EVE Search - BOOST BLASTERS!

All Channels

Ships and Modules

BOOST BLASTERS!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.11 22:38:00 - [1] Omg, its about spaceships, watch the movies and learn. Obviously laser guns own, theres a reason darth vader had a giant laser on his deathstar instead of a giant blaster
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.11 22:42:00 - [2] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 11/02/2009 22:43:37 Imo, a battlecruiser does exactly this trade-in, he gives tank and dps away for being smaller and faster than a BS, naturally it shouldnt take as much a beating as a BS sized target vs large guns (of any type, not just blasters). I'd even say that is part of the BC role, take down battleships and exploit your smaller sig and better tracking in the process.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.11 22:56:00 - [3] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 11/02/2009 23:00:24 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 11/02/2009 22:59:20 Originally by: Murina It depends on the BC and how its tanked, the base sig of the myrm used in the graph has 300sig radius while the typhoon only has 320, so the hit rate is hardly measurable between the two. And the drake size/sig is gonna be huuuuge. Fully extender fit drake agreed, but (my opinion) you're better off in active drake pvp-wise, but whatever. For all other BC fits the gained speed over a BS will swing the tracking thing in your way drastically even if your effective sig is bigger than a typical BS sig. I'd even say these effects between different gun/ship classes could be even more pronounced than what QR did, but again my opinion, I like the idea of the bigger ships fighting each other and leaving support ships to fight each other in between :P
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.12 00:25:00 - [4] Originally by: Murina Marginally but your right BC are harder to hit than BS but this:_ large guns = bs's and up medium guns = cruisers and up. small guns = frigates and up. Is wrong as each system is supposed to be effective against the class below and all the classes above. No it is correct, you just shouldnt think of these statements as all-or-nothing. In my experience, large guns got somewhat reduced in efficiency against cruisers especially (not really _that_ much against BC), but the claims you see all over the forums that large blasters dont hit anything but moons are blatant lies, in fact your typical BC will take far far more damage than it could realistically tank (except for the tanking types if they go all-out tank).
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.12 00:28:00 - [5] Yea, its BS lasers that have way too much tracking in a realistic scenario. Other guns seem fine tracking-wise.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.12 18:27:00 - [6] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 12/02/2009 18:27:18 Originally by: Murina Originally by: Omara Otawan but the claims you see all over the forums that large blasters dont hit anything but moons are blatant lies I have never seen those claims, please show some links as they are wrong unless the target is under 2km. I cant be arsed to search really, but I guess a forum search with "blasters + bellum + eternus" should yield some results already. Basically every other whinethread about blasters has it at least one time per page.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.13 17:38:00 - [7] Originally by: Murina Thanks for making MY point.....you justify any amarr system no matter how OP it is with absurd comparisons, while dismissing fixes to other races with equally absurd comparisons. That is the actual issue tbh. All guns are fine as is, except the amarr ones which are too good. This makes every other race player believe their guns are bad, but it really only is lasers being way to good compared to the others. Might be easily fixed for pulse by increasing/changing drawbacks on scorch though.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.13 18:07:00 - [8] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 13/02/2009 18:12:22 Originally by: Murina Now blaster pilots are not asking for a toe in lasers high optimal like lasers got into blasters low optimal, all they are after is to marginally more effective in the 10-20km range (still close/blaster range) while still doing 0 dmg after 30km as they do now. Now as lasers got a toe in the blasters area with a tracking buff i see no harm in giving gallente a small buff to dmg in the 10-20km range so they can at least be a little bit more effective in gang combat. Amarr would still be better in gangs and have much better range ehp ect but at least gallente blaster BS would not be close to useless anymore. I know it is quite unpopular to say these things, but I'd much more like to see lasers getting 'rebalanced' a bit. Blasters seem to be good the way they are, I still take a beating and can get easily killed by gallente BS in a cruiser or BC, but it is not instant melting anymore which is good imo. (I remember the days when you couldnt get within 10(13)km of a mega without getting instapopped in any cruiser, that sucked quite a bit gameplay wise). The only issue with this is RP wise it'd be hard to justify why laser based turrets wouldn't have the best tracking around, better tracking than huge accelerator type guns anyway.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.13 19:45:00 - [9] Originally by: Chi Quan you should not go close to a close range bs. you have no reason to do so in a smaller craft and all possibilities to avoid it. Huh? Looking at large blaster range/tracking, I'm much better off at 2.5km then I'd be at 15km. This was not possible with webs from the past, now it works which is a good thing. Same with medium guns and frigates, you die instantly at 15km (if they hit that far ofc), but can last a while at 2.5km Quote: monocubic molecular alignments (read laser crystals) tend to shatter when they get swung around too fast. there. Nice one, didnt think of that
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 19:33:00 - [10] Originally by: Goumindong All the ships that field tanks that lasers are strong against have a similar damage type advantage coming right back. The relative advantage there is zero. Should also mention that the laser boat will have a very decent advantage in total dps in that case though. So I'd say relative advantage is in favor of the laser boat usually.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 19:34:00 - [11] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/02/2009 19:36:00 Originally by: oMAKo I really cant believe this has been going on for 13 pages, its clear that blasters need a tracking 'adjustment' and i have seen no (Realistic!) replies to counter this argument. Blasters are fine as they are, its (pulse) lasers that are too good in comparison. Changes in QR were done on purpose to allow smaller ships inside webrange of BSs, thats why blasters need to stay the way they are now. /realistic reply
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 19:38:00 - [12] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/02/2009 19:38:50 Originally by: oMAKo Quote: Blasters aren't fine as they are, its (pulse) lasers that are too good in comparison. /realistic reply fixed Thanks for fixing. So you agree that blasters are ok and pulse should get adjusted to be in line I take it?
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 19:45:00 - [13] Originally by: oMAKo Fixed, and your welcome Thanks. You got any argument to support your case or just trolling btw?
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 19:55:00 - [14] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/02/2009 19:56:41 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/02/2009 19:55:37 Originally by: oMAKo Not trolling mate, just having some fun with a ridiculously long thread on blasters, when its clear they need an adjustment... and i think the 'support' this 'case' has already been proven by Murina... I believe on page 2 onwards. Thats pretty debatable tbh, I personally dont really buy much of his arguments. Sounds to me like justifications for a system more in favor of the people complaining, usual forum business I take it. Edit: most counter-arguments falling into the same category though, I guess most people dont even realize why what was changed in the first place.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 22:12:00 - [15] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/02/2009 22:13:23 Originally by: Murina Especially when the abaddon is doing with its guns alone 900+dps from 0-15km and 750dps out to 45km. Until you factor in transversal that is. In reality the baddon wont do more than maybe 500 up to 5km (and below 5km it looks really bad), and about 800 at 10km and more. As long as the enemy BS is moving, the baddon will infact never do 900+ dps, regardless at what range he is.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 22:22:00 - [16] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/02/2009 22:26:27 Originally by: Murina Nobody gets full DPS at very close ranges if you include transversal figures, even blasters. Ofc not, my point was gallente being always superior to amarr up to 10km. I edit my earlier post to clarify. Lets say baddon does 500 dps to target at 5km, hype will do 650 to same target and mega 760+.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 22:28:00 - [17] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/02/2009 22:32:23 Well, if you ask me scorch is broken, thats the whole issue there is. Swap optimal/falloff on scorch and all is fine. Dunno what really, but agreed lasers get the cake and can eat it too. Quote: And the amusing thing is that nobody is asking to nerf amarr they are just saying that blasters need more dmg out to 20km, but ppl like gourm see it as closing the gap and making their OP system less of a I-WIN. Well yea, blasters are just fine after QR, its lasers that need a damn nerf.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 22:37:00 - [18] Hmm, in some way I cant really believe blasters and autocannons both need boosting, just nerf pulses and be done with it, everything else will fall in place.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 22:46:00 - [19] Originally by: Murina Blasters are useless in BS close range gang combat and they will not be made at least a little bit more useful by nerfing pulse. Huh? I bolded the really ridiculous part of that statement.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 23:01:00 - [20] Originally by: Murina I dunno who you fight but most ppl do not fight at 4km and gangs tend to spread out so ships that need to burn after every primary target just to get into optimal tend to suck. How can you not understand that?. Well, I dunno who you fight, but most fights I'm in are revolving around up to 24km range. Blasters get the 0-10km range advantage, lasers the 10-24km range advantage. Blasters can cover the whole range they need to with null, while being vastly superior below 8km with faction AM. While burning to target is a disadvantage at first glimpse, it doesnt take a genius to realize this doesnt matter much if anything as long as you're in a fight that takes a while rather than a cheap gank where the target is down in seconds.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.18 23:40:00 - [21] Originally by: Murina Tacklers need only be within 24km pulse can hit great out to 45km so burning away is always a option as well as warping in at range. If we agree tacklers are in the picture burning away will be rather difficult. And even if not, blaster platforms are generally faster than pulse platforms if I'm not mistaken. Also, laser boats will struggle to supply the cap to mwd away and shoot at the same time anyway. Quote: Wrong cos pulse have larger ehp as well as the ability to lay down very high dps ALL the time while blasters do crap dmg while they are trying to chase and catch every ship they wanna kill one after another, and that includes accelerating after ships already at speed while getting pounded. First off they are faster for that very reason, and second the amarr BSs will cap themselves out pretty fast if they try to move and shoot.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.19 00:06:00 - [22] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 19/02/2009 00:10:41 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 19/02/2009 00:08:20 Originally by: Murina Why its not like a bubble effects multiple ships speed or mwd's. Its not like there arent ships like Rapier, Huginn, Arazu, Lachesis, Curse and the whole bunch of frigates that can fix that. I can easily tank sentries and keep 3 BS in place in the rapier for example. Also, we can safely ignore bubbles as they only apply to a minority of the eve population anyway. Quote: Oh and gallente ships will need to almost constantly mwd and fire so they will cap out as a gang a lot sooner. A Mega for example lasts a whole 8 minutes on permamwd while shooting a full neutron rack, also they have a slightly bigger cargo bay for charges. Baddon caps out after 2 mins. Also, it is quite more than a few ms speed advantage, more like a few hundred ms. Admittedly its a bit pointless to compare them anyways, as amarr generally dont even have the option to tank actively (and active tanks are generally a lot better in small gang engagements).
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.19 17:48:00 - [23] Originally by: Murina Try flying those ships into or around a 20+ man BS gang and see how long you last, bubbles are the tackle of choice vs a BS gang bud. Been there, done that. With 40km webs its pretty easy to tackle and warp out as soon as you get shot at. Same deal with frigs, need to be more close usually but who cares about a lost frig anyway. Besides a bubble alone wont help you much with gate sizes these days, as your sluggish BS wont be in webrange before they jumped back, specialized tacklers are mandatory if your not fighting inexperienced pilots. While a 20+ man BS gang (a size where advantage is clearly at amarr BS) will be a hot ride, a 5 man BS gang will be lost. Also, I'm not your buddy, friend Quote: Originally by: Omara Otawan Also, we can safely ignore bubbles as they only apply to a minority of the eve population anyway. Like ALL the pvpers in 0.0?..... Well its a minority anyways, and honestly I cant see what difference a bubble should make for this discussions... We can prolly discuss this for days, wont change a thing about gallente being better in small gang engagements and amarr taking the cake in larger groups though.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.19 19:39:00 - [24] Originally by: Murina So in other words useless as your gonna be primary and lasers hit hard at 40km+, so if your not aligned and ready to insta warp your gonna get melted by just a couple of the pulse BS volleys let alone all of them.. Well yea, max skilled triple HS baddon would take it down in 40 sec with scorch, 4 in 10 seconds and so on, but the point is you'll see it coming. And then you warp so you can recloak and go in again. I've yet to see all those yellow brackets turning red at once, and also once the first bunch of hostiles are going yellow its a pretty good sign of things ahead. You can also stay cloaked and decloak once the first shots are fired and start from there, makes it more likely not getting primaried right away when everyone locking you has guns hot and ready to fire. Quote: We are talking about a fight and you are talking about a solo BS burning back to the gate????...A GANG IN A FIGHT WILL HAVE AGGRO AND BE LOOKING TO FIGHT NOT RUN AWAY. No, I'm talking about a fight as well, maybe not a 300 ship blobfest but a fight. Quite honestly, from 20 small gang engagements maybe 1 is mutual, or else you'd not need tacklers/bubbles. In my experience, most fights even happen at the 'other' side of the gate as the one group has to chase the others through. Quote: The majority of pvpers live in 0.0, and even those that do not and fight in low sec or empire will have aggro making jumping or docking not a option. Again, most of the time one group has to catch the other to make the fight happen in the first place, thats why you usually have to watch out when you aggro so they arent jumping and running. Seriously, when was the last time someone that didnt either have 5 falcons or at least more ships stay and fight you? Quote: When was the last time you saw a solo roaming BS on TQ?, or even a 2 man BS gang for that matter?. Hmm, I had something like 5-6 BS and maybe 3-4 support in mind. Works still good, is loads of fun. You got to be careful and evade getting ganked, but really the most fun gang size imo. Everything bigger is a filthy blob But yea, solo BS are dead, never disputed that. Doesnt mean small gangs are dead or cant make good use of BSs.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 18:19:00 - [25] Originally by: lebrata Tracking that was once reasonably effective in blaster optimal but got a massive hit as webs went from 90% to 60% (another detail you tend to omit/forget). You gotta maneuver a bit to get decent hits with large blasters, especially if you're going below your optimal. Falloff is there for a reason, use it, moving below your optimal range is pointless.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 18:36:00 - [26] Originally by: Zubakis If you start to fight in falloff, you lose the damage advantage the blasters have. With the first 500-1000m you can neglect this pretty much, while still getting a nice tracking boost. What I meant was that blaster pilots have to realize the old "approach + web + F[1-8], wait until it explodes" doesnt work too well anymore. As you go below your optimal range, you only hurt your own tracking with no gain whatsoever, so better go a bit above optimal (not too much though as to not hurt dps) and enjoy good tracking/dps.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 18:43:00 - [27] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 18:45:57 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 18:44:27 Originally by: Zubakis Originally by: Omara Otawan What I meant was that blaster pilots have to realize the old "approach + web + F[1-8], wait until it explodes" doesnt work too well anymore. Haha, you know what's funny? When i sit in my geddon i press F1 to activate the point and F2 to activate my guns. So dont play it down, like blaster pilots had an easy game. What is your point if I may ask? Again, if you move the neutron Mega into optimal (like many ppl think it is the way to go), you'll do less dps than if you go 1.1km into falloff. I could have worded it better, but fact stays fact. Quote: The first 0-2km you can also ignore cos nobody hits at that range, giving blasters with AM a 2.5km available optimal... Ofc you can, as it would be stupid to go any closer than optimal distance. The idea behind the optimal/tracking combination of attributes is to give small/nimble ships the option to outrun BS guns, not to give BSs a nice area where they always do full dps.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:31:00 - [28] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 19:33:47 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 19:32:51 Originally by: lebrata And yet with a 45km optimal lasers can do exactly that and get the dmg benefits with little or no reduction until they get to the same range blasters start losing dps due to tracking as well..... Not true. Regardless if we're talking scorch or AN MF, pulses lose out on dps due to tracking way before blasters even reached their peak dps (against BS size/speed targets). Read: when pulse lasers start to drop in dps below blasters due to tracking, blasters are still considerably in falloff and will gain dps with every meter you get closer while lasers constantly lose dps. Depending on target ship blasters reach their peak at (optimal + 1.3km) roughly.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:51:00 - [29] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 19:53:19 Originally by: lebrata Originally by: Jorev Dannel and have less range than autocannons. Mega Pulse with scorch = 45 optimal +10km falloff = 55km... 800mm auto with barage = 6km optimal + 30km falloff = 36km... Its actually like this: Mega Pulse with scorch = 45 optimal +10km falloff = 65km (optimal +2x falloff) 800mm auto with barage = 6km optimal + 30km falloff = 66km Still, saying 800s have more range with barrage as scorch pulse because they can hit for 3 dps where pulses hit for 0 is a bit more than silly, more so if you compare the damage dealt over the whole envelope, i.e. 800s dps will be **** after 36km where pulses still enjoy near max dps and gaining up to 45km. Nerf Scorch tracking imo.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:15:00 - [30] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 20:15:52 Originally by: lebrata Rubbish BS and BC do not move that fast and when they are close enough to make a difference they are in web range.. Yes they do. I'm ofc assuming both BSs webbed inside 10km. Quote: Even morondongs graphs showed this clearly with the BS transversal graph, and the BC graphs i used showed lasers out damaging blasters inside 10km, and while they fell off faster than blasters they were still doing good dmg down to 3+km. Never trust a graph you didnt tamper with yourself?
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:27:00 - [31] Originally by: Jorev Dannel I was also gonna correct you on the true range of autocannons, but thankfully someone else already did that. And some guy says I need more experience of what I'm talking about? In some way, yes. While you are technically right about the true range of autocannons as I said, I explicitly mentioned how silly that statement of yours about better range from 800 ACs vs megapulse was.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:37:00 - [32] Originally by: lebrata (graph) Hmm, from the first look at it I'd say the figures are rather misleading as they are against a uniform target without any propulsion mod. A 'real' combat scenario would be vastly different to this graph is my quick guess.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:52:00 - [33] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 20:55:35 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 20:53:16 Originally by: lebrata Originally by: Omara Otawan without any propulsion mod Simulated webbed, although it should have a MUCH higher sig radius...another worse case scenario for lasers that are doing extremely well....... I can get more transversal against a BS in my webbed active drake, and its not the fastest BC either. The sig radius effect is rather negligible (sp?) as long as sig is big enough for gun resolution, so mwd or not, transversal remains the decisive factor. Originally by: lebrate Yes this is a worst case scenario against a BC with high transversal, a scenario that suits lasers LEAST and they are still doing superbly. No, a worst case scenario for a laser BS would be a hurricane with web, scram and TD on it orbiting at <=4km. Edit: about scramblers, just throwing in here that blaster BS arent necessarily comedy fit with a scrambler either.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:10:00 - [34] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 21:11:40 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 21:10:57 Originally by: lebrata Large gun sig res 400 BC in the graph = 188 sig radius. http://www.eveonline.com/guide/en/g61_5.asp BC on tq = >1k sig radius Doesnt change the relative advantage with lasers vs blasters though, as this advantage is tracking, not signature resolution. The tracking guide you linked explains how it works, although the signature resolution bit is poorly done in it and misleading. Originally by: lebrata And you expect that a blaster BS can hit in those circumstances.... Not really, although if it would be able to hit, it would put out around 250-300% of the dps a laser BS would be capable of putting out.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:21:00 - [35] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 21:21:31 Originally by: Jorev Dannel Quote: Yea i mean a entire 1km in double falloff.... You don't think it's important to use the correct formula to calculate weapon range when it changes the outcome of which weapon can hit from further away? Common sense is also pretty important. You applied the correct formula without common sense, sadly. This 1km part is the only time you do more dps than lasers, and while you technically hit a BS hitting for 3 dps is not worth even considering (common sense here).
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:37:00 - [36] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 21:42:46 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 21:41:18 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 21:38:40 Originally by: lebrata 3 mag stab hyperion with faction AM = 1022 gun dps 3 heat sink abaddon WITH faction MF = 921 gun dps 101dps aint 250-300% pal. Way to ignore tracking and transversal, pal Edit: and what are you on about with optimal anyway? Tracking is important for this, and both ships already lose out to tracking at 4km, the range we are currently discussing. Also I'd like to see the Baddon keeping up the perma-mw game with a Hype Or the baddon putting something in its 5th mid to help out
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:45:00 - [37] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 21:47:03 Originally by: lebrata You should read your previous posts and the context of replies before you post again. Ahh now I get it. Just gradually make the target bigger to the point both ships start to hit, and see what you find out. I said "if it could hit" if you read my post correct, I was thinking you'd realize that implies lower transversal, and no TDs. Ofc the figure is dynamic for other ranges/transversal, I merely grabbed the 4km range as both have tracking troubles there so and are into their optimal.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:54:00 - [38] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 21:55:10 Originally by: lebrata You already had it, you just snipped out the inconvenient parts of my reply that did not suit your troll... I'm afraid you seem to be the troll here. Either that or you didnt understand what I was saying at all. But lets best keep that out of the discussion, we'll just get moderated
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 22:02:00 - [39] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 22:03:29 Originally by: Jorev Dannel Really? 'cos I don't recall saying that autocannons were able to put out massive damage at longer ranges, just that they were longer ranged. I'm a new player and I'm trying to learn here: if people are going to correct me I'd appreciate it if they got it right. Well, they are just technically longer ranged as long as you consider how far they can shoot until they do 0 damage constantly their maximum range. This is infact (optimal + 2x falloff). However, the dps loss after you are at (optimal + 1x falloff) is rather huge, and even at that point you only do around 40% of your onpaper dps. So autocannon users generally consider their range to be (optimal + 1x falloff), but will try to be in around 2/3 falloff worst case to get any sort of dps out of their guns and not just waste ammo (well, any turret user should do it that way, laser users typically have the luxury of always being in optimal though).
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.24 22:31:00 - [40] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 22:34:39 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 24/02/2009 22:32:59 Originally by: nakKEDK ALL BS' ARE USED IN 1v1!!! THEY WILL NEVER HAVE A GANG WITH THEM! Seriously in even a 5 man gang tracking doesnt matter(in most cases), since you should stay out on 15km.. As we know from these forums all gangs consist of at least 50% falcons, so having those extra mids for ECCM makes up for the range disadvantage. Besides what has that to do with the weapon stats anyway, they will track a target x with transversal y at range z just as well, gang or not. What happens in gang combat to individual ships velocity or range to the enemy is on another page, see falcons.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.26 22:30:00 - [41] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/02/2009 22:35:04 Originally by: Zubakis Now to stats, guns loaded with short range ammo, skills at V: MegaPulseT2: optimal 15000m falloff 10000m DHP T2: optimal 13500m falloff 7500 So you lose 1500m optimal and 2500m falloff. Relative small hit on range (optimal + falloff). Now blasters: NeutronT2: optimal 4500m falloff 12500m ElectronT2: optimal 3000m falloff 7500m You lose 1500m optimal and 5000m(ouch) falloff. So you get the same optimal range hit like pulses, the difference is the relative loss. For a pulse laser it means only 11% optimal loss, for a blaster it means 50% optimal loss. And now look at the huge falloff drop. Minor correction, but electron blasters lose 33% optimal compared to neutrons according to your figures, not 50%. They gain 50% range by upsizing, but lose 33% by downsizing. Still these arent the complete stats, also look at damage modifiers, tracking, fitting, etc to get a complete picture. Singeling out an attribute to prove a point and neglecting the others isnt really worth anything. The next issue with comparing other guns with lasers is the missing light/medium type, so the scaling towards other guns will always be off a bit, as there is one tier missing.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.02.27 00:12:00 - [42] Originally by: The Djego This is how it looks today: Ziel: Gre3n Corporation: Knights of the Old Empire Allianz: The Chamber of Commerce Fraktion: Keine Zerst÷rt: Abaddon Quote: System: FD-MLJ Sicherheit: 0.0 Erlittener Schaden: 80598 Hahaha, you better watch out if Murina sees your post, you'll get flamed epically for posting your worthless SiSi stats. Or maybe SiSi is relevant in this case as its a pro-blaster argument?

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.