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) |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:37:00 -
[571]
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin
..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
I did not discover anything i had from the start said nerfing lasers was not the answer, the problem was that a lot of amarr players see a slight buff to blasters as a sideways nerf to their systems comparative overpoweredness.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
EvilD's EvilTwin
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:42:00 -
[572]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 09/02/2009 17:12:54
I have seen some awesome fits that utterly own in actual BS combat in eve, and all of them are amarr ships with lasers fitted.
Now the issue as far as im concerned is not nerfing amarr but making the other races less useless in the reality that is TQ pvp with BS. Assigning races "roles" to try and justify their overpowerdness or their uselessness is absurd considering the amount of time it takes to train each race.
Now i doubt anybody is asking for blasters ect to be allowed to hit at 45km for 900 raw dps like lasers can but when you consider blasters get a base dmg of around 30ish% more dmg than lasers at 4.5km, while lasers get 1000% more optimal with tank breaking dps things need fixing.
A great idea was to meet halfway so that under 10km gallente still hit hardest, while from 10-20km both races are pretty much matched in raw dmg and over 20km gallente falloff in dmg to 0 gun dps at 27-30km while amarr continue on doing high dps out to 45km and then falloff.
Now this is not a 1 v 1 scenario so those that with to start posts fits and bleating about tank ect please sod off now, this is about keeping amarr at the top as the best med range BS in the game while also being effective at close range just as they are now.
But while also giving gallente a bit of a toe into the range outside 9km just like amarr have a toe and a good ability inside 10km.
Deschenus Maximus has a great idea for this although i think we can both agree that testing would be required.
heh....i guess you were one of the more logical ones from the beginning
|
Jorev Dannel
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:45:00 -
[573]
Quote: ...because missiles don't near the dmg that a mega can do
Right, but lasers can't do as much damage as blasters can do, so it seems like a simple progression with the trade-off increasing?
Quote: ..but as i've said before, by all means boost something with blasters...dmg, tracking, or even a ship bonus to webs...
That makes a lot of sense to me because it enhances the uniqueness of blasters instead of taking away from pulses, but the people complaining about pulses seem to be saying that damage and tracking on blasters isn't an advantage...and if they're wrong, then aren't blasters already good? ---------------------------------------- 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 |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:50:00 -
[574]
Originally by: Murina
I did not discover anything i had from the start said nerfing lasers was not the answer for the blaster problem (although a reduction in laser tracking now nano is gone would not be such a bad idea), the problem was that a lot of amarr players see a slight buff to blasters as a sideways nerf to their systems comparative overpoweredness.
AC platform pilots will demand compensation, they also need to compete with blasters and lasers somehow.
|
nakKEDK
Gallente tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:56:00 -
[575]
Edited by: nakKEDK on 24/02/2009 22:56:25
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Murina
I did not discover anything i had from the start said nerfing lasers was not the answer for the blaster problem (although a reduction in laser tracking now nano is gone would not be such a bad idea), the problem was that a lot of amarr players see a slight buff to blasters as a sideways nerf to their systems comparative overpoweredness.
AC platform pilots will demand compensation, they also need to compete with blasters and lasers somehow.
boost large AC damage by 7.5% or something <.<
k
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:59:00 -
[576]
Edited by: Murina on 24/02/2009 23:04:17
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Murina
I did not discover anything i had from the start said nerfing lasers was not the answer for the blaster problem (although a reduction in laser tracking now nano is gone would not be such a bad idea), the problem was that a lot of amarr players see a slight buff to blasters as a sideways nerf to their systems comparative overpoweredness.
AC platform pilots will demand compensation, they also need to compete with blasters and lasers somehow.
A minor increase in optimal and a minor decrease in falloff (to compensate) would give them slightly better dmg in their falloff range while still keeping their essential nature as falloff combat ships.
But the exact figures will need proper tweaking and work.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 23:06:00 -
[577]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 24/02/2009 23:05:57
Originally by: Murina
A minor increase in optimal and a minor decrease in falloff (to compensate) would give them slightly better dmg in their falloff range while still keeping their essential nature as falloff combat ships.
But the exact figures will need proper tweaking and work.
Eek, that sounds like a boost in theory but would turn out as a nerf in practice.
Tracking or Dmg it needs to be.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 23:14:00 -
[578]
Edited by: Murina on 24/02/2009 23:15:35
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 24/02/2009 23:05:57
Originally by: Murina
A minor increase in optimal and a minor decrease in falloff (to compensate) would give them slightly better dmg in their falloff range while still keeping their essential nature as falloff combat ships.
But the exact figures will need proper tweaking and work.
Eek, that sounds like a boost in theory but would turn out as a nerf in practice.
Really, it would give better overall dmg as the falloff reduction would start further out while keeping AC range exactly the same.
(example only)
Consider a 10km optimal instead of 6km with a 26km falloff instead of 30km, the max useful range is the same but the falloff curve is higher so you would be doing higher average dmg out to 36km than before.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 00:15:00 -
[579]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 24/02/2009 23:04:17
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Murina
I did not discover anything i had from the start said nerfing lasers was not the answer for the blaster problem (although a reduction in laser tracking now nano is gone would not be such a bad idea), the problem was that a lot of amarr players see a slight buff to blasters as a sideways nerf to their systems comparative overpoweredness.
AC platform pilots will demand compensation, they also need to compete with blasters and lasers somehow.
A minor increase in optimal and a minor decrease in falloff (to compensate) would give them slightly better dmg in their falloff range while still keeping their essential nature as falloff combat ships.
But the exact figures will need proper tweaking and work.
Bad idea, Blasters are already king of dps and increasing their optimal will only make them op. Give blasters more falloff so you can give them more range without being op.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 00:19:00 -
[580]
Edited by: Trader20 on 25/02/2009 00:21:23
Originally by: lebrata Edited by: lebrata on 24/02/2009 21:31:49
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 (max optimal range of 4.5km) 3 heat sink abaddon WITH faction MF = 921 gun dps (max optimal range of 15 km)
101dps aint 250-300% pal.
Oh and the baddon has 140,000ehp while the hyperion has only 96,000ehp.
Yea but a hyp can rep more then an abaddon due to bonuses. (Fleet buffer fits aside most buffer ships fit at least 1 armor rep) Edit: Srry this thread isn't about tanks though Blaster def needs a falloff increase, this would also help the deimos because it would have massive falloff range.
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 00:27:00 -
[581]
Originally by: Trader20
Bad idea, Blasters are already king of dps and increasing their optimal will only make them op.
3 mag stab hyperion with faction AM = 1022 gun dps (max optimal range of 4.5km) 3 heat sink abaddon WITH faction MF = 921 gun dps (max optimal range of 15km ) Oh and the baddon has 140,000ehp while the hyperion has only 96,000ehp.
40,000 less ehp, 101more dps for 30% of the available range does not a king of DPS make bud.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Antikas Sourr
Caldari Wild Card Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 00:36:00 -
[582]
Edited by: Antikas Sourr on 25/02/2009 00:44:49 Edited by: Antikas Sourr on 25/02/2009 00:38:57
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 00:28:21
Originally by: Trader20
Bad idea, Blasters are already king of dps and increasing their optimal will only make them op.
3 mag stab hyperion with faction AM = 1022 gun dps (max optimal range of 4.5km) 3 heat sink abaddon WITH faction MF = 921 gun dps (max optimal range of 15km ) Oh and the baddon has 140,000ehp while the hyperion has only 96,000ehp.
40,000 less ehp ,101 more dps for 300% less range does not a king of DPS make bud.
The king of available DPS is amarr pulse by a long chalk.
I don't quite understand how Trader's quote of blasters being awesome has anything to do with EHP. How EHP would affect blasters being awesome or not also boggles my mind. Frankly, you just proved that Blasters on a Hyperion do more damage than the Pulse lasers, therefore that makes them DPS kings (unless someone gets insane rapid firing on large Artilleries). Also, you say that for "300%" less range, that the blasters aren't good... well, wouldn't we all like a Blaster that can hit out at 200km and track an Interceptor (at max speed) and have a signature resolution larger than a Titan?
I think not. _______________
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 00:43:00 -
[583]
Edited by: Trader20 on 25/02/2009 00:43:35
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 00:31:54
Originally by: Trader20
Bad idea, Blasters are already king of dps and increasing their optimal will only make them op.
3 mag stab hyperion with faction AM = 1022 gun dps (max optimal range of...... 4.5km) 3 heat sink abaddon WITH faction MF = 921 gun dps (max optimal range of....... 15km ) Oh and the baddon has 140,000ehp while the hyperion has only 96,000ehp.
40,000 less ehp, 101 more dps for 300% less range does not a king of DPS make bud.
The king of available DPS is amarr pulse by a long chalk.
I don't see where your gettin confused, blaster do more DPS then pulses which makes them the king?? Also the range issue with blaster needs to be fixed. Blaster should fight more in falloff (making ships like the thorax/deimos a better pvp ship) then you could deal ok damage while your mwding in on ur target and once u get into optimal u can start dealing some really high dps. So I say at least double blaster falloff but keep optimal the same.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 00:45:00 -
[584]
Edited by: Trader20 on 25/02/2009 00:45:47 I already apologized but had to state the obvious.---> Edit: Srry this thread isn't about tanks though
|
Antikas Sourr
Caldari Wild Card Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 00:48:00 -
[585]
Originally by: Trader20 Edited by: Trader20 on 25/02/2009 00:45:47 I already apologized but had to state the obvious.---> Edit: Srry this thread isn't about tanks though
Agreed. _______________
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 01:05:00 -
[586]
Edited by: Trader20 on 25/02/2009 01:08:36 Most pvp encounters happen under 25km. Pulses can hit almost everything within that radius but blasters will have a hard time hitting anything within pulse optimal (15km). So you say, "wtf" blaster can't even hit in falloff where pulses can hit their optimals?" Amarr will deal it's full turret damage inside 15km (tracking aside). If blaster falloff is increased, blasters will be able to do half the damage in falloff while mwding to the target then once they arrive in optimal, blasters will do full damage. Consider a 1 minute fight: Pulse ship: First 30 sec = Pulses in optimal doing full damage Next 30 sec = Pulses in optimal doing full damage Blaster ship: First 30 sec = Blaster ship fighting in falloff doing half damage mwdin to target Next 30 sec = Blaster ship arrives in optimal doing full damage. So we have the pulse ship which does less dps doing full damage in optimal. Then we have the blaster ship which has to fight in falloff for half the battle but when it arrives in optimal is dealing full damage. So the average of the dps of the battle will be close because of the blasters advantage of more dps but forcing it to move into it's optimal. Now if a blaster pilot lands right ontop of it's target then the blaster will definitely have the highest dps of the battle.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 01:29:00 -
[587]
Originally by: Trader20 So I say at least double blaster falloff but keep optimal the same.
Why not just give gallente BS bonus to large projectile instead?
Would save the trouble converting blasters to ACs...
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 02:39:00 -
[588]
Originally by: lebrata
Fine...
An image that lies
Hey, stop using that graph that uses the wrong ammo and makes it hard to see the advantages at various ranges.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 02:46:00 -
[589]
Originally by: lebrata
2. Within blaster optimal blasters do little more dmg than lasers.
This is not true. They do between 30-200% more damage than lasers within their optimal.
Reasons
1. Tracking 2. Drone bay 3. Damage types
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 05:07:00 -
[590]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 05:07:27
Originally by: Murina
Really?, it would give better overall dmg as the falloff reduction would start further out while keeping AC's effective range exactly the same.
(example only)
Consider a 10km optimal instead of 6km with a 26km falloff instead of 30km, the max useful range is the same but the falloff curve is higher so you would be doing higher average dmg out to 36km than before.
Yea, as you are directly nerfing both primary autocannon ammo types.
The example is not good as you only look at barrage. If you take the base guns stats, and move a km from falloff to optimal:
- you take bonused falloff range from Barrage and give it back unbonused to optimal
- you take unbonused falloff range from Emp, and give it back with a penalty to optimal
Both ammo types will effectively have lost range, and thus dps. Its a nerf.
|
|
EvilD's EvilTwin
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 06:14:00 -
[591]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 05:45:26 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 05:42:36
The best solution to help out both ACs and blasters at the same time imo is boosting blaster damage and keep tracking as it is (lets say +7.5% dmg for an example), and give autocannons a tracking increase (lets say +5% here), or a mix of both (+5% tracking +2.5% dmg) to compensate. Or something in between even, like blasters +5% dmg / +2.5% tracking, and +2.5/+5 for ACs. Pulse lasers stay the way they are.
That would keep blasters and ACs nicely distinct, and fit well RP-wise while giving both systems a more pronounced strength over pulse lasers. Not a nerf to lasers either, as they'd still be masters of their own territory, while only being weaker compared to the other guns in their own realms.
/end thread
perfect solution imo
|
Rhadamantine
Game Community
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 06:56:00 -
[592]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: lebrata
2. Within blaster optimal blasters do little more dmg than lasers.
Another 'word game' post full of lies.
No one believes your spouting anymore Gormy. Maybe you should apply for CSM.
Regards. Rhadamantine. |
vostok
Minmatar Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 10:18:00 -
[593]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 24/02/2009 23:20:09 Edited by: Murina on 24/02/2009 23:15:35
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 24/02/2009 23:05:57
Originally by: Murina
A minor increase in optimal and a minor decrease in falloff (to compensate) would give them slightly better dmg in their falloff range while still keeping their essential nature as falloff combat ships.
But the exact figures will need proper tweaking and work.
Eek, that sounds like a boost in theory but would turn out as a nerf in practice.
Really?, it would give better overall dmg as the falloff reduction would start further out while keeping AC's effective range exactly the same.
(example only)
Consider a 10km optimal instead of 6km with a 26km falloff instead of 30km, the max useful range is the same but the falloff curve is higher so you would be doing higher average dmg out to 36km than before.
You idiot...
I mean really, increasing optimal from about 0 to about 0 makes no difference however nerfing falloff means you make null ammo useless.
My vote is raw damage increase, blasterthrons are now matched for damage by crap like torp ravens while the raven has 30km range capless, trackingless weapons and 2 utility highs!
EFT has made people see that they can't match the raw damage of blasters and as such CCP has increased their damage, ignoring all the other factors, like range in the guns. And just like the gallente outposts, taken the only advantage of gallente and given it to everybody else in the name of balance.
And I mean come on, the eos... Wtf! - Adaptation is not an excuse for lack of ballance! -
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 11:51:00 -
[594]
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 -
[595]
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 bullsh*t in every thread and expect ppl to buy it???...go away troll.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 12:09:00 -
[596]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 12:09:51
Originally by: vostok
You idiot...
Firstly....screw you r***rd.
Originally by: vostok nerfing falloff means you make null ammo useless.
Secondly we were discussing AC not blasters moron.
Originally by: vostok I mean really, increasing optimal from about 0 to about 0 makes no difference
Thirdly a larger optimal gives the system a longer max available dmg range and as such increases the dmg it does overall.
But hey it was just a idea muppet and dmg/tracking can be increased instead if needed.
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 - 2009.02.25 12:39:00 -
[597]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 12:45:01
Originally by: Goumindong
2. Drone bay
3 x mag stab hype + drones = 1247dps with 4.5km optimal
3 x heat sink abad + drones = 1126dps with 15km optimal
Abaddon has 139,000ehp hyperion has 96.000ehp
Hyperion also has a issue fitting the large cap injector but a implant may sort that.
So if you include drones ect blasters get 12ish% more dps for 300+% less range....
LASERS RULE.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 13:24:00 -
[598]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 13:26:10
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 12:45:01
Originally by: Goumindong
2. Drone bay
3 x mag stab hype + drones = 1247dps with 4.5km optimal
3 x heat sink abad + drones = 1126dps with 15km optimal
Abaddon has 139,000ehp hyperion has 96.000ehp
Hyperion also has a issue fitting the large cap injector but a implant may sort that.
So if you include drones ect blasters get 12ish% more dps for 300+% less range....
LASERS RULE.
Lasers rule in your dream world.
My Tempest have 91.2k EHP and really nice resists against Lasers. And still, i pwn Amarr BS'es in my Tempest whatever DPS they have.
Today, i don't really care about what weapon that have most range and DPS and what ship that have most EHP.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Lalita Prestoc
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 13:29:00 -
[599]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 12:45:01 3 x mag stab hype + drones = 1247dps with 4.5km optimal
3 x heat sink abad + drones = 1126dps with 15km optimal
Abaddon has 139,000ehp hyperion has 96.000ehp
Hyperion also has a issue fitting the large cap injector but a implant may sort that.
So if you include drones ect blasters get 12ish% more dps for 300+% less range....
LASERS RULE.
Hay guys, i'm going to compare gank setups and passive tanks using a active tank bonused ship that has a extra mid vs a passive tanked ship that uses 2 to 3 times the cap to fire its weapons!
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 13:37:00 -
[600]
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc
Hay guys, i'm going to compare gank setups and passive tanks using a active tank bonused ship that has a extra mid vs a passive tanked ship that uses 2 to 3 times the cap to fire its weapons!
So you wanna talk about cap and active tanking in the same breath?????...let alone how much cap blaster ship use to mwd into their optimals...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
|
|
|
|
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 |