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)
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.11 12:27:00 - [1] Ok so that thread bloated quite a bit and I guess you guys don't want to wade through it all, so here's relevent links to 'technical' bits and bobs. One of the things a number of us are curious about is, are you actively looking into the tracking formula while you are tinkering with the missile damage formula? Originally by: Gabriel Karade Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 19/08/2008 16:45:38 Quick summary and links to detailed posts with numbers, will add to as I find them: Comparison of effective tracking of different turrets, courtesy Gabriel, post #308 EFT plot of DPS for different Battleships post patch, courtesy Bellum, post #345. Hit chance, Megathron vs Ishtar courtesy Liang, post #356 Different Battleships DPS vs same target, courtesy Markas, post #368 Live fire test, zero-fit stabber vs Megathron, courtesy Gabriel, post #424 and 428 TQ vs Sisi distance vs time curves for a Megathron, courtesy Marn, post #453, plus afterburner bonus to blasterships numbers, Gabriel, post #456. Maple plots of hit quality for Megathron, Tempest and Armageddon, courtesy Grytok, post #471 and 477 Plots of hit quality on same scale, courtesy Grytok. post #487. Signature resolution reduction for short range turrets to mimic size vs distance, courtesy Gabriel, post #498 Page detailed to modification of tracking formula to account for size vs. distance, including linear and log variations with hit % numbers, post #511, 513, 525, 531, 536, 537, courtesy of Liang/Gabriel Detailed plots of modifcation using variations of falloff + optimal, courtesy Liang, post #452 p.s I think the tracking modification is superb, it makes 'falloff' work at both ends of the scale. p.p.s Devs, how is it possible to say 'no' to this face?... Cheers, Gabriel -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Fullmetal Jackass	Posted - 2008.10.11 13:35:00 - [2] Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 11/10/2008 13:44:49 Originally by: Gabriel Karade Plots of hit quality on same scale, courtesy Grytok. post #487. Signature resolution reduction for short range turrets to mimic size vs distance, courtesy Gabriel, post #498 Ya know, I thought it was the idea of reducing the web strength so that it wasn't insta death for smaller ship vs larger ship? So a cruiser can orbit inside webrange and not be insta popped by large guns? Working as intended I say. Does a BS not have drones? No missiles? Can't fit a neut? Smart bombs? Edit: I know someone cited the ishtar as bein able to defeat smart bomb by lauching more heavy drones. Maybe the issue there is a HAS using a bonused battleship class weapon as it's primary damage? Or did I totally miss the point of the graphs?
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.11 13:41:00 - [3] There's a huge difference between 'insta death' and 'total immunity', somewhere in the middle is desirable. But more importantly the tracking formula question... -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Fullmetal Jackass	Posted - 2008.10.11 13:46:00 - [4] well yeah, I'm not sayin the numbers are perfect yet, or that the patch is ready for live, but I rather like the direction the devs are tryin to take for the most part.
Solomon XI Hoist The Colors. Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.10.11 14:14:00 - [5] Yeah ... the Dev's didn't even discuss blasters during the LDB (which was fail in it's own right). ~Solo Hoist The Colors. (CEO) Pirate Coalition (Yar?)
Iog Krugar The Rising Stars Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.10.11 14:47:00 - [6] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass well yeah, I'm not sayin the numbers are perfect yet, or that the patch is ready for live, but I rather like the direction the devs are tryin to take for the most part. so do i, but the numbers presented make a very strong case to something being way out of proportion --- i suposse everyone rolls around stations in pods
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.13 14:02:00 - [7] Back up you go matey. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2008.10.13 15:00:00 - [8] Edited by: lebrata on 13/10/2008 15:04:48 I am a little confused to why the orbital range and speed of a cruiser or any other small ship vs a BS in regards to tanking is significant considering that 1 v 1 is massively rare and that in a gang fight a ship can hardly be at close range(under the tracking so to speak) of ALL of the hostile ships?.
Miriyaka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.13 15:45:00 - [9] Originally by: lebrata Edited by: lebrata on 13/10/2008 15:04:48 I am a little confused to why the orbital range and speed of a cruiser or any other small ship vs a BS in regards to tanking is significant considering that 1 v 1 is massively rare and that in a gang fight a ship can hardly be at close range(under the tracking so to speak) of ALL of the hostile ships?. Blaster ships (battleships in particular) are one of the last bastions of solo PVP in Eve. The Megathron and Hyperion are better than the Raven at exactly one thing right now, and that is 1v2-5 against smaller ships. Take that away, and the Raven becomes the undisputed king of short-range combat, while the Rokh is the undisputed king of hybrid sniping. That leaves the Megathron and Hyperion where, exactly? I don't fly battleships often, but I'm as confused as anyone as to why battleship speed, tracking, and tackling capability is being reduced to negligible levels along with T2 cruisers et al.
RedSplat	Posted - 2008.10.13 16:20:00 - [10] Devs have demonstrated, to me at least, that they either dont pvp or simply arent interested in player feedback. I would love for someone to prove me wrong and to see a dev post giving thier PERSONAL views on the matter.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.13 17:01:00 - [11] Originally by: lebrata Edited by: lebrata on 13/10/2008 15:04:48 I am a little confused to why the orbital range and speed of a cruiser or any other small ship vs a BS in regards to tanking is significant considering that 1 v 1 is massively rare and that in a gang fight a ship can hardly be at close range(under the tracking so to speak) of ALL of the hostile ships?. In regards to tanking?? I'm pointing out post-changes cruisers have effective invulnerability to short range Blaster Battleships; they can choose to keep out of range or dive in under the turrets, and with the other changes (speed, scramblers) Blaster Battleships are completely worthless (medium range Battleships have comparable real dps at much more effective engagement ranges once tracking/falloff are involved). -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.10.13 21:28:00 - [12] Gabe, you forgot to mention that "mid range" battleships have no problems whatsoever with tracking cruisers in their engagement range... why should blasters be any different? -Liang --
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.10.14 02:20:00 - [13] I give this thread a friendly bump because I hope the devs will take notice and because I don't want to see blasterships be next to worthless soon.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.10.14 08:42:00 - [14] Nice summary. <bump> Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.14 17:31:00 - [15] Nope, Back up you go. Too much good input linked for it to languish on page 2. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
doctorstupid2 The Accursed	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:18:00 - [16] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Edit: I know someone cited the ishtar as bein able to defeat smart bomb by lauching more heavy drones. Maybe the issue there is a HAS using a bonused battleship class weapon as it's primary damage? Or did I totally miss the point of the graphs? Since when exactly is there anything battleship-class about heavy drones? It's certainly not their DPS, what exactly is so battleshippy about them? Abusive \| Deadspace \| Deadspace2
Daan Sai Polytrope	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:59:00 - [17] The sig res of their guns is larger than medium turrets.
doctorstupid2 The Accursed	Posted - 2008.10.15 02:01:00 - [18] Originally by: Daan Sai The sig res of their guns is larger than medium turrets. Is not. 125 meter resolution for all heavy drones and medium guns. Try again. Abusive \| Deadspace \| Deadspace2
Sgt Napalm Synergy Evolved	Posted - 2008.10.15 03:23:00 - [19] Good cliff notes
Vengal Seyhan Sten Industries	Posted - 2008.10.15 11:24:00 - [20] Originally by: doctorstupid2 Originally by: Daan Sai The sig res of their guns is larger than medium turrets. Is not. 125 meter resolution for all heavy drones and medium guns. Try again. You can also note the favoured targets that the AI assigns to drones in PVE. Sentry drones favour battleships. Heavy drones favour battlecruisers and then cruisers. Maybe not intentional, but telling nonetheless :D ..you know, if I were writing drone AI to find the best target I'd say something like: Check : Valid target? (Has it fired on the owner or designated guardian) Check : Sig Resolution - Sig Radius, favour smallest number. Check : Range from drone to next target - favour closest range. Seems easy, and pretty much the way the drone AI works. ... Note, as an admittedly biased T2 Sentry drone-ophile, I am NOT suggesting that the bandwidth on Sentry drones goes up. I think they're pretty balanced already.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.16 10:13:00 - [21] Not much to add, other than some blue bars... nudge -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.17 16:34:00 - [22] No blue for the wicked? Come on, we know you guys are up to something, you don't accidentally break the tracking formula by playing with the missile damage formula.... -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.10.17 16:35:00 - [23] Originally by: Gabriel Karade No blue for the wicked? Come on, we know you guys are up to something, you don't accidentally break the tracking formula by playing with the missile damage formula.... Want to bet money on that? -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire Liang/Vanesca - Order/Iron Rock@WAR Liang - Destro/Azazel@WAR www.kwikdeath.org
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.18 08:47:00 - [24] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Gabriel Karade No blue for the wicked? Come on, we know you guys are up to something, you don't accidentally break the tracking formula by playing with the missile damage formula.... Want to bet money on that? -Liang While I'm an optimist, I'm also pragmatic... no -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.21 18:06:00 - [25] Any progress on the tracking formula? -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Aokie Gallente	Posted - 2008.10.21 21:04:00 - [26] bump for a fellow blaster user.
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.10.22 06:26:00 - [27] blasters dont need buff, large autconaons need a bit improvement, and large arty their alpha back. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0810/lie.jpg guide ninja edited already hidden topic: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&thread
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.22 15:03:00 - [28] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl blasters dont need buff, large autconaons need a bit improvement, and large arty their alpha back. I suppose the tracking formula doesn't have a huge hole that has been identified above?.... but cheers for 'le bump'. Blasters and Autocannons both have issues with these changes. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Resurgency	Posted - 2008.10.22 16:03:00 - [29] Since your goal was to add a summary for the devs could you please at the topic numers to the pagelinks as well i.e. Good linky to mega versus t1 cruisers stats Scroll the page linky to mega versus t1 cruiser thread - - - Originally by: CCP Wrangler If you can understand our goal, disagree with our solution and offer a solution that is equal or better your opinion has a better chance of being heard...
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.23 21:33:00 - [30] From the live dev blog: gg everyone Originally by: 'Zulupark' Personally I don't see anything wrong with blaster ships, and think they will be better after the changes. Though if anything comes up on TQ or during testing it'll be looked at.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.23 21:45:00 - [31] 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. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Tempest of Change
Zubakis Bambooule	Posted - 2008.10.23 21:59:00 - [32] 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. Yeah, why dont you do it? Or are you waiting somebody will do it for you? -- Zuba
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.23 22:09:00 - [33] Originally by: Zubakis are you waiting somebody will do it for you? Yes I am.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.10.23 22:10:00 - [34] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Yes I am. You see, Lyria, first you have to stop talking out of your ass before people will post your bad math that's built around entirely incorrect assumptions. :) -Liang
Zubakis Bambooule	Posted - 2008.10.23 22:49:00 - [35] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Zubakis are you waiting somebody will do it for you? Yes I am. Why would someone do it for you? Post your stuff or stop trolling.
Praxis1452 the united	Posted - 2008.10.23 23:09:00 - [36] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Zubakis are you waiting somebody will do it for you? Yes I am. lol, "I refute your calculations because you didn't do ones that support the opposite viewpoint." -------------------------------------------- ôHe who must expend his life to prolong life cannot enjoy it, and he who is still seeking for his life does not have it and can as little enjoy it"
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.23 23:29:00 - [37] 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. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Praxis1452 the united	Posted - 2008.10.23 23:58:00 - [38] 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. he's just bitter because it took so long for amarr to get a buff and is trying to do to gallente what people did to amarr. "No they don't need boost, they are balanced." -------------------------------------------- ôHe who must expend his life to prolong life cannot enjoy it, and he who is still seeking for his life does not have it and can as little enjoy it"
Gar Ddhen Gallente North Yorkshire Trading	Posted - 2008.10.24 01:11:00 - [39] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 11/10/2008 13:44:49 Originally by: Gabriel Karade Plots of hit quality on same scale, courtesy Grytok. post #487. Signature resolution reduction for short range turrets to mimic size vs distance, courtesy Gabriel, post #498 Ya know, I thought it was the idea of reducing the web strength so that it wasn't insta death for smaller ship vs larger ship? So a cruiser can orbit inside webrange and not be insta popped by large guns? Working as intended I say. Does a BS not have drones? No missiles? Can't fit a neut? Smart bombs? Edit: I know someone cited the ishtar as bein able to defeat smart bomb by lauching more heavy drones. Maybe the issue there is a HAS using a bonused battleship class weapon as it's primary damage? Or did I totally miss the point of the graphs? An Ishtar using Ogre II's flown by a pilot with maxed out drone damage skills is pushing out 467 DPS with drones. While you can fit blasters on top, that will punch DPS to mid 600's or so depending on the blasters and ammo you use. However there it is worth bearing in mind that the Ishtar has the lowest CPU of all the HAC's, and the second lowest grid, as soon as you start throwing blasters or dual reps or anything hefty you start running into serious fitting problems, especially CPU, which on that ship is crippling. 650 ish DPS is not overly damaging for a damage fit HAC, and to get it you either have to go fully faction... or forgo a tank. The main imbalance on the Ishtar isnt its DPS, but its current use as a nanoship, once that is curtailed then it will revert to being among the more balanced Gallente ships.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.24 04:11:00 - [40] 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.
Murkon Salesgirl Amarr	Posted - 2008.10.24 04:31:00 - [41] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 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. So, short answer: No you can't have 4 mid megas with almost pulse ranges. 5. A closer orbit also generates more transversal as a result of CCP's silly maths. It does not favour any weapon system in particular. Short answer: Thats why you got the Abaddon, more turret firepower, vastly better tank.. and oh yeah, 4 mids. You can say its a Tier 3.. but then the same can be said, you are comparing the mega vs geddon. T2 vs T1. The hyperion? It's a sad joke. After these speed changes come through, any short range BS is dead for solo and utterly dead for gangs. Their weapon systems need to be fundamentally changed. I'll make it easier for you to understand. Two situations. 1. Your blaster boat can MWD into range fast and apply its close range DMG. 2. Your blaster boat can no longer MWD into range fast and hence, can't apply any of its point blank DMG. It doesn't even have a viable option in lower dmg higher range ammo to compensate. Now the devs are going to pursue these Battleship speed/acceleration changes so its set, they want slow lumbering BS. What else can you fix besides the weapon systems themselves to suit this new gameplay?
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.24 05:51:00 - [42] Edited by: Strill on 24/10/2008 05:54:47 Fine. I'm gonna say that everyone's analysis has been wrong because looking at any arbitrary point on a graph won't show you what the whole graph looks like. One graph could have the highest effectiveness at one point but be crap everywhere else. To that end I prepared a few graphs of damage vs range for you to compare. Some of them look pretty even, but a lot of them look pretty darn skewed. All graphs are done using max skills, largest T2 guns, and shortest-range T1 ammo. Ship bonuses and target sig radius/traversal is listed. Max Skills, No bonuses +25% damage blaster vs stock pulse laser Blaster Mega vs Pulse Geddon Lyria Skydancer's proposed comparison (Mega vs geddon while shooting a 265 sig 400m/s target) Hyperion vs Apocalypse Hyperion vs Apoc while shooting at Lyria's AB-ing Battlecruiser Megathron vs Apocalypse Megathron vs Apocalypse while shooting at Lyria's AB-ing Battlecruiser All of the graphs in one picture If you'd like another graph I'd be happy to provide one.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 05:53:00 - [43] Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl 5. A closer orbit also generates more transversal as a result of CCP's silly maths. It does not favour any weapon system in particular. It favors the weapon with the higher tracking. The question that many people ask is "what is tracking as my optimal" as if they can always fight at their optimal and other pilots will care enough to stick around at their optimal. As if two ships shooting at each other can both be at each other optimal at the same time when they're using different weapon systems. That is not the proper question. The proper question is "what is my tracking at the range at which I am likely to be fighting". Jump in range is about 15km, which means that for an ABing BC, the Abaddon has to run 4km in the opposite direction and the Mega has to run 4km towards the target to hit their optimal hit percentage. The mega, when it gets to 13km can web and then keep at range(or manually fly via "look at/double click") to reduce transversal. The abbaddon has no such respite and is much less agile. That is not to say that against larger targets the advantage does not shift back towards the pulse lasers as tracking is less of an issue and range is more of an issue(though i would be surprised if you could not close from 15km to punish a pulse ship), but it does mean that for the question of who is better off shooting at the target we are dealing with, the AB'ing BC, the answer is unquestionably the blaster ship. Also, the Hyperion has 5 meds, and that means it can fit 2 webs ;) It is also faster and more agile than the Megathron.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.24 06:08:00 - [44] Originally by: Strill Edited by: Strill on 24/10/2008 05:57:26 Fine. I'm gonna say that everyone's analysis has been wrong because looking at any arbitrary point on a graph won't show you what the whole graph looks like. One graph could have the highest effectiveness at one point but be crap everywhere else. To that end I prepared a few graphs of damage vs range for you to compare. Some of them look pretty even, but a lot of them look pretty darn skewed. All graphs are done using max skills, largest T2 guns, and shortest-range T1 ammo. Ship bonuses and target sig radius/traversal is listed. Max Skills, No bonuses +25% damage blaster vs stock pulse laser Blaster Mega vs Pulse Geddon Lyria Skydancer's proposed comparison (Mega vs geddon while shooting a 265 sig 400m/s target) Hyperion vs Apocalypse Hyperion vs Apoc while shooting at Lyria's AB-ing Battlecruiser Megathron vs Apocalypse Megathron vs Apocalypse while shooting at Lyria's AB-ing Battlecruiser All of the graphs in one picture If you'd like another graph I'd be happy to provide one. Thank you for the nice graphs. I think my point is clear when looking at them. There is not a huge blaster problem at all. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Tempest of Change
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.24 06:12:00 - [45] Originally by: Goumindong It favors the weapon with the higher tracking. Thank you! I've tried to explain alot of this but as you can see I'm hanging from the gallows. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Tempest of Change
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.24 06:34:00 - [46] Edited by: Strill on 24/10/2008 06:39:00 Here's some graphs with faction webifiers taken into account. Traversal is 100, sig radius is 100, everything else is the same as I listed in my other post. http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=graphwithwebshc8.png
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.24 06:46:00 - [47] Edited by: Strill on 24/10/2008 06:46:22 Originally by: Goumindong ed: Note, I am not saying there isn't one, but I am saying that I would like you to explain just why its a problem rather than simply stating that it is. The only one where blasters outdid pulse lasers was the mega vs apoc. All the others either did the same damage within a smaller range window or did less damage even at their peak. The Hyperion vs Apoc showed blasters doing especially poorly.
Murkon Salesgirl Amarr	Posted - 2008.10.24 06:48:00 - [48] 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.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:10:00 - [49] Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 24/10/2008 07:12:28 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. One example Lyria, ONE. Where, because of you're absurd target choice, and using best case blaster vs worst case pulse, hit chance happens to be about the around about the same in deep falloff. Stick the Apoc in there and 61% becomes 75%. Do that vs a Battleship (as I did) and you see a different plot all together. We can go round in circles forever; your one example does not 'prove' there is fault with plots based on the base numbers from the flippin database, only that you are good at manufacturing a skewed example to support your argument. P.S you ignored the part on my post about the absurd closing of the DPS gap between Pulses/Torps/Blasters, the glaring hole in the tracking formula, the live fire test vs a zero-fit stabber.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:12:00 - [50] Originally by: Gabriel Karade One example Lyria, ONE. Where, because of you're absurd target choice, and using best case blaster vs worst case pulse, hit chance happens to be about the around about the same in deep falloff. Stick the Apoc in there and 61% becomes 75%. Do that vs a Battleship (as I did) and you see a different plot all together. We can go round in circles forever; your one example does not 'prove' there is fault with plots based on the base numbers from the flippin database, only that you are good at manufacturing a skewed example to support your argument. Seems the judge agrees with my calculations though oddly enough. Can't that that wrong.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:14:00 - [51] Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:15:25 Originally by: Strill Edited by: Strill on 24/10/2008 06:53:16 Originally by: Goumindong ed: Note, I am not saying there isn't one, but I am saying that I would like you to explain just why its a problem rather than simply stating that it is. The only one where blasters did more peak damage than pulse lasers was the mega vs apoc. In general, all of them either did the same damage within a smaller range window and/or did less damage even at their peak. The Hyperion vs Apoc showed blasters doing especially poorly. Uhh, the graphs you just provided show the exact opposite. Especially since 13km is the range on a t2 web[overloading hoy!] and you don't slow down instantly which means that the webbifying effect doesn't come into effect until you are slightly inside the web. In which case the blasters are pretty well decimating the lasers under about 13km. Which is what is expected. Also, you shouldn't be using an Apoc, but an Abaddon or Geddon. Oh, and you reset your transversal/sig radius back to default, no need for that. Quote: closing of the DPS gap between Pulses/Blasters What? when did this happen?
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:16:00 - [52] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Gabriel Karade One example Lyria, ONE. Where, because of you're absurd target choice, and using best case blaster vs worst case pulse, hit chance happens to be about the around about the same in deep falloff. Stick the Apoc in there and 61% becomes 75%. Do that vs a Battleship (as I did) and you see a different plot all together. We can go round in circles forever; your one example does not 'prove' there is fault with plots based on the base numbers from the flippin database, only that you are good at manufacturing a skewed example to support your argument. What? the guy how doesn't know how many high slots a helios has? Sorry but no, the exact numbers are their in the database for all to see. You didn't answer the second part of my question. Seems the judge agrees with my calculations though oddly enough. Can't that that wrong.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:20:00 - [53] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:15:25 Quote: closing of the DPS gap between Pulses/Blasters/torps What? when did this happen? Don't snip posts, it just makes you look like a ****. When they boosted torpedo DPS by 33%, reduced EM resistance and boosted pulse tracking (more real DPS). -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:22:00 - [54] Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:23:19 Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:23:05 Originally by: Gabriel Karade Don't snip posts, it just makes you look like a **. When they boosted torpedo DPS by 33%, reduced EM resistance and boosted pulse tracking (more real DPS). Don't ignore the point, if you want to say that they reduced EM resistance and increased tracking then do so, don't say they increased DPS while looking at graphs that are damage type neutral as your indicator for a problem. Originally by:** Gabriel Karade What? the guy how doesn't know how many high slots a helios has? Sorry but no, the exact numbers are their in the database for all to see. I want to see Nozh/Fendal's comments. You didn't answer the second part of my question. Ahh, personal attacks, what would we ever do without them.
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:24:00 - [55] 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
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:27:00 - [56] 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.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:28:00 - [57] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Gabriel Karade Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:15:25 Quote: closing of the DPS gap between Pulses/Blasters/torps What? when did this happen? Don't snip posts, it just makes you look like a ***. When they boosted torpedo DPS by 33%, reduced EM resistance and boosted pulse tracking (more real DPS). Don't ignore the point, if you want to say that they reduced EM resistance and increased tracking then do so, don't say they increased DPS while looking at graphs that are damage type neutral as your indicator for a problem. 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...
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:29:00 - [58] Originally by: Goumindong Ahh, personal attacks, what would we ever do without them. It's a statement of a fact, he got it wrong.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:30:00 - [59] 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.
Howling Jinn Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch.	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:30:00 - [60] wow some of the people in here is like dc and selim had sex and shat out some babies
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]

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.