Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sar Ferredj
Orion Federation
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 10:34:00 -
[91]
Just to remind CCP that blasters need some love . . . Even more as Web/Scram have been rebalanced . . .
(as I said previously : no complaints mean no problem)
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 18:17:00 -
[92]
Or just give Megathrons bonus to Mega Pulse lasers and we are good. Who needs blasters?
|
JadeMako
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 19:13:00 -
[93]
Edited by: JadeMako on 12/02/2009 19:13:05 Same situation as many others, only using drone boats now and feel many sp's are wasted on blasters.
|
Trebor Notlimah
Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 21:18:00 -
[94]
While not as big of a deal as people were making it out to be pre-patch -- it is a significant issue with the gallente race.
|
shuckstar
Gallente Hauling hogs
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 21:48:00 -
[95]
Not supported, blasters still fine imo, My astarte popped a player frig orbiting me, even when beeing tracking disrupted.
|
Xenalee
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 22:10:00 -
[96]
Not supported. Do we really need CSM agendas dealing with balancing minute? Let them deal wwith issues directly impacting CCP and Playerbase interaction. Balancing the game should not be their role. Deal with things that can make the game better for everyone imo.
|
Soeniss Delazur
Pilots Of Honour Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 10:44:00 -
[97]
Stop looking at EFT and start flying blaster ships to understand the issue.
|
Bad Borris
tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 12:05:00 -
[98]
|
TimGascoigne
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 17:23:00 -
[99]
Edited by: TimGascoigne on 14/02/2009 17:23:42 If you want to look for a gimp system try projectils till then count your blessings.
edit: btw Not supported
|
Kaidelong Einfachs
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 20:37:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Kaidelong Einfachs on 16/02/2009 20:40:11 Edited by: Kaidelong Einfachs on 16/02/2009 20:37:23 If I get in this close I really want to do my on paper DPS somehow, tracking would help that. Signed.
And yeah large autocannons in particular lost out too. Again, I think right now amarr is the way to go. Ishtar is cool though.
|
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 20:57:00 -
[101]
There aren't enough significant differences between the 3 close run guns. They all have nearly same damage output - with a single damage mod making one better than the rest. Ship damage bonuses overshadow the default differences. Then what it really comes down to is the type of ship you fly - strengths and weaknesses, plus tracking, optimal range, and falloff.
All of those factors make pure damage differences insignificant. The only significant differences in close range weapons we have are between missiles and guns.
In my opinion, we should have more pronounced differences between the three gun types. Of course there'll be plenty of people crying over balance - the type of people who think that balance is achieved by homogenizing everything, erasing as many differences as possible. It's a boring type of balance and people calling for that shouldn't be taken seriously.
Ideally, blasters should be kings of damage for short range - they should be hard to operate, as reflected by range and tracking, but they should be undeniably most damaging weapons. To create a noticeable difference in damage, blaster damage output would need to be increased about 20% - which is roughly a free damage mod.
With that, everybody would clearly see that blasters are most damaging weapons. Then would come the arguments of balance. People would cry blasters are too powerful. And maybe their concerns would have some valid points. But the way to balance would not be to nerf the damage output, it would be to look into optimal range, falloff range, and tracking stats.
Similarly, autocannons should be kings of falloff and tracking. Make their tracking undeniably more powerful than all other guns - a clear cut advantage from other weapon types. Then there may be more imbalance objections, but the way to address those would be to look into damage output.
The pulse laser strength is in the best optimal range of all short range guns. They can provide a nice medium of damage and tracking between blasters and autocannons, while having clearly pronounced advantage of optimal range.
That's how we should balance things - respect diversity, make the game more edgy
|
Kaidelong Einfachs
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 01:52:00 -
[102]
I would like to see a compelling reason to sacrifice tank for more gank on a blaster boat and to use neutrons and some more in optimal and tracking so that they're more effective once they're in range. Only working at extremely short ranges is supposed to be the downside of using blasters. With the exception of large blasters it's pretty unlikely you'll be within optimal, though.
I don't terribly mind the idea of sacrificing a lot of tank to gain enormous damage output that will beat another more balanced ship one on one, and be easily taken out if it can't get in range or is up against multiple ships. I think that'd be very gallente-like. Right now it seems it's hard to beat a Geddon bs-to-bs regardless of what you are in.
|
Breed Love
FinFleet KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 03:29:00 -
[103]
signed,. -----
Originally by: Zhulik I thought Premium graphics were supposed to fix that bug where people were trying to salvage Minmatar ships.
|
Junmar
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 14:19:00 -
[104]
Yep. Never understood why the info page on Blasters was along the lines of how amazingly powerful they are supposed to be. They seem useless to me.
|
Mithrantir Ob'lontra
Ixion Defence Systems Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 16:54:00 -
[105]
There is a problem with blasters. Not as big as some people make it out to be, but there is still a significant problem.
CCP should look into this. ------- Nobody can be exactly like me. Even I have trouble doing it. |
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 22:06:00 -
[106]
Support
- Please try and make blasters useful on Caldari ships too
- Autocannons could do with a look at to but they don't seem to have as much trouble as blawsters at least IMO. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong |
Poba
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 04:07:00 -
[107]
/signed
blasters need more range/tracking or the need big dps buff
~Welcome to the internet, where the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents~ |
Mass'a Whipcracka
Goodfellas.
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 04:10:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Ephemeron There aren't enough significant differences between the 3 close run guns. They all have nearly same damage output - with a single damage mod making one better than the rest. Ship damage bonuses overshadow the default differences. Then what it really comes down to is the type of ship you fly - strengths and weaknesses, plus tracking, optimal range, and falloff.
All of those factors make pure damage differences insignificant. The only significant differences in close range weapons we have are between missiles and guns.
In my opinion, we should have more pronounced differences between the three gun types. Of course there'll be plenty of people crying over balance - the type of people who think that balance is achieved by homogenizing everything, erasing as many differences as possible. It's a boring type of balance and people calling for that shouldn't be taken seriously.
Ideally, blasters should be kings of damage for short range - they should be hard to operate, as reflected by range and tracking, but they should be undeniably most damaging weapons. To create a noticeable difference in damage, blaster damage output would need to be increased about 20% - which is roughly a free damage mod.
With that, everybody would clearly see that blasters are most damaging weapons. Then would come the arguments of balance. People would cry blasters are too powerful. And maybe their concerns would have some valid points. But the way to balance would not be to nerf the damage output, it would be to look into optimal range, falloff range, and tracking stats.
Similarly, autocannons should be kings of falloff and tracking. Make their tracking undeniably more powerful than all other guns - a clear cut advantage from other weapon types. Then there may be more imbalance objections, but the way to address those would be to look into damage output.
The pulse laser strength is in the best optimal range of all short range guns. They can provide a nice medium of damage and tracking between blasters and autocannons, while having clearly pronounced advantage of optimal range.
That's how we should balance things - respect diversity, make the game more edgy
^^ this
|
Myrhial Arkenath
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 10:09:00 -
[109]
Agreed. Blasters could use a bit of love.
CEO | Diary of a pod pilot |
Kaidelong Einfachs
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 01:50:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Kaidelong Einfachs on 20/02/2009 01:54:46 Maybe raise the damage modifier boost on gallente ships so that the output DPS of the right size blaster turret is much higher?
Also why would you want the caldari to be good at using blasters? Blasters and drones make the gallente ships special to fly. If the caldari need boosting why not something else specific to them?
PS: on the three turret types, to put it simply, do you mean blasters melt stuff both close and webbed, autocannons have trouble missing things they're supposed to miss and that pulse lasers tend to hit things at range but can be out-tracked easily? That'd make sense to me.
|
|
Sar Ferredj
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 18:03:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Sar Ferredj on 23/02/2009 18:03:22 The upcoming Apocrypha expansion pack & its new AI will lead to massive changes : as drones will be more often targeted, Gallentaeans players will have to rely on blasters & railguns . . .
Which are just . . . messed ? ? ?
So it seems PvE will have sense only for Caldari/Amarr, even maybe Minnmatarr.
CCP do hate us.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 20:10:00 -
[112]
Ok, I posted on this subject before but I want to make a new point:
I have lots of PvP experience fighting in close range battleships and my weapons of choice are blasters, ACs, mega pulse
Given that, I can fight effectively using all of those weapons. I would not go as far as to say that "blasters are ineffective". However, it is clear to me that blasters do not offer any significant advantages over mega pulse. Autocannons are also rather so-so but at least they are easy to fit. Blasters have fitting problems especially with CPU - which would be ok if they really had some major advantages.
Right now, properly fit close range bs of different factions perform about same - with mega pulse having slight advantage with the superior optimal and easier fitting to support armor tank. Autocannons seem rather bland. I guess CCP would call it balance - all ships performing about same way. But what I want is greater variety. Blasters are supposed to be the most damaging weapons that are optimized for close range combat. That is simply not so when compared to performance of other weapons. Blasters have no clear advantages, they are just like other guns.
Yes, I see how this is balanced, but it is a boring form of balance. And frankly, mega pulse is still better - for pure tank and gank.
Why can't we have more clear cut differences between different fighting styles?
|
Tlar Sanqua
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 15:41:00 -
[113]
I would like CCP to look into the balancing of short ranged weapons in general with the QR changes.
|
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 16:08:00 -
[114]
Blasters are suffering heavily from an erosion of their role. They arenÆt useless, but their application is significantly more difficult and has even gone so far as requiring gang mates to be used to a greater degree.
Very rough calculations, but currently, out of all the guns at their optimal + falloff, blasters have the lowest speed requirement to outrun tracking û so in effective terms, they have the worst tracking available, and yes is it lower than arties. True that at those levels they are tracking better than other weapons, but it means their DPS is significantly lowered compared to its paper value.
Ship bonusÆ will make a clear impact into these figures (which may explain some of the experiences some people have had with some blaster boats), but unless weÆre starting to advocate that weapons only be useable (not better) on ships designed for them (much like ECM is now and other EW is fast heading), as in have a tracking bonus, I donÆt feel this should be factored in at this point.
Personally I find the scram and web changes to be the most significant aspects in the equation since scrams have put people off from using MWDs in many situations I have witnessed in favour of AB, so combined with lower web effectiveness much higher orbit speeds are frequent which are exaggerated at shorter ranges. It also means that once committed there is no option to disengage at all, unlike other weapon systems were there will be some, if not very much.
But in all, when you are faced with these additional problems for no significant bonus in damage, the logical call is to use a different weapon.
Lasers are tracking too well at this moment, so yes there is some mileage in lowering their tracking, but I still donÆt think this would address a core issue with blasters at the moment.
--------------------------------------------
SF Recruiting |
AKULA UrQuan
Druuge Crimson Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 18:18:00 -
[115]
/signed
Not because blasters need a boost directly. With the change to webs all turret weapons need their tracking stats looked at, and hopefully adjusted. |
Imertu Solientai
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 23:35:00 -
[116]
supported
|
Pis Isk
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 19:42:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Pis Isk on 02/03/2009 19:43:09 Being a Gallente purist I can say that my gunnery SP feels very wasted when my T2 Hammerheads both reach the target and do more effective DPS to it than an entire rack of T2 Ion blasters unless the ship is holding still or flying directly towards me. Gallente ships being rather slow and having the agility of a brick make catching ships of the same size difficult at times. With how many people fit scramblers now as well I'm starting to fit AFTERBURNERS on my PvP ships. having no MWD 7km out means my medium blasters aren't hitting anything. The current state of blasters sometimes makes me wish Gallente had a racial bonus to nos/neut rather than blasters. Blasters aren't dead or useless but have really fallen away from their true purpose.
Disclaimer: Blasters aren't completely broken. Shiney stuff still comes out of the other end when I fire them and they seem to distract the enemy enough so that he doesn't start popping my drones (my real dps).
/signed and supported
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |