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)
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.07 16:55:00 - [1] Originally by: Von Sadist Missiles needs a fix to ;< but comon blasters does the most dmg of all close range guns and they got far superior tracking when you compare it to pulse Unfortunately the 4.5ish km of optimal on am neutrons makes the extra bit of tracking they have over pulse utterly irrelevant......
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 15:57:00 - [2] Edited by: lebrata on 24/02/2009 15:59:36 Originally by: Jorev Dannel Pulses have two selling points: Good optimal range, and they don't need ammo: and once you move on to T2 and faction crystals, they do need ammo, just a whole lot less of it. A crap tonne more optimal (ie max available dmg range) vs a very little less dmg at a insignificantly small range. Originally by: Jorev Dannel Blasters meanwhile have better tracking Insignificant in relation to ALL BS's available target selection (other BS/BC sized ships). Originally by: Jorev Dannel higher damage This is utterly misleading. Blasters available range at those higher dmg amounts is tiny (9kmish) and its only marginally higher than the dmg lasers do at those ranges. While lasers have 40+km of higher dmg with a lot of that 40+km doing high dps at ranges blasters do 0dps cos they cannot even reach that far.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 18:09:00 - [3] Edited by: lebrata on 24/02/2009 18:12:56 Originally by: Jorev Dannel If you're going to do a comparrison, do it properly. FINE I WILL. LASER SHIPS 1000% more optimal range than blasters. A mere 30% less dmg at 4.5km with a incremental blaster decrease down to lasers matching blaster dmg at 9km. At 9km they match blaster dmg and get a incremental increase out to 27km where they do 100% more dmg than blasters. From 30km onwards they do 700ish dps out to 45km with 10km of falloff and blasters do 0 from 30km. Instant reload. A cap issue that is solved with a single module. BLASTER SHIPS. 10 second reload. 30% more dmg at 4.5km falling off to 9km. A huge amount of cap use as they need to almost perma run a MWD to catch ships and get into blaster optimal (as with most paper tigers you forgot that little detail) and so also need a cap module or are worthless. 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).
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 18:31:00 - [4] Originally by: Omara Otawan You gotta maneuver a bit to get decent hits with large blasters, especially if you're going below your optimal. Yea cos plated BS are such nimble beasties....
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 18:31:00 - [5] Originally by: Zubakis Originally by: Omara Otawan 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. If you start to fight in falloff, you lose the damage advantage the blasters have. Exactly.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 18:38:00 - [6] Originally by: Jorev Dannel Your argument basically seems to amount to "it's OK for blasters to have less range so long as it makes no functional difference at all and I still get to do 30% more damage". + rant.. I think you need to read better as that makes 0 sense...
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 18:42:00 - [7] Originally by: Omara Otawan With the first 500-1000m you can neglect this pretty much, while still getting a nice tracking boost. The first 0-2km you can also ignore cos nobody hits at that range, giving blasters with AM a 2.5km available optimal... 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. While lasers "burn away + f1-f8, wait until it explodes" does.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:11:00 - [8] Originally by: Omara Otawan 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. 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..... Originally by: Omara Otawan If they dont switch to correct crystals now and then they'll wait a long time for the explosion YEA life is a real nightmare when your biggest pvp problem is forgetting to "insta" reload the correct ammo.....
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:40:00 - [9] Edited by: lebrata on 24/02/2009 19:44:15 Originally by: Jorev Dannel In exchange for which they require more power to run The guns do but the blaster ships need to virtually perma run a mwd so cap is a bigger issue for blaster ships pal. Originally by: Jorev Dannel have trouble hitting targets with higher transversals Wrong, transversal have less effect at the ranges pulse can operate at and the cutoff at close range for pulse is the same as blasters when you consider the available target selection (BS/BC). Originally by: Jorev Dannel are more vulnerable to tracking disruption Rubbish a TD'D pulse BS still has a 20km optimal, while blaster optimal is reduced to close to the "no-mans land" where nobody hits.. Originally by: Jorev Dannel deal less damage than blasters They do 700dps more dmg than blasters from 30-45+km and from 9-27km they match the dmg and go up to 100% more, they do less dmg for 7ishkm.... 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...
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:06:00 - [10] Originally by: Omara Otawan 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). Rubbish BS and BC do not move that fast and when they are close enough to make a difference they are in web range.. 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.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:24:00 - [11] Originally by: Omara Otawan Yes they do. I'm ofc assuming both BSs webbed inside 10km. Never trust a graph you didnt tamper with yourself? Fine... As you can see the dmg falloff due to transversal is insignificant from 45km down to 25km with scorch then a insta reload to MF gives a dmg increase all the way to under 10km (ignore the dip from 13ish to 10km as the graph will not simulate overheated webs).
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:27:00 - [12] Originally by: Jorev Dannel I was also gonna correct you on the true range of autocannons, but thankfully someone else already did that. Yea of course you were pall.... Yea i mean a entire 1km in double falloff....
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:44:00 - [13] Edited by: lebrata on 24/02/2009 20:45:39 Originally by: Omara Otawan Hmm, from the first look at it I'd say the figures are rather misleading as they are against a uniform target A constantly high transversal is a worse case scenario for ALL gunnery systems and especially those with lower tracking (lasers). 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....... Originally by: Omara Otawan A 'real' combat scenario would be vastly different to this graph is my quick guess. 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.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:58:00 - [14] Edited by: lebrata on 24/02/2009 20:59:14 Originally by: Omara Otawan 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. Large gun sig res 400 BC in the graph = 188 sig radius. http://www.eveonline.com/guide/en/g61_5.asp Originally by: lebrate No, a worst case scenario for a laser BS would be a hurricane with web, scram and TD on it orbiting at <=4km. And you expect that a blaster BS can hit in those circumstances....
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:26:00 - [15] Originally by: Omara Otawan 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. Woulda coulda shoulda, the fact is that:- 1. they cannot hit that ship. 2. Within blaster optimal blasters do little more dmg than lasers. 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. Oh and the baddon has 140,000ehp while the hyperion has only 96,000ehp.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:43:00 - [16] Originally by: Omara Otawan Way to ignore tracking and transversal, pal You are the one that was ignoring transversal when you claimed the the blaster ship could hit this:- Originally by: Omara Otawan No, a worst case scenario for a laser BS would be a hurricane with web, scram and TD on it orbiting at <=4km. You should read your previous posts and the context of replies before you post again.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:50:00 - [17] Originally by: Omara Otawan Originally by: lebrata You should read your previous posts and the context of replies before you post again. Ahh now I get it. You already had it, you just snipped out the inconvenient parts of my reply that did not suit your troll... The difference in transversal/tracking ratios for BC and BS when applied to lasers and blasters is not even close to being large enough to cause a 250-300% dmg reduction for lasers vs blasters.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:58:00 - [18] Edited by: lebrata on 24/02/2009 22:00:22 Originally by: Jorev Dannel I also don't quite understand your values after looking up the guns in question: Mega Pulse II's seemed like they should only have 36 KM optimal with Scorch ammo, but I guess you were just factoring in other bonuses from somewhere or other. Nope just properly trained gunnery skills. Originally by: Jorev Dannel In any case, the fundamental point remains that blasters have higher damage. Wrong...,blasters have lower dmg than lasers in all but a tiny range. Originally by: Jorev Dannel You seem to know what you're talking about so perhaps you can explain to me why one gun having a high optimal range is so terrible, or why there should be no short range weapons in the game? Optimal is the range from 0km to X that your weapons can hit for their max dmg. So a ship with 30km optimal and 1000 raw dps can hit for 1000 raw dps from 0-30km. But a ship with 15km optimal and 1000 raw dps can hit for 1000 raw dps from only 0-15km then from 15-30km the dmg steadily "fallsoff" to 500dps (50% of max). This is why large optimal = higher range of max dps.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.24 22:17:00 - [19] Originally by: Jorev Dannel I'm talking about damage potential. Exactly and that is your problem, cos the reality is totally different as the dmg/range.tracking ratios are way off with lasers. Originally by: Jorev Dannel Why is being able to deal a good proportion of your potential damage over a wider area a balance issue when the gun has compensating drawbacks? When the gun has compensating drawbacks it doesn't...., but the fact is that lasers do not have compensating drawbacks compared to blasters. The cap issue is a non-issue as the blaster ship needs to perma run its mwd to get into optimal. The tracking issue is non-existent as lasers tracking is not so poor that it misses until its target ship is at a point that blasters miss as well....
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.25 11:51:00 - [20] Originally by: Goumindong Hey, stop using that graph that uses the wrong ammo and makes it hard to see the advantages at various ranges. The graph was to show the tracking of pulse against that target as part of a discussion. The secondary blaster T2 ammo was irrelevant to the discussion we were having AS I CLEARLY POINTED OUT BUT YOU DECIDED TO IGNORE SO YOU COULD TROLL....
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.02.25 11:56:00 - [21] Originally by: Goumindong This is not true. They do between 30-200% more damage than lasers within their optimal. Reasons 1. Tracking Read your own graphs pal tracking is irrelevant according to you.... Originally by: Goumindong 2. Drone bay We are discussing raw gun dps and the hype only has 25m3 more drone bay than the abaddon anyway Originally by: Goumindong 3. Damage types Ppl use plug and plate fits nowadays making dmg types a non-issue. *You preach the same bullsht in every thread and expect ppl to buy it???...go away troll.**

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.