EVE Search - Ship HP increases, defensive combat, and the nerf to blaster ships...

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Ship HP increases, defensive combat, and the nerf to blaster ships...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
murder one Gallente CRICE Corporation Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.27 04:33:00 - [1] Gank oriented ships- more specifically blaster boats, and in particular the Blasterthron have been successively marginalized by each defensive change added to the game and here's why: The current ship designs with respect to blasters and the ships that use them suffer from a knife edge balancing act with respect to their cap. Just a single nos can completely cripple a blaster ship. This is due to the increased combat times and increased cap use over the original requirements to kill a particular target, now that resistances have increased on average (armor compensation skills for instance) and HP have been added to all ships. Using the Blasterthron as an example the Bthron has very little endurance in the field as you're practically mandated to carry a full load of 800 sized cap charges, and if you get into a fight with anything less than a maxed out amount of 800s, there's always some question as to if you're going to have enough endurance to finish the fight. I can carry 19 800 charges plus another 4 loaded in my cap booster for a total of 23, and that barely gets me through a fight when in a small gang and doing a 3-4 vs 3-4 BS fight. Usually at least half my cap is consumed just getting to the target, and by the time I start engaging in earnest, I'm already reloading my cap booster. Assuming we keep nos balance issues seperate, the amount of time required for a Bthron (as an example) to kill a target vs. how long it's cap will last when compared to prior kill times of past game design rules has steadily increased to the point that you're now running out of cap before you can chew through a target, and this is with one of the higest DPS ships in the game. It's particularly bad for the Bthron as it's pretty much the only BS (other than the Geddon IMO) that is so cap sensitive. All other BS designs either require no cap for their weapons, or use nos as their primary high slot weapon (Domi) so that it's not an issue. With the upcoming additions of 'defensively oriented' rigs and the Dev's stated missions of wanting to increase combat times across the board, all this does is cripple the blaster ships even further. While I've been using the Bthron as an example, it's even more critical with the frigs and cruisers, as it's completely impractical for them to mount cap boosters like the Bthron can. The Bthron can live as long as it has charges. The frigs and cruisers simply die after their cap is broken, which is quite quickly. IMO a Thorax setup, regardless of how it's set up, just isn't as flexible or dependable in a solo engagement (i.e. nobody on your side, even though there may be multiple enemies) as a Vexor or a Rupture etc. When I'm flying around in my Vexor, I'm confident that I can take on most other cruiser pilots, regardless of their character age or fittings (I'm not going to bring up ECM ). I should have that same measure of confidence with a Thorax, as it's a tier 3 cruiser instead of a tier 2 like the Vexor is, but I don't. What do the rest of you think about where the game is headed with respect to increased combat times and decreased 'gank' effectiveness? Because I said so...
xeom Veto.	Posted - 2006.09.27 04:56:00 - [2] Yes those poor poor blaster pilots..... --- CCP how about the pith X & A mods? "Those nuclear missiles are for domestic heating." - Scagga
Benglada Finite Horizon	Posted - 2006.09.27 04:58:00 - [3] and give the deimos more pg.....yea. --------------------------- Originally by: Arkanor 0.0 is the Final Frontier. Bring money and friends.
ELECTR0FREAK Eye of God Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.09.27 04:58:00 - [4] One word: Hyperion. Then we'll see. Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula
Orvas Dren Gallente The Nest Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.09.27 05:56:00 - [5] Bthron hasn't got enough cap to run MWD for decent time to close 20km+ distance, so people fit Heavy Booster and 800's. Hyperion comes with larger than standard cap with larger recharge time to match. Heavy Booster will still likely be fitted to most, but its no longer absolutely required, this along with a speed boost that may make it so that one cycle of MWD gets the Hyperion to close the distance that a Bthron covers in 2 or 3. So the problems then.. Hyperion has no tracking bonus... blasters aren't known for even hitting BS up close without both ships sitting still. So, the Hyperion gets to the target faster, but is less able to hit it. The Megathron gets to the target a bit slower, but can hit it much better, even while there is a bit of motion. What I would like to see... Fleets where there is not only snipe vs snipe, but in the front of the lines there are some blaster/pulse ships that come racing at either each other or the snipers, and actually doing their job. To do this... 250km Fleet fights have to go away, there is nothing fun or intense about F1-F8 at a target that is nothing but a reticle in the distance. I would like to see max lock distance be 75km, with the average sniper only reaching that with high/max skills, Spike/Tremor, 2xTracking Comp II/1xtracking Eng II. MWD would need a slight effeciency boost, to help promote a bit more usage out of it. Long range T2 blaster/AC/pulse ammo would need to be shortened along side the other ammo types, and the optimal/falloff of the blaster/AC/pulse themselves tweaked to be accurate to their purpose, no point in having 75km be max range, and have a 'close range' ship reach into the mid-range area with its guns, it should have to close to web range to hit, or only just be able to sit outside it with T2 long ammo (Null/Barrage). Of course, off-topic, for fleet fights to be more interesting, ECM would have to change, damps would have to be a bit different and tanking would have to become easier with NPC's being balanced to maintain or even make them a bit more difficult. /me dons the flame-retardant suit. EVE-Mail me for custom signature work. Price Negotiable
Hugh Ruka Caldari	Posted - 2006.09.27 07:40:00 - [6] Thorium charges ? Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.09.27 15:49:00 - [7] Haha, blaster ships suck?
Kruel	Posted - 2006.09.27 17:05:00 - [8] NOS = WIN Maybe they should up the cap in addition to the HP.
Coran Ordus Ominous Corp Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2006.09.27 17:33:00 - [9] Interesting points. Perhaps the balancing should be to reduce the cap usage of blasters? Increasing their damage will directly negate the whole point of the HP/slow battle change. But reducing the cap drain will let you fight longer, but still fit the role of doing more damage faster than anyone, but being vulnerable when the fight starts dragging out. It will also address the similar issues in smaller ships, without fundamentally changing the ship's cap balance. (You can't suddenly mwd twice as far as before, as would happen with a cap increase.)
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.27 17:48:00 - [10] Perhaps you should setup your ** so that you're able to fit a NOS or 2 to help with your cap, while killing your target's? Originally by:** kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Kunming Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.27 17:58:00 - [11] Agreed! Blasterboat concept is to close in fast, and kill the target before your artificially boosted (800s) tank fails. The longer the fight the less chance the b-boat has to accomplish its task.
Stephar The High Priest	Posted - 2006.09.27 18:00:00 - [12] Lasers use more cap than blasters, so this problem is more severe for Amarr.
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.27 18:27:00 - [13] Originally by: Stephar Lasers use more cap than blasters, so this problem is more severe for Amarr. ah? try shooting AM. ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
Verus Potestas Caldari Fiat Mort	Posted - 2006.09.27 18:43:00 - [14] Blasters are now a more viable weapon than they have been for years Signature removed - please email to find out why (include a link to the original image) - Jacques([email protected]) RAWR!111 Sig Hijackz0r!!11 - Immy
Stephar The High Priest	Posted - 2006.09.27 18:47:00 - [15] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Stephar Lasers use more cap than blasters, so this problem is more severe for Amarr. ah? try shooting AM. Blasters with antimatter use less cap than lasers with multifrequency.
webkert Amarr Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.27 19:03:00 - [16] There is nothing wrong with the blastermega. All closerange pvp bs will have to use injectors to keep an active tank running. Obviously the mega will have to use an mwd to get close to do damage, but on the other hand an acpest or pulseapoc will have to use an mwd to keep its range to a blastermega. There is nothing wrong with the thorax either. There are crusiers that are much worse off, maller and omen for example.
Hugh Ruka Caldari	Posted - 2006.09.27 19:12:00 - [17] The cap problem of lasers and hybrids is based around ammo. Like the thorium charge. 40% cap saved compared to AM. However the DPS obsession in this game does prohibit the tactical use of cap warfare other than nos and cap injectors. No use saving cap for tank with lower damage charges because you can have the target dead before you run out of cap no matter what tank he has fitted. There's a concept problem in some aspects of gameplay that prohibits some ship statistics to be used to your advantage. Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
Ath Amon	Posted - 2006.09.27 19:36:00 - [18] i mostly disagree with the OP, i alredy posted something about that in general forum and imo a buff in tankage is more benefical to high dps weapons and we know that blaster are in this category. a boost on defence in form of more hps is a problem for arty that rely mostly on alpha strike to balance out its low dps a boost in defence in form of healing or resists improvement will make the difference in dps between low and high dps systems even more relevant than now. to have longer fights can for sure generate more cap troubles, but even now a balanced ship can fire and use a lar whitout that much cap troubles (if not nosed) if you start to use 2 lar then sure you will have troubles, but so even minnie ships that have generally less cap than other races.
wierchas noobhunter Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2006.09.27 20:22:00 - [19] Originally by: Stephar Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Stephar Lasers use more cap than blasters, so this problem is more severe for Amarr. ah? try shooting AM. Blasters with antimatter use less cap than lasers with multifrequency. ammar ships has way better cap then gallente ? ammar dont need mwd to get into range ? ( well most time ) JOIN cooolest channel in game "wierchas fan club" be cool ^^
Murukan Minmatar The Priory	Posted - 2006.09.27 20:31:00 - [20] Originally by: Stephar Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Stephar Lasers use more cap than blasters, so this problem is more severe for Amarr. ah? try shooting AM. Blasters with antimatter use less cap than lasers with multifrequency. Since when does a geddon or apoc need to mwd right up next to their target you stupid tit In rust we trust!!!
Stephar The High Priest	Posted - 2006.09.27 20:39:00 - [21] Originally by: wierchas noobhunter ammar ships has way better cap then gallente ? ammar dont need mwd to get into range ? ( well most time ) Maller has same cap regen as Thorax. Prophecy has same cap regen as Brutix.
Stephar The High Priest	Posted - 2006.09.27 20:43:00 - [22] Originally by: Murukan Since when does a geddon or apoc need to mwd right up next to their target you stupid tit Considering that Amarr deals less damage than the other races at close range, I'd say that Amarr has just as much incentive to maintain range as the other races have to close it.
Murukan Minmatar The Priory	Posted - 2006.09.27 20:43:00 - [23] Originally by: Stephar Originally by: wierchas noobhunter ammar ships has way better cap then gallente ? ammar dont need mwd to get into range ? ( well most time ) Maller has same cap regen as Thorax. Prophecy has same cap regen as Brutix. Then when you take into account the mwd penalty (not as bad on the thorax) and the fact that mwdin to your target takes a ton of cap hey look gallente really don't have an advantage. So i reiterate that you're a stupid tit. In rust we trust!!!
Nybbas A Place for Valen	Posted - 2006.09.27 20:49:00 - [24] Originally by: Stephar Originally by: Murukan Since when does a geddon or apoc need to mwd right up next to their target you stupid tit Considering that Amarr deals less damage than the other races at close range, I'd say that Amarr has just as much incentive to maintain range as the other races have to close it. actually a maller has 100 more cap than a thorax, does not have to fit a mwd (pulses have a MUCH MUCH longer range than blasters so dont give us that crap about range) and a maller, and other amarr ships... like the apoc, get a bonus to cap use on their lasers that actually bring cap use on lasers down to, or at the same level as blasters. Thanks but you are wrong.
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.09.27 20:51:00 - [25] Edited by: Aramendel on 27/09/2006 20:51:54 Originally by: wierchas noobhunter ammar ships has way better cap then gallente ? ammar dont need mwd to get into range ? ( well most time ) Fristly, this changes what with the fact that blasters need less cap/sec than pulse lasers? Nothing? Secondly, a geddon has 250 LESS cap than the mega. The apoc has 300 more. With the ship skill this can get 1800 more, of cource, but the 25% cap bonus is considered weak for a reason... Thirdly, they need a MWD to STAY in range. Since amarr have the so called "med range advantage" they need to stay there to use it. Considering people complain that blasters do not hit well at close range, just guess how well a pluse laser with not even 60% of the blaster tracking will hit there. Nevermind the dps difference.
Maya Rkell Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.09.27 21:08:00 - [26] Lasers at range? Better. Because, unless you haden't noticed, it's harder to generate transversal at range. And if a target's MWDing at you, you'll do a LOT of damage before it gets its blasters within range. AND lasers get a major cap reduction from their ship skill. The complaint is 100% correct - it's a MAJOR nerf to blasters and is utterly uncessary, when the real issue is T2 amo's damage and range advantages. //Maya
Stephar The High Priest	Posted - 2006.09.27 21:18:00 - [27] Originally by: Nybbas actually a maller has 100 more cap than a thorax, does not have to fit a mwd (pulses have a MUCH MUCH longer range than blasters so dont give us that crap about range) and a maller, and other amarr ships... like the apoc, get a bonus to cap use on their lasers that actually bring cap use on lasers down to, or at the same level as blasters. Thanks but you are wrong. OK, so a Maller starts off with 100 more cap. It's like having a free cap 100 charge in the hold... or an extra 5m3 in the cargo bay. The Thorax and Maller still have the same cap regen rates. As for laser and hybrid cap use, before skills... Tachyon II = 7.60 cap/sec Mega Beam II = 7.22 cap/sec Mega Pulse II = 5.08 cap/sec 425 Railgun II = 3.14 cap/sec 350 Railgun II = 3.01 cap/sec Neutron Blaster Cannon II = 2.31 cap/sec Assuming the Amarrian pilot has trained all spaceship command skills to level V... Tachyon II = 3.80 cap/sec Mega Beam II = 3.61 cap/sec 425 Railgun II = 3.14 cap/sec 350 Railgun II = 3.01 cap/sec Mega Pulse II = 2.54 cap/sec Neutron Blaster II = 2.31 cap/sec BTW - These are in-game figures. The stats you'll see in the "ships and modules" section on the website are inaccurate and don't reflect the changes in the most recent blaster buff patch.
Nybbas A Place for Valen	Posted - 2006.09.27 21:21:00 - [28] Originally by: Stephar Originally by: Nybbas actually a maller has 100 more cap than a thorax, does not have to fit a mwd (pulses have a MUCH MUCH longer range than blasters so dont give us that crap about range) and a maller, and other amarr ships... like the apoc, get a bonus to cap use on their lasers that actually bring cap use on lasers down to, or at the same level as blasters. Thanks but you are wrong. OK, so a Maller starts off with 100 more cap. It's like having a free cap 100 charge in the hold... or an extra 5m3 in the cargo bay. The Thorax and Maller still have the same cap regen rates. As for laser and hybrid cap use, before skills... Tachyon II = 7.60 cap/sec Mega Beam II = 7.22 cap/sec Mega Pulse II = 5.08 cap/sec 425 Railgun II = 3.14 cap/sec 350 Railgun II = 3.01 cap/sec Neutron Blaster Cannon II = 2.31 cap/sec Assuming the Amarrian pilot has trained all spaceship command skills to level V... Tachyon II = 3.80 cap/sec Mega Beam II = 3.61 cap/sec 425 Railgun II = 3.14 cap/sec 350 Railgun II = 3.01 cap/sec Mega Pulse II = 2.54 cap/sec Neutron Blaster II = 2.31 cap/sec BTW - These are in-game figures. The stats you'll see in the "ships and modules" section on the website are inaccurate and don't reflect the changes in the most recent blaster buff patch. yes, now compile with the an apocs already higher cap amount over a megathron, and the .3 cap per second that these weapon systems use becomes a non issue. Thanks for proving my point. And how many amarr ships fit mwds? give me a break. the gallente ships that fit them not only get a reduction to their max capacitor BUT THEY ALSO keep the same cap recharge meaning their cap recharges at a slower rate anyways. A blaster ship HAS NO CHOICE but to fit a mwd unless it wants to die miserable, a ship using pulses would be fine without one, and they normally don't fit them.
Wodin Drukvik GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2006.09.27 21:25:00 - [29] Originally by: Maya Rkell Lasers at range? Better. Because, unless you haden't noticed, it's harder to generate transversal at range. And if a target's MWDing at you, you'll do a LOT of damage before it gets its blasters within range. AND lasers get a major cap reduction from their ship skill. Errr... The numbers quoted(blasters with AM vs. pulses with MF) are with max skills. And that amazing "lots of damage" before you get into blaster range on cruiser-sized weapons is measured by the amount of time it takes a blasterboat to close that amazing 4.5km differential between blaster optimal and pulse optimal. That 4.5km extra must have a pretty amazing differential in effect given that we give up damage, tracking, and cap superiority to use it.
webkert Amarr Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.27 21:32:00 - [30] Originally by: Nybbas Originally by: Stephar Originally by: Nybbas actually a maller has 100 more cap than a thorax, does not have to fit a mwd (pulses have a MUCH MUCH longer range than blasters so dont give us that crap about range) and a maller, and other amarr ships... like the apoc, get a bonus to cap use on their lasers that actually bring cap use on lasers down to, or at the same level as blasters. Thanks but you are wrong. OK, so a Maller starts off with 100 more cap. It's like having a free cap 100 charge in the hold... or an extra 5m3 in the cargo bay. The Thorax and Maller still have the same cap regen rates. As for laser and hybrid cap use, before skills... Tachyon II = 7.60 cap/sec Mega Beam II = 7.22 cap/sec Mega Pulse II = 5.08 cap/sec 425 Railgun II = 3.14 cap/sec 350 Railgun II = 3.01 cap/sec Neutron Blaster Cannon II = 2.31 cap/sec Assuming the Amarrian pilot has trained all spaceship command skills to level V... Tachyon II = 3.80 cap/sec Mega Beam II = 3.61 cap/sec 425 Railgun II = 3.14 cap/sec 350 Railgun II = 3.01 cap/sec Mega Pulse II = 2.54 cap/sec Neutron Blaster II = 2.31 cap/sec BTW - These are in-game figures. The stats you'll see in the "ships and modules" section on the website are inaccurate and don't reflect the changes in the most recent blaster buff patch. yes, now compile with the an apocs already higher cap amount over a megathron, and the .3 cap per second that these weapon systems use becomes a non issue. Thanks for proving my point. And how many amarr ships fit mwds? give me a break. the gallente ships that fit them not only get a reduction to their max capacitor BUT THEY ALSO keep the same cap recharge meaning their cap recharges at a slower rate anyways. A blaster ship HAS NO CHOICE but to fit a mwd unless it wants to die miserable, a ship using pulses would be fine without one, and they normally don't fit them. Then I guess you don't fly amarr ships, I do and I use mwds on all my pulse ships. The reason the apoc has more cap is because of a bonus, would you rather have that instead of the damage bonus the thron has? well I'm sure you dont becuase its crap.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.