasters (of all sizes, i'm just putting down the numbers for bs sized ones). Increasing falloff of electron and ion blasters to the same value as that of neutrons would help quite a bit. Autocannons are designed so that they have all the same falloff, and it works rather nicely.. of course they should keep their advantage, but the extra falloff for blasters would make them that much more useable... read, helping blasters to actually deliver their damage.
Electron Blaster Cannon I: range 4000, falloff 6000 changes to falloff 10000
Ion Blaster Cannon I: range 5000, falloff 8000 changes to falloff 10000
Neutron Blaster Cannon: range 6000, falloff 10000
4) The change to CPU requirements is a good one, but CPU is still a bit tight.
The powergrid requirement of blasters is too high though. Ion and Neutron Blasters require more powergrid and still significantly more cpu than autocannons.
Perhaps it's time to bring the requirements down a little, because quite frankly, fitting neutrons isn't really viable with the grid that's left after a useable setup.
5) MWD duration and cap cost should be halved to give the pilot more control over ship speed and cap consumption.
Also, please add a small countdown display to each module that shows the time left untill the completion of its current activation cycle.
6) Battleship sized MWDs need to be looked at, and cruiser sized ones too, but to a lesser extent. A MWD on a frigate is far more useful than it is on a BS.
When a frigate activates its MWD it will quickly regain the cap it has lost, but a battleship won't. In my opinion the activation cost of 10mn MWDs should be reduced by 20% and that of 100mn MWDs by 40% for a start.
7) Dedicated blaster ships need to have fast acceleration and deceleration and good maneuvrability. That's not a problem with with blasters, it's a problem with the ships that mount them. I find that most blaster ships could use an increase to agility. This is just as important as fixing the blasters themselves.
|