| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
   |
Posted - 2008.09.24 20:09:00 -
[121]
 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Can abaddon, geddon, apoc, maelstrom and tempest hit you while you cant hit them in your blasterrange?
One question at a time, Lyria. I answered yours, now you answer mine. What can't you hit inside your effective engagement range of 10-50km? Maybe an inty orbiting at 25km if it's lucky?
-Liang
--
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 20:12:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
also I said turreted BS. And the raven has to pay for that by not being able to fit full tackle and tank at the same time like the blaster BS.
I frankly don't care what kind of ridiculous restrictions you try to put on my answers. This entire thread is about the game and metagame shifts that are driving the game away from play styles that favor Gallente and Minmatar.
-Liang
--
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 20:16:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
One question at a time, Lyria. I answered yours, now you answer mine. What can't you hit inside your effective engagement range of 10-50km? Maybe an inty orbiting at 25km if it's lucky?
-Liang
But that is not the issue youre talking about. You are saying "my blaster mega cant hit another BS in blaster range". I therefor have to ask if the other turreted BS can hit you at that range.
And sure a pulse BS can hit BCs and BS at 10-40km range. They are mid range BS. Now the mega is short range blaster or sniping rails. Mega can fit full tackle and do more dps then a geddon. Geddon can hit farther out but has gimped mid slots. Abaddon has gimped cap but also consider, its a tier 3 bs. The hyperion can fit dual webs. It looks fine to me tbh.
Just because alot of people in eve gear towards midrange does not mean your ships are broken. You need to train accordingly. You can twist words all you like, megas and hypes are still very viable solo and small gang battleships.
-----------------------------------------
[Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 20:20:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
also I said turreted BS. And the raven has to pay for that by not being able to fit full tackle and tank at the same time like the blaster BS.
I frankly don't care what kind of ridiculous restrictions you try to put on my answers. This entire thread is about the game and metagame shifts that are driving the game away from play styles that favor Gallente and Minmatar.
-Liang
You propose they change the whole race and their weapons to fit the combat style of the month? Its not really what they did to fix amarr. Amarr now just happens to be favored by the combat style currently dominating eve. It wont last forever. How would you change the races every time the players change the way combat is executed?
-----------------------------------------
[Video] Support Barrage |
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 20:23:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
edit: also I said turreted BS. And the raven has to pay for that by not being able to fit full tackle and tank at the same time like the blaster BS.
But if what liang says is the case (and from my testing I believe it to be so (soloing a shield tanking malestrom in a SHIELD extended and rigged thorax (massive sig given I have shield rigging 1) should just not happen ever - he ran out of cap boosters, and I never went below 1/2 shield), then you don't need a tank, enter orbit and your weak tank will not matter because it will only have to resist the odd wrecking shot and a few poor hits + drones.
Brutix couldn't hit another BC unless I was stationary and the other was webbed by someone else too. I have more examples....
|
Win ISK
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 20:28:00 -
[126]
Edited by: Win ISK on 24/09/2008 20:30:13
Waaaaaaaaahhhhhh. Solo PVP is dead. Waaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!
-Liang
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 20:29:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
But that is not the issue youre talking about.
It actually kindof is the issue we're talking about in this thread. Even the most die-hard blaster enthusiasts are giving up on blasters now that the 60% webs are almost certain to materialize. The reason for this is that there is a 4x increase in transversal velocity (and a corresponding drop in effective DPS) in the range that blaster ships are supposed to kick ass and take names.
Quote:
You are saying "my blaster mega cant hit another BS in blaster range". I therefor have to ask if the other turreted BS can hit you at that range.
Actually, yes, they can. This comes from the way the damage formula works.
Quote:
And sure a pulse BS can hit BCs and BS at 10-40km range. They are mid range BS. Now the mega is short range blaster or sniping rails.
Any time a Mega fits rails for any purpose other than 160km sniping, it's just trying to be a pitiful imitation of a pulse boat. Sad thing is that any time it fits rails for 160km sniping, it's trying to be a pitiful imitation of a beam boat.
Quote:
Mega can fit full tackle and do more dps then a geddon.
EXCEPT THAT IT DOES NOT. The only way that a Mega is going to be dealing it's "magical" amount of DPS is under an extensively webbed target... except that webs are tracking nerfed and about the best that you can do with an arbitrary amount of webs is the equivalent of one modern day web.
Thus, the Mega will never hit its magical monstrous DPS that is claimed... yet the Geddon actually will.
Quote:
Geddon can hit farther out but has gimped mid slots. Abaddon has gimped cap but also consider, its a tier 3 bs. The hyperion can fit dual webs. It looks fine to me tbh.
See above where I said that if you can't find something to complain about because it sucks so badly that you'll contrive near falsehoods to justify it being fine? Perfect example. Go read the OP again.
Quote:
Just because alot of people in eve gear towards midrange does not mean your ships are broken. You need to train accordingly.
Actually, it's not just that people are training long range combat - it's that CCP is making deliberate design decisions to encourage it. The ships are broken.
Quote:
You can twist words all you like, megas and hypes are still very viable solo and small gang battleships.
Lyria, you can twist words and lie all you want, but it doesn't change the incontrovertible fact that solo BS combat is all but gone from Eve and won't be coming back... and it's already been shown that a small gang benefits far more from high DPS mid ranged BS's than it does high DPS close range BS's.
You have no legs to stand on here, Lyria. Go away, troll.
-Liang
--
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 20:30:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
You propose they change the whole race and their weapons to fit the combat style of the month? Its not really what they did to fix amarr. Amarr now just happens to be favored by the combat style currently dominating eve. It wont last forever. How would you change the races every time the players change the way combat is executed?
I'd start by not overboosting one race and then overnerfing the others so that there is no choice in how to be efficient and effective in PVP.
-Liang
--
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 20:42:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 20:42:38
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Lyria, you can twist words and lie all you want, but it doesn't change the incontrovertible fact that solo BS combat is all but gone from Eve and won't be coming back... and it's already been shown that a small gang benefits far more from high DPS mid ranged BS's than it does high DPS close range BS's.
Speak for yourself, just because you cant solo doesnt mean there arent people out there soloing. Actually there are quite alot of people soloing and doing small gang low sec stuff with battleships like hyperions.
Im pretty much done with you anyway. If you cant discuss without making up stuff, exaggerating and insulting you can go troll by yourself. Putting your name in the end of a post doesnt make it more valid.
-----------------------------------------
[Video] Support Barrage |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 20:49:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Speak for yourself, just because you cant solo doesnt mean there arent people out there soloing. Actually there are quite alot of people soloing and doing small gang low sec stuff with battleships like hyperions.
And battleships like Geddons and Ravens too. Hell, people solo in Caracals, Punishers, and Retributions. Eve is full of stupid people... that doesn't mean that we should cripple those that aren't.
Quote:
Im pretty much done with you anyway. If you cant discuss without making up stuff, exaggerating and insulting you can go troll by yourself. Putting your name in the end of a post doesnt make it more valid.
Good riddance. Let me know if you ever decide to post constructively again. It's rather nice when you do.
-Liang
--
|
Shosoru
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 20:54:00 -
[131]
I disagree with this guide.
One douse not just fly gallente, one needs to know how to fly and warp or one is lost. If one doesn't know how to fly, one shall fly caldary.
------------------------------
WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape |
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:27:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 24/09/2008 21:28:01
Originally by: Liang Nuren
The reason for this is that there is a 4x increase in transversal velocity (and a corresponding drop in effective DPS) in the range that blaster ships are supposed to kick ass and take names.
For those who were wondering:
Target webbed with 90% web = 10% original velocity
Target webbed with 60% web = 40% original velocity
That means that ships will be moving 4x faster with a single web on them, all other factors being equal. If they're orbiting you, that means their angular velocity will be about 4x higher, so they'll be about 4x harder to hit with guns.
However, all other factors are rarely equal and this case is no exception. Many ships will be moving more slowly after the nerf so there is some degree of compensation to offset the reduced web speeds. But they won't be going 4x slower so although a 4x increase in angular velocity is something of an overstatement, it's still looking pretty bad for blaster ships unless they get a goodly boost to tracking and/or damage. I won't even start on actually getting into blaster range without warping in right on top of your target.
I can't really comment on Minmatar ships/weapons since I don't fly them extensively, but it seems like they'll be having many of the same issues as their Gallente allies.
--------------------
"I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:30:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Shosoru
Liang Nuren < thee douse not know how to fly, one shall not listen to Liang Nuren for thee has no clue. Thee needs to learn, thee needs to stop being so ignorant, thee needs to think about what people say to thee and be willing to change thee's mined. If thee failles, thee shall be nothing more then pray.
Ok. Come find me in Metro lowsec and see if I don't know how to fly. I'll even do you a favor and fly one of those horrible Gallente ships I keep complaining about. :)
-Liang
--
|
Shosoru
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:41:00 -
[134]
bronson , if targets get webbed to 60% you still have better tracking then all non missile boats in on on on. a missile boat usually doesn't fit a web so you are faster then it and can control the fight (in 1 on 1) and move according to his movements to reduce your angular velocity a bit. You can engage at 0 km and bath ships cant do much damage (the stupid hole even affects missiles iirc) you'd still have the better drones (perhaps can't brake the tank tho). You can simply fly away, your way faster. You can fit some web drones, a loss in total dps but it would boost your turret dps(drones can be shot T_T). If your not solo you can double web.
------------------------------
WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape |
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:44:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Shosoru
Edited by: Shosoru on 24/09/2008 21:09:09
I disagree with this guide.
One douse not just fly gallente, one needs to know how to fly and warp or one is lost. If one doesn't know how to fly, one shall fly caldary.
Liang Nuren < thee douse not know how to fly, one shall not listen to Liang Nuren for thee has no clue. Thee needs to learn, thee needs to stop being so ignorant, thee needs to think about what people say to thee and be willing to change thee's mined. If thee failles, thee shall be nothing more then pray.
Oh dear Hell, it's even possible to read his stupidity...
Either way, I'm wondering whether if improving the tracking on blasters would satisfy people, if it's mostly the web-nerf you are complaining about. As is, they are about 25% better in that area than pulse lasers. One could add another 25%...
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:45:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Shosoru
the stupid hole even affects missiles iirc
You don't.
-Liang
--
|
AstroPhobic
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:46:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Shosoru
bronson , if targets get webbed to 60% you still have better tracking then all non missile boats in on on on. a missile boat usually doesn't fit a web so you are faster then it and can control the fight (in 1 on 1) and move according to his movements to reduce your angular velocity a bit. You can engage at 0 km and bath ships cant do much damage (the stupid hole even affects missiles iirc) you'd still have the better drones (perhaps can't brake the tank tho). You can simply fly away, your way faster. You can fit some web drones, a loss in total dps but it would boost your turret dps(drones can be shot T_T). If your not solo you can double web.
CHOO CHOO.
Choo Choo.
choo choo.
choooo...
Did you hear that? That was the clue train. It went right past you. Please refrain from posting.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:46:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Aleus Stygian
Oh dear Hell, it's even possible to read his stupidity...
Either way, I'm wondering whether if improving the tracking on blasters would satisfy people, if it's mostly the web-nerf you are complaining about. As is, they are about 25% better in that area than pulse lasers. One could add another 25%...
See, that's exactly the point of this thread. Now that you see the problem with the web nerf, go read the OP again.
-Liang
--
|
Shosoru
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:48:00 -
[139]
Aleus Stygian are you sure you quoted the right post ? i am the one how seas that blasters have best tracking.
------------------------------
WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape |
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:54:00 -
[140]
Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 24/09/2008 21:54:49
Originally by: Aleus Stygian
Either way, I'm wondering whether if improving the tracking on blasters would satisfy people, if it's mostly the web-nerf you are complaining about. As is, they are about 25% better in that area than pulse lasers. One could add another 25%...
True, base tracking on Blasters is about 25% better than on the corresponding Pulse Laser (give or take, I'm not quibbling over exact numbers), but the optimal range on Pulse lasers is often about 200% greater than the optimal on Blasters. Let's look at an example:
Neutron Blaster Cannon II:
Tracking: 0.0433 rad/sec
Optimal Range: 7200m
Ideal Traverseral At Optimal: 311 m/s
Mega Pulse Laser II:
Tracking: 0.03375 rad/sec
Optimal Range: 24000m
Ideal Traversal At Optimal: 810 m/s
Falloff is about the same for both systems listed, Signature Resolution is the same. This is just one example, but the general relationship holds.
To put it bluntly, Pulse Lasers can handle a target orbiting almost 3x faster than Blasters can. And this is right now, before the upcoming web nerf. This needs to be looked at in a big way before webs get changed or Blaster ships are going to be just about useless.
COMEDY EDIT:
Originally by: AstroPhobic
CHOO CHOO.
Choo Choo.
choo choo.
choooo...
Did you hear that? That was the clue train. It went right past you. Please refrain from posting.
Oh good lord man, you win the Internet for today. 
--------------------
"I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:58:00 -
[141]
Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 24/09/2008 22:01:39
Originally by: Liang Nuren
See, that's exactly the point of this thread. Now that you see the problem with the web nerf, go read the OP again.
-Liang
I was wondering whether if that was going to be sufficient. And in my eyes it would be, after having seen Ranises and Throns at work. Perhaps together with just the slightest addition to blasters' range.
Also, a possibility would be to allow bonuses that aid MWDing assault ships in using afterburners to greater effect, when there's hopefully going to be less swooping around the place from non-frigate vessels. I am one of those rare few people who rejoice at this, and personally I want to see the Mandatory Warp Drive taken down to the same level as the rest of the equipment around, and Afterburners gaining some PvP use at last. If you could give a maneuverability/hit-and-run boost to these blaster boats, allowing them to effectively execute hit-and-run strikes and escape from tackles, they'd gain a new level of use.
Actually, I had thought of burner-fitting quite a few ships and see how well they do at escaping point after finding themselves in over their heads. But, as long as there's no standing bonus, I guess that a whole lot of pilots will ignore this ability in their ships. And a lot of people will probably cry 'cheap!'. I though, prefer it over the usual nano***gotry. If you have to get up close it's a lot more ballsy...
|
Shosoru
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 22:09:00 -
[142]
Quote:
To put it bluntly, Pulse Lasers can handle a target orbiting almost 3x faster than Blasters can. And this is right now, before the upcoming web nerf. This needs to be looked at in a big way before webs get changed or Blaster ships are going to be just about useless.
Your numbers are correct but if a blaster ship is in his optimal it has 25% better tracking then the lazer ship. Lets follow your logic, after your logic the best weapons in game are the long range railguns artillery etc cos those can handle ships orbiting them at 250km that fly ~30 times as fast as the ship in your lazer example.
now don't get me wrong a free tracking boost id not say no but the facts are, if your in your range you have better tracking and more control. if not then tracking wont do you any good anyways. I even think that weber's now days make it a slight bit harder for me to get into optimal.
------------------------------
WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 22:11:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Speak for yourself, just because you cant solo doesnt mean there arent people out there soloing. Actually there are quite alot of people soloing and doing small gang low sec stuff with battleships like hyperions.
Im pretty much done with you anyway. If you cant discuss without making up stuff, exaggerating and insulting you can go troll by yourself. Putting your name in the end of a post doesnt make it more valid.
Oh FFS, would you please drop this strawman? The issue is not "it's impossible to solo", it's "two entire races are focused around solo fights to the extent that they can't do anything else, and the metagame is against solo fights". It doesn't matter if you can find a solo fight occasionally, and even do well in it, if two entire races are forced into an increasinly narrow niche role.
And could you also make up your mind about whether solo PvP is dead or not? Here you claim it's alive and working just fine, in the Falcon thread you whine about how it's dead and there's no way to do it anymore. You can't have it both ways.
|
Shosoru
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 22:18:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Shosoru on 24/09/2008 22:22:02
So you see no use in gallente nor minmatar ships in fleet pvp but caldary with 50km range and 30 second flying missiles are better. huh
Quote:
The difference here is long range weapons are a significant damage drop from pulse lasers, while pulse lasers are only a very slight damage drop from blasters. Please actually look at a tracking/damage graph sometime.
no you don't see that if you fly a blaster boat you are in the range or not and if your in it you do moar damage. Puls have their use no doubt but this is about damage. Puls less damage and less tracking vs a say megathron that isn't "stationary" or cant web so good is more dps. thats why gallente ships have all those midslots for tackle so that they can bend the situation to their will if possible.
Tell me m8 what fleet sise are you talking about in the first place if its not solo and not gang and not big fleet
------------------------------
WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 22:21:00 -
[145]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 24/09/2008 22:21:00
Originally by: Shosoru
So you see no use in gallente nor minmatar ships in fleet pvp but caldary with 50km range and 30 second flying missiles are better. huh
Gallente and Minmatar ships are useful in fleet combat in the same way that a pocket knife is useful in a sword fight. You know, if you got nothing else handy...
-Liang
--
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 22:21:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Shosoru
So you see no use in gallente nor minmatar ships in fleet pvp but caldary with 50km range and 30 second flying missiles are better. huh
And this is why you need to look at the numbers before making stupid posts. The only range where missiles have a 30 second flight time is 250km. At 50km, the flight time is around 5 seconds, less time than a Minmatar/Gallente ship will take to MWD in range. The flight time issue is really pretty much irrelevant, if you know how to use missile ships properly.
But, since you clearly don't, I'll leave you to your delusions.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 22:23:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Bronson Hughes
True, base tracking on Blasters is about 25% better than on the corresponding Pulse Laser (give or take, I'm not quibbling over exact numbers), but the optimal range on Pulse lasers is often about 200% greater than the optimal on Blasters. Let's look at an example:
Neutron Blaster Cannon II:
Tracking: 0.0433 rad/sec
Optimal Range: 7200m
Ideal Traverseral At Optimal: 311 m/s
Mega Pulse Laser II:
Tracking: 0.03375 rad/sec
Optimal Range: 24000m
Ideal Traversal At Optimal: 810 m/s
Falloff is about the same for both systems listed, Signature Resolution is the same. This is just one example, but the general relationship holds.
To put it bluntly, Pulse Lasers can handle a target orbiting almost 3x faster than Blasters can. And this is right now, before the upcoming web nerf. This needs to be looked at in a big way before webs get changed or Blaster ships are going to be just about useless.
CONTENT EDIT:
I'm not suggesting that Blasters be able to handle the same traversal at optimal that Pulse Lasers can; that would be crazy given that any ship orbiting at that range will be going more slowly because maneuverability is not perfect. They just need some 'Oomph'.
You make a very good and valid point. Note though that you're illustrating this with an example that takes place far out of web range, and more importantly, scrambler range. Sure, a lot of people don't have warp stabs. But a lot others do. And since any good blaster pilot likes to stick within at most six clicks, not to mention the optimal on Heavy Neutrons for those real, Cruiser-class assault boats is three km... See what I'm getting at?
Blasters were made for the fast, hard, risky life inside point range. Let's make them good enough to be viable there, if they aren't already. And, as Merlin said, let's direct the metagame away from punishing ships that live within that range...
|
Shosoru
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 22:28:00 -
[148]
Quote:
I'll leave you to your delusions.
ima gona go to bead. Thee refuses to see, so thee is just pray.
------------------------------
WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape |
Brother Nightfall
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 23:04:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Bronson Hughes
Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 24/09/2008 21:28:01
Originally by: Liang Nuren
The reason for this is that there is a 4x increase in transversal velocity (and a corresponding drop in effective DPS) in the range that blaster ships are supposed to kick ass and take names.
For those who were wondering:
Target webbed with 90% web = 10% original velocity
Target webbed with 60% web = 40% original velocity
That means that ships will be moving 4x faster with a single web on them, all other factors being equal. If they're orbiting you, that means their angular velocity will be about 4x higher, so they'll be about 4x harder to hit with guns.
However, all other factors are rarely equal and this case is no exception. Many ships will be moving more slowly after the nerf so there is some degree of compensation to offset the reduced web speeds. But they won't be going 4x slower so although a 4x increase in angular velocity is something of an overstatement, it's still looking pretty bad for blaster ships unless they get a goodly boost to tracking and/or damage. I won't even start on actually getting into blaster range without warping in right on top of your target.
I can't really comment on Minmatar ships/weapons since I don't fly them extensively, but it seems like they'll be having many of the same issues as their Gallente allies.
Hmmm, the 4x increase in tranversal velocity point seems flawed, due to the fact that it doesn't take into account the upcoming MWD-disabling effect of warp scrams. 40% of non-MWD speed is lower than 10% of MWD speed, so things will actually get better for blaster boats in this specific respect.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 23:05:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Brother Nightfall
Hmmm, the 4x increase in tranversal velocity point seems flawed, due to the fact that it doesn't take into account the upcoming MWD-disabling effect of warp scrams. 40% of non-MWD speed is lower than 10% of MWD speed, so things will actually get better for blaster boats in this specific respect.
And here I was thinking that people were already taking that into account. In retrospect though, Nightfall's point may very well stand nonetheless, seeing some of the comments made... 
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |