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) |
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 19:40:00 -
[541]
Originally by: Jorev Dannel
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.
What?
Play a little bit more and read the whole thread and post then.
-- Zuba |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 19:51:00 -
[542]
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.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 20:06:00 -
[543]
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.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 20:15:00 -
[544]
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?
|
Jorev Dannel
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 20:20:00 -
[545]
Quote: 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).
Yeah, because all enemies are automatically orbiting you and you alone in order to obtain maximum transversal velocity, are never following you or moving directly away, and are of course only battleshiops and battlecruisers, because battleships are the only type of ship that can mount blaster weapons?
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?
I'd love to here from someone with greater experience who can actually use that experience to present a cogent argument, but so far it just seems like a whole lot of fuss over nothing. "This weapon system has one minor advantage that my higher damage weapon lacks! Nerf it!"
Yeah right. As a relatively new player it was very instructional to compare weapon types and see all the pros and cons. It would have been pretty pathetic to look down that list and see "blaster - best for everything". ---------------------------------------- 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 20:24:00 -
[546]
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).
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 20:27:00 -
[547]
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.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 20:27:00 -
[548]
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....
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 20:37:00 -
[549]
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.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 20:44:00 -
[550]
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.
|
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 20:52:00 -
[551]
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.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 20:58:00 -
[552]
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....
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 21:10:00 -
[553]
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.
|
Jorev Dannel
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 21:17:00 -
[554]
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? ---------------------------------------- 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 21:21:00 -
[555]
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).
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 21:26:00 -
[556]
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.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 21:37:00 -
[557]
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
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 21:43:00 -
[558]
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.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 21:45:00 -
[559]
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.
|
Julie Thorne
14th Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 21:46:00 -
[560]
Originally by: lebrata
Large gun sig res 400 BC in the graph = 188 sig radius.
Um you mean 300m? (188m/s is the transversal velocity of the target).
Uploaded a modified version of your graph. The webrange is 60km cause you're talking about gangs so a tackler/tacklers with at least one web is a given.
I added a Typhoon just for my own amusement (dual 650mms, torps, Ogre IIs, no damage mods, 1TP). The red line is the Phoon's damage with the best possible navy ammo, the blue line is damage with barrage and javelin torps. It has 150k EHP and a max velocity of 974m/s. The Abbadon with 2 damage mods has 163k EHP and a max speed of 678m/s. The Hype has 110k EHP and it's max velocity is 879m/s. I hope you like the graph
Well that's all. Carry on, fun thread, lots of hilarious posts.
|
|
Jorev Dannel
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 21:49:00 -
[561]
Originally by: Omara Otawan 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).
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.
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.
You should also note I wasn't refering explicitly to large sized modules. 200mm Autocannons can hit up to about 18K umodifier and Focused Medium Pulse Laser only goes to 15K. Add in Scorch and Barrage (although I'm using the base values from tech 1 so it's not technically possible) and it's like 19.5K for the beam versus nearly 26K for the cannon. That's a much bigger proportional difference.
In any case, the fundamental point remains that blasters have higher damage. The circumstances of the fight may lower that damage, sure, but it would be a pretty boring game if they couldn't. I don't see why one gun that doesn't have the longest range of all guns, and does less damage, for more cost, with worse tracking than the gun in question, is getting targetted by all this outrage. I mean geez, missiles can deliver their damage pretty effectively anywhere alongst their range, and the flight speed x duration of standard heavy missiles give them a totally unsupported maximum range of 37.5 KM, and increases multiplicatively.
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? Both the hybrid-turret specialising races also specialise in a second form of offensive combat, so it's not like anyone is "stuck", and as the OP seems so outraged by, they can even fit pulses if they choose to. ---------------------------------------- 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 21:50:00 -
[562]
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.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 21:54:00 -
[563]
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
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 21:58:00 -
[564]
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.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:02:00 -
[565]
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).
|
Jorev Dannel
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:08:00 -
[566]
Quote: Wrong...,blasters have lower dmg than lasers in all but a tiny range.
I'm talking about damage potential. If you're using short ranged weapons and cannot determine range then that's your problem: If you're using guns and can't track, that's your problem too. Blasters deal the most damage when they're able to deal their best damage without interference. If they always did the most damage, that would obviously be silly.
Quote: Optimal is the range from 0km 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 greater dps.
(A) I wasn't asking you! (B) Rather obvious... (C) Not an answer to my question.
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, and when missiles can do the same thing across even greater areas? ---------------------------------------- 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 22:17:00 -
[567]
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....
|
nakKEDK
Gallente tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:25:00 -
[568]
Originally by: Omara Otawan 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
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..
k
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:31:00 -
[569]
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.
|
EvilD's EvilTwin
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:32:00 -
[570]
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, and when missiles can do the same thing across even greater areas?
...because missiles don't near the dmg that a mega can do
i seem to recall very very similar cries for nerfs when the torpedo changes were announced..."omg raven can do as much dmg as a mega out to blahblah range *massive wine*"
drawbacks then were explosion sig and they were met with "your in gang so opponent will have at least 3 painters on him!"
fact of the matter is that people who fly and love the mega and hyperion can't stand for another weapon system to have dps that comes close to theirs
..but as i've said before, by all means boost something with blasters...dmg, tracking, or even a ship bonus to webs...just don't nerf a working weapon system...murina finally discovered the logic in this when he/she stated that nerfing lasers won't help blasters any inside web range, which is what this all boils down to
|
|
|
|
|
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 |