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) |
ChalSto
LOCKDOWN. HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 00:57:00 -
[511]
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 21/02/2009 22:50:36
Originally by: dalman
Yes... ...which is because, as mentioned a hundred times already in the thread, lasers are overpowered in the tracking*range stat and one of them should be nerfed a bit.
Tracking * Range is a stat that means nothing.
What only matters is tracking @ range. I.E. Tracking @ the range where you are right now.
And tracking @ the range you are right now always gives advantages to blasters and autocannons if there is any advantage to be had.
Quote:
The only reason the vagabond excels at killing frigates is because the low-end autocannons are so out of balance in tracking.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha. No, this is not true. Vagas excel at killing frigates because they can reduce transversal well.
I still dont know in which world you are playing....but its not EvE.
I dont know if you "play" dumb, or if you are, or if you only troll...
...and to troll people, that play this game for over 6 years now and know what they are talking about makes you look incompetent.
If you want to "role-play" a Goon, do it on CAOD...
Originally by: Agmar ----------------------------------------------- "The North is so ghey that even the NPCs fly ravens." |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 01:24:00 -
[512]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Zubakis
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Murina Wrong lasers are good at all ranges from 0-45km while blasters are only good at 0-10km.
Tell that to the Abaddon who got totally slaughtered by my Tempest because the Lasers does crap DPS at around 1-10 km. It's when we start to orbit Amarr BS'es at those ranges the Amarr BS'es gets in trouble.
The Abaddon never took my armor down to even 85% before the Abaddon died horribly to me. Well it might be because i was out tracking him when i was orbiting him.
It only shows that the Lasers are not good in the 0-10 km distance.
1vs1, lol, reality check, halloo
Even in theoretical 2vs2 situation, you'll be double webbed. And now try to orbit And if you web back, relative speeds will be between 10-30m/s. And now the amarr pilot just start to match your flight direction to reduce transversal even more. And see now no problem to track you.
Stop posting your 1vs1 comparisons, they are useless.
Like i said on the earlier page.
Just wait until i have managed to set together a 10x Tempest or Megathron gang vs 10x Any Amarr BS'es gang on sisi.
You will think the Amarr BS'es will kill us, but no, i wont tell more.
Every ships will be using t2 modules and normal EANM's, 1600mm Plates, DC II and Damage Mods setups like we normally would do on TQ.
Hate to break it on you, but 10v10 homogenous ships is about as unrealistic a scenario as a BS 1v1. (Especially if we're talking BS sized)
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 02:00:00 -
[513]
Originally by: James Lyrus Hate to break it on you, but 10v10 homogenous ships is about as unrealistic a scenario as a BS 1v1. (Especially if we're talking BS sized)
Why?.
Alright, then, i can make a 200 vs 200 bs sized gang fight on sisi then. Happy now?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 02:19:00 -
[514]
Originally by: NightmareX
Why?.
Alright, then, i can make a 200 vs 200 bs sized gang fight on sisi then. Happy now?.
Because players that group together rarely all make the same decisions before that grouping, leaving a non-homogeneous group of ship sizes, races, and weapons.
Because the players that group together that do make coordinated decisions rarely make decisions that result in homogeneous battleship groups.
Because no reasonable set of decisions are going to produce homogeneous battleship groups then a test composed of homogeneous battleships would then be "unrealistic".
That being said, it doesn't make homogeneous ship tests worthless, they still provide a valuable set of data. They just provide a different set of data than anecdotal evidence from TQ. Granted, this set of data is likely to be nearly as anecdotal without really analyzing each set of skills, fittings, and actions, so its tough to say what it would mean anyway.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 09:23:00 -
[515]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 21/02/2009 20:29:53
Originally by: Goumindong Thorax, Myrmidon, Hyperion, Taranis...
Ignoring that this thread is about BS.....
The Hyperion and thorax suck in gang combat due to their crappy range and the myrm is good with a passive shield tank projectile guns and drones.......
I thought you wanted to know which ships were "kings of the short range". You got your answer, those ships are the kings of the short range in their respective classes.
If you wanted to know about gang ships, you should have asked about gang ships.
So on paper they do high DPS so you think that makes them king?, while ignoring the fact that gang combat is the medium that virtually all the ships in eve work within.
You have done nothing but show what a fool you are.
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 - 2009.02.22 09:26:00 -
[516]
Originally by: Goumindong
I could just as well say that railguns are imbalanced because their tracking at range is so much better than everything else.
But by doing so you would look once again stupid as beams have much better tracking than rails.........
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 - 2009.02.22 09:35:00 -
[517]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: dalman
They are? Since you're typing "we" in your anser to me, I assume this "we" is you and me. Then you're hereby challenged to find anything I've said to back up this comment of yours...
"we" is the general "we" not the specific "we".
No, you use the "we" comment because you spend a lot of time trolling development forums and are so deluded you think you have a following and are speaking "for the ppl".
You are such a clown even GS said so and did not support the vote for you as a CSM...
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 - 2009.02.22 10:54:00 -
[518]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: dalman ...
"we" is the general "we" not the specific "we".
No, you use the "we" comment because you spend a lot of time trolling development forums and are so deluded you think you have a following and are speaking "for the ppl".
You are such a clown even GS said so and did not support the vote for you as a CSM...
Priceless.
Regards. Rhadamantine. |
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P CCP
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 16:41:00 -
[519]
Cleaned.
Please stay on-topic and avoid bogging the discussion down in personal battles.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Email |
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:33:00 -
[520]
Originally by: CCP Mitnal Cleaned.
Please stay on-topic and avoid bogging the discussion down in personal battles.
...says the Dev making an off topic remark.
If you are going to post, at least give us your opinion. Or tell us what you have heard around the water cooler... something/anything!
|
|
Tankanaka
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 01:04:00 -
[521]
If blasters are so messed up, and Amarr so overpowered then why is one of the top Amarr pilots in eve, Kil2, flying so many Gallente ships these days? Search his name in Battleclinic. Surely someone with a limited amount of funds wouldn't waste his isk on poorly balanced ships when he can pilot Amarr.
|
Jorev Dannel
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 15:43:00 -
[522]
I'm a pretty new player but as part of my learning process I recently did a detailed comparrison of the medium sized weapons of all types, and as far as this thread goes, I've got to say:
I don't get it!
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.
Blasters meanwhile have better tracking, higher damage, and far less cap use per second, which often results in more aggressive gun bonuses on blaster-friendly ships. That seems like a pretty advantageous trade-of to me; range is obviously the greatest advantage if you can leverage it, but if you can't than blasters are clearly the superior weapons.
Now, when you remember that Amarr ships are slow and that autocannons, which have greater absolute range, get bonuses with ships that in general are the fastest in the game, it's really, really hard to see why anyone would be crying nerf over this.
I don't even get what you could possibly want. Pulses have less optimal range? Why not just remove them from the game, that's all they're good for? Less damage? They already do less damage than blasters and for a significantly greater cost.
I know this is a radical idea, but how about the possibility that if you decide pulses are best for a specific purpose, ie, combat at a very specific short range, and decide to use them as a result...consider that making a correct fitting choice instead of whining about it?
If you fit a ship with blasters and make it faster you can outdamage pulses. If you fit a ship with autocannons and make it faster you can outrange pulses. You can certainly employ cap drains against them, which is less effective on hybrid weapons and does nothing to projectiles and missiles. What's the problem? ---------------------------------------- All dressed in uniforms so fine, They drank and killed to pass the time Wearing the shame of all their crimes With measured steps they walked in line |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 15:57:00 -
[523]
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.
|
Jorev Dannel
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 17:39:00 -
[524]
Quote: A crap tonne more optimal (ie max available dmg range) vs a very little less dmg at a insignificantly small range.
If you're going to do a comparrison, do it properly.
Advantages of Pulses: A lot more optimal range, less ammo need, moderately more overall range.
Advantages of Blasters: Slightly more damage, drastically less capacitor need, moderately better tracking.
If the best you can come up with is that higher damage doesn't matter, tracking doesn't matter, and weapons can't deal damage beyond their range (startling observation, that) then the artillery is over there. Enjoy. ---------------------------------------- All dressed in uniforms so fine, They drank and killed to pass the time Wearing the shame of all their crimes With measured steps they walked in line |
Taco Raptorian
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 17:57:00 -
[525]
Originally by: Jorev Dannel
... Advantages of Blasters: Slightly more damage, drastically less capacitor need, moderately better tracking.
If the best you can come up with is that higher damage doesn't matter, tracking doesn't matter, and weapons can't deal damage beyond their range (startling observation, that) then the artillery is over there. Enjoy.
Did you know that tracking on paper is different from tracking considering optimal range?
How's my transversal? Call 0800-hugeupclose.
____________________________ A smile reflected in endless space. |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 18:09:00 -
[526]
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).
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 18:19:00 -
[527]
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.
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 18:28:00 -
[528]
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.
-- Zuba |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 18:31:00 -
[529]
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 -
[530]
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.
|
|
Jorev Dannel
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 18:33:00 -
[531]
Quote: FINE I WILL.
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".
Shorter range is a drawback. It should affect how you play, that's what makes it interesting and different. If you don't think a 30% damage increase is powerful then use another gun. It's a 30% damage increase. You can't brush that off or claim that it's nothing. If you want to get the advantage, you have to live with the drawback. Analysing the weapon's range forever then trying to average it out makes no sense at all: every weapon would be trash compared to artillery. If you use short range guns, you're going to have a plan to close to short range. ---------------------------------------- All dressed in uniforms so fine, They drank and killed to pass the time Wearing the shame of all their crimes With measured steps they walked in line |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 18:36:00 -
[532]
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.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 18:38:00 -
[533]
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...
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 18:40:00 -
[534]
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. -- Zuba |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 18:42:00 -
[535]
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.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 18:43:00 -
[536]
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.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 19:11:00 -
[537]
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.....
|
Jorev Dannel
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 19:27:00 -
[538]
Quote: And yet with a 45km optimal lasers can do exactly that and get the dmg benefits with little or no reduction
In exchange for which they require more power to run, have trouble hitting targets with higher transversals / are more vulnerable to tracking disruption, deal less damage than blasters and have less range than autocannons. Having a wider area over which you deal your best level of damage is not inherently broken, it's just the upside to having a higher optimal, which is what pulse lasers are all about.
As for "45 KM", that's with skills, ammo, modules, ship bonuses etc. which are available with all guns if you choose to make use of them. The basic value is more like 20 KM for large modules. ---------------------------------------- All dressed in uniforms so fine, They drank and killed to pass the time Wearing the shame of all their crimes With measured steps they walked in line |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 19:31:00 -
[539]
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.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 19:40:00 -
[540]
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...
|
|
|
|
|
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 |