EVE Search - Linky post for Devs re: Blasters

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Linky post for Devs re: Blasters

» 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)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:32:00 - [61] Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:34:50 Originally by: Gabriel Karade Originally by: Goumindong Ahh, personal attacks, what would we ever do without them. It's a statement of a fact, he got it wrong. Its an ad hominem. Its an "argument" where you claim the other person is wrong because of some other unrelated information about him. Whether or not the accusation is true doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not you are making the argument that the other guys argument is wrong because of it. Note: Tangentially it is not an ad hominem, because tangentially it is just a statement. But this is no tangential issue, the central crux of your argument is that he is wrong because he previously made a mistake. Take your weak ass ad hominem **** elsewhere.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:35:00 - [62] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Gabriel Karade Did I mention about making the Apocalypse OTT? But like I said, it's not just Pulses, Torpedoes do absurd damage compared to Blasters these days. Both Pulse and Torpedoes make blasters a poor choice in a gang role, and if CCP don't want a solo Blaster role where do they fit in? Oh and finally, I'd really really like to see a dev comment on the tracking formula flaw... Man what? Read that again and tell me it makes a logical argument. I dare you. Blasters are a poor choice for gangs, because pulse and torps do near enough the same 'paper DPS' and more 'real DPS' because of the time spent MWD'ing to the target. But that's ok, because they have a solo niche, oh wait, no they don't anymore, so what role are they supposed to play?
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:36:00 - [63] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Strill Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl Do your graphs with Null and Scorch. Cos with these new acceleration and speed, there's no way your blaster mega or hype is going to be getting effective range for antimatter. Now multiply this problem tenfold in a gang situation since before at least your MWD will get you into range quickly. http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=graphswitht2ammogw0.png If you'd like, here's the spreadsheet I used to calculate this stuff...although I made it in openoffice, so I'm not sure if it'll export to excel ok. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0810/single-sheet.zip You did something wrong, the optimal range on an Apoc with scorch is about 60km with no tracking mods. You're dropping off about 34km, which says to me something is wrong. you're right. I fixed it.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:37:00 - [64] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Blasters are a poor choice for gangs, because pulse and torps do near enough the same 'paper DPS' and more 'real DPS' because of the time spent MWD'ing to the target. But that's ok, because they have a solo niche, oh wait, no they don't anymore, so what role are they supposed to play? A = B B = C Therefore D = E That pulses and blasters are better for gangs[they always have been, and pretty much should be] is unrelated to the conclusion, which was that blaster are suddenly useless as gang size decreases.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:39:00 - [65] Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:39:32 Originally by: Strill you're right. I fixed it. Did you update the hosted image?? Also can you pop out some graphs of say, the Geddon vs Mega/Hpy with the web?[drones and damage type unnecessary, though it would be helpful]
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:40:00 - [66] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:34:50 Originally by: Gabriel Karade Originally by: Goumindong Ahh, personal attacks, what would we ever do without them. It's a statement of a fact, he got it wrong. Its an ad hominem. Its an "argument" where you claim the other person is wrong because of some other unrelated information about him. Whether or not the accusation is true doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not you are making the argument that the other guys argument is wrong because of it. Note: Tangentially it is not an ad hominem, because tangentially it is just a statement. But this is no tangential issue, the central crux of your argument is that he is wrong because he previously made a mistake. Take your weak ass ad hominem **** elsewhere. I'm not arguing with Zulupark, I'm arguing with lyria. According to Lyria using the base numbers from the database is 'faulty' because he/she can come up with one example where the hit chance is roughly the same. And, that somehow Zuluparks comments in the blog support Lyria's argument. So get off your high horse.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:43:00 - [67] Originally by: Gabriel Karade I'm not arguing with Zulupark, I'm arguing with lyria. According to Lyria using the base numbers from the database is 'faulty' because he/she can come up with one example where the hit chance is roughly the same. And, that somehow Zuluparks comments in the blog support Lyria's argument. So get off your high horse. No, according to Lyria, the results based on the numbers from the database are faulty because the actual math and realistic situations does not bear out the results provided, the situation presented was an example of said fault. Zuluparks comments as supporting are an argument to authority of the non-fallacy type. Now that does not mean that Zulupark should be taken at his word, but it does mean that he or Lyria isn't wrong because of the ad hominem you are slinging.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:48:00 - [68] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Gabriel Karade Blasters are a poor choice for gangs, because pulse and torps do near enough the same 'paper DPS' and more 'real DPS' because of the time spent MWD'ing to the target. But that's ok, because they have a solo niche, oh wait, no they don't anymore, so what role are they supposed to play? A = B B = C Therefore D = E That pulses and blasters are better for gangs[they always have been, and pretty much should be] is unrelated to the conclusion, which was that blaster are suddenly useless as gang size decreases. a) Unable to hit an unfit, webbed T1 cruiser at all (Sisi testing). b) Top speed drastically cut, increased time on target, increased damage taken. c) Scramblers shutting down MWD preventing you from getting to the target. I'm not saying you should hit a cruiser for full damage, or that you should hit a frigate, but cutting the effective tracking in four?
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:49:00 - [69] Edited by: Strill on 24/10/2008 07:56:03 Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:39:32 Originally by: Strill you're right. I fixed it. Did you update the hosted image?? Also can you pop out some graphs of say, the Geddon vs Mega/Hpy with the web?[drones and damage type unnecessary, though it would be helpful] I edited my original post. Here's the mega and hype graphs vs geddons with webs included. http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=megaandhypevsgeddonrd1.png Oh ya, and fyi these graphs are for a single turret installed on either of these ships. So they don't take into account slot layout.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:51:00 - [70] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Gabriel Karade I'm not arguing with Zulupark, I'm arguing with lyria. According to Lyria using the base numbers from the database is 'faulty' because he/she can come up with one example where the hit chance is roughly the same. And, that somehow Zuluparks comments in the blog support Lyria's argument. So get off your high horse. No, according to Lyria, the results based on the numbers from the database are faulty because the actual math and realistic situations does not bear out the results provided, the situation presented was an example of said fault. Zuluparks comments as supporting are an argument to authority of the non-fallacy type. Now that does not mean that Zulupark should be taken at his word, but it does mean that he or Lyria isn't wrong because of the ad hominem you are slinging. Are you saying shooting an Ab'ing Battlecruiser is a more realistic situation than plugging in the numbers into the tracking guide for shooting at a Battleship (as I did in the other thread)? Because according to Lyria, that latter example is 'faulty'.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:52:00 - [71] Originally by: Gabriel Karade a) Unable to hit an unfit, webbed T1 cruiser at all (Sisi testing). b) Top speed drastically cut, increased time on target, increased damage taken. c) Scramblers shutting down MWD preventing you from getting to the target. I'm not saying you should hit a cruiser for full damage, or that you should hit a frigate, but cutting the effective tracking in four? A) Drones: They indeed exist, also try aggressive maneuvering. It works, seriously. I do it all the time. B) It also means faster ships take longer to leave your reach. If the engagement is starting close this is, more or less a non-factor. C). Which have, aside from inties and gallente specific recons, a max range of 9km. Which means they are within 4km of your optimal range and under 1/4 of your falloff. Indeed, they are actually pretty close to your optimal to hit numbers. Damn those dastardly enemies sitting at my optimal to hit distance and not allowing me to close!
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:57:00 - [72] Originally by: Goumindong A) Drones: They indeed exist, also try aggressive maneuvering. It works, seriously. I do it all the time. The test involved moving the mega as much as its pilot possibly could.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 08:01:00 - [73] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Gabriel Karade a) Unable to hit an unfit, webbed T1 cruiser at all (Sisi testing). b) Top speed drastically cut, increased time on target, increased damage taken. c) Scramblers shutting down MWD preventing you from getting to the target. I'm not saying you should hit a cruiser for full damage, or that you should hit a frigate, but cutting the effective tracking in four? A) Drones: They indeed exist, also try aggressive maneuvering. It works, seriously. I do it all the time. B) It also means faster ships take longer to leave your reach. If the engagement is starting close this is, more or less a non-factor. C). Which have, aside from inties and gallente specific recons, a max range of 9km. Which means they are within 4km of your optimal range and under 1/4 of your falloff. Indeed, they are actually pretty close to your optimal to hit numbers. Damn those dastardly enemies sitting at my optimal to hit distance and not allowing me to close! a) I'm no wet-behind-the-ears pilot, during the test I maneuvered to minimise transversal, with the assumption the MWD is shut down so you can't 'tickle' it to pull some range on the target. The only hits landed were wrecking hits (see link to test.)Drones, yes, now replace that T1 un-fit cruiser with something tanked and shooting down drones. b) Think more of the consequences of that 20km dash to that torpedo Raven. c) I was refering more to a situation of 2 vs 2 or other small gang fights. The Blasterboat is taken out of the fight right away (can't get into range), while medium range boats can continue to fire on their target due to their range advantage. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 08:34:00 - [74] The (in my mind) most important thing to come out of the other thread was the constructive suggestions on how to modify the tracking formula to account for size vs. distance. I'd really like to know what Fendahl/Nozh think of that, as there is a hole in the current tracking formula that 90% webs largely covered up.
Solomon XI Hoist The Colors. Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.10.24 08:53:00 - [75] They don't care. Isn't it obvious? They don't give a damn what their player-base says. *** ~Solo Hoist The Colors. (CEO) Pirate Coalition (Yar?)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 14:22:00 - [76] Originally by: Strill Originally by: Goumindong A) Drones: They indeed exist, also try aggressive maneuvering. It works, seriously. I do it all the time. The test involved moving the mega as much as its pilot possibly could. Then the target should have died right quickly, when it was attempting to close or when the drones ripped it apart or when you maneuvered its transversal down. Re: The graphs. So the graph shows that you have a huge RAW DPS advantage under 12km shooting at high transversal targets. I don't see the problem.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 16:05:00 - [77] Once a cruiser gets in close you simply can't reduce the transversal enough to land a hit (assuming you are scrambled and can't MWD). Remember, this was a totally unfitted Stabber. No afterburners/tracking disrupters/tank/drone defence (i.e. shoot them) used. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 16:20:00 - [78] Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 16:20:30 Originally by: Gabriel Karade Once a cruiser gets in close you simply can't reduce the transversal enough to land a hit (assuming you are scrambled and can't MWD). Remember, this was a totally unfitted Stabber. No afterburners/tracking disrupters/tank/drone defence (i.e. shoot them) used. So, what you're saying is that the smallest and fastest cruiser should be destroyed by battleship guns even if it makes 20km through enough DPS to kill it in 4-10 seconds while ignoring the other advantages like tank, drones, and neuts that the smaller ship has? Also you're lying. Because an unfit stabber is not faster than a MWDing BS. It has to have at least an AB and scrambler to not get out-maneuvered.[and not have them shut off by a neut, and not killed by drones]
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 20:37:00 - [79] Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 24/10/2008 20:37:14 Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 16:20:30 Originally by: Gabriel Karade Once a cruiser gets in close you simply can't reduce the transversal enough to land a hit (assuming you are scrambled and can't MWD). Remember, this was a totally unfitted Stabber. No afterburners/tracking disrupters/tank/drone defence (i.e. shoot them) used. So, what you're saying is that the smallest and fastest cruiser should be destroyed by battleship guns even if it makes 20km through enough DPS to kill it in 4-10 seconds while ignoring the other advantages like tank, drones, and neuts that the smaller ship has? Also you're lying. Because an unfit stabber is not faster than a MWDing BS. It has to have at least an AB and scrambler to not get out-maneuvered.[and not have them shut off by a neut, and not killed by drones] Excuse me? Where did I say an unfit stabber is faster? I said in the test the assumption was the MWD on the blasterboat was shut down by a scrambler, infact on the second test run the stabber was module-less apart from said scrambler. Yes, a cruiser should not be 100% immune to close range Battleship guns, particulary those that have only a 3.375km optimal range. No it shouldn't recieve full damage, in fact the numbers generated by the suggested fix to the tracking formula where around 30% which is reasonable.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.10.24 21:04:00 - [80] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Gabriel Karade Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 23/10/2008 21:45:34 Why not list some of my calculations that show how exaggerated and faulty all that data is? It's basically propaganda. CCP is not falling for it you know, they can actually do their own calculations and get real and accurate results instead. Show me where it's faulty. There is nothing exaggerated about the live fire test, there is nothing exaggerated about the hit chance plots (they use the formula the game engine uses), there is nothing exaggerated about the flaw in the tracking formula. There is nothing exaggerated about the closing of the DPS gap between Blasters/Torps/Pulses. In short put up or shut up. I'll quote myself from the other thread: "Blaster mega/Pulse geddon (both using t1 short range ammo) Sig rad: 400/400 Optimal: 4500/15000 Fall off: 12500/10000 Tracking: 0.07442/0.04219 Target is a Abing BC 265 sig 400m/s speed Result is: 1. The maximum hit chance occurs at 11.45km range for the blaster and is 57%. 2. The maximum hit chance occurs at 18.36km range for the pulse and is 61% 3. As you can clearly see the max hit chance on a weapon that has high fall off occurs much farther away from its optimal. 4. Now if you look at the graph and apply your faulty logic by comparing the hit chances in respective optimal, ie 4500m for the blaster and 15000m for the pulse, you can obviously see why this gives a totally wrong picture of the blaster performance. 5. Also take into consideration that a BC will have to have a slower transversal in a tighter orbit wich will favor the graph towards the blaster. Wich means approximately that they have the same max performance according to their range and are range_vs_tracking balanced." Another quote on why alot of your graphs and comparisons are faulty: "Don't make a fool out of yourself. Maximum hit chance (wich is what is important) for a certain target with a certain transversal is NOT at optimal. It is somewhere betweem optimal and optimal+fall off. If you have a [insert any gun ship] firing at a [insert any ship] with a certain transversal your hitchance as a function of distance will have a maximum BETWEEN your guns optimal range and optimal+fall off. Why? Because the hit chance reduction past optimal is only slight to begin with, wich means that you benefit more from the reduced angular velocity of your target then you lose tracking by being in fall off. If you do not understand this you should really LOOK at the graphs available in the tracking guide. You obviously STILL are oblivious of tracking mechanics. Read up and then come back. Kthxbai." So, short answer: No you can't have 4 mid megas with almost pulse ranges. no that I am defending the blaster camp ... but I will run this down ... highest hit chance is 51% at 11.45km for blasters, means optimal+53.7% falloff highets hit chance is 61% at 18.36 for pulse, means optimal+41.4% falloff from my point of view, the blaster has to do at least 10% better damage to close the gap. also it is deeper in falloff, meaning worse hit quality which widens the gap. further, this is counting on a tracking bonused blaster ship vs a non-tracking bonused pulse ship. yet the tracking bonused blaster ship has worse highest hit chance ... care to run the numbers for a Domi with blasters ? --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !

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.