Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 45 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 02:53:00 -
[361]
Originally by: Goumindong
They largely would. Value is relative. The only advantage pulse ships have other others is that they can operate with advantages in medium ranges. Yet, rails come shockingly close to that effectiveness already. Why do blasters have to hedge them out as well as rails? Why not just use rails, a Gallente racial weapon?
Then I throw the question back to you: if rails come shockingly close to pulse effectiveness, why not use beams to edge out rails?
Originally by: Goumindong You do realize that if you make blasters gang weapons, that ships within a gang will no longer be vulnerable to being piked off by smaller and faster ships right?(at least in the long term, as they migrated towards blasters and away from rails and pulse)
I don't follow. Could you explain your reasoning, please?
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 12:53:00 -
[362]
Edited by: Murina on 18/02/2009 12:56:29
Originally by: Goumindong
Balancing against what doesn't matter is pretty pointless.
So says the bloke claiming that multiple webs on a BS are a comparable benefit to having 0-45+km of high dps a monster EHP tank.....while also using SOLO BS pvp stats to try and make a case...
Rails = 280 RAW gun dps at 20km against a dual webbed BC and virtually 0 from 0-15km.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 13:04:00 -
[363]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Then I throw the question back to you: if rails come shockingly close to pulse effectiveness, why not use beams to edge out rails?
1. Damage types 2. Fitting 3. The fact that there should be a situation where you would want to use every turret type/primary turret BS in. I.E. If Autocannons are the verstatile soloer, blasters are the raw solo/small gang ship, pulse are medium/small gang, rails/beams are medium > large gang if you hedge out pulse on the bottom end you have a place for everything but pulse.
Now if you want to argue that there are problems with arties(since i do not have them there) then go right ahead, but that is a much more complicated question than what we're currently answering.
Quote:
I don't follow. Could you explain your reasoning, please?
Its twofold.
1. Changes take time to happen, so an immediate change will only benefit those who have already trained blasters
2. Games are a series of decisions with various payouts. With each advantage you confer a disadvantage. Currently, by choosing a ship that fits better within the "medium gang" scenario you are giving up being able to fight effectively alone.
If you boost blasters to cover that area(as proposed) then you are able to choose a ship that is both good alone, and good in a gang. I.E. you give up nothing by choosing the gang ship. Your ability to play in a gang scales well and if you must leave that gang for any reason(have to get somewhere else, have to log off etc) or get stranded, you no longer suffer the weaknesses that the ship specifically fit for a gang will.
Because of this, you eventually(as people migrate in the their choices) remove the ability of smaller forces to effectively pick off ships, since the ships they have to pick off are now much more effective.
E.G. lets say you're flying a solo tempest with medium/low dps, a smartbomb, a heavy neut, and a split EHP/repping tank(with or without some sort of tackler). Your can pretty easily pick off the majority of enemies gang battleships(by armor resistance types and tracking for Amarr) and smaller ships, and anything you can't you can just leave(So long as its not overwhelming). But if these medium gang choices migrate from pulse and rails to blasters, then that option is no longer open. The option to do it using a blaster boat is not longer open...
And don't tell me it takes a lot of forces to camp a pipe, it really doesn't. It just takes the gumption to take some risks(which can be negated well with a scout)
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 13:09:00 -
[364]
Originally by: Goumindong
Balancing against what doesn't matter is pretty pointless.
Originally by: Goumindong
E.G. lets say you're flying a solo tempest with medium/low dps, a smartbomb, a heavy neut, and a split EHP/repping tank(with or without some sort of tackler).
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 13:16:00 -
[365]
Originally by: Goumindong
If you boost blasters to cover that area(as proposed) then you are able to choose a ship that is both good alone, and good in a gang. I.E. you give up nothing by choosing the gang ship.
So cos blasters are not crap (not crap is about the best you can call them after the web nerf tbh) at solo/1 v 1 pvp they should suck in gangs????...stfu.
Blasters already do dmg in the area proposed (10-20km) they just need to do a little more so they are at least marginally useful in gang combat.
Its strange though i did not see you use this angle when pulse got the tracking boost so they could hit at close range.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 13:21:00 -
[366]
Murina, we get it, you're trolling. Let the big boys talk for a minute.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 13:23:00 -
[367]
Edited by: Murina on 18/02/2009 13:26:36
Originally by: Goumindong ad hom
Nice to see you back on form...
How about you take a break from making eve into your image of how it should be for a while you arrogant little child.
Or maybe you can tell us again how ppl who have trained for over 5 years should now be happy and understand that they deserve to be sh*te in all but a non-existant for of close range BS pvp (solo) just cos you think that is how the game should be....
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Alpha Prime
Destructive Influence KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 14:34:00 -
[368]
Edited by: Alpha Prime on 18/02/2009 14:34:47
Autocannons PRO: Good Damage. No cap use. Damagetype by choice. Good Tracking. Good Range.
Autocannons CON.
none.
- - - -
Blasters PRO.
NONE.
Blasters CON.
High Cap use. Therm & Kinetic dmg only (overall highest resisted damagetypes). Bad tracking. Bad range.
- - - -
Pulselasers PRO.
Long ranges. Good tracking.
Pulselasers CON.
High cap use.
- - - -
Considering the high cap usage on Blasters combined with their currently bad tracking and lowest range, it's only fair that they receive a damageboost to make up for all weak points.
At the moment, there is No reason what so ever to use blasterships instead of other close range ships because of their slow speed, bad range and awful tracking. Not to mention their insane cap-use which renders the ship dependent on injectors or cap-transfers.
Boost Blaster Damage and adjust the tracking so it can actually hit targets at the range which the guns are ment to be used.
Oveur 2006: We're going to make blobwarfare less effective. Oveur 2008: We're installing better code so players can bring bigger blobs.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 15:01:00 -
[369]
Edited by: Goumindong on 18/02/2009 15:01:24
Originally by: Alpha Prime
Autocannons PRO: Good Damage. No cap use. Damagetype by choice. Good Tracking. Good Range.
Blasters PRO.
NONE.
Autocannons CON.
none.
Blasters CON.
High Cap use. Therm & Kinetic dmg only (overall highest resisted damagetypes). Bad tracking. Bad range.
Dot Dot Dot
|
Raniss
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 15:03:00 -
[370]
Originally by: Goumindong Murina, we get it, you're trolling. Let the big boys talk for a minute.
No it is you who is trolling, fyi.
|
|
Misina Arlath
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 15:08:00 -
[371]
Lasers have always been considered the worst guns in EVE.
Lasers have never been changed.
Now you want a nerf for what has been unanimously known as the worst weapon category in EVE?
I hate you people.
Learn to use your own guns and ships.
Let me say that again.
L2P. -------------------------------------------------- "Every complex problem has a solution which is easy, neat and wrong!" |
Raniss
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 15:12:00 -
[372]
Originally by: Misina Arlath Lasers have always been considered the worst guns in EVE.
Lasers have been changed multiple times, either trough a direct buff (trackin speed/damage) or trough a indirect buff (lower em resistance on armor).
Now you want a nerf for what has been unanimously known as the worst weapon category in EVE?
I hate you people.
Learn to use your own guns and ships.
Let me say that again.
L2P.
I bolded the troll part for you.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 15:24:00 -
[373]
Originally by: Raniss
I bolded the troll part for you.
Its incorrect, but unlikely a troll. That being said, lasers have never received a damage bonus as you claim(well, at least, not within the last 4 years)
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 15:48:00 -
[374]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Raniss
I bolded the troll part for you.
Its incorrect, but unlikely a troll. That being said, lasers have never received a damage bonus as you claim(well, at least, not within the last 4 years)
Tracking buff = dmg buff at closer ranges and vs smaller targets ect.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Rhadamantine
Game Community
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 15:58:00 -
[375]
wow gorm you've excelled yourself with word games in this thread.... hats off
Regards. Rhadamantine. |
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 16:03:00 -
[376]
Originally by: Misina Arlath Lasers have always been considered the worst guns in EVE.
Lasers have never been changed.
Now you want a nerf for what has been unanimously known as the worst weapon category in EVE?
I hate you people.
Learn to use your own guns and ships.
Let me say that again.
L2P.
You don't know what you're talking about/EVE didn't start when you came around.
Lasers have been very bad untill 2004, everyone fitted 1400mm on his Apoc back then. I remember flying in gangs with 3/4 of it consiting of Amarr BS (myself included) in spring 2004. I remember them being VERY popular when the Gankageddon was FOTM. Even after it was nerfed they were the BS with the highest flexability and damage/tank. Then I took a break and see lasers got a significant boost while I was away... still can't figure out how the Amarr whiners got CCP that far (over 2 years of cosisting whining I guess).
Over time Amarr BS got a significan boost through new bonuses and indirect buffs. They never were bad. All the whines were a projection of the sucky t1 Cruisers/Frigs that didn't benefit from direct or indirect changes at all. And all the lousy PvPers who were jealous of the solo capeability of Mega/Tempest, a discipline they would never have participated in anyways.
Today solo PvP is insignificant, or just not possible. At least not in a BS. They are being used in gangs as imobile slugging machines. The Mega is supposed to be the most damage dealing of them all. But situations where it actually outdamages a Geddon in small gangs or even in a lot of 1on1s are rare. There is no reason to choose blasters over pulse...
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 16:06:00 -
[377]
Originally by: Goumindong
1. Damage types
You keep bringing this up, but not all ships have the same resists. Yes, lasers are "the worst" to use on a T1 dual EANM tank, but this is not the only type of tank out there.
Originally by: Goumindong
2. Fitting
That was my first thought, but after a bit of messing around, I found that you can get and overall better fit with more damage and tank from a DHB Geddon than from a 350mm Mega.
Originally by: Goumindong 3. The fact that there should be a situation where you would want to use every turret type/primary turret BS in. I.E. If Autocannons are the verstatile soloer, blasters are the raw solo/small gang ship, pulse are medium/small gang, rails/beams are medium > large gang if you hedge out pulse on the bottom end you have a place for everything but pulse.
You say that, I still say that is not the case. Pulse would still be very good in small gangs, and would still own blaster boats in med gangs. Because the damage difference between pulse and blasters is so small, you will always outdamage blasters starting at 15 km because that is where falloff begins and that is the lowest optimal a megapulse will get. As deeper into falloff the blasters get, you can simply switch to longer ranged crystals and outdamage them. So the area where pulse still own everything else would be from 15 to 45 km. Not exactly a small range where they are superior to everything else.
Originally by: Goumindong
Its twofold.
1. Changes take time to happen, so an immediate change will only benefit those who have already trained blasters
Hmm ok, but so what? The changes in the metagame and the direct boosts to pulse lasers only favoured those that has already trained lasers until everyone else caught up.
Originally by: Goumindong
2. Games are a series of decisions with various payouts. With each advantage you confer a disadvantage. Currently, by choosing a ship that fits better within the "medium gang" scenario you are giving up being able to fight effectively alone.
If you boost blasters to cover that area(as proposed) then you are able to choose a ship that is both good alone, and good in a gang. I.E. you give up nothing by choosing the gang ship. Your ability to play in a gang scales well and if you must leave that gang for any reason(have to get somewhere else, have to log off etc) or get stranded, you no longer suffer the weaknesses that the ship specifically fit for a gang will.
Because of this, you eventually(as people migrate in the their choices) remove the ability of smaller forces to effectively pick off ships, since the ships they have to pick off are now much more effective.
E.G. lets say you're flying a solo tempest with medium/low dps, a smartbomb, a heavy neut, and a split EHP/repping tank(with or without some sort of tackler). Your can pretty easily pick off the majority of enemies gang battleships(by armor resistance types and tracking for Amarr) and smaller ships, and anything you can't you can just leave(So long as its not overwhelming). But if these medium gang choices migrate from pulse and rails to blasters, then that option is no longer open. The option to do it using a blaster boat is not longer open...
And don't tell me it takes a lot of forces to camp a pipe, it really doesn't. It just takes the gumption to take some risks(which can be negated well with a scout)
The thing here is that a rail boat would still be more effective than a blaster boat in medium gangs. 350mm do more raw DPS than blasters at 27km (end of Neutron falloff) even with the 16% increase in damage, and that's before you take into account hit quality. Also, it doesn't tip the scale enough to warrant giving up all the extra range rails give you. So in short, your fear of seeing blasterboats dominate any type of gang seems unfounded to me.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 19:28:00 -
[378]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
You keep bringing this up, but not all ships have the same resists. Yes, lasers are "the worst" to use on a T1 dual EANM tank, but this is not the only type of tank out there.
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.
Quote:
That was my first thought, but after a bit of messing around, I found that you can get and overall better fit with more damage and tank from a DHB Geddon than from a 350mm Mega.
At how much range and how long does the cap last? A DBH geddon has raw numbers at its side but its only got 26+15km range compared to the 36+30 that you've got on the Mega. That is a big difference.
Quote: Because the damage difference between pulse and blasters is so small, you will always outdamage blasters starting at 15 km because that is where falloff begins and that is the lowest optimal a megapulse will get.
Look at the numbers, a Gank Hyp already wins in DPS only out to about 15km against an Abaddon. Extending the falloff and optimal would end that and you would push the range at which Amarr can be valuable out to 35km+. 35-50km is not a large window of operation(its about 1/5th the effective distance that a blaster boat commands now)
Quote:
Hmm ok, but so what? The changes in the metagame and the direct boosts to pulse lasers only favoured those that has already trained lasers until everyone else caught up.
I am making the basis of the argument for the position that things will change. That there is essentially a point that players will reach their ideal weapon system for the type of work that they do. Most of the posts here(including by you) are predicated on some ideal that people would still fly laser boats if they could fly blaster boats and not have to worry about the disadvantages. I.E. that they would not change.
We know that is false, since before the changes to resistance(which is a big long interesting topic in and of itself) "no one" was flying pulse ships in that manner.
Quote:
The thing here is that a rail boat would still be more effective than a blaster boat in medium gangs. 350mm do more raw DPS than blasters at 27km (end of Neutron falloff) even with the 16% increase in damage, and that's before you take into account hit quality. Also, it doesn't tip the scale enough to warrant giving up all the extra range rails give you. So in short, your fear of seeing blasterboats dominate any type of gang seems unfounded to me.
But 27km is not the distances at which the majority of these fights take place. And when you're engaging much farther than that you're in sniper territory, where the question of pulse lasers is irrelevant.
|
oMAKo
Gallente Kiroshi Group
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 19:32:00 -
[379]
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.
CCP, please give Blasters a boost! ------------- Kiroshi Group ------------- |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 19:33:00 -
[380]
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 -
[381]
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
|
oMAKo
Gallente Kiroshi Group
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 19:36:00 -
[382]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/02/2009 19:34:43
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 aren't fine as they are, its (pulse) lasers that are too good in comparison.
/realistic reply
fixed ------------- Kiroshi Group ------------- |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 19:38:00 -
[383]
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?
|
oMAKo
Gallente Kiroshi Group
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 19:41:00 -
[384]
Originally by: Omara Otawan 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.
Fixed, and your welcome ------------- Kiroshi Group ------------- |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 19:44:00 -
[385]
Originally by: Goumindong
At how much range and how long does the cap last? A DBH geddon has raw numbers at its side but its only got 26+15km range compared to the 36+30 that you've got on the Mega. That is a big difference.
The cap lasts plenty long enough for a fight.
The ability of rails to be a effective option under 25-30km is nonexistent as they have worse tracking than pulse did before ppl cried for and got a buff to pulses tracking for the exact same reasons.....
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 19:45:00 -
[386]
Originally by: oMAKo
Fixed, and your welcome
Thanks. You got any argument to support your case or just trolling btw?
|
oMAKo
Gallente Kiroshi Group
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 19:51:00 -
[387]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: oMAKo
Fixed, and your welcome
Thanks. You got any argument to support your case or just trolling btw?
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: oMAKo
Fixed, and your welcome
Thanks. You got any argument to support your case or just trolling btw?
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. ------------- Kiroshi Group ------------- |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 19:55:00 -
[388]
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.
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 20:07:00 -
[389]
Originally by: Goumindong
Look at the numbers, a Gank Hyp already wins in DPS only out to about 15km against an Abaddon. Extending the falloff and optimal would end that and you would push the range at which Amarr can be valuable out to 35km+. 35-50km is not a large window of operation(its about 1/5th the effective distance that a blaster boat commands now)
Yeah look at the numbers, how about you look at the tank on this gank hype? You like to argue with tanks and damage types, dont you?
-- Zuba |
Jack Van'Violence
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 20:09:00 -
[390]
Blasters are fine, /says large blaster spec 5 man
butt boost null a little sil vou plea
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 45 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |