EVE Search - Blasterthron's top speed with 100MN T2 MWD: 773m/sec

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Blasterthron's top speed with 100MN T2 MWD: 773m/sec

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.10.14 12:14:00 - [1] Edited by: Bellum Eternus on 14/10/2008 12:14:10 With navigation 5, accel control 4, armor rigging 4 (affects speed penalty slightly) and all other pertinent skills at 5 I've come up with the following results: Megathron blaster fit: 7x Neutron IIs MWD, web, scram T2 heavy cap booster 2x 1600 RT plates, DC2, 2x EANM, 2x Magstabs 3x trimark rigs Maximum base speed: 112m/sec. Maximum speed with MWD active: 773m/sec Time required to achieve max speed from standing start: 88 seconds. Distance covered to achieve max speed: 44+km. Number of capacitor charges required to reach top speed: 5+. The cap was just about wasted trying to run up to max speed. NOTE: I stopped the test after about 750m/sec as it was accelerating so slowly by that point that I was running out of cap charges and it was just pathetic/redundant. Even if the blasters get fixed somehow, this right here will spell the end to blaster ships. It was already hard enough covering 20+km to get into range to do damage, now the time and cap required to do the same thing has increased so much that it's really going to cripple blaster ships. They'll be into half armor before they can even get a shot off at the proper range. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.10.14 12:14:00 - [2] Edited by: Bellum Eternus on 14/10/2008 12:14:10 With navigation 5, accel control 4, armor rigging 4 (affects speed penalty slightly) and all other pertinent skills at 5 I've come up with the following results: Megathron blaster fit: 7x Neutron IIs MWD, web, scram T2 heavy cap booster 2x 1600 RT plates, DC2, 2x EANM, 2x Magstabs 3x trimark rigs Maximum base speed: 112m/sec. Maximum speed with MWD active: 773m/sec Time required to achieve max speed from standing start: 88 seconds. Distance covered to achieve max speed: 44+km. Number of capacitor charges required to reach top speed: 5+. The cap was just about wasted trying to run up to max speed. NOTE: I stopped the test after about 750m/sec as it was accelerating so slowly by that point that I was running out of cap charges and it was just pathetic/redundant. Even if the blasters get fixed somehow, this right here will spell the end to blaster ships. It was already hard enough covering 20+km to get into range to do damage, now the time and cap required to do the same thing has increased so much that it's really going to cripple blaster ships. They'll be into half armor before they can even get a shot off at the proper range. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Kyoko Sakoda Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.10.14 12:23:00 - [3] Having tested it myself, the speed isn't the problem. If you have three armor rigs on your ship it's going to hurt speed, full stop. It's the fact that a battlecruiser with an afterburner can get under a battleship's tracking (more than just blasterboats, but other guns as well), which is problematic with current isk-to-tank mechanics. There will be little reason to use a turreted battleship if a battlecruiser can do the job just as well. But these threads need to get more constructive in general. I have faith in CCP's ability to do math.
Kyoko Sakoda Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.10.14 12:23:00 - [4] Having tested it myself, the speed isn't the problem. If you have three armor rigs on your ship it's going to hurt speed, full stop. It's the fact that a battlecruiser with an afterburner can get under a battleship's tracking (more than just blasterboats, but other guns as well), which is problematic with current isk-to-tank mechanics. There will be little reason to use a turreted battleship if a battlecruiser can do the job just as well. But these threads need to get more constructive in general. I have faith in CCP's ability to do math.
Batolemaeus Caldari Athanasius Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.14 12:35:00 - [5] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda But these threads need to get more constructive in general. I have faith in CCP's ability to do math. Indeed. The only thing you see nowadays is constant whining over things, but no alternative solutions offered. It's getting extremely tiresome browsing the forums.. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.14 12:35:00 - [6] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Having tested it myself, the speed isn't the problem. If you have three armor rigs on your ship it's going to hurt speed, full stop. Blasterthron without three armour rigs is a failboat. Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda It's the fact that a battlecruiser with an afterburner can get under a battleship's tracking Nobody sane on TQ will fly AB battlecruisers, because they are totally dead in the water in 90% of situations and only useful for jumping solo battleships provided they land somewhere very close to 0km. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Murkon Salesgirl Amarr	Posted - 2008.10.14 12:39:00 - [7] Same as the old build. Not finished with the changes yet, just wait for updates.
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos	Posted - 2008.10.14 12:52:00 - [8] Time required to achieve max speed from standing start: 88 seconds. ^^ that is pretty epic and that time to accelerate is what totally kills blaster ships as a playable concept, you're simply not going to get into range of anything and by the time you do, you're already injecting to sustain cap ---------- AKA 'Bitter Dog' Failing at everything he does in EvE since '05
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United	Posted - 2008.10.14 13:04:00 - [9] Perhaps train accel. control to 5 like real people and armor rigging to 5 too? Perhaps THEN you will be better .. like train some skills to finish instead of halfway? "The Amarr are the tanking and ganking floating rods of ~~gold~~crap"
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos	Posted - 2008.10.14 13:27:00 - [10] Originally by: Kuolematon Perhaps train accel. control to 5 like real people and armor rigging to 5 too? Perhaps THEN you will be better .. like train some skills to finish instead of halfway? I'm not sure where you were educated but in my school they told me half of 5 was 2.5 were the bad men lying to me or are you just a pathetic troll who is completely avoiding the points raised? I think we all know the answer to that ---------- AKA 'Bitter Dog' Failing at everything he does in EvE since '05
The Djego Minmatar merovinger inc	Posted - 2008.10.14 13:31:00 - [11] Edited by: The Djego on 14/10/2008 13:32:26 Originally by: Cpt Branko Problem is, blasterthron without three armour rigs is a failboat. This actualy since Damage Rigs get useless after stacking and ships where they could work don¦t have the Powergrid anyway(since you want big guns on Gank ships) you have to stick with Armor Rigs that slow you down simply to get a comparable buffer. I would love to increase Gank on my Thron instead of HP while keeping the speed(like I do it at the Thorax/Deimos). Btw I got all relativ Navigations at 5, Speed Hardwirings and working on Armor Rigging 5 atm to use the Thron effective, like the predator it used to be, right now on TQ, more than 2 MWD cycles to get up speed up are not realy accepable on a Blaster ship. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.10.14 13:40:00 - [12] Edited by: Esmenet on 14/10/2008 13:43:06 .
Dr Sheepbringer	Posted - 2008.10.14 14:03:00 - [13] Well you just need to get the target to come to you then.
The Djego Minmatar merovinger inc	Posted - 2008.10.14 14:05:00 - [14] Edited by: The Djego on 14/10/2008 14:06:04 Originally by: Dr Sheepbringer Well you just need to get the target to come to you then. Everytime this happes to a Blaster ship you might be in a Fight you can¦t win(but might even be possible if Blaster ships become the new Amarr in the eyes of many players). ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Vengal Seyhan Sten Industries	Posted - 2008.10.14 14:24:00 - [15] Originally by: Kuolematon Perhaps train accel. control to 5 like real people and armor rigging to 5 too? Perhaps THEN you will be better .. like train some skills to finish instead of halfway? 'Real people', being the majority of players, haven't spent 2+ years in game, to consider training a x4 skill and a x3 skill to maximum. Level 4 should be acceptable. Not everyone should have to max out to be worthy of comment...especially in a game where it's technically impossible to max everything. After all, real people have maxed their Titan skills, too. And their interceptor skills, and their HAC skills, and have 20M SP in gunnery. Because, of course, real people are imune to flaming by ****s such as you..
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.10.14 16:41:00 - [16] Originally by: Batolemaeus Indeed. The only thing you see nowadays is constant whining over things, but no alternative solutions offered. It's getting extremely tiresome browsing the forums.. You don't need to know the solution to know there is a problem.
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2008.10.14 16:52:00 - [17] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Indeed. The only thing you see nowadays is constant whining over things, but no alternative solutions offered. It's getting extremely tiresome browsing the forums.. This forum is full of problems caused by this nerf and the solution...stop the bloody silly nerf it sucks and ruins good small gang pvp. SAVE NANO!!!!!!....only needing f1-f8 to kill is not a skilled style of combat.
Kyoko Sakoda Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.10.14 16:58:00 - [18] Edited by: Kyoko Sakoda on 14/10/2008 16:58:32 Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Having tested it myself, the speed isn't the problem. If you have three armor rigs on your ship it's going to hurt speed, full stop. Problem is, blasterthron without three armour rigs is a failboat. That's because you're in the frame of mind that every battleship is a failboat without three defense related rigs. Don't worry, because for a time I was like that too. The patch may actually change that in a very indirect way. Originally by: Cpt Branko nobody sane on TQ will fly AB battlecruisers, because they are totally dead in the water in 90% of situations and only useful for jumping solo battleships provided they land somewhere very close to 0km. What was it, 78% of all statistics are made up? Of course not many people would be doing this on TQ. We're talking about SiSi. Battlecruisers there should be able to tank on approach and get under tracking fast, provided even just one tracking disruptor.
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.10.14 17:02:00 - [19] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda That's because you're in the frame of mind that every battleship is a failboat without three defense related rigs. Don't worry, because for a time I was like that too. The patch may actually change that in a very indirect way. I cant speak for anyone else but this patch will change my view on the blasterthron in a very direct way. I wont use one.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.14 19:01:00 - [20] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Edited by: Kyoko Sakoda on 14/10/2008 16:58:32 Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Having tested it myself, the speed isn't the problem. If you have three armor rigs on your ship it's going to hurt speed, full stop. Problem is, blasterthron without three armour rigs is a failboat. That's because you're in the frame of mind that every battleship is a failboat without three defense related rigs. Don't worry, because for a time I was like that too. The patch may actually change that in a very indirect way. How? If you get to fit anything else then three tank-related rigs while your opponents fit 3 tank-related rigs, you're going to die a utterly horrible death, because damage rigs simply don't make any sense on a BS. So, please. Be specific. Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Originally by: Cpt Branko nobody sane on TQ will fly AB battlecruisers, because they are totally dead in the water in 90% of situations and only useful for jumping solo battleships provided they land somewhere very close to 0km. What was it, 78% of all statistics are made up? Of course not many people would be doing this on TQ. We're talking about SiSi. Battlecruisers there should be able to tank on approach and get under tracking fast, provided even just one tracking disruptor. We're discussing what will happen when SISI stats meet TQ realities. AB battlecruisers? Yeah, sure And 'get under tracking fast' is a joke when discussing AB BCs. The only part where it would be really useful (except maybe, possibly range control vs other BCs IF you land on top of them) is out-tracking BS. You have no chance to do this, however, if you land outside 12-13km (or indeed tackle properly without both disruptor + scrambler) unless you're going to pack a domination scrambler, and if you, for instance, start the fight 10km off, it takes about 40-50 seconds minimum to get under BS guns tracking. If you're going to go BS hunting post-SISI in a BC, you could actually do it with a typical MWD setup (+ maybe rapid deployment or better yet, interdiction maneuvers) + TDs as you will be massively faster then BS (if you have mids to fit all that ofc). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.10.14 20:38:00 - [21] Originally by: Kuolematon Perhaps train accel. control to 5 like real people and armor rigging to 5 too? Perhaps THEN you will be better .. like train some skills to finish instead of halfway? If you ran the numbers as I have, you'd realize that the improvement seen by training the armor rigging skill to 5 and accel control to 5 is so small as to be of no consequence. Why to people such as yourself just insist on being contrary? The issue here is how crippled blaster ships are going to be when compared to their marginal current performance on TQ once the speed changes go through. I'm all for the speed changes (I refuse to call it a nano nerf), but traditionally fit battleships didn't need their speeds changed. Now that Torps have recieved a huge buff, as well as lasers, the peak effective DPS differences between those and blasters is so small that blasters no longer have any advantage at all. Now is the time to bring up these issues, not after it hits TQ. But on that note, I have no faith in CCP anyway. They won't actually change anything to solve these issues and blasters will arrive stillborn on TQ in a few months. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:28:00 - [22] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda But these threads need to get more constructive in general. I have faith in CCP's ability to do math. I certainly don't. Keep in mind this is the same CCP that thought 5% repair/level was balanced against 5% resistance/level.
Neo Rainhart Caldari Leela's Lamas	Posted - 2008.10.14 21:51:00 - [23] They stopped the carrier nerf way back..IMHO this nerf requires more stoppage than that one.. Me not being a carrier pilot might be one of these reasons..but...at least stop it goddamit
Solomon XI Hoist The Colors. Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.10.14 22:27:00 - [24] Edited by: Solomon XI on 14/10/2008 22:27:44 Edited by: Solomon XI on 14/10/2008 22:27:03 I tested this earlier, myself. I signed off SiSi a few minutes later before I did something stupid and broke my keyboard. CCP is effectively killing the blaster-boats with this patch. That being said, the changes are not final, and are subject* to change. None the less, I have yet to see a single mention as of late from CCP regarding blasters. I guess those of us who spent the last year and a half specing Gallente are pretty much ***ed, eh? Yeah ... I have a few choice works for CCP ... and I am saving them for a nice long I QUIT!* rant in General when the changes hit TQ. ~Solo Hoist The Colors. (CEO) Pirate Coalition (Yar?)
doctorstupid2 The Accursed	Posted - 2008.10.14 22:53:00 - [25] yay blaster specs at 5 This is as constructive as you'll see from me: If the problem is one thing, you don't need to nerf everything around it. Especially not the original counter to that problem coughwebscough cough If afterburners suck, you don't need to cripple MWD's to make them SEEM better, MAKE THEM BETTER. Abusive \| Deadspace \| Deadspace2
Murkon Salesgirl Amarr	Posted - 2008.10.15 00:49:00 - [26] You people are whining over NOTHING! This is an early build without all the ship stat rebalancing. Stop and wait for future sisi patches then test and come back and whine if its a problem.
M0rning5tar Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:04:00 - [27] Edited by: M0rning5tar on 15/10/2008 01:04:26 88 second acceleration time. Just lol. Way to make second worst change to an MMO in history ccp. Good work.
Salt Dober	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:50:00 - [28] Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl You people are whining over NOTHING! This is an early build without all the ship stat rebalancing. Stop and wait for future sisi patches then test and come back and whine if its a problem. Quit kissing ass and kidding yourself...
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:51:00 - [29] Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl You people are whining over NOTHING! This is an early build without all the ship stat rebalancing. Stop and wait for future sisi patches then test and come back and whine if its a problem. I think the problem here isn't that the ship stats still need rebalancing, I fully believe the problem is expectation management. When you see something on sisi, you believe that we're less than 1 month to live date. Usually, the things that are on sisi is what the final product becomes, far away changes are usually kept on multiplicity. I believe the problem players are expressing, in a not so constructive manner, isn't that there can be a reasonable solution to the problem we have, but they feel they are removed from the process almost altogether. There's a plan on the horizon of what we're going to have, in detail, as outlined by the speed chart - what everyone is skeptical about is how we get there without DEEP changes that go beyond what we've already been hinted towards. This is the crux of the issue, most people believe you get from point a to b by traversing the space in between, but what it appears is that we're disappearing from point a and appearing at point b. There's quite a lot of detail in between those two points, and everyone could be happier if some of the input that has been given would be appear to be taken more seriously. Unless an earnest and constructive conversation brought by the developers, yeah I said it, the developers is started with it's player base, there's just no way that the player base is going to be happy with the changes proposed. We see the developers state that current mechanics are "out of control", the players are asking how we could have got to the point of "out of control" if we've only made small careful changes over a great period of time. If we've moved to the point of "out of control", then why aren't we rolling back some of the mistakes that have brought us here? Why are we side-stepping some of the issues that are obvious to us, and cutting the snake at it's mid-point? It would seem to me, and a great many others that if we're "out of control", let's make a concerted effort starting with the latest thing that brought us here. Why aren't we starting with rigs, and move beyond that once we've agreed that rigs can no longer be changed more? Many of us were happy with the game 2+ years ago, why does it feel we're moving past that point to bring a correction to a problem more recent? When things doen't make sense to a not-so-dumb crowd, why is there surprise with their questions and reactions? None of us older players wish the destruction of our game, so why are we feeling as if everyone believes we're the problem? We believe in the system that is EvE, that system is a long, slow, struggle, that brings great reward for those who wish to reach for it. Nothing should come easy, and for those who continue to invest great effort, time, and passion, the reward should be self-evident; the sum of all those labors put together. Shouldn't the reverse of something wrong follow the same pattern? If we've charted a course to the event horizon, can't we make a course correction instead of turning around?
Jason Edwards	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:58:00 - [30] Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl You people are whining over NOTHING! This is an early build without all the ship stat rebalancing. Stop and wait for future sisi patches then test and come back and whine if its a problem. They expect whining at all stages. If nobody is whining... why change it? ------------------------ "There was this bright flash of light - and now this egg shaped thing is on my screen - did I level up?"

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.