EVE Search - CCP: What is the point of blasters?

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

CCP: What is the point of blasters?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:01:00 - [1] I would really like to hear the role CCP intends for blasters (also applies to other short range turrets to varying degrees). Lets compare with torps, the weapon that appears to make obselete short range guns: Torps outdamage blasters in the close range arena and continue to do so right out to 30km. Torps have no counter, while a whole rack of blasters can be crippled by a single (unbonused but skilled) tracking disruptor. Torps cannot miss a battleship target while blasters can, raising their effective damage relative to blasters even more. Torps can do all damage types, while blasters are limited to kinetic and thermal only. Torps require no cap to fire, a huge multifaceted advantage allowing more cap for tanking and the upperhand in nosferatu use. Torps require no mandatory module to be able to hit their intended targets, while blasters require the use of a webifier to hit at all. On the PVE front, blasters are useless as they require the use of a module largely outlawed in missions, while torps have no such restrictions. Some might suggest that the instant hit nature of blasters is an advantage over torps, but i feel that in the range at which blasters operate, torps pretty much instantly hit too. Not worthy of listing as an advantage. Note that this is not a question about blaster ships, their nerfing into uselessness is covered elsewhere. Im struggling to find a single advantage for blasters over torps? Would love to hear from CCP if there are any at all?
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:04:00 - [2] Right you are on all points sir. As for your last question: one advantage that blasters have over torps is that the ships that use them aren't ugly as shit compared to ships that rely on torps. But that's about it... Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:10:00 - [3] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 31/07/2008 13:10:15 Large ACs suck even worse in comparison, too. Torp DPS is a bit silly considering the range they operate at. Anyway, are you asking (whining) for blaster changes, or torp nerf, or what? I don't get it. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
griff1972 Caldari Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:11:00 - [4] Torps can not do a lot of damage to a small ship webbed or just basically sitting still as if its afk due to is large explosion radius. As a raven pilot in ship combat i would always fit cruise over torps, I have many reasons for this but not going to boar you with them now CCp "The paying Customer seems to be enjoying that modual," "yeah lets nerf him"
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:13:00 - [5] Lets see some numbers please before we go making claims. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you want an informed discussion, back it up with facts. I'd like to see graphing of torps hitting vs blasters hitting from test server logs, for example, plus different launchers vs different blasters, maybe a few scenarios, target webbed, unwebbed, etc. Give CCP cold hard facts and they can't argue with them. Make wild statements that by their very nature may or may not be true (you will of course claim they are, but without facts, cannot prove it) and you're stuck on a soapbox without the ability to back it up. The same goes for cries of 'well of course it's true, everyone who pilots a blaster ship says so' - people who pilot blaster ships aren't exactly going to provide unbiased testimonials about blaster performance given the chance. Yes it's a lot of work, and if I could fly a blaster ship I'd be happy to lend a hand in getting the data, but it's the only way you'll change their minds. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:13:00 - [6] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Right you are on all points sir. I dont understand. How could CCP let a weapon system be so completely outclassed in all areas? I must have overlooked some amazing single advantage that makes up for the disadvantages shown. Please tell us what it is CCP!
MenanceWhite Amarr Red Light Navy	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:15:00 - [7] Nice~ now woude you so koindly make a simmilar topic for large artillery too? --- Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses Originally by: Oveur
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:21:00 - [8] Originally by: Cpt Branko Anyway, are you asking (whining) for blaster changes, or torp nerf, or what? I don't get it. Neither. I am simply asking for a single advantage of blasters over torps. That is, a role or range window where the blaster is better than the torpedo. If it is CCP's view that the torpedo is meant to outclass the blaster in every aspect, then clearly no change or nerf is required.
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:28:00 - [9] Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 31/07/2008 13:36:43 Lasers had the ability to hit with high dmg in mid range far longer and no one complained and the argument "they use cap" is ogre crap. amarr bs are mostly passive tanking and dont need cap for it and if you cap is running out, inject a cap booster and burn the cap into guns.
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:30:00 - [10] Mothermoon, you seem to like disagreeing with my posts, perhaps you could enlighten us all with some blaster advantages?
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Imperial Servants	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:30:00 - [11] Edited by: Jaketh Ivanes on 31/07/2008 13:34:07 Edited by: Jaketh Ivanes on 31/07/2008 13:30:57 Originally by: khosta I would really like to hear the role CCP intends for blasters (also applies to other short range turrets to varying degrees). Lets compare with torps, the weapon that appears to make obselete short range guns: Torps outdamage blasters in the close range arena and continue to do so right out to 30km. Torps have no counter, while a whole rack of blasters can be crippled by a single (unbonused but skilled) tracking disruptor. defender missiles, smartbombs, speed and size. Quote: Torps cannot miss a battleship target while blasters can, raising their effective damage relative to blasters even more. Yes, but blasters can damage a smaller target with full force where torps cannot. Quote: Torps can do all damage types, while blasters are limited to kinetic and thermal only. meaning if the torps do the wrong damage, the torp user has to wait about 17 seconds (fireing cycle and reload) before he can do damage. If it's the right damage, he is good to go. It's a gamble you don't have to take. Quote: Torps require no cap to fire, a huge multifaceted advantage allowing more cap for tanking and the upperhand in nosferatu use. Correct on the cap use on firing, but how can they have the upper hand in nos use? They will have more cap then a blaster boat and hence can't nos them, where the blaster boat will have less and can use nos. Quote: Torps require no mandatory module to be able to hit their intended targets, while blasters require the use of a webifier to hit at all. Torps need a target painter to deliver full damage. Quote: On the PVE front, blasters are useless as they require the use of a module largely outlawed in missions, while torps have no such restrictions. AB works fine and so does large web drones, but they are a big hassle indeed. Quote: Some might suggest that the instant hit nature of blasters is an advantage over torps, but i feel that in the range at which blasters operate, torps pretty much instantly hit too. Not worthy of listing as an advantage. Totally agree Quote: . Note that this is not a question about blaster ships, their nerfing into uselessness is covered elsewhere. Im struggling to find a single advantage for blasters over torps? Would love to hear from CCP if there are any at all? I don't see any particular advantage over torps, except you can fry cruiser more easily then a torp raven can. You can also vary your range with the ammo (totally useless on blasters, yes. AM or use rails, but it's there.) Megathrons got a bigger drone bay than Ravens or Scorpions. Blaster have more versatility, you got 3 kinds of blasters to vary between gank or tank. Missiles only have 1 type of torpedo launcher.
Yukisa	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:41:00 - [12] The advantage blasters had.. The ability to hit cruisers/bc for full dmg easily with 90% webs. Is gone. The short range disadvantage is now amplified due to much slower acceleration and top speed. Looking from a performance perspective, torps > all short range weapons by so far it's not funny. Looking from an aesthetics point of view, megathong = so sexy.
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:54:00 - [13] Im quite shocked that even with the wealth of player experience available, that we have still not found a single blaster advantage. I also understand that the skill tree to get to large blasters is much more time intensive that the skill tree to torps? With no advantages, and longer skill tree to train for disadvantage, why would anyone train for blasters over torps? I will keep an eye on this thread to see if a CCP response can show what we cannot see. Its their game after all, for a weapon with so many drawbacks, they must know whats its killer advantage is. Personally, I would have thought it would have been a huge damage advantage at very short range, somewhere in the region of double. As far as I can tell, two of the three blaster types actually do less damage than a torp, and thats assuming every shot hits!
WillageGirl Advanced Tactics and Maneuvers	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:59:00 - [14] Edited by: WillageGirl on 31/07/2008 14:00:55 Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Yes, but blasters can damage a smaller target with full force where torps cannot. Not entirely true. When target sig radius is smaller than 400 blasters stop doing full damage. And since even some battleships are smaller than that its kinda pointless to say that blasters can hit smaller targets that much better. Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Torps need a target painter to deliver full damage. As already stated, so do blasters to hit all battleships with full damage. Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes I don't see any particular advantage over torps, except you can fry cruiser more easily then a torp raven can. You can also vary your range with the ammo (totally useless on blasters, yes. AM or use rails, but it's there.) Megathrons got a bigger drone bay than Ravens or Scorpions. Blaster have more versatility, you got 3 kinds of blasters to vary between gank or tank. Missiles only have 1 type of torpedo launcher. Dont know if having 3 different turrets is really an advantage. Some might think so and its certanly great with various fitting variations in mind. In comparison to torps its difficult to see it as an advantage though since raven only needs one weapon system to get great DPS and good ('ish) tank when Blaster Mega gets the same DPS from largest guns with no real tank to speak of or smaller turrets and drones (which Raven can use for EW or what ever) with tank. Not saying you're entirely wrong, just maybe slightly inaccurate and possibly a bit biassed against blaster platforms. ...just saying.. Fighting for Our right to Cloak since 2004
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Imperial Servants	Posted - 2008.07.31 14:57:00 - [15] Originally by: WillageGirl Edited by: WillageGirl on 31/07/2008 14:00:55 Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Yes, but blasters can damage a smaller target with full force where torps cannot. Not entirely true. When target sig radius is smaller than 400 blasters stop doing full damage. And since even some battleships are smaller than that its kinda pointless to say that blasters can hit smaller targets that much better. Depending on how you define "full damage". If you take number of actual hits and the quality of those hits, then yes, you are right. But I have never seen a large blaster hit a cruiser or frigate for 5.4 damage.
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Imperial Servants	Posted - 2008.07.31 15:00:00 - [16] khosta, of all the disadvantages you mention, none were not there before the patch. So basically the torp raven were just as overpowered before the patch as it will be after the patch. But I guess you were still flying the blaster boats despite them being so weak and useless? Yes, MWD is now slower, but it's also slower for the missile users. If you met a torp Raven, pre patch, 30km away from you, were you sure of a win then?
Vengal Seyhan Sten Industries	Posted - 2008.07.31 15:28:00 - [17] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Depending on how you define "full damage". If you take number of actual hits and the quality of those hits, then yes, you are right. But I have never seen a large blaster hit a cruiser or frigate for 5.4 damage. I've also never seen a full salvo from a Torp Raven miss for zero damage because the orbital velocity was a smidge too high. Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes But I guess you were still flying the blaster boats despite them being so weak and useless? Yes, MWD is now slower, but it's also slower for the missile users. If you met a torp Raven, pre patch, 30km away from you, were you sure of a win then? Actually, I fly Gallente and will never fly Caldar for the same reasons mentioned above - Aesthetics and pride. I know these shouldn't equal combat effectiveness, and I kinda enjoy being the underdog... but still, my heart is with the Gallente Blaster pilots rather than the boring as hell Caldari missile spammers. Two years ago I decided to never fly Caldari because my more experienced friends told me that I should abandon Minmatar and train up for Ravens, because they have a much better ISK/hour potential in missions, and because precision cruise was all you'd ever need. I hate having my game style dictated by profit and what is most uber / 1337, but I still like balance. Also: MWD also slower for the missile users? I don't know if that's relevant as a disadvantage. Let's do some simple maths. Pre-nerf : Starting at 30km range, and assuming that Blaster Ship MWD @ 1400m/s, Missile Ship MWD @ 900m/s => Time to close 25km to get into (nominal/ideal) firing range of 5km = 50 seconds (500m/sec closure range) Post-nerf: Speeds above decreased by x0.65 across the board Blaster Ship MWD @ 910m/s, Missile Ship MWD @ 585m/s => Time to close 25km to get into (nominal/ideal) firing range of 5km = 75 seconds (325m/sec closure range). Hrm, 75 secs vs 50 secs? So, that's another 50% damage that the blaster boat takes before it gets to the same optimal range to return fire with its higher DPS. (Discounting the extra time taken to accelerate, and turn, and the fact that the blaster boat can be kited about to increase transveral, especially with the reduced web effectiveness which means you're not stuck in glue anymore). Someone can plug in some actual speeds for MWD Ravens and MWD Megas here if they like.
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.31 15:45:00 - [18] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes khosta, of all the disadvantages you mention, none were not there before the patch. So basically the torp raven were just as overpowered before the patch as it will be after the patch. If you say so. Has nothing to do with this thread though. The sole purpose of this thread is to try to identify any advantages of the blaster turret over the torpedo launcher. Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes But I guess you were still flying the blaster boats despite them being so weak and useless? No, not anymore, there doesnt appear to be a role for platforms using this particular weapon since it is outclassed in all respects by another. I had my doubts before the proposed patch changes, but when you combine a weapon with no advantages whatsoever, with the further nerfs under testing, those doubts tend to quickly disappear. Its all very confusing. I would have expected that a weapon that was obviously outclassed by another, would be subject to boost testing at this time. However, the balance team appear to be spending their valuable time finding new ways to nerf it even further. Why waste time nerfing something which is already outclassed? Surely if some kind of negative sentiment towards this weapon type existed in the minds of the developers, it would save time to simply remove it from the game? I have personally run out of reasons to fly a ship using blasters. I have posted this thread to see if CCP has a reason for using them that I may have overlooked. Their silence on the matter, together with the inability of experienced players to identify a single advantage of the blaster over the torpedo has convinced me that torpedos are the way to go for this playstyle. Curiousity is another reason for this thread. I completely fail to see why a weapon, outclassed in all respects, is even included in the game?
Sweet Rosella	Posted - 2008.07.31 16:21:00 - [19] Edited by: Sweet Rosella on 31/07/2008 16:26:20 why should they have an advantage over torps, who ever said blasters are the I win button. you have been told many times in this thread advantages of blasters over toprs and yet you keep asking the same dam question Torps are the number 1 anti-battle ship and structure weapon of choice. You should not be trying to compiar a torp bs to a blasterthrone they play differnt rolls
Minami Sayuri	Posted - 2008.07.31 16:33:00 - [20] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes meaning if the torps do the wrong damage, the torp user has to wait about 17 seconds (fireing cycle and reload) before he can do damage. If it's the right damage, he is good to go. It's a gamble you don't have to take. Whereas if you're doing the wrong damage type with a blaster, you don't even get to switch to the right one since you can only do Kin/Therm... Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Correct on the cap use on firing, but how can they have the upper hand in nos use? They will have more cap then a blaster boat and hence can't nos them, where the blaster boat will have less and can use nos. Nos won't work, but neuts will and missile boats are much less sensitive to cap warfare than blaster boats. Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Torps need a target painter to deliver full damage. BS are large enough to hit for good damage without a TP although the TP does add to it. Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes I don't see any particular advantage over torps, except you can fry cruiser more easily then a torp raven can. You can also vary your range with the ammo (totally useless on blasters, yes. AM or use rails, but it's there.) Megathrons got a bigger drone bay than Ravens or Scorpions. Blaster have more versatility, you got 3 kinds of blasters to vary between gank or tank. Missiles only have 1 type of torpedo launcher. I'll agree with the gank vs. tank part, but the option to vary range with ammo is moot since torps can use the same ammo for all ranges. The only thing really then is the drone bay advantage, but that's an advantage in the ship, not the weapon system itself. I personally feel blasters are a bit broken atm... Not that they're not good or viable, but for what they are, they should be a bit better... Either that or torps should be a little worse.
Irish Whiskey Caldari The Black Fleet The Black Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.31 17:44:00 - [21] wrecking hits!
Tixxie Lix Outer Heaven	Posted - 2008.07.31 18:03:00 - [22] Originally by: Sweet Rosella Edited by: Sweet Rosella on 31/07/2008 16:26:20 why should they have an advantage over torps, who ever said blasters are the I win button. you have been told many times in this thread advantages of blasters over toprs and yet you keep asking the same dam question Torps are the number 1 anti-battle ship and structure weapon of choice. You should not be trying to compiar a torp bs to a blasterthrone they play differnt rolls lol, people calling Blasters IWin buttons now. Blasters shouldn't have an advantage over torps, but as it stands torps have a much greater advantage over blasters. The fact that blasterboats can't close the distance to a ship kiting them seems to be a problem. Caldari are intended to be longer range ships and now that the speed nerf has effectively made closing the gap that much harder, Caldari are getting a boost when they really didn't need it. Most torp Ravens on TQ will still melt a Mega, but even more so with the SiSi changes. It's no different than people crying that they can't hit/counter nanos, just not as extreme; blasters cannot hit/counter something like a torp Raven as effectively anymore compared to TQ, so if they're already having a hard enough time on TQ then why make it even harder?
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.31 18:04:00 - [23] Originally by: Irish Whiskey wrecking hits! barelly miss hits!!! barelly scratch hits!!! no clue. I had similar thread about torps being too good. But got bashed by caldari whiners. And balsters are very similar to autocanons now. But they do near 2x more damage.
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.31 18:08:00 - [24] Originally by: khosta Im quite shocked that even with the wealth of player experience available, that we have still not found a single blaster advantage. No one is looking. The amount of EFT warrioring and theory craft on the forums these past weeks is astounding. Imagine that, bringing your old warhorses with the same old tired tactics doesn't work after such a huge change. Prove that you've tried new tactics and back up findings with numbers and you'd get support for your cause. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.31 18:18:00 - [25] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl Originally by: Irish Whiskey wrecking hits! barelly miss hits!!! barelly scratch hits!!! no clue. I had similar thread about torps being too good. But got bashed by caldari whiners. And balsters are very similar to autocanons now. But they do near 2x more damage. You get bashed because your posts lack numbers, reasoning, and are so poorly worded that you look like a troll. Seriously, most people think you're just baiting. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Opertone Caldari SIEGE. The Border Patrol	Posted - 2008.07.31 18:20:00 - [26] blasters do wrecking hits! blasters do more damage than torpedoes... blasters get 15% to damage when overloaded
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.31 18:22:00 - [27] Originally by: Opertone blasters do wrecking hits! blasters do more damage than torpedoes... blasters get 15% to damage when overloaded http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8351/ravenal5.jpg torpedoes get 15% rof when overloaded. Raven does best damage from 10km to 30km. From all tier 2 bs.
El Kaposo	Posted - 2008.07.31 18:32:00 - [28] the main problem for blaster pilots seems to be the web nerf apart from the lower speeds. as suggested in another feedback thread, why do we need to reduce efficiency of the web to a near useless level and on top of that even give stacking penalties ? since i started playing i always wondered why there was no counter for webs... most ew modules have a counter module, and its up to the pilot, if he wants to sacrifice a slot for fitting one against certain eventualities that could effect him negatively in combat. scrambler <> wcs / ecm <> eccm / tracking disruptor <> tracking computer&enhancer / sensor dampener <> sensor booster and so on... it would therefore only be logical, if we had a counter module to webs as well. as a starting idea, one that will reduce the effectiveness of an opponents web for example.
Dzajic Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.07.31 19:01:00 - [29] I'm amazed by all this. CCP wants to nerf nanos. CCP hits with the nerfhammer for wrecking damage. Blasterboats appear to be a collateral damage. People flying blaster boats start asking why nano nerf is likely killing their class of play. Caldari and Amarr players appear, start spouting "learn to play", "adapt or die", "use a alt", "blasters were a Iwin button, they had to be nerfed". EVE player mentality continues to amaze me. I dont remember seeing a single "Blasters are OP, nerf them" thread since I joined EVE, thats end of 2006. start of 2007. Yet people laugh and enjoy seeing other people being nerfed.
rgreat Gallente OEG Red Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.31 19:41:00 - [30] Edited by: rgreat on 31/07/2008 19:55:08 Originally by: Chi Quan EFT DOES NOT TAKE HIT QUALITY INTO ACCOUNT Heard the word "average" ? Think about it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.