EVE Search - For interested blaster ship pilots: patch changes vs. blaster ships

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

For interested blaster ship pilots: patch changes vs. blaster ships

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.08.04 17:10:00 - [1] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 04/08/2008 17:10:42 Originally by: Bellum Eternus Drones need to be out of the picture because not everyone fits damage drones all the time, and the majority of the time that I fight, I can't count on using drones due to sentry guns. I just don't even count them anymore when evaluating ships. Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind if they gave all the other BS 125m dronebay/bandwidth.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:41:00 - [2] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 06/08/2008 16:41:14 Originally by: Taguchi Hiroko Originally by: Gabriel Karade I can't post the whole log because it's huge (11:41:40 - 11:48:13) but the key points are: [ 2008.08.06 11:45:33 ] (combat) Your Ion Blaster Cannon II misses Carlos Jaegar [NULLI] completely. [ 2008.08.06 11:45:33 ] (combat) <color=0xffbbbb00>Your Ion Blaster Cannon II perfectly strikes Carlos Jaegar [NULLI], wrecking for 1059.1 damage. [ 2008.08.06 11:45:33 ] (combat) Your Ion Blaster Cannon II misses Carlos Jaegar [NULLI] completely. and [ 2008.08.06 11:46:26 ] (combat) <color=0xffbbbb00>Your Ion Blaster Cannon II lightly hits Carlos Jaegar [NULLI], doing 259.0 damage. [ 2008.08.06 11:46:29 ] (combat) <color=0xffbbbb00>Your Ion Blaster Cannon II perfectly strikes Carlos Jaegar [NULLI], wrecking for 1097.7 damage. [ 2008.08.06 11:46:29 ] (combat) Your Ion Blaster Cannon II misses Carlos Jaegar [NULLI] completely. and [ 2008.08.06 11:48:13 ] (combat) Your Ion Blaster Cannon II glances off Carlos Jaegar [NULLI], causing no real damage. [ 2008.08.06 11:48:13 ] (combat) <color=0xffbbbb00>Your Ion Blaster Cannon II perfectly strikes Carlos Jaegar [NULLI], wrecking for 902.9 damage. [ 2008.08.06 11:48:13 ] (notify) Ion Blaster Cannon II deactivates as Carlos Jaegar's Stabber begins to explode. 3 'wrecking hits', 9 'barely scratches' 2 'lightly hits' out of 856 shots. Remember, webbed T1 cruiser, no AB, no tracking disrupters, no modules at all infact for the first test. Aye. Blasterboats are pretty obsolete on SiSi as it is. Not just the megathron, all short-range solo turret BS are getting hit hard by this web nerf.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.08.06 22:15:00 - [3] Originally by: Bronson Hughes It seems to me that what CCP is trying to do here is establish a more rigid hierarchy of rock/paper/scissors, at least at close ranges, and encourage more size-mixed fleets. It's easier for small support ships to out-fly battleship tracking at close range, so you had better bring your own anti-support to keep your battleships free to focus on the other battleships. If these changes go live, an all-battleship gang could easily get eaten alive by a like-sized cruiser/frigate gang. There are exceptions to this obviously, but the trend is hard to miss. Problem is it doesn't quite work like that. Am AB cruiser getting webbed by three battleships might be able to orbit one of those BS at 500m and stay under its guns, but the other two will have no trouble hitting it from a few km away. Battleship *gangs* will still be able to kill cruisers, its the solo battleship pilot thats getting nerfed the most.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:27:00 - [4] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 07/08/2008 03:28:54 Originally by: Bellum Eternus EW drones need to be unnerfed and unnerfed bad. ECM drones are great, but the rest are pretty much worthless. TP drones should give +50% sig rad per drone, no stacking, Damp drones -50% targeting distance per drone, no stacking, Neut drones should be the equivilant of half a heavy neut PER DRONE, no stacking. As if neuts weren't bad enough, why don't we give every ship with 125m drone bandwidth two and a half free heavy neuts that don't require cap to activate, don't require a target lock to use, and have a 50+ km range. Or how about 5x damp drones reducing your lock range to 3% of normal (3km lock range for a bs anyone?). When someone shows up with the EW drones you describe (which would be anytime there is a fight since everyone would use them) the reaction would be more like Bend Over Here It Comes Agian. At least my tempest would be good agian since it would be able to fit 2x large smartbombs. Then agian a raven might be able to do the same. /sarcasm off The really sad thing is if EW drones were boosted to what you describe, they would be balanced compared to ECM drones.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.09.10 00:56:00 - [5] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 10/09/2008 00:56:26 Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Any new words from CCP on this issue yet? I think the best we can hope for is that this absurd nerf gets buried and we never hear of it again. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.09.10 12:06:00 - [6] Originally by: Cpt Cosmic Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 10/09/2008 06:44:50 I dont get why all those people think, BS should be IWIN against cruisers. the point of the whole tracking system is that smaller ships can outrun the tracking of larger ships guns. you also have heavy neuts and drones, more hp/tank and slot advantage. you still want more? BS need to be superior to cruisers in short-range combat because BS are more expensive, take FAR longer to train for, and are extremely slow. The battleship has no contempt of engagement, anything in the game can catch a BS and tackle it. Drones aren't that effective alone, not all BS have a sizable drone bay, and drones are unusable by anyone who is getting shot by sentries. Likewise the heavy neut shouldn't be a required fitting for a battleship to be able to survive an attack by a single cruiser. BS gangs will still slaughter anything since they will be able to put multiple webs on target and the target can only orbit one of the gang's BS while the others can move away a bit and track it just fine. This web nerf only hurts solo players, and will promote blobbing even more. Is forcing people to fly in a gang to PVP a direction we want to take this game? signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.09.16 04:40:00 - [7] If a cruiser should be able to challenge BS, then I want my Battleship to be able to take on carriers. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.17 02:20:00 - [8] If this web nerf goes live and solo-bs piloting dies, it will be the end of my subscriptions. I don't like camping. I don't like nano-***ging. I don't like blobbing. I like solo and small gang combat in low-sec, and if I can't tackle anything by myself there is no reason for me to play anymore. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.17 05:29:00 - [9] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 17/10/2008 05:34:32 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Gavin Darklighter If this web nerf goes live and solo-bs piloting dies, it will be the end of my subscriptions. I don't like camping. I don't like nano-***ging. I don't like blobbing. I like solo and small gang combat in low-sec, and if I can't tackle anything by myself there is no reason for me to play anymore. Wait, what can't you tackle by yourself solo? 1. Your blaster mega attacks a geddon. Wait if he can get under your guns then you're WAY below his guns. If he wants to kill you, he has to slow down aswell. Besides, generally the BS speeds are too low while webbed even with the changes to make blasters miss a BS. 2. Oh you want to kill smaller stuff? Ok what you want is that only blaster megas should be viable BS to solo in? I mean its not like blaster mega will be missing webbed targets solo while geddons are blasting cruisers to bits solo. 3. If you want to make BS turrets hit everything down to cruisers while webbed then make it so for all turret battleships. Why should the raven and blaster megas be the only ones being able to solo stuff smaller then battleships? 4. Or we can just agree on that BS shouldnt be THE solopwnmobiles they have been for a long time. Maybe some people will bring out their commandships and cruisers instead for soloing. Ships that can get under the guns of battleships but still able to hit cruisers. 5. If there is a huge problem with blasters in particular ccp will look at it. Its not like they totally ignored missiles velocity with the new changes. They have been tweaking that for weeks now, why should they totally ignore blasters if there was a HUGE problem making your whole race obsolete? 6. Calm down, less emo is good. I fly a maelstrom solo, not a mega. My problem isn't with blasters sucking in the upcoming patch, but ALL short range large turrets. And yes, I think a short range battleship should have no problem hitting a webbed cruiser. If the cruiser doesn't want me to track him, he can, you know, NOT get webbed; or maybe fit a tracking disruptor? THE SINGLE BIGGEST ISSUE I have with this web nerf is that it does NOTHING to the ability of a battleship gang to hit a small target, it only nerfs the ability of the INDIVIDUAL. I don't want to fly in a gang, I want to fight a gang; this web nerf will hurt people who enjoy a little 1 vs X. And as for battleships being WTFPWN, well, thats their role. They have all kinds of drawbacks like cost, SP requirements, size, scan res, speed, agility, ect.... A battleship can be chased and caught easily by anything smaller than it, and a battleship has little ability to catch things smaller than it. The BS has no contempt of engagement. If you ask me, it should be the king within web range. There are PLENTY of ways smaller stuff can kill a BS, we don't need to add a complete lack of tracking cruisers to the list. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.17 05:55:00 - [10] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 17/10/2008 05:59:56 Webs aren't an on/off switch when you are only hit by one. A tempest with the 90% webs can get under neutrons with an afterburner and a TD. Cruisers can do this much easier and without the AB. If you are dual webbed however, you aren't going anywhere. With the way they want webs, disruptors, scrams, MWDs, and ABs to work, gang combat will be more dynamic, I'll give you that, but solo will be more rock/paper/scissors than anything else. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.17 06:06:00 - [11] A tempest fit for it can get under a mega's guns for the kill, but in a gang environment the megas will win. That is why no one fits AB, they work in one role but will get you killed in real eve combat. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.17 06:37:00 - [12] You not talking about pulse lasers are you? They have the worst tracking of the three types of short-range turrets. Their strength is hitting targets OUTSIDE web range. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.17 20:40:00 - [13] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Originally by: Gavin Darklighter You not talking about pulse lasers are you? They have the worst tracking of the three types of short-range turrets. Their strength is hitting targets OUTSIDE web range. With their terrible tracking they can track things the other two weapon systems could never hope to. Transversal is effected by both speed and range, your ability to track targets is likewise effected by your tracking speed and weapon range. Your ability to track a target is affected by RANGE TO TARGET, not the potential range of your weapons. You can't expect your target to burn out to your optimal range and sit there while you pount on them; combat doesn't work like that. If your tracking speed is bad, the target is going to do everything it can to get in close and orbit, and at 1km lasers track a lot worse than blasters. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.17 20:59:00 - [14] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 17/10/2008 21:02:58 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Yes and we are talking about real eve combat right? It is quite pointless to discuss situations that never occur. So your AB example is quite a useless example and doesn't make a point at all. My point is that in gang situations the web nerf doesn't change much if anything at all. The target will simply get webbed by multiple ships and will still be unable to maneuver. The web nerf only helps the swarm of smaller ships gank the lone pilot. I don't see how this makes combat more "dynamic" if the end result is less people going out solo and more people joining larger gangs. Originally by: Stab Wounds blasters will be fine stop being so emo. so big deal you can't hit frigs and cruisers, they weren't supposed to. look at large ACs and Large lasers they are going to be worse off after patch since they had worse tracking in the first place. I am a large AC user. They track slightly better than blasters (except for the Mega's tracking bonus). Large guns will still hit cruisers just fine in a gang, I just don't like being in a gang. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.18 20:03:00 - [15] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf The game isn't balanced around solo combat. It would be nice if they could also balance well for solo, but it's hard enough for them to get a vague approximation of balance in gang combat. Then why nerf webs when a gang can still put multiple webs on the target and make it just as immobile as you can now. The web nerf only hurts solo and very small gang pilots. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.20 01:09:00 - [16] Originally by: Bellum Eternus They are reducing the maximum capability contained in a single ship. This is a bad design change for Eve. AMEN signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.11.24 13:20:00 - [17] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 24/11/2008 13:22:19 Any turret battleship is screwed solo, blasters are no worse off. Where blasters got screwed is the fact that solo was what they were good at before the web nerf, and now that solo has been nerfed, blaster ships no longer have a role where they are more useful than ships with different armament. But when it comes to solo pvp, all turrets got shafted equally, its just the weapons other than blasters are primarily geared for gang combat and are still good in their role. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan

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.