EVE Search - Blasters balance post with pictures and stuff

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Blasters balance post with pictures and stuff

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 13 post(s)
Bacchuss	Posted - 2006.05.06 15:35:00 - [61] but no DM boost?:( ************************************ "What you gonna do, when I come for yoU?!" ************************************
dalman	Posted - 2006.05.06 15:41:00 - [62] Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: dalman And once in range, it will take time for the ship to slow down, so the thron will have a transversal much higher than 125m/s and track so bad that it still does way less damage than the others. That's pilot error. You can match your ship's course with the enemy's rather than approach them. Also, Tux mentioned a possible tracking buff. Errr? You need to get in range... And, when you've deactivated your MWD, you're flying at a speed 500% higher than your base speed and your ship simply can't be manuevered during this phase. 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
HypnotiX	Posted - 2006.05.06 15:44:00 - [63] OMG ccp does care!! 30% reduction in cap use for blasters and 15% less cpu is awesome, thanx alot tux
smallgreenblur	Posted - 2006.05.06 15:47:00 - [64] Originally by: dalman Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: dalman And once in range, it will take time for the ship to slow down, so the thron will have a transversal much higher than 125m/s and track so bad that it still does way less damage than the others. That's pilot error. You can match your ship's course with the enemy's rather than approach them. Also, Tux mentioned a possible tracking buff. Errr? You need to get in range... And, when you've deactivated your MWD, you're flying at a speed 500% higher than your base speed and your ship simply can't be manuevered during this phase. Er... Learn to use a mwd... If you deactivate it and begin to slow down before you hit optimal, you might overshoot less. Just clicking keep at range 2000m and then leaving your mwd on isn't really flying your ship. sgb C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.05.06 15:52:00 - [65] Somehow this thread along with the earlier ones reminds me of this ... think Tux might be getting a taste of what l.12 is like ;s anyway, not really much to add, just can't help but notice Megathron with its most powerful turrets which are kind of pain to fit with the regular setup ... gets damage output merely comparable to that of 'geddon which has it quite easier to fit the pulse lasers, and that's combined with that damage available in more narrow range "band" and with requirement of getting much closer to its target before killing can even start, to boot. With all that in mind... what's the incentive to fly Megathron over the 'geddon, really? o.O
aeti	Posted - 2006.05.06 15:56:00 - [66] Originally by: Tuxford Fitting Lets take a look at grid first. 7 neutron blaster cannons II take up 16 541 MW ignoring the advanced weapon upgrade skill. With engineering level 5 the megathron has 19 375MW to play with so that leaves 2 834MW. The problem is that they need to fit a mwd + injector, and then fit some sort of tank if you want to have some hope of survival at that range. To do that you aren't going to be able to fit neutrons as they are atm, just electrons or ions. So any chance of adding them both to your graphs? Being able to fit a decent number of neutrons + everything else needed with awu 5 and everything else maxed seems fair (and yes I fly a raven) Also is that tracking graph with the new mega bonus instead of the old? Also I agree with what dalman said :>
dalman	Posted - 2006.05.06 15:58:00 - [67] Originally by: smallgreenblur Er... Learn to use a mwd... If you deactivate it and begin to slow down before you hit optimal, you might overshoot less. Just clicking keep at range 2000m and then leaving your mwd on isn't really flying your ship. Yea, cause I don't know how to fly a ship With the lower blasters (ions and electrons) it simply can't be done. Even if you as a pilot do it perfectly, you're still left with the fact that you don't know exactly when the MWD cycle ends and just 3 seconds wrong will completely screw it up. Not to mention how wonderful a bit of lag is. 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
smallgreenblur	Posted - 2006.05.06 16:09:00 - [68] Originally by: dalman Originally by: smallgreenblur Er... Learn to use a mwd... If you deactivate it and begin to slow down before you hit optimal, you might overshoot less. Just clicking keep at range 2000m and then leaving your mwd on isn't really flying your ship. Yea, cause I don't know how to fly a ship With the lower blasters (ions and electrons) it simply can't be done. Even if you as a pilot do it perfectly, you're still left with the fact that you don't know exactly when the MWD cycle ends and just 3 seconds wrong will completely screw it up. Not to mention how wonderful a bit of lag is. Not to continue derailing this thread, but if you find this to be such a problem turn autorepeat off on your mwd, this will give you an excellent idea of when to stop. It works for me anyway, although i can see the reasoning behind a slight agility increase for the mega. You've got dps at short range, that's the advantage of flying the mega. The disadvantage is getting there. Hopefully with combat becoming longer this will become less of a problem. sgb C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details.
dalman	Posted - 2006.05.06 16:14:00 - [69] Originally by: smallgreenblur You've got dps at short range, that's the advantage of flying the mega. The disadvantage is getting there. Hopefully with combat becoming longer this will become less of a problem. Nope, the problem is that the very small DPS increase vs tempest/geddon/raven simply isn't worth it, and becomes laughable when the megathron can't fit a proper tank like all the others can. 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
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.05.06 16:22:00 - [70] Originally by: j0sephine Somehow this thread along with the earlier ones reminds me of this ... think Tux might be getting a taste of what l.12 is like ;s anyway, not really much to add, just can't help but notice Megathron with its most powerful turrets which are kind of pain to fit with the regular setup ... gets damage output merely comparable to that of 'geddon which has it quite easier to fit the pulse lasers, and that's combined with that damage available in more narrow range "band" and with requirement of getting much closer to its target before killing can even start, to boot. With all that in mind... what's the incentive to fly Megathron over the 'geddon, really? o.O you get to claim to be awesome at eve for flying an underdog ship, and make plz nerf raven posts ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD
Kai Lae	Posted - 2006.05.06 16:23:00 - [71] Originally by: dalman Yea, cause I don't know how to fly a ship With the lower blasters (ions and electrons) it simply can't be done. Even if you as a pilot do it perfectly, you're still left with the fact that you don't know exactly when the MWD cycle ends and just 3 seconds wrong will completely screw it up. Not to mention how wonderful a bit of lag is. Add to the fact if you're decelerating as you enter web range you're in deep do-do if he actually has a web fitted, and it's a risky proposition to do this. This is actually an issue with blaster ships in general, you see this as well on the deimos but the battleship manuverability on the mega makes it stand out. The other ships have a lower mass so it's nowhere near as bad but the mass of the megaT makes it accelerate and decel like a brick. In order to be effective with the MWD you need a ship that gets to the MWD speed quickly, and just as important, gets back to that base speed quickly as well. If you've flown the mega you know that doesn't happen. With gallente ships it just seems the bigger the boat, the option of choosing a MWD just gets worse and worse. Raptor and Ares Fix
Kaleeb	Posted - 2006.05.06 16:32:00 - [72] As you say the advantage of the mega is close range damage, but is it enough to warrant gimping your tank/cap and risking everything by getting close instead of sitting in a geddon and not needing an mwd? I dont think it is (although its fun which is why i fly it)
wierchas noobhunter	Posted - 2006.05.06 16:33:00 - [73] still what abaut deimos ??? i think its more important then mega /me hides nice mode ON/off Naughty - don't discuss moderation on the forums! - Cathath
smallgreenblur	Posted - 2006.05.06 16:36:00 - [74] It's funny, Tux makes a thread saying how much love blasters are getting, and it's a fair boost tbh, and everybody starts complaining about something else after one page of 'thank you's. Glad i'm not a dev sgb C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details.
Dr Tetrahydrocannabinol	Posted - 2006.05.06 16:40:00 - [75] Its not the Neutrons fitting req. that are the problem but the fact that you need injector and mwd which are mandotory to use balsters. not sure what the tier 3 bs going to be, but it would be easier to change the megathron to a blaster boat give it more grid and cpu and make tier 3 a rail platform. Caldari - BS idea
Skuggis	Posted - 2006.05.06 16:40:00 - [76] <3 Tux
Nifel	Posted - 2006.05.06 16:48:00 - [77] Originally by: dalman Your post pretty much shows the issues. So, some points: The DOT graph is with (the gimped) EMP ammo... With T2 ammo projectiles do more DOT than blasters. Is that with blasters using T2 ammo as well? "We wield swords for the sound of laughter that used to be there long ago." RKK Ranking: (MIN14) Sama
Gunstar Zero	Posted - 2006.05.06 17:03:00 - [78] should they do a bit more dmg? risk / rewards wise, it's not worth flying one.
Sheriff Justice	Posted - 2006.05.06 17:36:00 - [79] Tux the cap usage and fitting changes are a nice start and thanks for a better explaination on it all. I must admit even after reading about your boosts I still stayed up till 4AM moving my Ravens and all their gear around in place of my Megas. Please do though seriously consider the fact that an MWD and cap-injector are prereqs for blasterboats. Thus fitting a full rack of neutrons is really not a viable option(making your graphs somewhat irrelevant),,,,at least not without several billion invested in factions ships/mods and implants. Quote: "Ok as you know blasters are getting some love. They weren't quite complete but a step in the right direction." I do hope you live up to your word and deliver more of these changes as you promised. Please just dont make us wait another 6 months for them. SJ
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.06 17:36:00 - [80] the cpu reduction is better but yet still not enough, it would be fine if the 100mn MWD used less cpu. like 50 insted of 75. i mean the only ships that use 100mn mwd are temepsts and megathrons and the tempest has plenty of cpu so it isnt gona be effected much! the cap reduction again is still farrrrrr too low! remember that we get hit on total cap and thus recharge becase we HAVE TO fit a wmd! unlike a gedden which can switch crystals! and on top of all this tux, u havent considered sig! the tempest and gedden BOTH have lower sig which is extramly important when fighting torp ravens and noticable when fighting turret shisp! mega has the highest sig so takes more damage!!!!!! -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
Cummilla	Posted - 2006.05.06 17:56:00 - [81] Originally by: Sheriff Justice Please do though seriously consider the fact that an MWD and cap-injector are prereqs for blasterboats. Thus fitting a full rack of neutrons is really not a viable option(making your graphs somewhat irrelevant),,,,at least not without several billion invested in factions ships/mods and implants. This sums it nicely. Without sounding ingrateful for the direction that is being set out on this blaster balancing, it does seem extremely unlikely that Tux's map will be accurate without the above considerations. UNLESS, he is willing to entertain the suggestion of an increase in blaster damage. There just has to be a dispensation for having crappy falloff(/me wonders if Tux was around for Castor?) and being forced to take a pounding for relatively long period of time before optimals are achieved.
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.05.06 18:09:00 - [82] I'm happy. I think Thanks Now let's all whine about other stuff wee. Petwraith ♥ me. I make sigs
Kaleeb	Posted - 2006.05.06 18:11:00 - [83] Thanks for this tux I can now fit a an ion setup without the need for a co pro. However as has already been said why fly the mega instead of a geddon or raven? I would like to see you use ions or electrons on your graph as that is realistically all that you can fit on the mega even with your changes.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.05.06 18:13:00 - [84] Basing this balancing act on mainly dps comparisons with limited allowance for setup realities and gameplay factors (wtf megathron being able to dictate range ? How in hells name does a speed-after-mwd difference of maybe 150m/s add up to enough to catch up to another bs that is 25km away from you and hitting you with max damage ammo while you miss all the time ?) Not to mentioned the lack of tanking ability. And where's the regard for the worse cap recharge time of a megathron ? An mwd on the mega is compulsory. It's not on other BS. It's not fair to assume that mega can dictate range effectively enough when the other side has an MWD too. And it's not fair to assume that the penalty for fitting that MWD when the other does not is compensated for by the utterly insufficient damage and tracking edge of blasters at short range. Furthermore, you go by the dps at optimal, ignoring what ranges are most practical to attain (gate uncloaking min range to target to gate uncloaking max range to target, i.e. 15 to 45km), most commonly fought at in (semi-)short range combat (15 to 45km), and most common and reasonable to base balancing on in situations other then a 1v1 fight/comparison. What you should imo be comparing is not just top dps allowing for tracking and leftover grid and cpu or cap use versus restraints, but also the max dps versus min dps over the usability range of the weapon and weapon platform combined with reasonable fittings one can assume in both 1v1's up to say 5 v 5's involving multiple ship types. I won't ask you to factor in differences in all involved factors at different skill levels (it's rather ridiculous that a apoc at lvl 1 does the same damage as one at lvl 5 isn't it ? And no, that cap reduction bonus won't matter as much in 5v5 combat as it will in 1v1 and you know it), or differences in hitpoints versus tankability of those hitpoints etc. etc. Some uncertainty and some differences must always remain obviously, nor is is reasonable to assuem you could even balance the ships absed on all these factors. The above, in short and not even complete argument, is why I went off on your initial posting about the balance changes to tachs, auto's and blasters. And even tho I thank you for your involvement and reaction to my requast for explanation as to your thought processes I still stand by my conlcusion that the argumentation of these changes is both insufficient and incorrect. Nor are the changes as you have adapted them sufficient at this time. Oh and I won't start on torps just yet, I'll save that for when you come up with whatever you are planning to get them in line finally... That better be good tho, the sum of usable range versus damage versus tracking/expl ratio versus fitting constraints and cap equasion for these mothers is waaay off the scale. Just look at the area below that dps graph of yours for a small peek into their effective range and versatility. But of course you already did that Power to the players !
Jerick Ludhowe	Posted - 2006.05.06 18:46:00 - [85] Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 06/05/2006 18:45:46 I think the -25% cap penalty on MWDs is silly tbh, the sig increase and cap used while running it are big enough penalties imo let alone the hefty fitting req.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.06 18:58:00 - [86] lower the cap per cycle of 100mn mwd by 33.33% lower the cap or cpu of large blasters further! if u decrease cap on the guns we use less cap, if u decrease cpu we are able to fit a nos with an ion setup thus have a bit more cap! -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
dalman	Posted - 2006.05.06 18:59:00 - [87] Originally by: Nifel Originally by: dalman Your post pretty much shows the issues. So, some points: The DOT graph is with (the gimped) EMP ammo... With T2 ammo projectiles do more DOT than blasters. Is that with blasters using T2 ammo as well? Yes. (note)I'm not sure that a 800 would do more DOT than a neutron if you take reload time into account (would need to do the math on that), as the blaster can hold more charges. But without taking reload into account, AC do more DOT than blasters. Originally by: smallgreenblur It's funny, Tux makes a thread saying how much love blasters are getting, and it's a fair boost tbh, and everybody starts complaining about something else after one page of 'thank you's. Glad i'm not a dev Well... you see, I've spent two years preaching: * That fitting on blasters is fubar. But actually, it's blasters that is 'correct' and (almost) all other weapons that have too easy fitting reqs. * That trackingrange on blasters (especially electrons) is so far behind all other kinds of turrets. That damage on blasters is too low compared to others to make up for the cap use + extreme range + fitting. Does the proposed changes help? (the now suggested better changes) The fitting req change makes it easier to fit neutrons (with null ammo) for use in gangs. But, see above: They are still in no way better for this than either of Pulse-geddon, AC-pest, Torp-raven, Torp-phoon, Domi or Scorp. Cap and fitting req changes does help for solo. But, again: the minimal DPS advantage compared to the still big cap use, fitting reqs, short range and lack of EW here too makes the bthron still worse than almost any other ship for a 1vs1. These are not the changes that will make blasterthron a useful ship. 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
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.06 19:03:00 - [88] Originally by: dalman The fitting req change makes it easier to fit neutrons (with null ammo) for use in gangs. But, see above: They are still in no way better for this than either of Pulse-geddon, AC-pest, Torp-raven, Torp-phoon, Domi or Scorp. a neutron blasterthron with null ammo is just a pulse gedden with t1 multicrystals. the difference being that the bthron cant then change and hit at 50km if it wishes, and its t2 ammo on one ship compaired to t1 ammo on another ship -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
Tehyarec	Posted - 2006.05.06 19:14:00 - [89] Edited by: Tehyarec on 06/05/2006 19:15:50 Blaster love, yay. Seems like nice changes. Although I don't really use blasters much with my mission running (since that's what I do currently), the range just isn't enough. And another reason for that: About the approach overshoot with MWD... yeah, it sucks. It's one instance where the "cycle" approach of module operation just doesn't work in a sensible fashion. It makes no sense that the AB/MWD has to be on for a certain amount of time rather than just simply turning it on and turning it off whenever you want/need to.
Meridius	Posted - 2006.05.06 19:28:00 - [90] Umm those graphs look off for mega pulse o,- Those look like pre-nerf mega pulse ranges... - _____

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: 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.