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) |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 21:01:00 -
[1321]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 21:04:16
Originally by: Joe Logoffski
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
I honestly think that a boost to damage within blasters 10-20km range as shown in the graph (although AM should not be worth using over 10km) is the way forwards to make these ships useful in gang combat.
The problem I see with that graph is that ACs are left in a very sad state, with pretty much no room to breathe against blasters as well as pulses.
Not a good solution imo.
Like i said its not perfect as AM needs a reduction in range a little amongst other things that need tweaks here and their like AC's.
But in principal the idea is sound and better than things are now.
Originally by: NightmareX
That's what i'm trying to tell him to. But as you know, he's twisting and are trying to take the real points away from what we are talking about, so it's hard to really explain anything to him here.
Maybe if you used words like logoffski did instead to explain that instead of making up lies about me wanting to increase blaster dmg in the 25-30km range on top of the graph buff that might help you liar.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Joe Logoffski
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 21:02:00 -
[1322]
Might be a better solution to fix the shortrange t2 ammo (Hail + Void) instead.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 21:04:00 -
[1323]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean But in principal the idea is sound and better than things are now.
No it's not. It will make more problems than it will fix.
Can we have another idea than this idea please?. That idea is not going to work at all, and CCP will never change Blasters to that anyways.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 21:12:00 -
[1324]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Remove the tracking penalty would be a start.
Now we are getting somewhere, finally.
I was just thinking the same now about the t2 ammo.
Now sophisticatedlimabean, can we please discuss now, rather than *****ing at each others that will go no where?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Joe Logoffski
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 21:15:00 -
[1325]
Edited by: Joe Logoffski on 01/03/2009 21:19:02 Yes, tracking penalty is definitely to harsh considering the ranges they have to operate at.
Maybe not lifting the tracking penalty completely but rather making it 75% of base tracking paired with a slight boost to their damage (the closerange ammunition damage, not the guns dmg modifier).
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 21:24:00 -
[1326]
Originally by: Joe Logoffski Edited by: Joe Logoffski on 01/03/2009 21:19:02 Yes, tracking penalty is definitely to harsh considering the ranges they have to operate at.
Maybe not lifting the tracking penalty completely but rather making it 75% of base tracking paired with a slight boost to their damage (the closerange ammunition damage, not the guns dmg modifier).
That's something i can totally agree on.
And if you boost the base damage on the Blaster guns it self, then you will make every single ammo do more damage to. So it's better to have an ammo type where you can do better at a more range, but still have some few penalites that doesn't hurt so much.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 21:26:00 -
[1327]
Originally by: Joe Logoffski
Yes, tracking penalty is definitely to harsh considering the ranges they have to operate at.
Maybe not lifting the tracking penalty completely but rather making it 75% of base tracking paired with a slight boost to their damage (the closerange ammunition damage, not the guns dmg modifier).
Ditch voids falloff and tracking modifier so its falloff complements the curve of null instead of just ditching at 10km.
Blasters are supposed to be good in real tight range and even without the tracking penalty so it is like AM it still would miss small ships just like AM does now...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 22:11:00 -
[1328]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 22:14:40 But just still remember that if one of the t2 Blaster ammos (most likely to be the closer range ammo that gives a bonus to falloff) for example gets a 10% boost in something, then the t2 Autocannon ammo (close range ammo with falloff bonus) will also need a 10% boost in something.
Maybe Missiles to, it just depends on what will be boosted.
If that can happen that both types of those ammos can get a lower penalty than they have now or that they can get a little boost of some other sorts, then i wont deny it. Because changing one ammo type is much better than just changing one weapon so the weapon gets better with every ammo it can use.
Just make sure that you don't boost those t2 ammos so they will be the best ammo within 5 km then. Antimatter or faction Antimatter for Blasters still need to be the best at those close ranges.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 22:16:00 -
[1329]
Maybe but im not sure the ammo idea with void is the right way, maybe a adjustment to null may work.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 23:24:00 -
[1330]
the ammo idea is not very good imho, as it seems (at least to me) to be the guns that are broken, not necessarily the ammo. (although short range rounds could indeed have a look into their tracking) by fixing the guns with t2 ammo, you dictate t2 guns and the respective skills, which would leave out a large number of players and gear (e.g. faction ammo and faction guns). ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 23:44:00 -
[1331]
Originally by: Chi Quan the ammo idea is not very good imho, as it seems (at least to me) to be the guns that are broken, not necessarily the ammo. (although short range rounds could indeed have a look into their tracking) by fixing the guns with t2 ammo, you dictate t2 guns and the respective skills, which would leave out a large number of players and gear (e.g. faction ammo and faction guns).
Well it's the best idea so far anyways.
I'm up for some more ideas though.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Gladiator Jonny
Gallente Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 00:30:00 -
[1332]
Signed...
Just boost the god damn damage. Its all they had going for them in the first place..
|
Noix Arikani
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 00:41:00 -
[1333]
threadnaught
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 01:53:00 -
[1334]
Edited by: Goumindong on 02/03/2009 01:53:07
Originally by: The Djego
We allready had this discussion.
Then why don't you fly a Hyperion?
Quote: Well I have stated quite some arguments why I use a Mega instead of a Hype. I have stated arguments why the Blaster Ship today is underpowert. I have stated arguments that with the better Tracking/DPS even in 1o1s Blaster Ships are only equal at best to Laser ships(in the BS Class mainly) because of the EHP/Range diffrence(while the Laser ships getting better with bigger gangs).
I have stated that any change in QR didnŠt improve Blaster Ships at all: - weaker Web affects the Blaster ship the most because itŠs based on this PVP range - Scramblers affect Blaster ship the most, because they work at Blaster range and handycap the ship with the smaller range more - lower speeds and longer accelation handicaps Blaster ships the most(because they got the smallest Range in the beginning and need to get close fast - Tracking advantage against other Weapons donŠt helps much at her short range, Orbiting is pointless against ships that move(both webbed) or in situations you get a 2. Web/Painter/Scrambler on you
I literally, had just explained this again.
1. The web changes hurt whatever ship is in range with a bias towards larger ships with worse tracking. There is no bias towards ships that ought to be in their range.
2. Scramblers are just as much a tool for blaster ships as anything else.
3. The speed changes actually made blaster ships faster for the majority of the time that they will have to move. If your battleship has to travel under 30km you got a SPEED BOOST from the change
This is in bold, because damned if it isn't annoying to see this bull repeated ad nauseam.
4. No, its really not. Any damage advantage is a good damage advantage. Not orbiting if you're being shot at is really just saying "i don't want to do more damage than the enemy". Its dumb.
Quote: Also I stated that I doubt it will went so far, but It is basicly my Idea why I suggest a Blaster Boost(including other short range Weapons, excluding Lasers) to ballance up Small Gang\Solo again in favour of ships that belong there and loose her point in the bigger gangs.
And if gangs get larger, you just keep boosting and boosting the weapons :roll:
Originally by: The Djego
This is vs a 2 EANM+DCU Tank it is the worst case scenario for any Laser based ship
Kinda. You see there are pretty much two options
1. Shield tank 2. Armor tank
Gallente damage is good against both, and its tank is caldari/minmatar DPS weak, amarr strong Minmatar is good against Gallente/Amarr/Minmatar, weak against caldari/some minmatar, and its tank is good against Amarr, weak against caldari/minmatar Caldari is good against all, and its tank is Amarr/Caldari damage weak Amarr is good against Caldari(some minmatar), and its tank is weak vs all except amarr.
If Amarr no longer have the range advantage(as shown that they do not by the graph), choosing Amarr becomes explicitly foolish. You would rather choose Caldari if you wanted to take down shield tanks because you would be able to hit armor tanks just as well, and you would still only have one damage weakness
|
Joe Logoffski
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 02:02:00 -
[1335]
Edited by: Joe Logoffski on 02/03/2009 02:04:17
Originally by: Chi Quan the ammo idea is not very good imho, as it seems (at least to me) to be the guns that are broken, not necessarily the ammo. (although short range rounds could indeed have a look into their tracking) by fixing the guns with t2 ammo, you dictate t2 guns and the respective skills, which would leave out a large number of players and gear (e.g. faction ammo and faction guns).
Well imo, t1 guns have no relevance in pvp at all, and since pve isnt the problem I dont see any players really left out here.
Sure, there might be people that actually use t1 guns in pvp, but lets be realistic, those havent got any chance at all, regardless if they could use t2 ammo or not.
And if they have a chance to win, they're fighting an opponent that is as ill-equipped as they are themselves.
As for boosting t2 shortrange ammo, ranges should be left untouched in any case, the only thing I'd look at is tracking penalty and damage.
T2 longrange ammo (Null / Barrage) is fine as it is, tweaking there is certainly not necessary.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 03:01:00 -
[1336]
Originally by: Joe Logoffski
Edit: to make it clear, if you want to be good at pvp you got to train the skills, selling a gtc and buying faction guns shouldnt be the quick way to success pvp, that would be unfair to all those that invested months and sometimes years into skilling their characters.
Skill points are only one of the many ways to increase your ability to play. If anything there is too large a gap between older and newer players. As nice as it is to have that advantage as an older player that doesn't make it good for the game.
|
|
CCP Applebabe
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 06:54:00 -
[1337]
This thread has been driven too far away from the topic.
Locked.
Applebabe Community Representative CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang |
|
|
|
|
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 |