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 - 2009.02.07 06:50:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 07/02/2009 06:52:42 You know something's wrong when I'm actually considering this fit:
[Hyperion, Lasers] Large Armor Repairer II Large Armor Repairer II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
100MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I Heavy Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Auxiliary Nano Pump I Nanobot Accelerator I Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Warrior II x5 Vespa EC-600 x5
Call me crazy, but: -The Hype, being fast and agile, can probably stay at range from a blaster BS, and will do more damage than anything with large ACs that fires in falloff. -Damage isn't stellar, but when taking falloff into consideration, is comparable, if not better, than Null. -Additionnaly, you get to engage targets up to 40 km away. Good luck doing anything at that range with blasters. -Unlike with blasters, you don't need to have your target dual webbed + scrammed to actually hit it, as long as you stay around your optimal and not too far below. -Because you don't need all you mids for tackle, you have ECCM and don't have to fear ***cons. -Amarr BS would do this better, ofc... if there was an Amarr BS with 5 mids. EDIT: as far as cap is concerned, lasts about 2/3 as long as a similar Ion fit.
In conclusion, boost blasters.
|
Leiara Knight
Gallente The Oblivion Guard
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 06:55:00 -
[2]
You present an intriguing case.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 06:59:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Leiara Knight You present an intriguing case.
I'll try refitting my Hype tomorrow. I'll let you know how it goes.
|
Dors Venabily
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 07:01:00 -
[4]
He does blaster need some love at least in the tracking department
|
Shereza
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 07:20:00 -
[5]
Well, two logins required before I could even start to write my post. Seems that that lovely login bug is flaring up again.
Any rate, here's a mission runner's reason for boosting blasters.
[Rokh, New Setup 2] Capacitor Flux Coil II Capacitor Flux Coil II Capacitor Flux Coil II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Domination 100MN Afterburner Caldari Navy X-Large Shield Booster 'Copasetic' I Particle Field Acceleration Photon Scattering Field II Photon Scattering Field II Heat Dissipation Field II
Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I, Standard L Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I, Standard L Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I, Standard L Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I, Standard L Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Torpedo
Capacitor Control Circuit I Capacitor Control Circuit I Capacitor Control Circuit I
Hammerhead II x5
Of course the only reason I first developed this was for fun and after that it became an exercise in anti-Sansha warfare and now I believe I'll actually buy (another) rokh just so I can put this setup into play. |
Gaiden R
Gallente Quam Singulari Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 08:54:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Gaiden R on 07/02/2009 08:55:48 You should try out a nano laser raven i hear they win eve Happy Days |
De Guantanamo
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 09:05:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 07/02/2009 06:52:42
In conclusion, boost blasters, nerf lasers.
Fixed. |
Ergebt Euch
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 09:12:00 -
[8]
your drawing the wrong conclusion it should be "nerf lazors", not boost [one of many] other weapons |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 09:28:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
You know something's wrong when I'm actually considering this fit:
Yes, there is something wrong. But its not lasers, nor is it blasters.
|
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 09:53:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
You know something's wrong when I'm actually considering this fit:
Yes, there is something wrong. But its not lasers, nor is it blasters.
Blasters need better dmg out to 20km, and pulse need less tracking. |
|
Shereza
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 10:07:00 -
[11]
Originally by: lecrotta Blasters need better dmg out to 20km, and pulse need less tracking.
The devs seem to disagree as they boosted pulse laser tracking a year or so ago. ____________________
Minmatar in Fantasy or Duct Tape Goes Medieval. |
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 10:18:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Shereza
Originally by: lecrotta Blasters need better dmg out to 20km, and pulse need less tracking.
The devs seem to disagree as they boosted pulse laser tracking a year or so ago.
During the nano era if i remember..., now that is gone a lot of systems are OP and need readjusting.
|
Irida Mershkov
Gallente Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 11:12:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
You know something's wrong when I'm actually considering this fit:
Yes, there is something wrong. But its not lasers, nor is it blasters.
It's the dual ECM. NARFZ FLACON!Z!!!
|
hobo deluxe
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 11:13:00 -
[14]
I agree that blasters could use some serious love in the tracking department but dont you nerf pulses. if Pulses are nerfed enough amarr will turn into crap again (most used amarr ships use pulses)
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 11:16:00 -
[15]
You can either boost hybrids, missiles and projectile weapons, or nerf lasers. Nerfing lasers seems easier to me. ---------------------------------------------
Originally by: Neth'Rae Military experts are calling this a troll.
|
Thenoran
Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 11:35:00 -
[16]
The optimal of Blasters, despite their raw high DPS need a boost. Even at point blank range, which can be extremely hard to stay at, the high tracking will either fail entirely because you are TOO close, skyrocketing your angular and getting within that weird little area where no turret will ever hit.
So you are forced to fight at something like 2-6km depending your ship and setup, and staying within that range effectively with a Blaster boat and doing the major part of your damage is extremely difficult.
As a result, either you miss altogether by being too close and fubaring your angular, or you end up fighting in falloff, doing far less damage than Scorch or Autocannons.
I'd rather see their falloff reduced and sort of swapped with their optimal, still giving them a relative short range, but allowing to do more damage outside of point blank range. Tracking speed boost won't help because once you hit that magical dead zone under 1000m, your turrets are not going to hit anything, regardless of tracking. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
|
Rhadamantine
Game Community
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 12:17:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
You know something's wrong when I'm actually considering this fit:
Yes, there is something wrong. But its not lasers, nor is it blasters.
You are correct, it's the rubbish you've been spouting since QR came crashing in unfinished and messed up the game. |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 12:29:00 -
[18]
I cannot beat any 3 other ships in a Hyperion, therefore blasters are underpowered and need boosting. -- 249km locking? |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 13:05:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Thenoran
I'd rather see their falloff reduced and sort of swapped with their optimal, still giving them a relative short range, but allowing to do more damage outside of point blank range. Tracking speed boost won't help because once you hit that magical dead zone under 1000m, your turrets are not going to hit anything, regardless of tracking.
This. If lasers are to be the high optimal, low falloff weapons, and autocannons the high falloff, low optimal weapons, let blasters be the half optimal, half falloff weapons.
I don't want to see lasers get nerfed. But in the current metagame, they are simply superior in almost all regards. I have not used missiles extensively enough to tell wether they really are terrible now, and I can't use large ACs well enough to actually try using them in PvP, but I do know that large blasters (and mediums as well, to a lesser extent) are in a sore spot at the moment.
|
Artemis Rose
Sileo In Pacis Mean Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 13:37:00 -
[20]
Laser Hyp w/ Scorch does about the DPS as a Cruise Raven. YEAAHH SIGN ME UP!! |
|
ElCoCo
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 13:53:00 -
[21]
The only thing that needs some boost is BS sized neutron blaster damage. Boink! |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 13:53:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 07/02/2009 13:54:27
Originally by: Artemis Rose Laser Hyp w/ Scorch does about the DPS as a Cruise Raven. YEAAHH SIGN ME UP!!
At Scorch range, Hyp w/ Null does about the DPS as a freighter (none). YEAAHH SIGN ME UP!!
Also, with max skills, a Rail Hype will do about 40 extra DPS over my laser fit... but with 60% less tracking. And its cap will only last 25% above my fit. EDIT: that is with Scorch and CN Uranium on 350mm rails, just so we're clear.
|
Rastigan
Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 16:11:00 -
[23]
Giving the Hyperion a +10% a level large hybrid falloff bonus instead of its repping bonus, and a 125m3 Drone bay (its a travesty for any Gallente battleship not being able to field 5 heavies) would still make the Hyperion worse than the other tier 3 BS's but at least it wont be as bad. |
Marn Prestoc
Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 16:15:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Marn Prestoc on 07/02/2009 16:15:27 /me points at cap...
Thats like running a dual rep setups on a Abaddon, and takes two heavy cap boosters... nevermind hoping there's not neut's in use. |
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 16:37:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 07/02/2009 16:37:23
Originally by: Thenoran The optimal of Blasters, despite their raw high DPS need a boost. Even at point blank range, which can be extremely hard to stay at, the high tracking will either fail entirely because you are TOO close, skyrocketing your angular and getting within that weird little area where no turret will ever hit.
So you are forced to fight at something like 2-6km depending your ship and setup, and staying within that range effectively with a Blaster boat and doing the major part of your damage is extremely difficult.
As a result, either you miss altogether by being too close and fubaring your angular, or you end up fighting in falloff, doing far less damage than Scorch or Autocannons.
I'd rather see their falloff reduced and sort of swapped with their optimal, still giving them a relative short range, but allowing to do more damage outside of point blank range. Tracking speed boost won't help because once you hit that magical dead zone under 1000m, your turrets are not going to hit anything, regardless of tracking.
you obviously never used large autocannons
|
Von Sadist
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 16:47:00 -
[26]
Missiles needs a fix to ;<
but comon blasters does the most dmg of all close range guns and they got far superior tracking when you compare it to pulse |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 16:55:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Von Sadist Missiles needs a fix to ;<
but comon blasters does the most dmg of all close range guns and they got far superior tracking when you compare it to pulse
Unfortunately the 4.5ish km of optimal on am neutrons makes the extra bit of tracking they have over pulse utterly irrelevant...... |
P'uck
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 17:14:00 -
[28]
I said it before QR and I think it's a good time to repeat it;
too many changes at once. QR didnt open a whole new can of worm, it tipped over a friggin barrel full of them.
And pulses might be one of those worms, I don't know, but it certainly seems so.
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 17:21:00 -
[29]
The question really begs to be asked:
What's the advantage to fitting anything besides pulses? ----------------- Friends Forever |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 17:51:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Marn Prestoc
/me points at cap...
Thats like running a dual rep setups on a Abaddon, and takes two heavy cap boosters... nevermind hoping there's not neut's in use.
A duel-rep Hype that gets neuted is pretty much ****ed in any case. But yeah, it is quite cap-intensive. I'll see if I can make it work or not.
Originally by: P'uck I said it before QR and I think it's a good time to repeat it;
too many changes at once.
I completely agree.
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg The question really begs to be asked:
What's the advantage to fitting anything besides pulses?
Well, ACs are capless, so a full passive fit using them and neuts seems rather nice (I'm thinking Tempest here). I may be alone in thinking this, but large ACs seem somewhat less ****ed at the moment than blasters.
|
|
Abduul Azeez
Caldari THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 17:53:00 -
[31]
Boost Goons.
oh...wrong topic.
K...Nerf lasers. |
Megan Maynard
Minmatar Out of Order
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 18:02:00 -
[32]
USE MORE CAPS LOCK! |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 18:07:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Megan Maynard USE MORE CAPS LOCK!
OK! I WILL THX!
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 18:10:00 -
[34]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 07/02/2009 18:15:27 NOTE: The dps in this fit is a result of using 5 hardwirings.. a 5% rof, a 5% pg, a 5% cap, a -5% turret cap usage, and a 5% large hybrid dmg.
allthough technically you can drop everything but the pg hardwiring, and get cap stable with 1398 dps (total price including ship, little over 500m), i chose to add all the hardwirings for the 1514 dps rich kid on the block fit, and also because with all 5 hardwirings and t1 antimatter the dps spells out 1337 which was just too humorous not to be taken note of. i mean wtf are the odds right..
So.. without further ado.. i present to you:
[Hyperion, Onslaught] Gallente Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Gallente Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Gallente Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Amarr Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Domination Stasis Webifier Domination 100MN MicroWarpdrive
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L
Hybrid Burst Aerator II Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I
Hammerhead II x5
EM: 69.3%, THERM: 60.3%, KIN: 60.3%, EXPLO: 45%
ehp 90k.
20k armor
dps: 1337 with t1 antimatter (yep i'm not kidding bout the 1337)
dps: 1514 with caldari navy antimatter.. 5143k volley damage
cap for 3 minutes with everything on. mwd speed 891ms.
cap stable with everything on (except mwd), at 57%
BOOST BLASTERS.. CAUSE 1514 kin/therm dps and 5143k volley damage just isn't enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
UMEE
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 18:34:00 -
[35]
you will get primaried and lose your 500mill before you reach anything man.
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 18:40:00 -
[36]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 07/02/2009 18:41:35
Originally by: UMEE you will get primaried and lose your 500mill before you reach anything man.
i know this but.. hear this first..
now.. it's a pure gank fit.. and it might be a tad ballsy in some ways but it's not all that expensive and more importantly it shows the amount of dps the hyperion can dish out..
i know it's only feasible in small scale fleets or in situations where you warp in very close to the target, but nonetheless it shows what kind of dps the hyperion can dish out..
and 1514 dps KIN/THERM (best overall dmg type in game) is no joke considering none of the items are officer or deadspace but solely npc faction or t2.. i have yet to see any other battleship that can dish out that much dps.. while being cap stable and still having that much tank that it has..
blasters might require some minor adjustments.. that might be.. but they hardly need a huge damage boost.
|
Crimsonshot Brooti
Minmatar Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 18:42:00 -
[37]
Why dont ccp have a bonus purely for blasters, that they will be better up close(ie the deadzone) then any other weapon system, and they should really put a diff bonus per race tbh ,exclusive for them , ie deadzone up to say 100m -250m and slight tracking increase. That way they are truely the close up race in your face.
(Ps if its been mentioned before then sowwy)
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 18:43:00 -
[38]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 but they hardly need a huge damage boost.
Damage boost would not really fix anything in any case.
|
Selia Rain
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 19:11:00 -
[39]
There's nothing wrong with lazors, nerf blasters, I want to be the dps king for once.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 19:31:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Selia Rain There's nothing wrong with lazors, nerf blasters, I want to be the dps king for once.
You... we (I do have Amarr BS V, after all...) already are, as far as applicable DPS is concerned. |
|
Shatner19
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 21:12:00 -
[41]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 07/02/2009 18:15:27 NOTE: The dps in this fit is a result of using 5 hardwirings.. a 5% rof, a 5% pg, a 5% cap, a -5% turret cap usage, and a 5% large hybrid dmg.
allthough technically you can drop everything but the pg hardwiring, and get cap stable with 1398 dps (total price including ship, little over 500m), i chose to add all the hardwirings for the 1514 dps rich kid on the block fit, and also because with all 5 hardwirings and t1 antimatter the dps spells out 1337 which was just too humorous not to be taken note of. i mean wtf are the odds right..
So.. without further ado.. i present to you:
[Hyperion, Onslaught] Gallente Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Gallente Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Gallente Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Amarr Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Domination Stasis Webifier Domination 100MN MicroWarpdrive
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L
Hybrid Burst Aerator II Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I
Hammerhead II x5
EM: 69.3%, THERM: 60.3%, KIN: 60.3%, EXPLO: 45%
ehp 90k.
20k armor
dps: 1337 with t1 antimatter (yep i'm not kidding bout the 1337)
dps: 1514 with caldari navy antimatter.. 5143k volley damage
cap for 3 minutes with everything on. mwd speed 891ms.
cap stable with everything on (except mwd), at 57%
BOOST BLASTERS.. CAUSE 1514 kin/therm dps and 5143k volley damage just isn't enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
eft number dont apply, that 1514 dps is the theoretical max dps you can achieve, and with the lowest optimal and average falloff, in all actuality your only going to be doing 50-75% of that number and only at point blank range.
the main issue with blasters is the damage to range ratio when comparing them to mega pulses. in actual combat MP's are more likely to achieve their maximum damage pontential given a variety of situations, as opposed to blasters which cant hit consistently even in falloff ranges, and has a pretty large decay in damage output the farther out you try to reach. look at the pulse apoc with a scorch fittings its get a bit ridiculous that a ship can spit out consistent dps from 62km down to 0km, plus with the tracking of megapulses you are more likely to achieve max dps while still being mobile.
while the hype is probably the king of blaster ships, QR really dealt a blow to blaster fittings.
|
Thenoran
Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 00:08:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 07/02/2009 16:37:23
Originally by: Thenoran The optimal of Blasters, despite their raw high DPS need a boost. Even at point blank range, which can be extremely hard to stay at, the high tracking will either fail entirely because you are TOO close, skyrocketing your angular and getting within that weird little area where no turret will ever hit.
So you are forced to fight at something like 2-6km depending your ship and setup, and staying within that range effectively with a Blaster boat and doing the major part of your damage is extremely difficult.
As a result, either you miss altogether by being too close and fubaring your angular, or you end up fighting in falloff, doing far less damage than Scorch or Autocannons.
I'd rather see their falloff reduced and sort of swapped with their optimal, still giving them a relative short range, but allowing to do more damage outside of point blank range. Tracking speed boost won't help because once you hit that magical dead zone under 1000m, your turrets are not going to hit anything, regardless of tracking.
you obviously never used large autocannons
True, but your falloff is so large that you arent fighting at optimal+falloff or worse as much as with Blasters. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
|
arbiter reformed
Minmatar Shut Up And Play
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 00:57:00 -
[43]
lazor ships get ****d by blasterships, a mega pulse geddon with no web (i see this fit alot) cant track an orbiting bs.. like srsly, the rokh is the best blaster boat atm imo, plate megas are too slow and rokhs do the same dps as electron hypes at a further range.
every sip has its downfalls just as amarr ones do, amarr bs's are stationary gun platforms for the most part, get under there guns and ull win, + a full soak abba does around 500 dps with terrible tracking.
really ac's need more help than blasters
|
Radcjk
Caldari Failed Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 04:12:00 -
[44]
This just in !
Different races use different ships, with bonuses for different weapons, for different tactics ! Surprise ! |
Omarvelous
Destry's Lounge
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 04:36:00 -
[45]
I see some terrible fits and some terrible ideas here.
|
Dors Venabily
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 05:47:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Dors Venabily on 08/02/2009 05:49:36
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 07/02/2009 18:41:35
Originally by: UMEE you will get primaried and lose your 500mill before you reach anything man.
i know this but.. hear this first..
now.. it's a pure gank fit.. and it might be a tad ballsy in some ways but it's not all that expensive and more importantly it shows the amount of dps the hyperion can dish out..
i know it's only feasible in small scale fleets or in situations where you warp in very close to the target, but nonetheless it shows what kind of dps the hyperion can dish out..
and 1514 dps KIN/THERM (best overall dmg type in game) is no joke considering none of the items are officer or deadspace but solely npc faction or t2.. i have yet to see any other battleship that can dish out that much dps.. while being cap stable and still having that much tank that it has..
blasters might require some minor adjustments.. that might be.. but they hardly need a huge damage boost.
This blasters need tracking boost across all classes not dmg boost btw that is one mean hyperion glass cannon :D |
Nutsy Gutbuster
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 09:56:00 -
[47]
Now heres an odd idea, which iŠve been thinking for sometime to post in Ideas-forum.
A skill that turns your falloff into optimal? Like maybe 7.5% per skill level.
Projectiles would benefit most, as people are complaining projectiles damage output. Hybrids would had slight improvement. Lasers would have very little use for this skill, as they are already doing steady damage.
Still maybe blasters do need tracking boost. As they are very short range guns and in short range you need good tracking. |
WillageGirl
Advanced Tactics and Maneuvers
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 23:22:00 -
[48]
Edited by: WillageGirl on 08/02/2009 23:22:51 Nothing wrong with Blaser damage output. The problem lies in ability to hit at optimal and blaster platforms not being able to actually get into range to dish out that damage they got.
About hitting: I did read thread not too long ago suggesting a rework of signature radius. The idea was that signature radius would get one more determining factor which is the range from target. Meaning the closer the target is the bigger its sig radius is. Obviously this presents problems with balancing (BS hitting ceptor at point blank etc.), however I do belive it would be the right direction.
Another matter is blaster ships ability to actually get into weapons optimal with high damage ammo. With (much needed) speed nerf this issue didnt seem to get the attention it deserved and the results are clear. There simply arent that many closer range setups in 0.0 PvP anymore. (not gonna say anything about lowsec since the environment is different). With the current mechanics I cant see blaster platfors gaining any more popularity since there is simply no way to fit a ship to be: faster than your target, cap steady with MWD ant tank, and have enough tank to actually live long enough to reach your target. All this with two same ship class ships in mind ofc'.
In short: Do balsters need more damage? NO. Do blaster platforms need some miracle trick to get in range to be actually usefull? YES. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 23:52:00 -
[49]
What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km and 0 gun dmg after 30km for gallente blaster ships apart from the slight dmg from drones.
This way amarr rule at 20+ to 45+ as they should, we are kinda level from 10-20km and gallente still get the 2-10km range, (under 2 no fecker in a gunnery BS hits much unless its a stationary barn door). |
Noisrevbus
Caldari Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 00:10:00 -
[50]
Originally by: WillageGirl
In short: Do balsters need more damage? NO. Do blaster platforms need some miracle trick to get in range to be actually usefull? YES.
Yes, and it's called longer range.
This thread should more amply have been named "Boost hybrids". Because there's a general deficiency with the whole superclass of turrets. Sadly, there are too many stupid Gallente players out there who think "Rails are for Caldari" despite the fact that their ships have +hybrid bonuses, and not just +blaster bonuses. There's some ingrown idiocy with Hybrids, that no other race seem to suffer.
QR Anyway, with the changes to QR, general engagement ranges changed. While the good old scram+web+blaster approach had been largely overpowered for quite some time it is highly outdated by now. Don't get me wrong, i love the QR changes. I love that combat is more fluid these days, and that webs are now an option, not a superweapon. But Gallente need to be brought in line with the changes. Their problem right now is that they are either too stupid to try to adapt, or have realized just as any Caldari pilot that Rails are awful and always have been outside the nische of fleet-sniping BS.
Blasters Now, Blasters don't really need the range of other racial weapon systems. They are the shortest range and have generally had damage and tracking on their side because of it. But you can see a better example than the OP's when a dual-bonus range ship is still only reaching (in lose terms, i don't want to look up the details) half the reach of a scorch-loaded Laser (eg., Zealots ~30km, Eagles ~15km). Like i said, don't stare yourselves blind on the numbers, as they are mere examples. Just simply try to understand the trade-off.
Railguns Trade-off, is also the main focal point of Railguns. See, in order to be this supreme long range weapon they pay by having poor damage, awful tracking and next to useless tech II ammo. The ammo just as the weapon itself, trade far too much negative drawback for the effect it provides. Rail tech II ammo has absolutely massive drawbacks. This is why they are bad (outside of sniping-BS) and it is most likely also why Gallente won't touch them even with tweezers and brand them "Caldari weapons".
Suggestions So what needs to be done? Well, Rails need a larger overhaul, i don't really have any specifics beyond looking into it's tech II ammo drawback and looking at their balance between range, damage, ammo, cap-use and tracking. They are simply bad, almost all cathegories included. What blasters need is a small push in the right direction of reality in the game today. Loading Null into a Heavy Ion and still being largely within web-range @ optimal+falloff simply doesn't cut it in today's game. It needs to be tweaked ever so slightly, as their damage and tracking are still good, but the range penalty is being a fair bit too much.
|
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 03:42:00 -
[51]
I agree that blasters don't need more damage, they just need to be able to apply the damage better. Boosting tracking isn't going to cut it: blasters just need a greater ratio of optimal-to-falloff, with a teensy weensy boost in overall range. Also, falloff needs to not be a joke.
So, what I feel should happen:
1-Blasters go from short falloff, even shorter optimal to equal-but-still-short optimal and falloff. For example, a neutron blaster cannon with top skills currently has 4.5(op) + 13(fo) on antimatter and 11(op) + 16(fo) on null. I propose this be changed to 9(op) + 9(fo) on antimatter (a 0.5km boost to total range... really, just to make it even numbers, more than anything) and 15(op) + 15(fo) on null (a 3 km boost to total range. Could go 14 + 14 (1km boost) if people feel 3km is too much). And although I don't want to touch too much on Large ACs, they would get a boost to falloff so that Barrage optimal + falloff would be right in-between a Large blaster op + fo on Null and Large lasers op + fo on Scorch. Ballpark figure: 6(op) + 37(fo) on 800mm with Barrage. Adjust all tiers of turrets to maintain the pattern.
2-Implementation of the Marn Mechanic* (or MM): Grossly oversimplified, falloff under MM is no longer where you get 50% of the damage you'd get at optimal; you now get 66%. The flipside is that damage also begins to fall towards 0 much more steeply after that point.
Effect: Changes under para 1 mean that while you don't really get much more range all in all, the range where you can actually use your impressive DPS effectively is much greater. More importantly relative tracking is much greater because you are further away from your target. Changes in para 2, while being much more autocannon-centric, also mean that blasters get a far greater enveloppe where there are still useful, while lasers still maintain a comfortable superiority in fights where range is key.
*Thought up by Marn Prestoc of SHC.
|
fmercury
Queens of the Stone Age Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 04:22:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 07/02/2009 13:54:27
Originally by: Artemis Rose Laser Hyp w/ Scorch does about the DPS as a Cruise Raven. YEAAHH SIGN ME UP!!
At Scorch range, Hyp w/ Null does about the DPS as a freighter (none). YEAAHH SIGN ME UP!!
Also, with max skills, a Rail Hype will do about 40 extra DPS over my laser fit... but with 60% less tracking. And its cap will only last 25% above my fit. EDIT: that is with Scorch and CN Uranium on 350mm rails, just so we're clear.
My advice to you is to stop playing EFT and start playing EVE. Blasters are fine, really. |
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 04:32:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Myra2007 on 09/02/2009 04:36:27
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
-Damage isn't stellar, but when taking falloff into consideration, is comparable, if not better, than Null.
If you cannot even look at the damage graphs for your hypes and find that this statement is complete and utter bull**** then its not even worth bothering with you.
No, really LOOK at the graphs ffs! Null is better at every range than amarr navy multifrequency and taking scorch into consideration your laser hype will only outdamage your blaster hype starting at about 20km. The damage advantage of the blaster hype within 20km isn't insignificant either.
Many of your other points are nonsensical and basically all you do is state the obvious: don't fit a blaster ship and expect to hit people at 40km. Thats what laser ships are for. |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 09:54:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Myra2007
If you cannot even look at the damage graphs for your hypes and find that this statement is complete and utter bull**** then its not even worth bothering with you.
No, really LOOK at the graphs ffs! Null is better at every range than amarr navy multifrequency and taking scorch into consideration your laser hype will only outdamage your blaster hype starting at about 20km. The damage advantage of the blaster hype within 20km isn't insignificant either.
*cough*
Step 1 - Switch out ANMF for AN Gamma Step 2 - Look at DPS graph Step 3 - Remove foot from mooth
My laser Hype will flat out outdamage a Ion hype at all ranges starting at 18km. And if you can't understand the value of an extra 23km engagement enveloppe, you're the one who's not worth bothering with.
Originally by: Myra2007 Many of your other points are nonsensical
Like what exactly?
Originally by: Myra2007 and basically all you do is state the obvious: don't fit a blaster ship and expect to hit people at 40km. Thats what laser ships are for.
No laser ship has 5 mids and an active tank bonus + a 100m3 drone bay.
Oh and say hai to Megapulse Hyperion:
[Hyperion, Megapulse] Large Armor Repairer II Large Armor Repairer II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
100MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I Heavy Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Ancillary Current Router I Ancillary Current Router I Ancillary Current Router I
Outdamages a Ion Hype starting at 14.5km. |
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 10:06:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 09/02/2009 10:06:25
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Oh and say hai to Megapulse Hyperion:
[Hyperion, Megapulse] Large Armor Repairer II Large Armor Repairer II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
100MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I Heavy Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Ancillary Current Router I Ancillary Current Router I Ancillary Current Router I
Outdamages a Ion Hype starting at 14.5km.
sai hai to my 2 heavy neut tempest with omni tank resulting in super duper EM/THERM resist
rly stop complaining. try out projectiles which have prenerfed ammo dmg and always shoot in falloff. |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 10:14:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
sai hai to my 2 heavy neut tempest with omni tank resulting in super duper EM/THERM resist
Say hi to my 45 km range
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic rly stop complaining. try out projectiles which have prenerfed ammo dmg and always shoot in falloff.
lol, I've trained T2 projectiles up to med a loooooooong time ago mate. ACs need some work, yeah, but blasters need more. I'm very tempted to train up larges now to fly that sexy dual heavy neut, full passive pest. And the Phoon. Gotta love the space trashcan
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 11:16:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
sai hai to my 2 heavy neut tempest with omni tank resulting in super duper EM/THERM resist
Say hi to my 45 km range
say bye to me warping out |
StickyFingerz
Dark Materials
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 11:20:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
You know something's wrong when I'm actually considering this fit:
how dare you suggest that lazers are overpowered , i use them and finally my chars uber!!
fixed ;)
|
Thenoran
Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 11:28:00 -
[59]
Blaster damage is fine, the problem (as previously mentioned) is applying it. You're in so close that either the angular is through the roof, or you are hitting heavily into falloff. Optimal needs an increase (falloff can be decreased compensate), fixing both problems. |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 11:53:00 -
[60]
Edited by: The Djego on 09/02/2009 11:57:09
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 07/02/2009 18:15:27 NOTE: The dps in this fit is a result of using 5 hardwirings.. a 5% rof, a 5% pg, a 5% cap, a -5% turret cap usage, and a 5% large hybrid dmg.
allthough technically you can drop everything but the pg hardwiring, and get cap stable with 1398 dps (total price including ship, little over 500m), i chose to add all the hardwirings for the 1514 dps rich kid on the block fit, and also because with all 5 hardwirings and t1 antimatter the dps spells out 1337 which was just too humorous not to be taken note of. i mean wtf are the odds right..
So.. without further ado.. i present to you:
[Hyperion, Onslaught] Gallente Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Gallente Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Gallente Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Amarr Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Domination Stasis Webifier Domination 100MN MicroWarpdrive
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L
Hybrid Burst Aerator II Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I
Hammerhead II x5
EM: 69.3%, THERM: 60.3%, KIN: 60.3%, EXPLO: 45%
ehp 90k.
20k armor
dps: 1337 with t1 antimatter (yep i'm not kidding bout the 1337)
dps: 1514 with caldari navy antimatter.. 5143k volley damage
cap for 3 minutes with everything on. mwd speed 891ms.
cap stable with everything on (except mwd), at 57%
BOOST BLASTERS.. CAUSE 1514 kin/therm dps and 5143k volley damage just isn't enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Im personaly one of this guyes that actualy fly real Gank setups solo with a Mega(not this eft crap in the upper post), and 1500 DPS is fare less powerfull than many people think, also having 1500 DPS(at 4km) and applying 1500 DPS on the target(at 4km)) are 2 very diffrent things(especialy after the Web Nerf) where this Hype fitting would utterly fail in a gang(and would die quick in gang, there is a reason you donŠt put to many Isk into a max Gank Mega into a gang, you will be A Primary or Jammed in 9/10 cases anyway).
I also disagree heavy that Blasters need more range, this isnŠt the Problem, and would screw any AK ship, it is her usability in Web Range and her ability to apply as much DPS on the Target as they got and as fast as possible is.
The only thing I would agree that 1500 DPS isnŠt enught today, you will find serious tanks that outtank you and buffers that outlast you or even have serious trouble to overcome a Gedon on equal Imp/Skill/Fitting Levels(even with T2).
|
|
Kendon Riddick
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 12:55:00 -
[61]
REMOVE fall off and boost optimal so its smack inbetween pulses and auto optimal.
give em a bit more tracking, 20% or so, as the mega clearly hits fine with its 30% bonus already.
DONE!!!
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 13:03:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
So, what I feel should happen:
1-Blasters go from short falloff, even shorter optimal to equal-but-still-short optimal and falloff. For example, a neutron blaster cannon with top skills currently has 4.5(op) + 13(fo) on antimatter and 11(op) + 16(fo) on null. I propose this be changed to 9(op) + 9(fo) on antimatter (a 0.5km boost to total range... really, just to make it even numbers, more than anything) and 15(op) + 15(fo) on null (a 3 km boost to total range. Could go 14 + 14 (1km boost) if people feel 3km is too much). And although I don't want to touch too much on Large ACs, they would get a boost to falloff so that Barrage optimal + falloff would be right in-between a Large blaster op + fo on Null and Large lasers op + fo on Scorch. Ballpark figure: 6(op) + 37(fo) on 800mm with Barrage. Adjust all tiers of turrets to maintain the pattern.
A very interesting idea, i kinda like it although i wish it could be tested as it has promise.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 13:06:00 -
[63]
If you increase optimal on blasters, Rokh will become an even better blasterboat, than any gallente bs could ever dream about. -- Zuba |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 13:59:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Zubakis If you increase optimal on blasters, Rokh will become an even better blasterboat, than any gallente bs could ever dream about.
Caldari are supposed to be all about ranged combat so it kinda fits when you consider they have no hybrid dmg bonus on it to compensate and only few lows to plate/eanm up for RR..
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Thenoran
Caldari Hegemony Enterprises HEGEM0NY
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 14:40:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Zubakis If you increase optimal on blasters, Rokh will become an even better blasterboat, than any gallente bs could ever dream about.
It may hit further, but it won't do anywhere near the amount of damage, and even if it does (using lowslots for mag stabs), in PvP, a shield tanked Rokh either has no tackle gear, or the tank is very limited.
Hyperion/Megathron will remain far better PvP blasterboats, if not primarly due to bonuses and armor tank. |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 14:52:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
say bye to me warping out
Well there you go, we each have a counter
But anyways, blaster boats are already sensitive to cap warfare. It's not like your neut pest wouldn't fare well against a blaster fitted Hype too. At least I wouldn't die while you're endlessly kitting me
Originally by: Murina
A very interesting idea, i kinda like it although i wish it could be tested as it has promise.
Thank you. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard for CCP to get this tested.
Originally by: Zubakis If you increase optimal on blasters, Rokh will become an even better blasterboat, than any gallente bs could ever dream about.
As was mentionned by others, can't tackle, etc.
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 15:17:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Myra2007 on 09/02/2009 15:17:08
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
*cough*
Step 1 - Switch out ANMF for AN Gamma Step 2 - Look at DPS graph Step 3 - Remove foot from mooth
My laser Hype will flat out outdamage a Ion hype at all ranges starting at 18km.
So your statement that null and mf are basically on par was a lie just like i stated. Thanks for clearing it up mate. :)
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
And if you can't understand the value of an extra 23km engagement enveloppe, you're the one who's not worth bothering with.
ROFLMAO. You have pitiful dps at that range and every amarr bs is gonna make you look like a ******. Use an amarr bs if you want to shoot people at range like i said.
By your logic everyone would fit lasers or torps on everything. You do realize that their are other characteristics of a ship next to its optimal?
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Like what exactly?
Trying to keep other blaster bs at range (like hypes) because you're so fast and agile. Thinking that any ac pilot worth his salt will stay in falloff against a laser hype etc.
Pretending that not fitting tackling gear is an advantage when it actually means you have to keep range under all circumstances. Because without a web you're so gonna get wasted once a hostile bs is close up. (i mean with that fitting obviously you gonna get wasted by the next thorax that is up close but nevermind)
Talking about 2min cap stability not considering you don't start at 100% cap usually, you don't consider the mwd pulses to keep your range (which ofc always works, right), you don't consider the need for an extra med injector.
Bascially to make a long story short everything what you said is nonsensical and pure eft comedy.
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
No laser ship has 5 mids and an active tank bonus + a 100m3 drone bay.
And thats what makes laser ships so good at what they're doing. You apparently do not understand laser ships and how to fit them at all. Btw paladin does have an active tank bonus.
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Oh and say hai to Megapulse Hyperion:
Outdamages a Ion Hype starting at 14.5km.
Hi lolfitting, how are you? And how much does it tank in comparison to your ion blaster hype? Yeah, yeah we're better not going into facts here because it would make you look like the idiot you are. Whatever if you or the other eft clowns here think that abomination is worth flying have fun getting owned again and again. k thx bye --
Originally by: kublai on Ankhesentapemkah That said, the "i'm a girl who plays your computer game and i'm not that ugly" has always been a certain winner in the mmo world
|
Totally Mental
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 15:21:00 -
[68]
Na, boost Autocannons instead (especially large).
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 15:47:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Myra2007
So your statement that null and mf are basically on par was a lie just like i stated. Thanks for clearing it up mate. :)
Sorry, I just naturally assumed that anyone who knows a goddamn thing would remember that lasers have different crystals. Apparently I should have made that clearer for ******s like you.
Originally by: Myra2007 ROFLMAO. You have pitiful dps at that range and every amarr bs is gonna make you look like a ******. Use an amarr bs if you want to shoot people at range like i said.
450 gun DPS at 40 km is better than you'll get with Null, and is plenty to nuke small things. And Amarr BS can't have MWD + Capt injector + dual ECCM + point. Plus they are slower.
Originally by: Myra2007 By your logic everyone would fit lasers or torps on everything. You do realize that their are other characteristics of a ship next to its optimal?
Like speed, agility, number of midslots, drone bay size and all that jazz, right?
Oh and I suppose you'd call anyone whow flies a neut + torp Rohk an idiot too, then?
Originally by: Myra2007 Trying to keep other blaster bs at range (like hypes) because you're so fast and agile.
It's faster than a plated blaster boat, and you can replace the tanking rigs with SMC to 1) stay faster and 2) have less problems with cap.
Originally by: Myra2007 Thinking that any ac pilot worth his salt will stay in falloff against a laser hype etc.
He might try to get under my guns, but I'm not going sit there and just let him. Yes minnie BS are faster, but not THAT much faster. And if he's plated + trimarked (as many Pest fits are), the Megapulse fit is faster.
Besides, that's a problem all laser boats have. Not like it's an exclusive thing to a Laserion.
Originally by: Myra2007 Pretending that not fitting tackling gear is an advantage when it actually means you have to keep range under all circumstances. Because without a web you're so gonna get wasted once a hostile bs is close up. (i mean with that fitting obviously you gonna get wasted by the next thorax that is up close but nevermind)
And without ECCM I will die to the first guy with a Falcon alt I run into. That's MUCH more statisfying, amirite?
Originally by: Myra2007 Talking about 2min cap stability not considering you don't start at 100% cap usually, you don't consider the mwd pulses to keep your range (which ofc always works, right), you don't consider the need for an extra med injector.
And you consider I'm running all mods at all times, which I am not going to do.
Originally by: Myra2007 And thats what makes laser ships so good at what they're doing. You apparently do not understand laser ships and how to fit them at all.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Originally by: Myra2007 Btw paladin does have an active tank bonus.
Yes, because everyone PvPs with Paladins, rite?
Originally by: Myra2007 Hi lolfitting, how are you? And how much does it tank in comparison to your ion blaster hype?
Less, admitedly. I never claimed otherwise.
Originally by: Myra2007 Yeah, yeah we're better not going into facts here because it would make you look like the idiot you are. Whatever if you or the other eft clowns here think that abomination is worth flying have fun getting owned again and again. k thx bye
Bye bye, ****tard.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 16:58:00 -
[70]
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 1000 raw dps like lasers can but when you consider they 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. |
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 17:19:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Murina
Deschenus Maximus has a great idea for this although i think we can both agree that testing would be required.
Indeed. I will write up something a little more indepth and post it once it's done.
|
Pupp3tMast3r
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 03:51:00 -
[72]
I'm starting to wonder how many of you actually PvP in Gal/Amarr bs's, because EFT numbers haven't been that significant in my experience. Usually when I pvp in a bs it's with a small gang- biggish fleet. In which case I'm either warping very close to the tackler, in which case range isn't really an issue where he's webbed/scrammed. Or I'm fighting on gates, either busting up a gate camp, or camping it myself, in which case Null ammo allows me to hit out 25+ km (without a very significant damage penalty). There are situations where amarr bs's outrange me- yes, but blasters aren't in near as bad as you people make it out to be. Also, it's funny how caldari/gal players ***** CONSTANTLY, when minmatar are still in worse shape, and don't complain half as much. And to the orignial poster, it's a nice idea, but you don't have a chance in hell of keeping cap stable. Especially if there are neuts involved (which there quite often are). Another thing, I still see plenty of megas being flown, even by pilots who can fly both gal and amarr fine (and quite often get top of the km). You all are clearly blowing this way out of proportion.. Gal/Caldari have been in great shape for a very long time as far as perceived balance goes, and I think it may just come as a shock to them that Amarr may be slightly ahead of them. And, most gal players I know say they haven't really felt affected by the speed nerf, as well as caldari raven pilots saying missiles are ok (is it so hard to fit a target painter). Ok, I'm done- feel free to tell how much of a noob I am ;). |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 04:15:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Pupp3tMast3r I'm starting to wonder how many of you actually PvP in Gal/Amarr bs's, because EFT numbers haven't been that significant in my experience. Usually when I pvp in a bs it's with a small gang- biggish fleet. In which case I'm either warping very close to the tackler, in which case range isn't really an issue where he's webbed/scrammed. Or I'm fighting on gates, either busting up a gate camp, or camping it myself, in which case Null ammo allows me to hit out 25+ km (without a very significant damage penalty). There are situations where amarr bs's outrange me- yes, but blasters aren't in near as bad as you people make it out to be. Also, it's funny how caldari/gal players ***** CONSTANTLY, when minmatar are still in worse shape, and don't complain half as much. And to the orignial poster, it's a nice idea, but you don't have a chance in hell of keeping cap stable. Especially if there are neuts involved (which there quite often are). Another thing, I still see plenty of megas being flown, even by pilots who can fly both gal and amarr fine (and quite often get top of the km). You all are clearly blowing this way out of proportion.. Gal/Caldari have been in great shape for a very long time as far as perceived balance goes, and I think it may just come as a shock to them that Amarr may be slightly ahead of them. And, most gal players I know say they haven't really felt affected by the speed nerf, as well as caldari raven pilots saying missiles are ok (is it so hard to fit a target painter). Ok, I'm done- feel free to tell how much of a noob I am ;).
Ok, I just got to get this out of the way first: USE PARAGRAPHS!!!
Now, you make some good points. Frankly, I would fly the Hype with blasters if it wasn't for the 8 billion Falcons flying around, forcing me to use ECCM instead of dual webs + scram. And to be frank, if I'm flying in a gang with a dedicated tackler, the Hype stays at home; the Aba (with dual ECCM) will be better in most circumstances.
|
fuxinos
Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 04:46:00 -
[74]
Edited by: fuxinos on 11/02/2009 04:49:32 Sometimes you guys realy are hilarious.
First of all, Blasters dont need a trackingboost, since they already have high tracking and Large Blasters are not suppossed to hit Cruisers easily. This would kick Cruiser into "I am a useless ship, dont buy me zone" again.
Same goes for Medium Blasters and Frigits.
The only considerable thing that could be boosted is range, to put their Optimal in the middle of Autocannons and Lasers and kick away their huge Falloff.
Anythingelse would be plain stupid in terms of balancing, since the only issue with Blasters still is their poor range.
This game does not need the MWD + F1-F8 and forget gameplay that some of you clearly want. |
mishkof
Caldari Dirty Denizens
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 06:32:00 -
[75]
Dear CCP,
Please keep pulses OP because I am almost done training them.
kthx
- mishy |
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 09:35:00 -
[76]
Blasters are fine, fit dual webs and stfu. Geez ur worse then the missile nerf whiners .
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 11:01:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Trader20 Blasters are fine, fit dual webs and stfu. Geez ur worse then the missile nerf whiners .
Any ship with 3 or more mid slots can do that noob, this issue is larger than that and considerably more complicated.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Raging Knight
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 11:31:00 -
[78]
When the best blaster boat in the game is an interceptor, you know something isnt quite right. Hyperion would have been an awesome ship in 05/06, shame it wasnt around then.
Blaster ships as a whole are kinda broken, diemos, astarte, megathron, hyperion. They still have that EFT damage, that looks nice, but never really the chance to use it, they just arent effective and die quick, people would rather doo 100-200 dps less and live longer and be able to dictate range.
Nerfing lasers is not the answer though. I think fixing T2 ammo for all turrets would be a good start to balancing turrets.
-RK
|
Antarus Lars
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 13:07:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Raging Knight When the best blaster boat in the game is an interceptor, you know something isnt quite right. Hyperion would have been an awesome ship in 05/06, shame it wasnt around then.
Blaster ships as a whole are kinda broken, diemos, astarte, megathron, hyperion. They still have that EFT damage, that looks nice, but never really the chance to use it, they just arent effective and die quick, people would rather doo 100-200 dps less and live longer and be able to dictate range.
Nerfing lasers is not the answer though. I think fixing T2 ammo for all turrets would be a good start to balancing turrets.
-RK
Personally i think it a problem with the ships themselfs...
As close range monsters they need A = HP to take damage on approach & B = Speed to get close fast...
Fundamentally these two things do not mix in any way shape or form..
For decent armour tank you either need passive (read plates & armour rigs), or active (armour rigs)... so basically your a big fat slow momma who wants to get close but cant in any decent time...
Making gallente ships faster kills minmatar, and making there guns have too long range means they cross over to projectiles/lasers and would require a damage nerf...
So basically... its a pain in a arse.....
Give em a 25% range buff, only way that wudnt screw with too many other mechanics... and fix T2 ammo |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 13:09:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Antarus Lars
Originally by: Raging Knight When the best blaster boat in the game is an interceptor, you know something isnt quite right. Hyperion would have been an awesome ship in 05/06, shame it wasnt around then.
Blaster ships as a whole are kinda broken, diemos, astarte, megathron, hyperion. They still have that EFT damage, that looks nice, but never really the chance to use it, they just arent effective and die quick, people would rather doo 100-200 dps less and live longer and be able to dictate range.
Nerfing lasers is not the answer though. I think fixing T2 ammo for all turrets would be a good start to balancing turrets.
-RK
Personally i think it a problem with the ships themselfs...
As close range monsters they need A = HP to take damage on approach & B = Speed to get close fast...
Fundamentally these two things do not mix in any way shape or form..
For decent armour tank you either need passive (read plates & armour rigs), or active (armour rigs)... so basically your a big fat slow momma who wants to get close but cant in any decent time...
Making gallente ships faster kills minmatar, and making there guns have too long range means they cross over to projectiles/lasers and would require a damage nerf...
So basically... its a pain in a arse.....
Give em a 25% range buff, only way that wudnt screw with too many other mechanics... and fix T2 ammo
The problem lies in part with the rigs' penalties. Switch them to a penalty to shield capacity, and voila, fixed. |
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 13:16:00 -
[81]
prjectiles need more of a boost then every other weapon type, stop complaining about blasters, atleast you are able to do serious dmg once you are close (and there are plenty of ways getting close, or nullify the enemies range advantage). projectiles dmg does not compare to other weapon types, projectiles fight in fall off mostly resuling in even more dmg lost and projectiles dont have any other advantages (like alpha, cap use or dmg type choice, because those are no real advantages in injected buffer omni tank setups you find everywhere) |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 13:25:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic prjectiles need more of a boost then every other weapon type, stop complaining about blasters, atleast you are able to do serious dmg once you are close (and there are plenty of ways getting close, or nullify the enemies range advantage). projectiles dmg does not compare to other weapon types, projectiles fight in fall off mostly resuling in even more dmg lost and projectiles dont have any other advantages (like alpha, cap use or dmg type choice, because those are no real advantages in injected buffer omni tank setups you find everywhere)
I agree projectiles need help, but saying that because they might need more help than blasters means blasters are fine is stupid. "able to do serious dmg once you are close" doesn't happen most of the time because of the **** poor optimal and **** poor tracking once you actually get there.
|
Antarr Slagh
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 13:38:00 -
[83]
Originally by: fuxinos Edited by: fuxinos on 11/02/2009 04:49:32
The only considerable thing that could be boosted is range, to put their Optimal in the middle of Autocannons and Lasers and kick away their huge Falloff.
/signed
|
Gen Eisenhower
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 13:51:00 -
[84]
Sorry but so many bad ideas in this thread by mostly inexperienced people.
I see the ac/blaster/lazer/missile matrix very well balanced. They are coupled by different ships and ship bonuses (or bonii) and should be coupled with different ways to fly them.
Almost normalizing weapon ranges and attributes would kill much of the diversity that currently makes it worth to train for all of them.
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 13:52:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 11/02/2009 13:52:56
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
I agree projectiles need help, but saying that because they might need more help than blasters means blasters are fine is stupid. "able to do serious dmg once you are close" doesn't happen most of the time because of the **** poor optimal and **** poor tracking once you actually get there.
yeah because you cant compare from 1vs1 perspective and this isnt a 1vs1 game, thus projectiles have priority. in gangs blasters are fine.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 14:01:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Murina on 11/02/2009 14:01:38 Amarr got a tracking buff not so long ago cos ppl were whining that they were having problems hitting with MF at closer ranges.
And now they have the buff and have no problem hitting at closer ranges the amarr players among us are all about "roles" and other crap that they say should "limit" the other races ranges...
BS pulse are now considerably more effective in the 0-15km range than blasters are in the 30-45km range or even the 15-30km range for that matter.
This needs fixing.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Gen Eisenhower
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 14:20:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 11/02/2009 14:08:01
BS pulse are now considerably more effective in the 0-15km range than blasters are in the 30-45km range or even the 15-30km range for that matter.
This needs fixing.
Blaster have always been and always be the most effective in 0-15km. So you have a problem with lasers being slightly more effective 15-30km? Why would anyone ever use lasers over blasters if it didn't have at least this advantage.
But since most blaster ships will have an mwd it's really not an issue if we think in 24km point range.
It's funny how amarr is called fotm but you will still see more blasterboats out there many of them piloted by ppl with maxed amarr skills.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 14:25:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Gen Eisenhower
Blaster have always been and always be the most effective in 0-15km.
Blasters are "More effective" at 0-15 but lasers are also very effective at 0-15, while blasters have 0 effect at 30-45 and considerable less effect than lasers at 15-30,m in fact in a lot of cases 10-30.
Originally by: Gen Eisenhower It's funny how amarr is called fotm but you will still see more blasterboats out there many of them piloted by ppl with maxed amarr skills.
Most gallente BS pilots i know are training for amarr BS, and so am i for that matter.
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 - 2009.02.11 15:14:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Murina BLASTERS NEED MORE DMG FROM 9-20KM, AT LEAST MATCHING THAT OF LASERS.
So you the smartypants are saying well yeah, boost Blasters because Lasers have a more range advantage?. Do you even know what will happen if Blasters get a boost?, yes Projectiles and Missiles will also need a boost then.
So instead of doing it the hard way, then why not do the easy way of nerfing Lasers a bit then?. Also nerf 1 weapon instead of boosing 3 other weapon types.
But hey, not that i have a problem with the range advantage Lasers are getting over Blasters and Projectiles, because Amarr ships are much much lesser movable than Minmatar and gallente ships. Specially in the BS classes.
I fully see why Amarr BS'es have the range advantage on Lasers. And it should stay like that.
And also.....
BLASTERS
DO
NOT
NEED
A
BOOST
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 15:20:00 -
[90]
Originally by: NightmareX troll
Go away.
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 - 2009.02.11 15:23:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX troll
Go away.
Oh, you want a hug?.
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 15:31:00 -
[92]
Originally by: NightmareX yet more troll
Go away.
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 - 2009.02.11 15:36:00 -
[93]
Edited by: NightmareX on 11/02/2009 15:36:27
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX yet more troll
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 15:42:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Murina on 11/02/2009 15:47:56
Originally by: NightmareX So you the....
The range dmg ratios between races is broken and needs fixing.
Gallente should be the best at 0-10, from 10-20ish they should at least match lasers, from 20-30 they should falloff to 0 and should not hit over 30km, and from 30-45 pulse lasers should be the best.
This would be much more balanced, and you would know that if you were not a sissi/eft warrior.
YAY trolling removed.
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 - 2009.02.11 15:48:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 11/02/2009 15:42:09
Originally by: NightmareX So you the....
The range dmg ratios between races is broken and needs fixing.
YAY trolling removed.
Your own trolling was also removed.
Anyways, why do we have 4 totally different weapon types in EVE?, is it because every of them should have the same stats in everything or is it because they are different in almost everyting?.
If we are going to do like you say, then why not just remove Blasters from the game, and then replace them with Lasers?.
Making 2 different weapon types have the same range and almost the same DPS is no point.
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 15:51:00 -
[96]
Edited by: NightmareX on 11/02/2009 15:52:34
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 11/02/2009 15:47:56
Originally by: NightmareX So you the....
The range dmg ratios between races is broken and needs fixing.
Gallente should be the best at 0-10, from 10-20ish they should at least match lasers, from 20-30 they should falloff to 0 and should not hit over 30km, and from 30-45 pulse lasers should be the best.
This would be much more balanced, and you would know that if you were not a sissi/eft warrior.
YAY trolling removed.
Your own trolling was also removed.
Anyways, why do we have 4 totally different weapon types in EVE?, is it because every of them should have the same stats in everything or is it because they are different in almost everyting?.
If we are going to do like you say, then why not just remove Blasters from the game, and then replace them with Lasers?.
Making 2 different weapon types have the same range and almost the same DPS is no point.
And about the sisi thing you have a must of say everytime. Even a noobie sisi pvper knows that what your saying is wrong in every damn ways.
At least, i TEST out the different things on sisi, also weapons, ships and other modules, so i know how they works. I'm on sisi some few times every week. So i'm always updated on how things work.
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 15:52:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Murina on 11/02/2009 15:56:16
Originally by: NightmareX
Anyways, why do we have 4 totally different weapon types in EVE?, is it because every of them should have the same stats in everything or is it because they are different in almost everyting?.
If we are going to do like you say, then why not just remove Blasters from the game, and then replace them with Lasers?.
Making 2 different weapon types have the same range and almost the same DPS is no point.
You need to either learn how to read or how to comprehend, but then considering what you snip it seems you prefer to misrepresent and troll....
Lasers got a boost so they could hit well at 0-15 (blasters "roled" range apparently) not so long ago, while blasters do not hit at 30-45....But then nobody is asking for blasters to hit at 30-45 just to hit a little better at 10-20.
Quote: At least, i TEST out the different things on sisi
Sitting on sissi in your i win +5% implanted clone in yout ecm 1 v 1 fitted pest waggling your epeen does not make you knowledgeable about TQ pvp.
NightmareX Losses: 22 Kills: 207
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 - 2009.02.11 15:56:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Murina Lasers got a boost so they could hit well at 0-15 not so long ago
No, they got a boost in tracking because the tracking Lasers had was extremely horrible. And i'm talking about mid-long range here.
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 15:56:00 -
[99]
Blasters are fine in a fraction of possible EVE combat situations. In any situation where there is the possibility to get webbed or scrambled by support ships Blasterboats are at a huge disadvantage. So in conclusion they are less usefull than lasers in 90% of EVE combat because of range/mobility limitations.
The reason for that is because active tanking is not viable in todays PvP (making the ships slower due to plates/rigs) and overall mobility of ships was nerfed in the last patch. Something HAS to change in order to make blasters usefull again. Either the weapon system needs change to accomodate the new combat enviroment or the ships need to. But we can't redesing the ships with Blasters in mind because they use rails as well (people tend to forget that). So maybe the only way out is to redefine the combat philosophy, just like it has sorta been done with Caldari. You know... specialize (altho it could as well backfire). Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 16:06:00 -
[100]
Edited by: NightmareX on 11/02/2009 16:07:15
Originally by: Cohkka Blasters are fine in a fraction of possible EVE combat situations. In any situation where there is the possibility to get webbed or scrambled by support ships Blasterboats are at a huge disadvantage. So in conclusion they are less usefull than lasers in 90% of EVE combat because of range/mobility limitations.
The reason for that is because active tanking is not viable in todays PvP (making the ships slower due to plates/rigs) and overall mobility of ships was nerfed in the last patch. Something HAS to change in order to make blasters usefull again. Either the weapon system needs change to accomodate the new combat enviroment or the ships need to. But we can't redesing the ships with Blasters in mind because they use rails as well (people tend to forget that). So maybe the only way out is to redefine the combat philosophy, just like it has sorta been done with Caldari. You know... specialize (altho it could as well backfire).
Well i see you points. But as long Projectiles and Missiles are getting a boost if Blasters does that, i wont complain.
The thing i see as a problem, is why boost 3 weapon types instead of nerfing one.
But as i see it, nothing need to be changed at all.
Kinda funny that i have never had a single problem with Amarr and Lasers in my Tempest in all of those 3+ years i have been using the ship.
A Megathron is more dangerous to me than a Geddon / Apoc or Abaddon ever will get, even when i start the fight 30km from the target. It's because of my EM and Thermal resists.
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 16:09:00 -
[101]
your arguments are flawed because most fights are at point blank range (oh wait that is blasters prefered range!!!) because you have bubbles in .0 or you just warp to your buddy that already sits ontop of the enemy. if you dont wanna get owned by lasers, use tracking disruptors and dont engage bs at gates that are 50k off. damn use brains already
sniping fests dont have any blaster thus no problem here.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 16:15:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Murina on 11/02/2009 16:15:40
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic your arguments are flawed because most fights are at point blank range (oh wait that is blasters prefered range!!!) because you have bubbles in .0 or you just warp to your buddy that already sits ontop of the enemy.
Only tacklers need be at ranges under 24km and you can just as easily warp to a buddy at 40-50km range as you can to 0km.
The benefit of lasers in a gang situation is that they can also burn away in different directions forcing the close range ships to burn after each ship one at a time, while the laser ships are still laying down very high dps.
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic if you dont wanna get owned by lasers, use tracking disruptors and dont engage bs at gates that are 50k off. damn use brains already
Td's work on all 3 gunnery races and as shown a race with 0-45km optimal has a greater benefit than one with 0-4.5km.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 21:47:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic in gangs blasters are fine.
<o> Blasters are the WORST turret type to have in gang. Ok, so you melt the first target... and then you have to MWD like a moron all over the battlefied to get to targets, while Amarr ships are just reaching out and raping everything with Scorch.
Originally by: NightmareX
Take this as an example.
I warp into a Megathron at 30 km, the fight start right after that. I MWD to him and he can't hit me anything good before i'm in the 10 km range. Then when i'm getting into his 5 km range, i'm starting to take ALOT of damage. I go into armor, my armor goes down pretty fast because my Kinetic and Thermal resists are not so high.
After 4-5 mins my Tempest lose because it couldn't tank the insane DPS from the Mega.
/facepalm
You're doing it (very, very) wrong. Hint: look at the part of your post I bolded.
Double hint: You're MWDing a autopest into a Mega's blaster optimal, and then complain you lose? Are you freaking serious?
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:03:00 -
[104]
Edited by: NightmareX on 11/02/2009 22:05:02
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: NightmareX
Take this as an example.
I warp into a Megathron at 30 km, the fight start right after that. I MWD to him and he can't hit me anything good before i'm in the 10 km range. Then when i'm getting into his 5 km range, i'm starting to take ALOT of damage. I go into armor, my armor goes down pretty fast because my Kinetic and Thermal resists are not so high.
After 4-5 mins my Tempest lose because it couldn't tank the insane DPS from the Mega.
/facepalm
You're doing it (very, very) wrong. Hint: look at the part of your post I bolded.
Double hint: You're MWDing a autopest into a Mega's blaster optimal, and then complain you lose? Are you freaking serious?
It was an example if you didn't got that.
But yeah, if we should be more real, then yes, the first thing i will do if i see an Amarr BS is to MWD very close to him and orbit him. Because he wont hit me any hard then.
But if this is a Blaster Mega / Domi / Hyperion, then i will not go into their web range.
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:15:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Sensaja on 11/02/2009 22:26:51
Originally by: Murina
Td's work on all 3 gunnery races and as shown a race with 0-45km optimal has a greater benefit than one with 0-4.5km.
amarr are mostly stationary or slow moving due to viable fittings, and cap issues.
gallenteans are mostly mobile and fast.
scorch: 45 / 2 = 22.5 = 22.5km lost range, and midrange advantage lost.
multifrequency: 15 / 2 = 6.5km = 6.5km lost range and outperformed by blasterboats at that range.
null: 11 / 2 = 5.5 = 5.5km lost range and short range dps advantage not lost.
antimatter: 4.5km / 2 = 2.25km = 2.25km lost and short range dps advantage not lost.
gallente
travel time of 5km at 500ms = 10 secs. travel time of 2.5km at 500ms = 5 secs.
amarr
travel time of 22.5km at 500ms = 35 secs. travel time of 6.5km at 500ms = 12 secs.
conclusion: TD's optimal range script turns long range weapons into mid range and mid range into crud, and barely affects ultra short range weapons.
so no, i disagree. TD's spell absolute doom for amarr whilst gallente brushes it off as if it were nothing.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:16:00 -
[106]
Originally by: NightmareX
It was an example if you didn't got that.
But yeah, if we should be more real, then yes, the first thing i will do if i see an Amarr BS is to MWD very close to him and orbit him. Because he wont hit me any hard then.
But if this is a Blaster Mega / Domi / Hyperion, then i will not go into their web range.
Mate, you can't give examples of ******ed flying and then base your judgement of a weapon system's efficiency on it.
Someone could then go and say "I flew my Abaddon right into a Maelstrom's optimal and I couldn't hit him for **** with my lasers. Projectiles are OP!!!"
Get my drift?
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:19:00 -
[107]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Murina
NightmareX TQ STATS. Losses: 22 Kills: 207
Oh look, it's like the 10th time you have posted my stats. Dayum, our memory must be very short since you post it so often.
And also, how many times have i told you it's not 207 kills, it's more around 600 kill in total. But dayum again, your memory is extremely bad, and are always forgetting that.
Its not my memory that is bad its yours.
If you remember i told you twice already i think you are a liar, i had not forgotten about your "claimed" kills at all....
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 - 2009.02.11 22:21:00 -
[108]
Edited by: NightmareX on 11/02/2009 22:22:20
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: NightmareX
It was an example if you didn't got that.
But yeah, if we should be more real, then yes, the first thing i will do if i see an Amarr BS is to MWD very close to him and orbit him. Because he wont hit me any hard then.
But if this is a Blaster Mega / Domi / Hyperion, then i will not go into their web range.
Mate, you can't give examples of ******ed flying and then base your judgement of a weapon system's efficiency on it.
Someone could then go and say "I flew my Abaddon right into a Maelstrom's optimal and I couldn't hit him for **** with my lasers. Projectiles are OP!!!"
Get my drift?
If everybody could fly like Autopests, Blaster Megas and the other ships like they should, there wouldn't be any issues with the ships or weapons.
But as you probably know. ALOT of players are thinking they know what they are doing, while in fact they are flying a ship totally wrong.
But yeah, i see what you mean.
But i'm still saying it, and i wont change on it, but all weapons are now today balanced pretty good.
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Murina
NightmareX TQ STATS. Losses: 22 Kills: 207
Oh look, it's like the 10th time you have posted my stats. Dayum, our memory must be very short since you post it so often.
And also, how many times have i told you it's not 207 kills, it's more around 600 kill in total. But dayum again, your memory is extremely bad, and are always forgetting that.
Its not my memory that is bad its yours.
If you remember i told you twice already i think you are a liar, i had not forgotten about your "claimed" kills at all....
I'm a liar?.
Now only if you could stop lying your ass off, it would be great.
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:23:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Sensaja
scorch: 45 / 2 = 22.5 = 22.5km lost range, and midrange advantage lost.
multifrequency: 15 / 2 = 6.5km = 6.5km lost range and outperformed by blasterboats at that range.
Both ammos hit at those ranges.
Originally by: Sensaja null: 11 / 2 = 5.5 = 5.5km lost range and short range dps advantage not lost.
antimatter: 4.5km / 2 = 2.25km = 2.25km lost and short range dps advantage not lost.
Null misses at 5.5km and under due to tracking penalty issues.
AM misses at 2.25km due to ultra close range tracking issues.
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 - 2009.02.11 22:24:00 -
[110]
Originally by: NightmareX it's more around 600 kill in total.
Proof or stfu.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:27:00 -
[111]
Originally by: NightmareX
But yeah, i see what you mean.
But i'm still saying it, and i wont change on it, but all weapons are now today balanced pretty good.
Well I disagree but I respect your opinion.
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:28:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Sensaja on 11/02/2009 22:31:11
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 11/02/2009 22:27:22
Originally by: Sensaja
scorch: 45 / 2 = 22.5 = 22.5km lost range, and midrange advantage lost.
multifrequency: 15 / 2 = 6.5km = 6.5km lost range and outperformed by blasterboats at that range.
Both ammos hit at those ranges.
Originally by: Sensaja null: 11 / 2 = 5.5 = 5.5km lost range and short range dps advantage not lost.
antimatter: 4.5km / 2 = 2.25km = 2.25km lost and short range dps advantage not lost.
Null misses at 5.5km and under due to tracking penalty issues.
AM misses at 2.25km due to ultra close range tracking issues.
web?
hmm.. i'm pretty sure that each weapon system hits perfectly at point blank range when the transversal is low..
especially blasters due to their ultra short range..
are you saying that pulses are better than blasters at 5.5km and 2.5km ?
care to explain cause much sense you make not.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:31:00 -
[113]
Edited by: Murina on 11/02/2009 22:32:26
WEBBED BC ORBITING
As you can see even a mega (tracking bonus) with ions (higher tracking than nuetrons) does not hit even with anti-matter particularly well under 4km let alone 3km and null is bloody awful under 6km..
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 - 2009.02.11 22:32:00 -
[114]
Edited by: NightmareX on 11/02/2009 22:35:16
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX it's more around 600 kill in total.
Proof or stfu.
Here is some proof that your a lying ass and that not all my kills exist on Battleclinic. LINK.
Happy now?.
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: NightmareX
But yeah, i see what you mean.
But i'm still saying it, and i wont change on it, but all weapons are now today balanced pretty good.
Well I disagree but I respect your opinion.
I respect your opinion to that you don't think they are.
But saying Lasers are overpowered like Murina says is just like aarrrggghhh, doh, stoooooooooooopid. Is it possible to be that, uhm, off?.
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:32:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Murina orbitting battlecruiser against large guns
|
Emily Poast
The Whipping Post
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:36:00 -
[116]
A really stupid question here, but I am on my PDA and dont do math besides...
Yes. AM nerfs your optimal. How does fighting with Uranium, Plutonium, or Thorium (or whatever mid-range ammo is best) change this? I know the damage goes down, but you have better tracking, that will balance it out a little. What is your damage in the 10k-10k range then?
I am not being smarmy, I would genuinely like to know.
Though I have to say that 10 second ammo change times sucks for Hybrids.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:38:00 -
[117]
Omg, its about spaceships, watch the movies and learn.
Obviously laser guns own, theres a reason darth vader had a giant laser on his deathstar instead of a giant blaster
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:39:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Sensaja
Originally by: Murina orbitting battlecruiser against large guns
Are you saying a gunnery BS should not be able to hit a BC when its webbed in the BS optimal?....
Or are the facts i just showed you inconvenient so you snipped and made a disparaging comment with a emocon...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:40:00 -
[119]
Originally by: NightmareX
I respect your opinion to that you don't think they are.
But saying Lasers are overpowered like Murina says is just like aarrrggghhh, doh, stoooooooooooopid. Is it possible to be that, uhm, off?.
I don't think lasers need a nerf. The other weapon types just need a bit of readjusting.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:41:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: NightmareX
I respect your opinion to that you don't think they are.
But saying Lasers are overpowered like Murina says is just like aarrrggghhh, doh, stoooooooooooopid. Is it possible to be that, uhm, off?.
I don't think lasers need a nerf. The other weapon types just need a bit of readjusting.
Exactly.
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 - 2009.02.11 22:42:00 -
[121]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 11/02/2009 22:43:37 Imo, a battlecruiser does exactly this trade-in, he gives tank and dps away for being smaller and faster than a BS, naturally it shouldnt take as much a beating as a BS sized target vs large guns (of any type, not just blasters).
I'd even say that is part of the BC role, take down battleships and exploit your smaller sig and better tracking in the process.
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:45:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Sensaja
Originally by: Murina orbitting battlecruiser against large guns
Are you saying a gunnery BS should not be able to hit a BC when its webbed in the BS optimal?....
Or are the facts i just showed you inconvenient so you snipped and made a disparaging comment with a emocon...
targets:
large guns = bs's and up medium guns = cruisers and up. small guns = frigates and up.
that's.. kinda how eve works.
battleships are not wtfpwnmobiles. smaller ships have advantages which includes the aforementioned..
getting real close to a pulse ship has similar issues for it.
if a blastership is going after bc's then unless it's a megathron it should fit tracking computers.
heavy drones will have no issue with the speed.
also.. what's up with the attitude?
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:47:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Imo, a battlecruiser does exactly this trade-in, he gives tank and dps away for being smaller and faster than a BS, naturally it shouldnt take as much a beating as a BS sized target vs large guns (of any type, not just blasters).
It depends on the BC and how its tanked, the base sig of the myrm used in the graph has 300sig radius while the typhoon only has 320, so the hit rate is hardly measurable between the two.
And the drake size/sig is gonna be huuuuge.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:47:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Omg, its about spaceships, watch the movies and learn.
Obviously laser guns own, theres a reason darth vader had a giant laser on his deathstar instead of a giant blaster
hehe.. or maybe it's cause he wanted more range before he fired the XXXL dual giga beam laser
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 22:56:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 11/02/2009 23:00:24 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 11/02/2009 22:59:20
Originally by: Murina
It depends on the BC and how its tanked, the base sig of the myrm used in the graph has 300sig radius while the typhoon only has 320, so the hit rate is hardly measurable between the two.
And the drake size/sig is gonna be huuuuge.
Fully extender fit drake agreed, but (my opinion) you're better off in active drake pvp-wise, but whatever.
For all other BC fits the gained speed over a BS will swing the tracking thing in your way drastically even if your effective sig is bigger than a typical BS sig.
I'd even say these effects between different gun/ship classes could be even more pronounced than what QR did, but again my opinion, I like the idea of the bigger ships fighting each other and leaving support ships to fight each other in between :P
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.11 23:02:00 -
[126]
Edited by: Murina on 11/02/2009 23:02:28
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Murina
It depends on the BC and how its tanked, the base sig of the myrm used in the graph has 300sig radius while the typhoon only has 320, so the hit rate is hardly measurable between the two.
And the drake size/sig is gonna be huuuuge.
Fully extender fit drake agreed, but (my opinion) you're better off in active drake pvp-wise, but whatever.
For all other BC fits the gained speed over a BS will swing the tracking thing in your way drastically even if your effective sig is bigger than a typical BS sig.
Marginally but your right BC are harder to hit than BS but this:_
large guns = bs's and up medium guns = cruisers and up. small guns = frigates and up.
Is wrong as each system is supposed to be effective against the class below and all the classes above.
And also ships/systems and especially BS because of their limited target availability should and need to be balanced around their effectiveness against their preferred classes BS vs BC/BS as well as in gang situations, and most certainly not in a 1 v 1 BS situation.
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 - 2009.02.12 00:25:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Murina
Marginally but your right BC are harder to hit than BS but this:_
large guns = bs's and up medium guns = cruisers and up. small guns = frigates and up.
Is wrong as each system is supposed to be effective against the class below and all the classes above.
No it is correct, you just shouldnt think of these statements as all-or-nothing.
In my experience, large guns got somewhat reduced in efficiency against cruisers especially (not really _that_ much against BC), but the claims you see all over the forums that large blasters dont hit anything but moons are blatant lies, in fact your typical BC will take far far more damage than it could realistically tank (except for the tanking types if they go all-out tank).
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 00:27:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
No it is correct, you just shouldnt think of these statements as all-or-nothing.
In my experience, large guns got somewhat reduced in efficiency against cruisers especially (not really _that_ much against BC), but the claims you see all over the forums that large blasters dont hit anything but moons are blatant lies, in fact your typical BC will take far far more damage than it could realistically tank (except for the tanking types if they go all-out tank).
The problem lies more with the fact that pulse boats can track cruisers and up easily at their optimal, while a blasterboat will have quite a hard time doing so, if at all.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 00:28:00 -
[129]
Yea, its BS lasers that have way too much tracking in a realistic scenario.
Other guns seem fine tracking-wise.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 10:47:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 10:52:01
Originally by: Murina
Marginally but your right BC are harder to hit than BS but this:_
large guns = bs's and up medium guns = cruisers and up. small guns = frigates and up.
Is wrong as each system is supposed to be effective against the class below and all the classes above.
Originally by: Omara Otawan No it is correct, you just shouldnt think of these statements as all-or-nothing.
Then do not present them as all or nothing, the zealot ect are the best anti frig ships in the game..
Originally by: Omara Otawan In my experience, large guns got somewhat reduced in efficiency against cruisers especially
Cruisers aint BC your post was misleading.
Originally by: Omara Otawan but the claims you see all over the forums that large blasters dont hit anything but moons are blatant lies
I have never seen those claims, you making them up to cover your own exaggeration.
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 - 2009.02.12 11:43:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Goumindong on 12/02/2009 11:44:31
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
<o> Blasters are the WORST turret type to have in gang. Ok, so you melt the first target... and then you have to MWD like a moron all over the battlefied to get to targets, while Amarr ships are just reaching out and raping everything with Scorch.
So fit rails. A Rail Mega does 6% less DPS than a Pulse Geddon after damage types are figured... Oh noes, 6% less DPS!!!
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
The problem lies more with the fact that pulse boats can track cruisers and up easily at their optimal, while a blasterboat will have quite a hard time doing so, if at all.
No, it doesn't. Cruisers should not be sitting around at a pulse boats optimal... They will be getting closer. Closer means "even harder to hit for the ships with less tracking"
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 11:50:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 11:55:01
Originally by: Goumindong
So fit rails. A Rail Mega does 6% less DPS than a Pulse Geddon after damage types are figured... Oh noes, 6% less DPS!!!
Wrong rails with antimatter (T1 AMMO) have roughly the same tracking as pulse if the pulse are fitted with scorch (T2 TRACKING PENALIZED AMMO) and tracking disrupted.....
Rails use up tonnes of PG so tanking it is a joke compared to a pulse BS with crap tonnes of EHP.
So rails can just about manage to hit a fully target painted barn door if its not moving and the barn is the size of a station.
Your still very good at ignoring facts and info that blows holes in your little delusions, and even better at making up crap to justify having the new OP I-WIN system in eve.
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 - 2009.02.12 11:56:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 11:51:36
Originally by: Goumindong
So fit rails. A Rail Mega does 6% less DPS than a Pulse Geddon after damage types are figured... Oh noes, 6% less DPS!!!
Wrong rails with antimatter (T1 AMMO) have roughly the same tracking as pulse if the pulse are fitted with scorch (T2 TRACKING PENALIZED AMMO) and tracking disrupted.....
So rails can just about manage to hit a fully target painted barn door if its not moving and the barn is the size of a station.
I am not sure you know how "tracking" works in this game.
With one side of your mouth you proclaim that lasers are overpowered because targets are all tackled and not moving. With the other, you claim that rails cannot hit anything.
Pulse ships indeed are better than rail ships for some gang work. This is not the end of the world, other races need to have areas where they have advantages...
You fly blasters in small gangs. If you don't fly in small gangs then complaints about how blasters are bad are really complaints about your inability to determine a rational course of action and choose a more efficient system that is readily available for the situation.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 11:59:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 12:03:26
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Goumindong
So fit rails. A Rail Mega does 6% less DPS than a Pulse Geddon after damage types are figured... Oh noes, 6% less DPS!!!
Wrong rails with antimatter (T1 AMMO) have roughly the same tracking as pulse if the pulse are fitted with scorch (T2 TRACKING PENALIZED AMMO) and tracking disrupted.....
So rails can just about manage to hit a fully target painted barn door if its not moving and the barn is the size of a station.
Rails use up tonnes of PG so tanking it is a joke compared to a pulse BS with crap tonnes of EHP.
Your right i was wrong
See how easier and quicker it would have been just to post that instead of posting that other manipulative and delusional rubbish...
Rails cannot fit a uber tank, pulse can. Rails with T1 ammo have the tracking of TD'd tracking penalized pulse. Rails do less damage.
In ANY situation that rails are MAYBE better than pulse, BEAMS are better 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
|
Avoid
Gallente Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 12:01:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 07/02/2009 06:52:42 You know something's wrong when I'm actually considering this fit:
[Hyperion, Lasers] Large Armor Repairer II Large Armor Repairer II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
100MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I Heavy Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Auxiliary Nano Pump I Nanobot Accelerator I Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Warrior II x5 Vespa EC-600 x5
Call me crazy, but: -The Hype, being fast and agile, can probably stay at range from a blaster BS, and will do more damage than anything with large ACs that fires in falloff. -Damage isn't stellar, but when taking falloff into consideration, is comparable, if not better, than Null. -Additionnaly, you get to engage targets up to 40 km away. Good luck doing anything at that range with blasters. -Unlike with blasters, you don't need to have your target dual webbed + scrammed to actually hit it, as long as you stay around your optimal and not too far below. -Because you don't need all you mids for tackle, you have ECCM and don't have to fear ***cons. -Amarr BS would do this better, ofc... if there was an Amarr BS with 5 mids. EDIT: as far as cap is concerned, lasts about 2/3 as long as a similar Ion fit.
In conclusion, boost blasters.
Yes something is wrong, but its not the blasters. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content - Cortes "Here was the brand of the cigerates i smoke"
I don't smoke - Cortes |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 12:03:00 -
[136]
Ahh yes back to your old ad hom again. At least you had a pretense for it in the first post.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 12:04:00 -
[137]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 12:06:28
Originally by: Goumindong Ahh yes back to your old ad hom again. At least you had a pretense for it in the first post.
Pointing out your lies and manipulations is not AD hom its a public duty.
You didn't cut/quote...wow i did hit the spot...kablammo???
Rails cannot fit a uber gang tank, pulse can. Rails with T1 ammo have the tracking of TD'd T2 ammo tracking penalized pulse. Rails do less damage.
In ANY situation that rails are MAYBE better than pulse, BEAMS are better 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
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 12:22:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Murina
Rails cannot fit a uber gang tank, pulse can. Rails with T1 ammo have the tracking of TD'd T2 ammo tracking penalized pulse. Rails do less damage.
In ANY situation that rails are MAYBE better than pulse, BEAMS are better than rails....
Rails certainly can. You just can't hit 190km with one. Rails with t1 ammo do have lower tracking, in gang situations where they are valuable its less of an issue. Rails do slightly less damage.
What you think that rails should track as well as pulse laser do as much damage and fit as big a tank? The game needs to be balanced. What would we use pulse lasers for if rails owned the medium range, blasters owned the short range, and Caldari owned the long?
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 12:32:00 -
[139]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 12:33:33
Originally by: Murina
Rails cannot fit a uber gang tank, pulse can. Rails with T1 ammo have the tracking of TD'd T2 ammo tracking penalized pulse. Rails do less damage.
In ANY situation that rails are MAYBE better than pulse, BEAMS are better than rails....
Originally by: Goumindong Rails certainly can.
Hyperion has the biggest PG and with rails fitted and all lvl5 skills it has 787.5 pg left good luck fitting the mwd, cap module, plates and tank....
Originally by: Goumindong Rails with t1 ammo do have lower tracking, in gang situations where they are valuable its less of an issue.
Rails have almost the same tracking as pulse when the pulse are hit fully by a T2 tracking disruptor while using T2 ammo with a tracking penalty and that is not a small issue. But your comment is noted and filed under "next time gourm uses the tracking excuse to try and justify the OP of pulse"...
Originally by: Goumindong Rails do slightly less damage.
Less is less and the other crap above tips the balance big time.
As it is now, pulse own the short and med + the ehp tank and beams own the long and that = broken.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 12:34:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Goumindong
So fit rails. A Rail Mega does 6% less DPS than a Pulse Geddon after damage types are figured... Oh noes, 6% less DPS!!!
That's ignoring the fact that rails have terrible tracking and gimp the rest of your fit. But yes, obviously, if I'm in a large gang I'd go with rails, not blasters... if, you know, I didn't have Large Pulse spec IV and Amarr BS V.
But that's beside the point. I was just stating the fact that blasters are the worst short-range turret type to use in gang.
Originally by: Goumindong
No, it doesn't. Cruisers should not be sitting around at a pulse boats optimal... They will be getting closer. Closer means "even harder to hit for the ships with less tracking"
You're depicting an impossibly perfect situation. As the cruisers move around the battlefield, they will most likely than not be within pulse optimal at one point or another. Throw in a few Rapiers and things get loltastic for pulseboats.
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 12:37:00 -
[141]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 12:40:30
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Goumindong
So fit rails. A Rail Mega does 6% less DPS than a Pulse Geddon after damage types are figured... Oh noes, 6% less DPS!!!
That's ignoring the fact that rails have terrible tracking and gimp the rest of your fit. But yes, obviously, if I'm in a large gang I'd go with rails, not blasters... if, you know, I didn't have Large Pulse spec IV and Amarr BS V.
But that's beside the point. I was just stating the fact that blasters are the worst short-range turret type to use in gang.
Originally by: Goumindong
No, it doesn't. Cruisers should not be sitting around at a pulse boats optimal... They will be getting closer. Closer means "even harder to hit for the ships with less tracking"
You're depicting an impossibly perfect situation. As the cruisers move around the battlefield, they will most likely than not be within pulse optimal at one point or another. Throw in a few Rapiers and things get loltastic for pulseboats.
/waits for gourm to pull out the "its our ROLE to be OP" card now he has been owned in the realistic fits and scenario comments.....again...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Yodohime Kibagami
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 13:13:00 -
[142]
Wouldnt it be easier to directly compare Rokh with its 10% optimal bonus as a blasterboat to Mega or Hyperion instead of comparing said vessels to laserboats. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 13:29:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Yodohime Kibagami Wouldnt it be easier to directly compare Rokh with its 10% optimal bonus as a blasterboat to Mega or Hyperion instead of comparing said vessels to laserboats.
Even with caldari BS 5 blasters with AM only get a 6.8km optimal instead of 4.5km.
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 - 2009.02.12 13:32:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Goumindong on 12/02/2009 13:33:37
Originally by: Murina
Hyperion has the biggest PG and with just the rails fitted and all lvl5 skills it has 787.5 pg left good luck fitting the mwd, cap module, plates and dmg mods....
The Megathron is the Railboat, the Hyperion is the blaster boat. It is no ones fault but your own if you use them in other ways.
Quote:
Rails have almost the same tracking as pulse when the pulse are hit fully by a T2 tracking disruptor while using T2 ammo with a tracking penalty and that is not a small issue.
Yes, we know. And when you're fighting in a medium sized gang where you don't expect close targets it really is not a huge deal.
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
You're depicting an impossibly perfect situation. As the cruisers move around the battlefield, they will most likely than not be within pulse optimal at one point or another. Throw in a few Rapiers and things get loltastic for pulseboats.
Just as much for rail ships. You can't complain that tracking sucks on rails then say "and you've got tackle so the enemies never get close enough to avoid your fire"
Yea, pulse ships are good, they are the best in medium sized engagements. Blaster ships are the best in small sized engagements. Rails are the best again(Rokh) in large sized engagements.
Quote: I was just stating the fact that blasters are the worst short-range turret type to use in gang.
They're supposed to be. What, you want blasters to be the best in small and medium gangs? You want no tactical differentiation between the two sets?
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 13:34:00 -
[145]
Edited by: Sensaja on 12/02/2009 13:35:43
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Yodohime Kibagami Wouldnt it be easier to directly compare Rokh with its 10% optimal bonus as a blasterboat to Mega or Hyperion instead of comparing said vessels to laserboats.
Even with caldari BS 5 blasters with AM only get a 6.8km optimal instead of 4.5km.
why do you compare blasters to pulse? they are two different weapon systems with their own strengths and weaknesses.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 13:41:00 -
[146]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 13:45:45
Originally by: Goumindong
They're supposed to be. What, you want blasters to be the best in small and medium gangs? You want no tactical differentiation between the two sets?
Pulse are best in small and med gangs not blasters, and ppl are saying that blasters should be better in med sized gangs than they are right now, not "the best".
Taking a argument to its extreme when nobody is asking for such just to try and discredit it is obvious and fail.
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 - 2009.02.12 13:50:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Murina
Pulse are best in small and med gangs not blasters, and ppl are saying that blasters should be better in med sized gangs than they are right now, not "the best".
Taking a argument to its extreme when nobody is asking for such just to try and discredit it is obvious and fail.
Except that blaster ships really are best in small gangs(unless you have a very strange definition of small), and you really are arguing that blasters should be best in medium engagements until you get into the long range weapon superiority.
You literally want blasters to be the best out to 20km. Standard jump in distance is 12km... Once you start breaking 20km its into sniping territory as superior.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 13:59:00 -
[148]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 14:03:03
Originally by: Goumindong
Except that blaster ships really are best in small gangs(unless you have a very strange definition of small), and you really are arguing that blasters should be best in medium engagements until you get into the long range weapon superiority.
5-10 ships is a small gang and lasers are better in those sized gangs than blasters by far, over 10 you are getting into med sized gang and lasers own those big time along with blob sized gangs.
Originally by: Goumindong You literally want blasters to be the best out to 20km. Once you start breaking 20km its into sniping territory as superior.
T2 TD'd lasers still have a optimal of 22+km + falloff...
Blasters should have higher dmg than lasers inside 10km, at least match the raw dmg of lasers out to 20km, and falloff to 27-30km doing 0 dmg over 30km while at 30-45+km lasers should continue to do their high dmg.
This would make blasters at least a little effective in gang fights while allowing lasers to still be better but not by such a huge gap.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Larana Nightrunner
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 14:10:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Yodohime Kibagami Wouldnt it be easier to directly compare Rokh with its 10% optimal bonus as a blasterboat to Mega or Hyperion instead of comparing said vessels to laserboats.
Even with caldari BS 5 blasters with AM only get a 6.8km optimal instead of 4.5km.
Yes, but does that have a effect in tracking yet? it can just look minor in EFT displayed out raw like that.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 14:17:00 -
[150]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 14:17:59
Originally by: Larana Nightrunner
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Yodohime Kibagami Wouldnt it be easier to directly compare Rokh with its 10% optimal bonus as a blasterboat to Mega or Hyperion instead of comparing said vessels to laserboats.
Even with caldari BS 5 blasters with AM only get a 6.8km optimal instead of 4.5km.
Yes, but does that have a effect in tracking yet? it can just look minor in EFT displayed out raw like that.
Not really, tracking gets harder the further you get inside optimal and the mega gets a ship bonus to tracking and dmg vs the rokhs single gun bonus to optimal..
Optimal bonuses to a gunnery system that has a uber low optimal(4.5km even with all lvl5 skills) has to be like 20+% per level to be really massively noticeable...
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 - 2009.02.12 14:21:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Murina
T2 TD'd lasers still have a optimal of 22+km + falloff...
And that matters because? A single unbonused t2 TD brings lasers down to 22+5km
Quote:
Blasters should have higher dmg than lasers inside 10km
They do, their advantage is between 30 to 300% within this area.
Quote: at least match the raw dmg of lasers out to 20km
No, they should not. That would completely and utterly remove the ability of pulse ships to operate efficiently in medium sized gangs. At the point where it would make sense to fly pulse ships you would be flying snipers instead.
I mean hell, a single unbonused T2 TD brings scorch down to 22.5km.
Hyperion, 5 meds... One of those goes to a TD... and you can do the math.
Quote:
This would make blasters at least a little effective in gang fights while allowing lasers to still be better but not by such a huge gap.
Blasters are decently effective in medium gang fights. Falloff to 27km with null, doing about 1/2 raw damage as lasers within the 20-30km range with better damage types its actually smaller than the advantage that blasters have in the short range. If you want longer range with less utility you fit rails. There is literally no problem with the ships, you just have to choose how you want to fly.
For some reason you consistently choose to fly blaster ships in medium gangs and complain that they are not as effective as pulse ships. Put rails on the darn thing.
|
Larana Nightrunner
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 14:25:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 14:17:59
Originally by: Larana Nightrunner
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Yodohime Kibagami Wouldnt it be easier to directly compare Rokh with its 10% optimal bonus as a blasterboat to Mega or Hyperion instead of comparing said vessels to laserboats.
Even with caldari BS 5 blasters with AM only get a 6.8km optimal instead of 4.5km.
Yes, but does that have a effect in tracking yet? it can just look minor in EFT displayed out raw like that.
Not really, tracking gets harder the further you get inside optimal and the mega gets a ship bonus to tracking and dmg vs the rokhs single gun bonus to optimal..
Optimal bonuses to a gunnery system that has a uber low optimal(4.5km even with all lvl5 skills) has to be like 20+% per level to be really massively noticeable...
With that reasoning you could just lower the optimal further just to be sure nothing gets under it.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 14:32:00 -
[153]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 14:36:06
Originally by: Goumindong
They do, their advantage is between 30 to ...
30% more dmg at 4.5km vs 1000% more optimal with from 10-30km doing more dmg and 30-45+km having nothing to compare with = OP.
Originally by: Goumindong No, they should not. That would completely and utterly remove the ability of pulse ships to operate efficiently in medium sized gangs. At the point where it would make sense to fly pulse ships you would be flying snipers instead.
This does not effect laser ships unless you count giving blasters a marginally better chance in gang settings vs the i-win advantage lasers have now.
So blasters doing 30% more dmg upto 9km, matching dmg upto 20km, having considerably less upto 30km and lasers having full dmg vs 0 from 30-45+ would break the game?????.
STFU you just wanna keep your op system.
Originally by: Goumindong
I mean hell, a single unbonused T2 TD brings scorch down to 22.5km.
Hyperion, 5 meds... One of those goes to a TD... and you can do the math.
So a hype needs ewar fitted and its still not as good as the pulse ship.....but then that is why your defending them cos they are your race.
Originally by: Goumindong Put rails on the darn thing.
Rails cannot fit a uber tank, pulse can. Rails with T1 ammo have the tracking of TD'd tracking penalized pulse. Rails do less damage.
Your arguments are all circular and all fail.
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 - 2009.02.12 14:38:00 -
[154]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 14:52:21
Originally by: Larana Nightrunner
With that reasoning you could just lower the optimal further just to be sure nothing gets under it.
Getting under optimal is not the issue as it does not have a minimum only a maximum (so lowering it is pointless), its transversal vs tracking inside the max optimal that counts.
And blasters have the worst of it cos they only have a 0-4.5km window and nobody in a gunnery BS hits much at all under 2km, so a 2.5km optimal (2km-4.5km) for potentially 30% more dmg than lasers compared to a 40+km (2km-45km) optimal aint balanced.
Especially when at blaster optimal lasers do just 30% or so less dmg, at 10-20km lasers out dmg blasters by plenty, at 20-30 blasters are a joke and lasers are still in optimal/max dmg and at 30-45km+ lasers have no blaster dmg to compare with but are still hitting for max dmg.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 14:50:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 14:09:37
T2 TD'd lasers still have a optimal of 22+km + falloff...
with 1 crystal (scorch) which is not particularly damaging, the rest of the crystals drop down to blaster optimal with a td on them, and those that go above have very little damage.
the scorch is there so amarr pulse ships don't get completely crippled by td but still have a crystal with a bit of range superiority left and moderate damage to resort to, before short range weapons outdamage them.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 14:50:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Murina
30% more dmg at 4.5km vs 1000% more optimal with from 10-30km doing more dmg and 30-45+km having nothing to compare with = OP.
30% more damage at about 7-8km with 300% more damage around 3-4.5km while lasers only have a 100% advantage out to about 30km.(and its only about 20-50% to 20km.
Quote:
So blasters doing 30% more dmg upto 9km, matching dmg upto 20km, having considerably less upto 30km and lasers having full dmg vs 0 from 30-45+ would break the game?????
Yes.
Quote:
So a hype needs ewar fitted and its still not as good as the pulse ship.....but then that is why your defending them cos they are your race.
Uhhh, by your numbers it would be better...
Quote:
Rails cannot fit a uber tank, pulse can. Rails with T1 ammo have the tracking of TD'd tracking penalized pulse. Rails do less damage.
We have been over this, stop repeating the same debunked points.
1. Use a Megathron 2. Its not a big deal in medium gangs 3. ~6% less DPS. Oh noes!
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 14:56:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Sensaja
Originally by: Murina
T2 TD'd lasers still have a optimal of 22+km + falloff...
with 1 crystal (scorch) which is not particularly damaging, the rest of the crystals drop down to blaster optimal with a td on them, and those that go above have very little damage.
the scorch is there so amarr pulse ships don't get completely crippled by td but still have a crystal with a bit of range superiority left and moderate damage to resort to, before short range weapons outdamage them.
Its interesting that you use the word "crippled" when talking about optimal ranges that are still larger than blasters get ( TD'd = 7.5km optimal MF) vs (NON-TD'd AM blaster = 4.5km).
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 14:58:00 -
[158]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 12/02/2009 14:59:27 ^_^
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 14:59:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Cohkka on 12/02/2009 15:01:05
Originally by: NightmareX
Well i see you points. But as long Projectiles and Missiles are getting a boost if Blasters does that, i wont complain.
The thing i see as a problem, is why boost 3 weapon types instead of nerfing one.
But as i see it, nothing need to be changed at all.
Kinda funny that i have never had a single problem with Amarr and Lasers in my Tempest in all of those 3+ years i have been using the ship.
A Megathron is more dangerous to me than a Geddon / Apoc or Abaddon ever will get, even when i start the fight 30km from the target. It's because of my EM and Thermal resists.
Take this as an example.
I warp into a Megathron at 30 km, the fight start right after that. I MWD to him and he can't hit me anything good before i'm in the 10 km range. Then when i'm getting into his 5 km range, i'm starting to take ALOT of damage. I go into armor, my armor goes down pretty fast because my Kinetic and Thermal resists are not so high.
After 4-5 mins my Tempest lose because it couldn't tank the insane DPS from the Mega.
To the 2nd example.
I warp into an Abaddon at 30 km, the fight start right after that. I MWD to him and he can hit pretty good before i'm in the 25 km range, because my resists on shield to EM and Thermal is very low. Then when i'm getting into his 15 km range, i'm starting to take Armor damage. I goes into armor, my armor goes slowly down because my EM and Thermal resists on Armor are pretty high. By this, i can tank him.
Then i go very close to him and orbit.
After 4-5 mins my Tempest is still holding up against the Abaddon, because his damage is low.
My armor are now in 60% armor and i can probably hold up against him for 7-10 more mins.
His Abaddon are slowly going down, because he have a pretty high EHP. But still can't take enough damage to kill me before he's going down him self.
Alright, i hope you see what i mean.
The diffrence is that I'm talking about a small up to med size engagement. Lasers are very effective at that, Torps are good for that as well because they don't have much problems with the range and do blaster DPS to other BS. ACs and Blasters however are so pointless that you're better off fitting Rails because they will do more damage and hit instandly.
You remember when Torps used to be VERY slow? Now it's exactly the same situation blasters and to a somewhat lesser extend ACs are in. They do delayed damage. Blasters do more dmg at a very short range and it would be fine if it wasn't for huge gates/stations and the crap mobility of blasterships (as everyone needs plates nowadays) and the fact that once you get tackled your applicable dmg will most likely drop to zero if you don't happen to be sitting right next to the primary target.
In very small skirmishes involving not more than 6 Ships the Mega is good. Less targets means more effectivity. But how many people are out there who fly in a BS in small gangs like those? Not many. So as I said Blasters are good for a fraction of PvP in EVE and not even THAT good to justify its use over a Pulse fitted Abbadon or Geddon. This is what it's all about: They work good but they are just not viable in most situations.
I'd say double the range of all closerange weapons and cut their tracking by half, so piloting skill matters again. ;) Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:01:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 12/02/2009 15:01:51
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus [ -Because you don't need all you mids for tackle, you have ECCM and don't have to fear ***cons.
"BS should be able to tackle" : thats a common mistake nowadays. All big ships need help at tackling.
Gallente BS without tackle: some dmg, target escapes. Amarr BS without tackle: higher damage at medium+ ranges, target escapes too.
At least flying Gallente gives you more meds against those nasty ***cons ;-)
THIS: "We have been over this, stop repeating the same debunked points."
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:02:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Goumindong
30% more damage at about 7-8km with 300% more damage around 3-4.5km while lasers only have a 100% advantage out to about 30km.(and its only about 20-50% to 20km.
20-50% is more than 30 and blasters do not get 300% more dmg than lasers.
While lasers do full dmg from 20-30 and blasters are a joke and from 30-45 lasers still do full dmg and blasters do 0.
Originally by: Goumindong 1. Use a Megathron
Massively less ehp and less dmg than amarr and useless tracking compared to pulse ships.
You debunk nothing you just switch your math calculation to suit your intent.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:02:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Murina
Td's work on all 3 gunnery races and as shown a race with 0-45km optimal has a greater benefit than one with 0-4.5km.
amarr are mostly stationary or slow moving due to viable fittings, and cap issues.
gallenteans are mostly mobile and fast.
scorch: 45 / 2 = 22.5 = 22.5km lost range, and midrange advantage lost.
multifrequency: 15 / 2 = 6.5km = 6.5km lost range and outperformed by blasterboats at that range.
null: 11 / 2 = 5.5 = 5.5km lost range and short range dps advantage not lost.
antimatter: 4.5km / 2 = 2.25km = 2.25km lost and short range dps advantage not lost.
gallente
travel time of 5km at 500ms = 10 secs. travel time of 2.5km at 500ms = 5 secs.
amarr
travel time of 22.5km at 500ms = 35 secs. travel time of 6.5km at 500ms = 12 secs.
conclusion: TD's optimal range script turns long range weapons into mid range and mid range into crud, and barely affects ultra short range weapons.
so no, i disagree. TD's spell absolute doom for amarr whilst gallente brushes it off as if it were nothing.
|
Gen Eisenhower
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:04:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 12/02/2009 15:01:51
At least flying Gallente gives you more meds against those nasty ***cons ;-)
very much so
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:05:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Sensaja
with 1 crystal (scorch) which is not particularly damaging, the rest of the crystals drop down to blaster optimal with a td on them, and those that go above have very little damage.
the scorch is there so amarr pulse ships don't get completely crippled by td but still have a crystal with a bit of range superiority left and moderate damage to resort to, before short range weapons outdamage them.
So weapons are ballanced around single EWAR modules and not the other way around? Are you stupid or is this just a desperate grasp for arguments? Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:10:00 -
[165]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 15:12:16
Originally by: Sensaja
gallenteans are mostly mobile and fast.
Wrong mini are the most mobile and fast.
Originally by: Sensaja scorch: 45 / 2 = 22.5 = 22.5km lost range, and midrange advantage lost.
multifrequency: 15 / 2 = 6.5km = 6.5km lost range and outperformed by blasterboats at that range.
15 / 2 = 7.5 btw.
And scorch still hits much much harder than null ammo can at 22km down to near 10km, along with the fact you think that blaster ships seem to need ewar fitted, and then they still lose to laser ships....
Originally by: Sensaja null: 11 / 2 = 5.5 = 5.5km lost range and short range dps advantage not lost.
antimatter: 4.5km / 2 = 2.25km = 2.25km lost and short range dps advantage not lost.
Wanna see how well null tracks at 5km?, or AM tracks at 2.25km?..forget it.
You need lesson in how tracking works at ultra close ranges dude, not only that but in your examples the blaster ships need to burn within 5.5 and 2.25 of EVERY hostile ship to do max dmg......
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:13:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: Sensaja
with 1 crystal (scorch) which is not particularly damaging, the rest of the crystals drop down to blaster optimal with a td on them, and those that go above have very little damage.
the scorch is there so amarr pulse ships don't get completely crippled by td but still have a crystal with a bit of range superiority left and moderate damage to resort to, before short range weapons outdamage them.
So weapons are ballanced around single EWAR modules and not the other way around? Are you stupid or is this just a desperate grasp for arguments?
scorch is a crystal not a weapon.. it comes with t2 pulse laser spec.. and it allows you to be td'ed while still doing dmg instead of having to resort to crystals with pitful damage like infrared or microwave to actually have any decent optimal whatsoever..
mid range is hurt most by optimal range ewar. Since short range weapons loosing half their optimal, means less than midrange loosing half their optimal.
And long range has more to draw from so they just become mid range unless they are sniper fitted.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:17:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Sensaja
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: Sensaja
with 1 crystal (scorch) which is not particularly damaging, the rest of the crystals drop down to blaster optimal with a td on them, and those that go above have very little damage.
the scorch is there so amarr pulse ships don't get completely crippled by td but still have a crystal with a bit of range superiority left and moderate damage to resort to, before short range weapons outdamage them.
So weapons are ballanced around single EWAR modules and not the other way around? Are you stupid or is this just a desperate grasp for arguments?
scorch is a crystal not a weapon.. it comes with t2 pulse laser spec.. and it allows you to be td'ed while still doing dmg instead of having to resort to crystals with pitful damage like infrared or microwave to actually have any decent optimal whatsoever..
mid range is hurt most by optimal range ewar. Since short range weapons loosing half their optimal, means less than midrange loosing half their optimal.
And long range has more to draw from so they just become mid range unless they are sniper fitted.
Dude try hitting summat moving at 2.25km with blasters, unless its stationary and large your gonna miss a lot...a 50% optimal reduction hits blasters harder than lasers pal.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:18:00 -
[168]
Edited by: Sensaja on 12/02/2009 15:24:23
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Sensaja
gallenteans are mostly mobile and fast.
Wrong mini are the most mobile and fast.
You need lesson in how tracking works at ultra close ranges dude, not only that but in your examples the blaster ships need to burn within 5.5 and 2.25 of EVERY hostile ship to do max dmg......
i don't think you understand, if you are shooting someone at 45km out and you get TD'd to 22.5km you have to travel 22.5km closer to the enemy to be able to hit properly with scorch..
whereas a blasterboat only has to travel 2-5km..
that means if you're facing a blasterboat and get TD'd in a pulse ship (presuming you have t2 large pulse and scorch) by someone in his gang or by the blastership itself, you'll be doing half the blasterboats work for him by travelling 22.5km in his favour just to be able to hit him properly.
Or staying where you are and doing pitful damage with microwave or radio.
and i said MOSTLY fast.. not MOST fast..
and you don't say most fast anyways, you say fastest..
and summat is not a word, it's called something.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:22:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Sensaja
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Sensaja
gallenteans are mostly mobile and fast.
Wrong mini are the most mobile and fast.
You need lesson in how tracking works at ultra close ranges dude, not only that but in your examples the blaster ships need to burn within 5.5 and 2.25 of EVERY hostile ship to do max dmg......
i don't think you understand, if you are shooting someone at 45km out and you get TD'd to 22.5km you have to travel 22.5km closer to the enemy to be able to hit properly with scorch..
whereas a blasterboat only has to travel 2-5km..
Erm no....,in that situation the blaster ship has to travel 40km and the laser ship only 22.5km.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:23:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Sensaja
So weapons are ballanced around single EWAR modules and not the other way around? Are you stupid or is this just a desperate grasp for arguments?
scorch is a crystal not a weapon.. it comes with t2 pulse laser spec.. and it allows you to be td'ed while still doing dmg instead of having to resort to crystals with pitful damage like infrared or microwave to actually have any decent optimal whatsoever..
mid range is hurt most by optimal range ewar. Since short range weapons loosing half their optimal, means less than midrange loosing half their optimal.
And long range has more to draw from so they just become mid range unless they are sniper fitted.
Again. Is T2 ammo soley ballanced around a SINGLE EWAR module? What kind of a situation are you speaking of anyway? Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:25:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Murina
Rails cannot fit a uber tank, pulse can. Rails with T1 ammo have the tracking of TD'd tracking penalized pulse. Rails do less damage.
We have been over this, stop repeating the same debunked points.
1. Use a Megathron 2. Its not a big deal in medium gangs 3. ~6% less DPS. Oh noes!
1. Yep, Mega can fit a reasonable tank with 2*plate, DC2, 2*ANP2, 2*dam mod. It will have CPU problems with its mids even with ANPs, though - no scram. Geddon will fit 3*dam mod, ofc. 2. So, since tracking doesn't matter in medium gangs, you support reducing pulse tracking? That's where you say that Amarr should be the best, not in small gangs where tracking even matters? 3. If 6% DPS doesn't matter at all, let's give pulses 6% less damage than the rails instead? -- Gradient forum |
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:28:00 -
[172]
Edited by: Sensaja on 12/02/2009 15:31:44
Originally by: Cohkka
Again. Is T2 ammo soley ballanced around a SINGLE EWAR module? What kind of a situation are you speaking of anyway?
read above..
well it's two fold imo
1. to give amarr a midrange edge to make up for their other deficiencies.. 2. to not cripple their mid range damage entirely when TD'd.
seems pretty fair.
but if you only look at isolated aspects of it, like the range and moderate damage of scorch, then you don't notice how it all fits together.
amarr are the only race in need of such a t2 charge (or crystal in this case) since:
gallente has less range to subtract 50% from and are thus less affected.. minmatar doesn't give a **** about optimal since they work in falloff.. and caldari uses missiles or are so long range that they still hit since at most they are reduced to mid range.
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:35:00 -
[173]
Boost the explosion velocity of cruise missiles, rockets (a small boost to torps would be good aswell)and give large blasters a boost in tracking. I don't mind neutron cannons having poor tracking but ions and especially electrons should be able to hit alot better than what they do now.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:36:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Sensaja
gallente has less range to subtract 50% from and are thus less affected..
Wrong.
Gallente are most effected as they have less to lose, try tracking a moving target at 2.25km before you post again dude.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:38:00 -
[175]
Edited by: Sensaja on 12/02/2009 15:45:22
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Sensaja
gallente has less range to subtract 50% from and are thus less affected..
Wrong.
Gallente are most effected as they have less to lose, try tracking a moving target at 2.25km before you post again dude.
the blasterboat should have him webbed or it's utter fail blasterboating.. and with a battleship target that works quite fine.
and don't give me that nonsense about an orbitting battlecruiser and dodging it by turning it into a whine about large blasters not being able to track a fast moving orbitting BC (medium target) at 2.5km.. they're not supposed to.
because large blasters inability to track a bc orbitting at 2.5km has diddly to do with t2 large pulse med range advantage with scorch.. and is in fact the opposite of what you have been talking about all along.
also... do you proclaim that med t2 pulse has 45km range aswell?
it actually becomes even better being gallente the smaller the weapons you use.
cause since amarr is mid range and not long range.. the difference between mid range and short range continuously narrows..
and don't even get me started about TD'ing a medium t2 pulse ship with scorch
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:47:00 -
[176]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 15:53:23
Originally by: Sensaja
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Sensaja
gallente has less range to subtract 50% from and are thus less affected..
Wrong.
Gallente are most effected as they have less to lose, try tracking a moving target at 2.25km before you post again dude.
the blasterboat should have him webbed or it's utter fail blasterboating.. and with a battleship target that works quite fine.
and don't give me that nonsense about an orbitting battlecruiser and dodging it by turning it into a whine about large blasters not being able to track a fast moving orbitting BC (medium target) at 2.5km.. they're not supposed to.
The BC in the graph was doing 188ms.
Mwding amarr BS = minimum 600ish (nearer 700 even with plates) ms - 60% web = 240+ms.
That is ignoring the fact that the blaster ships need to "chase down" each individual hostile BS while laser ships just need to align....
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:52:00 -
[177]
Edited by: Sensaja on 12/02/2009 15:55:01
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Sensaja
gallente has less range to subtract 50% from and are thus less affected..
Wrong.
Gallente are most effected as they have less to lose, try tracking a moving target at 2.25km before you post again dude.
the blasterboat should have him webbed or it's utter fail blasterboating.. and with a battleship target that works quite fine.
and don't give me that nonsense about an orbitting battlecruiser and dodging it by turning it into a whine about large blasters not being able to track a fast moving orbitting BC (medium target) at 2.5km.. they're not supposed to.
The BC in the graph was doing 188ms.
Mwding amarr BS = minimum 600ish ms - 60% web = 240ms.
That is ignoring the fact that the blaster ships need to "chase down" each individual hostile BS while laser ships just need to align....
i highlighted the problem for you.. it'd be neat if amarr bs's could just mwd around with ease and with the speed you propose.. especially with 1 or 2 plates on them when they get slowed down and have to accelerate in an orbital manner.. and their cap issues and lack of mid slots.
that would indeed be overpowered.
also it's ironic how you now resort to proposing that the amarr bs just gets within 2.5km of a blasterboat and mwd's around it in order to win.. when you realized that your pulse range argument crashed and burned..
thanks man, you just made my day with that post
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:58:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 16:01:31
Originally by: Sensaja
thanks man, you just made my day with that post
You read but you do not comprehend..
I just pointed out that while ALL the blaster BS were approaching that single laser ship (with a monster ehp) the rest of the laser ships have burned away at top speed and are melting through the blaster ships that need to go from near 0ms to max speed to catch EACH individual laser ship.
Blasters lose dude...yea maybe at 4.5km in a 1 v 1 situation a blaster ship wins, nobody is arguing that but 1 v 1 BS starting at 0km is for sissi warriors and the reality on TQ is that blasters need fixing cos lasers are way to OP compared to them and AC.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 16:01:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 15:59:19
Originally by: Sensaja
thanks man, you just made my day with that post
Nope i just pointed out that while ALL the blaster BS were approaching that single laser ship (with a monster ehp) the rest of the laser ships have burned away at top speed and are melting through the blaster ships that need to go from near 0ms to max speed to catch EACH individual laser ship.
Blasters lose dude...yea maybe at 4.5km in a 1 v 1 situation a blaster ship wins, nobody is arguing that but 1 v 1 BS starting at 0km is for sissi warriors and the reality on TQ is that blasters need fixing cos lasers are way to OP compared to them and AC.
ok, whatever you say bud..
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 16:04:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 16:04:01
Originally by: Sensaja
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 15:59:19
Originally by: Sensaja
thanks man, you just made my day with that post
Nope i just pointed out that while ALL the blaster BS were approaching that single laser ship (with a monster ehp) the rest of the laser ships have burned away at top speed and are melting through the blaster ships that need to go from near 0ms to max speed to catch EACH individual laser ship.
Blasters lose dude...yea maybe at 4.5km in a 1 v 1 situation a blaster ship wins, nobody is arguing that but 1 v 1 BS starting at 0km is for sissi warriors and the reality on TQ is that blasters need fixing cos lasers are way to OP compared to them and AC.
ok, whatever you say bud..
Found a way to bail with at least a modicom of dignity did ya bud?.....proly for the best....you just keep your focus on the irrelevant pal......
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 16:25:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Sensaja
gallente has less range to subtract 50% from and are thus less affected.. minmatar doesn't give a **** about optimal since they work in falloff..
You have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever. Stop arguing. As a reminder: TDs affect optimal AND falloff equally. And you also do know that your "argument" works ther other way around, too, the nominal effective range increase with T2 ammo is higher with Pulses? To put it in your words: "amarr has more range to add 50% to and are thus more affected.."
Quote:
try a little experiment and have a friend put a t2 TD on your pulse ship and then check the range of all your crystals EXCEPT for scorch.. then you'll notice something.
Why don't you try it yourself? Maybe you'll notice you're in need of an MWD, you know... they magicaly make you go faster. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Avoid
Gallente Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 16:39:00 -
[182]
Tbh i dont know what half of you are talking about. I use blasters all day long, kill whatever that moves, shuttles frigs u name it. Is it the optimal that is poor ? I dont know whit you guys, but ill rather have my optimal closer to 0km then 10km. As most of you guys know 10km+ is bbq range for large pulse lasers, and that is the last place i want to be. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content - Cortes "Here was the brand of the cigerates i smoke"
I don't smoke - Cortes |
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 16:50:00 -
[183]
Edited by: Sensaja on 12/02/2009 16:55:58
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: Sensaja
gallente has less range to subtract 50% from and are thus less affected.. minmatar doesn't give a **** about optimal since they work in falloff..
You have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever. Stop arguing. As a reminder: TDs affect optimal AND falloff equally. And you also do know that your "argument" works ther other way around, too, the nominal effective range increase with T2 ammo is higher with Pulses? To put it in your words: "amarr has more range to add 50% to and are thus more affected.."
optimal range and tracking negater scripts were introduced to TD's a while ago.. you should check em out..
long range becoming mid range is tolerable because they can still fire from a distance..
short range becoming marginally shorter is completely irellevant.
mid range however.. becoming short range.. presents a huge issue when the mid range and the tanking is the primary advantage of flying amarr..
especially since short range weapons outdamages mid range weapons completely..
thus scorch solves the problem.. while the TD II with optimal script renders the other crystals besides the very weak damaging ones useless.. scorch still allows the pilot doing a little bit of damage at somewhat mid range..
tradeoff.. you gotta skill and fit t2 large's on the ship and can't cram fits in using deadspace or faction guns.
|
Avoid
Gallente Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 16:53:00 -
[184]
Edited by: Avoid on 12/02/2009 16:54:36
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 16:49:05
Originally by: Avoid Tbh i dont know what half of you are talking about. I use blasters all day long, kill whatever that moves, shuttles frigs u name it. Is it the optimal that is poor ? I dont know whit you guys, but ill rather have my optimal closer to 0km then 10km. As most of you guys know 10km+ is bbq range for large pulse lasers, and that is the last place i want to be.
Dude optimal has a max range not a minimum, a 30km optimal is not at its best at exactly 30km its at its best from 0-30km, the only thing that alters how much you hit for inside your optimal is tracking/transversal.
If a system with 30km optimal and a system with 15km optimal with the same tracking and dmg hit the same stationary ship they would do the exact same dmg from 0-15km, over 15km the ship with the 15km optimal does less but the ship with the 30km still hit for its max dmg out to 30km.
Not true. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content - Cortes "Here was the brand of the cigerates i smoke"
I don't smoke - Cortes |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 16:56:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Avoid
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Avoid Tbh i dont know what half of you are talking about. I use blasters all day long, kill whatever that moves, shuttles frigs u name it. Is it the optimal that is poor ? I dont know whit you guys, but ill rather have my optimal closer to 0km then 10km. As most of you guys know 10km+ is bbq range for large pulse lasers, and that is the last place i want to be.
Dude optimal has a max range not a minimum, a 30km optimal is not at its best at exactly 30km its at its best from 0-30km, the only thing that alters how much you hit for inside your optimal is tracking/transversal.
If a system with 30km optimal and a system with 15km optimal with the same tracking and dmg hit the same stationary ship they would do the exact same dmg from 0-15km, over 15km the ship with the 15km optimal does less but the ship with the 30km still hit for its max dmg out to 30km.
Not true.
I think you need to check your facts dude....seriously.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Emily Poast
The Whipping Post
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 16:56:00 -
[186]
You know, if they would just allow blasters to swap ammo instantly like the Amarr do, it would go a long way toward helping. We would at least has some better damage options at range while being kited.
That 10 second reload time makes using anything but AM a waste.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 16:58:00 -
[187]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 17:00:18
Originally by: Cohkka As a reminder: TDs affect optimal AND falloff equally.
Originally by: Sensaja
optimal range and tracking negater scripts were introduced to TD's a while ago.. you should check em out..
Optimal and falloff are both ranges bud, and are effected by the range script.......
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Avoid
Gallente Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 17:01:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Avoid
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Avoid Tbh i dont know what half of you are talking about. I use blasters all day long, kill whatever that moves, shuttles frigs u name it. Is it the optimal that is poor ? I dont know whit you guys, but ill rather have my optimal closer to 0km then 10km. As most of you guys know 10km+ is bbq range for large pulse lasers, and that is the last place i want to be.
Dude optimal has a max range not a minimum, a 30km optimal is not at its best at exactly 30km its at its best from 0-30km, the only thing that alters how much you hit for inside your optimal is tracking/transversal.
If a system with 30km optimal and a system with 15km optimal with the same tracking and dmg hit the same stationary ship they would do the exact same dmg from 0-15km, over 15km the ship with the 15km optimal does less but the ship with the 30km still hit for its max dmg out to 30km.
Not true.
I think you need to check your facts dude....seriously.
Lets do that, why dont you pick up a geddon and move to agil, and show me how good puls's hit at okm range. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content - Cortes "Here was the brand of the cigerates i smoke"
I don't smoke - Cortes |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 17:06:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Avoid
Lets do that, why dont you pick up a geddon and move to agil, and show me how good pulse's hit at okm range.
No need.
See with 0 transversal all ships hit for their max amount inside their optimal with 0 loss of dmg all the way to 0 its how the mechanics work bud.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 17:13:00 -
[190]
Edited by: Sensaja on 12/02/2009 17:14:32
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: Sensaja
gallente has less range to subtract 50% from and are thus less affected.. minmatar doesn't give a **** about optimal since they work in falloff..
You have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever. Stop arguing. As a reminder: TDs affect optimal AND falloff equally. And you also do know that your "argument" works ther other way around, too, the nominal effective range increase with T2 ammo is higher with Pulses? To put it in your words: "amarr has more range to add 50% to and are thus more affected.."
optimal range and tracking negater scripts were introduced to TD's a while ago.. you should check em out.. i'll show you how lack of falloff is of little concern to blaster boats if you fit TD II's and use your noggin..
long range becoming mid range is tolerable because they can still fire from a distance..
short range becoming marginally shorter is completely irellevant.
mid range however.. becoming short range.. presents a huge issue when the mid range and the tanking is the primary advantage of flying amarr..
why mid range is more damaged by being divided by 2 than ultra short and ultra long range, lies in the mean/average damage effective combat range.. which is mid range..
especially since short range weapons outdamages mid range weapons completely.. and removing the range on midrange weapons pushes them towards targets which have a more damaging weapon system (short range) if they want to be able to hit something.
meaning that the mid range is actually helping the short range target get closer if it decides to actually hit something whilst having a TD II on it.. thus more than halving the travel time for the blasterboat.. since the blasterboat is moving towards the amarr ship whilst the amarr ship is slowboating towards the blasterboat to try and hit it from 22.5km with scorch.
this is especially true considering the issues of fitting beams on for instance a geddon.
thus fitting a td II on a blaster boat if fighting amarr boats is one of the steps to making blasters viable in fleet combat, but nobody seems to f'ing notice! all they do is whine about how amarr shoots their lasers on their pretty hulls, and switch to slow moving rail boats instead.
thus scorch solves the problem.. while the TD II with optimal script renders the other crystals besides the very weak damaging ones useless.. scorch still allows the pilot doing a little bit of damage at somewhat mid range..
tradeoff.. you gotta skill and fit t2 large's on the ship and can't cram fits in using deadspace or faction guns.
issues:
due to people being saggy boobs about it and not fitting td II's whatsoever..amarr pilots have started to use scorch without limitations to provide a very effective mid range advantage with good firepower, and the other less damaging charges need not be used because nobody is pinning them down with TD II's..
instead of adopting TD II's when fighting amarr.. (which is the EWAR with the most favourable range relative to targets usual range) people go to the forums and asks to either nerf amarr or boost the other weapons..
all cause of one little f'ing t2 crystal that was meant as a defence for an EWAR that is horribly easy to use but hardly ever is.
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 17:23:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Sensaja
long range becoming mid range is tolerable because they can still fire from a distance..
short range becoming marginally shorter is completely irrelevant.
mid range however.. becoming short range.. presents a huge issue when the mid range and the tanking is the primary advantage of flying amarr..
Still preaching that gallente should fit ewar just to stand a chance in a 1 v 1 engagement on sissi is silly......,we are discussing realistic gang fighting on TQ.
Originally by: Sensaja meaning that the mid range is actually helping the short range target get closer if it decides to actually hit something whilst having a TD II on it.. thus halving the travel time for the blasterboat..
Actually it gives the lasers room to get up to speed and burn away from the blaster ship while hitting for nice dps at under 30km and very nice at 22km. as well as reducing the relative speed between the ships the blaster ship doing 900ms the laser doing 700 away = 200ms gain over 15km = 75 seconds of 800-1000ish raw dps from the lasers before the blaster gets into optimal range......ouch and i did not even include the webbed speeds at 13km...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 17:26:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Avoid Lets do that, why dont you pick up a geddon and move to agil, and show me how good puls's hit at okm range.
At 0 km, pulse will hit just as well as blasters, or ACs, or any turret, no matter what the transversal. That is, they'll all miss because of the divide-by-zero bug.
But at 1 metre range and zero transveral, they'll all hit for full damage.
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 17:30:00 -
[193]
Sensaja, do yourself a favor and don't waste my/your/everybodys time. You have no concept of what you're talking about. In fact I believe you lack common sense to be able to draw conclusions. All you do is spam the thread untill it gets burried in a pile of nonsense, everybody with a brain will avoid it and it'll die.
Avoid, you should avoid embrassing yourself for not knowing a fact that only the ones living under a rock would NOT know. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Avoid
Gallente Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 17:32:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 17:08:03
Originally by: Avoid
Lets do that, why dont you pick up a geddon and move to agil, and show me how good pulse's hit at okm range.
No need.
See....,with 0 transversal all ships hit for their max amount inside their optimal with 0 loss of dmg all the way to 0km its how the mechanics work bud. [b
Only movement/transversal effects dmg inside your optimal range.[/b]
You need to tell abit more about that graph.
What is the setup's of the ships ? Megathron whit 7 ions, 5 ogre II and so on ? As im reading the graph. There is drones in the picture. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content - Cortes "Here was the brand of the cigerates i smoke"
I don't smoke - Cortes |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 17:36:00 -
[195]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 17:36:54
Originally by: Avoid
You need to tell abit more about that graph.
What is the setup's of the ships ? Megathron whit 7 ions, 5 ogre II and so on ? As im reading the graph. There is drones in the picture.
Why?.....,it shows what everybody who is not a noob knows.
That inside optimal ranges gunnery systems will hit for their highest dmg against a stationary target without a loss of dmg due to closer range, only when you go outside optimal does the dmg falloff hence the name "falloff"....
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Avoid
Gallente Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 18:12:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 17:36:54
Originally by: Avoid
You need to tell abit more about that graph.
What is the setup's of the ships ? Megathron whit 7 ions, 5 ogre II and so on ? As im reading the graph. There is drones in the picture.
Why?.....,it shows what everybody who is not a noob knows.
That inside optimal ranges gunnery systems will hit for their highest dmg against a stationary target without a loss of dmg due to closer range, only when you go outside optimal does the dmg falloff hence the name "falloff"....
This is 7 Neutrons whit Void ammo at 0km to a geddon.
17:37:35 Combat Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II misses Del Boy [FUKKU]<PRVTR>'Doom'(Armageddon) completely. 17:37:39 Combat Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II misses Del Boy [FUKKU]<PRVTR>'Doom'(Armageddon) completely. 17:37:44 Combat Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II misses Del Boy [FUKKU]<PRVTR>'Doom'(Armageddon) completely. 17:37:49 Combat Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II misses Del Boy [FUKKU]<PRVTR>'Doom'(Armageddon) completely. 17:37:53 Combat Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II misses Del Boy [FUKKU]<PRVTR>'Doom'(Armageddon) completely. 17:37:58 Combat Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II misses Del Boy [FUKKU]<PRVTR>'Doom'(Armageddon) completely. 17:38:03 Combat Your group of Neutron Blaster Cannon II misses Del Boy [FUKKU]<PRVTR>'Doom'(Armageddon) completely.
The 5 Ogre II's would still hit at this range doing 317 dps.
So basicly the shape of the graph you have, does not match what i see in the game. From what i see in the game, drones starts a 317, as the range increase, so does the damage witch peak at the optimal range and then fall down again. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content - Cortes "Here was the brand of the cigerates i smoke"
I don't smoke - Cortes |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 18:19:00 -
[197]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 18:23:01
The divide-by-zero bug makes you miss at exactly 0km, at 1m upwards the graph applies ffs.
Quote: The 5 Ogre II's would still hit at this range doing 317 dps.
The ogres are not at your range....,they are over 0km from the target orbiting as drones tend to do.
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 - 2009.02.12 18:27:00 -
[198]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 12/02/2009 18:27:18
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Omara Otawan but the claims you see all over the forums that large blasters dont hit anything but moons are blatant lies
I have never seen those claims, please show some links as they are wrong unless the target is under 2km.
I cant be arsed to search really, but I guess a forum search with "blasters + bellum + eternus" should yield some results already.
Basically every other whinethread about blasters has it at least one time per page.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 18:43:00 -
[199]
Edited by: Murina on 12/02/2009 18:45:56
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Omara Otawan but the claims you see all over the forums that large blasters dont hit anything but moons are blatant lies
I have never seen those claims, please show some links as they are wrong unless the target is under 2km.
I cant be arsed to search really, but I guess a forum search with "blasters + bellum + eternus" should yield some results already.
I have checked and you are totally exaggerating what he and others are saying to its most absurd extreme in the hopes that it will be dismissed.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 21:20:00 -
[200]
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 12/02/2009 21:23:35
Personally I have 5 million skillpoints in gunnery, and level 4 in large blasters atm.
My experience is without tracking mods in lows on a non-megathron, I can't hit a battlecruiser thats 5000km or closer to me when we've both moving at non mwd/ab speed.
Hits a battleship well as long as the battleship is not right on top of you.
As for cruisers, I can have them standing still with my battleship also standing still in optimal, and half the shots will miss and the ones that hit seem to do around 50% damage, but then that goes without saying when using antimatter ammo at short ranges considering what I said about the battlecruiser.
I personally accept that lasers are superior to blasters, if only because they are pretty much the same sort of weapon with a ton more range.
I'm trying to use blasters just for my own fun, used lasers for years and got bored of them, whether they are fotm or not and yes, they own.
|
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 21:23:00 -
[201]
Originally by: Goumindong
Just as much for rail ships. You can't complain that tracking sucks on rails then say "and you've got tackle so the enemies never get close enough to avoid your fire"
The difference is that pulses will track them easily even without the rapiers, whereas rail-fitted gallente ships will 1) have a way harder time doing so, 2) will do less damage period (yes, 6% less is not much, but it's still less) and 3) have a worse overall fitting.
Originally by: Goumindong Yea, pulse ships are good, they are the best in medium sized engagements. Blaster ships are the best in small sized engagements. Rails are the best again(Rokh) in large sized engagements.
As soon as you have a dedicated tackler and a falcon, you might as well be in pulse boat. So blasters have such a small area where they are the best, I don't see why you have such a problem with them being boosted slightly.
Originally by: Goumindong They're supposed to be. What, you want blasters to be the best in small and medium gangs? You want no tactical differentiation between the two sets?
Goum, don't be silly. I never said that, neither do I think it. Some guy simply stated something erroneous, and I corrected him. That is all.
|
prodalt
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 21:49:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
1. Yep, Mega can fit a reasonable tank with 2*plate, DC2, 2*ANP2, 2*dam mod. It will have CPU problems with its mids even with ANPs, though - no scram. Geddon will fit 3*dam mod, ofc. 2. So, since tracking doesn't matter in medium gangs, you support reducing pulse tracking? That's where you say that Amarr should be the best, not in small gangs where tracking even matters? 3. If 6% DPS doesn't matter at all, let's give pulses 6% less damage than the rails instead?
1. Yes and? That is accounted for 2. There is a range of usefulness. The tracking reflects that. Pulse lasers are on the smaller side of medium gangs, rails are on the larger side(where their increased range has even more advantages) 3. 6% does not matter when the weapon system in question is supposed to be weaker in the situation it does 6% less DPS. Rails are not supposed to be better medium gang weapons than pulses, they are supposed to be adequate.
Originally by: Murina 20-50% is more than 30 and blasters do not get 300% more dmg than lasers.
While lasers do full dmg from 20-30 and blasters are a joke and from 30-45 lasers still do full dmg and blasters do 0.
No, they really do. Look at your own graphs. You might have to actually examine them to understand what they say. The key here is that you see a large area and think that means something, when in reality the issue is the difference between the two points on a single axis.
Quote:
Massively less ehp and less dmg than amarr and useless tracking compared to pulse ships.
You debunk nothing you just switch your math calculation to suit your intent.
Except not massively less EHP and DMG than Amarr. Look at the actual numbers before making those claims And the tracking in those gangs is not a big deal.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 21:52:00 -
[203]
Prodalt is me:
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
The difference is that pulses will track them easily even without the rapiers, whereas rail-fitted gallente ships will 1) have a way harder time doing so, 2) will do less damage period (yes, 6% less is not much, but it's still less) and 3) have a worse overall fitting.
Which is irrelevant if they're tackled is it not? If they're not tackled, then either they A: aren't sticking around, or B: aren't sticking around within a range where laser ships can hit them.
Originally by: Goumindong
As soon as you have a dedicated tackler and a falcon, you might as well be in pulse boat. So blasters have such a small area where they are the best, I don't see why you have such a problem with them being boosted slightly.
And if either of your dedicated tackler or falcon dies then you're screwed. For that matter, if you've got a dedicated tackler and falcon you might as well be in a blaster boat(small targets die fast in falloff anyway, more utility and speed allow you to cope better with friendly losses, higher DPS means faster through hard targets). Whether or not you're efficient only depends on how long it takes you to close to a target.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 22:05:00 -
[204]
Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 12/02/2009 22:06:06 Edited because I fail at quoting.
Originally by: Goumindong
Which is irrelevant if they're tackled is it not? If they're not tackled, then either they A: aren't sticking around, or B: aren't sticking around within a range where laser ships can hit them.
Not necessarily. For point A: They can be tackled, but not webbed/scrammed (thinking of crow here). For point B: sometimes they'll be dead before they can get out of megapulse range.
Originally by: Goumindong
And if either of your dedicated tackler or falcon dies then you're screwed. For that matter, if you've got a dedicated tackler and falcon you might as well be in a blaster boat(small targets die fast in falloff anyway, more utility and speed allow you to cope better with friendly losses, higher DPS means faster through hard targets). Whether or not you're efficient only depends on how long it takes you to close to a target.
And that's exactly what I was thinking of. It's a very influential factor. So unless you're fighting only other blaster boats, sooner or later it's going to come into play.
|
mishkof
Caldari Dirty Denizens
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 22:13:00 -
[205]
I do not think that saying much is neccesary as Murina has pretty much won every point in this debate as far as I am concerned.
The only thing I will add is that I prefer ammar weapons because their range is optimal in many more situations then blasters including small, medium and large gang tasks. They do not depend on a MWD nearly as much. They have good range while still being able to fit a very, very good tank.
I will take all of those points over the only real advantage of having a few more midslots on average across all ships, and the highest dmg in a 2 KM distant realisticaly with gallente.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 22:29:00 -
[206]
Originally by: mishkof I do not think that saying much is neccesary as Murina has pretty much won every point in this debate as far as I am concerned.
He have?.
Tbh, i don't think he have been right in much in this topic.
The graphs for example is a good enough proof that he's wrong.
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
Chris Liath
Gallente The Vorlon Empire Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 22:30:00 -
[207]
Yes. Boost blasters. /thread
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 22:57:00 -
[208]
Edited by: NightmareX on 12/02/2009 22:59:14
Originally by: Chris Liath Yes. Boost blasters. /thread
Maybe you should get one Boom Blaster into your ship.
It might help you to get more boom out of your blasters.
Check out my new flash web page 'Dark Paradise' |
Nicholas DW
Infusion.
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 02:06:00 -
[209]
Just fly the Falcon.
|
DJ Tim
Chin Chinnery
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 02:09:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Nicholas DW Just fly the Falcon.
BOOST FALCONS. --~--
Don't Worry Baby, You Can Touch My Chin Anytime.
|
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 04:50:00 -
[211]
Originally by: DJ Tim
Originally by: Nicholas DW Just fly the Falcon.
BOOST HOMOSEXUALITY!
|
EvilD's EvilTwin
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 05:18:00 -
[212]
i'll start this by saying that blasters do need a little help...in my opinion its more of a web problem than it is gun though....
...and thats coming from a fully specced amarr pilot mind you...
but, anyone who plays this game long enough using turrets knows that your best hit quality is at optimal....above and below optimal you lose dps because of lower quality hits....a good rule of thumb imho is optimal - falloff is where your hits start getting bad...
believe it or not this puts amarr battleships at a disadvantage in very close range combat...when your shooting something 5km away when your optimal is 15, even if its moving very very slowly, your hits are no where near as hard as they would be around 10km...there is no arguing this with some graph..go test it and see.
....and since a theme seems to be going through this thread of "the tracking bonus means nothing when you are that close blah blah" .......then i'm sure you won't mind changing the tracking bonus on mega for a web strength bonus....
|
Dors Venabily
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 08:41:00 -
[213]
Edited by: Dors Venabily on 13/02/2009 08:48:48 Oh ffs Just give freaking blasters 15% tracking boost all across the board in cruiser and bship classes to compensate for the web nerf and done you still wont be able to hit frigs with bship but you'll be able to perform against bcs or same sized targets and have reduced dmg against cruiser sized targets.
As far as fitting TD II Mega 4 slots even without tackle you need at least web and with the falcon infestation ECCM web MWD Cap injector so you actually can fire and move around from target to target
Hyperion 5 slots ok you might fit it there but you wont be able to hit much without tracking comp in the 5th slot so i call this a draw gimp enemys tracking or yours
|
Sensaja
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 08:49:00 -
[214]
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin i'll start this by saying that blasters do need a little help...in my opinion its more of a web problem than it is gun though....
...and thats coming from a fully specced amarr pilot mind you...
but, anyone who plays this game long enough using turrets knows that your best hit quality is at optimal....above and below optimal you lose dps because of lower quality hits....a good rule of thumb imho is optimal - falloff is where your hits start getting bad...
believe it or not this puts amarr battleships at a disadvantage in very close range combat...when your shooting something 5km away when your optimal is 15, even if its moving very very slowly, your hits are no where near as hard as they would be around 10km...there is no arguing this with some graph..go test it and see.
....and since a theme seems to be going through this thread of "the tracking bonus means nothing when you are that close blah blah" .......then i'm sure you won't mind changing the tracking bonus on mega for a web strength bonus....
this
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 09:51:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Sensaja
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin but, anyone who plays this game long enough using turrets knows that your best hit quality is at optimal....above and below optimal you lose dps because of lower quality hits....a good rule of thumb imho is optimal - falloff is where your hits start getting bad...
this
Official tracking guide has something to say about this: "If the target is within the turret's optimal range the chance to hit will not be decreased."
Tracking is what causes all the misses if the range is optimal or lower.
Are we finally clear on this? -- Gradient forum |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 10:03:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Not necessarily. For point A: They can be tackled, but not webbed/scrammed (thinking of crow here). For point B: sometimes they'll be dead before they can get out of megapulse range.
1. If they're continuing the engagement then they will be going the other way, closer rather than farther.
2. Range at the beginning of the fight matters little if that is not how it is at the end.
3. If you're in an overwhelming situation, the type of battleship you have brought doesn't much matter, its when you're stressed that it matters.
Quote:
And that's exactly what I was thinking of. It's a very influential factor. So unless you're fighting only other blaster boats, sooner or later it's going to come into play.
Why should it not? If you have a tackler and a falcon the maximum efficiency is determined by time to close. If you lose either of them your efficiency in the laser boat drops dramatically. This is an important point, because fights do not always exist where one side kills the other side without taking losses, and if they did, the battleship you had brought would matter very little because you had such overwhelming force that
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 10:50:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Goumindong Blah blah tracking blah blah
STFU already, you amarr cried like little girls not so long ago cos your lasers could not track well and they got buffed, and now your telling ppl to fit rails that have less tracking than your pulse had before all your threads and whines got them buffed.
Just sod off morondong and stop trolling others attempts to fix their systems just to keep yours the I-WIM one, you are obvious and pathetic.
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 - 2009.02.13 11:00:00 -
[218]
I did not support the tracking changes or the resist changes when they were put in. (though i do support the tracking changes now that webs have been changed, it would otherwise be too large a gap for the shorter range weapons). So i really don't know what you're talking about.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 11:06:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
Originally by: Sensaja
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin but, anyone who plays this game long enough using turrets knows that your best hit quality is at optimal....above and below optimal you lose dps because of lower quality hits....a good rule of thumb imho is optimal - falloff is where your hits start getting bad...
this
Official tracking guide has something to say about this: "If the target is within the turret's optimal range the chance to hit will not be decreased."
Tracking is what causes all the misses if the range is optimal or lower.
Are we finally clear on this?
To back this a bit more up here.
Range helps your tracking:
hit chance = ((1/2)^((((Transv/(Range*Tracking))*(Sig_Res/Sig_Rad))^2) +((max(0,Range-Optimal))/Falloff)^2))
Since wich higher Range the ship have to pass a longer line to do the same rad/s.
movement of the Target _____ | \ | | \ |<-distance between the Ships ___ \ | \ | \ | \ | \| \| <- same angle
A B
As anybody can see the angle stays the same(what is important for the Turret to follow the Target) even if in Example A the Targets moves a longer line(by moving faster in the same timeframe) simple because it is at a longer distance.
So if the Target is at a longer Range Tracking becomes easier. If the Target donŠt moves or is Webbed and Painted to a level where it movement donŠt causes any problems the Damage will be the same at any point within Optimal.
Back on the Topic, I stated it multiple times and well here again: Range is not the Issue, it is holding a Target down and apply your Damage fast and with next to no Tracking issues within your Optimal in Web Range. This is compleetly related to the Web(while higher Tracking would help, it still would not enalbe the blaster ship to hold his Target, down once catched, what is very important in my Optinion).
The only Blaster Type that might need a bit more range is the Medium Turret(1000-2000m in my Opinon so it would be 500-1000(Electron to Neutron Blaster) more with AN loaded to to smoth things out a bit at close and reach barly the edge of Web Range(Ions/Neutrons) with Null without Falloff Mods and a acceptalbe Damageoutput(50% Falloff).
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 11:08:00 -
[220]
Edited by: Murina on 13/02/2009 11:10:12
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin i'll start this by saying that blasters do need a little help...in my opinion its more of a web problem than it is gun though....
...and thats coming from a fully specced amarr pilot mind you...
but, anyone who plays this game long enough using turrets knows that your best hit quality is at optimal....above and below optimal you lose dps because of lower quality hits....a good rule of thumb imho is optimal - falloff is where your hits start getting bad...
believe it or not this puts amarr battleships at a disadvantage in very close range combat...when your shooting something 5km away when your optimal is 15, even if its moving very very slowly, your hits are no where near as hard as they would be around 10km...there is no arguing this with some graph..go test it and see.
That is a tracking issue not a range one, the only reason your dmg dips when a ship is in close is that it may be moving and as such the closer it gets the harder it is to track and as you the more you miss and the less dps you do, but that is tracking as a stationary ship or one zero transversal will be hit just as hard anywhere inside optimal.....
How can so many ppl not understand the utter basics of their weapon systems????..
OPTIMAL RANGE IS NOT A SINGLE RANGE YOU HIT BEST AT IT IS THE 0-MAX RANGE YOU HIT BEST AT, ANYWHERE INSIDE A 45KM OPTIMAL IS OPTIMAL.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 11:09:00 -
[221]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 13/02/2009 11:14:18
Originally by: Goumindong I did not support the tracking changes or the resist changes when they were put in. (though i do support the tracking changes now that webs have been changed, it would otherwise be too large a gap for the shorter range weapons). So i really don't know what you're talking about.
i'm not sure if murina even knows what he's talking about sometimes..
what i do know is that he's a 5 year old vet and very experienced pvp'er.. and i know he's got a lot of TQ kills.... and that he's got a foul mouth towards people that don't automatically agree with everything he's saying... and that he's been wrong on many occations without admitting it in any other way but a vague admonishment followed by more personal attacks, which is a bad combination.
and i know he hates amarr with a vengeance.. So take what he says about amarr with a grain of salt. Because despite his long pvp experience.. he has never flown amarr. And his statements about them are based on theorycraft or hearsay.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 11:14:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Goumindong I did not support the tracking changes or the resist changes when they were put in. (though i do support the tracking changes now that webs.
So you support the tracking buff lasers got but you say that rails are fine as comparative weapon systems to pulse although they have LESS tracking than pulse did BEFORE they got buffed?...
Thinking that pulse would suck without the buff and then preaching that its ok for gallente to fit rails that have less tracking that pulse did without the buff and you do not understand?????????????.......yea right.
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 - 2009.02.13 11:15:00 -
[223]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 troll
Have the balls to either post with your main or tell us who he is like i did..
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 11:48:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Murina troll
i'm not really interested in helping you create yet another 20+ page threadnought with a dash of whine, by putting up with your gibberish and personal attacks.
i was merely stating the aforementioned for the other participants ITT so they know how "decent" you tend to be when discussing options, problems and solutions to gameplay changes.
ppl can do with it as they will..
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 11:51:00 -
[225]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 troll
So you dug through another thread for my post about who my main is but you do not have the balls to say who yours is?...
Hardly surprising as most trolls do not want their inexperience to be shown...or is this your actual main...?
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 - 2009.02.13 11:53:00 -
[226]
Edited by: Goumindong on 13/02/2009 11:54:06 Edited by: Goumindong on 13/02/2009 11:53:15
Originally by: Murina
So you support the tracking buff lasers got but you say that rails are fine as comparative weapon systems to pulse although they have LESS tracking than pulse did BEFORE they got buffed?...
Thinking that pulse would suck without the buff and then preaching that its ok for gallente to fit rails that have less tracking that pulse did without the buff and you do not understand?????????????.......yea right.
You see, in having a longer range than pulse lasers, they need to have a large disadvantage in the short range compared to pulse lasers(and beams) in the same way that pulse lasers have a large disadvantage in the short range compared to blasters.
Its the advantage you get from being able to change ammo and hit even farther than pulse.
Before you say "lol apoc" you should try and remember that I opposed that (and kinda still do) as well.
If you're arguing that rails have too low tracking compared to beams, well that might be the case, i haven't looked at it much(but i doubt it)
ed: Murina you've never confirmed your main.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 11:59:00 -
[227]
Edited by: Murina on 13/02/2009 12:04:52
Originally by: Goumindong
If you're arguing that rails have too low tracking compared to beams, well that might be the case, i haven't looked at it much(but i doubt it)
They do but then that would make rails a little better so you will oppose it considering its not amarr.
Quote: "(but i doubt it)"
Pretty much sums up your attitude to any proposed fix/buff to any race apart from amarr.
Quote: ed: Murina you've never confirmed your main.
Just ask nicely and il login and start a convo... |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 12:29:00 -
[228]
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin
....and since a theme seems to be going through this thread of "the tracking bonus means nothing when you are that close blah blah" .......then i'm sure you won't mind changing the tracking bonus on mega for a web strength bonus....
I would freaking love that, as I've suggested that very idea on SHC. It was not well recieved.
Originally by: Goumindong
1. If they're continuing the engagement then they will be going the other way, closer rather than farther.
Unless all your laserboats are packed up real tight, there's a fair chance there's always going to be one able to hit. And if not, the terrible tracking on rails is going to make itself felt far earlier than the one on pulse.
Originally by: Goumindong 2. Range at the beginning of the fight matters little if that is not how it is at the end.
Is this for point A or B? I'm confused.
Originally by: Goumindong 3. If you're in an overwhelming situation, the type of battleship you have brought doesn't much matter, its when you're stressed that it matters.
You can be in a stressed situation where range and tracking will matter.
Originally by: Goumindong Why should it not? If you have a tackler and a falcon the maximum efficiency is determined by time to close. If you lose either of them your efficiency in the laser boat drops dramatically. This is an important point, because fights do not always exist where one side kills the other side without taking losses, and if they did, the battleship you had brought would matter very little because you had such overwhelming force that
A blaster boat would be about as screwed if not more if it lost either the tackler or the Falcon. If it loses the tackler, it basically loses any chance of killing anything anything that's not already in blaster range. If you lose the Falcon, and they have theirs still, you're dead.
Blasterboats need web + scram at least, and preferably dual web + scram. In either case, no room for a WD II on either the Mega or the Hype, nor for ECCM. OtoH, WD II + ECCM fits perfectly fine on an Abaddon |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 13:02:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Murina
They do but then that would make rails a little better so you will oppose it considering its not amarr.
No, if rails needed a tracking boost, i would support it. Just as i've supported damps, gang mods, small ships, fixing POS warfare, and industry.
Quote:
Pretty much sums up your attitude to any proposed fix/buff to any race apart from amarr.
No, it pretty much sums up my attitude whenever anyone comes and says something is true without supporting it. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 13:11:00 -
[230]
Edited by: Murina on 13/02/2009 13:16:16
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Murina
They do but then that would make rails a little better so you will oppose it considering its not amarr.
No, if rails needed a tracking boost, i would support it. Just as i've supported damps, gang mods, small ships, fixing POS warfare, and industry.
So apart from a fix to damps that are the most versatile ewar system and also the one that is most fitted on non racial/bonused ships, the rest are all neutral as far as race is concerned......
Thanks for making MY point.
Oh, rails and arties do need a tracking boost and arties need a range boost of some description as well for that matter as they are both underpowered compared to beams...
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 - 2009.02.13 13:22:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Murina Oh, rails and arties do need a tracking boost and arties need a range boost of some description as well for that matter as they are both underpowered compared to beams...
Uhm no, nerf the Beams instead then if it's ever needed.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 13:27:00 -
[232]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Murina Oh, rails and arties do need a tracking boost and arties need a range boost of some description as well for that matter as they are both underpowered compared to beams...
Uhm no, nerf the Beams instead then if it's ever needed.
Whatever....,a test vs smaller ships would need to be done to see if a buff for arties/rails tracking was needed, or a nerf for beams tracking was needed.
But either way arties need a range buff of some description...
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 - 2009.02.13 17:38:00 -
[233]
Originally by: Murina
Thanks for making MY point.....you justify any amarr system no matter how OP it is with absurd comparisons, while dismissing fixes to other races with equally absurd comparisons.
That is the actual issue tbh. All guns are fine as is, except the amarr ones which are too good.
This makes every other race player believe their guns are bad, but it really only is lasers being way to good compared to the others.
Might be easily fixed for pulse by increasing/changing drawbacks on scorch though. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 17:53:00 -
[234]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Murina
Thanks for making MY point.....you justify any amarr system no matter how OP it is with absurd comparisons, while dismissing fixes to other races with equally absurd comparisons.
That is the actual issue tbh. All guns are fine as is, except the amarr ones which are too good.
This makes every other race player believe their guns are bad, but it really only is lasers being way to good compared to the others.
Might be easily fixed for pulse by increasing/changing drawbacks on scorch though.
If you look back not so long ago amarr players cried heavy tears about not hitting at closer (blaster) ranges, they got a buff and are now more effective than blasters down to 9ishkm and still very effective under 9km and all this with a optimal of 45km + falloff.
Now blaster pilots are not asking for a toe in lasers high optimal like lasers got into blasters low optimal, all they are after is to marginally more effective in the 10-20km range (still close/blaster range) while still doing 0 dmg after 30km as they do now.
Now as lasers got a toe in the blasters area with a tracking buff i see no harm in giving gallente a small buff to dmg in the 10-20km range so they can at least be a little bit more effective in gang combat. Amarr would still be better in gangs and have much better range ehp ect but at least gallente blaster ships would not be close to useless anymore. |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 18:07:00 -
[235]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 13/02/2009 18:12:22
Originally by: Murina
Now blaster pilots are not asking for a toe in lasers high optimal like lasers got into blasters low optimal, all they are after is to marginally more effective in the 10-20km range (still close/blaster range) while still doing 0 dmg after 30km as they do now.
Now as lasers got a toe in the blasters area with a tracking buff i see no harm in giving gallente a small buff to dmg in the 10-20km range so they can at least be a little bit more effective in gang combat. Amarr would still be better in gangs and have much better range ehp ect but at least gallente blaster BS would not be close to useless anymore.
I know it is quite unpopular to say these things, but I'd much more like to see lasers getting 'rebalanced' a bit.
Blasters seem to be good the way they are, I still take a beating and can get easily killed by gallente BS in a cruiser or BC, but it is not instant melting anymore which is good imo. (I remember the days when you couldnt get within 10(13)km of a mega without getting instapopped in any cruiser, that sucked quite a bit gameplay wise).
The only issue with this is RP wise it'd be hard to justify why laser based turrets wouldn't have the best tracking around, better tracking than huge accelerator type guns anyway.
|
Cupdeez
Out of Order
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 18:51:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 07/02/2009 06:52:42 You know something's wrong when I'm actually considering this fit:
[Hyperion, Lasers] Large Armor Repairer II Large Armor Repairer II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
100MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I Heavy Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Auxiliary Nano Pump I Nanobot Accelerator I Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Warrior II x5 Vespa EC-600 x5
Call me crazy, but: -The Hype, being fast and agile, can probably stay at range from a blaster BS, and will do more damage than anything with large ACs that fires in falloff. -Damage isn't stellar, but when taking falloff into consideration, is comparable, if not better, than Null. -Additionnaly, you get to engage targets up to 40 km away. Good luck doing anything at that range with blasters. -Unlike with blasters, you don't need to have your target dual webbed + scrammed to actually hit it, as long as you stay around your optimal and not too far below. -Because you don't need all you mids for tackle, you have ECCM and don't have to fear ***cons. -Amarr BS would do this better, ofc... if there was an Amarr BS with 5 mids. EDIT: as far as cap is concerned, lasts about 2/3 as long as a similar Ion fit.
In conclusion, boost blasters.
The problem is the ship.. The slot layout sucks. Drop a mid and give me a slow slot. Also boost the damn powergrid. I can't even fit a full rack of 425 T2 guns on this puppy.
|
Cupdeez
Out of Order
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 19:00:00 -
[237]
Edited by: Cupdeez on 13/02/2009 19:02:16 [blaster setup] Large Armor Repairer II Large Armor Repairer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 100MN MicroWarpdrive II Heavy Capacitor Booster II,Cap Booster 800 Stasis Webifier II Warp Disruptor II ECCM - Omni I Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I Drones_Active=Garde II,4
933 DPS can rep 605 DPS but sucks 800 cap boosters like no other. To make it more cap stable change the Large armor repairs for 1600mm plates. Then Have fun.
If you change to plates you can use large Ion's which gives you almost 1000 dps. |
EvilD's EvilTwin
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 19:01:00 -
[238]
Edited by: EvilD''s EvilTwin on 13/02/2009 19:03:00
Originally by: The Djego Edited by: The Djego on 13/02/2009 11:20:13
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
Originally by: Sensaja
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin but, anyone who plays this game long enough using turrets knows that your best hit quality is at optimal....above and below optimal you lose dps because of lower quality hits....a good rule of thumb imho is optimal - falloff is where your hits start getting bad...
this
Official tracking guide has something to say about this: "If the target is within the turret's optimal range the chance to hit will not be decreased."
Tracking is what causes all the misses if the range is optimal or lower.
Are we finally clear on this?
To back this a bit more up here.
Range helps your tracking:
hit chance = ((1/2)^((((Transv/(Range*Tracking))*(Sig_Res/Sig_Rad))^2) +((max(0,Range-Optimal))/Falloff)^2))
Since wich higher Range the ship have to pass a longer line to do the same rad/s. <- line of Movement ________ \<------->| -\<------>| <- A --\<----->| ---\<---->| ----\<--->| -----\<-->| <- B ------\<->| -------\<>| --------\---| ---------\--| <- same Angle
As anybody can see the angle stays the same(what is important for the Turret to follow the Target) even if in Example A the Targets moves a longer line(by moving faster in the same timeframe) simple because it is at a longer distance.
So if the Target is at a longer Range Tracking becomes easier. If the Target donŠt moves or is Webbed and Painted to a level where it movement donŠt causes any problems the Damage will be the same at any point within Optimal.
Back on the Topic, I stated it multiple times and well here again: Range is not the Issue, it is holding a Target down and apply your Damage fast and with next to no Tracking issues within your Optimal in Web Range. This is compleetly related to the Web(while higher Tracking would help, it still would not enalbe the blaster ship to hold his Target, down once catched, what is very important in my Optinion).
The only Blaster Type that might need a bit more range is the Medium Turret(1000-2000m in my Opinon so it would be 500-1000(Electron to Neutron Blaster) more with AN loaded to to smoth things out a bit at close and reach barly the edge of Web Range(Ions/Neutrons) with Null without Falloff Mods and a acceptalbe Damageoutput(50% Falloff).
^^ that post is full of gold
if you all go to the tracking guide and get past page 1 you see that more range for the same speed ship gives less transversal...so the turret can track easier...so while pulse have great tracking at optimal, when the target gets closer they can't keep up...which effects hit quality as i was saying earlier
i finally figured out how to solve this problem....give blaster boats, and maybe mini recons, a web strength bonus (in addition to recon range bonus), and buff all sizes null ammo.
with a bonus to webs the blaster boat can now holds it target where it needs it...so tracking and range with antimatter is ok, and since medium to large gang warfare is so prevelant now, i don't see a problem with 15km optimal when using large null
.....btw i'm trying really hard not to get too involved with this damn thread |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 19:10:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Blasters seem to be good the way they are, I still take a beating and can get easily killed by gallente BS in a cruiser or BC, but it is not instant melting anymore which is good imo. (I remember the days when you couldnt get within 10(13)km of a mega without getting instapopped in any cruiser, that sucked quite a bit gameplay wise).
you should not go close to a close range bs. you have no reason to do so in a smaller craft and all possibilities to avoid it.
Originally by: Omara Otawan The only issue with this is RP wise it'd be hard to justify why laser based turrets wouldn't have the best tracking around, better tracking than huge accelerator type guns anyway.
monocubic molecular alignments (read laser crystals) tend to shatter when they get swung around too fast. there. |
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 19:13:00 -
[240]
Originally by: Cupdeez Edited by: Cupdeez on 13/02/2009 19:02:16 [blaster setup] Large Armor Repairer II Large Armor Repairer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 100MN MicroWarpdrive II Heavy Capacitor Booster II,Cap Booster 800 Stasis Webifier II Warp Disruptor II ECCM - Omni I Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I Drones_Active=Garde II,4
Not to derail the conversation too much, but that's the first time I have ever seen an omni ECCM suggested for a non-joke fit.
(Also don't use Void. Just don't. And trimarks on an active tank fit are a bit iffy. And Gardes are definitely not the best choice for drones.) |
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 19:45:00 -
[241]
Originally by: Chi Quan
you should not go close to a close range bs. you have no reason to do so in a smaller craft and all possibilities to avoid it.
Huh? Looking at large blaster range/tracking, I'm much better off at 2.5km then I'd be at 15km. This was not possible with webs from the past, now it works which is a good thing.
Same with medium guns and frigates, you die instantly at 15km (if they hit that far ofc), but can last a while at 2.5km
Quote:
monocubic molecular alignments (read laser crystals) tend to shatter when they get swung around too fast. there.
Nice one, didnt think of that
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 19:52:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Murina
So apart from a fix to damps that are the most versatile ewar system and also the one that is most fitted on non racial/bonused ships, the rest are all neutral as far as race is concerned......
Thanks for making MY point.....you justify any amarr system no matter how OP it is with absurd comparisons, while dismissing fixes to other races with equally absurd comparisons.
Oh, rails and arties do need a tracking boost and arties need a range boost of some description as well for that matter as they are both underpowered compared to beams...
Yes, i guess I am totally wrong that the high med slot ships don't use supplementary ewar more than the low med slot ships... Oh wait. And i am totally wrong that smaller ships reduce the advantages of lasers... oh wait. And I am totally wrong in wanting to boost all the other races ships that need boosting...
Re: Rails and Arties.
There are issues with some of the ships involved(not really the weapons, though arties could use tracking in between rails and beams). The Maelstrom could use a lot of powergrid and the mega could use something.
But you can't just willy nilly boost rails. Rokhs use rails. Rokhs are the single best sniping battleship in the game hands down. And you want to make them better?
|
Dors Venabily
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 20:23:00 -
[243]
So basically you all agree that blasters need a bit of a boost in boost blasters thread but you argue over rails now? Well I support this wine with my cheese that is how amarr got overpowered systematic forum warfare.
Resist change was a disaster imo that is what kept amarr at bay. Anyhow since I fly gallente any boost to them is good :D selfish i know |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 20:54:00 -
[244]
Edited by: Murina on 13/02/2009 21:07:53
Originally by: Goumindong
Yes, i guess I am totally wrong that the high med slot ships don't use supplementary ewar more than the low med slot ships...
We are discussing BS so and med slot use of ewar including webs and points are covered by tacklers ect..
Originally by: Goumindong There are issues with some of the ships involved(not really the weapons, though arties could use tracking in between rails and beams).
YEA god forbid we reduce the tracking on beam lasers...i mean its not like you have not only the best tracking but a ship with bonuses that let it hit at max....oh wait...
Originally by: Goumindong But you can't just willy nilly boost rails. Rokhs use rails. Rokhs are the single best sniping battleship in the game hands down. And you want to make them better?
Nope i think all large sniper gunnery systems/ships ect need balancing, how it is done must be fair, maybe if you were not so emo when you see amarr ships/systems in the thread you would understand that.
You are biased you have always been biased and your ideas and attitude show that.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 21:10:00 -
[245]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 13/02/2009 21:11:53
Originally by: Omara Otawan Huh? Looking at large blaster range/tracking, I'm much better off at 2.5km then I'd be at 15km. This was not possible with webs from the past, now it works which is a good thing.
Same with medium guns and frigates, you die instantly at 15km (if they hit that far ofc), but can last a while at 2.5km
if you approach at a unfavorable angle, than, yes may die indeed. you forgot to look at the sig resolution of blasters, however. a blaster shooting a target one class smaller does far less than max dps. needless to say that 15 km is a bad range for a frig to STAY at when it's fighting a bs.(sidenote: that frig is better off against a blster bs at 15km than vs any other bs sized craft) my point is that back in the day, you rightfully died to a CLOSE RANGE bs if you entered CLOSE RANGE (in a cruiser, not frig). and tbh, today no other ship than a blastercruiser needs to get close to a blaster bs.
Originally by: Goumindong \still mixing general truths with diversions to appear plausible
Originally by: Dors Venabily So basically you all agree that blasters need a bit of a boost in boost blasters thread but you argue over rails now? Well I support this wine with my cheese that is how amarr got overpowered systematic forum warfare.
it all started when Goum pulled the "if-you-don't-like-blasters-use-rails-card" in the other thread. the general idea to choose something else if you realize your previous choice is bad, is logical. but does not really fit in the whole context. as mentioned before, Goum is very talented at manipulating statements. he rarely says something directly, he merely implies it, which is far better than directly saying it, as the readers brain forms the image and makes it appear as if it was the readers own point of view. rhetorics. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 21:17:00 -
[246]
Quote: As mentioned before, Goum is very talented at manipulating statements. he rarely says something directly, he merely implies it, which is far better than directly saying it, as the readers brain forms the image and makes it appear as if it was the readers own point of view. rhetorics.
This.
Although i do not consider him talented at it tbh i think he is very obvious and have pointed this out many times.
Never make a statement when you can ask a question is very basic form of manipulation and hardly going to fool anybody with 1. any game knowledge and 2. anybody above the age of 12. |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 21:29:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Cupdeez
The problem is the ship.. The slot layout sucks. Drop a mid and give me a slow slot. Also boost the damn powergrid. I can't even fit a full rack of 425 T2 guns on this puppy.
If they just switched the Hype's bonus with the Mega's, I'd be quite happy tbh.
|
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P CCP
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 22:14:00 -
[248]
Cleaned.
Please remain on-topic and avoid being distracted by personal arguments.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Email |
|
Caldess
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 22:56:00 -
[249]
lol....boost blasters
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 12:35:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Cupdeez
The problem is the ship.. The slot layout sucks. Drop a mid and give me a slow slot. Also boost the damn powergrid. I can't even fit a full rack of 425 T2 guns on this puppy.
If they just switched the Hype's bonus with the Mega's, I'd be quite happy tbh.
It would make the Hyperion significantly less strong. The rep bonus is a huge boon to the type of operations that the Hyperion ought to be involved in.
The problems with your estimations have always stemmed from an inability to use the right ships and weapons in the right situations. Cry as you might that blasters ought to be better in medium gangs, they should not. It destroys the entire downside of fitting ships to be efficient in gangs. Anyone who wants to solo, will not be able to, because the gang ships they can prey on will be gone. Anyone who wants to pick off the stragglers in a larger gang will not be able to, because the gang ships they can prey on will be gone.
It is not the games fault if you choose the wrong choice for what you want to do. It is your fault
Originally by: Murina
We are discussing BS so and med slot use of ewar including webs and points are covered by tacklers ect..
You complained that damps were "universal" and so were just boosting amarr as much as anyone else. I explained that damps go in your medium power slots and so the ships with the fewest of those, benefit the least when changes to ewar make them better.
This is not complicated. You're claiming bias that does not exist.
Quote:
YEA god forbid we reduce the tracking on beam lasers...i mean its not like you have not only the best tracking but a ship with bonuses that let it hit at max....oh wait...Shocked
Yes reducing the tracking on beams would be a possibility. But that would not fix the apoc. Why are you still lying about my support of that ship by the way?
Quote:
Nope i think all large sniper gunnery systems/ships ect need balancing, how it is done must be fair, maybe if you were not so emo when you see amarr ships/systems in the thread you would understand that.
What is fair in this context? Why do you say there is a problem with rails if the problem would instead be with a single ship that fits them?
Originally by: Chi Quan
it all started when Goum pulled the "if-you-don't-like-blasters-use-rails-card" in the other thread. the general idea to choose something else if you realize your previous choice is bad, is logical. but does not really fit in the whole context.
No, it does. It only doesn't fit within the context if you define rails as something that can only be used in sniping fleets. This is not the case. You want to use rails in these situations because not only are they your best option, but they are the option designed to fill that role within the Gallente fleet doctrine. Blasters are for small gang work, they are the best for small gang work, the ships are utterly fantastic for that type of combat. Use them in that combat, do not complain that other ships are better than them in the types of combat those others are supposed to excel in.
If i came in here and said that Amarr ships needed less cap use, 4-5 med slots and big drone bays because they aren't good against smaller ships in solo/small gang situations i would be rightly laughed out of the forums. This is because the ships are not supposed to be strong within those contexts, and its good that they are not.
|
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 13:17:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Chi Quan
...
No, it does. It only doesn't fit within the context if you define rails as something that can only be used in sniping fleets.
i don't define them as sniper-only, but they for sure no close range weapon system. if i am to choose alternatives to blasters why not do it right an go for pulses all along? as gallente speced, i already have all the armor and gunnery support skills trained. and as already mentioned "over there", this is what many others are considering. check the killboards the numbers are rising (as predicted). |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 13:37:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Goumindong
It would make the Hyperion significantly less strong. The rep bonus is a huge boon to the type of operations that the Hyperion ought to be involved in.
It would make it less strong as a dual rep platform, but it would make it more versatile. But in essence, the problem I have is that on one hand you have a great rep bonus, but few lows to exploit it with, and on the other, a tracking bonus that is not compounded with many mids and 7 turrets. If I had my way, I'd give the Mega 7 highs, 5 mids, 7 lows, the rep bonus, and the Hype's agility/speed. You then have one clear sniper/plated gang blaster boat (Hype) and one clear small gang active tank blaster boat (Mega).
Originally by: Goumindong The problems with your estimations have always stemmed from an inability to use the right ships and weapons in the right situations.
???
Originally by: Goumindong Cry as you might that blasters ought to be better in medium gangs, they should not. It destroys the entire downside of fitting ships to be efficient in gangs.
A rail fit would still be better in a medium gang than blasters, under my suggested changes. And the larger the gang gets, the larger the rails' superiority over a blaster fit will be.
Originally by: Goumindong Anyone who wants to solo, will not be able to, because the gang ships they can prey on will be gone. Anyone who wants to pick off the stragglers in a larger gang will not be able to, because the gang ships they can prey on will be gone.
That is nonsensical. I used to solo (and I mean full solo, no scouting alts, no nothing) in a freaking Absolution, the very definition of a gang ship, and not only did I not die doing so, I got plenty of kills. Skills and tactics will always win the day.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 13:57:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Goumindong
The problems with your estimations have always stemmed from an inability to use the right ships and weapons in the right situations.
Rubbish, its about one race being utterly overpowered in gang combat compared to the others.
Originally by: Goumindong Cry as you might that blasters ought to be better in medium gangs, they should not. It destroys the entire downside of fitting ships to be efficient in gangs. Anyone who wants to solo, will not be able to, because the gang ships they can prey on will be gone. Anyone who wants to pick off the stragglers in a larger gang will not be able to, because the gang ships they can prey on will be gone.
It is not the games fault if you choose the wrong choice for what you want to do. It is your fault
AND HERE IS THE CRUNCH AND P*55 POOR JUSTIFICATION FOR A OP RACE.
You think that cos ppl train gallente or the other races for YEARS they should suck in gangs.
Amarr do not deserve to be OP and gallente do not deserve to be crap in gang combat especially considering how long each race takes to train to a high level. I have been playing this game for 5+ years and il be f*cked if im gonna see the races compartmentalized just so you can have the I-WIN gang pvp race.
Amarr have been sideways or directly buffed to much with the recent changes and not only have a toe in all the ranges and areas other races have got but also have a huge range outside the other races available areas.
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 - 2009.02.14 13:58:00 -
[254]
Edited by: Murina on 14/02/2009 14:04:29
Originally by: Goumindong Blasters are for small gang work, they are the best for small gang work, the ships are utterly fantastic for that type of combat. Use them in that combat, do not complain that other ships are better than them in the types of combat those others are supposed to excel in.
Utter crap, blasters are only better than lasers in a 1 v 1 situation where the fight starts at a very close range (SISSI COMBAT) in all other situations and especially BS gang combat( the only real BS type of combat on TQ) lasers are way op.
Anyway nobody is complaining cos lasers are better they are complaining cos lasers are WAY to much better and blasters need a boost NOT so they are better than lasers but just so the gap between the types is less than overwhelming as it is now.
Compartmentalizing GALLENTE into a virtual nonexistent form of BS pvp (at least on TQ) while giving amarr a good ship for each form and the best ships for the most popular forms is not gonna happen.
Your ideas of "ROLES" just happen to sideways buff amarr in the most popular forms of pvp while nerfing the other races.......
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 - 2009.02.14 14:20:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus But in essence, the problem I have is that on one hand you have a great rep bonus, but few lows to exploit it with, and on the other, a tracking bonus that is not compounded with many mids and 7 turrets.
You've got it entirely backwards. The rep bonus makes the 6 lows actually valuable and med slots are actually worse for "compounding" a tracking advantage.
Quote: If I had my way, I'd give the Mega 7 highs, 5 mids, 7 lows, the rep bonus, and the Hype's agility/speed
And that is utterly ridiculous.
Quote:
???
You keep complaining that blasters are bad in medium gangs..
Quote:
A rail fit would still be better in a medium gang than blasters, under my suggested changes. And the larger the gang gets, the larger the rails' superiority over a blaster fit will be.
Except that is not the case. We'll maybe with your "lets completely overpower the mega" idea, but not with the one that everyone keeps suggesting of bringing the effective superiority of blasters out to 20km.
Quote:
That is nonsensical. I used to solo (and I mean full solo, no scouting alts, no nothing) in a freaking Absolution, the very definition of a gang ship, and not only did I not die doing so, I got plenty of kills. Skills and tactics will always win the day.
Skills and tactics indeed always win the way, but that doesn't mean we can balance ships based on you having more skills. You can only balance based on scenarios where things are reasonably equal.
Originally by: Murina
You think that cos ppl train gallente or the other races for YEARS they should suck in gangs.
No, i think that if you train gallente you should not be as good in a specific size of gang as someone who trains the race that is designed to be best in that specific size of gang.
Quote: I have been playing this game for 5+ years and il be f*cked if im gonna see the races compartmentalized just so you can have the I-WIN gang pvp race
Amarr are not an "i win" race for gang pvp. They are the best ships at only dealing damage within a very specific size of gang. When gang sizes are smaller, Gallente are better when larger, caldari. In all sizes, the other specific utility functions are filled by a wide variety of races.
Originally by: Murina
Utter crap, blasters are only better than lasers in a 1 v 1 situation where the fight starts at a very close range (SISSI COMBATRolling Eyes) in all other situations and especially BS gang combat( the only real BS type of combat on TQ) lasers are way op.
I will have to inform the rest of TQ that medium sized BS gangs are the only type of BS combat on TQ. While doing this i guess we will have to inform PL that the long range battleship sniping they have been doing just doesn't exist.
Maybe its just that you don't do any of the other fighting and then are projecting your lack of that combat onto others?
Originally by: Chi Quan
i don't define them as sniper-only, but they for sure no close range weapon system. if i am to choose alternatives to blasters why not do it right an go for pulses all along? as gallente speced, i already have all the armor and gunnery support skills trained. and as already mentioned "over there", this is what many others are considering. check the killboards the numbers are rising (as predicted).
If you have the ability to choose between pulse and rails yes you should choose pulse. But there are efficiency losses involved in training and ship procurement.
I.E. there are optimal solutions to each flying type. I.E. the best long range is the rokh, the best short range is the hyperion. The best utility is the pest. But each one can do some of the things of the other, only to a lesser efficiency.
If you want to be effective without training an entire other set, you fit rails for gallente, they are goon enough in that type of combat to offset the training required for t2 pulse. (unless you've been playing a long long long long time)
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 14:31:00 -
[256]
Edited by: Murina on 14/02/2009 14:32:17
Originally by: Goumindong
No, i think that if you train gallente you should not be as good in a specific size of gang as someone who trains the race that is designed to be best in that specific size of gang.
The gap between races usefulness in small-med BS gangs is too wide between them, making amarr OP others need to NARROW the gap.....NOT close it, NOT over take amarr JUST narrow the overwhelming gap that exists.
Originally by: Goumindong I will have to inform the rest of TQ that medium sized BS gangs are the only type of BS combat on TQ. While doing this i guess we will have to inform PL that the long range battleship sniping they have been doing just doesn't exist.
Those are long range not short range BS gangs and even then with beams tracking and the available range they have amarr are yet again are in the top 2 for the "best ship for the job" award.
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 - 2009.02.14 14:44:00 -
[257]
Originally by: Murina
The gap between races usefulness in small-med BS gangs is too wide between them, making amarr OP others need to NARROW the gap.....NOT close it, NOT over take amarr JUST narrow the overwhelming gap that exists.
Except you never suggest that, you always suggest removing the gap entirely.
The gap is very small as it is. You just have to fit rails rather than blasters.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 14:47:00 -
[258]
Edited by: Murina on 14/02/2009 14:54:22
Originally by: Goumindong Except you never suggest that, you always suggest removing the gap entirely.
You are a liar, you try to spin the suggestion to seem like that so you can keep your massively OP gap.
STRANGE HOW YOU CUT THIS OUT EARLIER:-
Originally by: Murina
Anyway nobody is complaining cos lasers are better they are complaining cos lasers are WAY to much better and blasters need a boost NOT so they are better than lasers but just so the gap between the types is less than overwhelming as it is now.
Originally by: Goumindong The gap is very small as it is. You just have to fit rails rather than blasters.
The gap is overwhelming, and its even larger if rails are involved.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 14:55:00 -
[259]
"You've got it entirely backwards. The rep bonus makes the 6 lows actually valuable and med slots are actually worse for "compounding" a tracking advantage."
I disagree. 7 lows means you can go 2x LAR + DCU + 2x MFS + 2x EANM/ANP. Go to 6 lows, and something's got to give. As for tracking bonuses, on the Hype it means you can go say MWD + web + scram + WD + cap injector. Without it, I'd be more likely to go web web scram MWD injector.
"And that is utterly ridiculous."
Why?
"You keep complaining that blasters are bad in medium gangs.."
I keep complaining that they are bad, period.
"Except that is not the case. We'll maybe with your "lets completely overpower the mega" idea, but not with the one that everyone keeps suggesting of bringing the effective superiority of blasters out to 20km."
I do not support such an initiative. I think they should be less sucky up to 20 km, sure, but their clear area of superiority should remain in web/scram range.
"Skills and tactics indeed always win the way, but that doesn't mean we can balance ships based on you having more skills. You can only balance based on scenarios where things are reasonably equal."
I'm lost. What was the point we were discussing here?
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 14:59:00 -
[260]
Edited by: Murina on 14/02/2009 15:01:58
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus I do not support such an initiative. I think they should be less sucky up to 20 km, sure, but their clear area of superiority should remain in web/scram range.
/signed.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 15:17:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Goumindong
The gap is very small as it is. You just have to fit rails rather than blasters.
yea, let's bring up some graphs again and have a nice laugh about your definition of "very small".
Originally by: Goumindong If you have the ability to choose between pulse and rails yes you should choose pulse. But there are efficiency losses involved in training and ship procurement.
I.E. there are optimal solutions to each flying type. I.E. the best long range is the rokh, the best short range is the hyperion. The best utility is the pest. But each one can do some of the things of the other, only to a lesser efficiency.
If you want to be effective without training an entire other set, you fit rails for gallente, they are goon enough in that type of combat to offset the training required for t2 pulse. (unless you've been playing a long long long long time)
in short, with all skills maxed, go for the best and use pulses, if you opt for roleplay, eyecandy or romance fly subpar. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 15:26:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
I disagree. 7 lows means you can go 2x LAR + DCU + 2x MFS + 2x EANM/ANP. Go to 6 lows, and something's got to give. As for tracking bonuses, on the Hype it means you can go say MWD + web + scram + WD + cap injector. Without it, I'd be more likely to go web web scram MWD injector.
Look at the actual stats of a Hyperion, lows of LAR, 1600rt, EANM, EANM, DC, MFS(8x ion, 2 amt/1 spd rig). You've got 950 DPS(2/2/1 and a set of warriors) 667 DPS repped and 100k EHP. Now you want to do that with more drones and an extra low?
Quote:
I do not support such an initiative. I think they should be less sucky up to 20 km, sure, but their clear area of superiority should remain in web/scram range.
It already is, and they are not sucky to 20km. Neutron+Null hits falloff at 27km. Use it.
Originally by: Chi Quan
in short, with all skills maxed, go for the best and use pulses, if you opt for roleplay, eyecandy or romance fly subpar.
In the same way that if you're flying in a solo-small gang capacity you ignore roleplay, eyecandy, or rmance to fly the gallente ships. And if you're flying in a large fleet situation you ignore roleplay, eyecandy, or romance to fly the caldari ship.
Quote:
yea, let's bring up some graphs again and have a nice laugh about your definition of "very small".
6% gun DPS difference before tracking and after damage types between scorch and CN AM L in a 425 fit mega compared to an Armageddon(3 HS geddon, 2 MFS mega)(comparison made because both have the same drone bay)
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 15:30:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Chi Quan
yea, let's bring up some graphs again and have a nice laugh about your definition of "very small".
Using the usual BC/ 188ms transversal graphs....
Megathron 425mm rail fitted vs pulse abaddon.
Even with T1 ammo 425mm rails could hardly hit under 20km in the graphs and almost totally missed under 10km.
While also doing much less dmg from 20-45km than pulse and obviously a crap tonne less under 20km.
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 - 2009.02.14 15:45:00 -
[264]
Edited by: Murina on 14/02/2009 15:47:41
Originally by: Goumindong
It already is, and they are not sucky to 20km. Neutron+Null hits falloff at 27km. Use it.
A perfect example of a misleading Goumindong quote......utterly AVOIDING the fact that null + nuetron optimal = 11km so at 20km it is doing 25%ish of its normal dmg and at 27km it is doing virtually zero dmg.
And the point needs to be made it has a tracking penalty, while Multi freq has high dmg and a optimal of 15KM..... (21km optimal with MF on the apoc).....
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 - 2009.02.14 16:43:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Murina
A perfect example of a misleading Goumindong quote......utterly AVOIDING the fact that null + nuetron optimal = 11km so at 20km it is doing 25%ish of its normal dmg and at 27km it is doing virtually zero dmg.
Uhh. No, that is not how falloff works.
At optimal+falloff you will hit 50% of the time. After the hit quality formula has been applied you will do 39.5% of your normal DPS.
At optimal +1/2 falloff you're around 60-70%. And at optimal +1/4 falloff you're around 70-85%.
Quote:
And the point needs to be made it has a tracking penalty, while Multi freq has high dmg and a optimal of 15KM..... (21km optimal with MF on the apoc).....
Yes, the Apoc does indeed have a higher optimal range with MF. However, it also does less DPS at that range because damage boosts are better than range boosts the closer you get. You need to get over 45km to have a damage advantage with an Apoc compared to an Armageddon or Abaddon.
At 15km, a null using Blaster boat will still be doing the majority of their DPS.
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 16:59:00 -
[266]
What wondered me for a long time: Compare the base stats of Neutron Blaster T2 and Mega Pulse T2: Neutron: dmg mod: 4.2 optimal: 7200 falloff: 10000 MegaPulse: dmg mod: 3.6 optimal: 24000 falloff: 8000 (RoF same on both)
1. So it's only 17% damage advantage for blasters, but lasers have 300% more optimal? Why not to give blasters like 50% damage advantage, so i have time to approach the second target after i melted the first?
2. 8000m falloff on MegaPulse, what for? They already have huge optimal. How about reducing it to 1000m?
3. If you suggest fitting rails for gang combat on gallente ships, then they need way more grid and cpu for this. So i'm not gimping the rest of my fit.
-- Zuba |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 17:03:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Goumindong
At 15km, a null using Blaster boat will still be doing the majority of their DPS.
At 15km pulse will still be in MF (close range high dmg ammo) optimal.
While at 15km blasters will be getting falloff reduced DPS while using null (Low dmg long range ammo).
@ 20km blasters with null do a crap tonne less dps than pulse.
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 - 2009.02.14 17:04:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Zubakis 1. So it's only 17% damage advantage for blasters
1. Damage types 2. Drones
Quote:
2. 8000m falloff on MegaPulse, what for? They already have huge optimal. How about reducing it to 1000m?
Why? Falloff only allows a bit of leeway before changing crystals for lasers. It doesn't extend their range in any effective way.
Quote:
3. If you suggest fitting rails for gang combat on gallente ships, then they need way more grid and cpu for this. So i'm not gimping the rest of my fit.
No, they do not. Gallente Rail boats are some of the easiest in terms of both CPU and PG to fit. Rails have the lowest increase in PG of any weapons system from their shorter range counterparts. You can easily get a fit on without any problems.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 17:15:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Goumindong
Rail boats are some of the easiest in terms of both CPU and PG to fit, You can easily get a fit on without any problems.
Rails are awful compared to pulse from 20-45, virtually useless from 10-20 and cannot even hit under 10km.
But you can fit them on the mega...that also has considerably less tank than the pulse ship as well btw....
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 17:16:00 -
[270]
Originally by: Goumindong
1. Damage types 2. Drones
Damage types? People try to get omni tanks on their ships anyway. So it's equalize i would say. There are people who still use trihardner setups.
Dont bring drones here. It's about guns.
Quote:
Why? Falloff only allows a bit of leeway before changing crystals for lasers. It doesn't extend their range in any effective way.
Why not?
Quote:
Gallente Rail boats are some of the easiest in terms of both CPU and PG to fit. Rails have the lowest increase in PG of any weapons system from their shorter range counterparts. You can easily get a fit on without any problems.
No, you cant. Please show me rail fit on a Hype.
-- Zuba |
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 17:22:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Goumindong
Look at the actual stats of a Hyperion, lows of LAR, 1600rt, EANM, EANM, DC, MFS(8x ion, 2 amt/1 spd rig). You've got 950 DPS(2/2/1 and a set of warriors) 667 DPS repped and 100k EHP. Now you want to do that with more drones and an extra low?
Your setup only reps 444 DPS and only has 86k EHP, for starters.
Second, if the Abaddon is somehow balanced for large gangs, then yes, extra low + drones would be balanced for small gangs.
Originally by: Goumindong It already is,
It is their area where they are best, but they are not clearly superior to laserboats in scram range as laserboats are clearly superior to blasterboats at med-long range.
Originally by: Goumindong and they are not sucky to 20km. Neutron+Null hits falloff at 27km. Use it.
They're pretty terrible compared to lasers at that range. And if you tell that "it's supposed to be that way" then lasers need to GTFO of my scram range band of efficiency.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 17:50:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Zubakis
Damage types? People try to get omni tanks on their ships anyway. So it's equalize i would say. There are people who still use trihardner setups.
Dont bring drones here. It's about guns.
it is stupid to fit anything but EANM tanks. Fitting tri-hardeners is dumb, plain and simple. you cannot balance around people who are dumb.
Re; Drones. No, its about ships and by god, Blaster boats have more drones, they are important to the functioning of the weapons.
Quote:
Why not?
Because you can change crystals. The "leeway" that an 8km falloff offers you is about 2km before its efficient to change crystals.
Quote:
No, you cant. Please show me rail fit on a Hype.
You should be using the Mega for rails, it has a better slot layout for it.
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Your setup only reps 444 DPS and only has 86k EHP, for starters.
Sorry, was thinking of the different rig on each side, 86k is the proper EHP. And no, you're wrong about how much it reps. I suggest you take your drugs and overload. You can overload for 3.5 minutes with a single rep, not doing so is stupid.
Quote:
Second, if the Abaddon is somehow balanced for large gangs, then yes, extra low + drones would be balanced for small gangs.
What? No.
Quote:
It is their area where they are best, but they are not clearly superior to laserboats in scram range as laserboats are clearly superior to blasterboats at med-long range.
Actually they are, they do about as much more damage as laser boats do at range compared to blasters(or more) and they're faster, lock faster, and have much more ability to fit the necessary and efficient modules for that type of work.
Quote:
They're pretty terrible compared to lasers at that range. And if you tell that "it's supposed to be that way" then lasers need to GTFO of my scram range band of efficiency.
Why is "scramble range" your band of efficiency?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 17:52:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Murina
Rails are awful compared to pulse from 20-45, virtually useless from 10-20 and cannot even hit under 10km.
This is entirely untrue.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 18:01:00 -
[274]
Edited by: Murina on 14/02/2009 18:01:30
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Murina
Rails are awful compared to pulse from 20-45, virtually useless from 10-20 and cannot even hit under 10km.
But you can fit them on the mega...that also has considerably less tank than the pulse ship as well btw....
This is entirely untrue.
VS the moving BC in the graphs it is totally accurate.
Even with 0 transversal 425mm rails at no point even match the dmg of pulse let alone beat it withing the 0-45km window.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 18:08:00 -
[275]
Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 14/02/2009 18:08:58
Originally by: Goumindong
And no, you're wrong about how much it reps. I suggest you take your drugs and overload. You can overload for 3.5 minutes with a single rep, not doing so is stupid.
Mention those things next time. Also, drugs are 1) not readily available everywhere and 2) can have a nasty side effect. I don't use them myself for those reasons.
Originally by: Goumindong What? No.
Yes.
Originally by: Goumindong Actually they are, they do about as much more damage as laser boats do at range compared to blasters(or more)
That is inexact. The difference is actually very small, assuming shooting at the same target. The tracking and damage difference just isn't big enough to compensate for the immense optimal range advantage of pulse lasers.
Originally by: Goumindong and they're faster, lock faster, and have much more ability to fit the necessary and efficient modules for that type of work.
Which is more or less irrelevant as soon as you have someone to get the initial tackle for you.
Originally by: Goumindong Why is "scramble range" your band of efficiency?
Warp Scrambler range i.e. 9-10 km and below.
Edited for failure at quoting.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 18:43:00 -
[276]
sod blasters boost AC's- especially Large AC's (3 km optimal, REALLY?)
[i] FOR PONY |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 18:52:00 -
[277]
Edited by: Goumindong on 14/02/2009 18:52:10
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
That is inexact. The difference is actually very small, assuming shooting at the same target. The tracking and damage difference just isn't big enough to compensate for the immense optimal range advantage of pulse lasers.
They are only small if you fly foolishly. Use your tracking advantage and they become massive, from 30-300%. If you refuse to use your advantages why should anyone expect you to win?
Quote:
Which is more or less irrelevant as soon as you have someone to get the initial tackle for you.
No, its not. Time is damage, lock time is only less valuable in very large fights. Speed, agility, and the modules necessary to prosecute pvp are not "irrelevant" even after an initial tackle. Tacklers die, what do you do if your tackler has to leave the field? Do you lose your prey? Do you get killed by a ship that is more able to use its advantages in smaller fights?
Quote:
Warp Scrambler range i.e. 9-10 km and below.
They are quite efficient at those ranges.
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 19:11:00 -
[278]
Quote:
Re; Drones. No, its about ships and by god, Blaster boats have more drones, they are important to the functioning of the weapons.
Arguing with drones is stupid. Because drones are destroyable, have flighttime, dies to sentry's and so on... And a hype has only one heavy drone more than an abaddon. Yeah that's i call uber advantage.
Once again dont bring drones to this discussion.
-- Zuba |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 19:12:00 -
[279]
Edited by: Murina on 14/02/2009 19:15:30
Originally by: Goumindong
They are only small if you fly foolishly. Use your tracking advantage and they become massive, from 30-300%. If you refuse to use your advantages why should anyone expect you to win?
Nobody is flying foolishly, and 30% is what you will get as far as greater dmg is concerned more than you will ever get 300%.
Mainly because the tracking differences between pulse and blasters at close ranges are not large enough to make a big difference considering the available target selections for BS. This is because pulse got a tracking buff not so long ago that allowed them to hit at closer ranges and because BC and BS are the main targets for BS sized guns.
But a guaranteed max gun dmg vs 0 from 30-45km,
and a lot more than 30% guaranteed from 20-30,
as well as much higher dmg from 10-20km is what you get by using lasers.
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 - 2009.02.14 19:24:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Zubakis
Arguing with drones is stupid. Because drones are destroyable, have flighttime, dies to sentry's and so on... And a hype has only one heavy drone more than an abaddon. Yeah that's i call uber advantage.
Once again dont bring drones to this discussion.
You do not play this game with guns. You play this game with ships. All aspects of ships, the weapons, slots, drones, et all. play into these determinations. If you're ignoring something, then you're producing invalid analysis.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 19:28:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Murina
Nobody is flying foolishly, and 30% is what you will get as far as greater dmg is concerned more than you will ever get 300%.
30% is pretty easy against battleships, up to about 150% is possible. Against smaller targets you do even better.
Quote:
But a guaranteed max gun dmg vs 0 from 30-45km,
and a lot more than 30% guaranteed from 20-30,
as well as much higher dmg from 10-20km is what you get by using lasers.
You keep saying this, and it keeps not being true. At 27km lasers have a 116% damage advantage before drones and before damage types. At 10km the advantage that lasers have is entirely offset by damage types
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 20:06:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Goumindong
They are only small if you fly foolishly. Use your tracking advantage and they become massive, from 30-300%. If you refuse to use your advantages why should anyone expect you to win?
First, I'm not talking only in hypothetical 1 v 1 situations. Second, it is irrelevant if the laser boat can still hit, even if it has worse tracking.
Originally by: Goumindong No, its not. Time is damage, lock time is only less valuable in very large fights. Speed, agility, and the modules necessary to prosecute pvp are not "irrelevant" even after an initial tackle. Tacklers die, what do you do if your tackler has to leave the field? Do you lose your prey? Do you get killed by a ship that is more able to use its advantages in smaller fights?
Why would your Aba not have tackle fitted?
Originally by: Goumindong They are quite efficient at those ranges.
And so are pulse boats. And that's the problem.
|
ChalSto
LOCKDOWN. HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 20:25:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Zubakis
Arguing with drones is stupid. Because drones are destroyable, have flighttime, dies to sentry's and so on... And a hype has only one heavy drone more than an abaddon. Yeah that's i call uber advantage.
Once again dont bring drones to this discussion.
You do not play this game with guns. You play this game with ships. All aspects of ships, the weapons, slots, drones, et all. play into these determinations. If you're ignoring something, then you're producing invalid analysis.
then take all game-enviroments into account too...
drones dont work under sentry-fire, dumnats....
If youŠre ignoring something, then youŠre producing invalid analysis....or are simply plain stupid.......or biased (like in your point of view ) Originally by: Agmar ----------------------------------------------- "The North is so ghey that even the NPCs fly ravens." |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 20:41:00 -
[284]
Edited by: Murina on 14/02/2009 20:43:42
Originally by: Goumindong 30% is pretty easy against battleships, up to about 150% is possible. Against smaller targets you do even better.
The tracking on lasers is not so bad vs blasters that it makes a lot of difference against small targets, the buff lasers got saw to that...
Originally by: Goumindong At 27km lasers have a 116% damage advantage before drones and before damage types. At 10km the advantage that lasers have is entirely offset by damage types
In a dps laser vs blaster ship at 27km the laser ship does way over double the dmg of the blaster ship including drones. Dmg types only matter if the ship is not tanked well as most fits now are the "plated and plugged" style...
LASERS
20%-120+% guaranteed more dmg from 10-27km
700-750 dps from 27km-45km VS 253-317 DRONE DPS
45km-60km 700-750DPS down to 400dps VS 253-317 DRONE DPS
VS
100%-30% more dmg from 2-7km...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 21:04:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Goumindong
You keep saying this, and it keeps not being true. At 27km lasers have a 116% damage advantage before drones and before damage types. At 10km the advantage that lasers have is entirely offset by damage types
Neutrons/antimatter is outdamaged at about 8.5km by Pulse/MF. Neutrons/Null at about 12.5km (while having the same dmg as Null untill there). So the damage advantage of Neutron Blasters is gone after 8.5km. Nevermind you can't fit a full rack of Neutrons on any good buffertank. These are figures for Mega vs Geddon. Against the Abaddon it'll look a bit better for the blasterboat, but that ship has other qualitys than damage dealing alone...
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 21:15:00 -
[286]
Edited by: Goumindong on 14/02/2009 21:16:00
Originally by: Cohkka
Neutrons/antimatter is outdamaged at about 8.5km by Pulse/MF. Neutrons/Null at about 12.5km (while having the same dmg as Null untill there). So the damage advantage of Neutron Blasters is gone after 8.5km. Nevermind you can't fit a full rack of Neutrons on any good buffertank. These are figures for Mega vs Geddon. Against the Abaddon it'll look a bit better for the blasterboat, but that ship has other qualitys than damage dealing alone...
Hyperion > Megathron in all ways with blasters. And its freaking easy to fit a buffer tank on them with Neutron blasters.
Go here. Read and understand analysis. Originally by: ChalSto
then take all game-enviroments into account too...
drones dont work under sentry-fire, dumnats....
If youŠre ignoring something, then youŠre producing invalid analysis....or are simply plain stupid.......or biased (like in your point of view )
Well, if you're operating under sentry fire then you absolutely have to be able to hold your tackle and web yourself...
You really want to go down that path?
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
First, I'm not talking only in hypothetical 1 v 1 situations. Second, it is irrelevant if the laser boat can still hit, even if it has worse tracking.
You are saying that its irrelevant if the laser boat is doing much less DPS than the blaster boat?
Dot Dot Dot
Quote:
Why would your Aba not have tackle fitted?
How does it get there? How efficient is it at making that tackle stick? Can it hit things well that are within web range?
These are important questions.
Quote:
And so are pulse boats. And that's the problem.
They aren't. They're more efficient than long range boats, but they're pretty terrible up close unless you've got a lot of people.
Originally by: Cohkka
Neutrons/antimatter is outdamaged at about 8.5km by Pulse/MF. Neutrons/Null at about 12.5km (while having the same dmg as Null untill there). So the damage advantage of Neutron Blasters is gone after 8.5km. Nevermind you can't fit a full rack of Neutrons on any good buffertank. These are figures for Mega vs Geddon. Against the Abaddon it'll look a bit better for the blasterboat, but that ship has other qualitys than damage dealing alone...
Hyperion > Megathron in all ways with blasters. And its freaking easy to fit a buffer tank on either of them with Neutron blasters.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 21:35:00 -
[287]
Edited by: Murina on 14/02/2009 21:36:15
Originally by: Goumindong
Well, if you're operating under sentry fire then you absolutely have to be able to hold your tackle and web yourself...
So?, there's nothing stopping amarr BS from fiting a point and a web as well if needed.
Originally by: Goumindong How does it get there?
How efficient is it at making that tackle stick?
Can it hit things well that are within web range?
It doesn't it fits a 24km point and overheats just like all the other BS do. Its not very good at making the tackle stick cos its a BS not a inty. YES.
Originally by: Goumindong They aren't. They're more efficient than long range boats, but they're pretty terrible up close unless you've got a lot of people.
Pulse are good in close, and yea a lot of ppl in a BS gang....kinda the norm on TQ pal.
Solo BS pvp on the other hand are virtually non-existent.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 21:41:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Goumindong
Hyperion > Megathron in all ways with blasters. And its freaking easy to fit a buffer tank on them with Neutron blasters.
I wanted to compare 2 ships that are close to eachother in performance and philosophy. But I refuse to compare them if one of them costs close to 3 times the price of the other. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 22:11:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Goumindong
You are saying that its irrelevant if the laser boat is doing much less DPS than the blaster boat?
Dot Dot Dot
It's not doing much less. It's barely doing less at all.
Originally by: Goumindong How does it get there?
Same way the blaster boat does.
Originally by: Goumindong How efficient is it at making that tackle stick?
Dependant on the situation... but that goes for the blasterboat as well.
Originally by: Goumindong Can it hit things well that are within web range?
In concrete terms, just as well as a blasterboat i.e. if the blaster can hit it, the laser will too. If one can't neither will the other.
Originally by: Goumindong They aren't. They're more efficient than long range boats, but they're pretty terrible up close unless you've got a lot of people.
Web + scram and bob's your uncle. And if it isn't, then that blasterboat's pretty much just as ****ed as you are.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 09:06:00 -
[290]
Edited by: Goumindong on 15/02/2009 09:06:13
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
It's not doing much less. It's barely doing less at all.
This is not true
Quote:
Same way the blaster boat does.
Have you bothered to compare the speed agility and tracking(and cap) of blaster boats and laser boats?
Quote:
In concrete terms, just as well as a blasterboat i.e. if the blaster can hit it, the laser will too. If one can't neither will the other.
This is simply not true. And when it is true, the amount and quality of the hits are very important.
Quote:
Web + scram and bob's your uncle. And if it isn't, then that blasterboat's pretty much just as ****ed as you are.
Web and scram are not enough for lasers anymore.
Originally by: Cohkka
I wanted to compare 2 ships that are close to eachother in performance and philosophy. But I refuse to compare them if one of them costs close to 3 times the price of the other.
Insurance. Edit and you know, abaddon.
|
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 09:21:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Goumindong
This is not true
Unless the graphs I'm looking at are lying, it is true.
Originally by: Goumindong Have you bothered to compare the speed agility and tracking(and cap) of blaster boats and laser boats?
Of course, and obviously, if you don't have a someone to get the initial tackle for you, this will be a big issue. Hence why I specified that you needed someone else to provide it.
Originally by: Goumindong This is simply not true. And when it is true, the amount and quality of the hits are very important.
Again, unless the graphs are lying...
Originally by: Goumindong Web and scram are not enough for lasers anymore.
If that is true, same goes for blasters.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 10:47:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Goumindong
Have you bothered to compare the speed agility and tracking(and cap) of blaster boats and laser boats?
Speed and agility on ALL BS sucks so they cannot catch anything by chasing it, they rely on overheat tbh.The tracking of lasers is not low enough compared to blasters to cause them issues against their available target selection. Cap mods solve cap issues rather well.
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 - 2009.02.15 11:57:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus unless the graphs are lying...
Which ones are you looking at. Its a good chance they are. The actual differences between the weapons is pretty large when you are given the ability to look at it.
Originally by: Goumindong
If that is true, same goes for blasters.
Hyperion, 5 meds.
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 14:01:00 -
[294]
Edited by: Zubakis on 15/02/2009 14:04:11 I dont know why do you want to compare whole ships to each other in this discussion Goum. Taking all aspects of the game into account makes the decission very difficult. You need to compare only the guns to make a viable analysis.
There must be some kind of relation between the propertys of the guns. Pulse range advantage is simply too good and blasters small dmg advantage doesnt offset it. The whole 'prolonged fights thingy' removed all advantages the blasters had.
Edit: And the speed nerf was another nail in the coffin of blasters. -- Zuba |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 15:56:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Zubakis The whole 'prolonged fights thingy' removed all advantages the blasters had.
Edit: And the speed nerf was another nail in the coffin of blasters.
No. Neither of them did.
The prolonged fights thing explicitly helped blaster ships. It did this by decreasing the percentage of a fight spent closing. This is the time that longer ranged weapons gain their advantage over blasters. The easiest way to see how this works is just by reducing the hit points of all ships massively. If a tanked battleship had 10000 EHP, lasers would always be king of the hill, since there would be nearly no situation where a blaster ship could close to a laser ship without taking too much damage. The penalty to speed from armor rigging does have an effect though.
The speed nerf was another explicit boost for blaster ships, since blaster ships were not able to make the trade off of tank for speed that other ships were able to do and since no ships would engage under 10km. As well, the fact that the smaller ships with multiple speed mods were hit the hardest meant that the speed nerf was an explicit boost to blastership speed in relation to other ships. This is especially true since the agility changes made ships that used an MWD ONLY and no other propulsion modules just as fast or faster than they were previously. For battleships this actually means that Megathrons and Hyperions are faster for the first 30km of movement in any direction from a complete stop than they were before the patch. This is in real terms, not just relative terms where they also increased in speed.
To compound this, webs were nerfed and scrams turn off MWD's, which changed the relationship as to where smaller ships want to be relative to larger ships. Previously, smaller ships would never want to be within web range, because once they were there, all large turrets would murder them. But this is no longer the case, which increases the weaknesses of ships which lack the space for multiple webs/scrams, ships that are slower, and ships that have lower tracking. Before webs were changed the tracking differences between pulse lasers and blasters was inconsequential within web range. Now it is material.
Now stop bringing up entirely false arguments.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 16:22:00 -
[296]
Edited by: Murina on 15/02/2009 16:25:40
Originally by: Goumindong
Impractical ranting about unrealistic scenarios.
Lasers have the advantage as blaster ships need to approach each and every ship to do good dmg while lasers can burn away doing good dmg.
Laser ships could hit mwding nano ships at range even before the nano nerf and now nano is gone they get no real reduction in hits compared to blasters under 10km because:-
1. When a ship orbiting one of your gang mates with high transversal will have low transversal to you
2. As well as the LARGE fact that several ships with 1 web each slow a ship exactly as much as several ships with 2 webs each due to the stacking nerf.
5 mids may seem cool but at most for a close range ship you need web, scram, cap, mwd and depending on the gang setup and numbers you do not even need them all....
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 17:35:00 -
[297]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Zubakis The whole 'prolonged fights thingy' removed all advantages the blasters had. Edit: And the speed nerf was another nail in the coffin of blasters.
No. Neither of them did. ...
yees, sure, having to chew through more hp is a boost to every weapon system, like the higher possible orbit velocity is a boost. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 18:49:00 -
[298]
Originally by: Chi Quan
yees, sure, having to chew through more hp is a boost to every weapon system, like the higher possible orbit velocity is a boost.
While it takes all ships longer to kill targets. The increase in time was not uniform, falling more on long range weapons than shorter range weapons.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 18:51:00 -
[299]
Edited by: Goumindong on 15/02/2009 18:55:00 Edited by: Goumindong on 15/02/2009 18:51:43
Originally by: Murina 1. When a ship orbiting one of your gang mates with high transversal will have low transversal to you
So he is reducing the damage successfully by a single target by a large amount and this is not valuable? If they're blaster ships there will be no real reduction to either of them.
Quote:
2. As well as the LARGE fact that several ships with 1 web each slow a ship exactly as much as several ships with 2 webs each due to the stacking nerf.
That is fine, then use the extra med for something like eccm, or a scrambler to shut off mwd's... or a sensor booster to lock faster.
Originally by: Murina
Lasers have the advantage as blaster ships need to approach each and every ship to do good dmg while lasers can burn away doing good dmg.
Yes, and that advantage is reduced when you increase hit points across the board. I know this is difficult, but that is what is called a "buff"
Quote: Laser ships could hit mwding nano ships at range even before the nano nerf and now nano is gone they get no real reduction in hits compared to blasters under 10km because:-
that laser ships could hit MWDing nano ships at range meant nothing, the ability of blaster ships to prosecute pvp was increased. That is what we call a buff...
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 19:08:00 -
[300]
Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 15/02/2009 19:09:17
Originally by: Goumindong
Which ones are you looking at. Its a good chance they are. The actual differences between the weapons is pretty large when you are given the ability to look at it.
Abaddon (Megapulse) and Hyperion (Ions), both shooting at a webbed + scrammed mega.
Originally by: Goumindong
Hyperion, 5 meds.
MWD + web + scram + wd + cap injector vs. MWD + web + scram + cap injector on the Aba.
Yes, you can go dual web + scram on the Hype, but then you're giving up you ability to tackle other targets when your tackler dies, which was one of the perks of blasterhypes you yourself brought up.
Edit: Man I'm on a roll of quotefailures. Do I win a prize if I get to a hundred edited posts for failquoting?
|
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 19:14:00 -
[301]
Originally by: Goumindong
that laser ships could hit MWDing nano ships at range meant nothing, the ability of blaster ships to prosecute pvp was increased. That is what we call a buff...
Web nerf ****s all over blasterboats' ability to prosecute PvP. I flew blasterboats during the nanoage. I fly them now. They are way worse off now than they were before.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 19:22:00 -
[302]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
MWD + web + scram + wd + cap injector vs. MWD + web + scram + cap injector on the Aba.
And how does the Abaddon catch people? If you're going for a scrambler fit why in the world would you choose an Abaddon? You go 700m/s.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 19:38:00 -
[303]
Edited by: Murina on 15/02/2009 19:42:33
Originally by: Goumindong
So he is reducing the damage successfully by a single target by a large amount and this is not valuable?
You are a joke and so are your pitiful excuses.
It is utterly worthless and the reduction by orbiting at close range is virtually the same against blaster ships.
Originally by: Goumindong That is fine, then use the extra med for something like eccm, or a scrambler to shut off mwd's... or a sensor booster to lock faster.
Well at least you agree the transversal issue is irrelevant.
Originally by: Goumindong Yes, and that advantage is reduced when you increase hit points across the board. I know this is difficult, but that is what is called a "buff"
Only if the HP are increased to capital level and they are not.
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 - 2009.02.15 19:41:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
MWD + web + scram + wd + cap injector vs. MWD + web + scram + cap injector on the Aba.
And how does the Abaddon catch people? If you're going for a scrambler fit why in the world would you choose an Abaddon? You go 700m/s.
Cos it can kill a mwding ship that gets too close, a benefit according to your earlier posts....
And the difference between 700 ms and 900ms is insignificant in gang combat with BS, stop acting like blaster ships are bloody ceptors ffs.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 19:56:00 -
[305]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
MWD + web + scram + wd + cap injector vs. MWD + web + scram + cap injector on the Aba.
And how does the Abaddon catch people? If you're going for a scrambler fit why in the world would you choose an Abaddon? You go 700m/s.
This is again in relation to our notional BS + dedicated tackler + falcon gang. Sorry I was not clear.
|
mishkof
Caldari Dirty Denizens
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 20:16:00 -
[306]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: mishkof I do not think that saying much is neccesary as Murina has pretty much won every point in this debate as far as I am concerned.
He have?.
Tbh, i don't think he have been right in much in this topic.
The graphs for example is a good enough proof that he's wrong.
The graph shows that he is wrong? If you actually read everything that has been wrote it coincides exactly with what has been said. Scorch with pulses is the overall best close range gun setup in the game at the moment. Its cool, just expect to see more amarr ships in the future is all I am saying.
|
Alpha Prime
Destructive Influence KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 21:52:00 -
[307]
wow. If i didn't know better i'd say i have traveled back in time 4years. Dalman would probably agree with me.
Oveur 2006: We're going to make blobwarfare less effective. Oveur 2008: We're installing better code so players can bring bigger blobs.
|
Novantco
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 22:11:00 -
[308]
I agree, boost blasters.
|
dalman
Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 00:13:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Alpha Prime
wow. If i didn't know better i'd say i have traveled back in time 4years. Dalman would probably agree with me.
o/
Tbh, I don't feel too bad about blasters atm (which partly is down to me hunting outlaws and wartargets in empire nowadays). Though ofc there are some issues:
The most obvious one is tracking compared to ACs. It's still messed up that the devs decided to add a 37.5% tracking bonus to the mega (instead of keeping it at 25% and boosing blasters). Since the result is that blasters on a Hype/Domi have worse tracking than the minmatar BSs, which is just plain wrong.
Then there is the nberness of lazors. Which tbh isn't very overpowered. But the damage-range-tracking combo adds up to a bit too much and hence one of these three should be lowered just a little bit.
And of course it's kind of sad that all the blance of fitting requirements are now based around passive tanks - but tbh I doubt that I'd fit an active tank on anything except a marauder anyway, even if it could actually be done, considering the overall state of the game. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 02:40:00 -
[310]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
This is again in relation to our notional BS + dedicated tackler + falcon gang. Sorry I was not clear.
So was I. Your "failsafe" for your tackler having to get out is the BS keeping points... but the entire point of the tackler is to keep targets at a distance the BS can easily hit them... so if you lose the tackler, one of two things is going to happen. 1, they're going to warp out, or 2, they're going to close and kill you. Not to mention the opportunity cost of bringing a takler.
|
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 03:13:00 -
[311]
Originally by: Goumindong 1, they're going to warp out, or 2, they're going to close and kill you.
1 will be dependant on the shiptype, but yeah, it is possible. 2, well, again that's going to depend on what you're fighting.
Originally by: Goumindong Not to mention the opportunity cost of bringing a takler.
It's one I'm entirely ready to pay when I'm flying a slow-ass BS with basically no backup
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 07:53:00 -
[312]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
1 will be dependant on the shiptype, but yeah, it is possible
no, it will happen with anyone who does not believe they can win the fight.
Quote:
It's one I'm entirely ready to pay when I'm flying a slow-ass BS with basically no backup
I for one would rather have another battleship.
|
Volucer S
Noob Fight Club Noob Fleet
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 09:34:00 -
[313]
/signed
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 09:36:00 -
[314]
Edited by: Murina on 16/02/2009 09:38:49
Originally by: Goumindong Not to mention the opportunity cost of bringing a takler.
I for one would rather have another battleship.
The cost of not bringing a tackler is losing the ability to catch targets smaller than a BS.
You are such a paper tiger its pathetic, your every ideas and scenarios are straight out of the statistics booklet and has 0 application in the reality of eve pvp.
Get a clue.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 11:59:00 -
[315]
Edited by: Mag''s on 16/02/2009 11:59:25 /signed
Oh and why is Goumindong posting about blasters, I thought he didn't fly Gallente?????
edit: Hey dalman \o
Regards Mag's |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 13:09:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Mag's
/signed
Oh and why is Goumindong posting about blasters, I thought he didn't fly Gallente?????
He doesn't but a fix for blasters makes lasers less OP and I-WIN.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Kaidelong Einfachs
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 14:49:00 -
[317]
I do agree that at this point the amarr are the most balanced and overall best race to train in regards to energy turrets (although I don't think that means they should be nerfed).
I had an idea though, why not boost Neutrons specifically to encourage more ganky and extreme gallente fits? In the Molden Heath market medium and small Ion IIs are much pricier (and more useful) than Neutron IIs, I think that stems in part from gallente ships often not having enough powergrid to fit both good blasters and a good tank. That's fine, although why do people pick the tank over the gank on a gallente ship? Isn't gank more my thing?
Specifically boosting neutrons to have a better optimal range, rate of fire, and tracking so that they can hit more and harder will give more reason to put less emphasis on tank, and will put an end to the debates over whether a thorax with medium neutrons will beat a thorax with small neutrons (I see this going on on battleclinic, it really shouldn't be an issue, the gankier thorax should win). Should a Thorax with a rack of light neutron IIs and a 1600mm plate really be a viable improvement over one that is fitted according to its bonuses?
Also the idea of giving neutron blasters more optimal makes sense in a sci-fi way: ions and electron beams will disperse themselves due to same charges repelling, neutron beams will stay coherent longer.
tl;dr: boost at least neutrons to be gankier and better ranged and you'll maybe stop seeing as many thoraxes sporting a rack of light blasters and more people fitting their blaster ships for pure gank.
|
blackmambasnake
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 14:54:00 -
[318]
signed
|
cucac
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 15:56:00 -
[319]
Blasters are so extremly close range ( it is often very hard to get in that range ) that they should be very effective in this range, so boost...
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 16:40:00 -
[320]
Originally by: cucac Blasters are so extremly close range ( it is often very hard to get in that range ) that they should be very effective in this range, so boost...
haha, wait till Goum reads this, he'll start the whole thing again. let me walk you through it briefly: you: [quote above] Goum: they are you: what? no they are not. Goum: they are. look: highest damage. you: yes, but the range is crap. Goum: you are using the wrong guns if you need more range. you: but rails have lower damage. Goum: yes, but they shoot at long ranges. you: but i want short range. Goum: use blasters. you: no, they suck. they need more (insert turret attribute of choice here) Goum: no, they don't. plus you have drones. you: (pretty graphs + conclusion) Goum: no (more pretty graphs + conclusions) see, i told you. you: what? Goum: that. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 17:43:00 -
[321]
you: [quote above] Goum: they are you: what? no they are not. Goum: they are. look: highest damage. you: yes, but the range is crap. Goum: you are using the wrong guns if you need more range. you: but rails have lower damage. Goum: yes, but they shoot at long ranges. you: but i want short range. Goum: use blasters. you: no, they suck. they need more (insert turret attribute of choice here) Goum: no, they don't. you can't (pilot/use them correctly). plus you have drones. you: (pretty graphs + conclusion) Goum: no (more pretty graphs + conclusions) see, i told you. you: what? Goum: that. you: but that's exactly what i said you just misinterpret it. Goum: no, see.... (insert 1 v 1 and highly unrealistic pvp scenarios) you: but those things never happen on TQ Goum: So? you: So???... they are worthless attributes/abilities that have no use on TQ or in anything other than a 1 v 1 BS scenarios that start at close range Goum: exactly, see gallente are good at summat and anyway im amarr so makings gallente slightly better at gang pvp will reduce my I-WIN race you: WTF.....
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
oMAKo
Gallente Kiroshi Group
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 22:59:00 -
[322]
Signed
Anyone can see Blasters need a tracking boost to make them a viable choice. And if you cant... the i guess you fail at EVE.
------------- Kiroshi Group ------------- |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 23:35:00 -
[323]
Originally by: Goumindong
no, it will happen with anyone who does not believe they can win the fight.
You should have said "anyone who does not believe they can win the fight... and are faster". That leaves out Amarr ships, Caldari ships, and any ship without a MWD.
Originally by: Goumindong I for one would rather have another battleship.
But then what do you scout with? The Falcon? Good luck finding a fight that way. And good luck tackling anything in a belt with a BS.
|
Bish Ounen
Gallente Best Path Inc. Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 00:59:00 -
[324]
Any weapons system that requires POINT BLANK RANGE and uses DOUBLE the Cap of a LONG RANGE weapons system AND is meant to be used in the vast distances of SPACE suxorz.
Don't boost blasters, ELIMINATE THEM and double the damage and tracking on Railguns. Let the ammo type determine range on Gallente weapons. Fix the Wardec System! |
Dors Venabily
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 01:51:00 -
[325]
I said it and i say again tracking that is all just weetle bit
|
Lord Augustus
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 04:15:00 -
[326]
Yeah Boost Blasters Give Them More Dmg and Tracking NERF MISSILES SOME MORE YEAH
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 08:41:00 -
[327]
Originally by: Kaidelong Einfachs That's fine, although why do people pick the tank over the gank on a gallente ship? Isn't gank more my thing?
There is a relationship between tank and gank that exists for each size of gang and type of ship. Short range gank ships do not line up well in this relationship because their range prohibits them from being in larger gangs where time to deal damage is more a factor than how much you do. In larger gangs, tank as a function of repping becomes more or less irrelevant. The difference between a tank that reps 1000 dps and a tank that reps zero is nothing when incoming DPS is 5,000. Such as gangs get larger, tank becomes only a function of EHP, and DPS becomes a function of DPS and range. The most efficient battleships have the most range with the highest combination of EHP and DPS(I.E. EHPxDPS is highest). The best battleship by this metric is the Rokh, then the Apoc, then the Megathron and Maelstrom.
Gank ships subscribe to the latter style of play, EHP x DPS > enemies EHP x DPS = You win. But the Gallente version don't have the range to play the game well, they never really have(exception, Thorax, due to various reasons). The Hyperion was a tacit acknowledgment of this fact as it brings the Gallente blastership doctrine back to a massive tank(663 overloaded w/ standard exile @ max skills for 3.5 minutes on a single rep). Though it is, ironically, still more efficient than the Megathron in pure EHP x DPS metrics(and its higher DPS within that makes it more likely to crush active tanks).
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
You should have said "anyone who does not believe they can win the fight... and are faster". That leaves out Amarr ships, Caldari ships, and any ship without a MWD.
No, your tackler is gone. Now your Abaddon(slowest BS in the game, in real terms), has to get to the target and put a scramble on them before they warp out. Or you have to be content with having massive problems engaging targets up close(which you're going to have anyway even with a scrambler).
If you're closing on your target before your tackler dies why would you not be flying the better tanked(for this type of work at least), better tracking, faster Hyperion?
Quote:
But then what do you scout with? The Falcon? Good luck finding a fight that way. And good luck tackling anything in a belt with a BS.
What, you're roaming with a small BS gang hoping to get a fight that isn't on a gate? Your falcon needs to be set up in whatever system you're using, so its unlikely that you're moving very fast, and your tackler needs to survive long enough that your falcon and BS can get on grid and kill the target. If you're killing belt ratters you don't need this type of setup. If your targets are more competent they're going to kill the tackler and leave, no matter what type of BS you bring.
Either way you're pretty much entirely hoping that you run into a force you can deal with and that they engage you.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 08:55:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Goumindong The most efficient battleships have the most range with the highest combination of EHP and DPS(I.E. EHPxDPS is highest). The best battleship by this metric is the Rokh, then the Apoc, then the Megathron and Maelstrom.
When sniping maybe in that order depending on the circumstances..
But for close range gang combat it goes in this order:
1. AMARR BS. 2. AMARR BS. 3. AMARR BS.
L A R G E
I M B A L A N C E D
G A P
4. WHO CARES.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Aionstar
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 09:15:00 -
[329]
/sig boost blasters (tracking/optimal)
...and fix gallente recons (remove(?) useless damp bonus and give something useful)
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 14:04:00 -
[330]
Originally by: Goumindong
No, your tackler is gone. Now your Abaddon(slowest BS in the game, in real terms), has to get to the target and put a scramble on them before they warp out. Or you have to be content with having massive problems engaging targets up close(which you're going to have anyway even with a scrambler).
If you're closing on your target before your tackler dies why would you not be flying the better tanked(for this type of work at least), better tracking, faster Hyperion?
Hum, I was talking about the Hype, mate.
Originally by: Goumindong
If you're killing belt ratters you don't need this type of setup.
If you're hoping to cath them before they warp off, you do.
And yes, you're probably not moving very fast either way, but a tackler (let's go with crow, cause I like the crow) adds some interesting options to a gang. For example, your falc and BS stay on the gate, and there's a flashy red BC on the other side. Your crow aggroes him, the pirate does so, the BS jumps in and pwns him. With 2 BS, one of you jumps in, and the BC just warps away (if he's not ******ed).
|
|
Absalom Marathon
Incarnation of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 14:30:00 -
[331]
I wuve my Mega.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 16:00:00 -
[332]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Hum, I was talking about the Hype, mate.
Not in any way that made sense.
Quote:
If you're hoping to cath them before they warp off, you do.
And yes, you're probably not moving very fast either way, but a tackler (let's go with crow, cause I like the crow) adds some interesting options to a gang. For example, your falc and BS stay on the gate, and there's a flashy red BC on the other side. Your crow aggroes him, the pirate does so, the BS jumps in and pwns him. With 2 BS, one of you jumps in, and the BC just warps away (if he's not ******ed).
Not really, no. It doesn't take much to catch a ratter.
As for your engagement its much better to use some sort of bait if you're doing that.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 16:14:00 -
[333]
Originally by: Goumindong
Not in any way that made sense.
I'm sorry, reading back I can see where it got confusing.
Originally by: Goumindong Not really, no. It doesn't take much to catch a ratter.
Where do you find ratters that terrible? Seriously, I could do with killing more idiots.
Originally by: Goumindong As for your engagement its much better to use some sort of bait if you're doing that.
I mentionned crow, but there are quite a few ships that are good for the role of bait/scout.
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 16:15:00 -
[334]
Why the HELL don't we all just go to SiSi and test this stupid crap out???
I got near max damage for a hyperion and a max tank. I'll square off against any amarr. Have to wait a week though, taking the bar next Tuesday. ----------------- Friends Forever |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 16:39:00 -
[335]
Edited by: Goumindong on 17/02/2009 16:40:25
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Why the HELL don't we all just go to SiSi and test this stupid crap out???
I got near max damage for a hyperion and a max tank. I'll square off against any amarr. Have to wait a week though, taking the bar next Tuesday.
Because their argument is that blaster should be stronger in gangs(where its pretty well known that blasters are weaker than lasers) rather than people should be using rails in gang.
So going on Sisi doesn't much help. It will only confirm both sides convictions.
The central question is this. What should be the best weapon for medium gang DPS only? If you think the answer is "pulse lasers" then you think there is no problem. If you think the answer is "blasters" then you think there is a problem and something needs to be changed.
I think the answer is "pulse lasers", and that the people answering "blasters" should be fitting railguns when they're participating in that type of combat. That the trade-off for better solo/small gang capability is a weakness in another area.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 16:50:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Goumindong
Because their argument is that blaster should be stronger in gangs(where its pretty well known that blasters are weaker than lasers) rather than people should be using rails in gang.
So going on Sisi doesn't much help. It will only confirm both sides convictions.
The central question is this. What should be the best weapon for medium gang DPS only? If you think the answer is "pulse lasers" then you think there is no problem. If you think the answer is "blasters" then you think there is a problem and something needs to be changed.
I think the answer is "pulse lasers", and that the people answering "blasters" should be fitting railguns when they're participating in that type of combat. That the trade-off for better solo/small gang capability is a weakness in another area.
I think pulse lasers should be best in the situation you describe. I still think blasters need a boost.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 16:52:00 -
[337]
Edited by: Murina on 17/02/2009 16:53:05
Originally by: Goumindong
The central question is this. What should be the best weapon for medium gang DPS only? If you think the answer is "pulse lasers" then you think there is no problem. If you think the answer is "blasters" then you think there is a problem and something needs to be changed.
AS YOU CAN SEE MORONDONG IS AGAIN TRYING TO MANIPULATE THE ARGUMENT INTO A "WHO SHOULD BE BEST" ARGUMENT.
Nobody is asking for blasters to be better than lasers in a gang situation what ppl are saying is that BS blasters are useless in a gang situation and need a slight buff, NOT to make them better than lasers but to make them at least a little bit useful.
It has already been clearly pointed out that rails (fitted with faction non penalized ammo) are worse than useless in gang combat due to a lack of dps as well as having tracking that is the same as T2 tracking disrupted pulse using scorch (tracking penalized ammo).....so pretty bloody useless.
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 - 2009.02.17 17:02:00 -
[338]
Edited by: Goumindong on 17/02/2009 17:05:11
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
I think pulse lasers should be best in the situation you describe. I still think blasters need a boost.
Why not use rails? Why make a change that removes the weaknesses of gang ships.
In short, if rails are an adequate system for these types of gangs(and they are), why do you need to boost blasters to be more adequate than they already are?
Originally by: Murina
It has already been clearly pointed out that rails (fitted with faction non penalized ammo) are worse than useless in gang combat due to a lack of dps as well as having tracking that is the same as T2 tracking disrupted pulse using scorch (tracking penalized ammo).....so pretty bloody useless.
With one side of your mouth you argue that rails are useless in gang combat because of a lack of tracking, in the next, you argue that the advantage of blaster tracking over pulse is irrelevant. You cannot have it the same way.
Also, their damage is not as low as you claim. A 2 MFS Mega runs 538 DPS which is, after damage types against a standard armor tank, only a 6% deficit against an Armageddon. After you consider drones on the Mega, its actually doing more DPS than an Abaddon.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 17:07:00 -
[339]
Edited by: Murina on 17/02/2009 17:16:21
Originally by: Goumindong
In short, if rails are an adequate system for these types of gangs(and they are), why do you need to boost blasters to be more adequate than they already are?
Rails are even worse than blasters in close range....,
ffs amarr got a tracking boost to pulse not so long ago cos of whiners saying they could not hit and rails have worse tracking by far than pulse had BEFORE they got buffed and not only that but a crap tonne less dmg against a realistic tank (not one of your dream tanks str8 off the market).
Not only that but with:
7 x 425 rails
1 x mwd
2 x eanm
3x plates
You have roughly 3 cpu left and 400 pg so good luck fitting cap mods webs or points ect ect....
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 17:29:00 -
[340]
Originally by: Goumindong
Why not use rails? Why make a change that removes the weaknesses of gang ships.
In short, if rails are an adequate system for these types of gangs(and they are), why do you need to boost blasters to be more adequate than they already are?
Because I don't want a boost to make them better for med-large gangs. Ofc I'd use rails then (or more accurately, switch over to my Geddon).
I want a (small) boost to blasters so that they can operate better in their niche range. More optimal, less falloff, and the implementation of Marn's idea about falloff mechanics would all help with that, and they're not exactly a boost of stellar magnitude.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 17:39:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Because I don't want a boost to make them better for med-large gangs. Ofc I'd use rails then (or more accurately, switch over to my Geddon).
I want a (small) boost to blasters so that they can operate better in their niche range. More optimal, less falloff, and the implementation of Marn's idea about falloff mechanics would all help with that, and they're not exactly a boost of stellar magnitude.
Except that will do nothing of the sort. You operate just fine within your "niche range".
What you're asking for is for your "niche range" to be extended to cover the range of autocannons and pulse lasers.
Re: Murina.
1.
[Megathron, Med Gang] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Adaptive Nano Plating II Adaptive Nano Plating II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II
100MN MicroWarpdrive I Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L [empty high slot]
[empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot]
Ogre II x4
Rig with tri-marks. If you've got a 1m isk CPU implant you can upgrade one of the ANPs to an EANM, or you could spring for c-types or faction.(they're cheap)
Regarding their effectiveness...
One to show the short range differences in a large gang(battleship target, low transversal, tank is BC level tank and so slightly biased towards lasers, drone damage is slightly biased against the Abaddon)
Oh noes, the horror, you do slightly less DPS than a geddon(and a bit more than an Abaddon!) Whatever will you do!
|
Marielle TueurDeCoeur
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 17:54:00 -
[342]
I don't think that the different turrets can be outright compared to one-another; the ships that they go on make too huge of a difference.
When talking about lasers, for instance, you HAVE to consider the massive cap draw, and also the painful lack of mid-slots on most Amarr ships, on which the lasers will more than likely be mounted.
You simply cannot ignore the ships that various weapons systems are used on when discussing things like this.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 18:03:00 -
[343]
Originally by: Goumindong
Except that will do nothing of the sort. You operate just fine within your "niche range".
What you're asking for is for your "niche range" to be extended to cover the range of autocannons and pulse lasers.
Neutron blaster max range (Optimal + falloff) w/top skills: 27-28km using null.
800mm w Barrage: 36km
Megapulse w Scorch: 55km (optimal + falloff)
Lasers quite comfortably maintain their superiority, and ACs get a nice boost with the MM. So really, I fail to see what you find so terrible about this.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 18:20:00 -
[344]
Originally by: Goumindong
1. use MF under 15km not scorch
2. this is about gang combat vs a variety of ships so use the webbed BC modal (188ms, less sig radius ect)
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Marielle TueurDeCoeur
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 18:24:00 -
[345]
One other thing I forgot:
Why has there not been any mention, in this entire thread, of Conflagration crystals? Is it just because of the cap penalty?
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 18:25:00 -
[346]
Originally by: Goumindong
Why not use rails? Why make a change that removes the weaknesses of gang ships.
In short, if rails are an adequate system for these types of gangs(and they are), why do you need to boost blasters to be more adequate than they already are?
Then why do we have Blasters anyway? Remove them from the game as they're not adequate for 98% of the combat occuring on Tranq. Yes, Rails are better for a major amount of circumstances, so why do we need Blasters?
You're starting to **** me off, tbh. I mean why do we complain anyway? We got Rails that are worse than Lasers in every way imagineable and we got less weapon choice. Seems everything's fine then.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 18:27:00 -
[347]
Edited by: Murina on 17/02/2009 18:27:10
PULSE STILL OWN.
AND RAILS SUCK UNDER 20KM LET ALONE 10...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Valerio Versace
Gallente Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 18:45:00 -
[348]
The problem is that, due to the extreme close range of blasters, they should be able to HIT at that range. It's the only kind of gun in the game that isn't supposed to hit unless you fit a web, which is a mandatory mod for any gallente blasterboat... and then, when they nerfed webs, they should have buffed blaster tracking.
If, by default, against ships of your own category in a realistic combat situation Blaster = miss Blaster + Web = hit consistently then Blaster + nerfed web = can't hit consistently.
Blaster damage is already hard to apply because you have to get in range; now, even if you manage to get in range, your DPS is not guaranteed. It's easy to see how ships with bigger range and less tracking, or same range and more tracking end up doing much more DPS than Gallente blasterboats... imagine guns with slightly lower DPS but much better tracking and optimal no wonder their DPS ends up being much better.
Blasters are supposed to be the guns that deal the most DPS in the game at extremely close ranges... they need much better tracking to do that, otherwise they can't (even with web, since they've been nerfed).
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 18:58:00 -
[349]
Originally by: Marielle TueurDeCoeur One other thing I forgot:
Why has there not been any mention, in this entire thread, of Conflagration crystals? Is it just because of the cap penalty?
Cap penalty + tracking penalty makes them worse than AN MF.
The same is true of Void vs CN AM.
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 19:06:00 -
[350]
Originally by: Marielle TueurDeCoeur I don't think that the different turrets can be outright compared to one-another; the ships that they go on make too huge of a difference.
When talking about lasers, for instance, you HAVE to consider the massive cap draw, and also the painful lack of mid-slots on most Amarr ships, on which the lasers will more than likely be mounted.
You simply cannot ignore the ships that various weapons systems are used on when discussing things like this.
this has been lengthly discussed in the respective threads in "Game Development". different tanks have also been taken into account. the fact remains that if you are in gang (read 2+), lasers are far better than blasters solo. this is due to the fact that your target won't stay within the blaster engagement window (no, changing ammo in mid fight is not an option using blasters). unless of course you are up against a ship size bigger than you.
@ Goumindongs graphs: 50 is rather low for an orbit velocity, care to explain why you took it (+the bs sig radius)? ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 19:11:00 -
[351]
Originally by: Murina Linkage
do me a little favor and post that again but with drones removed ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 19:46:00 -
[352]
Edited by: Murina on 17/02/2009 19:47:51
Originally by: Chi Quan
Originally by: Murina Linkage
do me a little favor and post that again but with drones removed
Just deduct 317 dps from the graph dude.......kinda painfully crap aint it...
280 gun dps at 20km...
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 - 2009.02.17 20:20:00 -
[353]
Edited by: Goumindong on 17/02/2009 20:22:09
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Lasers quite comfortably maintain their superiority, and ACs get a nice boost with the MM. So really, I fail to see what you find so terrible about this.
Look at what it actually does to the damages after you apply resistances. Marn's graph looks nice and neat before you figure that in, but it doesn't once you start to understand the interplay of ships and how they interact with each others tank. It removes any ability of lasers to operate within a reasonable sphere of influence. Narrow bands of operation do not work for shorter ranged weapons. I.E. If you only held superiority from 25-40km, why would you fly a pulse boat unless you didn't have skills for anything else?
I can answer why you would fly a baster boat, I can answer why you would fly an Autocannon boat. I can answer why you would fly a beam, or rail boat, and almost why you would fly an Arty boat, but not in that situation could you answer why you would fly a pulse boat.
Originally by: Chi Quan
@ Goumindongs graphs: 50 is rather low for an orbit velocity, care to explain why you took it (+the bs sig radius)?
Because in a medium sized gang against battleships that is the type of tranvsersal and sig you expect. Considering you're likely to have both larger targets(abaddon, 470) and that any movement is going to involve an MWD(+sig in excess of +speed) any turret battleship that is conscious of its transversal(I.E. not burning tangentially to the enemy with your own MWD on) will have such an easy time to hit another battleship.
If there aren't any battleships left then you've pretty much already won simply due to the EHPxDPS efficiency numbers that battleships bring to the fight compared to other ships. (Exception, LR HAC gang, however, the rail ship is much more able to deal with an LR HAC gang since it can actually hit out to LR HAC optimal while the pulse ship cannot). If you've already won convincingly, then comparing the strengths of the battleships is pretty inconsequential. In the same way that its pretty irrelevant to compare the efficiency of a short range gang cruiser in killing frigates. Once there are only frigates left the side that still has its short range cruisers left has pretty much won.
Originally by: Murina
PULSE STILL OWN.
AND RAILS SUCK UNDER 20KM LET ALONE 10...
its a medium sized gang, who the hell cares how well you hit under 20km?
But either way, your graph (battlecruiser, high transversal, no resistances) shows that the rail ships are still pretty good compared to the laser alternatives. Especially when you consider that you had to give laser ships every kind of unrealistic advantage to make it look that way.
Originally by: Valerio Versace The problem is that, due to the extreme close range of blasters, they should be able to HIT at that range. It's the only kind of gun in the game that isn't supposed to hit unless you fit a web, which is a mandatory mod for any gallente blasterboat... and then, when they nerfed webs, they should have buffed blaster tracking.
Actually all short range turrets need webs to hit in the close range. And blaster ships do it the best, with the best damage types against all enemies, the most dps, and the best supplementary DPS.
They really have no problems hitting at close range. You have to be mentally deficient to not be able to pilot your boat to get hits in. If you want to get lots of hits in in a gang, put rails on your ship, that is what they're there for.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 20:39:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Goumindong
its a medium sized gang, who the hell cares how well you hit under 20km?
You...up until now...
Originally by: Goumindong But either way, your graph (battlecruiser, high transversal, no resistances) shows that the rail ships are still pretty good compared to the laser alternatives. Especially when you consider that you had to give laser ships every kind of unrealistic advantage to make it look that way.
You were the one giving advantages pal, and a broad view of all available targets the BS may come across is the best way to balance things.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Cupdeez
Out of Order
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 20:55:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
Originally by: Cupdeez Edited by: Cupdeez on 13/02/2009 19:02:16 [blaster setup] Large Armor Repairer II Large Armor Repairer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 100MN MicroWarpdrive II Heavy Capacitor Booster II,Cap Booster 800 Stasis Webifier II Warp Disruptor II ECCM - Omni I Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II,Void L Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I Drones_Active=Garde II,4
Not to derail the conversation too much, but that's the first time I have ever seen an omni ECCM suggested for a non-joke fit.
(Also don't use Void. Just don't. And trimarks on an active tank fit are a bit iffy. And Gardes are definitely not the best choice for drones.)
Maybe but I don't like getting jammed. Although they can still jamm me. You bring different ammo for different things. VOID can hit another BS when webbed. The Gardes might not be you choice but it gives me ranage and they have no problem hitting a BS close up when webbed.
I personally don't fly this ship anymore because well I think it sucks. Give me a Domi over this POS.
Anyone want to go on the test sever and lose a hyp to my domi?
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 21:10:00 -
[356]
Originally by: Goumindong
Look at what it actually does to the damages after you apply resistances. Marn's graph looks nice and neat before you figure that in, but it doesn't once you start to understand the interplay of ships and how they interact with each others tank. It removes any ability of lasers to operate within a reasonable sphere of influence. Narrow bands of operation do not work for shorter ranged weapons. I.E. If you only held superiority from 25-40km, why would you fly a pulse boat unless you didn't have skills for anything else?
I can answer why you would fly a baster boat, I can answer why you would fly an Autocannon boat. I can answer why you would fly a beam, or rail boat, and almost why you would fly an Arty boat, but not in that situation could you answer why you would fly a pulse boat.
Because they have superior tracking and damage than rails and arties, because you can switch ammo instantly to match the range at which you're engaging, because pulse are mounted on a very efficient, cost-effective gank/RR platfrom (Geddon), an a almost semi-sniper (Apoc) and on a superb passive tanked platform (Abaddon).
The problem with what you're saying here is that you make it sound like all of a sudden lasers would flat-out suck at 25km and below, when that is really not the case. They would seem less good by comparison, but the truth of the matter is that the gap is too wide as it stands.
I fly both Gallente and Amarr BS with T2 guns. Under no circumstance would I fly anything but Amarr in med-large gangs.
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 22:03:00 -
[357]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 17/02/2009 22:04:45 edited 'cause I suck at quotes
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Chi Quan
Originally by: Murina
Linkage
do me a little favor and post that again but with drones removed
Just deduct 317 dps from the graph dude.......kinda painfully crap aint it...
280 gun dps at 20km...
I know, that was exactly what I wanted to draw the attention to. Also, Naugthyboys sheet, while still probably the best out there, does not take into account the hit probability on the drones themselves, it just adds drones dps according to bandwidth and selected type.
Originally by: Goumindong
Because in a medium sized gang against battleships that is the type of tranvsersal and sig you expect. Considering you're likely to have both larger targets(abaddon, 470) and that any movement is going to involve an MWD(+sig in excess of +speed) any turret battleship that is conscious of its transversal(I.E. not burning angentially to the enemy with your own MWD on) will have such an easy time to hit another battleship. If there aren't any battleships left then you've pretty much already won simply due to the EHPxDPS efficiency numbers that battleships bring to the fight compared to other ships. (Exception, LR HAC gang, however, the rail ship is much more able to deal with an LR HAC gang since it can actually hit out to LR HAC optimal while the pulse ship cannot). If you've already won convincingly, then comparing the strengths of the battleships is pretty inconsequential. In the same way that its pretty irrelevant to compare the efficiency of a short range gang cruiser in killing frigates. Once there are only frigates left the side that still has its short range cruisers left has pretty much won.
Off topic a bit, eh? We were talking about BLASTERS in SOLO/SMALL GANGS, you know the type of fighting they were meant to shine (not only imho, but according to the public view as well). ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Frances Ducoir
Gallente GK inc.
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 23:55:00 -
[358]
Edited by: Frances Ducoir on 17/02/2009 23:55:46 Goumindong: trolling much again?
1/10 ... its getting boring...
*snip* Signiture remoted because it contained profanity - hutch |
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 00:45:00 -
[359]
For this post I will be comparing Blaster Megas and Pulse Abaddons. The PvP encounters are assuming you have your own tackle,web,painter,etc. These are only opinions so please keep the responses civilized. TY
Tracking Issue - Blaster Mega (bs 5) has better tracking then Pulse Abaddons due to Mega tracking bonus. If a Mega can't hit a target due to tracking then an Abaddon won't hit the target either. Dual webs is a good thing :) Tracking is fine
Range Issue - Well clear winner is pulses. Abaddon can effectively hit any torp/blaster/ac bs within their range. Equiping null will give you about the same range as pulses but will lower your dps substansually. Possile Solution. Increase T2 Blaster Ammo falloff bonus. This will give blaster the chance to hit within the 20km range with void but won't make them op.(Neut Blasters) Void opt:6.8 falloff:15 Null:opt:11 falloff:25 Blaster fighting in falloff is a good way to buff blaster without making them op.
DPS Issue - Pulses high cap usage justifies the amount of dps pulses pump out. Pulses have high dps but when your guns only fire for 2 min before you cap out you won't be doin any dps. Mwd will pretty much cut your pulses firin time in half b/c u will be capped out unless u fit a cap booster or 2. Also pulses deal heavy em damage which is usually the highest resist for armor tankers (which we can all agree is seen more on the battlefields) which cuts it dps even more. Blaster therm/kin is better all around for pvp. DPS is fine
Conclusion. The only thing I would change is blaster falloff range. Nothing needs to be nerfed.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 02:30:00 -
[360]
Edited by: Goumindong on 18/02/2009 02:31:50 Edited by: Goumindong on 18/02/2009 02:30:39
Originally by: Murina
You were the one giving advantages pal, and a broad view of all available targets the BS may come across is the best way to balance things.
Balancing against what doesn't matter is pretty pointless. You're niggling over how resounding your success was rather than whether or not it was resounding. In the same way worth is not determined until it is tested, differences in worth that are not tested are irrelevant.
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
The problem with what you're saying here is that you make it sound like all of a sudden lasers would flat-out suck at 25km and below, when that is really not the case. They would seem less good by comparison, but the truth of the matter is that the gap is too wide as it stands.
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?
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)
Originally by: Chi Quan
Off topic a bit, eh? We were talking about BLASTERS in SOLO/SMALL GANGS, you know the type of fighting they were meant to shine in (not only imho, but according to the public view as well).
That is fine, but that is not what Murina is complaining about. Solo/small gang, the blaster ship is the clear winner. Its the only one that fields the necessary equipment(other than the much lower damage Tempest, which actually fields a bit more) to get the job done. Its the only one that can hold its own if its support bites it, its the only one that can run a reasonable tank for an entire engagement.(solo/small gang repping tanks > EHP tanks). It does this all with the best damage types to hit a variety of enemies(both other solo tanks and gang tanks, where minmatar are weak against gang shield tanks), the highest tracking(or equal enough to the highest, the differences are very tiny) and one of the fastest and most agile hulls in the game.
|
|
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
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 20:30:00 -
[391]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
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.
They will have a pretty decent raw damage advantage over a Mega, but not over the other options. Ravens and Maelstroms do a lot of DPS(Maels are low on range though)
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 21:04:00 -
[392]
Originally by: Goumindong its a medium sized gang, who the hell cares how well you hit under 20km?
Since you claim that Amarr should absolutely rule only medium-sized gangs and up (and isn't that magnanimous of you), you then support nerfing pulses at under 20km range?
Goumindong, really, your penchant for switching arguments without any consideration (except what supports your current point) is starting to show off too much in this thread; even people who haven't had the, ahem, pleasure to converse with you before are starting to comment. Just slink away and everyone will be happier - you will keep what there is left of your dignity and others can start really discussing what could be done with the short-range large gun balance without your intentional disruptions, misrepresentations and outright lies.
Or, of course, you could start conversing in good faith. Heh. -- Gradient forum |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 21:06:00 -
[393]
Originally by: Goumindong ...
how about ACTUALLY FLYING those ships for starters Goumindong? ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 21:30:00 -
[394]
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
Since you claim that Amarr should absolutely rule only medium-sized gangs and up (and isn't that magnanimous of you), you then support nerfing pulses at under 20km range?
Just because pulses should be the king of the medium sized gang does not mean that their utility at lower ranges should be zero just as the utility of blaster ships is not zero in a medium sized gang(still doing a good amount of DPS out to 27km). Just as their rails extend their range beyond 35-50km, pulses extend their range lower. They rightly fall off in effectiveness around 10km(while their relative advantage is broken for other types of combat well before that)
|
StuckNJita
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 21:45:00 -
[395]
I just wanted to see my name in this thread. I agree, blasters need a boost, or all gallente ships need a web bonus.
That is all. Thanks.
------------------ Yes, the early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 22:01:00 -
[396]
Edited by: Murina on 18/02/2009 22:01:30
Originally by: Goumindong
Just because pulses should be the king of the medium sized gang does not mean that their utility at lower ranges should be zero just as the utility of blaster ships is not zero in a medium sized gang(still doing a good amount of DPS out to 27km).
The hyperion doing 350ish gun dps at 27km (and a lot less over that range) is not what anybody could consider good.
Especially when the abaddon is doing with its guns alone 900+dps from 0-15km and 750dps out to 45km.
Originally by: Goumindong Just as their rails extend their range beyond 35-50km, pulses extend their range lower.
Interesting, now tell us how a mwga can switch from blasters to rails as easily as pulse can switch crystals and you still will not have a point but at least you will not look so obvious and stupid in your attempts to manipulate.
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 22:12:00 -
[397]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/02/2009 22:13:23
Originally by: Murina
Especially when the abaddon is doing with its guns alone 900+dps from 0-15km and 750dps out to 45km.
Until you factor in transversal that is. In reality the baddon wont do more than maybe 500 up to 5km (and below 5km it looks really bad), and about 800 at 10km and more.
As long as the enemy BS is moving, the baddon will infact never do 900+ dps, regardless at what range he is.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 22:17:00 -
[398]
Edited by: Murina on 18/02/2009 22:17:58
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Murina
Especially when the abaddon is doing with its guns alone 900+dps from 0-15km and 750dps out to 45km.
Until you factor in transversal that is. In reality the baddon wont do more than maybe 500 up to 5km (and below 5km it looks really bad), and about 800 at 10km and more.
Nobody gets full DPS at very close ranges if you include transversal figures, even blasters.
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 22:22:00 -
[399]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/02/2009 22:26:27
Originally by: Murina
Nobody gets full DPS at very close ranges if you include transversal figures, even blasters.
Ofc not, my point was gallente being always superior to amarr up to 10km. I edit my earlier post to clarify.
Lets say baddon does 500 dps to target at 5km, hype will do 650 to same target and mega 760+.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 22:27:00 -
[400]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Murina
Nobody gets full DPS at very close ranges if you include transversal figures, even blasters.
Ofc not, my point was gallente being always superior to amarr up to 10km. I edit my earlier post to clarify.
Actually upto 9km depending on ship/fit ect, but the fact is that amarr being good inside 10km and better than gallente from 10km to 27km then having no competition from 27-45km+ falloff with just the instant swap of a crystal is too much of a gap.
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 22:28:00 -
[401]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/02/2009 22:32:23 Well, if you ask me scorch is broken, thats the whole issue there is.
Swap optimal/falloff on scorch and all is fine. Dunno what really, but agreed lasers get the cake and can eat it too.
Quote: And the amusing thing is that nobody is asking to nerf amarr they are just saying that blasters need more dmg out to 20km, but ppl like gourm see it as closing the gap and making their OP system less of a I-WIN.
Well yea, blasters are just fine after QR, its lasers that need a damn nerf.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 22:34:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Well, if you ask me scorch is broken, thats the whole issue there is.
Swap optimal/falloff on scorch and all is fine.
I do not have too much of a issue with amarr apart from the fact that they are too good compared to the other systems, so a marginal buff to the other sysyems is needed to LESSEN the gap.
Not close it or overtake like gourm is trying to spin to ppl to gain support for his pathetic trolling.
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 22:37:00 -
[403]
Hmm, in some way I cant really believe blasters and autocannons both need boosting, just nerf pulses and be done with it, everything else will fall in place.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 22:43:00 -
[404]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Hmm, in some way I cant really believe blasters and autocannons both need boosting, just nerf pulses and be done with it, everything else will fall in place.
Blasters are useless in BS close range gang combat and they will not be made at least a little bit more useful by nerfing pulse.
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 22:46:00 -
[405]
Originally by: Murina
Blasters are useless in BS close range gang combat and they will not be made at least a little bit more useful by nerfing pulse.
Huh? I bolded the really ridiculous part of that statement.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 22:49:00 -
[406]
Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 18/02/2009 22:56:07
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.
But pulse boats have other advantages going for them as well, not just damage.
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.
36+30 is on 425mm. 350mm is 27 + 25. Only 2km more optimal than DHB (and a lot more falloff, admitedly). And the cap lasts about as long as on the 350mm Mega.
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)
But I don't want to extend the optimal AND the falloff. I want to reduce the falloff and then extend the optimal so they are at a 1:1 ratio. Optimal + falloff range would remain the same.
Originally by: Goumindong 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.
I was. Anyone not stupid and that understood that less total damage but more damage now (because you're already hitting the target while everybody else is moving to range) understood why pulse lasers were good.
Originally by: Goumindong 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.
But you're the one that said Gallente should be using rails in gangs. So which is it? Either rails are good for gangs, or they are not.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 22:52:00 -
[407]
Edited by: Murina on 18/02/2009 22:55:53
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Murina
Blasters are useless in BS close range gang combat and they will not be made at least a little bit more useful by nerfing pulse.
Huh? I bolded the really ridiculous part of that statement.
Why is it ridiculous?, just cos blasters have the good dps at close range does not make them good in gang combat.
I dunno who you fight but most ppl do not fight at 4.5km (neutron blaster optimal) and gangs tend to spread out so ships that need to burn after every primary target just to get into optimal tend to suck.
How can you not understand that?.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 22:54:00 -
[408]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Hmm, in some way I cant really believe blasters and autocannons both need boosting, just nerf pulses and be done with it, everything else will fall in place.
This game has already slided way too much towards tanking > ganking for my taste, nerfing lasers instead of boosting the rest would just make things even worse.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 23:01:00 -
[409]
Originally by: Murina
I dunno who you fight but most ppl do not fight at 4km and gangs tend to spread out so ships that need to burn after every primary target just to get into optimal tend to suck.
How can you not understand that?.
Well, I dunno who you fight, but most fights I'm in are revolving around up to 24km range. Blasters get the 0-10km range advantage, lasers the 10-24km range advantage.
Blasters can cover the whole range they need to with null, while being vastly superior below 8km with faction AM.
While burning to target is a disadvantage at first glimpse, it doesnt take a genius to realize this doesnt matter much if anything as long as you're in a fight that takes a while rather than a cheap gank where the target is down in seconds.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 23:08:00 -
[410]
Edited by: Murina on 18/02/2009 23:11:07
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Well, I dunno who you fight, but most fights I'm in are revolving around up to 24km range. Blasters get the 0-10km range advantage, lasers the 10-24km range advantage.
Tacklers need only be within 24km pulse can hit great out to 45km so burning away is always a option as well as warping in at range.
While blasters ships even landing in their optimal need to chase down every single primary to be able to hit hard.
Originally by: Omara Otawan While burning to target is a disadvantage at first glimpse, it doesnt take a genius to realize this doesnt matter much if anything as long as you're in a fight that takes a while.
Wrong cos pulse have larger ehp as well as the ability to lay down very high dps ALL the time while blasters do crap dmg while they are trying to chase and catch every ship they wanna kill one after another, and that includes accelerating after ships already at speed while getting pounded.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 23:11:00 -
[411]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
While burning to target is a disadvantage at first glimpse, it doesnt take a genius to realize this doesnt matter much if anything as long as you're in a fight that takes a while rather than a cheap gank where the target is down in seconds.
Wat? It matters more in that type of fight.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 23:40:00 -
[412]
Originally by: Murina
Tacklers need only be within 24km pulse can hit great out to 45km so burning away is always a option as well as warping in at range.
If we agree tacklers are in the picture burning away will be rather difficult. And even if not, blaster platforms are generally faster than pulse platforms if I'm not mistaken.
Also, laser boats will struggle to supply the cap to mwd away and shoot at the same time anyway.
Quote:
Wrong cos pulse have larger ehp as well as the ability to lay down very high dps ALL the time while blasters do crap dmg while they are trying to chase and catch every ship they wanna kill one after another, and that includes accelerating after ships already at speed while getting pounded.
First off they are faster for that very reason, and second the amarr BSs will cap themselves out pretty fast if they try to move and shoot.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 23:53:00 -
[413]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
If we agree tacklers are in the picture burning away will be rather difficult.
Why its not like a bubble effects multiple ships speed or mwd's.
Originally by: Omara Otawan And even if not, blaster platforms are generally faster than pulse platforms if I'm not mistaken.
From a standing start and top speed they are but after the first kill they will need to turn and accelerate after ships that are already at speed and not only that but they need to do the whole thing over and over again for every ship they primary.
Originally by: Omara Otawan First off they are faster for that very reason, and second the amarr BSs will cap themselves out pretty fast if they try to move and shoot.
A few ms top speed difference especially when the blasters need to accelerate for every new target is insignificant, and cap is only a issue for the amarr ship that is being chased as it will be using its MWD, the rest can cruise and save their cap until its needed.
Oh and gallente ships will need to almost constantly mwd and fire so they will cap out as a gang a lot sooner.
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 - 2009.02.19 00:06:00 -
[414]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 19/02/2009 00:10:41 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 19/02/2009 00:08:20
Originally by: Murina
Why its not like a bubble effects multiple ships speed or mwd's.
Its not like there arent ships like Rapier, Huginn, Arazu, Lachesis, Curse and the whole bunch of frigates that can fix that. I can easily tank sentries and keep 3 BS in place in the rapier for example.
Also, we can safely ignore bubbles as they only apply to a minority of the eve population anyway.
Quote: Oh and gallente ships will need to almost constantly mwd and fire so they will cap out as a gang a lot sooner.
A Mega for example lasts a whole 8 minutes on permamwd while shooting a full neutron rack, also they have a slightly bigger cargo bay for charges. Baddon caps out after 2 mins.
Also, it is quite more than a few ms speed advantage, more like a few hundred ms.
Admittedly its a bit pointless to compare them anyways, as amarr generally dont even have the option to tank actively (and active tanks are generally a lot better in small gang engagements).
|
Rip Minner
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 00:09:00 -
[415]
Edited by: Rip Minner on 19/02/2009 00:14:26 You nerf pulse lazers then the larger part of Ammar ships go to hell.
Missils are fine can change out damg types and use fof. Hybrid class ships have other major fall back ships in ether drones or missils. And you can find a Min ship that can do omost anything from project/drones/missils.
Personly I think blasters need ether faster tracking or range inc. project need faster tracking would not like to see a farther range inc there.
Your all forgeting that Lazers in large part use major cap and have Large power grid needs. Thats there draw backs.
Edit: For got to point out that Ammar ships are the slowest ships in the verse so its very unlikely that they can stay out of your range for very long.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 00:52:00 -
[416]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Hmm, in some way I cant really believe blasters and autocannons both need boosting, just nerf pulses and be done with it, everything else will fall in place.
This game has already slided way too much towards tanking > ganking for my taste, nerfing lasers instead of boosting the rest would just make things even worse.
Fully agree here. With Rigs and Combat boosters the game shifted in a very tanky direction, since Damage rigs are stacked and have Drawbacks that counter the Gank fitting(by simply increasing Powergrid use) while Tank Rigs donŠt stack with other Mods or have only light penaltys. Nerfing things even more is like thinking a Passvie Drake vs Passive Drake looks like fun. It isnŠt, it is booring like hell if the Tank totaly overcome the Damage in 1o1s or smallscale PVP.
Originally by: Omara Otawan
A Mega for example lasts a whole 8 minutes on permamwd while shooting a full neutron rack, also they have a slightly bigger cargo bay for charges. Baddon caps out after 2 mins.
Also, it is quite more than a few ms speed advantage, more like a few hundred ms.
Admittedly its a bit pointless to compare them anyways, as amarr generally dont even have the option to tank actively (and active tanks are generally a lot better in small gang engagements).
Abaddon donŠt needs to MWD around(and usely donŠt even fit a MWD), I can even run a LAR untill I run out of Cap Charges. Cap is actualy a bit worse on the Mega since you tend to MWD around a lot this days(catching targets that try to leave Web Range or getting range tot Targets that you canŠt hit a close), also a Med Cap Booster is what I running on my passive Mega most of the time for the simpe reason that I need a Heavy Neut to stand a chance vs smaller Ships and thigs that prefere to stay out of 20km range...
Amarr have the better passive Tanks(and suprisingly the better active ones to if you donŠt fit a MWD). Amarr Tanks got the Slot or resistance Advantage and the Cap Penalty isnŠt this bad if go passive or single Rep(while Dualrep take away the gank on a Blaster Ship to and makes you a easy target for the next engagement where you hit some Neuts).
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 08:52:00 -
[417]
Edited by: Murina on 19/02/2009 08:59:39
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Its not like there arent ships like Rapier, Huginn, Arazu, Lachesis, Curse and the whole bunch of frigates that can fix that. I can easily tank sentries and keep 3 BS in place in the rapier for example.
Try flying those ships into or around a 20+ man BS gang and see how long you last, bubbles are the tackle of choice vs a BS gang bud.
Originally by: Omara Otawan Also, we can safely ignore bubbles as they only apply to a minority of the eve population anyway.
Like ALL the pvpers in 0.0?.....
Originally by: Omara Otawan A Mega for example lasts a whole 8 minutes on permamwd while shooting a full neutron rack, also they have a slightly bigger cargo bay for charges. Baddon caps out after 2 mins.
The baddon using its mwd does cap out in 2 mins and that is quite long enough for most fights as i have never run my mwd that long in a BS before ever tbh. All his buddies do not need to run theirs constantly at all unless they get primaried/approached so their cap lasts a lot longer.
While as i said the megas need to constantly burn theirs to keep chasing after and catching ships that are getting further and further away and laying down hard dps.
Originally by: Omara Otawan Also, it is quite more than a few ms speed advantage, more like a few hundred ms.
200ms = a 10km gain every 50 seconds + the megas acceleration time after every kill, while taking fire from a gang of pulse baddons. The megas will get a couple of kills no doubt but after the initial kill or two the travel distance to the next baddons will be longer and they will die without getting many if any more kills.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 10:30:00 -
[418]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
A Mega for example lasts a whole 8 minutes on permamwd while shooting a full neutron rack, also they have a slightly bigger cargo bay for charges. Baddon caps out after 2 mins.
That is not true. A Netronmega shooting AM/any t2 and MWDing caps out after ~2min. If he has a heavy injector (thus forgoing the neutralizer) it caps out after 4:45min (provided of course he has enough charges, which he doesn't). If the Mega uses a medium injector + neut, it caps out after 2min, when not using the neut at all and after 1:30min if permanently on.
A fit similar to the heavy injector Mega for an Abbadon is stable as long as charges are available and caps out after 1 min shooting & mwding. A slightly tankier fit with AB is cap stable with charges (not that it needs the AB), has a whooping 20k more ehp and 100dps less (which comes mostly from the missing drones, without them the difference is 7dps), and is able to run all without injector for ~2:40 (~3:40 if no AB is needed).
---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 12:21:00 -
[419]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Hmm, in some way I cant really believe blasters and autocannons both need boosting, just nerf pulses and be done with it, everything else will fall in place.
This game has already slided way too much towards tanking > ganking for my taste, nerfing lasers instead of boosting the rest would just make things even worse.
I'll get to some of the other things later, but i am quite surprised by this. If the game has slid way too much towards tanking>ganking for your taste, how in the world can you then come and claim that lasers are too powerful and blasters not powerful enough?
Blasters are the quintessential tanking weapon, lasers the quintessential ganking weapon. When tanking is stronger, fights tend to shift in close. They advantage the ships that can do as much as possible in low DPS situations. When ganking is more likely, fights tend to shift farther away, because range limits other players from taking part as well as they would otherwise. This is why you see larger fleets dedicated nearly entirely to ganking from hundreds of kilometers away.
The thoughts that "blasters need a boost" and "the game has slid too much towards tanking>ganking for my taste" are entirely dissonant with each other. They are mutually exclusive.
|
Rhadamantine
Game Community
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 13:39:00 -
[420]
^^^^ More gorm word games, he's just so good at it now.
Regards. Rhadamantine. |
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 14:19:00 -
[421]
Originally by: Goumindong The thoughts that "blasters need a boost" and "the game has slid too much towards tanking>ganking for my taste" are entirely dissonant with each other. They are mutually exclusive.
"I think tanking is too effective compared to ganking" and "I think blasters should get more gank" are mutually exclusive in your mind? I'm starting to see how you can think that your own arguments are well thought out and congruent. -- Gradient forum |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 15:53:00 -
[422]
Originally by: Goumindong Blasters are the quintessential tanking weapon, lasers the quintessential ganking weapon.
Wrong, lasers give the very best of both worlds as they have very high dps at ultra low ranges out to over 45km.
For blasters to be effective the ships using them need to sit right on top of the primary target making them very vulnerable and in the of optimal EVERY pulse ship, while the pulse ships are only vulnerable one at a time and need to be chased after and caught individually (and those figures include acceleration time and relative speeds over distance).
Originally by: Goumindong The thoughts that "blasters need a boost" and "the game has slid too much towards tanking>ganking for my taste" are entirely dissonant with each other. They are mutually exclusive.
No they are not you are just clueless and think using clever words like "dissonant" makes you look like you are not........failed.
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 - 2009.02.19 17:48:00 -
[423]
Originally by: Murina
Try flying those ships into or around a 20+ man BS gang and see how long you last, bubbles are the tackle of choice vs a BS gang bud.
Been there, done that. With 40km webs its pretty easy to tackle and warp out as soon as you get shot at.
Same deal with frigs, need to be more close usually but who cares about a lost frig anyway.
Besides a bubble alone wont help you much with gate sizes these days, as your sluggish BS wont be in webrange before they jumped back, specialized tacklers are mandatory if your not fighting inexperienced pilots.
While a 20+ man BS gang (a size where advantage is clearly at amarr BS) will be a hot ride, a 5 man BS gang will be lost.
Also, I'm not your buddy, friend
Quote:
Originally by: Omara Otawan Also, we can safely ignore bubbles as they only apply to a minority of the eve population anyway.
Like ALL the pvpers in 0.0?.....
Well its a minority anyways, and honestly I cant see what difference a bubble should make for this discussions...
We can prolly discuss this for days, wont change a thing about gallente being better in small gang engagements and amarr taking the cake in larger groups though. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 17:49:00 -
[424]
Originally by: Goumindong Blasters are the quintessential tanking weapon, lasers the quintessential ganking weapon.
Weird. I thought that Gallente & blasters were the gankers and Amarr + lasers the tankers. Or at least that was the original design plan before it was screwed up. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 18:08:00 -
[425]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Well its a minority anyways, and honestly I cant see what difference a bubble should make for this discussions...
We can prolly discuss this for days, won't change a thing about gallente being better in small gang engagements and amarr taking the cake in larger groups though.
The bubble saves you the tackling part and thus midslots. Gallente being better in small gangs is no longer true since QR. As soon as the blaster ship does not land right on top of its victim, it has no possibility to bring the supposed higher dps to bear. The many graphs posted here and elsewhere show one thing clearly: blaster ships have only a tiny bit more dps up close. The Amarr ships being better in large fights has been true for a long time and was accepted (in fact the larger the better), recent changes however enabled them to poach in blaster preserves. This is the wrong thing here. |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 19:39:00 -
[426]
Originally by: Murina
So in other words useless as your gonna be primary and lasers hit hard at 40km+, so if your not aligned and ready to insta warp your gonna get melted by just a couple of the pulse BS volleys let alone all of them..
Well yea, max skilled triple HS baddon would take it down in 40 sec with scorch, 4 in 10 seconds and so on, but the point is you'll see it coming. And then you warp so you can recloak and go in again.
I've yet to see all those yellow brackets turning red at once, and also once the first bunch of hostiles are going yellow its a pretty good sign of things ahead.
You can also stay cloaked and decloak once the first shots are fired and start from there, makes it more likely not getting primaried right away when everyone locking you has guns hot and ready to fire.
Quote:
We are talking about a fight and you are talking about a solo BS burning back to the gate????...A GANG IN A FIGHT WILL HAVE AGGRO AND BE LOOKING TO FIGHT NOT RUN AWAY.
No, I'm talking about a fight as well, maybe not a 300 ship blobfest but a fight.
Quite honestly, from 20 small gang engagements maybe 1 is mutual, or else you'd not need tacklers/bubbles.
In my experience, most fights even happen at the 'other' side of the gate as the one group has to chase the others through.
Quote:
The majority of pvpers live in 0.0, and even those that do not and fight in low sec or empire will have aggro making jumping or docking not a option.
Again, most of the time one group has to catch the other to make the fight happen in the first place, thats why you usually have to watch out when you aggro so they arent jumping and running.
Seriously, when was the last time someone that didnt either have 5 falcons or at least more ships stay and fight you?
Quote:
When was the last time you saw a solo roaming BS on TQ?, or even a 2 man BS gang for that matter?.
Hmm, I had something like 5-6 BS and maybe 3-4 support in mind. Works still good, is loads of fun. You got to be careful and evade getting ganked, but really the most fun gang size imo.
Everything bigger is a filthy blob
But yea, solo BS are dead, never disputed that. Doesnt mean small gangs are dead or cant make good use of BSs.
|
Lorth
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 19:46:00 -
[427]
Wow I have been gone for nearly two years, and here is a balance discussion I can make an educated comment on.
Very simply, blasters suck now, for the same reasons they have always sucked. Their range is much to short. Requiring you to move your ship, were as other high damage weapons do not, ie pulse and to a lesser extent auto cannons. This is compounded by the need to fit out said ship with a MWD and such, something one does not have to do with any of the other short range ships.
And the reward for this? Only slightly higher damage. However even this advantage is mitigated by the fact that the blaster ship has to move in order to inflict his damage, while the other are able to attack immediately. In a typical PVP encounter the blaster ship losses his higher damage advantage simply because he doesn't get to inflict damage as long as the other ships do, even a 5 second MWD trip will give the damage advantage to the other ships.
The problem gets worse the bigger the ship. Frig class vessels are so agile and fast blasters are a workable load out. Cruisers less so, though at the bottom of the effective ship class is the battleship. BS's are simply to big, and to slow, to be maneuverable enough to make an effective blaster boat.
And the problem get progressively worse the larger the gang, assuming the larger gang will attack other larger gangs. Verses a solo target, or two, the blaster ship has some time to move and inflict his damage, though the other ships get to inflict theirs the second they lock. Add more targets and more people shooting at them and the blaster ship has to spend more time moving (from target to target) and each target is alive a shorter amount of time, allowing the blaster ship to do damage for an even shorter time, if at all.
And of course we should talk about the gimped fitting the blaster ship has to use in order to make his set up somewhat effective. MWD being the worst. With both the high cap use, and the cap penalty, it effectively renders you to a mediocre tank at best. Not to mention the MWD and high cap use guns requires one fits a booster, and a web since keeping that target close is important. So the blaster pilot has given up 3 mids, arguably the most important slots on a ship, where other short range setups don't have to, or can at least option out of them.
And of course, all of this is for slightly higher damage, on paper. Though in the real world the blaster ship does less damage since he inflicts damage for a shorter amount of time.
Its been this way since the game began, and hasn't changed much since. I've always been a fan of increasing large blasters damage. Give the pilot a reward for getting close, and the gimped set up that comes with it. Do this and people will of course complain because they look so uber on paper. If the other stats are kept the same, then there is only a window of a couple KM where blaster really outshine other guns. it keeps them separate and different, and leaves their effective use to the skill of the pilot flying the boat. Which in my mind is fair.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 19:50:00 -
[428]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Well yea, max skilled triple HS baddon would take it down in 40 sec with scorch, 4 in 10 seconds and so on, but the point is you'll see it coming. And then you warp so you can recloak and go in again.
I've yet to see all those yellow brackets turning red at once, and also once the first bunch of hostiles are going yellow its a pretty good sign of things ahead.
You can also stay cloaked and decloak once the first shots are fired and start from there, makes it more likely not getting primaried right away when everyone locking you has guns hot and ready to fire.
Cloaked, warping ect ect...all things that do not allow you to tackle anything especially 20 BS in a gang.....maybe you can web 1 for a few seconds but you are a waste of a ship trying to web BS in this situation.
Originally by: Omara Otawan In my experience, most fights even happen at the 'other' side of the gate as the one group has to chase the others through.
Making bubbles perfect for catching them..
Originally by: Omara Otawan Again, most of the time one group has to catch the other to make the fight happen in the first place, thats why you usually have to watch out when you aggro so they arent jumping and running.
Again making bubbles a lot of use if not essential....
Originally by: Omara Otawan Hmm, I had something like 5-6 BS and maybe 3-4 support in mind. Works still good, is loads of fun. You got to be careful and evade getting ganked, but really the most fun gang size imo.
Laser ships are the best BS for that situation and setup by far.
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 - 2009.02.19 21:05:00 -
[429]
Originally by: Chi Quan
Originally by: Goumindong Blasters are the quintessential tanking weapon, lasers the quintessential ganking weapon.
Weird. I thought that Gallente & blasters were the gankers and Amarr + lasers the tankers. Or at least that was the original design plan before it was screwed up.
Absolutely not. Or at least, if it was, it was a design that ignored fundamental realities about how the system would turn out.
|
Lorth
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 21:40:00 -
[430]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Chi Quan
Originally by: Goumindong Blasters are the quintessential tanking weapon, lasers the quintessential ganking weapon.
Weird. I thought that Gallente & blasters were the gankers and Amarr + lasers the tankers. Or at least that was the original design plan before it was screwed up.
Absolutely not. Or at least, if it was, it was a design that ignored fundamental realities about how the system would turn out.
That's absolutely how the game was originally set up.
And I would argue that blasters are niether good at tanking, nor all they all that good at ganking. While they may have an edge on paper, in actual combat situations thier damage potential goes out the window because of their horrendous range issues. Read my first post on this page which outlines that better.
As for tanking I believe they lose that battle as well. Fitting, and using a MWD esentually gimps your cap, and thus your tank. No matter what you have fitted for a tank, your going to run into cap issues long before any other ship will.
Sure you could argue about fitting MWD's on other ships, but the blaster boat is required to, and is required to use it in order to participate in nearly any fight.
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 23:06:00 -
[431]
Originally by: Goumindong
Absolutely not. Or at least, if it was, it was a design that ignored fundamental realities about how the system would turn out.
A bit like your ideas about how gallente BS players "deserve" to suck in med sized gang combat cos they chose their race 5 years ago....
As commented on the game has grown and changed over the years and while certain races have certain abilities that make them "better" than others at certain things this does not mean that they should suck totally at other things.
I have no problem with amarr being best in med sized BS gangs but that does not mean that gallente BS should be useless, blasters need a buff its that simple.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 23:09:00 -
[432]
Crikey Goumindong, you really have no clue.
Boost tracking and up the damage a fraction and we are set.
Oh and welcome back Lorth.
Regards Mag's |
Pupp3tMast3r
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 01:12:00 -
[433]
Originally by: Lorth
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Chi Quan
Originally by: Goumindong Blasters are the quintessential tanking weapon, lasers the quintessential ganking weapon.
Weird. I thought that Gallente & blasters were the gankers and Amarr + lasers the tankers. Or at least that was the original design plan before it was screwed up.
Absolutely not. Or at least, if it was, it was a design that ignored fundamental realities about how the system would turn out.
That's absolutely how the game was originally set up.
And I would argue that blasters are niether good at tanking, nor all they all that good at ganking. While they may have an edge on paper, in actual combat situations thier damage potential goes out the window because of their horrendous range issues. Read my first post on this page which outlines that better.
As for tanking I believe they lose that battle as well. Fitting, and using a MWD esentually gimps your cap, and thus your tank. No matter what you have fitted for a tank, your going to run into cap issues long before any other ship will.
Sure you could argue about fitting MWD's on other ships, but the blaster boat is required to, and is required to use it in order to participate in nearly any fight.
A Mega with 2 mag stabs and a full rack of neutron blasters with null, does right around 1000 dps (980) with no implants. It hits out to 27 km. Also, with the easy fitting of hybrids I can easily fit a 2x 1600 r/t buffer tank, heavy cap booster, mwd, and 2 eccm's. What are your thoughts?
|
Sagacious Z
Minmatar Eve University
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 02:19:00 -
[434]
Edited by: Sagacious Z on 20/02/2009 02:23:12
Originally by: James Lyrus I cannot beat any 3 other ships in a Hyperion, therefore blasters are underpowered and need boosting.
Do all of you "nerf this and buff that" group know anything about game balance?
A nerf or buff of any item does not just affect that one mod or ship, it affect ALL mods and ships "relative to that item". If you want to buff blasters, give us sound reasons why you believe all the other weapon systems need nerfed, because afterall, buffing blasters would actually be nerfing all the other weapon types. In addition to weapons that would have a relative nerf to your blaster buff, some mods would be affected also.
Why don't you just accept that the game has a number of various mods, ships and PLAYERS and that they all intertwine. IMO, there is much wasted space on these forums from the "nerf this and buff that" crowd since there is always a failure to detail the reasons why all the other items being affected by a nerf or buff should have their attributes altered, since they are altered indirectly in any attibute change to one item.
Just play the game and let the game designers tweak the game.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 09:01:00 -
[435]
Edited by: Murina on 20/02/2009 09:05:32
Originally by: Sagacious Z
Do all of you "nerf this and buff that" group know anything about game balance?
Yes we do and if you did you would agree with us.
Originally by: Sagacious Z A nerf or buff of any item does not just affect that one mod or ship, it affect ALL mods and ships "relative to that item".
Well duh, its the imbalance between the systems that this thread is all about you muppet, you should try reading it before making obviously uneducated and unreasearched comments.
Originally by: Sagacious Z If you want to buff blasters, give us sound reasons why you believe all the other weapon systems need nerfed, because afterall, buffing blasters would actually be nerfing all the other weapon types. In addition to weapons that would have a relative nerf to your blaster buff, some mods would be affected also.
Maybe you should read the thread pal.
Originally by: Sagacious Z Just play the game and let the game designers tweak the game.
Would those be the designers that gave us the dual mwding torp raven era, the 20,000ms frigs and 10,000ms BS, the multi heat sink........
Read the thread understand it or stfu and go away.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Lorth
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 09:33:00 -
[436]
Originally by: Pupp3tMast3r
A Mega with 2 mag stabs and a full rack of neutron blasters with null, does right around 1000 dps (980) with no implants. It hits out to 27 km. Also, with the easy fitting of hybrids I can easily fit a 2x 1600 r/t buffer tank, heavy cap booster, mwd, and 2 eccm's. What are your thoughts? edit: I know baddon's may be a little stronger, but I'm just trying to say blasters are by no means useless, maybe a tad worse than pulses atm, but the game can't be balanced 100%. I think they're doing just fine.. AC's on the other hand.. They do worse damage than pulses and hybrids, with worse damage/range than pulses- with all the range that they do have in falloff! Why are people even talking about blasters?
You said it in your edit, the abaddon is better. And better at longer ranges, which is the whole problem, since the mega has only a very narrow window (if it exists at all) in which its damage potential is better.
And tracking becomes a huge problem. Esp considering your moving at MWD speeds at the start of the battle, assuming you havn't got really lucky and landed right on top of the guy. Its hard to hit with out the ammo tracking penelty.
The issue isn't so much with the damage out put of the weapon of paper, its with ability to bring that damage onto a target in an actual battle.
Pulse users get to inflict their damage as soon as they lock the target, with out expending any energy getting into range, in most cases.
Blaster users must expend large amounts of energy, and fitting in order to get their damage to the target. Or in the example you gave, with null ammo, they are still vastly out performed by pulse in anything other then short range.
Maybe the issue is simply that pulse are way to good, or way to versatile. They are one of the highest damaging guns in the game, and have the most useful effective range. Most other guns are either high damage, but relatively limited, or low damage and useful in regards to range ability. Compare and contrast pulse, with dual 250mm's. Very similar useful range, vastly different damage potential
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 09:55:00 -
[437]
Edited by: Murina on 20/02/2009 10:05:42
Originally by: Pupp3tMast3r
A Mega with 2 mag stabs and a full rack of neutron blasters with null, does right around 1000 dps (980) with no implants. It hits out to 27 km. Also, with the easy fitting of hybrids I can easily fit a 2x 1600 r/t buffer tank, heavy cap booster, mwd, and 2 eccm's.
What are your thoughts?
I think that 980 dps is at a max range of 11km and quoting "980dps/27km" is misleading, oh and 317 of that dps is drones.
At 27km with null the mega does a max gun dmg of 331 dps. At 27km with scorch the abad does a max gun dmg of 750 dps, and continues to hit that hard out to 45km.
Faction MF fitted abad does 896 gun dps out to 15km (3 mag stabs). Faction AM fitted mega does 935 gun dps out to 4.5km (3 mag stabs).
Oh and on the AM/MF fits the baddon has 139,000ehp while the mega has 92,000.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 20:13:00 -
[438]
It should be added that this dps is against a certain set of higher sig-radius, low speed targets. Go down in range and it gets worse. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 20:58:00 -
[439]
Edited by: darkmancer on 20/02/2009 20:58:53
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 20/02/2009 10:34:39
Faction mf fitted abad does 896 gun dps out to 15km (3 mag stabs). Faction am fitted mega does 935 gun dps out to 4.5km (3 mag stabs).
Rokhs even better
Faction mf fitted Abad does 896 gun dps out to 15km (3 mag stabs). Faction am fitted Rokh does 855 gun dps out to 6.8km (3 mag stabs).
Less DPS and less than half the range.
--------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong |
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 21:38:00 -
[440]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Hmm, in some way I cant really believe blasters and autocannons both need boosting, just nerf pulses and be done with it, everything else will fall in place.
This game has already slided way too much towards tanking > ganking for my taste, nerfing lasers instead of boosting the rest would just make things even worse.
I'll get to some of the other things later, but i am quite surprised by this. If the game has slid way too much towards tanking>ganking for your taste, how in the world can you then come and claim that lasers are too powerful and blasters not powerful enough?
Blasters are the quintessential tanking weapon, lasers the quintessential ganking weapon. When tanking is stronger, fights tend to shift in close. They advantage the ships that can do as much as possible in low DPS situations. When ganking is more likely, fights tend to shift farther away, because range limits other players from taking part as well as they would otherwise. This is why you see larger fleets dedicated nearly entirely to ganking from hundreds of kilometers away.
The thoughts that "blasters need a boost" and "the game has slid too much towards tanking>ganking for my taste" are entirely dissonant with each other. They are mutually exclusive.
That's silly. Blasters may be the quintessential weapons of tank ships (and then I'd say missiles are probably better, being capless and all), there is no mutual exclusivity between wanting better guns (to you know, gank more) and thinking there's too much of a bias ingame towards tanking.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 22:45:00 -
[441]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
That's silly. Blasters may be the quintessential weapons of tank ships (and then I'd say missiles are probably better, being capless and all), there is no mutual exclusivity between wanting better guns (to you know, gank more) and thinking there's too much of a bias ingame towards tanking.
There is no mutual exclusivity if the reason for wanting better guns is selfish and not grounded in balance.
But the positions
"Blasters need to be better to be balanced"
and
"The games balance favors tank over gank too much"
are mutually exclusive positions, if you shift balance towards blasters, you will advantage tanking more(since you're boosting the weapons that go on those ships where tank is a more efficient choice). This is the opposite of the second point that says that the games balance is too far in favor of tanking.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 23:02:00 -
[442]
Originally by: Goumindong
are mutually exclusive positions, if you shift balance towards blasters, you will advantage tanking more(since you're boosting the weapons that go on those ships where tank is a more efficient choice). This is the opposite of the second point that says that the games balance is too far in favor of tanking.
Ah I see what you're saying. Still, what I meant was that their have been to many direct boosts to tanking (rigs, HP boosts, etc,). I can live with seeing more tankboats flying around as long as they get to *****slap each other harder
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 23:07:00 -
[443]
Originally by: Goumindong There is no mutual exclusivity if the reason for wanting better guns is selfish and not grounded in balance.
But the positions
"Blasters need to be better to be balanced"
and
"The games balance favors tank over gank too much"
are mutually exclusive positions, if you shift balance towards blasters, you will advantage tanking more(since you're boosting the weapons that go on those ships where tank is a more efficient choice). This is the opposite of the second point that says that the games balance is too far in favor of tanking.
^ A perfect example of "Goumindong" logic syndrome. An argument so twisted and out of touch with reality that there is no point on which to apply real logic counter-argument. Goumindong operates on rules of some alternate reality, a completely different universe. Nothing anyone says is gonna pull him out of it. So best just ignore him, maybe he comes back voluntarily.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 23:20:00 -
[444]
Originally by: Goumindong
"Blasters need to be better to be balanced"
Correct.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Niko Takahashi
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 00:35:00 -
[445]
Just to add my 2 cents Blasters need a tracking boost in medium and large classes Dmg boost I am not sure it would be a good idea they hit hard Bit of range boost maybe with longer falloff
My problem is that even on paper they hit hardest in reality the tracking issues on ultra short range weapons is kind of moronic I don't need more dmg i want that paper dmg to be more applicable in real situation hence more tracking is a must. Basically yo are gimping your own dmg by getting in ultra short range because of tracking issues which is where you need to be because of your optimal. As the webs got nerfed quite hard i believe a 25% boost to all medium and large blasters tracking is in order to compensate. Also 10%-15% fall off bump would be good but its not nearly as problematic then tracking.
|
Lorth
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 01:26:00 -
[446]
Edited by: Lorth on 21/02/2009 01:27:51 They are supposed to be the high damage short range guns of eve.
The problem is, they don't have the high damage, or only have at best a marginal advantage in damage out put over other guns.
And short range sucks. Or to put it better it sucks when you only have a slight damage advantage over a medium range gun.
Increasing the range some only turns them into blaster pulses, same gun different skills. I say increase the damage, and make short range, and the difficulty of getting there have a pay off at the end of it all.
|
Gen Eisenhower
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 01:53:00 -
[447]
Well there is another aspect of this. Gall ships and especially bses have prolly been the most popular in the past years.
They are nothing worse then the others now. Maybe they just aren't that much more overpowered.
This is a great chance to see more tempests, rokhs, ravens, geddons etc in pvp. It was sometimes boring to see x Mega + y Domi + z Hype gangs. Or even worse just spam Megas ftw.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 02:39:00 -
[448]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Goumindong
are mutually exclusive positions, if you shift balance towards blasters, you will advantage tanking more(since you're boosting the weapons that go on those ships where tank is a more efficient choice). This is the opposite of the second point that says that the games balance is too far in favor of tanking.
Ah I see what you're saying. Still, what I meant was that their have been to many direct boosts to tanking (rigs, HP boosts, etc,). I can live with seeing more tankboats flying around as long as they get to *****slap each other harder
That is reasonable. I would rather just change the penalty on tanking rigs.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 02:47:00 -
[449]
Originally by: Gen Eisenhower Well there is another aspect of this. Gall ships and especially bses have prolly been the most popular in the past years.
This is a great chance to see more tempests, rokhs, ravens, geddons etc in pvp. It was sometimes boring to see x Mega + y Domi + z Hype gangs. Or even worse just spam Megas ftw.
There was lots of Ravens and Gedons around(even some Rohks and comedy pests).
Originally by: Gen Eisenhower
They are nothing worse then the others now. Maybe they just aren't that much more overpowered.
They are closerange ships that get the full load of the Scram, Web and Speed Changes within Web Range because it is her Weapon Range, that is intedet to work exclusive against bigger solo ships(because they all mean next to nothing if you focus your fire and Drones on smaller ships with mutliple Ships). O wait the Blaster BS are fully close range focused, and most effective in solo Combat(not because It is overpowert for solo BS take down but beause of the short range what limites them in Gangs very fast). Its like stating it is fine for me because it dont affects me this much.
Anyone that thinks the the Mega or Hype is(or was) overpowert never realy PVPed with them, there isnt a hidden Bonus that simply pops the target once you are in Range, and there where lots of ships around that wish the floor with a single Mega(Rohk, Raven, Mealstorm, Phoon, Abaddon, realy ganky Gedons if this ships are fitted and piloted right) by outtank them or simply having more buffer and a next to simlar Gank + more Range.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 03:18:00 -
[450]
Originally by: Goumindong
"Blasters need to be better to be balanced"
and
"The games balance favors tank over gank too much"
are mutually exclusive positions, if you shift balance towards blasters, you will advantage tanking more(since you're boosting the weapons that go on those ships where tank is a more efficient choice). This is the opposite of the second point that says that the games balance is too far in favor of tanking.
What are you smoking? Amarr were setup as the race with the best tanks (EVE didn't start when you started playing, btw) and they are still miles better than Gallente. Blasterships have to rely on their tanking much more than more ranged ships because they take significantly MORE damage, that's true. That doesn't mean they are better at it.
All you do is twist a point around till it fits your narrow mind.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
|
EvilD's EvilTwin
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 07:06:00 -
[451]
Edited by: EvilD''s EvilTwin on 21/02/2009 07:10:18 Edited by: EvilD''s EvilTwin on 21/02/2009 07:06:20 Edit: hly **** that became long....plz read at least most of it...its good i promise
wow this is still going on??
goumindong...please stop now....most of your ideas so far (railguns lol?) have been fail...your making those of us who fly amarr and have a clue look bad now...
alright i said this about...oh, 7 pages back...and i'll say it again....blasters are in need of something...but its not a matter of pulse being overpowered
the type of pvp that goes on now suits the design of amarr ships better than the rest...amarr are designed to project excellent dmg across a fairly large battlefield while being able to absorb tons of damage...this is all they do and they do it very well. now i do agree that blaster could use help...imho, a bit of a dmg increase and definetly web help....thats what the whole problem is: webs
the achilles heel of blasters has always been very, very limited range...and this is how they are supposed to be...best damage in game with excellent tracking, just very limited range. that weakness wasn't very pronounced when you could pretty much bring a ship to a standstill within 10km..now with webs being terrible the only real weakness of blasters, their range, becomes much more apparent
but...i do think blasters need more damage...considering how limited your range is, you should be capable of putting out terrifying damage within that range. right now a max skilled mega with 3 magstabs and neutrons puts out 935 gun dps (cn am)....an increase to maybe 1200 gun dps from max skills shouldn't be too bad imho...but DO NOT INCREASE RANGE IF YOU INCREASE DMG
a damage increase and maybe some bonus to webs would solve all these problems....make blasters truly devastating within their range...but keep it short because that's the cost of incredible damage
.....oh and i would also like to note: null gives the same range increase as scorch.. null: 125% increase in optimal + 25% increase in falloff scorch: 150% increase in optimal only
and if your going to compare overall numbers it has to be mega vs geddon because they have similar roles and stats...the only ships you can compare ehp numbers with is the abaddon and rokh....hyp and maelstrom are active tanked therefore don't get as high ehp numbers....i'm with you boost blaster damage but don't compare two vastly different ships...dps numbers comparison is ok for mega and aba but not ehp....very very different bonuses that effect that
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 10:19:00 -
[452]
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin .....oh and i would also like to note: null gives the same range increase as scorch.. null: 125% increase in optimal + 25% increase in falloff scorch: 150% increase in optimal only
Hm, that is actually false. If we simplify the situation a bit, and say that pulse lasers have 100% optimal, 0% falloff; ACs have 0% optimal, 100% falloff; blasters have 50% optimal, 50% falloff. Scorch gives lasers +50% optimal => +50% range. Barrage gives ACs +50% falloff => +50% range. Null gives blasters +25% optimal, +25% falloff => +25% range.
The situation isn't quite that clear, since falloff isn't as good as optimal and the guns do all have some optimal and falloff, but the basic problem does exist. Possibly the long-range ammo for short-range guns should get +50% optimal, +50% falloff each and every one (or +40%/+30%/+25% or something), no matter what other changes are done. -- Gradient forum |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 11:21:00 -
[453]
Originally by: Goumindong
That is reasonable. I would rather just change the penalty on tanking rigs.
Anything but closing the overwhelming and overpowered gap amarr BS get in gang combat hey pal......
Blasters need a boost of some description, mostly in dmg in the 10-20km range and a tracking buff is also required tbh.
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 - 2009.02.21 13:29:00 -
[454]
Edited by: NightmareX on 21/02/2009 13:32:08
Originally by: Murina Blasters need a boost of some description, mostly in dmg in the 10-20km range and a tracking buff is also required so they are actually useful under 10km now the web nerf has gimped them....
Just remember, if Blasters get a boost by 1% for example, then Autocannons need a boost of some sort by 1% to.
Because if you boost Blaster at all now, then Autocannons will be so long behind the other weapons that it's not even funny.
So it's either boosting Blasters and Projectiles or Missiles or just nerf Lasers a little. Well i'm not saying Lasers are overpowered at all, because they are not. I'm just saying that Lasers (Pulses and Beams) either can get a damage reduce at more range or just reduce the range on Lasers a little bit.
The damage and tracking in Lasers are perfectly fine though.
So if we goes the easy way, then i will just say nerf Lasers a little instead.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 13:50:00 -
[455]
Edited by: Murina on 21/02/2009 13:52:32
Originally by: NightmareX Because if you boost Blaster at all now, then Autocannons will be so long behind the other weapons that it's not even funny.
I have no problem increasing AC dmg in the 10-20km range if it is needed, but im not keen on nerfing lasers tbh as i prefer positive solutions and obviously nerfing lasers will not solve the problems blasters have.
Originally by: NightmareX The damage and tracking in Lasers are perfectly fine though.
Rails and arties both have less range than beams when they are fitted on gallente and mini BS but beams also have MUCH better tracking, this is not right or balanced in the least and needs sorting.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 16:20:00 -
[456]
Originally by: dalman
Pretty much yea. But as I said earlier in the thread: Blasters still need a tracking boost compared to autocannons. Or are you actually suggesting that it's balanced that autocannons with much better range also have better tracking than blasters? (hint: look at fitting electrons/ions on a hyperion or dominix, it's completely messed up)
Unmodified 800mm Repeating Artillery II = 0.0432 Rads Unmodified Neutron Blaster Cannon II = 0.0433 Rads Unmodified Mega Pulse Laser II = 0.03375
So no, you are wrong, or are you actually suggesting that Blasters should do far superior damage, and have the same tracking as auto cannons producing a superior result at very close range?
Or are you saying that auto cannons should be able to do low damage at ranges outside of blasters effective range.
Or are you saying that Lasers can compete with auto cannons and blasters in all but very short range as long as the transverse speeds don't get to high, as well as hit for high damage well past either of the other 2's effective ranges.
What are you saying? I think you need to go play with the tracking guide a bit more through a full range of Sig radius, and transverse speeds, with the 3 weapons listed above.
It will become pretty evident that Blaster/AC relationship is ok, and that it is lasers that are way out of whack.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 16:44:00 -
[457]
Originally by: Beverly Sparks
Or are you saying that auto cannons should be able to do low damage at ranges outside of blasters effective range.
AC work in fall off so they should do good dmg within that area.
Originally by: Beverly Sparks Or are you saying that Lasers can compete with auto cannons and blasters in all but very short range as long as the transverse speeds don't get to high, as well as hit for high damage well past either of the other 2's effective ranges.
When you consider the available targets for BS (IE: other BS and BC) the lower tracking of pulse is not much of a issue and when ships get close enough and fast enough for lasers to start really missing AC and vblasters tend to miss as well.
Originally by: Beverly Sparks What are you saying? I think you need to go play with the tracking guide a bit more through a full range of Sig radius, and transverse speeds, with the 3 weapons listed above.
I am saying that ALL short range weapon systems (BLASTERS/AC/PULSE) have problems when a target is moving fast and at ultra close range, but some of them (blasters/ac) have a optimal (MAX DMG AREA) near or in ultra close range, and the other (PULSE) has a optimal of 45km....
Originally by: Beverly Sparks It will become pretty evident that Blaster/AC relationship is ok, and that it is lasers that are way out of whack.
Very true from a certain kind of perspective but nerfing lasers will not fix the issues with blasters and ac.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
dalman
Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 17:17:00 -
[458]
Edited by: dalman on 21/02/2009 17:24:57
Originally by: Beverly Sparks
Originally by: dalman
Pretty much yea. But as I said earlier in the thread: Blasters still need a tracking boost compared to autocannons. Or are you actually suggesting that it's balanced that autocannons with much better range also have better tracking than blasters? (hint: look at fitting electrons/ions on a hyperion or dominix, it's completely messed up)
Unmodified 800mm Repeating Artillery II = 0.0432 Rads Unmodified Neutron Blaster Cannon II = 0.0433 Rads Unmodified Mega Pulse Laser II = 0.03375
So no, you are wrong, or are you actually suggesting that Blasters should do far superior damage, and have the same tracking as auto cannons producing a superior result at very close range?
Or are you saying that auto cannons should be able to do low damage at ranges outside of blasters effective range.
Or are you saying that Lasers can compete with auto cannons and blasters in all but very short range as long as the transverse speeds don't get to high, as well as hit for high damage well past either of the other 2's effective ranges.
What are you saying? I think you need to go play with the tracking guide a bit more through a full range of Sig radius, and transverse speeds, with the 3 weapons listed above.
It will become pretty evident that Blaster/AC relationship is ok, and that it is lasers that are way out of whack.
Learn to read.
The neutron/800 tracking is pretty much ok since they have quite comparable range. The ion/650 is not. And the electron/d425 comparision is just hilarious. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 18:20:00 -
[459]
Originally by: Murina AC work in fall off so they should do good dmg within that area.
When you consider the available targets for BS (IE: other BS and BC) the lower tracking of pulse is not much of a issue and when ships get close enough and fast enough for lasers to start really missing AC and vblasters tend to miss as well.
I am saying that ALL short range weapon systems (BLASTERS/AC/PULSE) have problems when a target is moving fast and at ultra close range, but some of them (blasters/ac) have a optimal (MAX DMG AREA) near or in ultra close range, and the other (PULSE) has a optimal of 45km....
Very true from a certain kind of perspective but nerfing lasers will not fix the issues with blasters and ac.
I was not actually responding to anything that you have said Murina. I was responding to the other guy that is saying that blasters need buffing compared to AC's. AC's work in falloff, and do meaningful damage. I would not say that it is good damage. Although the ability to pick damage type does offset this somewhat.
The problem however does not solely lie in weapons. Each weapon type should have it's strengths and weaknesses. The ship design, bonus's, slot layouts, modules etc, should be available to get yourself into your strong area.
This relates to the overall vision of the type of warfare each faction is supposed to have. I don't think there is a clear defined method of combat for each faction. This seems like the overall vision was not clear from the onset.
If Gallente blaster boats are supposed to be the kings of damage at very close range, then their ships should support this. Give them a MWD thrust bonus, but also give them a severe cap penalty for using it. They can do interceptor type speeds with their cruisers, but only for very short durations. This supports their play style. Also once in this position they should have the ability to pin their enemy down, and lay waste to them.
Minmatar, built to orbit at high speed and out-track their opponent. MWD cap Usage bonus, plus tracking bonus's standard.
These are the types of things that I see lacking in Eve. It seems to me that a lot of it is arbitrary. How do long range webs support Minmatar's play style. They are nice, yes, but where is the "The Whole is more then the sum of it's parts " type stuff.
I would have thought tracking disruptors would be more valuable to a race that bases it's combat around speed. And Neut seems to be more fitting for a race that has capless weapons. So, as far as I can see, the Amarr and the Minmatar should just swap recon special abilities.
Amarr, would benefit far more from web range bonus's since that is what they need to keep ships from over-running them and keep them out where their guns should be most effective.
Etc etc etc.
Why design a ship that operates at close range but provides no system on that ship to get it there. Or why design a ship that operates at range, but has no ability to keep it's enemies away from itself. If this were real life military equipment, the designers would be fired.
I guess that turned into a bit of a rant. Having said all that, whatever. The rest of the game is superb.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 18:58:00 -
[460]
Edited by: Murina on 21/02/2009 19:03:13
Originally by: Beverly Sparks
The problem however does not solely lie in weapons. Each weapon type should have it's strengths and weaknesses. The ship design, bonus's, slot layouts, modules etc, should be available to get yourself into your strong area.
This relates to the overall vision of the type of warfare each faction is supposed to have. I don't think there is a clear defined method of combat for each faction. This seems like the overall vision was not clear from the onset.
The fact is that you are training a race for years and then having it adjusted so you suck in all but your "role" area is stupid, this is now WOW where you can power level a class in a few days.
Also the way combat works in eve some races and their classes of ships will be reduced to uselessness while others become totally overpowered as we see with amarr pulse BS at the moment.
Lasers get all the benefits of their massive optimal while almost matching the dps of blasters in close. While blasters have a tiny optimal (4.5km with AM loaded in neutron blasters) that suffers from being very close to the range that no BS can hit at(-2kmish) unless the target is stationary.
I have no problem with each race being "best" at certain aspects of combat (although being good in solo BS work is rather pointless) but the idea that because of this certain races should be useless at the other aspects (IE: blaster BS in gang combat) while other excel at most and are good at the rest (amarr BS in virtually every style) is just wrong.
PS: Giving amarr a web range bonus would just make them even more overpowered.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 19:09:00 -
[461]
I agree Murina, however. I don't think they are ever going to get out of this vicious loop unless they step back and design how these ships work. If they continue to simply nerf the FOTM, this could go on forever.
But we both agree on the fact that lasers effective range is way to large, or more specifically, that they are way to effective in close where they shouldn't be. Pulse lasers of all sizes are stepping on the toes of Blasters and AC's, and it is not right.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 19:16:00 -
[462]
Originally by: Beverly Sparks I agree Murina, however. I don't think they are ever going to get out of this vicious loop unless they step back and design how these ships work. If they continue to simply nerf the FOTM, this could go on forever.
But we both agree on the fact that lasers effective range is way to large, or more specifically, that they are way to effective in close where they shouldn't be. Pulse lasers of all sizes are stepping on the toes of Blasters and AC's, and it is not right.
I think that a nerf to lasers will not make blaster BS better in gangs so its a pointless nerf, but giving blasters and AC a buff in the 10-20km range as well as a tracking buff to compensate for the web nerf will let them be marginally effective in gangs (stepping on the toes of lasers as lasers are stepping on theirs) while allowing amarr to still hold the crown.
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 - 2009.02.21 19:26:00 -
[463]
Edited by: NightmareX on 21/02/2009 19:26:10
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 21/02/2009 19:22:46
Originally by: Beverly Sparks I agree Murina, however. I don't think they are ever going to get out of this vicious loop unless they step back and design how these ships work. If they continue to simply nerf the FOTM, this could go on forever.
But we both agree on the fact that lasers effective range is way to large, or more specifically, that they are way to effective in close where they shouldn't be. Pulse lasers of all sizes are stepping on the toes of Blasters and AC's, and it is not right.
I think that a nerf to lasers will not make blaster BS better in gangs so its a pointless nerf, but giving blasters and AC a buff in the 10-20km range as well as a tracking buff to compensate for the web nerf will let them be marginally effective in gangs (stepping on the toes of lasers as lasers are stepping on theirs) while allowing amarr to still hold the crown in BS gang combat.
Murina, when you say the Lasers are overpowered, isn't it clearly what kind of weapon that need to be changed / nerfed?.
But hey, for me, the weapons can be like they are now, because as i see it, they are all good in it's own ways.
Also, where the Lasers are good, there will Autocannons be crap, And where Autocannons or Blasters are good, there is Lasers crap.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 19:42:00 -
[464]
Edited by: Murina on 21/02/2009 19:44:20
Originally by: NightmareX
Murina, when you say the Lasers are overpowered, isn't it clearly what kind of weapon that need to be changed / nerfed?.
Its all relative, lasers are OP compared to blasters that are useless in gang combat and as such nerfing lasers will not make blasters better in gang combat, so you narrow the gap a little by boosting blasters.
Originally by: NightmareX Also, where the Lasers are good, there will Autocannons be crap, And where Autocannons or Blasters are good, there is Lasers crap.
Wrong lasers are good at all ranges from 0-45km while blasters are only good at 0-10km.
Pulse work fine in close range(-15km) against BS's realistically available targets......can blasters even hit over 30km????......nope, and that is why they should be better than they are at the moment in the 10-20km range.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 19:45:00 -
[465]
Originally by: dalman
Learn to read.
The neutron/800 tracking is pretty much ok since they have quite comparable range. The ion/650 is not. And the electron/d425 comparision is just hilarious.
I know how to read. You are now saying that 800/Neutron is ok. That is something you did not say in your earlier post. Lets look at all the stats and not just tracking, since tracking, damage mod, and ROF are all related to giving you overall DPS in a turret. Since they are not leaving the relative strength of the ROF's or of the damage mods in line, we can assume that the tracking will not be in line either.
For simplicity lets set up a benchmark. We will go with (Damage Mod x Tracking)/ROF.
Results...
800 = .01774 Neutron = .02309
So with the weapon comparison you say is ok Neutrons have a 130% higher becnchmark.
D650's = .01877 Ion = .023
So the Ion benchmark was only 122%. A decrease of 8%. Ok so you may be on to soemthing here.
D425's = .0198 Electron = .02333
And finally Electrons ended up with only 117% of the D425's benchmark.
Furthermore, the optimal and Falloff of the blaster is decreasing as you downsize the gun whereas the AC falloff does not, and the AC optimal isn't really that important anyway. Thus shrinking the effective operating range of the gun much much much more then AC's.
Ok, I will concede there is something a little messed up with that. I don't think the type of fix you want, (ie tracking) is really going to get it done for you. I would be looking for a smaller decrease in optimal or no decrease in falloff as you downsize weapons. That is what is killing you, not 5-10% tracking. Your optimal drops from 7200-4800 and your falloff drops from 10000 to 6000.
That's pretty crappy. As you downsize guns, your effective range (Opt + falloff) goes from 17200 to 10800. In comparison to AC's which go from 20800 to 19840.
So yea... there is something wrong there.
|
dalman
Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 20:11:00 -
[466]
Edited by: dalman on 21/02/2009 20:11:41
Originally by: Beverly Sparks
This relates to the overall vision of the type of warfare each faction is supposed to have. I don't think there is a clear defined method of combat for each faction. This seems like the overall vision was not clear from the onset.
If Gallente blaster boats are supposed to be the kings of damage at very close range, then their ships should support this...
Let's make one thing perfectly clear from you: "methods of combat for each faction" was very clear from the onset. When this game was launched, Gallente ships had a damage bonus to blasters. As in, not to hybrid turrets but to blasters only. Whereas most Caldari ships had a range bonus to railguns only. It was perfectly clear to everyone that Gallente was the kings of shortrange and more or less useless at range.
This eventually changed - you may be aware that there's been a few patches over the 6 years - and the differences were all blurred out. CCP then tried to bring back various unique racial stuff with how the T2 ships were decined. (sidenote: you might for example be shocked to learn that ECM was originally a Gallente thing and a high-slot module (this was changed already in beta though))
Anyway, the situation is that blasters are stuck in a limbo and has been so for 5 years:
- On the one hand is the part of the playerbase that wants a blurred out sandbox who can not accept that Gallente would "reign supreme" at extremely short ranges.
- On the other hand is the players who consider "short-medium range" to be the amarr and minmatar playground and who therefore can't accept any Gallente intrusions into that.
...leaving Gallente in a situation where they are inferior in gangs due to (2) and not niched enough due to (1). Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 20:14:00 -
[467]
Originally by: dalman ]
Anyway, the situation is that blasters are stuck in a limbo and has been so for 5 years:
* On the one hand is the part of the playerbase that wants a blurred out sandbox who can not accept that Gallente would "reign supreme" at extremely short ranges.
* On the other hand is the players who consider "short-medium range" to be the amarr and minmatar playground and who therefore can't accept any Gallente intrusions into that.
...leaving Gallente in a situation where they are inferior in gangs due to (2) and not niched enough due to (1).
Gallente are kings of the short range.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 20:18:00 -
[468]
Edited by: Murina on 21/02/2009 20:21:00
Originally by: Goumindong
Gallente are kings of the short range.
In what ships....?, just cos they have the highest on paper DPS does not make them kings of short range, amarr hold the title in short range TQ BS combat without contention.
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 - 2009.02.21 20:23:00 -
[469]
Thorax, Myrmidon, Hyperion, Taranis...
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 20:27:00 -
[470]
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.......
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
|
oMAKo
Gallente Kiroshi Group
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 20:28:00 -
[471]
Originally by: Goumindong Thorax, Myrmidon, Hyperion, Taranis...
Hype & Myrm???
I lol'd ------------- Kiroshi Group ------------- |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 20:35:00 -
[472]
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.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 20:38:00 -
[473]
Originally by: Goumindong Thorax, Myrmidon, Hyperion, Taranis...
I see why people give you such a hard time here.
|
dalman
Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 20:40:00 -
[474]
Originally by: Beverly Sparks I know how to read. You are now saying that 800/Neutron is ok. That is something you did not say in your earlier post. Lets look at all the stats and not just tracking, since tracking, damage mod, and ROF are all related to giving you overall DPS in a turret. Since they are not leaving the relative strength of the ROF's or of the damage mods in line, we can assume that the tracking will not be in line either.
For simplicity lets set up a benchmark. We will go with (Damage Mod x Tracking)/ROF.
Results...
800 = .01774 Neutron = .02309
So with the weapon comparison you say is ok Neutrons have a 130% higher becnchmark.
D650's = .01877 Ion = .023
So the Ion benchmark was only 122%. A decrease of 8%. Ok so you may be on to soemthing here.
D425's = .0198 Electron = .02333
And finally Electrons ended up with only 117% of the D425's benchmark.
Furthermore, the optimal and Falloff of the blaster is decreasing as you downsize the gun whereas the AC falloff does not, and the AC optimal isn't really that important anyway. Thus shrinking the effective operating range of the gun much much much more then AC's.
Ok, I will concede there is something a little messed up with that. I don't think the type of fix you want, (ie tracking) is really going to get it done for you. I would be looking for a smaller decrease in optimal or no decrease in falloff as you downsize weapons. That is what is killing you, not 5-10% tracking. Your optimal drops from 7200-4800 and your falloff drops from 10000 to 6000.
That's pretty crappy. As you downsize guns, your effective range (Opt + falloff) goes from 17200 to 10800. In comparison to AC's which go from 20800 to 19840.
So yea... there is something wrong there.
Well, my 2 previous posts are here and here, and I'm very certain that I pointed out electrons and ions in both of them.
Your choice of "index" is a very bad choice. The only real such comparision is tracking * intended range, which simply should be roughly the same for every weapon (since the weapons should track equally good if used at their intended range). But at the end of your post you at least start to see the light.
Tbh it's quite unbelievable how pilots of smaller shipclasses are not raging over this. As it is now, autocannons have the tracking as if their intended range was at their extremely short optimal range - but in fact they reach much much further to ranges where they hence track extremely well. Why all frigate pilots have just accepted that they get shredded by imbalanced autocannons on vagas/ruptures/stabbers is beyond me.
And no, I don't really care about whether they boost blasters or nerf other guns as long as something is done about the obvious imbalance in tracking. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 20:42:00 -
[475]
Edited by: Murina on 21/02/2009 20:44:03
Originally by: NightmareX
Worthless 1 v 1 BS scenario....
It only shows that the Lasers are not good in the 0-10 km distance.
Oh god more 1 v 1 sissi pvp stories....
Nope it shows you are clueless about the reality of TQ BS pvp.
Anyway did i say lasers were the best at close range????, did i say they were better than blasters ect at close range????. I think i said they were effecting at under 10km while blasters did 0 dmg from 30-45km.
Il tell you what when TQ becomes full of roaming solo BS pilots and you cannot travel without tripping over a roaming solo BS pvper then come on this thread and start preaching your "i iz uber on sissi" crap ok...
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 - 2009.02.21 20:50:00 -
[476]
Edited by: NightmareX on 21/02/2009 20:51:52
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 21/02/2009 20:44:03
Originally by: NightmareX
Worthless 1 v 1 BS scenario....
It only shows that the Lasers are not good in the 0-10 km distance.
Oh god more 1 v 1 sissi pvp stories....
Nope it shows you are clueless about the reality of TQ BS pvp.
Anyway did i say lasers were the best at close range????, did i say they were better than blasters ect at close range????. I think i said they were effecting at under 10km while blasters did 0 dmg from 30-45km.
Il tell you what when TQ becomes full of roaming solo BS pilots and you cannot travel without tripping over a roaming solo BS pvper then come on this thread and start preaching your "i iz uber on sissi" crap ok...
And all you can say is yadda yadda blah blah?.
Like i said. Whatever you say about me and Sisi or whatever, it's shown that when i'm close to an Amarr BS and start to orbit them, they will get in trouble.
Now, what is your argument against that?.
Don't even start the **** talk about me and sisi, because if you do, it only means you don't know **** about Lasers or don't know what to say against it.
Prove me wrong if you can dude.
All i'm saying is that Lasers are not directly good in the 0-10 km distance when the targets are moving.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 20:58:00 -
[477]
Edited by: Murina on 21/02/2009 21:00:34
Originally by: NightmareX
Prove me wrong if you can dude.
Fine.
1. TQ close range BS fighting is GANG combat not 1 v 1, and as such it is totally imposable for you to be at close range to multiple ships all at the same time. You maybe close to 1 and he may get a reduction in his dps because of it but his buddies are gonna melt you.
2. As you clearly state the amarr BS was hitting you inside 10km although for a reduced amount meaning that they can still hit at those ranges, while blasters do 0 dmg at pulse optimal...
THAT is why your silly sissi 1 v 1 stats and scenarios are a waste of time.
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 - 2009.02.21 21:03:00 -
[478]
Edited by: NightmareX on 21/02/2009 21:05:10
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 21/02/2009 20:59:08 Edited by: Murina on 21/02/2009 20:58:10
Originally by: NightmareX
Whatever you say about me and Sisi or whatever, it's shown that when i'm close to an Amarr BS and start to orbit them, they will get in trouble.
Prove me wrong if you can dude.
Fine.
1. TQ close range BS fighting is GANG combat not 1 v 1, and as such it is totally imposable for you to be at close range to multiple ships all at the same time. You maybe close to 1 and he may get a reduction in his dps because of it but his buddies are gonna melt you.
2. As you clearly state the amarr BS was hitting you inside 10km although for a reduced amount meaning that they can still hit at those ranges, while blasters do 0 dmg at pulse optimal...
THAT is why your silly sissi 1 v 1 stats and scenarios are a waste of time.
Do you want me to make a 10x Tempest vs 10x any Amarr BS gang on sisi to prove it?.
I can fraps it to, so you have the damn evidence that when we are close to any Amarr BS'es, they are in BIG troubles if the Tempest gang is moving while shooting.
You wanna bet on who will win that fight?.
I can bet 100 mill TQ isk on that the Tempest gang will slaughter the Amarr BS gang.
I will wait for Murina to say awwww boooo it's sisi still. But hey, it will not be 1 vs 1 now. This time it will be a more gang fight like it is on TQ.
If you deny to bet 100 mill isk on this, you have totally proven to be the biggest failure in this topic.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:08:00 -
[479]
Originally by: NightmareX
Do you want me to make a 10x Tempest vs 10x any Amarr BS gang on sisi to prove it?.
I can fraps it to, so you have the damn evidence that when we are close to any Amarr BS'es, they are in BIG troubles if the Tempest gang is moving while shooting.
You wanna bet on who will win that fight?.
I can bet 100 mill TQ isk on that the Tempest gang will slaughter the Amarr BS gang.
I will wait for Murina to say awwww boooo it's sisi still. But hey, it will not be 1 vs 1 now. This time it will be a more gang fight like it is on TQ.
If you deny to bet 100 mill isk on this, you have totally proven to be the biggest failure in this topic.
The mini gang would lose unless the amarr gang were morons or told to deliberately lose........
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Tankanaka
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:08:00 -
[480]
I agree with Nightmare on that one. You are constantly implying that Amarr do insane dmg from 0-45km. This just isn't true. It's obvious you're upset that your ships aren't op kings they once were and therefore are padding the details to make your case sound better. When someone replies with data that goes against this you come back with a childish response. I am fully spec'd in both races. The first time I flew a Mega I was blown away how amazing it was in smaller gangs. Yeah Amarr are mid range ships which now seems to be the most common type of combat in eve. Well here's a clue. Train Amarr if you want to do mid range combat.
|
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:10:00 -
[481]
Edited by: NightmareX on 21/02/2009 21:15:46
Originally by: Murina The mini gang would lose unless the amarr gang were morons or told to deliberately lose........
Ok then, wanna bet on it?.
100 mill TQ isk.
The fight will be on sisi when sisi is up and running with a stable build.
Atm sisi is to unstable and the Database is not working good.
And lets hope i can manage to put together 2 gangs with 10 peoples on each gangs though. I will just do it to prove it once for all that someone in this topic is horribly wrong.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:13:00 -
[482]
Originally by: Tankanaka You are constantly implying that Amarr do insane dmg from 0-45km.
I have never claimed lasers do insane dmg, you are exaggerating my facts to try and discredit them because you disagree with them.
Originally by: Tankanaka Train Amarr if you want to do mid range combat.
19ish days to amarr BS lvl5....
PS: ppl pestered me to post with my main or give his name so do the same or go away.
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 - 2009.02.21 21:15:00 -
[483]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Murina The mini gang would lose unless the amarr gang were morons or told to deliberately lose........
Ok then, wanna bet on it?.
100 mill TQ isk.
The fight will be on sisi when sisi is up and running with a stable build.
Atm sisi is to unstable and the Database is not working good.
And lets hope i can manage to put together 2 gangs with 10 peoples on each gangs though.
Sure.
Although the gangs will be fully inspected for relative SP, XP and ringers or those who may deliberately lose....
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 - 2009.02.21 21:19:00 -
[484]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 21/02/2009 21:20:40
Originally by: dalman Why all frigate pilots have just accepted that they get shredded by imbalanced autocannons on vagas/ruptures/stabbers is beyond me.
Imbalanced?
There isnt that much of a difference in a frigate in getting shot at by rupture with barrage or thorax with null btw, they'll die just as quick, not even taking drones into account here.
And stabber? It gets owned by frigates if they know what to do, I can solo a stabber in the jaguar not going into half sheild.
And it would be pretty ridiculous whining about getting shred by a ship that excels at killing frigates like the vagabond, right?
ACs and blasters are perfectly in line with each other, dont forget the damage dealt and the fact that the ships they are mounted on are working quite different.
So if you boost blasters, regardless being it tracking, damage mod or whatever, ACs need a comparable boost for sure.
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:36:00 -
[485]
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.
-- Zuba |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:45:00 -
[486]
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.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
dalman
Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:46:00 -
[487]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 21/02/2009 21:20:40
Originally by: dalman Why all frigate pilots have just accepted that they get shredded by imbalanced autocannons on vagas/ruptures/stabbers is beyond me.
Imbalanced?
There isnt that much of a difference in a frigate in getting shot at by rupture with barrage or thorax with null btw, they'll die just as quick, not even taking drones into account here.
And stabber? It gets owned by frigates if they know what to do, I can solo a stabber in the jaguar not going into half sheild.
And it would be pretty ridiculous whining about getting shred by a ship that excels at killing frigates like the vagabond, right?
ACs and blasters are perfectly in line with each other, dont forget the damage dealt and the fact that the ships they are mounted on are working quite different.
So if you boost blasters, regardless being it tracking, damage mod or whatever, ACs need a comparable boost for sure.
dual 180mm with barrage (no ship bonus): optimal + falloff = 17,400 tracking = 1.2375 tracking * range = tracks a target going 2,153 m/s transversal
heavy electron with null (no ship bonus): optimal + falloff = 8,437.5 tracking = 0.1125 tracking * range = tracks a target going 949 m/s transversal
Factoring in shooting at frigs (roughly 40 radius / 125 resolution), that means: the AC track a frig going with 689 m/s transversal the blaster track a frig going with 304 m/s transversal
Yea, no difference at all
The only reason the vagabond excels at killing frigates is because the low-end autocannons are so out of balance in tracking.
(though the case is such that the low-end blasters should be given a small boost to tracking and the low-end autocannons should get a small nerf to tracking, rather than a bigger change to just one of them) Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:47:00 -
[488]
Originally by: Zubakis
Stop posting your 1vs1 comparisons, they are useless.
While I agree 1vs1 stats should not necessarily be a benchmark for a ships worth, they arent worthless at all, quite the contrary they are much needed to get a full picture.
If you just look at gang stats you increase gang size and end up with a pure dps/range ratio to determine a ships worth.
So to get a complete picture, you have to look at all of them, 1on1, small gangs, medium gangs, large fleets. If you dont you are just deliberately mudding down the waters.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:50:00 -
[489]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 21/02/2009 21:50:54
Originally by: dalman
The only reason the vagabond excels at killing frigates is because the low-end autocannons are so out of balance in tracking.
Completely wrong, the only reason the vagabond excels at killing frigates is that tracking is irrelevant at 20km when you can negate 3/4 of the frigs transversal by mobing top speed.
180s on the vaga dont track a frigate below 8km at all.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:51:00 -
[490]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Zubakis
Stop posting your 1vs1 comparisons, they are useless.
While I agree 1vs1 stats should not necessarily be a benchmark for a ships worth, they arent worthless at all, quite the contrary they are much needed to get a full picture.
It was interesting to note that in the 1 v 1 BS scenario the pulse were still doing dmg inside 10km (the optimal range ppl relegated blasters to be "roled" into) while in the 30-45km pulse "roled" range blasters just happen to do 0 dmg...........
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 - 2009.02.21 21:52:00 -
[491]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: dalman
The only reason the vagabond excels at killing frigates is because the low-end autocannons are so out of balance in tracking.
Completely wrong, the only reason the vagabond excels at killing frigates is that tracking is irrelevant at 20km when you can negate 3/4 of the frigs transversal by mobing top speed.
180s on the vaga dont track a frigate below 8km at all.
The zealot is a rather nice frig killer as well......
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 - 2009.02.21 21:54:00 -
[492]
Originally by: Murina
It was interesting to note that in the 1 v 1 BS scenario the pulse were still doing dmg inside 10km (the optimal range ppl relegated blasters to be "roled" into) while in the 30-45km pulse "roled" range blasters just happen to do 0 dmg...........
Yea well, compare large ACs with pulses and you are even worse off than blasters imo, but thats my opinion.
Pulses are superior to ACs at all ranges basically, ACs might reach out far with barrage but the dps is laughable at best.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:55:00 -
[493]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 21/02/2009 21:56:32
Originally by: Murina
The zealot is a rather nice frig killer as well......
Well with the zealot it makes sense to pimp up tracking to a point where you shred frigates at all ranges even, its the better frigate killer than the vaga.
Besides its damage output is not rubbish, take into account that a vaga does about 50-60% of its onpaper dps at the range it can really track frigs well, not so for the zealot.
|
dalman
Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:59:00 -
[494]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: dalman
The only reason the vagabond excels at killing frigates is because the low-end autocannons are so out of balance in tracking.
Completely wrong, the only reason the vagabond excels at killing frigates is that tracking is irrelevant at 20km when you can negate 3/4 of the frigs transversal by mobing top speed.
180s on the vaga dont track a frigate below 8km at all.
The zealot is a rather nice frig killer as well......
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. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 22:03:00 -
[495]
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.
If you ask me, they are just overpowered in the damage department, I can see why pulse lasers should track best (tracking at max range, which is kind of a one-sided stat btw) followed by autocannons and then heavy blasters.
What I cant see however is why a pimped flashlight should do more damage than a projectile with nuclear warhead or a chunk of pure antimatter though...
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 22:06:00 -
[496]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
If you ask me, they are just overpowered in the damage department, I can see why pulse lasers should track best (tracking at max range, which is kind of a one-sided stat btw) followed by autocannons and then heavy blasters.
The longer the range the less tracking is needed to hit.
Originally by: Lilith Velkor What I cant see however is why a pimped flashlight should do more damage than a projectile with nuclear warhead or a chunk of pure antimatter though...
RL comparisons = meh.
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 - 2009.02.21 22:17:00 -
[497]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 21/02/2009 22:27:51
Originally by: Murina
Exactly, the longer the range the less tracking is needed to hit, that is why blasters need a major boost to tracking with the web nerf ect.
I'd rather like to see them getting a considerable damage boost if any tbh, as tracking boost (especially a 'major' one) will open a whole new can of worms. The web nerf was much needed thing for small ships against bigger ones, and kinda reverting that with a tracking boost to guns (in general, not only blasters) wouldnt be a good idea.
Giving them their teeth back against their respective class by upping dps looks more sensible to me, besides tracking can then be achieved by fitting while keeping 'old' dps.
Quote: RL comparisons = meh.
I know there is railguns, but did they invent blasters by now in RL?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 22:38:00 -
[498]
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.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 22:41:00 -
[499]
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.
|
dalman
Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 22:47:00 -
[500]
Edited by: dalman on 21/02/2009 22:54:49
Originally by: Lilith Velkor (tracking at max range, which is kind of a one-sided stat btw)
Of course it is a one-sided stat.
If you read up, you'll see me talking about "intended range". And that is a proper stat to use. To "correctly" balance the turrets, the devs will have to sit down and think about what the intended range should be for each turret. And then adjust tracking on all of them so that tracking * range is roughly the same for all guns.
Since guns have different falloff, we'll of course end up with some balancing issues in this. Like the low-end autocannons. And ofc it's also ok so say that "yes indeed, the dual 425mm shall have an intended range of 2km but come with the huge bonus of being able to hit up to 30km range with - with a greatly overdimensioned tracking at that range letting it rip cruisers". As long as it has to pay for it in other areas. But atm it does not. It has very low fitting reqs, uses no cap and does decent DPS.
So the situation today is that:
- low-end blasters are considerably underpowered. Should have their tracking boosted (keeping them distinctly different from other races with their short range).
- high-end blasters and high-end autocannons are fairly balanced.
- low-end autocannons are considerably overpowered. Need to have either range or tracking or dps nerfed - I suggest tracking.
The only reason ppl aren't moaning so much about this is because of the lenient fitting reqs on 800mm cannons - there's simply so few ppl that use these (and as I said, for some strange reason frigates seems to have accepted the overpowered dual 180s).
- lasers are overpowered. Probably less overpowered than the dual425 vs electrons comparision - but it's a bigger issue since the high-end ones are overpowered. I'd suggest a tracking nerf on the megapulses and an optimal range nerf on the dual heavies.[/*]
Originally by: Goumindong 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.
Yes - just like the amarr/minmatar player gets a big bonus from holding a Gallente electron blaster at say 6-7km, the same gallente electron blaster should have a big bonus from tracking if it gets within say 1km range.
That's the whole point of balancing you know... Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 22:53:00 -
[501]
Originally by: dalman
If you read up, you'll see me talking about "intended range". And that is a proper stat to use
No, its not. PvP fights do not happen with each ship at their "intended range". They fight with ships at whatever range they happen to be at.
I could just as well say that railguns are imbalanced because their tracking at range is so much better than everything else. Except that would be ******ed as explained above and as we have gone over many many many times before.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 22:58:00 -
[502]
Originally by: dalman
Yes - just like the amarr/minmatar player gets a big bonus from holding a Gallente electron blaster at say 6-7km, the same gallente electron blaster should have a big bonus from tracking if it gets within say 1km range.
That's the whole point of balancing you know...
They do. Do you even look at the relative advantages? Good lord, at lower ranges, gallente ships tear things apart. They have great damage types, high DPS, just as much tracking as anything else(and relatively large tanks).(though their sig radius might be a bit high).
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 23:02:00 -
[503]
Originally by: dalman
(and as I said, for some strange reason frigates seems to have accepted the overpowered dual 180s).
And as I said, for frigates it makes 0 difference if its a 425mm or a 180mm, it will either track perfect if you are at the proper range or it doesnt track at all.
The reason people choose 180s over 220s are fitting, and nothing else. If you cant track it with 220s, you wont track it with 180s.
Also, with autocannons you get so little dps increase for sizing up it is generally not worth the extra pg compared to blasters.
|
dalman
Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 23:14:00 -
[504]
Originally by: Goumindong They have great damage types
Err, so now you're even saying that it's great to do the most resisted damagetypes I'd say that that sums up pretty much all of what you're saying.
Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 23:24:00 -
[505]
Originally by: dalman
Originally by: Goumindong They have great damage types
Err, so now you're even saying that it's great to do the most resisted damagetypes I'd say that that sums up pretty much all of what you're saying.
Dalman old buddy, it's pointless getting into any argument with Goum, he trolls these threads and just plays word games. I'm now under the impression, he's on a massive goon type troll fest through these forums.
He'll have you believe he's the last stand against bad balance decisions, with a hot line direct to the devs.
Regards Mag's |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 23:35:00 -
[506]
Originally by: dalman
Fights happen with one ship pretty much at its "intended" range and one ship pretty much at its "oooops f**k up"-range.
So why is the laser ship always the one at its "intended" range and the blaster ship always the one at its "oooops **** up" range when we're talking about stuff like this?
Quote:
Err, so now you're even saying that it's great to do the most resisted damagetypes I'd say that that sums up pretty much all of what you're saying.
If by "the most resisted" you mean "the least resisted" then yes. Kin and therm are not the most resisted damage types. They might be the most resisted damage types when people tank like idiots(tri-hardening is dumb, provably so, as has been done many times) or maybe people simply know what you're flying and they making smart choices from that colors your perceptions?
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 23:48:00 -
[507]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: dalman
Fights happen with one ship pretty much at its "intended" range and one ship pretty much at its "oooops f**k up"-range.
So why is the laser ship always the one at its "intended" range and the blaster ship always the one at its "oooops **** up" range when we're talking about stuff like this?
Just maybe it's because a Mega ends up being far away from it's target 90% of the time? Amarrs intended range is everything below 45km and 8km upwards as they outperform every other BS gun on that range. Should we start calculating propabilitys or do a gazillion of possible scenarios? Or is it now obvious enough that there's something wrong?
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
dalman
Vale Tudo. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 23:52:00 -
[508]
Originally by: Goumindong
So why is the laser ship always the one at its "intended" range and the blaster ship always the one at its "oooops **** up" range when we're talking about stuff like this?
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...
Originally by: Goumindong
If by "the most resisted" you mean "the least resisted" then yes. Kin and therm are not the most resisted damage types. They might be the most resisted damage types when people tank like idiots(tri-hardening is dumb, provably so, as has been done many times) or maybe people simply know what you're flying and they making smart choices from that colors your perceptions?
When I make a general statement, which "most resisted damagetypes" clearly is, it's not supposed to be applied on a specific situation but on a total average. And ofc it's stupid to triharden (see, now I made another general statement).
And Mag's, I know :) Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 00:00:00 -
[509]
Edited by: Goumindong on 22/02/2009 00:01:21
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". And yes, this thread (and the others like it) contain many prime examples.
Examples of you doing it(though you won't ever use those exact words) can be seen on this very page.
Quote:
When I make a general statement, which "most resisted damagetypes" clearly is, it's not supposed to be applied on a specific situation but on a total average. And ofc it's stupid to triharden (see, now I made another general statement).
On "total average" the two best damage types are kinetic and thermal. Its only in the specific(some t2 ships, foolishly tanked ships) where other damage types become significantly advantageous. Even after the resist changes, kin/thermal are still the best damage types to do to nearly all sniping battleships(Rokh = EM slant, Abaddon = slight ex slant, though i don't have the numbers off hand.)
I was saying that you were wrong.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 00:03:00 -
[510]
Originally by: Goumindong
So why is the laser ship always the one at its "intended" range and the blaster ship always the one at its "oooops **** up" range when we're talking about stuff like this?
"Intended range" is nonsense anyway, make that "enforcable range" and you might have a point.
What is true however, is that a pulse laser ship in small gang engagements (which occur on gates frequently) will most likely be in optimal range at the very beginning of the engagement, while a blaster ship most likely will have to close in first to inflict his full damage potential.
Coupled with the fact that compared to autocannons they dont lose out on most of their dps when shooting far out, one might think they have quite a generous engagement window, more so since crystals can be easily switched.
|
|
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...
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 13:39:00 -
[601]
Originally by: NightmareX Look at me i rule on sissi with my ecm fitted pest omg look at meeeee GUYS GUYS LOOK AT ME...!!!!!
You are the oner in the dream world pal, now crawl back to sissi and your hero worshiped BF area...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
LadyLubU2
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 13:53:00 -
[602]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 13:48:16
Originally by: NightmareX Look at me i rule on sissi with my ecm fitted pest omg look at meeeee GUYS GUYS LOOK AT ME...!!!!!
You are the one in the dream world pal, now crawl back to sissi and your hero worshiped BF area...
This ^^
BACK TO YOUR ****ING CAVE NIGHTMAREX THE WHOLE EVE COMMUNITY ALREADY KNOWS HOW UBAR YOU ARE SINCE YOU POST THAT ON THE FORUMS LIKE OVER 9000 TIMES A DAY, WE DONT CARE ABOUT HOW UBER YOU AND YOUR ****ING TEMPEST ARE, IT DOESNT ADD ONE SINGLE ****ING THING TO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION SO PLEASE REFRAIN FROM THAT COMPLETELY BULL**** FROM NOW ON. AND YES CAPS MAKE ME LOOK COOLER THAN YOU. ---
|
Lalita Prestoc
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 14:00:00 -
[603]
Originally by: Murina
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...
Please do, heaven knows its been explained enough, I want a laugh when you twist things to avoid them.
Hyperions guns use less cap than a LAR. Abaddons use enough cap to run a rep and half of a second rep.
Speed and agility? Hyperion will cover about 25% more distance than a Abaddon (from memory so could be a bit out). Your suggestion of 5km more optimal for less falloff shows this isn't a major issue since that suggestion really wouldn't change how much you mwd about (to targets).
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 14:12:00 -
[604]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 14:13:21
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc
Hyperions guns use less cap than a LAR.
Repping, firing and mwding?.....and you think the abaddon has cap issues compared to the hype...
And active tanking a BS is a non-issue and rare thing in eve in the first place.
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 16:06:00 -
[605]
LOL WUT, was my alt that posted on the earlier post.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 16:11:00 -
[606]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 16:17:02
Originally by: Fatality Killer
What DPS / EHP is, is only 50% of what combat is.
With some ships that is true, but in a BS gang on TQ DPS/range ratios and ehp are the most important attributes.
Originally by: Fatality Killer Then can you tell me how i managed to stay alive to 4 BS'es and one Command Ship in my Kronos on sisi then. Yes it's still sisi, but it's not 1 vs 1 there.
I killed 2 of the BS'es and the CS before the last 2 BS'es realized that couldn't kill me, so they ran.
What makes you think i believe you?....and even if it is true are you such a attention seeking loser that you use this forum and its item/ship threads to brag about you beating noob morons on sissi???...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 16:15:00 -
[607]
I'd love to fly a Mega (the tier 3 ships are too expensive still), however I can't find any reason for doing so. You can overcome its ****-poor tracking by using electrons and dual webs, however that makes its effective range even worse and suddenly you're very vulnerable to neuts due to not being able to fit a cap booster (on the flipside you'll be able to fit a neut or nos yourself). The DPS with an electron fit, even with tripple mag stabs is barely touching 1k so what are the strengths of a Megathron s'posed to be? The fact that anyone with a scrambler can pretty much stop you dead in your tracks doesn't make the situation any better.
The Dominix is an awesome ship, it's just too bad I hate drones (cumbersome and expensive). As for the Hyperion it suffers from many of the same problems that the Mega has, it's just alot more expensive. I'm personally considering for these reasons not to advance my blasters above small specializatio with my alt, lasers are looking mighty tempting.
I just wish I hadn't trained medium hybrids IV.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 16:20:00 -
[608]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 16:20:22
Originally by: Psiri so what are the strengths of a Megathron s'posed to be?
Rail gun sniper ship.......but it sucks at that compared to tachs on a apoc......
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 16:23:00 -
[609]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 16:26:09
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 16:17:02
Originally by: Fatality Killer
What DPS / EHP is, is only 50% of what combat is.
With some ships that is true, but in a BS gang on TQ DPS/range ratios and ehp are the most important attributes.
Originally by: Fatality Killer Then can you tell me how i managed to stay alive to 4 BS'es and one Command Ship in my Kronos on sisi then. Yes it's still sisi, but it's not 1 vs 1 there.
I killed 2 of the BS'es and the CS before the last 2 BS'es realized that couldn't kill me, so they ran.
What makes you think i believe you?....and even if it is true are you such a attention seeking loser that you use this forum and its item/ship threads to brag about you beating noob morons on sissi???...
If you don't believe me about the Kronos, then why should i believe you about all of the Laser crap you are jabbering about?.
And also, when i talk about sisi, you automaticly thinks it's only 1 vs 1 there. But sorry to say it, but it's not.
Recently i have been in gangs there against other ships. And the ships i have used most is my Tempest and a Kronos.
Those 2 ships works really nice in gangs. But when a Kronos is working good in a gang, then i also think a Megathron will work good to.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 16:29:00 -
[610]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 16:32:06
Originally by: NightmareX
If you don't believe me about the Kronos, then why should i believe you about all of the Laser crap you are jabbering about?.
If you choose not to believe me thats fine i only use sissi to actually test things so we will never meet as your little "king of BF1/2/3" empire does not interest me....
All you have is the bleating of a attention seeking child looking to stroke his epeen by bragging about fights that proly did not happen and even if it did you must have been facing noob morons.
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 16:31:00 -
[611]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 16:31:23
Originally by: NightmareX
....Kronos....,
.....Kronos....
....Kronos...
Yea your all about the reality of BS gang pvp on sissi aint ya pal....
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Fatality Killer
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 16:32:00 -
[612]
Edited by: Fatality Killer on 25/02/2009 16:32:32
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 16:31:23
Originally by: NightmareX
....Kronos....,
.....Kronos....
....Kronos...
Yea your all about the reality of BS gang pvp on sissi aint ya pal....
And you think there is no gang fights on sisi?. LOL your so funny now that i'm almost tempted to just troll you.
EDIT: Damn posted with my alt again.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 16:36:00 -
[613]
Originally by: Fatality Killer
And you think there is no gang fights on sisi?.
Yea i see a lot of ppl opn sissi looking to get a gang together and "OWN" FFA1.....
It is odd though cos for some reason ppl tend to fight differently when things only cost 100isk each including t2 rigs 5% implants ect ect.....
Originally by: Fatality Killer LOL your so funny now that i'm almost tempted to just troll you.
That is all you do apart from the occasional lie about your uber solo pwning of noobs,....
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 16:39:00 -
[614]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 16:42:00
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Fatality Killer
And you think there is no gang fights on sisi?.
Yea i see a lot of ppl opn sissi looking to get a gang together and "OWN" FFA1.....
It is odd though cos for some reason ppl tend to fight differently when things only cost 100isk each including t2 rigs 5% implants ect ect.....
Yeah, but even when we OWN FFA 1, we are still fighting in gangs there, right?.
And also, everyone are using t1 rigs on TQ. And on sisi everyone is using Slave sets and that and t2 rigs. I don't see any difference in that other than ship will live a little longer with Slaves and t2 rigs.
Originally by: Fatality Killer LOL your so funny now that i'm almost tempted to just troll you.
That is all you do apart from the occasional lie about your uber solo pwning of noobs,....
And you also think that everyone on sisi is noobs. LOL another reason to just troll you to death because of stupidity.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 16:49:00 -
[615]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 16:52:01
Originally by: NightmareX
Yeah, but even when we OWN FFA 1, we are still fighting in gangs there, right?.
Yea warp in with your gang, kill the ships that are already their alone and not in a organized gang...a real test of skill that...
Originally by: NightmareX And also, everyone are using t1 rigs on TQ. And on sisi everyone is using Slave sets and that and t2 rigs. I don't see any difference in that other than ship will live a little longer with Slaves and t2 rigs.
That is because you live in the 100isk per module dream world instead of TQ.
Longer to kill for starters = more cap used by mwd's, repairers and guns making the fight totally unrealistic. Let alone ppl doing things they normally would not cos the items and ships cos only 100isk.
Originally by: Fatality Killer
And you also think that everyone on sisi is noobs.
Nope but i do think that 4 BS and a CS vs 1 kronos (IF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AS I THINK NOT) means the kronos dies unless the BS and CS are flown by idiots.
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 16:54:00 -
[616]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
Yeah, but even when we OWN FFA 1, we are still fighting in gangs there, right?.
Yea warp in with your gang, kill the ships that are already their alone and not in a organized gang...a real test of skill that...
Originally by: NightmareX And also, everyone are using t1 rigs on TQ. And on sisi everyone is using Slave sets and that and t2 rigs. I don't see any difference in that other than ship will live a little longer with Slaves and t2 rigs.
That is because you live in the 100isk per module dream world instead of TQ.
Longer to kill for starters = more cap used by mwd's and guns making the fight totally unrealistic.
Originally by: Fatality Killer
And you also think that everyone on sisi is noobs.
Nope but i do think that 4 BS and a CS vs 1 kronos (IF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AS I THINK NOT) means the kronos dies unless the BS and CS are flown by idiots.
First. Last time we was a gang of 7 ship in FFA 1, guess what happened?. Yes we got another gang of 8 ships on us. They simply got tired of us killing lone ships with our gang, and bam, they warped 8 BS'es on us. Was a pretty nice fight and lots of explosions on both sides.
Second. What the hell does the isk have to do with PVP on sisi to do?. I have enough isk on TQ to buy alot of **** anyways.
Even when one module cost 100 isk on sisi, it wont stop me from buying the same module to 20 mill isk on TQ.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Lalita Prestoc
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:00:00 -
[617]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 14:44:04
Repping, firing and mwding?.....and you think the abaddon has cap issues compared to the hype...
Plus the PG and cpu needed for a single LAR, rack of nuetrons, cap injector and a mwd = 1 less Armour rig for a pg rig + implants....... And active tanking a BS is a non-issue and rare thing in eve in the first place.
3 x mag stab hype + drones = 1247dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x mag stab mega + drones = 1107dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x heat sink abad + drones = 1126dps with 15km optimal
hyperion has 96.000ehp megathron has 100,000ehp Abaddon has 139,000ehp
MEGA vs Abaddon: -19dps -39,000ehp -300+% optimal range
HYPE vs Abaddon: +101dps -40,000ehp -300+% optimal range
LASERS RULE
A) your setups suck. B) your not comparing comparable setups. C) if active tanking is rare then you should address that rather than "OMG MY SETUP WHICH IGNORES SHIP BONUSES IS WORSE THAN ONE THAT DOESNT AND IS DESIGNED FOR THE ROLE!!!" D) if you think you have to mwd about lots you clearly havn't fought in close range BS fights. If you don't want to pvp and get the experience go watch some pvp movies and see how often they have to mwd after the initial closing is over. E) How about we stop ignoring the 5th mid? F) How often do you MWD about while having to rep (hence your being shot + tackled)? G) Lets just dismiss fitting choice since anything but plate+gank is "rare and non-issue", its that mentality that makes "fads" come and go. First anything but dual reps were "suboptimal", people called single rep setups were "suboptimal" because it didn't have as much repping as dual rep or ehp as passive... each type has there place.
What Amarr BS can run a dual rep tank like the Hyperion? None unless you use some funky dual heavy cap booster none mwd abaddon with a hauler carrying more cap chargers.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:02:00 -
[618]
Originally by: NightmareX
First. Last time we was a gang of 7 ship in FFA 1, guess what happened?. Yes we got another gang of 8 ships on us. They simply got tired of us killing lone ships with our gang, and bam, they warped 8 BS'es on us. Was a pretty nice fight and lots of explosions on both sides.
And that is the first and obvious reality check.
1. A gang on TQ would not just bring 8 BS to fight a 7 man BS gang. 2. The FFA area has other ships in it so its a guess who exactly is in the opposing gang and who is just solo. 3. At 100isk each module and ship a player will not be so worried about getting out if he is primaried.
Originally by: NightmareX Second. What the hell does the isk have to do with PVP on sisi to do?. I have enough isk on TQ to buy alot of **** anyways. Even when one module cost 100 isk on sisi, it wont stop me from buying the same module to 20 mill isk on TQ.
And if it costs 2 billion on TQ?.....
I think you are lying again but even if you are not not everybody has enough isk to throw it around like that..
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
ChalSto
LOCKDOWN. HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:07:00 -
[619]
Originally by: NightmareX stuff about sisi-pvp, kronos and 1337-pest-setups
M8....you play EvE such a long time now and still you have managed to learn NOTHING from your past.
1. Your setups are nowhere near realistic TQ-setups. 2. SISI-pvp is not TQ-pvp (like someone said above, ppl tend to fight different if things cost 100 islandic krones). 3. Kronos is not Megathron. (I dont want to go into the details, but things like Web-bonus, slot-layout, boni, ect ect ect ect). 4. The Tempest itself is more viable and variable than the megathron due to its slot-layout. To compare it with the megathron is like apple and banana. The next gallente-like shiptype that comes close to the Tempest, is the Vindicator/Machariel (in some cases). 5. If you would finaly come down from your "I own n00bs, becouse I can" mentality, you MAY would have some sort of reliability and credibility, which would make you definitely someday a competent pilot and player..... and beside that, it doesnt belong to the Ships&Module Forum. Originally by: Agmar ----------------------------------------------- "The North is so ghey that even the NPCs fly ravens." |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:07:00 -
[620]
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc
A) your setups suck. B) your not comparing comparable setups.
I did not post setups but if you know better ones PROOF OR STFU...
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc D) if you think you have to mwd about lots you clearly havn't fought in close range BS fights.
Lalita Prestoc Losses: 1 Kills: 0
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc E) How about we stop ignoring the 5th mid?
It is not ignored.
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc F) How often do you MWD about while having to rep (hence your being shot + tackled)?
If you are primaried you tend to get tackled and shot.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
|
LadyLubU2
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:12:00 -
[621]
Edited by: LadyLubU2 on 25/02/2009 17:14:03 NightmareX is probably the most stupid, ******ed, ignorant and youngest troll these forums have known to date.
Quote me if your down.
Ps. i on the other hand am the best troll these forums have known. ---
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:14:00 -
[622]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 17:15:34
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
First. Last time we was a gang of 7 ship in FFA 1, guess what happened?. Yes we got another gang of 8 ships on us. They simply got tired of us killing lone ships with our gang, and bam, they warped 8 BS'es on us. Was a pretty nice fight and lots of explosions on both sides.
And that is the first and obvious reality check.
1. A gang on TQ would not just bring 8 BS to fight a 7 man BS gang. 2. The FFA area has other ships in it so its a guess who exactly is in the opposing gang and who is just solo. 3. At 100isk each module and ship a player will not be so worried about getting out if he is primaried.
Originally by: NightmareX Second. What the hell does the isk have to do with PVP on sisi to do?. I have enough isk on TQ to buy alot of **** anyways. Even when one module cost 100 isk on sisi, it wont stop me from buying the same module to 20 mill isk on TQ.
And if it costs 2 billion on TQ?.....
I think you are lying again but even if you are not not everybody has enough isk to throw it around like that..
First. To your first point number 1. I have been in ALOT of roams lately in HAC's and frigs, and have come over lots of gangs all from 2 to 50.
You think TQ is a simple blobbing fest, but it's not if you can use some mins to find a gang you actually can fight. Only dumb players are complaining about aww booohoo, i can't find no one in low sec or 0.0 space to fight. But those are extremely lazy peoples.
To your point number 2. Yes that's true. But the other gang of 8 players did know what we was in, and we had cleared FFA 1 before they warped in, so it was only our gang vs their gang there. Also, we won that fight with 2 battleships left on our gang.
Point number 3. If a thing cost 100 isk on sisi it's just normal stuffs from market. So i don't think i would use another setup on my Tempest on sisi for example only because things cost 100 isk on sisi.
And then to the next thing. Find a normal module on market on TQ that cost 2 bill isk. You might find some, but those will be overpriced by 100000% or something.
And so to the last thing. No i'm not lying at all. Prove me wrong of you dare to do it.
Originally by: LadyLubU2 NightmareX is probably the most stupid, ******ed, ignorant and youngest troll these forums have known to date.
Quote me if your down.
I love you darling.
That was a very detailed explanation of why i'm wrong in what i'm saying.
Can i get a hug from you?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:16:00 -
[623]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 17:17:05
Originally by: NightmareX stupid, LYING, emo, epeen stroking, sissi warrior, noob killing, troll..
Go away.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Fatality Killer
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:18:00 -
[624]
Edited by: Fatality Killer on 25/02/2009 17:20:17
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX stupid, emo, epeen stroking, sissi warrior, noob killing, troll..
Go away.
Says the best of the best uberomgwtfpwnage EFT warrior in EVE.
I'll be a sisi pvper anyday before i'll get a noob EFT warrior like you.
EDIT: LOL that reply must mean nothing more than CRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY I LOST AND HAVE NO WORDS LEFT TO SAY BECAUSE NIGHTMAREX IS RIGHT.
Stupid forum settings that wont have NightmareX as Default Character.
|
ChalSto
LOCKDOWN. HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:18:00 -
[625]
Edited by: ChalSto on 25/02/2009 17:23:23
Originally by: LadyLubU2 Personal attacks, that dont belong to Ships&Modules Forum
He is only unconvinceable.
But still, stop posting stuff like that and get back to topic.
Blasters have a huge problem fighting in the niche they used to be. In the range that they are used and the lastest speed-nerf-patch in combination with the broken tracking-formula screwed up their last bit of usefullnes(s?).
PS: I hope the Mods clean up the threat a bit Originally by: Agmar ----------------------------------------------- "The North is so ghey that even the NPCs fly ravens." |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:22:00 -
[626]
Originally by: Fatality Killer troll
NightmareX Losses: 22 Kills: 209
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 17:25:00 -
[627]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 17:26:57
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Fatality Killer troll
NightmareX Losses: 22 Kills: 209
Memory loss again for you HAHAHAHAH. FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL.
And also, i have proven you earlier in this topic that not all of my kills are on Battleclinic. I even gave you a link to some of my kills that don't exist on Battleclinic.
Now little crying emo kid, go cry in a corner until you see that you lying.
That's all you can do.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:28:00 -
[628]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Fatality Killer troll
NightmareX Losses: 22 Kills: 209
EEEEMMOOO RAAGEEE
You claim you have 400+ MORE kills....PROVE IT... You claim you can beat 4 BS and a CS in a solo marauder...PROVE IT...
OR STFU TROLL.
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 17:31:00 -
[629]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 17:34:20
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Fatality Killer troll
NightmareX Losses: 22 Kills: 209
EEEEMMOOO RAAGEEE
You claim you have 400+ MORE kills....PROVE IT... You claim you can beat 4 BS and a CS in a solo marauder...PROVE IT...
OR STFU TROLL.
Even more EEEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO RAGE.
In total since i started to PVP, yes, i have around 600 kills. And as a proof i posted some kills from EVE-Extra kb that don't exist on Battleclinic. Those are just some very few of those who are missing on Battleclinic.
You can find the link earlier in this topic. Just search after it if you want the proof.
About the Kronos vs 5 others. Well it's not often you can manage to get out of there alive against that. So the chance that i can do the same over again is very low.
But just for the fun part, i'm going to try that when i'm getting home later.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:40:00 -
[630]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 17:40:45
Originally by: NightmareX
In total since i started to PVP, yes, i have around 600 kills.
Proof of 400 more kills or stfu.
Originally by: NightmareX About the Kronos vs 5 others. Well it's not often you can manage to get out of there alive against that. SO the chance that i can do the same over again is not high.
Bailing already??...
Still at least you admit you could only stand a chance against skilless morons....mr uber noob killer...
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 17:42:00 -
[631]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 17:47:37
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 17:40:45
Originally by: NightmareX
In total since i started to PVP, yes, i have around 600 kills.
Proof of 400 more kills or stfu.
Originally by: NightmareX About the Kronos vs 5 others. Well it's not often you can manage to get out of there alive against that. SO the chance that i can do the same over again is not high.
Bailing already??...
Still at least you admit you could only stand a chance against skilless morons....mr uber noob killer...
Oh so your simply saying that even when the chance is very small to win against that, it means they are skilless noobs?.
You have a very strange way of defining peoples and that just because things can be very hard.
About the kills. Ask any TunDraGons members who have been in that corp when i was there. They can confirm that when i joined the first day. I was camping Rancer for like 2 hours the first day. The second day i was online for like 2 hours but was camoing and sniping in a Tempest for like 1 hour.
After those 2 days of playing in TunDraGon (TDG), i had got me 92 killmails that don't exixt on Battleclinic or other killboards. Not sure if the TunDraGon killboard exist today though. But if it does. I'm going to prove the whole EVE galaxy that your the big noob here in this game.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:45:00 -
[632]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 17:45:21
Originally by: NightmareX mememememe and my epeen mememememe and my epeen
Go to caod and do your epeen sissi warrior stroking muppet this thread is for ships and modules and ppl who play on TQ...
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 17:49:00 -
[633]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 17:45:21
Originally by: NightmareX mememememe and my epeen mememememe and my epeen
Go to caod and do your epeen sissi warrior stroking muppet this thread is for ships and modules and ppl who play on TQ...
Wow, that was an awesome answer on why i'm wrong. The more you post like this, the more right i'am. Because you don't know what to answer, because you know i'm right.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Lalita Prestoc
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:52:00 -
[634]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 17:10:23
I did not post setups but if you know better ones....PROOF OR STFU...
The fact that you think you need a heavy cap booster and fitting implants/mods to run a passive tanked Hyperion....
The fact you think that just swapping 1 module from a passive tank to a LAR = realistic rep setup...
You didn't have to post a setup, you just eft'd it in 10 seconds from some other setup designed for some other situation.
Originally by: Murina Post with your main or tell us the name before you make claims on others experience mr pro BS fighter...
I make no secrets about one of main characters, not hard to figure out. As far as alts, not a chance although you might be able to figure out some possibilities if you care so much. KB stats are more about size of fights involved in and time available to play and not just a measure of your understanding of the game.
Originally by: Murina It is not ignored, you can fit a eccm (if you have the cpu) or a second web in it....
So whats the effect of that?
ECCM Hyperion vs none ECCM Abaddon. Chance of jam from a Falcon (using 1 racial on each). 31% vs 64% so the Abaddon will be jammed for 2/3's the time while the Hyperion 1/3 of the time. Go factor that into your DPS stats.
Originally by: Murina
If you are primaried you tend to get tackled and shot dude....
Yeah, so why you complaining about mwd'ing about, shooting and tanking at same time? right back at ya.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:54:00 -
[635]
Originally by: NightmareX
Wow, that was an awesome answer on why i'm wrong. The more you post like this, the more right i'am. Because you don't know what to answer, because you know i'm right.
Explain what you are right about then fool...
Cos all you ever do is drop into a thread BLEAT on about how you can win solo 1 v 1 fights in your ecmpest and try to use that as a reason that TQ BS gang pvp is utterly fine....
You have no clue.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Letifer Deus
181st Legion W A S T E L A N D
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 17:58:00 -
[636]
I've taken on multiple BS in a Kronos on SISI, too. Of course, I was plex/faction fit using a-type reppers, T2 rigs (I would NOT say most people use T2 rigs on SISI) and faction ammo. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 18:00:00 -
[637]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 18:06:25
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
Wow, that was an awesome answer on why i'm wrong. The more you post like this, the more right i'am. Because you don't know what to answer, because you know i'm right.
Explain what you are right about then fool...
Cos all you ever do is drop into a thread BLEAT on about how you can win solo 1 v 1 fights in your ecmpest and try to use that as a reason that TQ BS gang pvp is utterly fine....
You have no clue.
Your like a comedy film Murina.
I have explained you billions of times that DPS, range on guns, stats on your ship and EHP is not 100% of what PVP is about. Those 4 things are only like 55-60% of what PVP is today. The rest of the 40-45% is your IQ and how smart you are. And skills on flying the ships 100% right and use a good setup on the ship.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 18:07:00 -
[638]
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc
ECCM Hyperion vs none ECCM Abaddon. Chance of jam from a Falcon (using 1 racial on each). 31% vs 64% so the Abaddon will be jammed for 2/3's the time while the Hyperion 1/3 of the time. Go factor that into your DPS stats.
fail argument. You can fit cap booster,point,web,eccm on a abaddon, that's all you need.
-- Zuba |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 18:13:00 -
[639]
Originally by: NightmareX
I have explained you billions of times that DPS, range on guns, stats on your ship and EHP is not 100% of what PVP is about.
Those 4 things are only like 55-60% of what PVP is today. The rest of the 40% is your IQ and skills on flying the ships 100% right and use a good setup on the ship.
You have explained nothing and you have no clue.
All the skills, IQ, ect ect can be equal or even one side can have slightly less skills, IQ, ect ect and the ships that are OP will tip the balance and give the side with less skills ect ect the win.
Stick to sissi and your ecmpest and uber implants and rigs you have no clue about TQ.
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 18:17:00 -
[640]
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc
The fact that you think you need a heavy cap booster and fitting implants/mods to run a passive tanked Hyperion....
Post some fits them mr pro..or as i say stfu as its easy to criticize with nothing to back it up ...
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc I make no secrets about one of main characters.
Tell us who it is the mr pro.
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 18:17:00 -
[641]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
I have explained you billions of times that DPS, range on guns, stats on your ship and EHP is not 100% of what PVP is about.
Those 4 things are only like 55-60% of what PVP is today. The rest of the 40% is your IQ and skills on flying the ships 100% right and use a good setup on the ship.
You have explained nothing and you have no clue.
All the skills, IQ, ect ect can be equal or even one side can have slightly less skills, IQ, ect ect and the ships that are OP will tip the balance and give the side with less skills ect ect the win.
Stick to sissi and your ecmpest and uber implants and rigs you have no clue about TQ.
And you have explained what?. that LASERS RULES BECAUSE THEY DO GOOD DAMAGES AT RANGE?.
OMG wow.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 18:24:00 -
[642]
Originally by: NightmareX troll
Just go away moron this thread is about blasters for a start and lasers are just used as a comparative system to highlight the problems they have in realistic BS pvp on TQ.
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 18:30:00 -
[643]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 18:31:45
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX troll
Just go away moron this thread is about blasters for a start and lasers are just used as a comparative system to highlight the problems they have in realistic BS pvp on TQ.
Ow, now i feel hurt, you called me a moron. That's absolutely gonna keep me away from this topic.
But meh. Say whatever you like Murina, but Lasers are good in some ways while Blasters are good in it's ways, and the same for Projectiles and Missiles. They are totally different in absolutely every way. And i really like it.
If i want to play the way you can play with Lasers, then i will train for Lasers. It's not harder than that.
Just live with it. Blasters wont get a boost to damage, range or tracking anyways.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 18:32:00 -
[644]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 18:33:35
Originally by: NightmareX more troll
.
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 18:35:00 -
[645]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX more troll
]
.
Now you have totally destroyed my feelings here, now i'm gonna emorage quit EVE because you said those letters to me.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 18:40:00 -
[646]
Originally by: NightmareX yet more troll
.
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 18:43:00 -
[647]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 18:43:38
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX yet more troll
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 18:46:00 -
[648]
Originally by: NightmareX and yet more troll...
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 18:49:00 -
[649]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 18:50:41 Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 18:49:42
Originally by: Murina Double .
LOL, i'm starting to get tired of posting that to players who can only cry.
Heh, this is going so far that i'm expecting a forum mod here pretty soon.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 18:50:00 -
[650]
Oh boy, this thread is getting more and more epic every time I look at it
@Murina, lebrata and others in the support-blasters crew:
You should maybe take into account you are hurting your own cause by your posting style. I realize you people are passionate for your cause, but if you get that heated up and let yourselves get drawn into personal attacks and flamewars, what you think does that to your credibility? As soon as you get personal, your credibility goes through the floor really.
Obviously people against a blaster boost dont need to consider this, as their goal is reached once they turn the thread into a flamefest, they are quite happy if the first thought of someone reading it is like "Omg, bunch of angry children arguing over the internet, what do I care".
For you however it is in your very own interest to keep the discussion calm if you want this to have any effect whatsoever, and not getting it dismissed as 'yet another flamefest' (although I guess the damage is already done at this point tbh).
/rant
Now back on track if you dont mind. Selfquote fails, but I think I'm onto something with this, and havent got any real feedback as it drowned in trolls:
Originally by: Lilith Velkor 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.
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 18:53:00 -
[651]
Originally by: NightmareX And yet even more trolling
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 18:53:00 -
[652]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 18:55:07 Lilith Velkor. To the thing you quoted.
Yes i can agree on that if both Blasters and Projectile gets a boost in some ways. If only Blasters are getting a boost now, it will make Projectile really really bad tbh.
It will never happen if it's only Blasters alone. End of story.
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX And yet even more trolling
I think you soon will get out of copypasta.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 19:00:00 -
[653]
Originally by: NightmareX
Yes i can agree on that if both Blasters and Projectile gets a boost in some ways.
Maybe if you were not such a pathetic troll you would have seen the posts myself and others made about boosting AC as well as blasters in relation to lasers.
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 19:03:00 -
[654]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 19:05:50
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
Yes i can agree on that if both Blasters and Projectile gets a boost in some ways.
Maybe if you were not such a pathetic troll you would have seen the posts myself and others made about boosting AC as well as blasters in relation to lasers.
Yeah i said IF there will be a boost. But i'm still saying that it's not needed to boost any weapons atm. Lasers are fine as they are, and Blasters are fine for the type of combat you can do with Gallente and Caldari ships. And the same for Projectiles and Missiles.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 19:11:00 -
[655]
Originally by: NightmareX
Blasters are fine for the type of combat you can do with Gallente and Caldari ships.
Would you care to say what type of combat you feel blaster BS should be limited to...?
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Novantco
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 19:17:00 -
[656]
Yes sir boost them Blasters good!
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 19:19:00 -
[657]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 19:23:11
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
Blasters are fine for the type of combat you can do with Gallente and Caldari ships.
Would you care to say what type of combat you feel blaster BS should be limited to...?
Ships with Blasters fitted are extremely good at dealing damage at close range.
It's there where Blasters are really shining. And Blasters are close range only, and they should be close range ONLY. Not med range like Lasers are.
If you need to do PVP where you need weapons who can hit up to 35-45 km with some good damage, then train Lasers. It's simple.
Lasers are the last thing i ever will train, simply because i don't need to use Lasers. I don't do PVP in close / med range fitted ships that need to hit up to 45 km.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 19:26:00 -
[658]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 19:26:46
Originally by: NightmareX
Ships with Blasters fitted are extremely good at dealing damage at close range.
Actually since the web nerf they are a lot worse than before, but then you fly the kronos on sissi so i suppose you would not know that.....
Originally by: NightmareX It's there where Blasters are really shining. and Blasters are close range only, and they should only be close range.
Actually they are rather dull as the hyperion only does around 100-150dps more than the abaddon for 300% less optimal range and a lot less ehp.
YOU ARE POSTING ABILITIES NOT STYLES/TYPES OF PVP.
What types/styles of PVP do you see blaster BS doing on TQ...
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 19:31:00 -
[659]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 19:35:46
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
Ships with Blasters fitted are extremely good at dealing damage at close range.
Actually since the web nerf they are a lot worse than before, but then you fly the kronos on sissi so i suppose you would not know that.....
Originally by: NightmareX It's there where Blasters are really shining. and Blasters are close range only, and they should only be close range.
Actually they are rather dull as the hyperion only does around 100-150dps more than the abaddon for 300% less optimal range and a lot less ehp.
YOU ARE POSTING ABILITIES NOT STYLES/TYPES OF PVP.
What types/styles of PVP do you see blaster BS doing on TQ...
I have used the Megathron millions of times after the web nerf. And i have also been flying the Megathron Federate Issue to, but that was on sisi. But there is no changes from sisi to TQ when it's about speed, web, tracking and damage.
And i have not a single thing to say against Blasters. For me they are working pretty nice. Every single time.
And so what?, if the Abaddon have 300% more optimal then your Hyperion, what does that help when the Hyperion is in your ass and shooting you while he's 2 km from you?.
It doesn't help the Abaddon at all. It simply sit there and dies then while the Hyperion orbits you 2 km from you and out tracks you.
And also remember, most of the RR BS gangs today are using a dual / tripple EANM, DC II and Plated setups. And guess what, their resists against EM and Thermal is likely to be very high.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 19:44:00 -
[660]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 19:46:27
Originally by: NightmareX
And so what?, of the Abaddon have 300% more optimal then your Hyperion, what does that help when the Hyperion is in your ass and shooting you while he's 2 km from you.
I would not care to comment on that as 2km range 1 v 1 BS fighting on sissi is your area of expertise..
I tend to deal in the realities of TQ and on the TQ server the blaster ships get melted by the laser ships on approach and while the blasters do marginally more dps at close range they need to constantly MWD after every single laser ship just to catch them and get into that slightly better DPS optimal. As well as the fact that the laser boats have around 40% more ehp the blasters need to get through...
While the laser ships just need to burn away while dishing out almost the same dps as blasters at absurdly long ranges...
I honestly think you should find or start a forum for wanna be sissi heroes like yourself, as your ideas of pvp and scenarios you think are a good reflection of real pvp have no actual application on TQ.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 19:47:00 -
[661]
Originally by: NightmareX Ships with Blasters fitted are extremely good at dealing damage at close range.
Yes, this is how it should be. Unfortunately this isn't quite the case.
Blaster Cannons have lousy tracking, even when using a tracking bonused ship they are having problems hitting at the ranges that they are supposed to do good damage in.
Heavy Blasters don't have quite the same tracking issues but instead suffer from having poor shiptypes to employ them on. The Brutix is good for its cost but just like the other tier 1 BC's its noticably weaker than its competitors like the Drake and Harbinger. The Deimos and Astarte are just much too expensive for what they do.
Light blasters are good, they have strong ships to employ them on and their tracking is excellent.
However, the blaster concept in general is quite flawed. You're severely hampering your range, risking being kited outside of your damage dealing zone, all for what often is a quite marginal damage increase. I find blasterboats pimping out good damage mostly just because of their large drone bays.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 19:51:00 -
[662]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 19:54:55
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
And so what?, of the Abaddon have 300% more optimal then your Hyperion, what does that help when the Hyperion is in your ass and shooting you while he's 2 km from you.
I would not care to comment on that as 1 v 1 2km BS fighting on sissi is your area of expertise..
I tend to deal in the realities of TQ and on the TQ server the blaster ships get melted by the laser ships on approach and while the blasters do marginally more dps at close range they need to constantly MWD after every single laser ship just to catch them and get into that slightly better DPS optimal. As well as the fact that the laser boats have around 40% more ehp the blasters need to get through...
While the laser ships just need to burn away while dishing out almost the same dps as blasters at absurdly long ranges...
That's alot of bull****. I have even warped into FFA 1 and then decided to go after a sniper Geddon that was 40-50 km from me that started to shoot me right after i got into FFA 1. I MWDed away and burned 65% of my cap boosters and actually got him scrambled. And when i had him in my disruptor range, i was at 50% armor.
And when i got him into my web range i was at 40% armor.
But hold on a little here. When i got into the web range and started to orbit him, he had absolutely no chance to hit me.
The fight ended by me killing him at 35% armor left.
Originally by: Murina I honestly think you should find or start a forum for wanna be sissi heroes like yourself, as your ideas of pvp and scenarios you think are a good reflection of real pvp have no actual application on TQ.
Ok then, you can then go and make a forum for wannabe noob EFT warrior heroes.
I'm absolutely prefer to be a sisi hero long before i want to be a wannabe noob EFT warrior hero.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 19:55:00 -
[663]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 19:56:46
Originally by: Murina
What types/styles of PVP do you see blaster BS being limited to on TQ...
In my experience, blaster BS (esp. mega comes to mind here) are very good at ambush-type combat, I'd even say they are unmatched if done right.
If you have the support ships that can ensure you drop them right ontop of the enemy, there is no single BS that competes with a neutron gank mega imo.
So you want to kill that BS gang in their safespot? Get your cloakers in position for warpin on groupings (or select single targets if there are no groups), let rapiers/arazus uncloak and grab 2 BS each if they can while you warp and drop your megas right ontop and melt away. Tacklers can get safe or take on support as soon as the megas got hold of their prey, which shouldnt take more than a few seconds.
Aggression baiting is another thing, blasters work great to kill that annoying station hugger that'll aggro, tank and deagress to dock. Get aggro, jump megas in and warp ontop of the bait ship/target.
There is more, but it all revolves around shaping the battlefield in your favor, meaning if your money is on blaster BSs you wanna make sure you are the one to make the move.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:02:00 -
[664]
Originally by: NightmareX
That's alot of bull****. I have even warped into FFA 1
Do really need read any further....
Your sissi 1 v 1 epeen stroking junk has no place on TQ as in a gang fight him and his buddies would have melted you (and proly some of your buddies as well) long before you got into blaster optimal of the first laser ship let alone what his gang would have done to you while you tried to chase down the rest.
Still to killing solo ships on sissi mr BF warrior its all you are good for.
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 20:05:00 -
[665]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/02/2009 20:08:24
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: NightmareX
That's alot of bull****. I have even warped into FFA 1
Do really need read any further....
And you totally fail to read what the PVP was all about. Just just saw that it was on sisi, so it can't be like it is on sisi.
I see fighting on sisi that are very common to what it is on TQ everyday on sisi. So even when it's sisi, it can still be pretty acurate in PVP to what it is on TQ.
Anyways. You first said that Lasers would just melt your armor while you MWD to the Laser fitted BS.
But then i said you was wrong, because i have been under that situation many times, and have not had any problems to MWD to a Laser fitted BS while he is shooting me.
I just MWDed until i got him scrambled and whoop-de-de-do, i ****d his ass when i got into web range.
Hard to understand?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:08:00 -
[666]
Originally by: NightmareX
That's alot of bull****. I have even warped into FFA 1 and then decided to go after a Pulse Geddon that was 40-50 km from me that started to shoot me right after i got into FFA 1. I MWDed away and burned 65% of my cap boosters and actually got him scrambled. And when i had him in my disruptor range, i was at 50% armor.
And when i got him into my web range i was at 40% armor.
But hold on a little here. When i got into the web range and started to orbit him, he had absolutely no chance to hit me.
But hold on there, you know what's happening on tq?
... a rapier uncloaks and webs you at 30km ... 2 other geddons warpin at 20km and melt your ass ... a bunch of falcons uncloaks and do some nasty stuff with you ... and so on and on
Seriously your sisi clown scenarios have no room here. Stop posting this crap, nobody care's about your boring sisi stories.
-- Zuba |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:13:00 -
[667]
Originally by: Zubakis
Originally by: NightmareX
That's alot of bull****. I have even warped into FFA 1 and then decided to go after a Pulse Geddon that was 40-50 km from me that started to shoot me right after i got into FFA 1. I MWDed away and burned 65% of my cap boosters and actually got him scrambled. And when i had him in my disruptor range, i was at 50% armor.
And when i got him into my web range i was at 40% armor.
But hold on a little here. When i got into the web range and started to orbit him, he had absolutely no chance to hit me.
But hold on there, you know what's happening on tq?
... a rapier uncloaks and webs you at 30km ... 2 other geddons warpin at 20km and melt your ass ... a bunch of falcons uncloaks and do some nasty stuff with you ... and so on and on
Seriously your sisi clown scenarios have no room here. Stop posting this crap, nobody care's about your boring sisi stories.
And the chance that i have a backup gang ready with lots of Falcons and Rapiers is also very high.
It doesn't help what you say about the actions i do on sisi, because all of the actions i have done in my play time in EVE (since Feb 2004) on TQ and sisi, Lasers have never got me to believe or think they are so good as someone says they are.
For me Lasers are fine. But some peoples have the need to overhype the Lasers waaaaaaay way to much. And Murina is one of those.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:14:00 -
[668]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
In my experience, blaster BS (esp. mega comes to mind here) are very good at ambush-type combat, I'd even say they are unmatched if done right.
Sorry bud but the abaddon does a little more DPS than the mega and has much greater optimal to do that damage in with the same slot layout for webs ect, and obviously a much larger tank.
And as far as the less tracking lasers have effecting DPS when they are shooting at a webbed BS it is almost non existent (i make it around 30dps difference between lasers and blasters at 2-3km range).
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Lalita Prestoc
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:16:00 -
[669]
Originally by: Zubakis
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc
ECCM Hyperion vs none ECCM Abaddon. Chance of jam from a Falcon (using 1 racial on each). 31% vs 64% so the Abaddon will be jammed for 2/3's the time while the Hyperion 1/3 of the time. Go factor that into your DPS stats.
fail argument. You can fit cap booster,point,web,eccm on a abaddon, that's all you need.
Enjoy getting back to gates or out of bubbles... or do you only sit on stations and pvp in low and high sec? MWD is pretty much manditory on anything but dock game and empire where you don't have bubbles (but still won't get back to a gate without a mwd if you jump through a gate).
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 18:18:07 Post some fits them mr pro..or as i say stfu as its easy to criticize with nothing to back it up ...
What situation/gang type are we fitting for? Tiny gang where you need as much tackling as possible? Empire or 0.0 so can leave tackling to HICs/Dictors? medium gangs with remote repping and dedicated tacklers? large gangs so are sniping?
Originally by: Murina Tell us who it is the REAL mr pro.
You know your arguements weak when you have to resort to trying to discredit the person rather than the points. Ok i'll go down to your level Mr 7 months in NPC corp... for all we know your not the orginal who actually pvp'd with that char.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:16:00 -
[670]
Originally by: NightmareX But some peoples have the need to fly on TQ instead of just sitting on sissi and worshiping me cos of my ecmpest 1 v 1 fit.....
Fixed.
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 20:19:00 -
[671]
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc
You know my arguments weak when i avoid backing them up.......
.....
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 20:25:00 -
[672]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
In my experience, blaster BS (esp. mega comes to mind here) are very good at ambush-type combat, I'd even say they are unmatched if done right.
Sorry bud but the abaddon does a little more DPS than the mega and has much greater optimal to do that damage in with the same slot layout for webs ect, and obviously a much larger tank.
And as far as the less tracking lasers have effecting DPS when they are shooting at a webbed BS it is almost non existent (i make it around 30dps difference between lasers and blasters at 2-3km range).
That's totally wrong.
Why can't an Abaddon break my 1x LAR II, 1x DC II, 2x EANM II's, 1x 1600mm Plate tank on my Tempest when i orbit him at 2.5 km?.
The Abaddon should do so much damage to me that it should melt me right?. But hey dude, it doesn't.
Even if the Abaddon would do some few more DPS than a Mega in the 2-5 km range, the Mega will still do more DPS than an Abaddon simply because of the resists you have to EM and Thermal on your omni tank now.
So in the end, the Blaster Mega wins anyways.
So as long the Mega pilot is not ******ed, the Mega should easily win over an Abaddon when the Mega are in the 5 km radius.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:28:00 -
[673]
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc
Originally by: Zubakis
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc
ECCM Hyperion vs none ECCM Abaddon. Chance of jam from a Falcon (using 1 racial on each). 31% vs 64% so the Abaddon will be jammed for 2/3's the time while the Hyperion 1/3 of the time. Go factor that into your DPS stats.
fail argument. You can fit cap booster,point,web,eccm on a abaddon, that's all you need.
Enjoy getting back to gates or out of bubbles... or do you only sit on stations and pvp in low and high sec? MWD is pretty much manditory on anything but dock game and empire where you don't have bubbles (but still won't get back to a gate without a mwd if you jump through a gate).
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 18:18:07 Post some fits them mr pro..or as i say stfu as its easy to criticize with nothing to back it up ...
What situation/gang type are we fitting for? Tiny gang where you need as much tackling as possible? Empire or 0.0 so can leave tackling to HICs/Dictors? medium gangs with remote repping and dedicated tacklers? large gangs so are sniping?
1. Do you think that a blastership needs an mwd because he needs to burn to the gate or out of a bubble??? A blastership needs it's mwd to get in range, to be able to apply it's dps.
2. Burning back to the gate: Ever heard of new warp scramblers
3. I doubt that amarr ships were designed to fit an mwd. Only some stupid game mechanics made them mandatory, but it's not an excuse.
PS: And yes i pvp in lowsec what's wrong with that? Do you want me to tell that your 0.0 pvp is better, or what is the point? -- Zuba |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:40:00 -
[674]
Originally by: NightmareX More 1 v 1 stats when we are talking a gang fight....
Sheesh you are dense.
The megas in that fight would need to MWD burn towards every ship they were not on top of to get even close the the dps of the baddons that can just sit still and melt stuff.
You do understand that with a 4.5km optimal that the mega needs to move into that 4.5km range for EVERY ship in the opposing gang to do its max dps?????...
Its not just like approaching your single target on your silly sissi scenario, blaster ships in a gang fight need to almost perma run their mwd as they need to approach every target one after another. While lasers can just burn away if they need to as they do the same dps but for a massively higher available range...
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 - 2009.02.25 20:47:00 -
[675]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 20:48:12
Originally by: Murina
Sorry bud but the abaddon does a little more DPS than the mega and has much greater optimal to do that damage in with the same slot layout for webs ect, and obviously a much larger tank.
I suppose 'more' was a typo and should mean 'less', while I agree the 150 something more raw dps arent that much, it gets pronounced by tracking by a great deal with mega vs abbadon at 5km and below. I did choose the Mega on purpose though, as its the perfect closerange platform for blasters.
Quote:
And as far as the less tracking lasers have effecting DPS....,when they are shooting at a webbed BS it is almost non existent (i make it around 30dps difference between lasers and blasters at 2-3km range).
The megas tracking bonus makes it vastly superior in terms of tracking, realistic figures with a complete loadout (drones included in dps), the mega will outdamage the baddon by about 200 dps at 5km, the closer you go the more this will be the case, the baddon will drop below 600 dps when the mega still pushes out ~1k.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:58:00 -
[676]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 21:05:53
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
The megas tracking bonus makes it vastly superior in terms of tracking, realistic figures with a complete loadout (drones included in dps), the mega will outdamage the baddon by about 200 dps at 5km, the closer you go the more this will be the case, the baddon will drop below 600 dps when the mega still pushes out ~1k.
Against another webbed BS (i used a webbed hyperion) at 5km the baddon does slightly more dps than the mega, at 2km-2.5km it is 1048 baddon vs 1085 mega and the figures include drones.
These figures are with a SINGLE 60% web BTW if the target BS is dual webbed or more the tracking difference is pretty much non existent even at 1km.
BS (ANY BS) are just too large and slow to make a huge difference for the tracking between lasers and blasters, especially in a gang situation where single or multiple webs are gonna be a certainty.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Koloch
Amarr Warriors Lost
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:03:00 -
[677]
Originally by: Zubakis
1. Do you think that a blastership needs an mwd because he needs to burn to the gate or out of a bubble??? A blastership needs it's mwd to get in range, to be able to apply it's dps.
Doesn't matter. The fact still stands that mwd on a Battleship, unless you're hugging a station, is pretty much mandatory. Blasterships were designed to use mwd to get into range, but also have the added bonus of the extra mobility.
Originally by: Zubakis
2. Burning back to the gate: Ever heard of new warp scramblers
Yes, but that option is still there. Not all hostile gangs will be on you right away or be in range to use a warp scrambler. In those situations tbh I'd rather have a mwd then no option at all.
Originally by: Zubakis
3. I doubt that amarr ships were designed to fit an mwd. Only some stupid game mechanics made them mandatory, but it's not an excuse.
Careful. That's just like saying I doubt Gallente ships were designed for medium range combat. Only some stupid game mechanic made medium range combat common etc.
I don't think Blasters should get any boost in optimal or falloff. They are in-your-face weapons and should remain that way. Maybe a slight boost in damage, but only very small. Blaster ships should never be promised a win if/when they get into range.
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:03:00 -
[678]
Wait! Where is Goumindong? He at least posted stuff one could laugh about. This thread has turned ugly. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:09:00 -
[679]
Edited by: Goumindong on 25/02/2009 21:11:00
Originally by: Murina
Sorry bud but against another webbed BS (i used a webbed hyperion) at 5km the baddon does slightly more dps than the mega, at 2km-2.5km it is 1048 baddon vs 1085 mega and the figures include drones.
Something is very wrong with your numbers.
Originally by: Murina
3 x mag stab hype + drones = 1247dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x mag stab mega + drones = 1107dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x heat sink abad + drones = 1126dps with 15km optimal
very wrong.
Originally by: lebrata
Read your own graphs pal tracking is irrelevant according to you....as well as the fact that in gang combat multiple webs and angles will also make it a non-issue
My graphs show that tracking is valuable until you're in situations where you want to be using railguns.
Quote:
We are discussing raw gun dps and the hype only has 25m3 more drone bay than the abaddon anyway
And those 25 cubes make a big difference.
Quote:
Ppl use plug and plate fits nowadays making dmg types a non-issue.
If people fit their ships stupidly that does not make blasters worse. The most optimal fit unless you know what you're going up against, is EANM+DC with a mix of plates or reps depending on how large your gang is. This produces a strong disadvantage to EM damage.
People should only be using specific hardeners(at least for armor tanks, its slightly different for shield tanks) when they know exactly what they're going to be fighting.
Originally by: lebrata
The graph was to show the tracking of pulse against that target as part of a discussion.
If that was the purpose, then why were you ignoring the 100% damage advantage under 10km? And using a graph that did not have the possible two webs applied for the Hyperion?
Originally by: Murina
Post with your main or tell us the name before you make claims on others experience mr pro BS fighter...
That would be Marn Prestoc if i am not mistaken. Its not exactly hard to deduce. I am pretty sure that you've talked with Lalita/Marn before where he has made this known to you already.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:13:00 -
[680]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 21:14:12
Originally by: Murina
Sorry bud but against another webbed BS (i used a webbed hyperion) at 5km the baddon does slightly more dps than the mega, at 2km-2.5km it is 1048 baddon vs 1085 mega and the figures include drones.
Uhh, did you by any chance have 3 damage mods on the baddon but only 2 on the mega? I'm still not getting your numbers, but in that case its at least closer.
Or you're applying much too low transversal for a realistic scenario.
Quote:
These figures are with a SINGLE 60% web BTW if the target BS is dual webbed or more the tracking difference is pretty much non existent even at 1km.
With only a single web applied the difference is huuuuuge at ~2.3km and below. A merely 100 somewhat dps advantage for mega with double-webs on both and perfect maneuvering on the baddon, still the baddon doesnt get away and is outganked.
Now include in your consideration the attacking force dropping its blaster ships in point-blank range, like you do if you ambush something.
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:13:00 -
[681]
Originally by: Goumindong
Something is very wrong with your numbers.
3 x mag stab hype + drones = 1247dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x mag stab mega + drones = 1107dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x heat sink abad + drones = 1126dps with 15km optimal
very wrong.
Proof or stfu.
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 21:16:00 -
[682]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Murina
Sorry bud but against another webbed BS (i used a webbed hyperion) at 5km the baddon does slightly more dps than the mega, at 2km-2.5km it is 1048 baddon vs 1085 mega and the figures include drones.
Uhh, did you by any chance have 3 damage mods on the baddon but only 2 on the mega? I'm still not getting your numbers, but in that case its at least closer.
Or you're applying much too low transversal for a realistic scenario.
Nope 3 dmg mods each, although in my realistic scenario i take into account the sort of orbit/transversal speed a hyperion would actually get at 1-5km...let me guess you think it will be max mwd speed????...er nope not even close bud..
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:16:00 -
[683]
Originally by: Koloch
Originally by: Zubakis
1. Do you think that a blastership needs an mwd because he needs to burn to the gate or out of a bubble??? A blastership needs it's mwd to get in range, to be able to apply it's dps.
Doesn't matter. The fact still stands that mwd on a Battleship, unless you're hugging a station, is pretty much mandatory. Blasterships were designed to use mwd to get into range, but also have the added bonus of the extra mobility.
Well you have your opinion, and i have mine about this. I'm doing fine without an mwd on my amarr BS and i fly with a bunch of other amarr pilots who dont use mwd's too. And it works. I dont see how this argument apply to the whole topic here anyway.
-- Zuba |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:21:00 -
[684]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Goumindong
Something is very wrong with your numbers.
3 x mag stab hype + drones = 1247dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x mag stab mega + drones = 1107dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x heat sink abad + drones = 1126dps with 15km optimal
very wrong.
Proof or stfu.
At least my EFT says this:
3x mag stab mega + drones (5x ogreII) = 1252 dps with CN AM at 4.5+13 3x hs baddon + drones (3x ogreII) = 1106 dps with AN MF at 15+10 3x mag stab hype + ogres = 1322 dps with CN AM at 4.5+13
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:26:00 -
[685]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Goumindong
Something is very wrong with your numbers.
3 x mag stab hype + drones = 1247dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x mag stab mega + drones = 1107dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x heat sink abad + drones = 1126dps with 15km optimal
very wrong.
Proof or stfu.
At least my EFT says this:
3x mag stab mega + drones (5x ogreII) = 1252 dps with CN AM at 4.5+13 3x hs baddon + drones (3x ogreII) = 1106 dps with AN MF at 15+10 3x mag stab hype + ogres = 1322 dps with CN AM at 4.5+13
Il adjust the faction ammo to see but you should at least fit 2 large 2 medium and 1 small in the baddon.
Abaddon get 1126 for 15km.
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 - 2009.02.25 21:29:00 -
[686]
Originally by: Murina
Il adjust the faction ammo to see but you should at least fit 2 large 2 medium and 1 small in the baddon.
Ye, its +20 dps with mixed drone loadout. |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:32:00 -
[687]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 21:34:59
Originally by: Murina
Nope 3 dmg mods each in this case, although in my realistic scenario i take into account the sort of orbit/transversal speed a hyperion would actually get at 1-5km...let me guess you think it will be max mwd speed????...er nope not even close bud..
Nah, 200 m/s transversal bud. Not that far away from the 188m/s someone else used. Bud
Quite realistic as the ships actually move, and dont sit still while magically transversal appears. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:35:00 -
[688]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Murina
Il adjust the faction ammo to see but you should at least fit 2 large 2 medium and 1 small in the baddon.
Ye, its +20 dps with mixed drone loadout.
I have checked drones implants and ammo and im still not getting those numbers...also checked my all lvl5 skill sets and they are ok as well...... |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:41:00 -
[689]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 21:43:05 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 21:41:56
Originally by: Murina
I have checked drones implants and ammo and im still not getting those numbers...also checked my all lvl5 skill sets and they are ok as well......
Highest tier guns on all the ships? Accidentially slipped a t1 drone in somewhere, or a t1 dmg mod? One of us must be bugged, but well, I guess someone will post what their EFT says shortly
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:52:00 -
[690]
Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 21:58:12
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Nah, 200 m/s transversal bud. Not that far away from the 188m/s someone else used. Bud
Quite realistic as the ships actually move, and dont sit still while magically transversal appears.
Not really, the mega with a mwd/dual plate does a max speed of 822ms. Now orbiting at from 1-5km is gonna cut that down a crap tonne and then with a web applied is gonna make things a lot slower than 200ms.
And have you tried orbiting even a stationary BS in a plated mega with a mwd running recently........just try orbiting inside 4km bud...i have great navi skills and 4.1km @550ms (unwebbed) is the best i could get down to even with my orbit set to 2km..
That little detail kinda blows the "ornit close to amarr BS" ppl out of the water tbh...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:55:00 -
[691]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
The megas tracking bonus makes it vastly superior in terms of tracking, realistic figures with a complete loadout (drones included in dps), the mega will outdamage the baddon by about 200 dps at 5km, the closer you go the more this will be the case, the baddon will drop below 600 dps when the mega still pushes out ~1k.
I fail to see how tracking is going to be a problem within webrange. The ONLY reason you see the Mega dealing significantly more damage is due to drones. The worse tracking of pulse lasers make a whoping diffrence of about 40 DPS at 5km up to ~90 DPS at 3km (50m/sec trasversal, lets NOT assume the Abaddon doesn't have a web, and lets NOT assume he's an idiot). I don't think that's enough to make up for a massive headstart at the beginning and the massive chunk EHP.
And btw, I think we're talking about gang combat. Tracking is less of an issue there.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:56:00 -
[692]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 22:03:14 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 21:57:55
Originally by: Murina
And have you tried orbiting even a stationary BS in a plated mega with a mwd running recently........just try orbiting inside 4km bud...i have great navi skills and 4.1km is the best i could get down to even with my orbit set to 2km..
You do not orbit, you are doing strafe runs. Quite achievable that way, although not 100% of the time obviously.
You're still way way better off than orbiting. Acceleration, speed and agility are on the Megas side here, just needs to make use of them.
The problem for the slow ship is you'll always play into the other guys hands, willingly or not, especially if his agility is better.
Quote: And btw, I think we're talking about gang combat. Tracking is less of an issue there.
We were actually talking about a specific (gang combat) scenario that explicitly put the good cards in the blaster ships hands.
What is so difficult to admit blaster ships are good at a few select things anyway?
I'm not gonna say they dont deserve a boost just because they're good at a few things if there's a issue at hand with them.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 22:02:00 -
[693]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Murina
And have you tried orbiting even a stationary BS in a plated mega with a mwd running recently........just try orbiting inside 4km bud...i have great navi skills and 4.1km is the best i could get down to even with my orbit set to 2km..
You do not orbit, you are doing strafe runs. Quite achievable that way, although not 100% of the time obviously.
"Strafing runs" within the megas optimal (4.5km) while webbed when it cannot even orbit inside 4km with a mwd running???...And to strafe you need to burn away and re-approach and that kinda reduces optimal a lot.
Are you yanking my plank??..
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 - 2009.02.25 22:07:00 -
[694]
So, first you say this?
Originally by: Murina
3 x mag stab hype + drones = 1247dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x mag stab mega + drones = 1107dps with 4.5km optimal 3 x heat sink abad + drones = 1126dps with 15km optimal
Then, when i call you on it, you tell me that you're right and give these numbers
Originally by: Murina
Il adjust the faction ammo to see but you should at least fit 2 large 2 medium and 1 small in the baddon.
Abaddon get 1126 for 15km. I still get the mega at only 1226 at 4.5km not 1252. And only 1292 for the hyperion at 4.5km not 1322.
The only number that didn't increase was the Abaddon...
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 22:10:00 -
[695]
Originally by: Murina
"Strafing runs" within the megas optimal (4.5km) while webbed when it cannot even orbit inside 4km with a mwd running???...And to strafe you need to burn away and re-approach and that kinda reduces optimal a lot.
Are you yanking my plank??..
You dont really need to stay in optimal, actually you arent losing anything if you go 1km into falloff, and have still room to go if you need. You got a 15km bubble to work with, give or take some.
Plenty to charge for your passes, plenty.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 22:18:00 -
[696]
Originally by: Goumindong So, first you say this?
Whatever different ammo gives different dps results and we still have not found a agreement for some reason although i have no problem correcting and minor eft ammo errors.
Im more interested in trying to find a way to get a mega to orbit inside 2km with a mwd running....even with a orbit set at 500m it cannot do it and trying its speed drops to 400ms just trying...
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 - 2009.02.25 22:19:00 -
[697]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 22:22:12
Originally by: Murina
Im more interested in trying to find a way to get a mega to orbit inside 2km with a mwd running....even with a orbit set at 500m it cannot do it and trying its speed drops to 400ms just trying...
Do not use the orbit autopilot for starters. You get way better overall results by running triangles or squares for example.
The autopilot will always try to get maximum average velocity, which is a very bad thing to do here.
Do the turn when mwd cycle is finished, and burn again.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 22:22:00 -
[698]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Murina
"Strafing runs" within the megas optimal (4.5km) while webbed when it cannot even orbit inside 4km with a mwd running???...And to strafe you need to burn away and re-approach and that kinda reduces optimal a lot.
Are you yanking my plank??..
You dont really need to stay in optimal, actually you arent losing anything if you go 1km into falloff, and have still room to go if you need. You got a 15km bubble to work with, give or take some.
Plenty to charge for your passes, plenty.
Actually its the baddon that gets the 15km optimal bubble and a webbed mega is gonna do 300ms max speed in a str8 line that is 50ish seconds to burn out to 15km and the same to burn back in......
U iz pullin my peepee aint ya????..
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 - 2009.02.25 22:26:00 -
[699]
Originally by: Murina
Actually its the baddon that gets the 15km optimal bubble and a webbed mega is gonna do 300ms max speed in a str8 line that is 50ish seconds to burn out to 15km and the same to burn back in......
U iz pullin my peepee aint ya????..
What I mean is, you have 15km (give or take, conservative would be 11km) bubble, with a radius of 7.5 (5.5 for the 11=your optimal+1km) centered at the baddon.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 22:26:00 -
[700]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 25/02/2009 22:22:12
Originally by: Murina
Im more interested in trying to find a way to get a mega to orbit inside 2km with a mwd running....even with a orbit set at 500m it cannot do it and trying its speed drops to 400ms just trying...
Do not use the orbit autopilot for starters. You get way better overall results by running triangles or squares for example.
The autopilot will always try to get maximum average velocity, which is a very bad thing to do here.
Do the turn when mwd cycle is finished, and burn again.
DUDE just admit to what most of us already know...that BS suck at transversal cos they are too slow and lack agility (even the smaller ones) and the tracking differences between lasers and blaster when shooting at BS is irrelevant.
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 - 2009.02.25 22:36:00 -
[701]
Originally by: Murina
DUDE just admit to what most of us already know...that BS suck at transversal cos they are too slow and lack agility (even the more agile ones) and the tracking differences between lasers and blaster when shooting at BS is irrelevant.
DUDE, I'd support a blaster boost just as much as the other guy, false statements are not the way to get the point through though.
Anyway, I'm not gonna discuss this any further with you as you obviously got your mind set, I wont bother to change it.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 22:46:00 -
[702]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
DUDE, I'd support a blaster boost just as much as the other guy, false statements are not the way to get the point through though.
Whatever bud, i have seen on this very thread ppl saying that a mwding blaster ship orbiting at under 1km-2km cannot be hit by laser ships ect ect and "that's the advantage of blasters ya de ya" when the fact is that a blaster ship cannot orbit inside 2km with a mwd running against even a stationary ship unless it is well and truly webbed to crap and then its speed is so low it still gets hit.
Now im not happy about the eft ammo error cos i want my comments to be utterly accurate but sh*t happens sometimes when you use a calculator, the difference is that my error did not involve claims of experience in things that are actually imposable due to the mechanics of eve.
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 - 2009.02.25 22:52:00 -
[703]
Originally by: Murina
Whatever different ammo gives different dps results and we still have not found a agreement for some reason although i have no problem correcting and minor eft ammo errors.
Yea, its a minor EFT error...
*misstates DPS by 10% in an argument about DPS*
*leans back*
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 22:54:00 -
[704]
Orbiting with mwd? How does should it help? Can you explain it?
Your sig radius increases to such a degree, a dread can hit you. You burn ton's of cap. And what is the maxspeed you can achieve after one cycle, when you are webbed?
-- Zuba |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 23:02:00 -
[705]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Murina
Whatever different ammo gives different dps results and we still have not found a agreement for some reason although i have no problem correcting and minor eft ammo errors.
Yea, its a minor EFT error...
*misstates DPS by 10% in an argument about DPS*
*leans back*
50ish dps for the hype and 100ish for the mega is hardly gonna make ppl run for cover, still at least its given you a actual reason and valid comment to make in this thread finally...
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 - 2009.02.25 23:13:00 -
[706]
Originally by: Zubakis Orbiting with mwd? How does should it help? Can you explain it?
Your sig radius increases to such a degree, a dread can hit you. You burn ton's of cap. And what is the maxspeed you can achieve after one cycle, when you are webbed?
Yes a dread would hit you much better compared to how it would hit you with AB. A BS isnt going to hit any better regardless if you're burning or not. Sig size is pretty irrelevant there, its all about running under the guns that have less tracking.
Cap isnt that much of a problem, as your reserve is bigger, and you have lower consumption than the enemy. At about a 4:1 rate if he insists on using MWD like you.
Speed after a cycle maybe 275m/s, enough to pull it off, more so if you fit a warp scrambler to enforce your superiority.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 23:17:00 -
[707]
Originally by: Zubakis Orbiting with mwd? How does should it help? Can you explain it?
Your sig radius increases to such a degree, a dread can hit you. You burn ton's of cap. And what is the maxspeed you can achieve after one cycle, when you are webbed?
A webbed non-mwding BS does around 50m/s depending on type and as such can be hit hard at even close range by lasers or blasters as its transversal is not high enough.
The argument laser users have been using is that a mwding blaster BS has the speed at close range to make lasers useless BUT:
1. We know that a unwebbed mwding mega cannot orbit inside 2km. 2. That a webbed mega can orbit inside 2km but is so slow cos of being webbed and in a tight orbit lasers can still easily hit it...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 23:22:00 -
[708]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Yes a dread would hit you much better compared to how it would hit you with AB. A BS isnt going to hit any better regardless if you're burning or not. Sig size is pretty irrelevant there, its all about running under the guns that have less tracking.
You or the tracking guide is wrong.
With a sigradius of 2900m and a transversal of 250m/s i get nearly equal chances to hit on both weapons.
-- Zuba |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 23:33:00 -
[709]
Some comments(just overlooked the last 2-3 Pages).
If a Kronos can take 4 BS and a Command, the other Fittings/Pilotes just suck(or u using a full Faction kit that will end up in the cargohold of the first Gang with a Falcon or some Neuts what is actualy very common todayand the standard T2 Rigs + best Combat Boosters + most expensive Imps that are actualy rare on TQ and the other ones sticked to more real fittings/rigs etc. ).
Comparing the raw DPS of the Abaddon, Hype and Mega is nice but slight out of tuch with "real" fittings.
Hyperion usely only runs 1-0 Damagemods since It tends to use the slots for Tanking(850-1000 DPS with Imps) purpose in general(I fit it to this way, but hardly use it).
Abaddon fits 2-3, I personaly prefere 2 with a LAR II(about 1050 DPS with my Imps(Low Sec Abaddons usely donŠt need a MWD, Dualweb is more usefull most of the time and you donŠt use Heavy/Med/Light mix since you need a extra Small set to kill Frigs, same as on the Hype).
Mega fits 2-3, I personaly wouldnŠt undock one with less than 3 but many people out there prefere another Plate. You usely beeing simply dead if you canŠt nuke tanks quick, even with the 1.25k DPS you will fail this days in many situations since the DPS on the Target will only by a Fraction of this). People allways forget you need to be very close and need a Target that donŠt moves mutch to use the DPS at all.
Even if the 1.25k DPS looks fancy you will fail to take on simlar good fitted solo BS with this Number this days(or might be better in something else in small Gangs). To give a little Hint, it is halve deacend beyond 1.4k DPS(before Overloading) but no way near that what you expect after 2 years of skilling to actualy get all the Skills that used in EFT on the daylie basis(most of the time without actualy a clue how this numbers work in real combat) but very rarely ingame at this level...
The Problem isnŠt Range it is speed(to some amout), DPS(to some Amount) and mainly a Web that helps you to control Range and hit a Target with next to full Damage. Somewhere I read(not realy shure it was on this Thread) that a Blaster ship with a Web Power Bonus would have to treatend like a Inverse Nano ship, what would be bad in her opinion. Actualy it was like this for a long time but nobody realized because 90% of the People flown Ships that where screwed at Web Range anyway since her strenth was speed in the first place not Gank or Tank. Get catched by a Blastership and you are screwed, for the simple reason that the Blaster ship that canŠt catch you is screwed aswell. Not to mention that there where and are many ships that even with the 90% Webs that could got eye on eye with a Blaster Ship at his Optimal with a good chance to win this by bringing a Tank/Buffer that offsets the DPS advantage(what is possible on many ships in the Frig, Cruiser, BC and BS class).
It was nerfed as much as any Nano Hac by the patch simply because it uses the inverse playstile but actualy needet the strenght of the Web to outperforme ships at his range.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 23:52:00 -
[710]
Originally by: Zubakis
You or the tracking guide is wrong.
With a sigradius of 2900m and a transversal of 250m/s i get nearly equal chances to hit on both weapons.
Nearly equal? I get a deviation of 5->20% in tracking in the 2.5-1km band from that guides chart using these numbers and the TQ gun stats.
|
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 23:58:00 -
[711]
Edited by: Zubakis on 25/02/2009 23:58:47 Pic: http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mpvsnb2900sig.jpg
-- Zuba |
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P CCP
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 00:00:00 -
[712]
Cleaned again.
Removed personal argument, please take those onto in game communication options.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Email |
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 13:54:00 -
[713]
One word about downgrading guns. By downgrading to Ions you lose about 24% operational range (optimal+falloff). By downgrading to Electrons you lose about 60% of operational range. No other weapon system (guns) takes such a hit in range. By downgrading from MP to DHP you lose 20% in range.
So how about giving the low tier weapons more range? And with more range i mean near neutron range.
-- Zuba |
Nguyen VanPhuoc
Minmatar The Halibuts
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 16:32:00 -
[714]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 25/02/2009 22:50:45
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
DUDE, I'd support ...
Whatever bud, ...
i now have:
I'm not your friend, buddy!
I'm not your buddy , guy!!!
I'm not your guy, friend!!
I'm not your friend, guy!!!!!
I'm not your guy, buddy!!!!!!
He's not your buddy, friend!!!
I'm not your friend, buddy!!!
...
..
.
I'm not your buddy, guy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
suck in my head ___________________ MAXimum CAOD!
|
Lalita Prestoc
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 16:56:00 -
[715]
Edited by: Lalita Prestoc on 26/02/2009 16:59:33
Originally by: Zubakis 1. Do you think that a blastership needs an mwd because he needs to burn to the gate or out of a bubble??? A blastership needs it's mwd to get in range, to be able to apply it's dps.
2. Burning back to the gate: Ever heard of new warp scramblers
3. I doubt that amarr ships were designed to fit an mwd. Only some stupid game mechanics made them mandatory, but it's not an excuse.
PS: And yes i pvp in lowsec what's wrong with that? Do you want me to tell that your 0.0 pvp is better, or what is the point?
Way to go taking things out of context and getting defensive.
1. He replied to the point about the extra mid slot by claiming it really wasn't extra because Hyperion always needs mwd while Abaddon doesn't. You don't just use MWD for getting into damage range, you use it for a lot more than that (like doing the opposite or escaping). Hence the Hyperion does have a extra mid for ECCM when used in the same situation. I've seen blaster-megas (in RR gangs) with no MWD because they sit on stations.
2. Warp Scramblers..... oh yeah those <9km things that put yourself in blaster, web and WS range.
3. I doubt it to. No idea what excuse you are talking about though.
p.s. Never said there was anything wrong with it, i've been part of many wars in lowsec and high. It's just a different style of combat hence setups probably won't be the same for a BS.
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 17:27:00 -
[716]
Edited by: Zubakis on 26/02/2009 17:26:54
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc ..stuff..
So we come to a point that discussing how you can fit an mwd or an eccm is highly situational and has nothing to do with the discussion about blasters. Do you agree on this?
-- Zuba |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 17:41:00 -
[717]
Originally by: Zubakis Edited by: Zubakis on 26/02/2009 17:26:54
Originally by: Lalita Prestoc ..stuff..
So we come to a point that discussing how you can fit an mwd or an eccm is highly situational and has nothing to do with the discussion about blasters. Do you agree on this?
It has everything to do with the weapons you're using, because the weapons you're using go on specific ships which have various slot layouts and other bonuses.
If you have 4 meds and don't fit an MWD, you forgo all the advantages that that brings. It means you're liable to be bumped off stations or gates, unable to make it back. It means that you cannot get close or run away from something that intends to do either agaisnt you.
If you do not have ECCM then you're much more likely to be jammed. Your ability to do DPS drops dramatically when the enemy has ECM.
No matter what choice you pick to "drop". The ship with more med slots gets all your bonuses and abilities and one extra, whether its an extra web, a warp scrambler, ECCM, a tracking disruptor, a sensor booster, or MWD. They have something that you do not any any comparison between the two ships must take into account the best option that they have.
For instance, many times Murina has said "you won't want a web, you will want an ECCM" or something similar. Well, if that is the case, then you must have made the determination that the ECCM is worth more than the web it replaces(otherwise you would not have replaced it). If that is true, the a comparison with a second web on the hyperion would necessarily be worse than a comparison with an ECCM (at least, if you're saying that the ECCM is the better choice it must be) regardless of what any graphs show.
This is why we make these comparisons. And this is why its so important to figure in the extra med slot just as its important to figure in the extra high slots on a tempest just as its importat to figure speed, agility, etc.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 17:47:00 -
[718]
Originally by: Zubakis One word about downgrading guns. By downgrading to Ions you lose about 24% operational range (optimal+falloff). By downgrading to Electrons you lose about 60% of operational range. No other weapon system (guns) takes such a hit in range. By downgrading from MP to DHP you lose 20% in range.
So how about giving the low tier weapons more range? And with more range i mean near neutron range.
Real Operational range is a function of speed and distance, not percentages. The question is "how far do i have to move to make up the difference and how much time does that take?" and the answer is that for blasters you're right in the middle
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 17:52:00 -
[719]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Zubakis One word about downgrading guns. By downgrading to Ions you lose about 24% operational range (optimal+falloff). By downgrading to Electrons you lose about 60% of operational range. No other weapon system (guns) takes such a hit in range. By downgrading from MP to DHP you lose 20% in range.
So how about giving the low tier weapons more range? And with more range i mean near neutron range.
Real Operational range is a function of speed and distance, not percentages. The question is "how far do i have to move to make up the difference and how much time does that take?" and the answer is that for blasters you're right in the middle
What? This is a complete nonsense.
-- Zuba |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 19:30:00 -
[720]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 26/02/2009 19:32:24
Originally by: Goumindong It has everything to do with the weapons you're using, because the weapons you're using go on specific ships which have various slot layouts and other bonuses.
Fabulous! How did you get that insight?
Originally by: Goumindong If you have 4 meds and don't fit an MWD, you forgo all the advantages that that brings. It means you're liable to be bumped off stations or gates, unable to make it back. It means that you cannot get close or run away from something that intends to do either against you.
What does that have to do with blasters?
Originally by: Goumindong If you do not have ECCM then you're much more likely to be jammed. Your ability to do DPS drops dramatically when the enemy has ECM.
Wow... I would like more of those pro tips.
Originally by: Goumindong No matter what choice you pick to "drop". The ship with more med slots gets all your bonuses and abilities and one extra, whether its an extra web, a warp scrambler, ECCM, a tracking disruptor, a sensor booster, or MWD. They have something that you do not any any comparison between the two ships must take into account the best option that they have.
For instance, many times Murina has said "you won't want a web, you will want an ECCM" or something similar. Well, if that is the case, then you must have made the determination that the ECCM is worth more than the web it replaces(otherwise you would not have replaced it). If that is true, the a comparison with a second web on the hyperion would necessarily be worse than a comparison with an ECCM (at least, if you're saying that the ECCM is the better choice it must be) regardless of what any graphs show.
Indeed, so when talking about blasters, why not "do it right from the start" and pick lasers? Many made their decision and took pulses. No wonder. The only ones left are those that had the respective skills trained to a high Lvl and feel betrayed. The ECCM-need is tied with the current ECM situation. If you have your target pinned down after carefully choosing it, after camping that gate for x hours or after warping around in x belts and systems, you at least want a fun fight, even if you loose (gatecamping being another can of worms entierly). Current ECM-mechanics are totally frustrating, no matter what ship it is fitted on (no, I DON'T mean Falcons in particular). Having more mids (fyi, Mega and Abbadon have the same amount) means nothing if you are required to fit certain modules in them to make your guns work: i are in forum suxor mode (hype pic)
The above Hype NEEDS that second web.
i are in forum suxor mode (abbadon pic)
The above Abbadon can totally forgo the Tracking Computer within it's "operational range".
Originally by: Goumindong Real Operational range is a function of speed and distance, not percentages. The question is "how far do i have to move to make up the difference and how much time does that take?" and the answer is that for blasters you're right in the middle
That comes from someone who thinks scrochpulses@45km are medium range...
Operational range is pure and simple the range band where you are most effective (this includes you shooting and tanking the other guy). For a blaster bs, this means more or less 7-8km, depending on your web and gun type. It can NOT maneuver evasively. Everything below it has maneuverability, BlasterBSs can maneuver around a dread or titan, but THATS IT.
Edit: I suck at uploading and quoting... ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 20:53:00 -
[721]
Edited by: Goumindong on 26/02/2009 20:56:26
Originally by: Zubakis
What? This is a complete nonsense.
No. Its not. Percentage differences mean nothing, what matters is real distance and the time it takes to travel between those two points.
Originally by: Chi Quan
Fabulous! How did you get that insight?
Years of hard work.
Quote:
What does that have to do with blasters?
Well it has to do with the ships that fit blasters, and if it has to do with the ships that fit blasters, then it has to do with blasters.
To do anything else would be like to ignore the gang size that a person is flying in when choosing your weapon.
Quote: The ECCM-need is tied with the current ECM situation. If you have your target pinned down after carefully choosing it, after camping that gate for x hours or after warping around in x belts and systems, you at least want a fun fight, even if you loose (gatecamping being another can of worms entierly). Current ECM-mechanics are totally frustrating, no matter what ship it is fitted on (no, I DON'T mean Falcons in particular).
And ECCM is easier to fit on ships with spare meds. Making ships with spare meds less frustrated by those ECM ships
Holy moley, its almost like there are trade offs
Quote: Having more mids (fyi, Mega and Abbadon have the same amount) means nothing if you are required to fit certain modules in them to make your guns work:
Except that it was just explained to you, twice how it does so.
Quote: The above Abbadon can totally forgo the Tracking Computer within it's "operational range".
But it also cannot forgo that web. And with the two webs(or a single), the Hyperion is doing much more DPS than the Abaddon.
So what happens with a smart pilot on the other side? The smart cruiser pilot orbits close and the Abaddon becomes anemic.
Quote:
That comes from someone who thinks scrochpulses@45km are medium range...
It was pretty obvious i meant "middle" in terms of how much range you lose by downgrading weapons.
Quote: It can NOT maneuver evasively
Yes, it can. Not only does it have an inherent speed and agility advantage against fellow battleships, its two webs give it an extra factor of advantage to either reduce transversal, or increase transversal.
This should be obvious to any who has flown any combat ever. It should be especially obvious to people who flew during the nano age.
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 21:32:00 -
[722]
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 26/02/2009 20:56:26
Originally by: Zubakis
What? This is a complete nonsense.
No. Its not. Percentage differences mean nothing, what matters is real distance and the time it takes to travel between those two points.
What are you talking about, seriously?
I'm going to explain it again for you, you probably didnt understand what i meant in my post by downgrading guns and range loss.
This time i show you absolute values, if you dont like percentages.
Ok, by downgrading guns you get a dps hit and range hit. Range hit is some kind of a dps hit too, because dps decreases now earlier.
Now to stats, guns loaded with short range ammo, skills at V: MegaPulseT2: optimal 15000m falloff 10000m DHP T2: optimal 13500m falloff 7500 So you lose 1500m optimal and 2500m falloff. Relative small hit on range (optimal + falloff).
Now blasters: NeutronT2: optimal 4500m falloff 12500m ElectronT2: optimal 3000m falloff 7500m You lose 1500m optimal and 5000m(ouch) falloff. So you get the same optimal range hit like pulses, the difference is the relative loss. For a pulse laser it means only 11% optimal loss, for a blaster it means 50% optimal loss. And now look at the huge falloff drop.
That's why i suggested to increase the range on Electrons and Ions. Maybe i mispelled it wrong by calling it "operational range". But you again just picked it off and start trolling something about traveling distance, wtf?
-- Zuba |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 21:37:00 -
[723]
Originally by: Zubakis For a pulse laser it means only 11% optimal loss, for a blaster it means 50% optimal loss
No, i understood all of that. I just said that your conclusion was worthless because percentile losses don't mean anything unless its directly tied to how easily you travel through those ranges.
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 21:38:00 -
[724]
Originally by: Goumindong
Quote: It can NOT maneuver evasively
Yes, it can. Not only does it have an inherent speed and agility advantage against fellow battleships, its two webs give it an extra factor of advantage to either reduce transversal, or increase transversal.
This should be obvious to any who has flown any combat ever. It should be especially obvious to people who flew during the nano age.
Abaddon dbl webbed, Hyperion single webbed. What's the relativ speed? 30m/s? And you think lasers wont track it? And it's only 1vs1 situation where you can pull it off. Are we going to balance it around a 1vs1 situation?
-- Zuba |
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 21:39:00 -
[725]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Zubakis For a pulse laser it means only 11% optimal loss, for a blaster it means 50% optimal loss
No, i understood all of that. I just said that your conclusion was worthless because percentile losses don't mean anything unless its directly tied to how easily you travel through those ranges.
Should we debatte how easy you can switch crystals ^^ -- Zuba |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 22:15:00 -
[726]
Originally by: Zubakis
Should we debatte how easy you can switch crystals ^^
Not sure what that has to do with how long it takes you to modify your range.
Originally by: Zubakis
Abaddon dbl webbed, Hyperion single webbed. What's the relativ speed? 30m/s? And you think lasers wont track it? And it's only 1vs1 situation where you can pull it off. Are we going to balance it around a 1vs1 situation?
Depends on the range.
And the effect of transversal does scale(just not perfectly)
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 22:30:00 -
[727]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/02/2009 22:35:04
Originally by: Zubakis
Now to stats, guns loaded with short range ammo, skills at V: MegaPulseT2: optimal 15000m falloff 10000m DHP T2: optimal 13500m falloff 7500 So you lose 1500m optimal and 2500m falloff. Relative small hit on range (optimal + falloff).
Now blasters: NeutronT2: optimal 4500m falloff 12500m ElectronT2: optimal 3000m falloff 7500m You lose 1500m optimal and 5000m(ouch) falloff. So you get the same optimal range hit like pulses, the difference is the relative loss. For a pulse laser it means only 11% optimal loss, for a blaster it means 50% optimal loss. And now look at the huge falloff drop.
Minor correction, but electron blasters lose 33% optimal compared to neutrons according to your figures, not 50%. They gain 50% range by upsizing, but lose 33% by downsizing.
Still these arent the complete stats, also look at damage modifiers, tracking, fitting, etc to get a complete picture.
Singeling out an attribute to prove a point and neglecting the others isnt really worth anything.
The next issue with comparing other guns with lasers is the missing light/medium type, so the scaling towards other guns will always be off a bit, as there is one tier missing.
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 23:36:00 -
[728]
Originally by: Goumindong Well it has to do with the ships that fit blasters, and if it has to do with the ships that fit blasters, then it has to do with blasters. To do anything else would be like to ignore the gang size that a person is flying in, when choosing your weapon.
According to your advice, one should fit rails when ganged. Consequently this (once again) leads to the question of purpose for blasters. If their purpose is solitary work, why are we talking about gangs? And if we are indeed talking about blaster & solitary roaming, all 1v1 exemples above become vaiable.
Originally by: Goumindong And ECCM is easier to fit on ships with spare meds.
And consequently harder on ships WITHOUT them. According to my calculator, 5(Hype medslots)-1(MWD)-1(point)-1(injector)-2(webs)=0 (and my fingers tell me the same btw).
Originally by: Chi Quan The above Abbadon can totally forgo the Tracking Computer within it's "operational range".
Originally by: Goumindong But it also cannot forgo that web.
Last time I checked t2 webs had a range of 10km and Scorch optimal was around 41km, what should the web do at 41km or at 24km t2 point range? The Abba can acctually forgo the web easier than the TC.
Originally by: Zubakis
Abaddon dbl webbed, Hyperion single webbed. What's the relativ speed? 30m/s? And you think lasers wont track it?...
Originally by: Goumindong Depends on the range.
And getting in range without being gunned down means a warpin. And from now on we have at least 2 ships in your party and thus can talk about rails, the purpose of blasters and the Amarr BS + tackler combo of pwn.
Originally by: Goumindong Years of hard work.
So no EVE-O than. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 23:44:00 -
[729]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/02/2009 22:35:04
Originally by: Zubakis
Now to stats, guns loaded with short range ammo, skills at V: MegaPulseT2: optimal 15000m falloff 10000m DHP T2: optimal 13500m falloff 7500 So you lose 1500m optimal and 2500m falloff. Relative small hit on range (optimal + falloff).
Now blasters: NeutronT2: optimal 4500m falloff 12500m ElectronT2: optimal 3000m falloff 7500m You lose 1500m optimal and 5000m(ouch) falloff. So you get the same optimal range hit like pulses, the difference is the relative loss. For a pulse laser it means only 11% optimal loss, for a blaster it means 50% optimal loss. And now look at the huge falloff drop.
Minor correction, but electron blasters lose 33% optimal compared to neutrons according to your figures, not 50%. They gain 50% range by upsizing, but lose 33% by downsizing.
Still these arent the complete stats, also look at damage modifiers, tracking, fitting, etc to get a complete picture.
Singeling out an attribute to prove a point and neglecting the others isnt really worth anything.
The next issue with comparing other guns with lasers is the missing light/medium type, so the scaling towards other guns will always be off a bit, as there is one tier missing.
5km Falloff is a huge loose actualy(thats like 10km Range till droping to 0 DPS, Falloff isnŠt good for Blasters but it is better than nothing). So in the end it is a 50% Range loose(I personaly never ever fitted Electons on BS because you will be helpless against anything out of web range, even with Null).
True Lasers got no middle Turret, but Artis donŠt got one to. It isnŠt a real drawback for the Abaddon(a bit of one for the Gedon).
This is how it looks today:
Ziel: Gre3n Corporation: Knights of the Old Empire Allianz: The Chamber of Commerce Fraktion: Keine Zerstśrt: Abaddon System: FD-MLJ Sicherheit: 0.0 Erlittener Schaden: 80598
Beteiligte Parteien:
Name: The Djego (gab den letzten Schuss ab) Sicherheit: -0.3 Corporation: merovinger inc Allianz: Keine Fraktion: Keine Schiff: Megathron Waffe: Ogre II Verursachter Schaden: 80598
This was on Sissi vs a 4 Plate Abaddon(not a good choice actualy) with T1 Guns, endet for me in 30% Structure. The fight started at about 8km and my Skills are fully maxed and this was the most powerfull Fitting you will ever see on a T1 Mega(1.45k DPS before Overheat with a online Neut the same way I use it on TQ, this is backed up by both DPS Imps and the +5% Powergrid Imp to fit barly with maxed Skills and a T2 Rig to get this DPS what represents a nother 50 M spend just to be competative, not OP actualy) against a fully Plate fail fit without more than one HS and without T2 Guns(and trying as good as I can using Gums so called Tracking advantage at close range 2.5km manual Orbit actualy since automaic fails a bit on laggy Sissi atm)!
I personaly can take on 2 Megas in a Row with my Abaddon, no real challange(using a simlar Imp Set on my Abaddon, not actualy slaves if you think this). Just to draw a picture how far a Blaster fit is actualy off compared to a Puls fitting this days even when starting next to Optimal(it is actualy easyer to own a Hype with any slot spend on tanking in this ship than a halve decend fitted Abaddon).
Again this is not a ramble that Lasers are OP, they arenŠt it just that Blasters suck atm for dooing her thing(what is gank in the end).
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 23:51:00 -
[730]
Edited by: Goumindong on 26/02/2009 23:51:32
Originally by: Chi Quan
According to your advice, one should fit rails when ganged. Consequently this (once again) leads to the question of purpose for blasters. If their purpose is solitary work, why are we talking about gangs? And if we are indeed talking about blaster & solitary roaming, all 1v1 exemples above become vaiable.
Alright, if you want to argue that blasters are not good enough 1v1 and/or solo battleship, you go right ahead.
Quote:
Last time I checked t2 webs had a range of 10km and Scorch optimal was around 41km, what should the web do at 41km or at 24km t2 point range? The Abba can acctually forgo the web easier than the TC.
Depends on how often targets get under 10km. If you're in a situation where you're likely to get more out of a TC then you're not in a situation where you should be comparing the ship to a blaster battleship.
Quote:
And getting in range without being gunned down means a warpin. And from now on we have at least 2 ships in your party and thus can talk about rails, the purpose of blasters and the Amarr BS + tackler combo of pwn.
No, it really doesn't. When you use an MWD you go much faster, increasing the differences in speeds(especially with an agility advantage). As well, when you turn your MWD off, you do not instantly stop.
Then again, if we're talking about 2 ships, then the opportunity cost of the second ship comes into play. We've had this discussion before, it did not turn out well for you.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 23:55:00 -
[731]
Originally by: The Djego Skills are fully maxed and this was the most powerfull Fitting you will ever see on a T1 Mega
Not only is that not the "most powerful fitting you will ever see on a mega"(and i assume that was tech 2 fit and not tech 1 fit), but the Hyperion is explicitly better than the Megathron anyway, even in a plated gank role.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 00:12:00 -
[732]
Originally by: The Djego
This is how it looks today:
Ziel: Gre3n Corporation: Knights of the Old Empire Allianz: The Chamber of Commerce Fraktion: Keine Zerstśrt: Abaddon
Quote: System: FD-MLJ
Sicherheit: 0.0 Erlittener Schaden: 80598
Hahaha, you better watch out if Murina sees your post, you'll get flamed epically for posting your worthless SiSi stats.
Or maybe SiSi is relevant in this case as its a pro-blaster argument?
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 00:25:00 -
[733]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego Skills are fully maxed and this was the most powerfull Fitting you will ever see on a T1 Mega
Not only is that not the "most powerful fitting you will ever see on a mega"(and i assume that was tech 2 fit and not tech 1 fit), but the Hyperion is explicitly better than the Megathron anyway, even in a plated gank role.
It was T2, on TQ it also as some Deadspace mods on it and I never ever seen a BS gank fitted like mine.
Want a example?
Linkage
60% of the total damge done even beeing permajammed the last 30 Seconds on this Fight with all but the Navy Mega starting it at the same time. Something beyond 1.4k DPS(with a Pilote that knows how apply them) isnŠt what you will see to TQ any day(that is actualy pure endgame of Vents, min/maxing fits you will rarly see on Forums) it not only requires to actualy have a Char that is next to equal to the All L5 in EFT for exactly one ship but also a very risky glass cannon fitting that is pure balls to the wall playstyle.
You wonŠt find this fittings on a general basis, it is a result of hardcore people not allready given up on Gallente yet, adepting by fitting more gank, yet reaching possible limits with it(besides Faction Mods that are gooing to the next gang with a Falcon anyway).
By Hype > Mega you underestimating the that a Heavy Neut is actualy required in solo BS PVP this days. Also a Heavy Neut is more devatating than an extra Turret agaist many tartgets with serious tanks or any kind of T2 Ships. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Straight Chillen
Gallente Solar Wind
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 00:33:00 -
[734]
Blasters indeed need a boost. Or is it that pulse lasers have been made too good?
I also think that the tracking mechanics work against blasters, preventing them from being of much use. I've been trying to think of ways to better the tracking formula with out making BS **** frigs. I was think along the lines that somehow, as range decrease, the signature radius of the target comes more into play. That way as BS get close they can slug it out, but would still allow frigs to get in close and stay under the guns
I really think its stupid how i can be at 0km range from a BS or dreadnought yet my blasters cannot hit it, the thing is taking up the entire screen in front of me, but my guns cant hit it? where are they aiming backwards?
IMO blasters need to be more effective UNDER they're optimal range. In my eyes it would be a fair trade off to deal with their **** range. They're supposed to be the sawed of shotgun of EVE, and well TBH I don't think it matters much if your 5 paces or at the barrel of the shotty, the effect is the same.
I also think it would help keep the uniqueness of blasters, As most of the proposed changes seem to make blasters in to a shorter ranged higher DPS version of auto cannons. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 00:42:00 -
[735]
Originally by: Straight Chillen
I also think it would help keep the uniqueness of blasters, As most of the proposed changes seem to make blasters in to a shorter ranged higher DPS version of auto cannons.
Blasters pretty much are the autocannons twin brother with more dps and less range.
I'd still like to see blasters more dmg-focused and ACs better in the tracking to distinguish them better.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 00:54:00 -
[736]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 27/02/2009 00:20:48
Originally by: The Djego
This is how it looks today:
Ziel: Gre3n Corporation: Knights of the Old Empire Allianz: The Chamber of Commerce Fraktion: Keine Zerstśrt: Abaddon
Quote: System: FD-MLJ
Sicherheit: 0.0 Erlittener Schaden: 80598
Hahaha, you better watch out if Murina sees your post, you'll get flamed epically for posting your worthless SiSi stats.
Or maybe SiSi is relevant in this case as its a pro-blaster argument?
Besides you seem to have soloed a ship with way more EHP than your own just fine, even considering you had to use horribly underpowered blasters.
Actualy bearly dubble of the EHP of my fitting.
Yes i have overcome a fail fit(with T1 guns, meaning 13% less DPS at min, 15% in my case) with 50 M SP fully spend on Gallente and maxed Gunnerys(including Blaster Spec 5), 5 M+ in Drones, any Compensation Skill at 5, any support Skill at 5(including Thermodynamics and overloading some guns manual to get them to 99% Damage manual after the rest allreay been there).
I personaly give nothing about Muria(I know the Main behind it), there is no understanding about the world I PVP in and he aproches the problem for a direktion that suits his Idea not the Idea the conecept was usable for a long time in Eve actualy.
Considering 50 M SP with the perfect Fit(about 130 M on a T1 BS, -5% of the resitance I use on TQ for paying a 15M extra) under next to perfect conditions made it against something I wouldnŠt even consider to fit with my Amarr Char. How many people you know are able to pull out 1.4k DPS out of a Mega? How many you know can state they win because they maxed anything and didnŠt make any mistakes in this fight so I can barly win.
I think you mainly missing the point about game ballance and effect a ship played to his fully strenght useing a optimized fitting(that require maxed Skills) in the perfect situation would actualy performe in this situation barly outperforms(30% Structure) the other ship that donŠt uses the optimal fitting and donŠt have 50 M SP to make his ship something awsome even if it actualy isnŠt awsome.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 01:12:00 -
[737]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Straight Chillen
I also think it would help keep the uniqueness of blasters, As most of the proposed changes seem to make blasters in to a shorter ranged higher DPS version of auto cannons.
Blasters pretty much are the autocannons twin brother with more dps and less range.
I'd still like to see blasters more dmg-focused and ACs better in the tracking to distinguish them better.
You missunderstand the concept. Blasters >>>>>>>> all other things in Blaster Optimal Range(or at least like it should be). This is simply because of mostly anything out of Blaster range is >>>>>>>> a Blaster Fitting at the same time. There isnŠt a big range window where you could work like with AKs, there is a very small one you will be successfull in(yes I played the game vs Mini Nano/heavy Plate Fittings 2 years) and if you donŠt reach it you will fail. The core problem is you even start failing in this small window of sucsess you got with the 60% web. Blaster ships arnŠt pawn mobiles because of her stats but because of the pilotes. Put the same Pilote in a other ship and you will pawn Blaster ship today fare to easy.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 01:27:00 -
[738]
Originally by: The Djego
It was T2, on TQ it also as some Deadspace mods on it and I never ever seen a BS gank fitted like mine.
Want a example?
Yes, i am sure you do a lot of damage. Pat yourself on the back now. You sure are "hardcore".
That doesn't mean its the best mega fit. And that doesn't mean the Hyperion is still not better.
Quote:
By Hype > Mega you underestimating the that a Heavy Neut is actualy required in solo BS PVP this days. Also a Heavy Neut is more devatating than an extra Turret agaist many tartgets with serious tanks or any kind of T2 Ships.
Then drop a turret on the Hype for the heavy neut. You're only out 25 cubes and you gain a better tank(when fit in that manner) and more meds(which are just as strong as the heavy neut).
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 02:03:00 -
[739]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
It was T2, on TQ it also as some Deadspace mods on it and I never ever seen a BS gank fitted like mine.
Want a example?
Yes, i am sure you do a lot of damage. Pat yourself on the back now. You sure are "hardcore".
That doesn't mean its the best mega fit. And that doesn't mean the Hyperion is still not better.
It is the best fit you can be in today in a evironment that suits a Mega(opinion of someone that flyes the ship over 2 years actualy).
Peope Gank fit a Mega and Tank fit a Hype in general, shure there are options to tank fit a mega or Gank fit a Hype. A Hype with 7 Turrets donŠt have more gank than a Mega with costing more, same as Gedon/Abaddon.
Even if you mean it mostly sarcastic(what I would asume) I am preaty hardcore spending the ISK and SP even with knowing other things would do better atm. I do fly 2 other races to, and if you screw up you should against a Blaster Ships, you should be this dead as you are if you screw it up flying a Blaster ship.
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
By Hype > Mega you underestimating the that a Heavy Neut is actualy required in solo BS PVP this days. Also a Heavy Neut is more devatating than an extra Turret agaist many tartgets with serious tanks or any kind of T2 Ships.
Then drop a turret on the Hype for the heavy neut. You're only out 25 cubes and you gain a better tank(when fit in that manner) and more meds(which are just as strong as the heavy neut).
You gain a extra Med, one less Low -> wearker Tank even after the better base armor in the end. Peole still prefere the Mega(like I do) simply because It is the incernation of a Blaster BS(it isnŠt fancy, It hasnŠt a extra Med, it is straigt to the job it should do both in Slots and Boni).
Hyperion tanks nice, but the problem is that it will cost you the DPS that make Blasters special(or more make a Blasters gank in the end). You donŠt bring a tanky Blaster ship to gang fight, you want more gank when hitting other Tanks in Blaster fits etc.). Having a Blaster Ship that can put 1.4k DPS on the target is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Blaster Ship that can take 1k DPS and Tank 1k DPS today in a Gang. You canŠt have it all, the Blaster ship should be the brightest flame in small scale PVP combined with the shortest liveframe. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 02:12:00 -
[740]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 27/02/2009 02:14:07
Originally by: The Djego
You missunderstand the concept.
No I didnt. Look at both weapon systems closely and how they work. Blasters are a variant of the autocannon concept and vice-versa.
The relation optimal/falloff is a bit shifted, still they are as close to each other as turret systems get.
If you have issues with tracking in your optimal, you go 1-2km into falloff to max your damage output, basically blaster users need to find balance in this regard in the same way as AC users do.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 05:33:00 -
[741]
Edited by: Goumindong on 27/02/2009 05:35:27
Originally by: The Djego
It is the best fit you can be in today in a evironment that suits a Mega(opinion of someone that flyes the ship over 2 years actualy).
No, its not. Your opinion is wrong. Pure Gank/EHP fits are defined only by their EHPxDPS value in relation to others. Yours is inefficient. Its inefficient if you want only the best DPS(Hyperion does better). Its inefficient if you solo(where the rep bonus and med are much better than the tracking bonus), and its inefficient if you fit for pure DPSxEHP.
Quote: with costing more
For someone who is "preaty hardcore spending the isk" you sure do fret a whole bunch over 5 million isk.
Quote:
You gain a extra Med, one less Low -> wearker Tank even after the better base armor in the end. Peole still prefere the Mega(like I do) simply because It is the incernation of a Blaster BS(it isnŠt fancy, It hasnŠt a extra Med, it is straigt to the job it should do both in Slots and Boni).
Except that its not. Its not the "incarnation" of a blaster ship, the Hyperion is. The Hyperion is explicitly better in doing everything blaster ships do and everything they ought to do.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 08:03:00 -
[742]
Better tracking and more damage please.
Regards Mag's |
Dasalt Istgut
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 08:13:00 -
[743]
You're not getting it. Blasters do high dps at a very short range where they can hit their target. That doesn't mean they should easily stomp every other ship all the time. That doesn't mean an all out gank fit mega should easily trounce a T1 pulse fit ship. Maybe by specializing on offense you've created a glass cannon and that's the reason you ended in structure? Not the fact that blasters are broken?
Nahhh, that couldn't be it. You're much too elite to not have considered such a thing.
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 08:32:00 -
[744]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Zubakis
Abaddon dbl webbed, Hyperion single webbed. What's the relativ speed? 30m/s? And you think lasers wont track it? And it's only 1vs1 situation where you can pull it off. Are we going to balance it around a 1vs1 situation?
Depends on the range.
And the effect of transversal does scale(just not perfectly)
It scales (very low), but not that it will shift the tide in the battle. The only thing that matters then is the "DPSxEHP relation" (your own words), NOT TRACKING!!!
-- Zuba |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 08:49:00 -
[745]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 08:54:09
Originally by: Goumindong
For instance, many times Murina has said "you won't want a web, you will want an ECCM" or something similar.
I think you will find that murina has never said that or similar many times at all....are you so running out of arguments that you need to make up comments from others?...
Originally by: Goumindong The Hyperion is explicitly better in doing everything blaster ships do and everything they ought to do.
Unfortunately the concept and especially the application of the "blaster battleship" in no longer a viable entity in eve. Its only application was 1 v 1 and that is a virtually non-existent style on TQ and coupled with the web nerf blaster BS need a serious overhaul.
Originally by: Goumindong Not only does it have an inherent speed and agility advantage against fellow battleships, its two webs give it an extra factor of advantage to either reduce transversal, or increase transversal.
You are a liar and have no idea what you are talking about, a mega with its mwd running cannot even orbit inside 2km of even a STATIONARY ship let alone one that is moving. And if it is webbed its speed is so low that blasters and lasers do not have a problem hitting it.
So less of the comments about ppl having flown in combat cos you obviously have not, or are ignoring the truth to keep lasers OP compared to other systems.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 09:02:00 -
[746]
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 27/02/2009 05:35:27
Originally by: The Djego
It is the best fit you can be in today in a evironment that suits a Mega(opinion of someone that flyes the ship over 2 years actualy).
No, its not. Your opinion is wrong. Pure Gank/EHP fits are defined only by their EHPxDPS value in relation to others.
Everything is now clear! Goumindong's Ultimate Blaster Ship is a passive shield/active armor tanked Hyperion without MWD.
Notice how 1) Goumindong is an expert on blasters without ever having flown a blaster ship (self-admitted) 2) Tracking doesn't matter now but matters immensely when lasers are compared to blasters 3) Range doesn't matter at all (ok, here he's at least semi-consistent) 4) Maneuverability of the ship doesn't matter at all.
Good going, Goum. Post the perfect Hyperion fit, please. I'd recommend against using the one you posted in the old thread, though, that was... not very good. -- Gradient forum |
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 10:13:00 -
[747]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/02/2009 22:35:04
Originally by: Zubakis
Now to stats, guns loaded with short range ammo, skills at V: MegaPulseT2: optimal 15000m falloff 10000m DHP T2: optimal 13500m falloff 7500 So you lose 1500m optimal and 2500m falloff. Relative small hit on range (optimal + falloff).
Now blasters: NeutronT2: optimal 4500m falloff 12500m ElectronT2: optimal 3000m falloff 7500m You lose 1500m optimal and 5000m(ouch) falloff. So you get the same optimal range hit like pulses, the difference is the relative loss. For a pulse laser it means only 11% optimal loss, for a blaster it means 50% optimal loss. And now look at the huge falloff drop.
Minor correction, but electron blasters lose 33% optimal compared to neutrons according to your figures, not 50%. They gain 50% range by upsizing, but lose 33% by downsizing.
Still these arent the complete stats, also look at damage modifiers, tracking, fitting, etc to get a complete picture.
Singeling out an attribute to prove a point and neglecting the others isnt really worth anything.
Yes you right, i made a mistake on the math side of my post. I choose those guns because they take a similar loss in raw dps and gain a similar amount of tracking. Fitting requirements are similar too, more grid reqs on lasers is offset by more grid on amarr ships.
But the window where i actually outdps other ships, becomes very small and tight on electrons/ions.
And when you look at absolute values not percentages (right Gourm?), why do blasters take such a huge hit on range?
-- Zuba |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 10:36:00 -
[748]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 27/02/2009 02:21:02
Originally by: The Djego
You missunderstand the concept.
No I didnt. Look at both weapon systems closely and how they work. Blasters are a variant of the autocannon concept and vice-versa.
The relation optimal/falloff is a bit shifted, still they are as close to each other as turret systems get.
If you have issues with tracking in your optimal, you go 1-2km into falloff to max your damage output, basically blaster users need to find balance in this regard in the same way as AC users do, with the slight difference that ACs tend to not work at all in optimal in general situations.
While autocannons get the larger falloff range to adjust, blasters get the better raw dps and considerably more optimal which makes them more shortrange compared to variable range on ACs due to large falloff.
Tbh, if you want any reasonable dps from autocannons you're pretty much required to use them like blasters with crappy damage...
I bolted the importent thing, you chose a variable range with AKs(yes I can fly Mini to) you donŠt do so with Blasters.
Blasters got no Barrage and you will loose most of the fights you canŠt put the target to your Range(and you will loose them if this takes to long, if you cant overcome the EHP of the other ship or if you fail to break his tank). All sub BS Minimatar Ships can by used to kite Blaster ships quite easy, since the Damage Output is next to 0 past 10km. With the Phoon or the Mealstorm you donŠt even have to on BS Levels cause this ships still can win the fights against Blaster ships beeing in Blaster Optimal(yes I know the pest is crap). 80% of all Minmatar ships would be compleetly crap without Barrage and anybody that flyes Minmatar should know this, while Null is actualy a rare Amno in the cargos of Blaster Ships, most likely in BS to abvoid getting kitted(and yes I allways got some Null with me, It has itŠs moments but isnŠt the general choice like Barrage is).
Btw Aks do Blaster like Damage against Omni Armor Tanks(after resistances) with Hail at her Optimal, it is just that the normal and Faction Amnos are crap(because of -20% Basedamage from the start), check out what DPS a Rupture or a Mealstorm can do with Hail and compare this with base Omni Tank resistances(and yes I know that the 50% Tracking penalty sucks bad ass from Void, but it becomes actualy workable fighting Blaster Ships). At this short ranges where Blasters work, AKs actualy can hurt a lot. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 11:18:00 -
[749]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
It is the best fit you can be in today in a evironment that suits a Mega(opinion of someone that flyes the ship over 2 years actualy).
No, its not. Your opinion is wrong. Pure Gank/EHP fits are defined only by their EHPxDPS value in relation to others. Yours is inefficient. Its inefficient if you want only the best DPS(Hyperion does better). Its inefficient if you solo(where the rep bonus and med are much better than the tracking bonus), and its inefficient if you fit for pure DPSxEHP.
Quote: with costing more
For someone who is "preaty hardcore spending the isk" you sure do fret a whole bunch over 5 million isk.
The 5 M are nothing, compared to the fits, and the tiny price diffrence is not the reason that I chose the Mega. Why do you allways repeet your thorie about Hype >>>>> Mega? You donŠt outgank a Mega in a Hype with 7 Turrets(the 8. Slot isnŠt avaidable on the Hype for utility), you donŠt use the Tank Bonus if you plate fit it. You end up with way less DPS if you tank it(what will cost you a solid amout of kills because you canŠt blow up things that fast).
EHPxGank fittings inefficent? In one of the ships that are actualy most likely seen on TQ in this style for a obvious reason, serious? What kind of eve you playing actualy?
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
You gain a extra Med, one less Low -> wearker Tank even after the better base armor in the end. Peole still prefere the Mega(like I do) simply because It is the incernation of a Blaster BS(it isnŠt fancy, It hasnŠt a extra Med, it is straigt to the job it should do both in Slots and Boni).
Except that its not. Its not the "incarnation" of a blaster ship, the Hyperion is. The Hyperion is explicitly better in doing everything blaster ships do and everything they ought to do.
A tanked Hype is a more medicore Damagedealer(if you use the Tank Bonus). What do you in a Tanked Hype vs a Hac at 20km Range that you canŠt reach, how do you think you will break a for example a good Drake tank before deagressing with 1k DPS, what can you do against Scrambling Afs, that are actuly able to tank Light Drones?
Why do we actualy discuss about Mega vs Hype again? I allready stated my reasons to use a Mega more than once, they are 2 diffrent ships and if Hype >>>>> Mega would be true in any situation you run into today, we wouldnŠt see Megas around at all. Suprisingly we still do(even if they are quite rare today in Low Sec, at least what I see around)...
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 11:34:00 -
[750]
Originally by: Dasalt Istgut You're not getting it. Blasters do high dps at a very short range where they can hit their target. That doesn't mean they should easily stomp every other ship all the time. That doesn't mean an all out gank fit mega should easily trounce a T1 pulse fit ship. Maybe by specializing on offense you've created a glass cannon and that's the reason you ended in structure? Not the fact that blasters are broken?
Nahhh, that couldn't be it. You're much too elite to not have considered such a thing.
Yeah right, it is imballanced that a Blaster ship should win against a Laser ship(with T1 Guns wtf) at his range(within 4.5km), pls call the ballance police. Ofc a Mega will allways by like a Glas cannon compared to a Abaddon(because of the resitance Bonus) and the ability to fit EANM(say hello to CPU issues in a Mega in this case, you down to ANPs).
Nahhh, that couldnŠt be it, blaster ships suck for this long allready, that people having compleetly forgotten how it should be if you meeting one at her range and all the flexiblity of range with other races comes compleetly for free without any drawbacks at all.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 13:01:00 -
[751]
Edited by: Goumindong on 27/02/2009 13:06:47
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
I think you will find that murina has never said that or similar many times at all....are you so running out of your weak ass arguments that you need to make up comments from others?
I could be wrong. Pretty sure i am not. Even if i am, the point still stands, you must account for the advantages the ship has.
Quote:
Unfortunately the concept and especially the application of the "blaster battleship" in no longer a viable entity in eve. Its only application was 1 v 1 and that is a virtually non-existent style on TQ and coupled with the web nerf blaster BS need a serious overhaul.
This is not true. And the web nerf hurt laser ships much more. It hurts ships with lower tracking more than ships with higher tracking... I assume you can do the math.
Quote:
A mega with its mwd running cannot even orbit inside 2km of even a STATIONARY ship let alone one that is moving. And if it is webbed its speed is so low that neither blasters or lasers have a problem hitting it.
1. Don't orbit with your mwd on. That is dumb 2. No, you very well can get under guns by orbiting even when webbed. It just means that you need to get closer. Blow those graphs up for the area under 5km and you will see what I mean. When we were talking about how that was not very relevant for a gang, it was because those ranges are very uncommon when in decently sized gangs.
Either you're looking at a bigger gang and you should be using rails. Or you're looking at a smaller gang and transversal matters.
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
Everything is now clear! Goumindong's Ultimate Blaster Ship is a passive shield/active armor tanked Hyperion without MWD
I am not sure where you got the idea that i suggested that.
Quote:
Good going, Goum. Post the perfect Hyperion fit, please. I'd recommend against using the one you posted in the old thread, though, that was... not very good.
The single plate/rep one? That and the neutron ganker, i will stand by both. The Neutron ganker has a better DPSxEHP effectiveness number than the mega. The repping is one of the single best battleships you an have for solo/small gang work.
Originally by: The Djego
EHPxGank fittings inefficent? In one of the ships that are actualy most likely seen on TQ in this style for a obvious reason, serious? What kind of eve you playing actualy?
Well, ehp/gank fits are inefficient for some things. But i was referring to your fit. Which is to say, you an get better EHPxDPS numbers out of your mega, let alone out of a Hyperion.
Quote:
Why do you allways repeet your thorie about Hype >>>>> Mega?
Because its explicitly better
Quote: What do you in a Tanked Hype vs a Hac at 20km Range that you canŠt reach, how do you think you will break a for example a good Drake tank before deagressing with 1k DPS, what can you do against Scrambling Afs, that are actuly able to tank Light Drones?
You load null against HAC's at 20km, the same thing you do for a mega. You web and shoot the AF.
Quote: allready stated my reasons to use a Mega more than once, they are 2 diffrent ships and if Hype >>>>> Mega would be true in any situation you run into today, we wouldnŠt see Megas around at all.
People are dumb, they get stuck into doing things they way that they think are better even if they are not.
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 13:16:00 -
[752]
Well, Pulses had their boost, Torpedoes had their boost, Blasters and Autocannons had their effective tracking slashed with QR. Probably time to reel the former two systems back in a bit if nothing interesting is going to be considered with the fundamental mechanics.
I've hardly had my Blasterthron out of the hanger since QR, mostly flying interceptors now (Ares most of the time) with a long range Railgun Megathron and long range Dominix when I want to make use of the time (and 70M+ SP) specialised in Gallente Battleships...
Oh yes, and a slightly bonkers T-Rax setup I'm playing with (which if it continues to work may get upgraded to a 'diemost') - not that much point flying the larger Blaster ships in the current environment.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
DARTHxFREE
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 13:18:00 -
[753]
whats wrong with blasters?
/join Cheeze & Whine Club
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 13:40:00 -
[754]
Originally by: Goumindong
2. No, you very well can get under guns by orbiting even when webbed. It just means that you need to get closer. Blow those graphs up for the area under 5km and you will see what I mean. When we were talking about how that was not very relevant for a gang, it was because those ranges are very uncommon when in decently sized gangs.
Either you're looking at a bigger gang and you should be using rails. Or you're looking at a smaller gang and transversal matters.
Let's see. Megathron versus Abaddon, both webbing each other. Megathron's speed: 48 m/s. Abaddon's speed: 41 m/s.
Good luck converting that 7 m/s speed difference to misses by the lasers. Admittedly, it might rise to 10m/s given the agility differences.
... You did know that the ship being shot at by blasters is still allowed to move, didn't you? -- Gradient forum |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 13:41:00 -
[755]
Edited by: The Djego on 27/02/2009 13:43:02
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
EHPxGank fittings inefficent? In one of the ships that are actualy most likely seen on TQ in this style for a obvious reason, serious? What kind of eve you playing actualy?
Well, ehp/gank fits are inefficient for some things. But i was referring to your fit. Which is to say, you an get better EHPxDPS numbers out of your mega, let alone out of a Hyperion.
You can get them, and you will loose your ship against any serious active tank this way, missing out kills because you cant put enught DPS on them before they leave your range or deagress and screw yourself vs any Neuting ship because you canŠt take it down before beeing cap death. Congratulation you have a ship that totaly owns in EFT and dies horrably on TQ or is unable to get the killmails&Loot when it comes to close ones.
Or do you realy think all the people recogment 3 MFS and Neutrons on Megas because they are dump and will do better in other fits all the time by looking up at the ships in EFT?
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
Why do you allways repeet your thorie about Hype >>>>> Mega?
Because its explicitly better
In the opinion from someone that donŠt fly it. Yes It is your opinion based on EFT stats and your idea how this all works with BS PVP outside the Primary is..., Secondary is... style of PVP.
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
What do you in a Tanked Hype vs a Hac at 20km Range that you canŠt reach, how do you think you will break a for example a good Drake tank before deagressing with 1k DPS, what can you do against Scrambling Afs, that are actuly able to tank Light Drones?
You load null against HAC's at 20km, the same thing you do for a mega. You web and shoot the AF.
A tanked Hype only got Ions or "Electrons" what will fail in this scenario if the hac got something like a Tank(or taking freeking long, people switched Ploys to Shield rigs allready on her Hacs ). Even if you got Neutrons you still one Neut short to anybody that isnŠt this retarted to get out of your range if he realize you can kill him.
Shooting on a webbed Frig(that isnŠt one of the comedy guyes standing still or didnŠt have a Scram) = wast of Amno, Cap and time. You can use your Drones(if you not under Sentry aggro) but still siting duck and Drones can be killed/will miss something like a Ceptor a lot/can be outtanked by some AFs. The more practical guyes have allready the awnser on this, it is suprise also a Neut.
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
allready stated my reasons to use a Mega more than once, they are 2 diffrent ships and if Hype >>>>> Mega would be true in any situation you run into today, we wouldnŠt see Megas around at all.
People are dumb, they get stuck into doing things they way that they think are better even if they are not.
True, also there are people that think because of the EFT stats they can actualy predict the ingame performance of ships in various possible PVP situations they never flown herself and refuse any kind of argument somebody that actualy pilotes this thigs for a long time. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Dasalt Istgut
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 14:10:00 -
[756]
Originally by: The Djego Edited by: The Djego on 27/02/2009 11:50:29 Edited by: The Djego on 27/02/2009 11:47:32
Originally by: Dasalt Istgut You're not getting it. Blasters do high dps at a very short range where they can hit their target. That doesn't mean they should easily stomp every other ship all the time. That doesn't mean an all out gank fit mega should easily trounce a T1 pulse fit ship. Maybe by specializing on offense you've created a glass cannon and that's the reason you ended in structure? Not the fact that blasters are broken?
Nahhh, that couldn't be it. You're much too elite to not have considered such a thing.
Yeah right, it is imballanced that a Blaster ship should win against a Laser ship(with T1 Guns wtf) at his range(within 4.5km), pls call the ballance police. Ofc a Mega will allways by like a Glas cannon compared to a Abaddon(because of the resitance Bonus) and the ability to fit EANM(say hello to CPU issues in a Mega in this case, you down to ANPs).
Nahhh, that couldnŠt be it, blaster ships suck for this long allready, that people having compleetly forgotten how it should be if you meeting one at her range and all the flexiblity of range with other races comes compleetly for free without any drawbacks at all.
We had a time a Mega was 1200m/s and faster, BS gooing down against 1000 DPS in a fare under a Minute, EM reistance was 60% on Armor, Webs had 90% power, a Blaster Ship could use a Nos to keep his Cap running better with still having a defence vs smaller stuff instead beeing forced to nuke her own even more with Neuts this days, where not any ship of any sice had a MWD fitted, where Torps didnŠt outgank Blasters, where Tanking Rigs and Combat boosters wasnŠt avaidable, where any ship had fare less EHP and Cap. This was the time a Blaster ship was powerfull actualy, but most of the stuff is so long ago that only some remember and moved step by step into the situation we got today where blaster ships just suck compared to the old times and people actualy donŠt even know how it is to facing a Blaster ship at close range and how powerfull this ships actualy where in this case for a reason.
The reason CCP has changed things is because they felt that fights were too short and Gallente has been nerfed over the years because they were too strong. It doesn't matter if 'they suck compared to the old times' - that's the point of nerfing something. You're missing my point however. Did you ever consider that, your setup specifically, contributed to why you were in structure at the end of the fight? You said it yourself, the ship has like twice your EHP, you're fully gank fit and you killed it. So over the fight he did less than half as much damage as you in your optimal.
So that being the case where's the problem? You don't think its sufficient to merely do more than 2x the damage as the Amarr ship? In a gang fight where you are relying on DPS to kill primaries more than you're relying on tank to survive Gallente is a fine choice. For your *specific* fight, you'd have probably faired better with a tank, because solo PVP isn't representative of 'normal fights'.
|
Mila Prestoc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 14:21:00 -
[757]
The point is when your maximising DPS by fitting a 3rd damage mod instead of say a 2nd resistance mod or a non-stacking penalised plate your sacrificing a large amount of EHP for a DPS output that will ALWAYS be lower than what you see in EFT.
Hence that 56% stacking penalized 3rd MFS that adds 100 DPS will never truely add that. While a tank mod like a plate will ALWAYS add that HP (although EHP is affected by if your shot in a resistance hole).
So in a 3MFS or 2MFS Mega vs 3HS Aba (pure EHP / DPS comparison) you will be sacrificing about 15 seconds of survivability to kill 9 seconds quicker. -------------------------
Originally by: "Lord Violent" EvE is slowly becoming a game for the stupid, catered to by devs as they lack ability to kill/survive anything.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 14:30:00 -
[758]
Originally by: Dasalt Istgut
Originally by: The Djego Edited by: The Djego on 27/02/2009 11:50:29 Edited by: The Djego on 27/02/2009 11:47:32
Originally by: Dasalt Istgut You're not getting it. Blasters do high dps at a very short range where they can hit their target. That doesn't mean they should easily stomp every other ship all the time. That doesn't mean an all out gank fit mega should easily trounce a T1 pulse fit ship. Maybe by specializing on offense you've created a glass cannon and that's the reason you ended in structure? Not the fact that blasters are broken?
Nahhh, that couldn't be it. You're much too elite to not have considered such a thing.
Yeah right, it is imballanced that a Blaster ship should win against a Laser ship(with T1 Guns wtf) at his range(within 4.5km), pls call the ballance police. Ofc a Mega will allways by like a Glas cannon compared to a Abaddon(because of the resitance Bonus) and the ability to fit EANM(say hello to CPU issues in a Mega in this case, you down to ANPs).
Nahhh, that couldnŠt be it, blaster ships suck for this long allready, that people having compleetly forgotten how it should be if you meeting one at her range and all the flexiblity of range with other races comes compleetly for free without any drawbacks at all.
We had a time a Mega was 1200m/s and faster, BS gooing down against 1000 DPS in a fare under a Minute, EM reistance was 60% on Armor, Webs had 90% power, a Blaster Ship could use a Nos to keep his Cap running better with still having a defence vs smaller stuff instead beeing forced to nuke her own even more with Neuts this days, where not any ship of any sice had a MWD fitted, where Torps didnŠt outgank Blasters, where Tanking Rigs and Combat boosters wasnŠt avaidable, where any ship had fare less EHP and Cap. This was the time a Blaster ship was powerfull actualy, but most of the stuff is so long ago that only some remember and moved step by step into the situation we got today where blaster ships just suck compared to the old times and people actualy donŠt even know how it is to facing a Blaster ship at close range and how powerfull this ships actualy where in this case for a reason.
The reason CCP has changed things is because they felt that fights were too short and Gallente has been nerfed over the years because they were too strong. It doesn't matter if 'they suck compared to the old times' - that's the point of nerfing something. You're missing my point however. Did you ever consider that, your setup specifically, contributed to why you were in structure at the end of the fight? You said it yourself, the ship has like twice your EHP, you're fully gank fit and you killed it. So over the fight he did less than half as much damage as you in your optimal.
So that being the case where's the problem? You don't think its sufficient to merely do more than 2x the damage as the Amarr ship? In a gang fight where you are relying on DPS to kill primaries more than you're relying on tank to survive Gallente is a fine choice. For your *specific* fight, you'd have probably faired better with a tank, because solo PVP isn't representative of 'normal fights'.
Wait a Abaddon with 1 HS, T1 Guns(Large Energy Turret 4 so) has what 700 DPS(asuming all other stuff is maxed what I donŠt think in this paticular case and T1 Amno), thats wait exactly 50% of my DPS to negate the EHP diffrence under perfect conditions, with allmost any DPS and Support skills maxed and spending 300M+ just to make it fit and squeze out enught extra DPS. The funny fact I taken it down beside, where do you think this is anywhere near a point where a Blaster ship should be?
Btw I fly Abaddons to and it isnŠt even funny how easy you can take down a Thron, you donŠt even drop under 50% Armor most of the time, with it if you spend also ISK on Imps and have a good fitting at any range. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 15:15:00 -
[759]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 15:19:58
Originally by: The Djego Btw I fly Abaddons to and it isnŠt even funny how easy you can take down a Thron, you donŠt even drop under 50% Armor most of the time, with it if you spend also ISK on Imps and have a good fitting at any range.
Well if you kill a Megathron in your Abaddon while you have 50% armor left, then that Megathron pilot must have done something very wrong.
It will be the same as the time as last time i had a 1 vs 1 fight against a plated, 2x HS II......... Abaddon in my Tempest, well he had a f*ck ton of Armor anyways.
I knew what i was fighting against, and i also did know his setup.
But anyways. I started the fight. After 5 mins, the Abaddon was slowly going down, while i was tanking him. After 10 mins, the Abaddon is at 20% armor, and i'm still tanking him.
Then after 13 mins , he was into structure while i was tanking him all day long. He haven't even managed to take my armor longer down that to 85% armor lol.
Then after 15 mins, he finally died. He took 106k damage. I'll guess my EM and Thermal resists are 4tw.
Well i can then say that this Abaddon pilot must have done something extremely wrong. If not, then i don't really know heh.
Well i think i got 4 jam cycles on him in the fight. And i was also dual heavy neuting him, so that might be the key that have helped me a little in the fight.
Even when i haven't jammed him, i would still tank him for a long time, because when the fight was over, i think i had like 6-7 Cap Booster 800's left.
Yes that was a 1 vs 1 fight on sisi, and by that, i'm waiting for Murina to go EEEEEEMMMMMMMOOOOOOOO RAAAAAAAAAAGE on me.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 15:28:00 -
[760]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 15:36:52
Originally by: Goumindong
I could be wrong. Pretty sure i am not. Even if i am, the point still stands, you must account for the advantages the ship has.
The advantages are non-existent compared to the disadvantages.
Originally by: Goumindong This is not true. And the web nerf hurt laser ships much more. It hurts ships with lower tracking more than ships with higher tracking... I assume you can do the math.
Wrong the weB nerf boned the ships that operate almost exclusively within that range the most, web range is less than 20% of pulse lasers available range.
Originally by: Goumindong 1. Don't orbit with your mwd on. That is dumb
Non mwd speed for a BS = around 50ms with just a single web and lasers can hit a BS just fine at close range doing those speeds.
Originally by: Goumindong 2. No, you very well can get under guns by orbiting even when webbed. It just means that you need to get closer. Blow those graphs up for the area under 5km and you will see what I mean.
At 500m vs a 50ms moving BS the dmg difference between a hype and a baddon is 55dps....
Originally by: Goumindong Either you're looking at a bigger gang and you should be using rails. Or you're looking at a smaller gang and transversal matters.
GET A CLUE...
A rail mega does a max gun dps of 578.
Rail fitted mega vs webbed BS doing 50ms at 5km does 430ish dps the lasers and blasters do 900-1000+....
at 3km rails do 242dps while blasters and pulse do over 850-950dps...
at around 1.5km rails do 0dps while blasters and lasers do 650-750dps.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 15:52:00 -
[761]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 15:53:11
Originally by: NightmareX
....
A real miracle would not be fixing blasters it would be to stop you from waggling your epeen in local on sissi...
All hail nightmareX sissi warrior extraordinaire...
So tell us more about your knowledge of TQ pvp and the reality of the fits and ships used...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 16:13:00 -
[762]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 15:19:58
Originally by: The Djego Btw I fly Abaddons to and it isnŠt even funny how easy you can take down a Thron, you donŠt even drop under 50% Armor most of the time, with it if you spend also ISK on Imps and have a good fitting at any range.
Well if you kill a Megathron in your Abaddon while you have 50% armor left, then that Megathron pilot must have done something very wrong.
Like what exactly? If you gank fit the Abaddon you end up about 100 DPS down to a Mega with about 40-50% more buffer. If you fit it like a Hybrid with a overloaded Large rep running and 2 Heat Sinks you still repping against 50% more buffer while beeing about 300 DPS down(but gaining this in Tank). Resists are actualy nearly the same for the Hybrids vs Lasers against each other in both ships, leaving you with more HP and Range. Winning this style of fights isnŠt anything special, not even want to say not any fight starts at Optimal for the Blaster ship, giving the Laser ship a solid 20-30 Seconds Damage advantage till the Blaster ship is in Range.
Also Minmatar got 20% more EM Resistance on Armor than other races(50->60%) and if It take 100k+ Damage im preaty shure it lacked Damage a lot to actualy break tanks. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 16:13:00 -
[763]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 16:02:37
Originally by: NightmareX
....
A real miracle would not be fixing blasters it would be to stop you from waggling your epeen in local on sissi...
All hail nightmareX sissi warrior extraordinaire...
While im sure you have fun playing with your faction fits and telling ppl that the fights you have are "not to the death" just in case you lose they bear no relation to TQ pal.
LOL, that's my Navy Mega, not my Tempest. My Tempest have exact the same setup on sisi as it have on TQ, except for the t2 Trimarks.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 16:17:00 -
[764]
Originally by: The Djego Also Minmatar got 20% more EM Resistance on Armor than other races(50->60%) and if It take 100k+ Damage im preaty shure it lacked Damage a lot to actualy break tanks.
Well it might sound funny, but no one on sisi that have had any Amarr BS'es on me have never managed to break my tank on my Tempest.
It's not a joke, at all.
So yeah, the 20% better EM resist actually help alot.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 16:19:00 -
[765]
Originally by: NightmareX
LOL, that's my Navy Mega, not my Tempest. My Tempest have exact the same setup on sisi as it have on TQ, except for the t2 Trimarks.
So T2 trimarks...and maybe a full slave set ect ect.....???
And yet we are still not exactly tripping over those fits and ships nor are we seeing many 1 v 1 BS fights on TQ.
Sorry pal but your posting and comments show clearly that you are not even close to being experienced enough about TQ pvp to have any realistic or valid input on this subject.
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 - 2009.02.27 16:22:00 -
[766]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 16:23:23
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
LOL, that's my Navy Mega, not my Tempest. My Tempest have exact the same setup on sisi as it have on TQ, except for the t2 Trimarks.
So T2 trimarks...and maybe a full slave set ect ect.....???
Like no one else on sisi is not using Slaves and t2 rigs.
I can say you this. 90% of those i have been fighting on sisi have either had Crystal or Slave sets on. And like 70% of all have been using t2 rigs.
So why should i not use it then?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 16:26:00 -
[767]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 16:27:05
Originally by: NightmareX
So T2 trimarks...and maybe a full slave set ect ect.....???
Like no one else on sisi is not using Slaves and t2 rigs.
I can say you this. 90% of those i have been fighting on sisi have either had Crystal or Slave sets on. And like 70% of all have been using t2 rigs.
So why should i not use it then?.
If you cannot figure out how:
1. Both ships fitting HG implants scews results 2. How 1 v 1 fighting in a controlled environment
Gives worthless data for BS combat on TQ then you have made my point already.
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 - 2009.02.27 16:30:00 -
[768]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 16:31:08
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 16:27:05
Originally by: NightmareX
So T2 trimarks...and maybe a full slave set ect ect.....???
Like no one else on sisi is not using Slaves and t2 rigs.
I can say you this. 90% of those i have been fighting on sisi have either had Crystal or Slave sets on. And like 70% of all have been using t2 rigs.
So why should i not use it then?.
If you cannot figure out how:
1. Both ships fitting HG implants scews results 2. How 1 v 1 fighting in a controlled environment
Gives worthless data for BS combat on TQ then you have made my point already.
What????.
It wouldn't be any different if me and the Abaddon pilot didn't had Slaves. I would still tank the Abaddon in the same way as i did with Slaves. And he would died in the same way to, but only faster.
And also. A Tempest is a ship that is best used in 1 vs 1 fight or small scale PVP. So i'm testing the Tempest where it's really good.
Today, i take a Tempest ANYDAY before i take a Megathron when it's about 1 vs 1 fights. If we are going for a RR BS gang of like 20-30 BS'es, then i take a Megathron over a Tempest.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 16:37:00 -
[769]
Originally by: NightmareX
It wouldn't be any different if me and the Abaddon pilot didn't had Slaves. I would still tank the Abaddon in the same way as i did with Slaves. And he would died in the same way to, but only faster.
So you think that having extra armour on your pest and drawing out the fight (cos of the implants and T2 rigs) does not effect the results when fighting a cap dependent ship like the baddon (a 15 minute fight i believe you said)....?
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 16:37:00 -
[770]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 16:31:08
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 16:27:05
Originally by: NightmareX
So T2 trimarks...and maybe a full slave set ect ect.....???
Like no one else on sisi is not using Slaves and t2 rigs.
I can say you this. 90% of those i have been fighting on sisi have either had Crystal or Slave sets on. And like 70% of all have been using t2 rigs.
So why should i not use it then?.
If you cannot figure out how:
1. Both ships fitting HG implants scews results 2. How 1 v 1 fighting in a controlled environment
Gives worthless data for BS combat on TQ then you have made my point already.
What????.
It wouldn't be any different if me and the Abaddon pilot didn't had Slaves. I would still tank the Abaddon in the same way as i did with Slaves. And he would died in the same way to, but only faster.
And also. A Tempest is a ship that is best used in 1 vs 1 fight or small scale PVP. So i'm testing the Tempest where it's really good.
Today, i take a Tempest ANYDAY before i take a Megathron when it's about 1 vs 1 fights. If we are going for a RR BS gang of like 20-30 BS'es, then i take a Megathron over a Tempest.
Erm, what do you want to say? You are gone way offtopic dont you think? This topic is about blasters, not what you kill on sisi in your Tempest, you understand this?
-- Zuba |
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 16:52:00 -
[771]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 16:55:09
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 16:41:10
Originally by: NightmareX So i'm testing the Tempest where it's really good.
You are playing with dream fits that cost a few 100isk each and thinking it mnakes you a pvper, you are testing nothing.
Originally by: NightmareX
It wouldn't be any different if me and the Abaddon pilot didn't had Slaves. I would still tank the Abaddon in the same way as i did with Slaves. And he would died in the same way to, but only faster.
So you think that having extra armour on your pest and drawing out the fight (cos of the implants and T2 rigs) does not effect the results when fighting a cap dependent ship like the baddon (a 15 minute fight i believe you said)....?
First. No, my t2 fit is not a dream fit dude.
Second. When the Abaddon never took my armor down to more than 85%, then i don't think the Slave set would had ANYTHING to say if i haven't had it fitted.
So, you wanna come with more poor excuses or?.
Originally by: Zubakis Erm, what do you want to say? You are gone way offtopic dont you think? This topic is about blasters, not what you kill on sisi in your Tempest, you understand this?
Dude, it was a reply to the Abaddon vs Megathron thing. And then said the Megathron pilot must have done something wrong when the Mega goes pop when the Abaddon have 50% armor left.
Because i have never seen that when i have been flying a Megathron. The best fight i have had in a normal Megathron against an Abaddon, then the Abaddon won over me, but the Abaddon pilot had 10% structure left. So it was a pretty nice fight.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 16:55:00 -
[772]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 16:56:09 Anyway on topic:
Blasters need reworking as they are now a almost worthless system, lasers can easily compete at close range with the available targets BS have especially when you factor in single let alone multiple webs.
The extra agility blaster ships have over laser ships is also irrelevant even when applied against unwebbed ships as BS (even the MOST agile BS) are just not agile enough compared to their peers to make even a slight difference let alone a large on in combat.
Rails tracking is so sucky that even a 50ms webbed BS can kite them at under 2km and their max dps even in perfect conditionsis a pathetic joke (578dps).
Cap while considered the "bane of lasers" is also the bane of blasters as well if not more so as they need to almost constantly burn their MWD to get into optimal range where they do very little more dps than lasers anyway.
The single extra mid slot on the Hyperion does allow a extra web but considering the web stacking penalty and the fact that multiple ships with 1 web each work just as well as 1 ship with 2 webs each the benefit is negligible compared to the extra 40,000 ehp abaddons ships get.
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 - 2009.02.27 16:56:00 -
[773]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Anyway on topic:
Blasters need reworking as they are now a almost worthless system, lasers can easily compete at close range with the available targets BS have especially when you factor in single let alone multiple webs.
Hahaha.
Oh god i love those who cannot use Blasters good.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 17:02:00 -
[774]
Edited by: marakor on 27/02/2009 17:04:05
Originally by: NightmareX
Hahaha.
Oh god i love those who cannot use Blasters good.
Originally by: NightmareX The best fight i have had in a normal Megathron against an Abaddon, then the Abaddon won over me, but the Abaddon pilot had 10% structure left.
.........
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 17:06:00 -
[775]
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX The best fight i have had in a normal Megathron against an Abaddon, then the Abaddon won over me, but the Abaddon pilot had 10% structure left.
.........
Yeah, it wasn't best because i lost.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 17:09:00 -
[776]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Cap while considered the "bane of lasers" is also the bane of blasters as well if not more so as they need to almost constantly burn their MWD to get into optimal range where they do very little more dps than lasers anyway.
Ehhh, well, you can use something called Covert Ops that sit like 300 km from the place you are fighting at, and when you need to get close to a target that are long way from you, you warp out to the cloaked Covert Ops and then you let the tacklers take care of those who are long way from you, and when the tacklers have tackled the rest of those who are long way from you, then you warp down to the tacklers and land all from 5 to 20 km from the targets.
It's not hard to think smart.
Think smart??...
Cos in your world only my side has tacklers and my gang can warp in and out in our BS all the time.....
Just stop posting bud your inexperience and dream world scenarios you think are actually valid are doing you no favors and making you look really foolish.
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 - 2009.02.27 17:15:00 -
[777]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 17:15:40
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Cap while considered the "bane of lasers" is also the bane of blasters as well if not more so as they need to almost constantly burn their MWD to get into optimal range where they do very little more dps than lasers anyway.
Ehhh, well, you can use something called Covert Ops that sit like 300 km from the place you are fighting at, and when you need to get close to a target that are long way from you, you warp out to the cloaked Covert Ops and then you let the tacklers take care of those who are long way from you, and when the tacklers have tackled the rest of those who are long way from you, then you warp down to the tacklers and land all from 5 to 20 km from the targets.
It's not hard to think smart.
Think smart??...
Cos in your world only my side has tacklers and my gang can warp in and out in our BS all the time.....
Just stop posting bud your inexperience and dream world scenarios you think are actually valid are doing you no favors and making you look really foolish.
Dude stop posting your self.
When we are going after those who are far away from us, we have ofc killed all of the others who are near us. So there is no one to scramble us at that moment.
But ofc, before the tacklers get to the ships that are far away, they can warp out if they have the time.
And no, this is not a dream of any sorts. It have happened to me many many times on TQ.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 17:19:00 -
[778]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 17:19:44
Originally by: NightmareX
When we are going after those who are far away from us, we have ofc killed all of the others who are near us. So there is no one to scramble us at that moment.
How convenient......
So you have already won the fight and wiped out the oppositions tacklers in your "realistic gang fight scenario" and you are just killing the stragglers at range and saving cap....
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 - 2009.02.27 17:21:00 -
[779]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 17:25:59
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 17:19:44
Originally by: NightmareX
When we are going after those who are far away from us, we have ofc killed all of the others who are near us. So there is no one to scramble us at that moment.
How convenient......
So you have already won the fight and wiped out the oppositions tacklers in your "realistic gang fight scenario" and you are just killing the stragglers at range and saving cap....
Yeah, wasn't someone here whining about waaah wahhh you have to use so much cap on a Mega to MWD to the targets that are far away?.
Then i said, use your brain and stop wasting cap on MWDing all the way to the few targets that are left. Use smart tactics to save cap and time instead of doing the lazy way of fighting.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 17:29:00 -
[780]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 17:33:33
Originally by: NightmareX
Yeah, wasn't someone here whining about waaah wahhh you have to use so much cap on a Mega to MWD to the targets that are far away?.
Nope that is you interpreting a perfectly reasonable and tactical problem incorrectly, a blaster ship needs to mwd towards any target that is not in its optimal (4.5km) if it wants to quickly do its max dps, and multiple targets means multiple burning/mwding causing a major cap issue.
Originally by: NightmareX Then i said, use your brain and stop wasting cap on MWDing all the way to the few targets that are left.
And you do not find it in the least ironic that for your idea to work the fight needs to be already won and all the oppositions tacklers need to be dead.....
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 17:33:00 -
[781]
Originally by: NightmareX
Hahaha.
Oh god i love those who cannot use Blasters good.
I to have to agree I getting very solid data about how setup changes will perform(that I planed or changed with EFT and thinking about it for a while) for TQ if I throw in T2 Rigs(what I actualy do on TQ with one of the cheaper ones) Combat booster, Slaves and other things I wouldnŠt fit on a T1 BS this way on TQ. After dooing this I can make very predictalbe statments what works on TQ and what not.
O wait I donŠt. I use the exactly same Setup with the same Rigs and same Imps like on TQ and I can see on KMs if the other ships does this to or is another lol Im in a 7 Slot tanked Crystal Golem or Trippel Repped, T2 Rigged Abaddon with 100 M in combat Boosters in his Cargo and with some Secure Cans full of Cap Boosters next to him to get a picture about how this and that worked out. I personaly simply useing the Test server for testing stuff before I use this stuff on TQ and I personaly would recoment a new FFA for people like me called "Testing stuff you would use on TQ" would save me lots of time.
Having fun with Slaves and and fully pimped Setups might be fun, but donŠt gives you a real picture about how things will actualy end with the Setups that usely fly on TQ, itŠs fun but nothing much beyond this.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 17:47:00 -
[782]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 17:57:01 sophisticatedlimabean.
Whatever you do, a good pvper would never warp his Blaster Mega into a fight if he knows that he will land 40-50 km from the target.
At least i wouldn't do it in a Mega. I would only warp in if i know that i will and in the 5-15 km range.
The Djego. I agree to some points.
But, there is some few things that you have to realize. First. It's ok to use the same things on your ship and the same implants on sisi as you use on TQ. But there is one thing that will not work good then.
Most players on Sisi are using Slave / Crystal sets and t2 rigs there. So it would be unfair for me to be in a Tempest for example with no slaves and almost no implants as i have on TQ.
Because if most of the players are using Slaves / Crystal sets and t2 rigs on sisi, then why shouldn't i do it then?.
Ofc, i could ofc set my Tempest to the ultimate test to fight others with Slaves and that with no Slaves and only t1 rigs.
Hmmmm, maybe i should do it, just to show that the Tempest is better than peoples think.
Oh well, was a bit off topic. But lets all try to stay on topic though.
Anyone up for a bet on who will win against my no Slaved t2 fitted with t1 rigs fitted Tempest against a fully HG Slaved t2 rigs plated Abaddon?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 17:55:00 -
[783]
Originally by: NightmareX
Whatever you do, a good pvper would never warp his Blaster Mega into a fight if he knows that he will land 40-50 km from the target.
At least i wouldn't do it in a Mega. I would only warp in if i know that i will and in the 10 km range.
1. Nor would i but then you do not always have the option of being the one that warps in.
2. Even at 10km (more on a gate) you still need to approach the primary ship while his buddies burn away and as the fight goes on the further you will need to burn to get into optimal.
While getting hit for uber DPS.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 17:55:00 -
[784]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 27/02/2009 17:56:15
Originally by: The Djego
Blasters got no Barrage
A large neutron blaster with null outdamages a 800mm AC using barrage from 0-29km. And that is a double-bonused AC vs a single-bonused blaster.
Quote:
Btw Aks do Blaster like Damage against Omni Armor Tanks(after resistances) with Hail
A large neutron blaster with void outdamages a 800mm AC with hail from 0-16km. And that is a double-bonused AC vs a single-bonused blaster. (That is, if you can actually hit something, which goes for both guns, so you're better shooting a supercap).
Also, omnitanks are hardly the pinnacle of pvp fittings.
And just for comparison purposes, a large neutron blaster with faction AM outdamages a 800mm AC with faction Emp from 0-20km. And that is a double-bonused AC vs a single-bonused blaster.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:03:00 -
[785]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 18:05:31
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 27/02/2009 17:57:51
Originally by: The Djego
Blasters got no Barrage
A large neutron blaster with null outdamages a 800mm AC using barrage from 0-29km. And that is a double-bonused AC vs a single-bonused blaster.
Quote:
Btw Aks do Blaster like Damage against Omni Armor Tanks(after resistances) with Hail
A large neutron blaster with void outdamages a 800mm AC with hail from 0-17km. And that is a double-bonused AC vs a single-bonused blaster. (That is, if you can actually hit something, which goes for both guns, so you're better shooting a supercap).
Also, omnitanks are hardly the pinnacle of pvp fittings.
And just for comparison purposes, a large neutron blaster with faction AM outdamages a 800mm AC with faction Emp from 0-20km. And that is a double-bonused AC vs a single-bonused blaster.
Yes that's true.
But remember how evil the Dual Heavy Neuts on a 800mm AC Tempest can be against a Neutron Blaster Mega with only a Medium Capacitor Booster.
Those 2 neuts are way more evil than fitting 2 Torp / Cruise Launchers in high slot.
Imagine if the 800mm AC guns only had 80 DPS lower for example than Neutron Blasters. And then have 2x Heavy Neuts and probably an ECM jammer to.
For me, the Tempest would be way waaaaaay to owerpowered then.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P CCP
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:07:00 -
[786]
Cleaned.
Removed more off-topic posts.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Email |
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:10:00 -
[787]
Originally by: NightmareX
Yes that's true.
No its not :P I failed massively and forgot to put the same amount of dmg mods on the platforms.
Check updated post for correct figures.
Conclusion still the same though imo.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:11:00 -
[788]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 18:12:51
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
A large neutron blaster with null outdamages a 800mm AC using barrage from 0-29km. And that is a double-bonused AC vs a single-bonused blaster.
And just for comparison purposes, a large neutron blaster with faction AM outdamages a 800mm AC with faction Emp from 0-20km. And that is a double-bonused AC vs a single-bonused blaster.
Are you sure cos AM cannot even reach 20km very well let alone hit well, and 29km is rather far for null as well as the "chance to hit", now they may do slightly more dmg at closer ranges but i think you made a minor range error (forgiven and not trolled cos i made a ammo/dmg error on murina).
EDIT: OK you caught it....
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:12:00 -
[789]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 17:57:01
The Djego. I agree to some points.
But, there is some few things that you have to realize. First. It's ok to use the same things on your ship and the same implants on sisi as you use on TQ. But there is one thing that will not work good then.
Most players on Sisi are using Slave / Crystal sets and t2 rigs there. So it would be unfair for me to be in a Tempest for example with no slaves and almost no implants as i have on TQ.
Because if most of the players are using Slaves / Crystal sets and t2 rigs on sisi, then why shouldn't i do it then?.
Ofc, i could ofc set my Tempest to the ultimate test to fight others with Slaves and that with no Slaves and only t1 rigs.
Hmmmm, maybe i should do it, just to show that the Tempest is better than peoples think.
Oh well, was a bit off topic. But lets all try to stay on topic though.
Anyone up for a bet on who will win against my no Slaved t2 fitted with t1 rigs fitted Tempest against a fully HG Slaved t2 rigs plated Abaddon?.
Because if you meet people like me, you get the wrong picture about the setup(asuming that Im fully slaved and use all the other creazy things).
Also for example a Slave set would be more powerfull on a Abaddon than on the Mega, because of the resistance Bonus and the higher base number and so on, a Crystal Set would boost a Mealstorm more than a Raven etc. This is why I take a very close look on my KMs to check if this was a realistic fitting before starting any thinking about how it worked out, what went wrong/right, mistakes in range, ship and module handling, tactic of the other ship, involved EW and other things to get a picture what would happen if I do the same stuff on TQ and how good the setup worked in the end compared to the other ship.
Ofc you can asume that your setup would have worked out on TQ 10-15% better in this and this situation against other ships(not any T1 Cruiser is fully T2 fitted or have a Fleeting Web instead of the X5 on TQ for example etc.) but you get a halve way acurate picture what would happen in the end. For example I lost against a Hype(full tank in the lows what is a legetime fitting on TQ) very close(he was down to 40% Structure both times tested with Void and normal Antimatter) what gives me the picture that with FN Antimatter I would have won this probably on TQ(not loosing the DPS with normal Antimatter or the Tracking with Void). You will still have some variables like Skills or used Combat booster or not, but this are mostly things you also meet on TQ and you have to take them into your calculation to predict what ship will come out on top most likely. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:13:00 -
[790]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: NightmareX
Yes that's true.
No its not :P I failed massively and forgot to put the same amount of dmg mods on the platforms.
Check updated post for correct figures.
Conclusion still the same though imo.
I still agree to that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:17:00 -
[791]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
EDIT: OK you caught it....
Tbh, I'm really glad I could resist the urge to troll your mistake earlier
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:22:00 -
[792]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 18:22:56
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
EDIT: OK you caught it....
Tbh, I'm really glad I could resist the urge to troll your mistake earlier
Id be interested in seeing the % differences in raw gun dmg in 2km intervals (or even a graph) for AC and blasters while fitted to comparative ships from 0-30km tbh. Using AM in close and null for the longer ranges and the comparative ammo for AC..
It would be quite educational i think.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:31:00 -
[793]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 27/02/2009 18:34:51
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Id be interested in seeing the % differences in raw gun dmg in 2km intervals (or even a graph) for AC and blasters while fitted to comparative ships from 0-30km tbh. Using AM in close and null for the longer ranges and the comparative ammo for AC..
It would be quite educational i think.
Would be interesting indeed, although we should keep in mind blasters and ACs cannot easily change their ammo on the fly like lasers can, so in reality blasterships and ac-ships will be nailed to the ammo they choosed before the fight started unless they're willing to give up the damage they can do in 10 seconds to switch.
Still it might turn out that null is the more versatile choice for blasters, much like barrage is for autocannons for general use, and they should infact default to load null, regarding engagement windows in small to medium gang warfare.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:33:00 -
[794]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Id be interested in seeing the % differences in raw gun dmg in 2km intervals (or even a graph) for AC and blasters while fitted to comparative ships from 0-30km tbh. Using AM in close and null for the longer ranges and the comparative ammo for AC..
It would be quite educational i think.
Would be interesting indeed, although we should keep in mind blasters and ACs cannot easily change their ammo on the fly like lasers can, so in reality blasterships and ac-ships will be nailed to the ammo they choosed before the fight started unless they're willing to give up the damage they can do in 10 seconds to switch.
That is why only 2 ammo types are really worth testing as swapping to null from AM or visa versa is the only reload worth doing in a blaster ship.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:38:00 -
[795]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 27/02/2009 18:41:12
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
That is why only 2 ammo types are really worth testing as swapping to null from AM or visa versa is the only reload worth doing in a blaster ship.
Same with ACs, its either RF Emp or Barrage. Still, in reality giving up damage for 10 long seconds is a hard decision, it could as well cost you the fight, more so if you get to your desired range again later in the fight.
Well, there still is RF PP for ACs, but thats rather a niche solution if you shooting amarr t2 with insane resist to exp.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 18:43:00 -
[796]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
That is why only 2 ammo types are really worth testing as swapping to null from AM or visa versa is the only reload worth doing in a blaster ship.
Same with ACs, its either RF Emp or Barrage. Still, in reality giving up damage for 10 long seconds is a hard decision, it could as well cost you the fight, more so if you get to your desired range again later in the fight.
Ive found that considering the speed of BS and their available targets you get quite a bit of warning and see if you are gonna need to swap up or down or not in plenty of time to do so although you right about null it is the normal default ammo for obvious reasons.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 19:27:00 -
[797]
Edited by: Goumindong on 27/02/2009 19:29:42
Originally by: The Djego
Wait a Abaddon with 1 HS, T1 Guns(Large Energy Turret 4 so) has what 700 DPS(asuming all other stuff is maxed what I donŠt think in this paticular case and T1 Amno), thats wait exactly 50% of my DPS to negate the EHP diffrence under perfect conditions, with allmost any DPS and Support skills maxed and spending 300M+ just to make it fit and squeze out enught extra DPS. The funny fact I taken it down beside, where do you think this is anywhere near a point where a Blaster ship should be?
Are you aware of the concept of diminishing returns?
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
The advantages are non-existent compared to the disadvantages and available target selection.
Blaster ships have a larger available target selection. They are faster, have better scan radius, and are more able to fit the modules that enable them to deal DPS to smaller targets or keep them from getting jammed.
Quote:
Wrong the web nerf boned the ships that operate almost exclusively within that range the most, web range is less than 20% of pulse lasers available range.
The web nerf hurt large ships that are in web range and have fewer med slots. The more med slots you have, the better off you are(to a point). The ideal range of the ship does not matter, only the range you're currently at matters.
This is being generous and ignoring the meta considerations. You see, when you're not ignoring how people will choose to play the game, you realize that before the web nerf, all ships could easily hit within web range. This meant that no small ships would ever attempt to get within web range of big ships, since the big ships would web and kill them whether it was a laser ship or blaster ship. As well, against larger ships, the strong webs meant that you could not ever get enough transversal against low tracking weapons to avoid their fire if you were the same size. Because of this, ships of all sizes are more likely to come into web range, where laser ships have a disadvantage. Since we have established that ships with fewer meds and lower tracking are disadvantaged by this, this revelation shifts the advantage even further.
These two points wildly favor lasers over blasters, and they were changed.
So not only is there the explicit boost to higher tracking, higher med slot ships, there is the meta boost in that other ships will actually want to enter web range.
Suggesting that the web nerf hurt blaster ships more is just plain wrong given the information.
Quote:
At 500m vs a 50ms moving BS the dmg difference between a hype and a baddon is 55dps....
And how much dps are they doing at that distance? And what about damage types?
Quote:
A rail mega does a max gun dps of 578.
Rail fitted mega vs webbed BS doing 50ms at 5km does 430ish dps the lasers and blasters do 900-1000+....
And a pulse geddon does 681 and its all EM damage.
The rails trade closer range DPS(where the pulse lasers can fit AN MF L) for very long range DPS(where the rails can fit spike).
P.S. Your actual DPS numbers for the laser ships are totally off. A max skilled Abaddon with 3 HS and 8 Megapulse II does 915 DPS with its guns under perfect conditions.
Also, you're ignoring drones, which do indeed matter in the short range like that.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 19:39:00 -
[798]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: The Djego
Blasters got no Barrage
A large neutron blaster with null outdamages a 800mm AC using barrage from 0-15km. And that is a double-bonused AC vs a single-bonused blaster. At 20km the AC gets a 10% advantage in dps, and at 30km a ~75% advantage.
Because it got 11km Optimal. ItŠs fare worst for Electrons and Ions. The 15-25km is actualy the interesting range most of the time if you switch to long range Amno on a BS(same for Blasters and Aks). With Electrons you are allready Optimal+1xFalloff at 17km and 22.5 with Ions, this is also a reason many people using Neutron Blasters. Neutrons give 11km + 16km Falloff raise the Optimal+1xFalloff to 27km and leads to deacend DPS(and even more important hit chances) in the 15-25km range against smaller stuff that trys to say out of your web range. Keep in mind the Neutron Blaster still wants Cap for his work and requires fare higher numbers in Powergrid\CPU to mount(what leaves you with 2k Grid after fitting 7 Neutrons and a MWD -> Heavy Cap Booster, Named/Faction LAR, Heavy Neut/nos you decide, ofc the last 2 ones only with AWU 5).
The biggest change you will notice in the Cruiser Class where even with Falloff Bonused T2 Ships you will be down to max 15km. 6km with a Electron Setup(what isnŠt uncommon on the Thorax or Brutix if you want to add something like a Buffer or even a tank). This is actualy the Class of Turrets that could use a 500-1000m more optimal, to not get outranged within Web Range(the damage of a 180mm Rupture at 8km to a Electron Thorax is very huge, especialy with the scram changes you can die quite easy even in Web range because you lacking range).
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: The Djego
Btw Aks do Blaster like Damage against Omni Armor Tanks(after resistances) with Hail
A large neutron blaster with void outdamages a 800mm AC with hail from 0-12km. And that is a double-bonused AC vs a single-bonused blaster. (That is, if you can actually hit something, which goes for both guns, so you're better shooting a supercap).
At 15km there is 20% dps advantage for the AC.
Also, omnitanks are hardly the pinnacle of pvp fittings.
And just for comparison purposes, a large neutron blaster with faction AM outdamages a 800mm AC with faction Emp from 0-10km. And that is a double-bonused AC vs a single-bonused blaster.
At 15km the AC gets a 25% advantage over the blaster, at 20km we're looking again at a ~75% advantage for the AC.
Edited because I fail, missing dmg mods on the AC platform :P
Well Armor Omni Tanks are what you will see in general. Even in a 3 Hardner, EANM, DCU tanky setup Explosive will still be the lowest resistance afterall. Ofc a Blaster with Faction Antimatter does more Damage, simply because the Projektil Amnos have less base Damage(exept Hail what actualy makes it halve decend vs same sized targest that donŠt move much and are close -> Blaster Ships in general) compared to other races.
2x EANM +DCU: Void vs Mini: 62.6 Kin 67.6 Thermal vs 28kin & 28 Thermal = 19.6 total Damage Hail vs Galente: 55.1 Explo 67.6 Kin vs 44 Explo & 11 Kin = 24,8 total Damage That is a very huge 25% advantage what makes Heil actualy a interesting thing(and the fact that it has the same Basedamage as other Races T2 High Damage Amnos what adds another raw 10% DPS than Faction Amnos) and makes ships like the Mealstorm, Cane and Rupture outganking simlar sized Blaster ships at Blaster Range.
I know T2 High Damge amno is mostly pointless but Hail is actualy the one that got a advantage compared to his drawbacks in slugefests without much movement.
Also using the Tempest(dubble bonused Turrets) isnŠt this good since it is the worst of the Mini BS in the end(and areeable one of the worst BS off all from the Tank\Gank point of view) you can get fare better numbers out of a 4 Gyro Mealstorm that isnŠt this fare of the numbers you will get out of a Blaster BS(raw DPS). ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 19:58:00 -
[799]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 20:05:18
Originally by: Goumindong
Blaster ships have a larger available target selection. They are faster, have better scan radius, and are more able to fit the modules that enable them to deal DPS to smaller targets or keep them from getting jammed.
Insignificantly faster and scan radius and getting jammed has nothing to do with BS available target selection.
Originally by: Goumindong The web nerf hurt large ships that are in web range and have fewer med slots. The more med slots you have, the better off you are(to a point). The ideal range of the ship does not matter, only the range you're currently at matters.
Rubbish, as yours and other graphs have shown a webbed BS gets hit just as easily by lasers as it does blasters and the fact is that in a fight multiple webs will be used anyway..
It is simple reality vs your dream paper tiger mathematics.
Originally by: Goumindong And how much dps are they doing at that distance? And what about damage types?
55dps difference is 55dps playing with dmg types when ppl fit plug and plate fits is pointless as well as the fact that the lower the base dmg the less pronounced the difference becomes as the ehp of ships does not decrease in the least making the 40k more ehp on the abaddon a lot more favorable.
Originally by: Goumindong And a pulse geddon does 681 and its all EM damage.
So what????, the baddon does 900+ compared to the rail mega that does 578, the geddon does not count as the hype cannot fit rails.......playing with non-comparable ships will not help you...
Originally by: Goumindong Also, you're ignoring drones, which do indeed matter in the short range like that.
hype = 100m3 drone bay = 253dps with max drone skills. abaddon = 75m3 drone bay = 210dps with max drone skills. Result 43 more dps LOL...
But even so if drones and tracking are a issue the drone dmg favors pulse ships more than blasters....
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 20:16:00 -
[800]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Insignificantly faster and scan radius and getting jammed has nothing to do with BS available target selection.
Wait, you're telling me the ability to hold and keep(and the speed at whih its applied) a lock, web, and scram has nothing to do with your available target selection?
Quote:
Rubbish, as yours and other graphs have shown a webbed BS gets hit just as easily by lasers as it does blasters and the fact is that in a fight multiple webs will be used anyway..
Not really, no
Quote:
55dps difference is 55dps playing with dmg types when ppl fit plug and plate fits is pointless as well as the fact that the lower the base dmg the less pronounced the difference becomes as the ehp of ships does not decrease in the least making the 40k more ehp on the abaddon a lot more favorable.
"plug and plate" doesn't mean anything. If people are plugging their resistance "holes" they are idiots, they should not be doing that. Its stupid. Its only not stupid if you know exactly what the other guys have...
And 55dps makes a difference when its on top of whatever normal damage you do.
Quote:
So what????, the baddon does 900+ compared to the rail mega that does 578, the geddon does not count as the hype cannot fit rails.......playing with non-comparable ships will not help you...
What in the world are you on about?
First things first.
1. Tier doesn't matter 2. Even if it did, the Abaddon is tier 3, the Geddon is tier 1, the hyp is tier 3, and the mega tier 2
The Abaddon does 915 DPS with AN MF L. It does 730 with scorch. After damage types this is not much more damage that the Mega. And the mega has a full drone bay.
Quote:
hype = 100m3 drone bay = 253dps with max drone skills. abaddon = 75m3 drone bay = 210dps with max drone skills. Result 43 more dps LOL...
43 more DPS is 43 more DPS. Add that to the 55 from earlier and now you're at 98 more DPS. If you were doing 300 DPS in the abaddon now you're at a 33% increase in DPS before damage types.
Quote:
But even so if drones and tracking are a issue the drone dmg favors pulse ships more than blasters....
Drone damage favors no one. Its neutral. If you go from a non-drone resisted comparison to a with drone resisted comparison the with drone laser ship may look as if it gained more, but it hasn't.
|
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 20:19:00 -
[801]
For years I have been a blaster guy. It is only in last couple months that I been getting into lasers - mega pulse.
And honestly, mega pulse performs better. I get about same DPS with either one - the dps differences don't seem to play big role. What is very important is that I get 15km optimal range - and at least half the fights happen in 15-20 km ranges. What's even more important is that with mega pulse I can easily hit at 30 km optimal - still doing great damage. And if necessary, I can go up to 42 km optimal with decent damage. This is something the blaster simply cannot do.
Besides the much greater versatility of mega pulse, I find it much easier to fit on Amarr ships than trying to fit Neutron Blaster on Gallente ships.
Blasters still do more damage in certain situations, but the extra damage is too insignificant when compared to the much greater range versatility of mega pulse, and the fitting issues.
I don't want to see Blasters become more like the mega pulse. I don't want weapons to be nearly-identical.
What I want is - make the extra damage of blasters significant enough to provide clear contrast against the versatility of mega pulse. I'd say it would take a 20% damage boost to Blasters - a free damage mod, so to speak. With that type of advantage, there shouldn't even be a question of who's the best at very short range combat. It should be clear as day that blasters rule that combat style. And for that clear damage advantage, blasters pay with difficult fitting requirements and lack of versatility of optimal range and tracking.
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 20:32:00 -
[802]
Originally by: Goumindong
Quote:
Wrong the web nerf boned the ships that operate almost exclusively within that range the most, web range is less than 20% of pulse lasers available range.
The web nerf hurt large ships that are in web range and have fewer med slots. The more med slots you have, the better off you are(to a point). The ideal range of the ship does not matter, only the range you're currently at matters.
This is being generous and ignoring the meta considerations. You see, when you're not ignoring how people will choose to play the game, you realize that before the web nerf, all ships could easily hit within web range. This meant that no small ships would ever attempt to get within web range of big ships, since the big ships would web and kill them whether it was a laser ship or blaster ship. As well, against larger ships, the strong webs meant that you could not ever get enough transversal against low tracking weapons to avoid their fire if you were the same size. Because of this, ships of all sizes are more likely to come into web range, where laser ships have a disadvantage. Since we have established that ships with fewer meds and lower tracking are disadvantaged by this, this revelation shifts the advantage even further.
These two points wildly favor lasers over blasters, and they were changed.
So not only is there the explicit boost to higher tracking, higher med slot ships, there is the meta boost in that other ships will actually want to enter web range.
Suggesting that the web nerf hurt blaster ships more is just plain wrong given the information.
Weakening the webifier made large pulse less effective in webrange, yes. But blasters were affected, too, in order to deal full damage they have to be at 4.5km where tracking becomes an issue even for blasters, while lasers get more efficient the farther out you get to the 10km web bubble.
And following your logic lasers got a boost outside webrange as well. Due to reduced max speeds of ALL ships (and the complete removal of speedfits on quite a few ships) lasers got an indirect boost outside webrange, blasters however fall very short here... having to use null to hit outside 10km for some damage (with less tracking of course)...
See I can pull bull**** irrelevant arguments out of my ass, too. The point is that blasters have to work within webrange, pulse don't. Blasters rely on a web, pulse don't (especially not in gangs). Thus nefing the web is indirectly nerfing ships that have to use them. This is not about 1on1 BS fights and not situationaly depending (as you want us to believe, while in the same breath you claim superiorty of blasterboats because some have more meds...). This is your everyday cookicutter standard engagement with multiple participants in diffrent sizes.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 20:34:00 -
[803]
Originally by: Goumindong
Wait, you're telling me the ability to hold and keep(and the speed at whih its applied) a lock, web, and scram has nothing to do with your available target selection?
Oh dear we are back to your 1 v 1 scenarios....anyway choose between a extra web or a eccm pls its tiring seeing you refit they hype mid fight depending on how it suits you.
Originally by: Goumindong Not really, no
Yes really, tracking in a blaster vs pulse scenario with multiple BS is irrelevant as all the ships will have at least 1 web each and stacking makes having 2 on the hype pointless.
Originally by: Goumindong And 55dps makes a difference when its on top of whatever normal damage you do.
55 extra dps is nothing when ships are at close range and doing low dps anyway that perfectly suits the ship with the extra 40,000ehp.
Originally by: Goumindong The Abaddon does 915 DPS with AN MF L. It does 730 with scorch. After damage types this is not much more damage that the Mega. And the mega has a full drone bay.
Its plenty more than the rail mega especially at close range.
Originally by: Goumindong Drone damage favors no one. Its neutral. .
Actually drones favor pulse ships cos of the range pulse get, ogre IIs do 1000ish ms so when you look at scorch optimal that is 45 secs (+how far the baddon has burned) for the drones to travel while the pulse ship is doing 730dps.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 20:38:00 -
[804]
Edited by: Trader20 on 27/02/2009 20:38:50
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 15:19:58
Originally by: The Djego Btw I fly Abaddons to and it isnŠt even funny how easy you can take down a Thron, you donŠt even drop under 50% Armor most of the time, with it if you spend also ISK on Imps and have a good fitting at any range.
Well if you kill a Megathron in your Abaddon while you have 50% armor left, then that Megathron pilot must have done something very wrong.
It will be the same as the time as last time i had a 1 vs 1 fight against a plated, 2x HS II......... Abaddon in my Tempest, well he had a f*ck ton of Armor anyways.
I knew what i was fighting against, and i also did know his setup.
But anyways. I started the fight. After 5 mins, the Abaddon was slowly going down, while i was tanking him. After 10 mins, the Abaddon is at 20% armor, and i'm still tanking him.
Then after 13 mins , he was into structure while i was tanking him all day long. He haven't even managed to take my armor longer down that to 85% armor lol.
Then after 15 mins, he finally died. He took 106k damage. I'll guess my EM and Thermal resists are 4tw.
Well i can then say that this Abaddon pilot must have done something extremely wrong. If not, then i don't really know heh.
Well i think i got 4 jam cycles on him in the fight. And i was also dual heavy neuting him, so that might be the key that have helped me a little in the fight.
Even when i haven't jammed him, i would still tank him for a long time, because when the fight was over, i think i had like 6-7 Cap Booster 800's left.
Yes that was a 1 vs 1 fight on sisi, and by that, i'm waiting for Murina to go EEEEEEMMMMMMMOOOOOOOO RAAAAAAAAAAGE on me.
Yea this one time I beat a titan in my ibis, I don't have any ss or vids but it's true. Your fictional stories are not helping this thread progress. TL;DR version: ss or stfu
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 20:45:00 -
[805]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 20:45:27
Originally by: Trader20 Yea this one time I beat a titan in my ibis, I don't have any ss or vids but it's true. Your fictional stories are not helping this thread progress. TL;DR version: ss or stfu
Yeah very good idea to compare a noob ship to a titan.
At least i was comparing a BS to a BS.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 20:50:00 -
[806]
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 27/02/2009 19:29:42
Originally by: The Djego
Wait a Abaddon with 1 HS, T1 Guns(Large Energy Turret 4 so) has what 700 DPS(asuming all other stuff is maxed what I donŠt think in this paticular case and T1 Amno), thats wait exactly 50% of my DPS to negate the EHP diffrence under perfect conditions, with allmost any DPS and Support skills maxed and spending 300M+ just to make it fit and squeze out enught extra DPS. The funny fact I taken it down beside, where do you think this is anywhere near a point where a Blaster ship should be?
Are you aware of the concept of diminishing returns?
Lets see I have to give up a huge Range, I have to give up a huge EHP chuck, I have to fit a MWD(to simply get in range), I loose a huge amout of time/Cap/HP while getting within Range, I have to use expensive implants/Items in the fitting to making this happen at all and I have the worser Gang BS(because beeing in Range allready is better than getting in Range and the EHP Bonus is also nice to have).
As a advantage I can dedicate range to some amount, you could fit a MWD on the Abaddon to for this reason but it isnŠt a must have like on the Mega. Also you mostly will have to overload the MWD just to get a chance to get in Range to something that has a MWD to in a resonalbe timeframe, reducing actual mobility in many cases to 5-6 MWD Cycles, if your MWD is done and you havnŠt catched the target yet you are screwed(especialy for Blaster ships under the BS size).
I have a better Tracking(what is compromized by the small range I actualy have to use) and it is not like the a Puls BS would not hit at this ranges or a Puls BS would miss things compleetly that I will hit properly all the time.
I have a Neut what gives me a chance to get my hands on Cruiser sized ships that prefere 15-25km range(the ultimate Blaster BS, named the Hyperion by you donŠt even would have this in a common Setup) and to defend myself against people with Scramblers in ships I canŠt hit well enught to take them down in a resonalbe timeframe.
My Guns need less Cap, counting in the cap loose for fitting and running a MWD not this big diffrence(you have to burn more in the beginning and a bit less later on asuming you can catch the target and donŠt have to MWD within Web range because you canŠt hold your Target in Place or it donŠt moves).
I can bump stuff, what I actualy given up on this since QR the agility/speed changes made this pointless with a plated BS.
Im a bit better to blow up people before they manage to deagress and jump/dock(since a huge amount of them are passive shieldtanked things in Low Sec to permatank Sentrys like Drakes or Hics Lasers wonŠt be fare beyond, excluding the Broadsword here a bit).
I have a bigger Drone Bay, what is one of the reasons I have the few more DPS I have.
I can do more Damage against Omni Tanks, I do less against most of the T2 Ships, Shield Tanks or Hardner Setups.
Hyperion/Domi/Mega are able to field a deacend active Tank(what in all cases leading to DPS numbers to fare under 1k, increasing range Issues with smaller Blasters and makes you very sensitive for any kind of Cap Warefare and you will cap out after a very short while by yourself anyway without 2 Cap Boosters) but single Rep on the Abaddon or Gedon also works for this and will lead to simlar damage Taken numbers in many common PVP scenarios(what isnŠt outtanking a low DPS ship for several Minutes but holding ground against a serious number of incomming DPS for a resonalbe time in general).
Do I miss a stunning feature? Do you recognize that most of this advantages comming with very huge drawbacks allready?
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 20:57:00 -
[807]
It would be interesting to see how the opinions of people here vary based on their level of experience with subject matter.
For example, what are the opinions of people who have at least 100 kills with large blasters, at least 100 with large Autocannons, and at least 100 with mega pulse.
Then look at another group: those who have at least 100 kills with blasters but less than 100 with autocannons and mega pulse. Repeat same grouping for other 2 weapon types.
Then also examine the group that has less than 100 kills with all the 3 large gun groups.
Would we find any interesting patterns? or would it show same distribution? It would take quite a bit of work to compile this data, but it seems pretty interesting.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 20:57:00 -
[808]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 20:59:20
Originally by: The Djego Correct
To be brief the blaster ships suck at all forms of gang pvp and even in the non-existent solo pvp area they still suck but the best that can be said about them in solo is that they suck marginally less than a couple of other races at it.
So all we beed are BF areas in every system in eve and...well ok certain ppl will still sit on sissi as its cheaper for a epeen stroke..
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 - 2009.02.27 21:00:00 -
[809]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 20:59:20
Originally by: The Djego Correct
To be brief the blaster ships suck at all forms of gang pvp and even in the non-existent solo pvp area they still suck but the best that can be said about them in solo is that they suck marginally less than a couple of other races at it.
So all we beed are BF areas in every system in eve and...well ok certain ppl will still sit on sissi as its cheaper for a epeen stroke..
Hmm, i thought that the BF arenas on sisi was to test out ship and setups, not to do e-peen strokes.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 21:06:00 -
[810]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 21:06:50
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: The Djego Correct
To be brief the blaster ships suck at all forms of gang pvp and even in the non-existent solo pvp area they still suck but the best that can be said about them in solo is that they suck marginally less than a couple of other races at it.
So all we beed are BF areas in every system in eve and...well ok certain ppl will still sit on sissi as its cheaper for a epeen stroke..
Hmm, i thought that the BF arenas on sisi was to test out ship and setups, not to do e-peen strokes.
so did i...
So what TQ reality did that belong in?.
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 - 2009.02.27 21:13:00 -
[811]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 21:14:42
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 21:11:19
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: The Djego Correct
To be brief the blaster ships suck at all forms of gang pvp and even in the non-existent solo pvp area they still suck but the best that can be said about them in solo is that they suck marginally less than a couple of other races at it.
So all we need are BF areas in every system in eve and...well ok certain ppl will still sit on sissi as its cheaper for a epeen stroke..
Hmm, i thought that the BF arenas on sisi was to test out ship and setups, not to do e-peen strokes.
so did i...
So just out of interest what TQ reality did that belong in, how do you feel it helps this topic and your understanding of blaster ships in gang combat on TQ and why crow about it in local???.
Do you even know why i posted my setup in local there?. Because the guy i was fighting wanted to know what i had on the ship, so i posted it there.
And i know 100% how Blasters works on TQ, so no one need to tell me how they are working.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 21:17:00 -
[812]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 21:20:17
Originally by: NightmareX
And i know 100% how Blasters works on TQ, so no one need to tell me how they are working.
Perhaps that is what you think with your limited understanding but you have failed utterly to show that with your 1 v 1 stats, in fact all you have done is show how worthless blaster ships are in gang pvp on TQ and they the need some kind of a buff.
But by all means go ahead and give us a gang scenario....oh and one that you have not already won and have killed all the tackle and just are mopping up stragglers...
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 - 2009.02.27 21:21:00 -
[813]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 21:26:07
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
And i know 100% how Blasters works on TQ, so no one need to tell me how they are working.
Perhaps that is what you think with your limited understanding but you have failed utterly to show that with your 1 v 1 stats, in fact all you have done is show how worthless blaster ships are in gang pvp on TQ and they the need some kind of a buff.
What have i shown that says Blasters are worthless?.
Only if you could have used your little brain a little when you fight, then there is no problems with Blasters, at all.
It's the same with Minmatar BS'es. You have to do everything 99.9% right, if not, your in danger to lose. Last 1 vs 1 fight i had against a Megathron on TQ in my Tempest, i lost because i did 4-5 mistakes in the fight.
If i didn't had done those mistakes, i would win over him. And i know that i did those mistakes, because i frapsed the fight, and when i watched over the fraps some few times, i did see what i did wrong.
And then, it's the same for Blaster ships, if you only can do things right in the Gallente BS'es, then there will not be any problems.
I bet you still think the Gallente BS'es are easy mode as they was earlier, and then see now that it's not that easy anymore, and then whinewhinewhinewhine that they sucks because of that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 21:27:00 -
[814]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 21:30:46
Honestly bud you ask why ppl think you have no idea and are out of touch with TQ then you post this as a example of balanced combat on TQ:
Originally by: NightmareX Last 1 vs 1 fight i had against a Megathron on TQ in my Tempest, i lost because i did 4-5 mistakes in the fight..............
What does it take to get into you head that 1 v 1 is not a thing that happens or is how BS balance on TQ.
After all you had to move to sissi to get any but again and again you preach about it like its a valid and well used type of pvp on TQ, sorry but you are not on the same page as the rest of us...in fact you really are not even in the same game..literally.
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 - 2009.02.27 21:31:00 -
[815]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 21:31:26
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Honestly bud you ask why ppl think you have no idea then you post this as a example of balanced combat on TQ:
Originally by: NightmareX Last 1 vs 1 fight i had against a Megathron on TQ in my Tempest, i lost because i did 4-5 mistakes in the fight..............
What does it take to get into you head that 1 v 1 is not a thing that happens or is how BS balance on TQ.
After all you had to move to sissi to get any but again and again you preach about it like its a valid and well used type of pvp on TQ, sorry but you are not on the same page as the rest of us...in fact you really are not even in the same game..literally.
And you don't get into your head that even when 1 vs 1 fights doesn't happens often on TQ, i can get 1 vs 1 fights every day if i want. I only have to ask some players and i can get plenty of 1 vs 1 fights.
Those who says 1 vs 1 fights are dead have never done 1 vs 1 fights tbh. Or you might be a lazy bastard who doesn't look for those who want 1 vs 1 fights.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 21:41:00 -
[816]
Originally by: NightmareX
And you don't get into your head that even when 1 vs 1 fights doesn't happens often on TQ, i can get 1 vs 1 fights every day if i want. I only have to ask some players and i can get plenty of 1 vs 1 fights.
You honestly do not see how unrealistic and out of touch to everybody elses eve you actually are do you?.
Originally by: NightmareX Those who says 1 vs 1 fights are dead have never done 1 vs 1 fights tbh.
I wish what you say was true as far a BS was concerned on TQ, but then if it was so true maybe you would spend more time on TQ getting kills in your 1 v 1 BS fights and posting killmails...
Originally by: NightmareX Or you might be a lazy bastard who doesn't look for those who want 1 vs 1 fights.
Reported, if you cannot stay civil when it is pointed out how out of touch you are perhaps you should refrain from posting.
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 - 2009.02.27 21:42:00 -
[817]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 21:44:20
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Reported, if you cannot stay civil when it is pointed out how out of touch you are perhaps you should refrain from posting.
So only because i said someone might be a lazy bastard because someone doesn't look after 1 vs 1 fights good enough, then you have to report me?, jesus christ.
Your like Murina, when it doesn't goes his way and when he sees that i'm right over him, he's reporting me. It have happened multiple times.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 21:47:00 -
[818]
Originally by: NightmareX
Your like Murina
I am murina this is my main, and you are not right and have given no evidence other than 1 v 1 fights on sissi with unrealistic rigs/implants fitted and a obvious lack of understanding about the reality of TQ BS combat.
You have done more for the argument that blasters need fixing than you ever have against it.
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 - 2009.02.27 21:54:00 -
[819]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 21:55:55
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Your like Murina
I am murina this is my main, and you are not right and have given no evidence other than 1 v 1 fights on sissi with unrealistic rigs/implants fitted and a obvious lack of understanding about the reality of TQ BS combat.
You have done more for the argument that blasters need fixing than you ever have against it.
LOL. Yeah your Murina and i had a feeling you was that to. And that tells me everything that i'm way more right than you.
All you say awww boohooo, it's sisi. But in fact, sisi in FFA and the BF's are a very good way to test out all of the ships on how they perform. Whatever you say.
And also, explain to me what i have said that have proven that Blaster needs fixing?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 21:58:00 -
[820]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 22:00:23
Originally by: NightmareX
And also, explain to me what i have said that have proven that Blaster needs fixing?.
Post 726.
Maybe you could explain how one of your 15 minute 1 v 1 BF area BS fights bears any resemblance to BS gang fighting on TQ.
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 - 2009.02.27 22:02:00 -
[821]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 22:02:49
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 22:00:23
Originally by: NightmareX
And also, explain to me what i have said that have proven that Blaster needs fixing?.
Post 726.
Maybe you could explain how one of your 15 minute 1 v 1 BF area BS fights bears any resemblance to BS gang fighting on TQ.
Post 726 shows noting more than whine whine whine blaster sucks bawwwwwwwwww from you.
Yeah, that was much explaining from me lol.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:04:00 -
[822]
Originally by: NightmareX trolling
/ignore.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Atsuko Yamamoto
Caldari The Nietzian Way Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:04:00 -
[823]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Your like Murina
I am murina this is my main, and you are not right and have given no evidence other than 1 v 1 fights on sissi with unrealistic rigs/implants fitted and a obvious lack of understanding about the reality of TQ BS combat.
You have done more for the argument that blasters need fixing than you ever have against it.
I think EFT has gone to your head...I could try and explain to you what NightmareX is trying to say but your just really not listening at all.
Pilot skill makes up for a lot and being able to react-to and counter second by second actions your target is making. I have many TQ fights solo with a Blasterthron and some go well, some don't, and some don't even really happen (It's that whole strategy and on-site analysis thing). And unrealistic imps? Not really unless your low-SP and have few means of a steady isk stream.
TBH Blasters could use a little tweaking, but that's just me. ____________________________________ "MONKEY!!"-Gir |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:05:00 -
[824]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 27/02/2009 18:34:51
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Id be interested in seeing the % differences in raw gun dmg in 2km intervals (or even a graph) for AC and blasters while fitted to comparative ships from 0-30km tbh. Using AM in close and null for the longer ranges and the comparative ammo for AC..
It would be quite educational i think.
Would be interesting indeed, although we should keep in mind blasters and ACs cannot easily change their ammo on the fly like lasers can, so in reality blasterships and ac-ships will be nailed to the ammo they choosed before the fight started unless they're willing to give up the damage they can do in 10 seconds to switch.
Still it might turn out that null is the more versatile choice for blasters, much like barrage is for autocannons for general use, and they should infact default to load null, regarding engagement windows in small to medium gang warfare.
post your fits and desired target, i'll do the excel magic. i need to know: ship, guns, ammo, drones (i'd rather not have those in if we are talking about guns, but wfyb), mods affecting the guns, target speed, target transversal and sig radius. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:08:00 -
[825]
Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Your like Murina
I am murina this is my main, and you are not right and have given no evidence other than 1 v 1 fights on sissi with unrealistic rigs/implants fitted and a obvious lack of understanding about the reality of TQ BS combat.
You have done more for the argument that blasters need fixing than you ever have against it.
I think EFT has gone to your head...I could try and explain to you what NightmareX is trying to say but your just really not listening at all.
Pilot skill makes up for a lot and being able to react-to and counter second by second actions your target is making. I have many TQ fights solo with a Blasterthron and some go well, some don't, and some don't even really happen (It's that whole strategy and on-site analysis thing). And unrealistic imps? Not really unless your low-SP and have few means of a steady isk stream.
TBH Blasters could use a little tweaking, but that's just me.
EFT is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more important for Murina than real TQ or sisi PVP experience is.
I don't have alot of kills, but you don't need alot of kills to really know what your doing in PVP.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:08:00 -
[826]
Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto
I think EFT has gone to your head...I could try and explain to you what NightmareX is trying to say but your just really not listening at all.
I understand him perfectly but a 15 minute 1 v 1 fight on SISSI bears no resemblance to a bs gang fight on TQ.
Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto Pilot skill makes up for a lot and being able to react-to and counter second by second actions your target is making.
Nobody is arguing that but its no reason to keep ships unbalanced or virtually useless.
Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto TBH Blasters could use a little tweaking, but that's just me.
I think so to.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:11:00 -
[827]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 22:12:29
Originally by: NightmareX
EFT is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more important for Murina than real TQ or sisi PVP experience is.
NightmareX Kills: 209 (+400 he "CLAIMS" were not posted) Losses: 22
Sophisticatedlimebean Kills: 2,148 Losses: 130
I only started using eft a week or so ago FYI..
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 - 2009.02.27 22:12:00 -
[828]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 22:15:00
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto TBH Blasters could use a little tweaking, but that's just me.
I think so to.
Remember, tweaking and boosting is 2 different things.
Blasters might need some tweakings like Autocannons need some tweakings.
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
EFT is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more important for Murina than real TQ or sisi PVP experience is.
NightmareX Kills: 209 (+400 he "CLAIMS" were not posted) Losses: 22
Sophisticatedlimebean Kills: 2,148 Losses: 130
Oh look at the 'I'm so uber because i have so many kills'. So if i had killed 10k shuttles, does that make me a better PVPer than you?.
And as you probably have forgotten again. Problems with remembering things???.
I have given you link to a killboard that have killmails that doesn't exist on Battleclinic. That's enough proof that the Battleclinic stats are totally wrong.
From now on, remember that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:15:00 -
[829]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 22:16:13
Originally by: NightmareX
Remember, tweaking and boosting is 2 different things.
Redefining the dictionary already???...
A positive tweak is a boost.
A negative tweak is a nerf.
Originally by: NightmareX
Oh look at the 'I'm so uber because i have so many kills'. So if i had killed 10k shuttles, does that make me a better PVPer than you?.
NO, but they i have real and varied combat kills not smart bomb gate camping or shuttle kills.
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 - 2009.02.27 22:17:00 -
[830]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 22:12:06
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto TBH Blasters could use a little tweaking, but that's just me.
I think so to.
Remember, tweaking and boosting is 2 different things.
Redefining the dictionary already???...
A positive tweak is a boost.
A negative tweak is a nerf.
So changing the Optimal to lower range and make the Falloff bigger to Blasters is not a Boost, it's a tweak, because you only adjust some stats as you do with the attribute thing in Apocrypha. You don't boost your attributes, you tweak them.
Now, wanna come with more poor excuses?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:19:00 -
[831]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 27/02/2009 22:20:41
Originally by: The Djego
I know T2 High Damge amno is mostly pointless but Hail is actualy the one that got a advantage compared to his drawbacks in slugefests without much movement.
Hail is completely useless against same-sized targets, you have to get so close that you are getting outtracked quickly with the -50% tracking penalty, and if you get a bit more distance to get good hits you can switch to RF Emp again.
If you want a good laugh try hail in frigate dogfights, you get around 4 dps.
Still, Hurricane with Hail is quite nice if you are shooting a BS or capital from inside optimal, but thats about it.
Quote: Also using the Tempest(dubble bonused Turrets) isnŠt this good since it is the worst of the Mini BS in the end(and areeable one of the worst BS off all from the Tank\Gank point of view) you can get fare better numbers out of a 4 Gyro Mealstorm that isnŠt this fare of the numbers you will get out of a Blaster BS(raw DPS).
Erm, this doesnt change anything about the base stats of the guns.
I'd even say if I compare the neutron blasters on a 4 magstab mega with the 800s on a 4 gyro maelstrom it will look even worse for ACs as the mael only gets a single bonus to the guns. Edit: actually a 4 gyroed AC on a mael would be worse compared to the 3 magstab blaster on mega compared to the tempests AC.
Fun fact: comparing one 800mm on a 4 gyro maelstrom to one 800mm on a 3 gyro tempest the tempests gun outperforms the maelstroms gun quite considerable, due to the ship bonus being much stronger than the stacknerfed 4th gyro.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:19:00 -
[832]
Originally by: NightmareX
So, changing the Optimal to lower range and make the Falloff bigger to Blasters is a boost?, no, it's a tweak.
That would be a nerf.
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 - 2009.02.27 22:24:00 -
[833]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 22:26:14
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
So, changing the Optimal to lower range and make the Falloff bigger to Blasters is a boost?, no, it's a tweak.
That would be a nerf.
It was an example.
But yeah, some might take that for a nerf, but that's not the point. You don't add any more damage or tracking or anything else to the guns.
Like someone in this topic have said, add 20% more DPS and give Blasters more tracking. That's a boost. But that's not needed. Not in my eyes though.
But anyways, you should see the different from boosting to a tweaking / adjusting.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:27:00 -
[834]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Oh dear we are back to your 1 v 1 scenarios....anyway choose between a extra web or a eccm pls its tiring seeing you refit the hype mid fight depending on how it suits you.
I never discussed the ship as if it had an extra web and ECCM at the same time.
Quote:
Yes really, tracking in a blaster vs pulse scenario with multiple BS is irrelevant as all the ships will have at least 1 web each and stacking makes having 2 on the hype pointless.
Stacking does not make the second web pointless. Frist web slows to 40%, second slows to 20%
Quote:
55 extra dps is nothing when ships are at close range and doing low dps...., anyway that low dps range perfectly suits the ship with the extra 40,000ehp.
55 DPS over 100 seconds is 5,500 damage. 98 DPS is 9,800 damage.
If you're only doing 300 DPS, then it makes a huge difference
Quote:
Its plenty more than the rail mega especially at close range.
We've been over this before, its not. It is at close range, but not much else.
Quote:
Actually drones favor pulse ships cos of the range pulse get, ogre IIs do 1000ish ms so when you look at scorch optimal that is 45 secs (+how far the baddon has burned) for the drones to travel while the pulse ship is doing 730dps.
Drones take the same time to travel to a target regardless of which ship is using them
Originally by: Cohkka
Weakening the webifier made large pulse less effective in webrange, yes. But blasters were affected, too, in order to deal full damage they have to be at 4.5km where tracking becomes an issue even for blasters, while lasers get more efficient the farther out you get to the 10km web bubble.
Just because they were effected does not mean they were not less effected. Large blaster got a hit because they are fit on large ships, and all large ships got a hit. Likewise, small blasters got a boost.
So if you are just comparing large pulse lasers and large blasters, large blasters got a boost, they are better off than they were in relation to others than they were before the change.
Originally by: The Djego
Lets see I have to give up a huge Range, I have to give up a huge EHP chuck, I have to fit a MWD(to simply get in range), I loose a huge amout of time/Cap/HP while getting within Range, I have to use expensive implants/Items in the fitting to making this happen at all and I have the worser Gang BS(because beeing in Range allready is better than getting in Range and the EHP Bonus is also nice to have).
I will take this to mean that no, you do not know what diminishing returns are. Come back when you understand. I will still be here.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:28:00 -
[835]
Originally by: NightmareX
But anyways, you should see the different from boosting to a tweaking / adjusting.
A adjustment either increases a ships effectiveness at a certain thing or it decreases its effectiveness at a certain thing and as such is either a buff or a nerf.
Look whyy are you dragging this topic way off and into "definitions" or words..is it all you have left to give cos if so im gonna ignore you unless you have on topic things to say instead of pointless argumentative trolling.
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 - 2009.02.27 22:32:00 -
[836]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 22:32:51
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
But anyways, you should see the different from boosting to a tweaking / adjusting.
A adjustment either increases a ships effectiveness at a certain thing or it decreases its effectiveness at a certain thing and as such is either a buff or a nerf.
Look whyy are you dragging this topic way off and into "definitions" or words..is it all you have left to give cos if so im gonna ignore you unless you have on topic things to say instead of pointless argumentative trolling.
No, as long you don't add anything more to the guns, it's not a boost to the guns even when the guns get better after the change. Because they are then tweaked / adjusted to be better.
Like the time lasers got a 25% tracking boost, things like that is a boost.
And after QR expansion, the Tempest got better in small scale PVP. But the Tempest didn't got any boost even when it got better.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Raniss
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:32:00 -
[837]
Seriously FailmoreX stop trolling, save yourself from the humiliation your undergoing right now because everyone sees you havent brought in a single decent point to the whole discussion. All we see from you is epeen stroking, you talking about 1vs1 situations while we are looking at the sucky role of blasters in gangs, stupid trolling, more stupid trolling.
Just for your own sake, stop making yourself look even more stupid than you have been doing every thread since.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:34:00 -
[838]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 22:36:03
Originally by: Raniss Seriously FailmoreX stop trolling, save yourself from the humiliation your undergoing right now because everyone sees you havent brought in a single decent point to the whole discussion. All we see from you is epeen stroking, you talking about 1vs1 situations while we are looking at the sucky role of blasters in gangs, stupid trolling, more stupid trolling.
Just for your own sake, stop making yourself look even more stupid than you have been doing every thread since.
Ask Atomic Battle Penguins corp if they think Blaster megas are crap in gang fights?.
I personally think they will smack you if you tell them that Blasters sucks in gang combat.
And you talk about looking stupid?. if you could give me a damn good reason on why i might be wrong, then i would look stupid. But now, it's you that looks stupid, because you just say i sucks and bawww boohooo your only e-peen stroking.
Like Murina doesn't e-peen stroking with his omg i'm so uberpwnage becuz i have over 2k kills.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Raniss
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:36:00 -
[839]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Raniss Seriously FailmoreX stop trolling, save yourself from the humiliation your undergoing right now because everyone sees you havent brought in a single decent point to the whole discussion. All we see from you is epeen stroking, you talking about 1vs1 situations while we are looking at the sucky role of blasters in gangs, stupid trolling, more stupid trolling.
Just for your own sake, stop making yourself look even more stupid than you have been doing every thread since.
Ask Atomic Battle Penguins corp if they think Blaster megas are crap in gang fights?.
I personally think they will smack you if you tell them that Blasters sucks in gang combat.
And your point?
See here we go again.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:40:00 -
[840]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 22:42:40
Originally by: Goumindong
Stacking does not make the second web pointless. Frist web slows to 40%, second slows to 20%
And it does not matter if its 2 or 1 ship with those webs....
Originally by: Goumindong 55 DPS over 100 seconds is 5,500 damage. 98 DPS is 9,800 damage.
In BS gang combat that is nothing, its hardly a reload cycle for lasers let alone blasters ect ect.
Originally by: Goumindong We've been over this before, its not. It is at close range, but not much else.
We have been over it and you wererc wrong, rails are awful in gang combat, and even at what they can do beams are much better if you compare them when used on the available ship types.
Originally by: Goumindong We've been over this before, its not. It is at close range, but not much else.
And the ships/systems with the massive optimal can push out 700+dps for the 45km/sec travel time or 900+ for the 15km/sec travel time.
Originally by: Goumindong I will take this to mean that no, you do not know what diminishing returns are.
Is it like fitting dual webs on your ship when the rest of you gang has at least one each as well...yup i think it is although it could also be referred to as pointless..
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 - 2009.02.27 22:42:00 -
[841]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 22:43:36
Originally by: Raniss
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Raniss Seriously FailmoreX stop trolling, save yourself from the humiliation your undergoing right now because everyone sees you havent brought in a single decent point to the whole discussion. All we see from you is epeen stroking, you talking about 1vs1 situations while we are looking at the sucky role of blasters in gangs, stupid trolling, more stupid trolling.
Just for your own sake, stop making yourself look even more stupid than you have been doing every thread since.
Ask Atomic Battle Penguins corp if they think Blaster megas are crap in gang fights?.
I personally think they will smack you if you tell them that Blasters sucks in gang combat.
And your point?
See here we go again.
Ok, since your dumb enough to not see it.
Why do you think Atomic Battle Penguins corp use Blaster BS ships in those gang fights they have?.
Is it because Blasters are worthless, or is it because Blasters works fine?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Raniss
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:50:00 -
[842]
Edited by: Raniss on 27/02/2009 22:52:16
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 22:46:07
Originally by: Raniss
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Raniss Seriously FailmoreX stop trolling, save yourself from the humiliation your undergoing right now because everyone sees you havent brought in a single decent point to the whole discussion. All we see from you is epeen stroking, you talking about 1vs1 situations while we are looking at the sucky role of blasters in gangs, stupid trolling, more stupid trolling.
Just for your own sake, stop making yourself look even more stupid than you have been doing every thread since.
Ask Atomic Battle Penguins corp if they think Blaster megas are crap in gang fights?.
I personally think they will smack you if you tell them that Blasters sucks in gang combat.
And your point?
See here we go again.
Ok, since your dumb enough to not see it.
Why do you think Atomic Battle Penguins corp use Blaster BS ships in those gang fights they have?.
Is it because Blasters are worthless / crappy, or is it because Blasters works fine?.
Because they all where too ****ing lazy to train for the FOTM like anyone else who cares about maximux efficient ships?
And again, this post brougt nothing to the whole discussion, atm i see your only busy with trying to save your UberSisiEcmPestWarriorOnline image
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:53:00 -
[843]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 22:54:57
Originally by: Raniss Because they all where too ****ing lazy to train for the FOTM like anyone else who cares about maximux efficient ships?
And again, this post brougt nothing to the whole discussion, atm i see your only busy with trying to save your UberSisiEcmPestWarriorOnline image
And how long time have Amarr / Lasers been FOTM now?. I don't think it takes over a year to go from Gallente BS'es to Amarr BS'es.
And no ABP is not lazy pvpers.
And what have you been saying others than ohh booo hoo, blasters sucks awwwwww bleh?.
By the posting you do now, your not posing anything good your self smartypants.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Raniss
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 23:03:00 -
[844]
Edited by: Raniss on 27/02/2009 23:05:41
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 22:54:57
Originally by: Raniss Because they all where too ****ing lazy to train for the FOTM like anyone else who cares about maximux efficient ships?
And again, this post brougt nothing to the whole discussion, atm i see your only busy with trying to save your UberSisiEcmPestWarriorOnline image
And how long time have Amarr / Lasers been FOTM now?. I don't think it takes over a year to go from Gallente BS'es to Amarr BS'es.
And no ABP is not lazy pvpers.
And what have you been saying others than ohh booo hoo, blasters sucks awwwwww bleh?.
By the posting you do now, your not posing anything good your self smartypants.
There is no other need for me than to say anything other than that, since people like Murina have already proven multiple times (in this verry thread, you might want to read it) that blasters suck in any gang situation (read: there are much better shipchoices), and 1vs1 situations are unrealistic only because of the reason solo pvp died and current game mechanics force people to take part of the 'blob/ecmwarfare online' game. So, my question, if blasters suck for gang pvp since there are obviously better choices, and they suck for solo pvp because of the reason there is no solo pvp, what do they DONT suck at?
Now lets see if your counterargument to this statement (or any of your last counterarguments) can be something different than "OMG LULZ u just dont know how to fly it, i do becuz i fly pwnzor ecmpest and i own the whole singularity server with my pvp god uberness, LOL U NOOB U SUCK BECAUSE U R TO STUPID NOOB HAHAHA", im following the whole thread but i havent seen much more from you than this.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 23:06:00 -
[845]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 23:08:30
Originally by: Raniss
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 22:54:57
Originally by: Raniss Because they all where too ****ing lazy to train for the FOTM like anyone else who cares about maximux efficient ships?
And again, this post brougt nothing to the whole discussion, atm i see your only busy with trying to save your UberSisiEcmPestWarriorOnline image
And how long time have Amarr / Lasers been FOTM now?. I don't think it takes over a year to go from Gallente BS'es to Amarr BS'es.
And no ABP is not lazy pvpers.
And what have you been saying others than ohh booo hoo, blasters sucks awwwwww bleh?.
By the posting you do now, your not posing anything good your self smartypants.
There is no other need for me than to say anything other than that, since people like Murina have already proven multiple times that blasters suck in any gang situation (read: there are much better shipchoices), and 1vs1 situations are unrealistic only because of the reason solo pvp died and current game mechanics force people to take part of the 'blob/ecmwarfare online' game.
Now lets see if your counterargument to this statement (or any of your last counterarguments) can be something different than "OMG LULZ u just dont know how to fly it, i do becuz i fly pwnzor ecmpest and i own the whole singularity server with my pvp god uberness, LOL U NOOB U SUCK BECAUSE U R TO STUPID NOOB HAHAHA", im following the whole thread but i havent seen much more from you than this.
What my counterargument to what Murina have said?, that Blasters sucks in most situations? LOL.
I think ABP are saying that Murina is wrong in every possible way when it's about Blaster Megas in gangs.
I can tell you one of the reasons why they don't have any problems with Blasters, because they are smart to warp right on top of the enemy they are fighting.
And when you said that 1 vs 1 fights have died on TQ, that made you the same as Murina, a really bad poster in this topic tbh.
You don't have a single clue about what your talking about when it's about 1 vs 1 fights on TQ.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 23:07:00 -
[846]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 23:11:04
Originally by: Raniss
There is no other need for me than to say anything other than that, since people like Murina have already proven multiple times that blasters suck in any gang situation (read: there are much better shipchoices), and 1vs1 situations are unrealistic only because of the reason solo pvp died and current game mechanics force people to take part of the 'blob/ecmwarfare online' game.
The most amusing thing is that even goumindong agrees that blasters suck in gang combat, he just thinks they deserve to, mostly cos he wants amarr to stay way OP in BS gang combat on TQ compared to AC and blasters.
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 - 2009.02.27 23:10:00 -
[847]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 23:08:54
Originally by: Raniss
There is no other need for me than to say anything other than that, since people like Murina have already proven multiple times that blasters suck in any gang situation (read: there are much better shipchoices), and 1vs1 situations are unrealistic only because of the reason solo pvp died and current game mechanics force people to take part of the 'blob/ecmwarfare online' game.
The most amusing thing is that even goumindong agrees that blasters suck in gang combat compared to lasers, he just thinks they deserve to, mostly cos he wants amarr to stay way OP in BS gang combat on TQ compared to AC and blasters.
Wasn't Kil2 talking about that he have more went to Gallente BS'es now?. Because in fact, Amarr BS'es / Lasers aren't that good as someone says they are?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 23:10:00 -
[848]
Taking bets now when the next thread cleaning will be due.
I'll say give it another 2 pages...
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 23:15:00 -
[849]
Originally by: NightmareX
Wasn't Kil2 talking about that he have more went to Gallente BS'es now?. Because in fact, Amarr BS'es / Lasers aren't that good as someone says they are?.
I have seen no posts to that effect but i have seen lots of "use rails" posts ect from gourmie...
So apparently rails > blasters, i hope nobody starts using them on sissi or your ecmpest may be in trouble...
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 - 2009.02.27 23:22:00 -
[850]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Wasn't Kil2 talking about that he have more went to Gallente BS'es now?. Because in fact, Amarr BS'es / Lasers aren't that good as someone says they are?.
I have seen no posts to that effect but i have seen lots of "use rails" posts ect from gourmie...
So apparently rails > blasters, i hope nobody starts using them on sissi or your ecmpest may be in trouble...
Awww, look at you, sooooooooo bitter.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 23:25:00 -
[851]
Lasers already deal the worst damage type (em/therm) because of the armor tankers high resist, so no need to nerf them. (I know most if not all of you already know this but I thought I would just remind u ). The problem with blasters is they're a situational weapon (close pvp range) and pulses are universal (mid-long pvp range). Making blaster a universal weapon would make them largely op. I don't see a problem with giving blaster a huge falloff boost...make them fight in falloff untill they mwd into range.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 23:31:00 -
[852]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 27/02/2009 23:33:24
Originally by: Trader20 Lasers already deal the worst damage type (em/therm) because of the armor tankers high resist, so no need to nerf them.
I do not think lasers particularly need a nerf either no matter the dmg types or as i see those as not so important tbh (although less tracking would not hurt).
1. Blasters on BS need reworking as they are now a almost worthless system on TQ, lasers can easily compete at close range with the available targets BS have especially when you factor in single let alone multiple webs.
2. The extra agility blaster ships have over laser ships is also irrelevant even when applied against unwebbed ships as BS (even the MOST agile BS) are just not agile enough compared to their peers to make even a slight difference let alone a large on in combat.
3. Rails tracking is so sucky that even a 50ms webbed BS can kite them at under 2km and their max dps even in perfect conditions a pathetic joke (578dps).
4. Cap while considered the "bane of lasers" is also the bane of blasters as well if not more so as they need to almost constantly burn their MWD to get into optimal range where they do very little more dps than lasers anyway.
5. The single extra mid slot on the Hyperion does allow a extra web but considering the web stacking penalty and the fact that multiple ships with 1 web each work just as well as 1 ship with 2 webs each the benefit is negligible compared to the extra 40,000 ehp abaddons get.
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 - 2009.02.27 23:40:00 -
[853]
Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 23:44:21 Saying Blasters are worthless only because Lasers have longer range on it's guns is the biggest joke someone can say.
And because of the resists you have to EM and Thermal on your Omni tanks now days, the 1k Laser DPS isn't as great after all.
When i can tank any Amarr BS'es in my Tempest with this in low slot:
1x Large Armor Repairer II 1x Damage Control II 2x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1x 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1x Gyrostabilizator II
Then i think the DPS on Lasers are pretty low on an omni tank.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 23:52:00 -
[854]
Edited by: sAyArrrr on 27/02/2009 23:53:41
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 23:47:11 Saying Blasters are worthless only because Lasers have longer range on it's guns is the biggest joke someone can say.
And because of the resists you have to EM and Thermal on your Omni tanks now days, the 1k Laser DPS isn't as great after all.
When i can tank any Amarr BS'es in my Tempest with this in low slot:
1x Large Armor Repairer II 1x Damage Control II 2x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1x 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1x Gyrostabilizator II
Then i think the DPS on Lasers are pretty low on an omni tank. But then, the Tempest have 20% better EM resist than a Megathron have.
If you actually bothered to follow the discussion you might have noticed nobody but you is saying blasters suck just because lasers have a longer range. Heh, i guess your too busy trolling that you completely lost the reason why you where trolling in the first place.
And please explain what the lowslots of your uberpest has to do with the actual discussion, other than to prove that "LOLOLOL U DONT UNDERSTAND U SUCK lol u nOOb" (because thats getting old you know).
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 23:54:00 -
[855]
Edited by: Trader20 on 27/02/2009 23:55:29 Srry I fail at quoting....
1. Blasters on BS need reworking as they are now a almost worthless system on TQ, lasers can easily compete at close range with the available targets BS have especially when you factor in single let alone multiple webs. 1: I think tracking is irrelevant in the pulse vs blaster case. Your main targets when using bs weapons is anything bigger then a bc and if a pulse's can't hit a target then a blaster will not be able to either.
2. The extra agility blaster ships have over laser ships is also irrelevant even when applied against unwebbed ships as BS (even the MOST agile BS) are just not agile enough compared to their peers to make even a slight difference let alone a large on in combat. 2. I agree with your point that agility is next to useless on a bs because of it's mass and the large blasters downfall is the bs's lack of speed. BS's take more time to close in on a target (duh) and this is why an increase in falloff would give blaster a chance to do some damage while closing in on it's target.
3. Rails tracking is so sucky that even a 50ms webbed BS can kite them at under 2km and their max dps even in perfect conditions a pathetic joke (578dps). 3. Yea rails should be saved for fleets and missions.
4. Cap while considered the "bane of lasers" is also the bane of blasters as well if not more so as they need to almost constantly burn their MWD to get into optimal range where they do very little more dps than lasers anyway. 4. An abaddon with 8 mega pulses firing (multi) with it's mwd off caps out in about 2.5 min. A hyp with 8 neutrons firing (antimatter) and it's mwd on is capped out in 2 min. So as long as the abaddon is in range (which with it's 15km optimal is often) his cap will last longer then the megas. Now the mega will rarely be in range but when he is and his mwd is off his cap will last for about 20 min. So again depends on the situation but the abaddon will have less cap problems in most pvp situatuion. (I did not factor in cap booster, nos/neus)
5. The single extra mid slot on the Hyperion does allow a extra web but considering the web stacking penalty and the fact that multiple ships with 1 web each work just as well as 1 ship with 2 webs each the benefit is negligible compared to the extra 40,000 ehp abaddons get. 5. Agree
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:00:00 -
[856]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 00:05:07
I am not sure about the use of a single LAR fitted to a plate/eanm tank would help for GANG combat cos if the ship with it fitted was primaried by a hostile gang it could never rep the same amount of HP as a extra plate would give in the time it would take the gang to pop the targeted BS.
A boost to optimal and a reduction in falloff to keep the max range the same or dmg along with a tracking buff could make blaster ships more effective in their role (that the web nerf hit hard) while giving them the ability to be more effective in gang situation, and while still not being as near as good in gang combat as laser BS they would at least be better than useless.
I think that a increase to falloff would give blasters a increase in range and they are fine with the range they have more dmg at their longer available ranges.
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 - 2009.02.28 00:01:00 -
[857]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 00:05:16
Originally by: sAyArrrr Edited by: sAyArrrr on 27/02/2009 23:53:41
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 23:47:11 Saying Blasters are worthless only because Lasers have longer range on it's guns is the biggest joke someone can say.
And because of the resists you have to EM and Thermal on your Omni tanks now days, the 1k Laser DPS isn't as great after all.
When i can tank any Amarr BS'es in my Tempest with this in low slot:
1x Large Armor Repairer II 1x Damage Control II 2x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1x 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1x Gyrostabilizator II
Then i think the DPS on Lasers are pretty low on an omni tank. But then, the Tempest have 20% better EM resist than a Megathron have.
If you actually bothered to follow the discussion you might have noticed nobody but you is saying blasters suck just because lasers have a longer range. Heh, i guess your too busy trolling that you completely lost the reason why you where trolling in the first place.
And please explain what the lowslots of your uberpest has to do with the actual discussion, other than to prove that "LOLOLOL U DONT UNDERSTAND U SUCK lol u nOOb" (because thats getting old you know).
Hey, i was only pointing out why lasers aren't that good or op when it's about doing DPS, even when it says uberomgawesome super duper much DPS in EFT.
Even when Lasers have good tracking at range and have longer range than Blasters and Autocannons, it doesn't help when our omni tanks are making so Lasers are doing crap damage on omni tanks.
And by that, things are more balanced. Because Blasters still does alot more DPS and melt omni tanked ships much much faster than Lasers ever can dream of.
Do you have any problems with that?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:06:00 -
[858]
Nightmare the LAR belongs in ur cargohold or station for after your fleet is over and if you survived and need to rep.
|
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:09:00 -
[859]
Edited by: sAyArrrr on 28/02/2009 00:10:47 Edited by: sAyArrrr on 28/02/2009 00:09:46
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 00:05:16
Originally by: sAyArrrr Edited by: sAyArrrr on 27/02/2009 23:53:41
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 27/02/2009 23:47:11 Saying Blasters are worthless only because Lasers have longer range on it's guns is the biggest joke someone can say.
And because of the resists you have to EM and Thermal on your Omni tanks now days, the 1k Laser DPS isn't as great after all.
When i can tank any Amarr BS'es in my Tempest with this in low slot:
1x Large Armor Repairer II 1x Damage Control II 2x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1x 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1x Gyrostabilizator II
Then i think the DPS on Lasers are pretty low on an omni tank. But then, the Tempest have 20% better EM resist than a Megathron have.
If you actually bothered to follow the discussion you might have noticed nobody but you is saying blasters suck just because lasers have a longer range. Heh, i guess your too busy trolling that you completely lost the reason why you where trolling in the first place.
And please explain what the lowslots of your uberpest has to do with the actual discussion, other than to prove that "LOLOLOL U DONT UNDERSTAND U SUCK lol u nOOb" (because thats getting old you know).
Hey, i was only pointing out why lasers aren't that good or op when it's about doing DPS, even when it says uberomgawesome super duper much DPS in EFT.
Even when Lasers have good tracking at range and have longer range than Blasters and Autocannons, it doesn't help when our omni tanks are making so Lasers are doing crap damage on omni tanks.
And by that, things are more balanced. Because Blasters still does alot more DPS and melt omni tanked ships much much faster than Lasers ever can dream of.
Do you have any problems with that?.
Did it ever occured to you that there is a world out there other than armor tanking ecm pests who pwn noobs on sisi?
Now, if we assume every ship shieldtanks instead of armor tanks (like you like to do), how do lasers compare to other gunnery systems?
(bolded/underlined the important part in case you might miss it)
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:11:00 -
[860]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean So apparently rails > blasters
No. Rails>blasters in a medium to large sized gang. Its your fault for picking blasters when you've got a bunch of BS in your fleet. Just as it would be your fault for flying a pulse Abaddon on a fleet op.
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
And it does not matter if its 2 or 1 ship with those webs especially in gang combat where virtually every ship has a web fitted....
In gang combat, people are less likely to fit webs than more.
Quote:
In BS gang combat that is nothing, its hardly a reload cycle for lasers let alone blasters ect ect
Depends on how large the gang is, and no, its not nothing. Especially since you're not considering resistances.
Quote:
We have been over it and you wererc wrong, rails are awful in gang combat, and even at what they can do beams are much better if you compare them when used on the available ship types.
No, you said it was wrong without examining the situation. In a medium sized gang, beams are certainly worse. They are worse for one particular reason. Lets see if you can figure it out.
Quote:
And the ships/systems with the massive optimal can push out 700+dps for the 45km/sec travel time or 900+ for the 15km/sec travel time.
I have no clue what you're trying to say here, that lasers have a range advantage? Yea, we know that.
Quote:
Is it like fitting dual webs on your ship when the rest of you gang has at least one each as well...yup i think it is although it could also be referred to as pointless..
If everyone in your gang has a web and you aren't worried about losing them, fit an ECCM. Now, when the other enemy gang tries to jam you you can more easily shrug it off.
|
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:11:00 -
[861]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 00:14:01
Originally by: sAyArrrr Now, if we assume every ship shieldtanks instead of armor tanks (like you like to do), how do lasers compare to other gunnery systems?
(bolded the important part in case you might miss it)
Against shield tanks, Lasers are much better. Yes i agree on that.
But there are much much more armor tankers or ships with omni armor tanks than it's shield tankers anyways.
And no, i'm not saying Blasters sucks at all. Where have you got that from?.
I'm saying that Blasters are fine and don't need any boosts now.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:13:00 -
[862]
Edited by: Goumindong on 28/02/2009 00:13:31
Originally by: sAyArrrr
Now, if we assume every ship shieldtanks instead of armor tanks (like you like to do), how do lasers compare to other gunnery systems?
And what weapons are those shield tanking ships fitting(and how much damage do they do at what distance and range)? You need to be complete to be make comparative analysis valuable.
ed: Also, there are far more armor tanks, and far more ability to fill holes in a shield tank than with an armor tank.
Originally by: Trader20 Nightmare the LAR belongs in ur cargohold or station for after your fleet is over and if you survived and need to rep.
No, it doesn't. For solo/small gang work, repping > EHP. Nightmare is wrong a bout a lot of things, but he is right about active repping.
|
Traderboz
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:20:00 -
[863]
The problem with these arguments is that there are way more factors than either of you are considering, at least at one time. Thus, neither person is really looking at all possible situations (and not surprising, as there are so many). For instance, yes, resists are a factor, but you'd have to look at the average resistances of all likely targets (which counts both armor and shield tanked ships), incorporating common fits as well, and then you could see how much resistances actually help blasters.
On the other hand, range is definitely a factor to consider, but it again isn't a simple comparison between the two weapon systems. If you warp in on top of your target, then the blasters are going to be tough to beat. If the target is 40km away, odds are the laser boat will be superior, as even if the BB MWD's into range, it will have fallen too far behind in DPS to catch up with the laser boat.
I tend to agree with Nightmare though in the sense that I don't think BB's are useless and can be effective if used correctly. Still, I think there are some good arguments that lasers are stronger weapons in general. Some slight tweaking/boosts/whatever you want to call it for projectiles and blasters would be a good thing imo, but the emphasis should be on slight.
TLDR, this is too complex a subject to get any meaningful discussion out of a back-and-forth argument where each person throws out one point per post. Then again, forums exist for pointless discussion, so I don't know what I'm complaining about.
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:21:00 -
[864]
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 28/02/2009 00:13:31
Originally by: sAyArrrr
Now, if we assume every ship shieldtanks instead of armor tanks (like you like to do), how do lasers compare to other gunnery systems?
And what weapons are those shield tanking ships fitting(and how much damage do they do at what distance and range)? You need to be complete to be make comparative analysis valuable.
ed: Also, there are far more armor tanks, and far more ability to fill holes in a shield tank than with an armor tank.
Originally by: Trader20 Nightmare the LAR belongs in ur cargohold or station for after your fleet is over and if you survived and need to rep.
No, it doesn't. For solo/small gang work, repping > EHP. Nightmare is wrong a bout a lot of things, but he is right about active repping.
Keyword: FLEETS
|
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:22:00 -
[865]
Edited by: sAyArrrr on 28/02/2009 00:22:50
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sAyArrrr Now, if we assume every ship shieldtanks instead of armor tanks (like you like to do), how do lasers compare to other gunnery systems?
(bolded the important part in case you might miss it)
Against shield tanks, Lasers are much better. Yes i agree on that.
But there are much much more armor tankers or ships with omni tanks than it's shield tankers anyways.
So the next step in the logical conclusion: Because lasers are best against shieltankers, a better choice in gangs because of the high range/verry good dps/good tracking, and about equal to armor since blasters (and ac's to some extend) lose alot of dps under normal conditions because of low optimal/mwding around (and falloff for ac's), we can conclude that lasers are in every possible way better than blasters. Wich is exactly what this thread is about, if you forgot about that.
Really, the only thing you can argue about is about blasters being equal/better than lasers in a hypothetical 1vs1 situation, wich will never/almost never happen other than on SiSi. And since current gamemechanics force people to blob even more than before, a 1vs1 situation will almost never ever occur, and thus the whole blaster line is gimped for any real use in real TQ combat situations.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:25:00 -
[866]
Originally by: Goumindong
And what weapons are those shield tanking ships fitting(and how much damage do they do at what distance and range)?
Missiles proly as shield tanking tends to mostly be a caldari trait so any dmg type they feel like at 0-45km for torps and further for cruise....
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 - 2009.02.28 00:27:00 -
[867]
Originally by: Trader20
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 00:14:01
Originally by: sAyArrrr Now, if we assume every ship shieldtanks instead of armor tanks (like you like to do), how do lasers compare to other gunnery systems?
(bolded the important part in case you might miss it)
Against shield tanks, Lasers are much better. Yes i agree on that.
But there are much much more armor tankers or ships with omni armor tanks than it's shield tankers anyways.
And no, i'm not saying Blasters sucks at all. Where have you got that from?.
I'm saying that Blasters are fine and don't need any boosts now.
Agreed, EM/Therm is a poor damage type to be dealing these days and I think ppl need to take this into consideration, the eft dps on pulses isn't hittin the targets armor ingame for anywhere near full damage. (neither are blasters but alot more goes through when dealing therm/kin)
Yup, that's what i'm talking about.
EFT warriors today are only looking at the DPS in EFT and think omg the Lasers must own because they have so good DPS and tracking outside of web range.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:27:00 -
[868]
Edited by: Trader20 on 28/02/2009 00:28:38
Originally by: Traderboz The problem with these arguments is that there are way more factors than either of you are considering, at least at one time. Thus, neither person is really looking at all possible situations (and not surprising, as there are so many). For instance, yes, resists are a factor, but you'd have to look at the average resistances of all likely targets (which counts both armor and shield tanked ships), incorporating common fits as well, and then you could see how much resistances actually help blasters.
On the other hand, range is definitely a factor to consider, but it again isn't a simple comparison between the two weapon systems. If you warp in on top of your target, then the blasters are going to be tough to beat. If the target is 40km away, odds are the laser boat will be superior, as even if the BB MWD's into range, it will have fallen too far behind in DPS to catch up with the laser boat.
I tend to agree with Nightmare though in the sense that I don't think BB's are useless and can be effective if used correctly. Still, I think there are some good arguments that lasers are stronger weapons in general. Some slight tweaking/boosts/whatever you want to call it for projectiles and blasters would be a good thing imo, but the emphasis should be on slight.
TLDR, this is too complex a subject to get any meaningful discussion out of a back-and-forth argument where each person throws out one point per post. Then again, forums exist for pointless discussion, so I don't know what I'm complaining about.
Yes they're many factor: Range: pulses DPS: Blasters (factoring in res of armor tankers) More cap Usage: I'm giving this one to the blasters b/c of it's necessity to use a mwd. Reload: Pulses Skills: Same fttin on bonused ships: same (please don't put lasers on a mega ) Feel free to add/correct my list
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:33:00 -
[869]
Edited by: Goumindong on 28/02/2009 00:34:23
Originally by: Trader20
Keyword: FLEETS
Keyword: this is a freaking discussion about blasters we aren't talking about sniping.
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: Goumindong
And what weapons are those shield tanking ships fitting(and how much damage do they do at what distance and range)?
Missiles proly as shield tanking tends to mostly be a caldari trait so any dmg type they feel like at 0-45km for torps and further for cruise....
And what type of damage do they do? And what are they vulnerable to? What can and can't they fit to be efficient?
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:34:00 -
[870]
Edited by: Trader20 on 28/02/2009 00:34:18
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Trader20
Keyword: FLEETS
Keyword: this is a freaking discussion about blasters we aren't talking about sniping.
my bad
|
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:34:00 -
[871]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 00:34:57 Or nvm, i was looking wrong.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:34:00 -
[872]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Trader20
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 00:14:01
Originally by: sAyArrrr Now, if we assume every ship shieldtanks instead of armor tanks (like you like to do), how do lasers compare to other gunnery systems?
(bolded the important part in case you might miss it)
Against shield tanks, Lasers are much better. Yes i agree on that.
But there are much much more armor tankers or ships with omni armor tanks than it's shield tankers anyways.
And no, i'm not saying Blasters sucks at all. Where have you got that from?.
I'm saying that Blasters are fine and don't need any boosts now.
Agreed, EM/Therm is a poor damage type to be dealing these days and I think ppl need to take this into consideration, the eft dps on pulses isn't hittin the targets armor ingame for anywhere near full damage. (neither are blasters but alot more goes through when dealing therm/kin)
Yup, that's what i'm talking about.
EFT warriors today are only looking at the DPS in EFT and think omg the Lasers must own because they have so good DPS and tracking outside of web range.
Oh yeah thats why blasters are better right, because of the fact they deal omg damage and have uber tracking outside of web range, huh? Oh wait...
And ps im not a eft *****, im actually talking about real TQ combat, not like you about ecmpests on sisi
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:36:00 -
[873]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 00:44:12
Originally by: Trader20 Range: pulses
DPS: Blasters (factoring in res of armor tankers)
More cap Usage: I'm giving this one to the blasters b/c of it's necessity to use a mwd.
Reload: Pulses
Skills: Same
Maybe but if you consider that range and reload are absolutes and always available for lasers.
While blaster DPS may not be due to range and if range is a issue so is cap......
Originally by: Trader20 fitting on bonused ships: same
I give this to lasers as well as they can fit a much larger ehp....after all you gave dmg type to blasters and that is subject to how the target is tanked (most common is plug/plate armour) and its range, so as the most common armour ehp has to be the win on fittings and that = lasers...
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 - 2009.02.28 00:38:00 -
[874]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 00:44:40
Originally by: sAyArrrr Oh yeah thats why blasters are better right, because of the fact they deal omg damage and have uber tracking outside of web range, huh? Oh wait...
And ps im not a eft *****, im actually talking about real TQ combat, not like you about ecmpests on sisi
LOL, i still know how the PVP works on TQ when it's about DPS, resists, EHP and armor tanks etc even when i'm testing alot of ships and setups on Sisi.
You have to be very very stupid if you don't know how PVP and that works after you have been playng EVE since early March 2004, like i have.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:45:00 -
[875]
Edited by: sAyArrrr on 28/02/2009 00:45:37
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 00:40:25
Originally by: sAyArrrr Oh yeah thats why blasters are better right, because of the fact they deal omg damage and have uber tracking outside of web range, huh? Oh wait...
And ps im not a eft *****, im actually talking about real TQ combat, not like you about ecmpests on sisi
LOL, i still know how the PVP works on TQ when it's about DPS, resists, EHP and armor tanks even when i'm testing alot of ships and setups on Sisi.
You have to be very very stupid if you don't know how PVP and that works after you have been playng EVE since early March 2004, like i have.
You really dont give us the impression you did any TQ pvp lately, since all you talk about is your uber ecm pest pwning wave after wave of noobs on Sisi.
And since when is the fact you play eve since 2004 a argument for having any clue about how pvp works? All i see you doing is stroking your own epeen here again, amirite?
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:53:00 -
[876]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 00:54:47
Originally by: sAyArrrr Edited by: sAyArrrr on 28/02/2009 00:45:37
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 00:40:25
Originally by: sAyArrrr Oh yeah thats why blasters are better right, because of the fact they deal omg damage and have uber tracking outside of web range, huh? Oh wait...
And ps im not a eft *****, im actually talking about real TQ combat, not like you about ecmpests on sisi
LOL, i still know how the PVP works on TQ when it's about DPS, resists, EHP and armor tanks even when i'm testing alot of ships and setups on Sisi.
You have to be very very stupid if you don't know how PVP and that works after you have been playng EVE since early March 2004, like i have.
You really dont give us the impression you did any TQ pvp lately, since all you talk about is your uber ecm pest pwning wave after wave of noobs on Sisi.
And since when is the fact you play eve since 2004 a argument for having any clue about how pvp works? All i see you doing is stroking your own epeen here again, amirite?
It's called having RL.
Lately, or the last months, i haven't had the time to play EVE, and i can't change my RL to be able ot play more.
And ofc, because of the new expansion in sisi, i have been there most of my free time now, to test out the new things there.
And then all over again, why are you thinking most on sisi are noobs?.
Just to make it clear. I know most of the players i have been fighting on Sisi, and most of them have extremely good PVP experience and have a very good t2 setup on the ships.
I check every killmails i get after i win a fight against someone there.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:54:00 -
[877]
And pls Nightmare, quoting yourself:
"EFT warriors today are only looking at the DPS in EFT..."
Seriously, your the eft warrior, you arent taking in the fact blasterships have to move around ALOT in gangsituations and thus lose alot of damagepotential. The fact that, in normal gangconditions it is always the pulseboats who deal most dps over blaster/ac ships, just because they dont have to move aroundlike crazy. Stop trolling me for not taking in stuff outside eft information, because it is YOU who is only taking in DPS/EHP stats and not thinking about the horrid a blasterpilot overcomes when trying to get some dps applied in situatios with lag, big distances to the targets and so forth.
The only case where blasterships *might* come on top is in a 0km bsgang vs bsgang slugfest, and even then, verrrrry small chance that situation will happen.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 00:57:00 -
[878]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 01:00:50
Originally by: sAyArrrr And pls Nightmare, quoting yourself:
"EFT warriors today are only looking at the DPS in EFT..."
Seriously, your the eft warrior, you arent taking in the fact blasterships have to move around ALOT in gangsituations and thus lose alot of damagepotential. The fact that, in normal gangconditions it is always the pulseboats who deal most dps over blaster/ac ships, just because they dont have to move aroundlike crazy. Stop trolling me for not taking in stuff outside eft information, because it is YOU who is only taking in DPS/EHP stats and not thinking about the horrid a blasterpilot overcomes when trying to get some dps applied in situatios with lag, big distances to the targets and so forth.
The only case where blasterships *might* come on top is in a 0km bsgang vs bsgang slugfest, and even then, verrrrry small chance that situation will happen.
So what?.
Booohooo, Gallente BS'es have to move more around, then so what?.
It doesn't make any Amarr BS'es better then in any ways though. Yes Amarr BS'es can shoot us for longer time before we are into web range, but hey, EM and Thermal resist, helllllo. Those makes up for the time and cap you have to use to MWD into the Amarr BS'es.
But i bet you haven't seen it, yet. But any smart Gallente BS pilots are warping their gang right on top of the enemies. So if they are doing that and other things right, there is absolutely no problems with Gallente BS'es and Blasters.
If they are doing that, they are likely to win that fight with no problems at all.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 01:08:00 -
[879]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 01:09:10
Originally by: sAyArrrr
The only case where blasterships *might* come on top is in a 0km bsgang vs bsgang slugfest, and even then, verrrrry small chance that situation will happen.
The thing is that in that situation the laser ships need only burn away while the blaster ship need to stay close to the primary laser ship, so after the first few go down the other laser ships are now at range and the blasters ships need to constantly burn after each one to get into their higher dps optimal.
Now in a "start at 0" situation the blaster gang may win and have a good chance to do so but the fact is that the laser ships gang would also take a HEAVY toll in blaster ship kills before MAYBE losing.
Now reverse that to a "start 25-45km" situation.......unless the laser ships screwed up they would melt the blaster boats one after another on approach and hardly take a loss.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 01:14:00 -
[880]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 01:09:10
Originally by: sAyArrrr
The only case where blasterships *might* come on top is in a 0km bsgang vs bsgang slugfest, and even then, verrrrry small chance that situation will happen.
The thing is that in that situation the laser ships need only burn away while the blaster ship need to stay close to the primary laser ship, so after the first few go down the other laser ships are now at range and the blasters ships need to constantly burn after each one to get into their higher dps optimal.
Now in a "start at 0" situation the blaster gang may win and have a good chance to do so but the fact is that the laser ships gang would also take a HEAVY toll in blaster ship kills before MAYBE losing.
Now reverse that to a "start 25-45km" situation.......unless the laser ships screwed up they would melt the blaster boats one after another on approach and hardly take a loss.
So to fix this would you A. Increase blaster dps so it becomes the real king of close range combat B. Increase blaster range (optimal or falloff) I don't see any other option without the word "nerf"
|
|
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 01:18:00 -
[881]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 01:09:10
Originally by: sAyArrrr
The only case where blasterships *might* come on top is in a 0km bsgang vs bsgang slugfest, and even then, verrrrry small chance that situation will happen.
The thing is that in that situation the laser ships need only burn away while the blaster ship need to stay close to the primary laser ship, so after the first few go down the other laser ships are now at range and the blasters ships need to constantly burn after each one to get into their higher dps optimal.
Now in a "start at 0" situation the blaster gang may win and have a good chance to do so but the fact is that the laser ships gang would also take a HEAVY toll in blaster ship kills before MAYBE losing.
Now reverse that to a "start 25-45km" situation.......unless the laser ships screwed up they would melt the blaster boats one after another on approach and hardly take a loss.
I fully agree, unlike someone we both know..
|
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 01:21:00 -
[882]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 01:00:50
Originally by: sAyArrrr And pls Nightmare, quoting yourself:
"EFT warriors today are only looking at the DPS in EFT..."
Seriously, your the eft warrior, you arent taking in the fact blasterships have to move around ALOT in gangsituations and thus lose alot of damagepotential. The fact that, in normal gangconditions it is always the pulseboats who deal most dps over blaster/ac ships, just because they dont have to move aroundlike crazy. Stop trolling me for not taking in stuff outside eft information, because it is YOU who is only taking in DPS/EHP stats and not thinking about the horrid a blasterpilot overcomes when trying to get some dps applied in situatios with lag, big distances to the targets and so forth.
The only case where blasterships *might* come on top is in a 0km bsgang vs bsgang slugfest, and even then, verrrrry small chance that situation will happen.
So what?.
Booohooo, Gallente BS'es have to move more around, then so what?.
If you would have ANY KNOWLEDGE of how the speed/scrambler/webnerf changed this in regard to blasterships, you woulnt be trolling this topic with ubernonsence. Seriously, i dont even get the impression you have the skills for any blastership at all.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 01:21:00 -
[883]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 01:26:23 Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 01:22:45
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Now reverse that to a "start 25-45km" situation.......unless the laser ships screwed up they would melt the blaster boats one after another on approach and hardly take a loss.
In that situation, i would warp off the whole gang with Gallente BS'es, and then wait until our Covert Op(s) have got to a point where he is pretty close to the enemies, and then warp the gang with Blaster BS'es in to kill them all. Or those who get scrambled.
I know at those ranges the Amarr BS'es have a tiny little advantage, but being smart -> Lasers with longer range on it's guns and with good tracking anyways.
Originally by: sAyArrrr If you would have ANY KNOWLEDGE of how the speed/scrambler/webnerf changed this in regard to blasterships, you woulnt be trolling this topic with ubernonsence. Seriously, i dont even get the impression you have the skills for any blastership at all.
Wanna see my inEVE skill list?.
To say it short, i'm extremely specializated in both Minmatar and Gallente.
And by looking at your age in EVE, i probably have more SP in Gunnery and Missiles together than you have total SP.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 01:50:00 -
[884]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 01:43:56
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Now reverse that to a "start 25-45km" situation.......unless the laser ships screwed up they would melt the blaster boats one after another on approach and hardly take a loss.
In that situation, i would warp off the whole gang with Gallente BS'es, and then wait until our Covert Op(s) have got to a point where he is pretty close to the enemies, and then warp the gang with Blaster BS'es in to kill them all. Or those who get scrambled.
I know at those ranges the Amarr BS'es have a tiny little advantage, but being smart -> Lasers with longer range on it's guns and with good tracking anyways.
Originally by: sAyArrrr If you would have ANY KNOWLEDGE of how the speed/scrambler/webnerf changed this in regard to blasterships, you woulnt be trolling this topic with ubernonsence. Seriously, i dont even get the impression you have the skills for any blastership at all.
Wanna see my inEVE skill list?.
To say it short, i'm extremely specializated in both Minmatar and Gallente.
And by looking at your age in EVE, i probably have more SP in Gunnery and Missiles together than you have total SP.
Thats a failcomment, because any non-eft***** should know there is more than 'skill' in flying a ship. Guess who owned himself (again)
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 01:54:00 -
[885]
Originally by: sAyArrrr
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 01:43:56
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Now reverse that to a "start 25-45km" situation.......unless the laser ships screwed up they would melt the blaster boats one after another on approach and hardly take a loss.
In that situation, i would warp off the whole gang with Gallente BS'es, and then wait until our Covert Op(s) have got to a point where he is pretty close to the enemies, and then warp the gang with Blaster BS'es in to kill them all. Or those who get scrambled.
I know at those ranges the Amarr BS'es have a tiny little advantage, but being smart -> Lasers with longer range on it's guns and with good tracking anyways.
Originally by: sAyArrrr If you would have ANY KNOWLEDGE of how the speed/scrambler/webnerf changed this in regard to blasterships, you woulnt be trolling this topic with ubernonsence. Seriously, i dont even get the impression you have the skills for any blastership at all.
Wanna see my inEVE skill list?.
To say it short, i'm extremely specializated in both Minmatar and Gallente.
And by looking at your age in EVE, i probably have more SP in Gunnery and Missiles together than you have total SP.
Thats a failcomment, because any non-eft***** should know there is more than 'skill' in flying a ship. Guess who owned himself (again)
What the hell are you talking about?.
Any smart PVPer would do the same to a gang that have alot of gallente BS'es in the gang anyways, so your counteragrument to that is?. That i'm a sisi noob that don't know anything about PVP?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 02:12:00 -
[886]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sAyArrrr
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 01:43:56
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Now reverse that to a "start 25-45km" situation.......unless the laser ships screwed up they would melt the blaster boats one after another on approach and hardly take a loss.
In that situation, i would warp off the whole gang with Gallente BS'es, and then wait until our Covert Op(s) have got to a point where he is pretty close to the enemies, and then warp the gang with Blaster BS'es in to kill them all. Or those who get scrambled.
I know at those ranges the Amarr BS'es have a tiny little advantage, but being smart -> Lasers with longer range on it's guns and with good tracking anyways.
Originally by: sAyArrrr If you would have ANY KNOWLEDGE of how the speed/scrambler/webnerf changed this in regard to blasterships, you woulnt be trolling this topic with ubernonsence. Seriously, i dont even get the impression you have the skills for any blastership at all.
Wanna see my inEVE skill list?.
To say it short, i'm extremely specializated in both Minmatar and Gallente.
And by looking at your age in EVE, i probably have more SP in Gunnery and Missiles together than you have total SP.
Thats a failcomment, because any non-eft***** should know there is more than 'skill' in flying a ship. Guess who owned himself (again)
What the hell are you talking about?.
Any smart PVPer would do the same to a gang that have alot of gallente BS'es in the gang anyways, so your counteragrument to that is?. That i'm a sisi noob that don't know anything about PVP?.
Glad to see you finally embraced the truth!
|
Traderboz
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 02:13:00 -
[887]
So many quotes o.O I'm sure you both know who you're replying to, so is there really any point in quoting the past 5 posts?
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 02:14:00 -
[888]
Originally by: sAyArrrr Glad to see you finally embraced the truth!
Glad to see that you don't have the balls to give me a counterarguments on what i asked you about. Aka that means you fail, HARD.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 02:16:00 -
[889]
Edited by: sAyArrrr on 28/02/2009 02:17:13
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sAyArrrr Glad to see you finally embraced the truth!
Glad to see that you don't have the balls to give me a counterarguments on what i asked you about. Aka that means you fail, HARD.
Ahahahahaha, now your getting funny, i havent seen ANY SERIOUS REPLY on ANY of the things i posted! So how about you start with it, O Mighty Pvp God of Sisi, Pwner of Noobs?
Ps. Buhuuuu, buhuuuu!
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 02:22:00 -
[890]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 02:25:19
Originally by: sAyArrrr Edited by: sAyArrrr on 28/02/2009 02:17:13
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sAyArrrr Glad to see you finally embraced the truth!
Glad to see that you don't have the balls to give me a counterarguments on what i asked you about. Aka that means you fail, HARD.
Ahahahahaha, now your getting funny, i havent seen ANY SERIOUS REPLY on ANY of the things i posted! So how about you start with it, O Mighty Pvp God of Sisi, Pwner of Noobs?
Ps. Buhuuuu, buhuuuu!
Oh look, he's also admitting that he doesn't have the balls to tell me why any smart FC's in a gang would warp off his whole gang with lots of Gallente BS'es in, to wait until their Cov Ops have got a warp in spot to the gang.
Wanna answer me why any smart PVPer wouldn't do that?.
Nice way to go to prove that your any more smarter or better than me in PVP. Wanna prove it or?. or are you just gonna prove more that you don't know sh*t about PVP?. The choice is yours.
EDIT: I think you doesn't know what to answer tbh. FAIL much?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 02:30:00 -
[891]
EVE has so many different ways of fitting a battleship, and so many different tactical situations, that giving specific examples of encounters is rather pointless.
The issue here is simple: blaster's superior damage advantage is small enough to be inconsequential when compared to other short range weapons, different fighting styles, different ship types and setup options.
If we look at that as the issue, then people who disagree with blaster boost would say: the weapons are balanced because they perform nearly same way on different ships. The fact that there is no noticeable advantage is the essence of true balance.
Those who want to see a blaster boost should argue that in order to encourage diversity of options in game, blasters SHOULD have a clearly superior damage advantage. Because blasters are all about raw power, while other weapon types aim to have superiority in distinctly different ways. Those clear cut advantages are of course offset by disadvantages in other areas: damage, tracking, optimal, falloff, grid usage, CPU usage, cap usage - a lot of factors to balance!
The reasonable people on both sides of the argument want to have a balanced game. Those who don't - should be dismissed. The key difference between the arguing sides comes down to this: one group of people wants balance thru sameness, while other group wants balance with diversity.
Ask yourself, which camp are you in?
|
sAyArrrr
Minmatar Omyst Research
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 02:30:00 -
[892]
Edited by: sAyArrrr on 28/02/2009 02:33:44
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 02:23:03
Originally by: sAyArrrr Edited by: sAyArrrr on 28/02/2009 02:17:13
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sAyArrrr Glad to see you finally embraced the truth!
Glad to see that you don't have the balls to give me a counterarguments on what i asked you about. Aka that means you fail, HARD.
Ahahahahaha, now your getting funny, i havent seen ANY SERIOUS REPLY on ANY of the things i posted! So how about you start with it, O Mighty Pvp God of Sisi, Pwner of Noobs?
Ps. Buhuuuu, buhuuuu!
Oh look, he's also admitting that he doesn't have the balls to tell me why any smart FC's in a gang would warp off his whole gang with lots of Gallente BS'es in, to wait until their Cov Ops have got a warp in spot to the gang.
Wanna answer me why any smart PVPer wouldn't do that?.
EDIT: I think you doesn't know what to answer tbh. FAIL much?.
Really, seeing you try to argue and failing at proper counterargumentationis like watching a monkey in the zoo beating himself down, really funny!
See, your just acting like a little caod pubbie now, since you cant win the argument with words, your shouting i dont have balls and so forth. I dont need to point out you're just being ignorant and trolling the forums because you like the attention apparently, you already time after time have shown it yourself.
Ps. Ill stop posting to you after this because im too tired to keep arguing to kids, i know you gonna come up with another *smart* reply on this because i know you like to have the last word, at last that gives you the idea you are smart or something
|
Raniss
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 02:43:00 -
[893]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sAyArrrr See, your just acting like a little caod pubbie now, since you cant win the argument with words, your shouting i dont have balls and so forth. I dont need to point out you're just being ignorant and trolling the forums because you like the attention apparently, you already time after time have shown it yourself.
Ps. Ill stop posting to you after this, i know you gonna come up with another *smart* reply on this because i know you like to have the last word, at last that gives you the idea you are smart or something
I'm acting like CAOD pubbie?.
Your not the best one to say that dude.
Like you wouldn't come up with a smart reply like, oh look, your only a sisi noob. LOL that's all you can say. So i'll guess you fail terribly to.
And i'll guess you said 'Ill stop posting to you after this' because you got an eve mail from CCP now.
Anyways, as i have told about how we Blaster pilots are doing PVP and how we think when we are doing PVP, then i can say for sure that someone in this topic are horribly wrong.
Because some of those only think about DPS and Tracking and how long range you can have on the weapons. But i will say it again, it's totally wrong to think that Lasers are op only because of that.
Someone wanna prove me wrong?. Comeon, i know you can do that.
Seriously, if you actually read anything along all your trolling, you might have noticed there is about 987364592345234876325 people proving your wrong.
So quick quick, back to the cave now!
|
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P CCP
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 02:44:00 -
[894]
Cleaned.
Again.
The next off-topic or personal argument that carries on in this thread will result in its locking and forum bans issued.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Email |
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 02:48:00 -
[895]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 02:52:10
Originally by: Raniss
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sAyArrrr See, your just acting like a little caod pubbie now, since you cant win the argument with words, your shouting i dont have balls and so forth. I dont need to point out you're just being ignorant and trolling the forums because you like the attention apparently, you already time after time have shown it yourself.
Ps. Ill stop posting to you after this, i know you gonna come up with another *smart* reply on this because i know you like to have the last word, at last that gives you the idea you are smart or something
I'm acting like CAOD pubbie?.
Your not the best one to say that dude.
Like you wouldn't come up with a smart reply like, oh look, your only a sisi noob. LOL that's all you can say. So i'll guess you fail terribly to.
And i'll guess you said 'Ill stop posting to you after this' because you got an eve mail from CCP now.
Anyways, as i have told about how we Blaster pilots are doing PVP and how we think when we are doing PVP, then i can say for sure that someone in this topic are horribly wrong.
Because some of those only think about DPS and Tracking and how long range you can have on the weapons. But i will say it again, it's totally wrong to think that Lasers are op only because of that.
Someone wanna prove me wrong?. Comeon, i know you can do that.
Seriously, if you actually read anything along all your trolling, you might have noticed there is about 987364592345234876325 people proving your wrong.
So quick quick, back to the cave now!
What have they proved me wrong?, that they can't use Blasters right. YES, that is what they have proven me.
I know 100% exactly how to use Blasters, and i know that many of those who are crying in this topic are either really inexperienced in using Blasters, or have never used Blasters before.
Also again, ask the corp ABP about Blasters, then you will see what i'm talking about. That corp is one of the most experienced corp in EVE when it's about using Blaster ships in gangs in low sec and empire.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 10:08:00 -
[896]
Originally by: Ephemeron The issue here is simple: blaster's superior damage advantage is small enough to be inconsequential when compared to other short range weapons, different fighting styles, different ship types and setup options.
If we look at that as the issue, then people who disagree with blaster boost would say: the weapons are balanced because they perform nearly same way on different ships. The fact that there is no noticeable advantage is the essence of true balance.
Those who want to see a blaster boost should argue that in order to encourage diversity of options in game, blasters SHOULD have a clearly superior damage advantage. Because blasters are all about raw power, while other weapon types aim to have superiority in distinctly different ways. Those clear cut advantages are of course offset by disadvantages in other areas: damage, tracking, optimal, falloff, grid usage, CPU usage, cap usage - a lot of factors to balance!
The reasonable people on both sides of the argument want to have a balanced game. Those who don't - should be dismissed. The key difference between the arguing sides comes down to this: one group of people wants balance thru sameness, while other group wants balance with diversity.
Ask yourself, which camp are you in?
qft this is the last 28 pages in a nutshell and without the insults. /thumbsup
Originally by: CCP Mitnal Cleaned.
Again.
The next off-topic or personal argument that carries on in this thread will result in its locking and forum bans issued.
if this was my forum i'd have locked the thread and 2-days-forum-banned the respective ones. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 10:25:00 -
[897]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 10:28:49
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean The thing is that in that situation the laser ships need only burn away while the blaster ship need to stay close to the primary laser ship, so after the first few go down the other laser ships are now at range and the blasters ships need to constantly burn after each one to get into their higher dps optimal.
Now in a "start at 0" situation the blaster gang may win and have a good chance to do so but the fact is that the laser ships gang would also take a HEAVY toll in blaster ship kills before MAYBE losing.
Now reverse that to a "start 25-45km" situation.......unless the laser ships screwed up they would melt the blaster boats one after another on approach and hardly take a loss.
In that situation, i would warp off the whole gang with Gallente BS'es, and then wait until our Covert Op(s) have got to a point where he is pretty close to the enemies, and then warp the gang with Blaster BS'es in to kill them all. Or those who get scrambled.
Odd how its always your side that has tackle and scouts ect....
At 25-29km you can be scrammed by the laser BS and cannot warp and at the 30+ range you could be bubbles ect...warping off is not a option..
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Marn Prestoc
Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 10:38:00 -
[898]
Boosting blasters, especially in DPS would just screw AC's (which arn't great due to falloff mechanics), you'd end up with a topic this size in no time. If there is truely a major problem then nerf the tracking of pulse lasers, don't just boost two other systems.
If you boost the damage of blasters (especially by 20% as someone suggested) then you further move the DPS outputs away from what is tankable, reducing the value of active tanking. Which is a bit oxymoron when your own ships have a active tanking bonus.
A weapon is the sum of its parts and the ships, otherwise could just post millions of AC topics and when people say "but your ships are so quick!" tell them to get lost cos we're only discussing the weapon and not the ships that use them.
The only change I would agree with is to undo the tracking bonus that lasers recieved lastyear/yearbeforethat (can't remember exactly). Don't know why they got that with webs the way they were making the added tracking only truely helpful outside of web range which was already the strength of lasers.
Originally by: Chi Quan
Originally by: CCP Mitnal Cleaned.
Again.
The next off-topic or personal argument that carries on in this thread will result in its locking and forum bans issued.
if this was my forum i'd have locked the thread and 2-days-forum-banned the respective ones.
Thats why I usually discuss things on SHC, can control the ***** waving and insults and make it more a discussion. -
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 10:44:00 -
[899]
Originally by: Marn Prestoc Boosting blasters, especially in DPS would just screw AC's (which arn't great due to falloff mechanics), you'd end up with a topic this size in no time. If there is truely a major problem then nerf the tracking of pulse lasers, don't just boost two other systems.
I think AC need a buff as well tbh....and a tracking nerf to pulse (even though i think its needed) will not help blasters.
Originally by: Marn Prestoc If you boost the damage of blasters (especially by 20% as someone suggested) then you further move the DPS outputs away from what is tankable.
Very true but is that not the whole idea behind blasters....
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Marn Prestoc
Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 10:53:00 -
[900]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: Marn Prestoc Boosting blasters, especially in DPS would just screw AC's (which arn't great due to falloff mechanics), you'd end up with a topic this size in no time. If there is truely a major problem then nerf the tracking of pulse lasers, don't just boost two other systems.
I think AC need a buff as well tbh....and a tracking nerf to pulse (even though i think its needed) will not help blasters.
Check out Falloff Formula Change - Would boost AC's more than Blasters more than Lasers.
Principle and the effect can be seen there, exact change can be adjusted.
Quote:
Originally by: Marn Prestoc If you boost the damage of blasters (especially by 20% as someone suggested) then you further move the DPS outputs away from what is tankable.
Very true but is that not the whole idea behind blasters....
My point was you'd be screwing the ships with active bonuses, hence screwing your own ships (hyperion/BCs/Commands) because more often you'll ignore them and passive tank. We don't need less active tanking in EVE, we need more but thats another topic. -
|
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 10:57:00 -
[901]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
Lets see I have to give up a huge Range, I have to give up a huge EHP chuck, I have to fit a MWD(to simply get in range), I loose a huge amout of time/Cap/HP while getting within Range, I have to use expensive implants/Items in the fitting to making this happen at all and I have the worser Gang BS(because beeing in Range allready is better than getting in Range and the EHP Bonus is also nice to have).
I will take this to mean that no, you do not know what diminishing returns are. Come back when you understand. I will still be here.
You mean that fitting more Plates and Resistance will result in a better EHPxDPS ratio and make the ship look better in EFT and performe much better on TQ in general.
I bolted the important part for you. You ignore every argument I give you why this is not the case. You donŠt give any commont how terrible your ultimate Blaster BS(and I realy hate the endless Hype vs Mega discussion it is the same like a Abaddon vs Gedon discussion) will die or just leave the field without Kills in many situations. I have given up on 2 MFS, 2 EANM/ANP, 3 Plate Setups in the early 2008(about a year ago) since the ship simply couldnŠt performe well in the invironment it has to work for me any more. This is mainly because of the Gameplay chages in EvE, not on the ship itself and a direct respons to the fittings\tactics you see around on TQ.
This "better DPSxEHP" Setup is 2007/2008 and still around in Gangs but canŠt provide the flexible Target selection or just self defence in many very diffrent situations in one setup, to meet the requirements on Blaster based solo Setup in the PVP environment Low Sec has now(and over the last year).
The super heavy active Tanks(1000 DPS+), Neut Setups, killing things before a Falcon jams you, very heavy passive Tanks(especialy Hics that got with the Onyx, Phobos and Devoter got extrem Kin/Therm resistances), the Nano ships(before QR) the scrambler AFs now, reduced time you got before people slip thrue your to weak Web back to the gate and the increased need to break big buffer Tanks before they sucsessfull manage to deagress because you canŠt bump any more this well in plated BS.
This are all things my Mega actualy have to deal with, on its own, in one single fitting(without gooing the route to loose a ton of ISK any time you are permajammed in Factionmods), your Hype only have to deal with EFT stats, that is the big diffrence.
Better now?
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 11:12:00 -
[902]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 11:12:08
Originally by: Marn Prestoc
Check out Falloff Formula Change - Would boost AC's more than Blasters more than Lasers. Principle and the effect can be seen there, exact change can be adjusted. Edit: More info. If going to read 1 post read this one.
It seems ok for blasters ect but i do not think lasers need yet another boost tbh.
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 - 2009.02.28 11:24:00 -
[903]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 11:25:18 sophisticatedlimabean.
Have you watched the movie i linked to longer up?.
Or are you to afraid to see that the Blasters are fine for the combat style Gallente BS'es are doing?.
I want you to see it and answer me if Blasters still are crap and worthless in that movie?.
Don't deny it, because if you do, then it only shows one thing about you.
For me, the conclusion is easy and short. Blasters are totally fine.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
TimMc
Gallente Extradition
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 11:35:00 -
[904]
Originally by: Ephemeron The issue here is simple: blaster's superior damage advantage is small enough to be inconsequential when compared to other short range weapons, different fighting styles, different ship types and setup options.
If we look at that as the issue, then people who disagree with blaster boost would say: the weapons are balanced because they perform nearly same way on different ships. The fact that there is no noticeable advantage is the essence of true balance.
Those who want to see a blaster boost should argue that in order to encourage diversity of options in game, blasters SHOULD have a clearly superior damage advantage. Because blasters are all about raw power, while other weapon types aim to have superiority in distinctly different ways. Those clear cut advantages are of course offset by disadvantages in other areas: damage, tracking, optimal, falloff, grid usage, CPU usage, cap usage - a lot of factors to balance!
The reasonable people on both sides of the argument want to have a balanced game. Those who don't - should be dismissed. The key difference between the arguing sides comes down to this: one group of people wants balance thru sameness, while other group wants balance with diversity.
Ask yourself, which camp are you in?
Imo, blasters need a tracking buff so they can operate in the close range, making up for faster transversal from worse webs.
AC maybe need a damage buff since they operate in falloff rather than their theoretical DPS you see in EFT.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 11:43:00 -
[905]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 11:45:04
Originally by: TimMc Imo, blasters need a tracking buff so they can operate in the close range, making up for faster transversal from worse webs.
Can i ask why?.
If you watch the ABP movie you will clearly see that Blasters doesn't have a single problem to hit targets they are fighting.
Tbh, the movie shows exactly what i'm talking about when it's about Blasters. And yes, it's how they work, and they work good to.
That movie doesn't lie when it's about Blasters. So i trust the players in the ABP corp more than i ever would trust someone in this topic.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 11:52:00 -
[906]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 11:53:01
Originally by: NightmareX
Have you watched the movie i linked to longer up?.
Not yet its a long download.
Originally by: NightmareX I want you to see it and answer me if Blasters still are crap and worthless in that movie?.
PPl rarely post fraps of them losing fights but il look over it if it ever finishes downloading. Still at least these are TQ pvpers unlike you....
Originally by: NightmareX Don't deny to answer my question, because if you do, then it only shows one thing about you.
Now i think i will actually stop the DL just cos of that little childish comment.
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 - 2009.02.28 12:01:00 -
[907]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 12:04:51
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 11:53:01
Originally by: NightmareX
Have you watched the movie i linked to longer up?.
Not yet its a long download.
Originally by: NightmareX I want you to see it and answer me if Blasters still are crap and worthless in that movie?.
PPl rarely post fraps of them losing fights but il look over it if it ever finishes downloading. Still at least these are TQ pvpers unlike you....
Originally by: NightmareX Don't deny to answer my question, because if you do, then it only shows one thing about you.
Now i think i will actually stop the DL just cos of that little childish comment.
You want me to make you a TQ Blaster Mega movie to?, to show you the same thing as ABP are showing in the movie?. That the Blasters are fine. And to show that i'm a pretty good PVPer to.
But that will ofc take a little time, because of my RL atm. I have had plans for like 1-2 years to make me a movie, but the RL have destroyed that.
Say whatever you want though. But i'm very experienced in using Blasters and Autocannons. Those are the 2 weapon types that i'm really really good with. And ofc. A Megathron and a Tempest + Machariel and Megathron Navy Issue / Vindicator is the ships i have specializated in when it's about BS'es.
So when it's about those 2 ships / 2 weapon systems, i know what i'm talking about and i know what i'm doing with those 2 ships / 2 weapon systems in PVP.
Everyone or most peoples in EVE are extremely good at something, and being good at 2 ships and 2 weapon types isn't much though, but at least, i know my stuffs when it's about them.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 12:10:00 -
[908]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 12:10:23
Originally by: NightmareX yet another epeen stroke
Do you ever get tired of telling ppl how uber you are (well how uber you "THINK" you are), do try to stay on topic...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 12:13:00 -
[909]
ITT a guy who thinks that if he can create threadnoughts filled with meh, that ccp will actually change the game to his liking regardless how rubbish the idea is..
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 12:16:00 -
[910]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 ITT a guy who thinks that if he can create threadnoughts filled with meh, that ccp will actually change the game to his liking regardless how rubbish the idea is..
Deschenus Maximus seems quite knowledgeable imho although as you have shown some ppl do not have the experience or in game knowledge to process the idea properly.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 12:23:00 -
[911]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 12:27:39
Originally by: 7shining7one7
you might have a 5 year old char but you've never flown amarr.. maybe you should stfu about lasers till you've done so.
1. Considering this is a blaster issue thread i suggest you think before you post, lasers are just being used for a reference point as AC rails and beams have also been.
2. Oh and comments about experience would be better received from somebody who has actually flown ANY ships...so post with or tell us your main (unless this is your main then LOL...).
3. NOW IF YOU HAVE ANY ON TOPIC INSIGHTS YOU ARE WELCOME TO POST THEM.....
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 12:35:00 -
[912]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 12:24:27
Originally by: 7shining7one7
you might have a 5 year old char but you've never flown amarr.. maybe you should stfu about lasers till you've done so.
1. Considering this is a blaster issue thread i suggest you think before you post, lasers are just being used for a reference point as AC rails and beams have also been.
2. Oh and comments about experience would be better received from somebody who has actually flown ANY ships...so post with or tell us your main (unless this is your main then LOL...).
it takes serious dedication to act that stupid for 28 pages..
so you admit that you haven't flown any amarr ships.. oh and btw. this char can fly gallente cmd ships aswell as having amarr bs V..
and as for your last thingie.. you ride all this on having a 5 year old char, but you don't have a f'ing clue what you're on about.. and you probably bought it through the trade bazarr or ebay too and are now acting tough..
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 12:39:00 -
[913]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 12:42:28
Originally by: 7shining7one7
it takes serious dedication to act that stupid for 28 pages..
so you admit that you haven't flown any amarr ships.. oh and btw. this char can fly gallente cmd ships aswell as having amarr bs V..
and as for your last thingie.. you ride all this on having a 5 year old char, but you don't have a f'ing clue what you're on about.. and you probably bought it through the trade bazarr or ebay too and are now acting tough..
Amarr BS 5?
7shining7one7
4 losses 1 kill
None in a amaar BS...
I have no interest in discussing off topic crap with either a rude alt troll (who does not have the nerve to post with his main) or a main with no xp or anything to add to this discussion.
/ignore.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 12:40:00 -
[914]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 12:42:47 sophisticatedlimabean: Amarr bs 0..
bringing arguments like nerf pulse or wtf amarr overpowered..
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 12:45:00 -
[915]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 12:49:32
A ON TOPIC post i made earlier in the thread.
I do not think lasers particularly need a nerf either no matter the dmg types as i see those as not so important tbh (although less tracking would not hurt).
1. Blasters on BS need reworking as they are now a almost worthless system on TQ, lasers can easily compete at close range with the available targets BS have especially when you factor in single let alone multiple webs.
2. The extra agility blaster ships have over laser ships is also irrelevant even when applied against unwebbed ships as BS (even the MOST agile BS) are just not agile enough compared to their peers to make even a slight difference let alone a large on in combat.
3. Rails tracking is so sucky that even a 50ms webbed BS can kite them at under 2km and their max dps even in perfect conditions a pathetic joke (578dps).
4. Cap while considered the "bane of lasers" is also the bane of blasters as well if not more so as they need to almost constantly burn their MWD to get into optimal range where they do very little more dps than lasers anyway.
5. The single extra mid slot on the Hyperion does allow a extra web but considering the web stacking penalty and the fact that multiple ships with 1 web each work just as well as 1 ship with 2 webs each the benefit is negligible compared to the extra 40,000 ehp abaddons get.
PS: 15 days to amarr BS V. & T2 lasers already done.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 12:54:00 -
[916]
Ur all wrong because ur all noobs and u all dont have a clue, rofl rofl noobs.
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:02:00 -
[917]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 13:03:12
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
PS: 15 days to amarr BS V. & T2 lasers already done.
lies.. after dodging it for 3 replies.. you all of a sudden have t2 lasers and amarr bs IV lol..
DO I EVEN NEED TO DRAG OUT THE HORRIFAIL ABADDON FITS FROM THE OTHER THREAD THAT KEPT CHANGING CAUSE YOU HAD NO CLUE WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT?
DUAL REP ABADDON WITH TWO MEDIUM CAP INJECTORS FOR THE LULZ! you a pro.. more like a f'ing noob with a 5 year old char.. stfu.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:07:00 -
[918]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 13:07:54
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean 1. Blasters on BS need reworking as they are now a almost worthless system on TQ, lasers can easily compete at close range with the available targets BS have especially when you factor in single let alone multiple webs.
4. Cap while considered the "bane of lasers" is also the bane of blasters as well if not more so as they need to almost constantly burn their MWD to get into optimal range where they do very little more dps than lasers anyway.
Point 1 is a pure lie.
About point 4. Yes you have to use a little more cap to MWD to the targets, but that doesn't have so much to say tbh.
Watch the ABP movie and you will see what i mean.
There is nothing more to say about that.
The movie clearly shows that Blasters is pretty damn good in PVP when your doing PVP right in Blaster ships.
And Blaster BS'es are also pretty nice in what they are good in.
I don't know how many times i have said that, but i'm starting to get really tired of telling that everytime. And i don't know what your problem with Blasters is sophisticatedlimabean, but you seems to have a VERY big problem with something when it's about Blasters.
I personally have never had ANY problems with Blasters.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:18:00 -
[919]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 13:19:09
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
PS: 15 days to amarr BS V. & T2 lasers already done.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 lies..
Ok my bad 16days 8 hours...
skillz
Originally by: 7shining7one7 after dodging it for 3 replies..
Dodging 3 replies about who your main is???, yup i noticed...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 more like a f'ing noob with a 5 year old char.. stfu.
By all means contact my past corps, proof or stfu indeed.....
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:25:00 -
[920]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 13:25:32
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean stuff
that's even less impressive..
you got the skills yet you have no f'ing clue how to fit something as simple as an abaddon as illustrated so well in the tachyon equivalent threadnought spam thread you spawned posting as murina..
that's just sad
|
|
cucac
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:30:00 -
[921]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 13:07:54
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean 1. Blasters on BS need reworking as they are now a almost worthless system on TQ, lasers can easily compete at close range with the available targets BS have especially when you factor in single let alone multiple webs.
4. Cap while considered the "bane of lasers" is also the bane of blasters as well if not more so as they need to almost constantly burn their MWD to get into optimal range where they do very little more dps than lasers anyway.
Point 1 is a pure lie.
About point 4. Yes you have to use a little more cap to MWD to the targets, but that doesn't have so much to say tbh.
Watch the ABP movie and you will see what i mean.
There is nothing more to say about that.
The movie clearly shows that Blasters is pretty damn good in PVP when your doing PVP right in Blaster ships.
And Blaster BS'es are also pretty nice in what they are good in.
I don't know how many times i have said that, but i'm starting to get really tired of telling that everytime. And i don't know what your problem with Blasters is sophisticatedlimabean, but you seems to have a VERY big problem with something when it's about Blasters.
I personally have never had ANY problems with Blasters.
HOW can be somebody that stupid ( really tried not to offend ) that he states all his arguments from some movie with view from 1 person with 135451341354 unseen other factors, other gang mates and so on. You are telling that blasters are fine because you saw that a mega with a gang killed another bs that was allready in his optimal ? Blasters are fine because you can easily warp out and warp back 20 km closer:D:D. You are pretty riddiculous.
As to blaster thing. Blasters advantage of higher dps isn't high enought to balance the fact it operates at extremly close range, not to mention tracking problems on top of that.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:37:00 -
[922]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 13:41:30
Originally by: cucac
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 13:07:54
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean 1. Blasters on BS need reworking as they are now a almost worthless system on TQ, lasers can easily compete at close range with the available targets BS have especially when you factor in single let alone multiple webs.
4. Cap while considered the "bane of lasers" is also the bane of blasters as well if not more so as they need to almost constantly burn their MWD to get into optimal range where they do very little more dps than lasers anyway.
Point 1 is a pure lie.
About point 4. Yes you have to use a little more cap to MWD to the targets, but that doesn't have so much to say tbh.
Watch the ABP movie and you will see what i mean.
There is nothing more to say about that.
The movie clearly shows that Blasters is pretty damn good in PVP when your doing PVP right in Blaster ships.
And Blaster BS'es are also pretty nice in what they are good in.
I don't know how many times i have said that, but i'm starting to get really tired of telling that everytime. And i don't know what your problem with Blasters is sophisticatedlimabean, but you seems to have a VERY big problem with something when it's about Blasters.
I personally have never had ANY problems with Blasters.
HOW can be somebody that stupid ( really tried not to offend ) that he states all his arguments from some movie with view from 1 person with 135451341354 unseen other factors, other gang mates and so on. You are telling that blasters are fine because you saw that a mega with a gang killed another bs that was allready in his optimal ? Blasters are fine because you can easily warp out and warp back 20 km closer:D:D. You are pretty riddiculous.
As to blaster thing. Blasters advantage of higher dps isn't high enought to balance the fact it operates at extremly close range, not to mention tracking problems on top of that.
I told my self to not reply to clueless noobs. But hi there \☻.
Not only do they show that Blasters are fine in that movie, but they are showing that in every of their movies.
And MEGALOLS, hahahahaha Blasters have tracking problems?. Well yeah, Blasters aren't meant to hit Frigs and cruisers any good.
You know after the speed and web nerf, Blasters aren't the pwnsause anymore.
Like i also said earlier, if you boost the tracking on Blaster anymore now, it will just get the FOTM again and be like it was before the web nerf. And the Devs don't want that to happen EVER again.
Sorry guys, those times are over. Adapt to it and STFU.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:49:00 -
[923]
Edited by: Andnowthenews on 28/02/2009 13:51:50
Originally by: NightmareX
Not only do they show that Blasters are fine in that movie, but they are showing that in every of their movies.
Needing to use undock lag and using npc corp logistics just to get kills is proof that blasters need a boost not that they are fine.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:51:00 -
[924]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 13:52:50
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX
Not only do they show that Blasters are fine in that movie, but they are showing that in every of their movies.
Needing to use undock lag and using npc corp logistics just to get kills is proof that blasters need a boost not that they are fine
So fighting outnumbered with logistics is proving that Blasters need a boost?.
Using Logistics and Falcons are a big part of how PVP is today. Just live with it.
Yeah, your a funny bunny.
Why are here so many in NPC corps that are replying to this topic?. Scared of showing who your main is heh?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:52:00 -
[925]
Originally by: cucac
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 13:07:54
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean 1. Blasters on BS need reworking as they are now a almost worthless system on TQ, lasers can easily compete at close range with the available targets BS have especially when you factor in single let alone multiple webs.
4. Cap while considered the "bane of lasers" is also the bane of blasters as well if not more so as they need to almost constantly burn their MWD to get into optimal range where they do very little more dps than lasers anyway.
Point 1 is a pure lie.
About point 4. Yes you have to use a little more cap to MWD to the targets, but that doesn't have so much to say tbh.
Watch the ABP movie and you will see what i mean.
There is nothing more to say about that.
The movie clearly shows that Blasters is pretty damn good in PVP when your doing PVP right in Blaster ships.
And Blaster BS'es are also pretty nice in what they are good in.
I don't know how many times i have said that, but i'm starting to get really tired of telling that everytime. And i don't know what your problem with Blasters is sophisticatedlimabean, but you seems to have a VERY big problem with something when it's about Blasters.
I personally have never had ANY problems with Blasters.
HOW can be somebody that stupid ( really tried not to offend ) that he states all his arguments from some movie with view from 1 person with 135451341354 unseen other factors, other gang mates and so on. You are telling that blasters are fine because you saw that a mega with a gang killed another bs that was allready in his optimal ? Blasters are fine because you can easily warp out and warp back 20 km closer:D:D. You are pretty riddiculous.
As to blaster thing. Blasters advantage of higher dps isn't high enought to balance the fact it operates at extremly close range, not to mention tracking problems on top of that.
Yeah, like, seriously dude, dont you know that referring to nonexsisting combat situations, being pvpgod of Sisi, links to random blasterthron movies, quotes of some corporation still using blasterships, uber ecm tempests, lots of using words like 'lol', 'clueless noob'and so forth are better arguments than common sense, numbers, actual TQ battle experience and so on?
Me and my lesser counterpart can only conclude that you are another 'clueless noob'
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:54:00 -
[926]
nightmare plz understand that you're talking to his alts..
|
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:55:00 -
[927]
Originally by: NightmareX
Using Logistics and Falcons are a big part of how PVP is today. Just live with it.
Logistics ad falcons are fine and id highly recommend them to be used by everybody, but using undock lag is a exploit and they use it a lot....
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:56:00 -
[928]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 13:56:44
Originally by: TrollmoreX Yeah, like, seriously dude, dont you know that referring to nonexsisting combat situations, being pvpgod of Sisi, links to random blasterthron movies, quotes of some corporation still using blasterships, uber ecm tempests, lots of using words like 'lol', 'clueless noob'and so forth are better arguments than common sense, numbers, actual TQ battle experience and so on?
Me and my lesser counterpart can only conclude that you are another 'clueless noob'
Was that a bad atempt to try and be funny?.
And btw, i like your name. It's only shows that someone is really angry at me because i'm right.
Yes yes, more alts to this topic to prove that NightmareX is wrong hahahah.
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX
Using Logistics and Falcons are a big part of how PVP is today. Just live with it.
Logistics ad falcons are fine and id highly recommend them to be used by everybody, but using undock lag is a exploit and they use it a lot....
LOL, that excuse is soooooooooooo 2007.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:57:00 -
[929]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 nightmare plz understand that you're talking to his alts..
I do not hide behind alts you do.
Post with your main or tell us his name.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:59:00 -
[930]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean i are murina
|
|
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 13:59:00 -
[931]
Edited by: TrollmoreX on 28/02/2009 14:00:22
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7 nightmare plz understand that you're talking to his alts..
I do not hide behind alts you do.
Post with your main or tell us his name.
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:01:00 -
[932]
Originally by: NightmareX I bet you will still say Blasters are crappy and wortless, or that the enemies in the ABP movie is only noobs.
A-yup. It's possible to get blasters to work if the opponents don't know what they're doing, or if you are doing RR fleets against non-RR fleets. The sad fact is that in every single one of those fights, they would have done even better if they had used Amarr BS. With the possible exception of the docking point fight where the Mega didn't even have a MWD fitted.
You aren't really claiming that the opponents in the vid were flying smart? -- Gradient forum |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:01:00 -
[933]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 14:05:55 Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 14:03:31
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean i are murina
Never denied it in fact i gave that info out freely in this thread as well as others...AS YOU WELL KNOW AS YOU LINKED ME DOING IT IN ANOTHER THREAD...
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Your like Murina
I am murina this is my main
NOW ARE YOU GONNA GROW A PAIR AND TELL US YOURS...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:03:00 -
[934]
Edited by: TrollmoreX on 28/02/2009 14:06:13
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean i are murina
Never denied it in fact i gave that info out freely in this thread as well as others...
You might want to link it otherwise me and my lesser counterpart will be forced to say the magic words, wich automaticly makes any further discussion pointless:
You Are A Clueless Noob!
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:06:00 -
[935]
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
Originally by: NightmareX I bet you will still say Blasters are crappy and wortless, or that the enemies in the ABP movie is only noobs.
A-yup. It's possible to get blasters to work if the opponents don't know what they're doing, or if you are doing RR fleets against non-RR fleets. The sad fact is that in every single one of those fights, they would have done even better if they had used Amarr BS. With the possible exception of the docking point fight where the Mega didn't even have a MWD fitted.
You aren't really claiming that the opponents in the vid were flying smart?
Well, someone is smarter than others anyways. And the smart ones wins in most situations anyways.
And smart players in Blaster BS'es are something we all should fear. To be totally honest. I fear a Blaster Mega waaaaaaaaaay more than i fear an Amarr BS.
And tbh, i don't think they would do it any better in Amarr BS'es. I'm not saying they would do it any worser though.
But because of the play style ABP is doing, Blaster BS'es are their favourite choice of ships.
It all depends on how you fight. In some fights Amarr BS'es might be a better choice. But for ABP's case, it's not.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:12:00 -
[936]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 14:13:45 yo beanboy.. you don't know diddly what you're talking about and whenever someone calls you on it you keep yapping about how you got a 5 year old car and so many kills etc.
yet you can't even fit an abaddon right, you know diddly about amarr t1 crystals.. and you know diddly how little pulse hits with scorch when it gets too far below optimal.
you want blasters with 30km OPTIMAL and/or tracking boost so they track like megapulse.. and you fit a dual rep abaddon with dual med cap injectors to illustrate your immense understanding of amarr battleships.. and on top of that you want amarr megapulse tracking nerfed to restore gallente blaster fotm.
these crazy ass threadnoughts are getting really trivial..
|
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:12:00 -
[937]
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
Originally by: NightmareX I bet you will still say Blasters are crappy and wortless, or that the enemies in the ABP movie is only noobs.
A-yup. It's possible to get blasters to work if the opponents don't know what they're doing, or if you are doing RR fleets against non-RR fleets. The sad fact is that in every single one of those fights, they would have done even better if they had used Amarr BS. With the possible exception of the docking point fight where the Mega didn't even have a MWD fitted.
You aren't really claiming that the opponents in the vid were flying smart?
Also one of the advantages of empire wars is you can pick your war decs and fight ppl you know you can beat.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:16:00 -
[938]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
you want blasters with 30km OPTIMAL
Find a single post or thread with me asking for blasters to have a 30km optimal and i will send 1 billion isk to your main....if you ever have the nerve to post with it...
Oh and i did not start this thread ltr.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:18:00 -
[939]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 14:18:38
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 14:17:17
Originally by: 7shining7one7
you want blasters with 30km OPTIMAL
Find a single post or thread with me asking for blasters to have a 30km optimal and i will send 1 billion isk to your main....if you ever have the nerve to post with it...
you posted it with murina in the thread tachyon equivalent for the other races.. threadnought. you may send the 1b isk to this char k thx..
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:20:00 -
[940]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 14:20:47
Originally by: 7shining7one7
you posted it with murina in the thread tachyon equivalent for the other races.. threadnought. you may send the 1b isk to this char k thx..
Link to quote or stfu.
And if this is you main lol 4 losses 1 kill ever...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:28:00 -
[941]
Originally by: NightmareX And the smart ones wins in most situations anyways.
And smart players in Blaster BS'es are something we all should fear. To be totally honest. I fear a Blaster Mega waaaaaaaaaay more than i fear an Amarr BS.
Yes, any ship where the pilot knows what he's doing > any ship where the pilot doesn't. But if the pilot flies smart and has similar skills in both ships, pulse BS > blaster BS in most situations - anything except station camp, I'd say, and even that is debatable.
The fact is that nowadays the only people flying blaster BS successfully are those who are better than their opponents. If all pilots are good, there is just no contest. -- Gradient forum |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:33:00 -
[942]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 14:36:12
Originally by: Theron Gyrow The fact is that nowadays the only people flying blaster BS successfully are those who are better than their opponents. If all pilots are good, there is just no contest.
Not really.
ABP for example. They get a contract to do for someone, also to kill someone. Then they search a little about the corp / alliance and then they go out after them.
I cannot speak directly for ABP, but i think they will mostly use Blaster BS'es anyways, in whatever situations they are in. As long it's about BS'es. because of how they PVP and fight in that corp.
Mmmmm, it's feels much much better to talk with someone that can come with something that we can discuss without doing RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE at each others.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:33:00 -
[943]
Edited by: Andnowthenews on 28/02/2009 14:36:05
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7
you posted it with murina in the thread tachyon equivalent for the other races.. threadnought. you may send the 1b isk to this char k thx..
Link to quote or stfu.
And if this is you main lol 4 losses 1 kill ever...
POST 516 FROM THE TACH THREAD, A POST OF YOURS YOU MISQUOTED AND REPLIED TO....:
Originally by: Murina
What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km and 0 gun dmg after 30km for gallente blaster ships apart from the slight dmg from drones.
This way amarr rule at 20+ to 45+ as they should, we are kinda level from 10-20km and gallente still get the 2-10km range, (under 1-2km no fecker in a gunnery BS hits much unless its a stationary barn door).
lol 7shining7one7 troll gets owned...in this and the other thread
Lies and exaggeration tend to come back and bit you on forums...
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:37:00 -
[944]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km and 0 gun dmg after 30km for gallente blaster ships apart from the slight dmg from drones.
This way amarr rule at 20+ to 45+ as they should, we are kinda level from 10-20km and gallente still get the 2-10km range, (under 2 no fecker in a gunnery BS hits much unless its a stationary barn door).[/quote
that's even worse..
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:38:00 -
[945]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 14:39:39
Originally by: Andnowthenews
lol 7shining7one7 troll gets owned...in this and the other thread
Lies and exaggeration tend to come back and bit you on forums...
dude.. i dno if you read that thread.. but he got ripped up by about 60 different ppl for talking rubbish first about tach's then about everything else amarr before i even got there..
also you're his alt so who the f cares what you think.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:39:00 -
[946]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km and 0 gun dmg after 30km for gallente blaster ships apart from the slight dmg from drones.
This way amarr rule at 20+ to 45+ as they should, we are kinda level from 10-20km and gallente still get the 2-10km range, (under 2 no fecker in a gunnery BS hits much unless its a stationary barn door).
that's even worse..
So blasters with a 30km optimal is < than blasters matching the dmg of pulse upto 20km and doing 0 dmg at 30km......
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:40:00 -
[947]
Edited by: Andnowthenews on 28/02/2009 14:42:32
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: Andnowthenews
lol 7shining7one7 troll gets owned...in this and the other thread
Lies and exaggeration tend to come back and bit you on forums...
dude.. i dno if you read that thread.. but he got ripped up by about 60 different ppl for talking rubbish first about tach's then about everything else amarr before i even got there..
Its you who are getting ripped on this and the other thread from what i can see and you are doing most of it to yourself, i think you should chill and stop posting before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
At least you posted with a alt and do not look stupid on your main, very wise.
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:44:00 -
[948]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km and 0 gun dmg after 30km for gallente blaster ships apart from the slight dmg from drones.
This way amarr rule at 20+ to 45+ as they should, we are kinda level from 10-20km and gallente still get the 2-10km range, (under 2 no fecker in a gunnery BS hits much unless its a stationary barn door).
that's even worse..
So blasters with a 30km optimal is < than blasters matching the dmg of pulse upto 20km and doing 0 dmg at 30km......
yes because you're not taking damage types or resists and a host of other intricate racial balance points into consideration. all you know about eve is f1-f8 and screaming on vent.. so just stick to that.
who gives a sjit how many you killed.. you think eve is a first person shooter? hahaha awww that's cute, go forth little warrior. good thing i was mistaken then i bet you don't have anywhere near 1b isk..
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:46:00 -
[949]
Originally by: Andnowthenews stuff
dude, you forgot one very important thing..
you're his alt..
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:47:00 -
[950]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 14:50:13
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km and 0 gun dmg after 30km for gallente blaster ships apart from the slight dmg from drones.
This way amarr rule at 20+ to 45+ as they should, we are kinda level from 10-20km and gallente still get the 2-10km range, (under 2 no fecker in a gunnery BS hits much unless its a stationary barn door).
that's even worse..
So blasters with a 30km optimal is < than blasters matching the dmg of pulse upto 20km and doing 0 dmg at 30km......
yes because you're not taking damage types or resists and a host of other intricate racial balance points into consideration.
Bud 0 gun dmg at 30km is always gonna be less than blasters having a 30km optimal (so max raw dmg at 30km vs 0), resists and "intricate balance points" are irrelevant to that....
You are a very angry person.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
|
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:48:00 -
[951]
Edited by: Andnowthenews on 28/02/2009 14:49:27
Originally by: 7shining7one7
dude, you forgot one very important thing..
you're his alt..
I though murina was his alt...
Originally by: 7shining7one7
yes because you're not taking damage types or resists and a host of other intricate racial balance points into consideration. all you know about eve is f1-f8 and screaming on vent.. so just stick to that.
who gives a sjit how many you killed.. you think eve is a first person shooter? hahaha awww that's cute, go forth little warrior. good thing i was mistaken then i bet you don't have anywhere near 1b isk..
Ladies and gentlemen we are witnessing a troll melt down...
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:50:00 -
[952]
you must be british.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:51:00 -
[953]
Originally by: Andnowthenews Edited by: Andnowthenews on 28/02/2009 14:49:27
Originally by: 7shining7one7
dude, you forgot one very important thing..
you're his alt..
I though murina was his alt...
Dude, we can have more than one alt.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:53:00 -
[954]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 14:54:09
Anyway the troll has reminded me of my idea..
What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km for gallente BS blaster ships.
This way amarr rule at 20+ to 45+ as they should, we are kinda level from 10-20km and gallente still get the 2-10km range, (under 2 nobody in a gunnery BS hits much/hard unless its a stationary barn door).
/ignore off topic trolls.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:55:00 -
[955]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Anyway the troll has reminded me of my idea.. .
comedy.. you've started 2 x 28 page threadnoughts that you perpetuated by yourself pretty much (do you ever sleep or do anything else than this i wonder?) whining about stuff you've never really flown yet..
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:57:00 -
[956]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 14:53:52 Anyway the troll has reminded me of my idea..
What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km for gallente BS blaster ships.
You know that by doing that, your going to make something in EVE combat VERY unbalanced right?.
As things are now, every weapon systems are pretty good balanced in it's own ways. And it should be like that. IT SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED.
I hope you know what i'm talking about. You should know it with your uberomguberpwnage experience with Lasers and Blasters.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 15:09:00 -
[957]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 15:16:49
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Anyway the troll has reminded me of my idea..
What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km for gallente BS blaster ships.
You know that by doing that, your going to make something in EVE combat VERY unbalanced right?.
A marginal increase in dmg for BS blasters within the 10-20km range would not change anything apart from making blasters marginally better in gangs.
And it would hardly be the end of "balance" in eve...
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 - 2009.02.28 15:19:00 -
[958]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 15:23:14
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Anyway the troll has reminded me of my idea..
What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km for gallente BS blaster ships.
You know that by doing that, your going to make something in EVE combat VERY unbalanced right?.
A marginal increase in dmg for blasters within the 10-20km range would not change anything apart from making blasters marginally better in gangs.
And it would hardly be the end of "balance" in eve...
Can i ask you a question?. I'll guess it's a yes, then to the question.
Was the HP buff some years ago to make the combat last longer meant so you can boost the damage on weapons more and more?.
If we just boost and boost the damage on weapons, then what was the reason for the HP buffs some years ago?.
If you boost Blasters, then Autocannons also need a boost in something. But as Autocannons are now, it doesn't need any boosts.
The only boost i can see for me is to boost the projectile ammo damage up to what the Blaster & Laser damage is. But that's not a boost directly to Autocannons. It's a boost to the ammo the guns are using. But it's not really needed today.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 15:27:00 -
[959]
Originally by: NightmareX
Was the HP buff some years ago to make the combat last longer meant so you can boost the damage on guns more and more on weapons?.
If we just boost and boost the damage on weapons, then what was the reason for the HP buffs some years ago?.
If you boost Blasters, then Autocannons also need a boost in something. But as Autocannons are not, it doesn't need any boosts.
Pointless question considering what is being asked AND HERE IS WHY:
Nobody is asking for blasters to be doing more dmg than they are already the idea is to be doing that dmg at a slightly longer range.
Lasers already do the amount of dmg we are talking about and they do it out to 45km ffs so giving blasters a bit more dmg in the 10-20km area does not increase blasters max dps it just increases the dps they do from 10-20km from low to a bit better.
For somebody who considers themselves knowledgeable i would have thought you would have grasped that.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 15:27:00 -
[960]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 15:16:49
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Anyway the troll has reminded me of my idea..
What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km for gallente BS blaster ships.
You know that by doing that, your going to make something in EVE combat VERY unbalanced right?.
A marginal increase in dmg for BS blasters within the 10-20km range would not change anything apart from making blasters marginally better in gangs.
And it would hardly be the end of "balance" in eve...
use rails if you want mid range..
but wanting blasters to be minipulse with kin/therm dmg is just ridiculous, it'll change the weapon system completely.. what's next.. a blaster charge with same range as scorch?
you'll be messing with so many intricate and delicate balances if you do that. All cause you wanted a long range blaster for gatecamps.. 5 year old or not.. that **** is WoW mentality.
|
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 15:38:00 -
[961]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 15:39:01
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 15:28:25
Originally by: NightmareX
Was the HP buff some years ago to make the combat last longer meant so you can boost the damage on guns more and more on weapons?.
If we just boost and boost the damage on weapons, then what was the reason for the HP buffs some years ago?.
If you boost Blasters, then Autocannons also need a boost in something. But as Autocannons are not, it doesn't need any boosts.
Pointless question considering what is being asked AND HERE IS WHY:
Nobody is asking for blasters to be doing more max dmg than they are already are the idea is to be doing better dmg at their slightly longer ranges where they now do low dmg.
Lasers already do the amount of dmg we are talking about and they do it out to 45km ffs so giving blasters a bit more dmg in the 10-20km area does not increase blasters max dps it just increases the dps they do from 10-20km from low to a bit better/higher.
For somebody who considers themselves knowledgeable i would have thought you would have grasped that.
Your actually makes combat in EVE with Blasters way shorter in times if your gonna boost the Blasters as you want them to be.
Because you don't have to move so much around, then it takes combat much much shorter time to finish.
So yeah, it will still make combat in EVE shorter in times then.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 15:44:00 -
[962]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 15:45:36
Originally by: NightmareX
Your actually makes combat in EVE with Blasters way shorter in times if your gonna boost the Blasters as you want them to be.
Considering we are giving blasters the same dmg as lasers get from 10-20km blaster fights will be only as fast as laser fights are now within those ranges, apart from the fact that lasers get a crap tonne more ehp and 25+km more doing that dmg...
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 - 2009.02.28 15:45:00 -
[963]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 15:45:46
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Your actually makes combat in EVE with Blasters way shorter in times if your gonna boost the Blasters as you want them to be.
Considering we are giving blasters the same dmg as lasers get from 10-20km blaster fights will be only as fast as laser fights are now in those ranges, apart from the fact that lasers get a crap tonne more ehp and 25+km more doing that dmg...
And you still forget that Lasers deals the crappiest damages. EM and Tharmal against armor omni tanks doesn't make lasers fights any faster, AT ALL.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 15:49:00 -
[964]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 15:50:47
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Your actually makes combat in EVE with Blasters way shorter in times if your gonna boost the Blasters as you want them to be.
Considering we are giving blasters the same dmg as lasers get from 10-20km blaster fights will be only as fast as laser fights are now in those ranges, apart from the fact that lasers get a crap tonne more ehp and 25+km more doing that dmg...
And you still forget that Lasers deals the crappiest damages. EM and Tharmal against armor omni tanks doesn't make lasers fights any faster, AT ALL.
Blaster get slightly better dmg and dmg types.
Lasers get much greater range and ehp.
Sounds about right to me...
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 - 2009.02.28 15:58:00 -
[965]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 15:50:47
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Your actually makes combat in EVE with Blasters way shorter in times if your gonna boost the Blasters as you want them to be.
Considering we are giving blasters the same dmg as lasers get from 10-20km blaster fights will be only as fast as laser fights are now in those ranges, apart from the fact that lasers get a crap tonne more ehp and 25+km more doing that dmg...
And you still forget that Lasers deals the crappiest damages. EM and Tharmal against armor omni tanks doesn't make lasers fights any faster, AT ALL.
Blaster get slightly better dmg and dmg types.
Lasers get much greater range and ehp.
Sounds about right to me...
Read this again: LINK.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:00:00 -
[966]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 16:00:39
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 15:50:47
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Your actually makes combat in EVE with Blasters way shorter in times if your gonna boost the Blasters as you want them to be.
Considering we are giving blasters the same dmg as lasers get from 10-20km blaster fights will be only as fast as laser fights are now in those ranges, apart from the fact that lasers get a crap tonne more ehp and 25+km more doing that dmg...
And you still forget that Lasers deals the crappiest damages. EM and Tharmal against armor omni tanks doesn't make lasers fights any faster, AT ALL.
Blaster get slightly better dmg and dmg types.
Lasers get much greater range and ehp.
Sounds about right to me...
Daddy i want a golden goose...
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:06:00 -
[967]
Originally by: NightmareX
Read this again:....
I can read fine but what i said still applies, laser get much greater range and ehp while blasters get a slightly better max spike of dmg at very close range and better dmg types.
That does not change the fact that blasters need to do more dmg at 10-20km to make them slightly better in gang combat.
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 - 2009.02.28 16:13:00 -
[968]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 16:16:15
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Read this again:....
I can read fine but what i said still applies, laser get much greater range and ehp while blasters get a slightly better max spike of dmg at very close range and better dmg types.
That does not change the fact that blasters need to do more dmg at 10-20km to make them slightly better in gang combat.
I don't know what you are on about, but Blasters works fine in gang combat now.
Well ok, to say it as it is. Only lazy pvpers want to have it like you want it to be. And do we want lazy pvpers in EVE?, no.
That boost should be called 'The lazy mans boost to Blaster'.
I'm tired of those who think that a Blaster Mega is just F1-F8 and watch the explosions. Aka easy mode PVP.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:15:00 -
[969]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Read this again:....
I can read fine but what i said still applies, laser get much greater range and ehp while blasters get a slightly better max spike of dmg at very close range and better dmg types.
That does not change the fact that blasters need to do more dmg at 10-20km to make them slightly better in gang combat.
I don't know what you are on about, but Blasters works fine in gang combat now.
Yup all you need is to camp a station in RR fits and with logistic and falcon alts and kill ships with undocking lag.......
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 - 2009.02.28 16:17:00 -
[970]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 16:19:52
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Read this again:....
I can read fine but what i said still applies, laser get much greater range and ehp while blasters get a slightly better max spike of dmg at very close range and better dmg types.
That does not change the fact that blasters need to do more dmg at 10-20km to make them slightly better in gang combat.
I don't know what you are on about, but Blasters works fine in gang combat now.
Yup all you need is to camp a station in RR fits and with logistic and falcon alts and kill ships with undocking lag.......
Undocking lag, isn't that soooooo 2006 / 2007?.
I have never had any undock lags in Jita with my alt the last year.
Originally by: The Djego Serious this is one of the worst vids in therm of claiming anything about Blasterperformance.
Not to sound wierd, but.....
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:18:00 -
[971]
Originally by: Marn Prestoc
The only change I would agree with is to undo the tracking bonus that lasers recieved lastyear/yearbeforethat (can't remember exactly). Don't know why they got that with webs the way they were making the added tracking only truely helpful outside of web range which was already the strength of lasers.
This would have made sense if webs were still 90%, but i don't think it works when webs are 60%. It would make lasers totally anemic at closer ranges negating nearly any reason to use them over beam lasers
If anything were to be done, it would be better to roll back the resistance changes, even if it were just for armor.(though if that were done, you would want to normalize the racial armor bonuses)
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:20:00 -
[972]
Originally by: NightmareX Only lazy pvpers want to have it like you want it to be. And do we want lazy pvpers in EVE?, no.
Pulse ships have it like this now...in fact they have it with 25km more range and a crap tonne more ehp....
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:21:00 -
[973]
Edited by: Goumindong on 28/02/2009 16:21:00
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
That does not change the fact that blasters need to do more dmg at 10-20km to make them slightly better in gang combat.
1. Why do they need to be better in gang combat? Rails are the Gallente gang combat weapon. Why do you not just fit rails instead?
2. Your proposal will not make them "slightly better in gang combat" it will make them the god kings of on gate pvp.(stations/lowsec/etc)
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:22:00 -
[974]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX Only lazy pvpers want to have it like you want it to be. And do we want lazy pvpers in EVE?, no.
Pulse ships have it like this now...in fact they have it with 25km more range and a crap tonne more ehp....
What?.
Do you really know why they have it like that now?, because Amarr BS'es isn't any good to MWD around and shoot ships.
Are you playing stupid or what?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:24:00 -
[975]
Originally by: Goumindong
1. Why do they need to be better in gang combat? Rails are the Gallente gang combat weapon. Why do you not just fit rails instead?
Im sorry but are you the person in the post above saying that giving pulse their old tracking would make them useless.....rails have tracking a crap tonne worse than pulse had before they were buffed...
Originally by: Goumindong 2. Your proposal will not make them "slightly better in gang combat" it will make them the god kings of on gate pvp.(stations/lowsec/etc)
Considering that im only asking for them to match pulse in the 10-20km range what does that say about pulse as they have 30km more range doing that dmg AND 40k more hp...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:27:00 -
[976]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 16:28:21
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: Goumindong
1. Why do they need to be better in gang combat? Rails are the Gallente gang combat weapon. Why do you not just fit rails instead?
Im sorry but are you the person in the post above saying that giving pulse their old tracking would make them useless.....rails have tracking a crap tonne worse than pulse had before they were buffed...
you can't compare pulse to rails..
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:30:00 -
[977]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 16:31:05
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: Goumindong
1. Why do they need to be better in gang combat? Rails are the Gallente gang combat weapon. Why do you not just fit rails instead?
Im sorry but are you the person in the post above saying that giving pulse their old tracking would make them useless.....rails have tracking a crap tonne worse than pulse had before they were buffed...
you can't compare pulse to rails..
I know that, im surprised you actually know that...unfortunately gourmie missed the memo (post 904)...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:31:00 -
[978]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 16:28:21
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: Goumindong
1. Why do they need to be better in gang combat? Rails are the Gallente gang combat weapon. Why do you not just fit rails instead?
Im sorry but are you the person in the post above saying that giving pulse their old tracking would make them useless.....rails have tracking a crap tonne worse than pulse had before they were buffed...
you can't compare pulse to rails..
I know that, im surprised you actually know that...unfortunately gourmie missed the memo...
oh.. is this the ol' switcheroo?
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:32:00 -
[979]
Edited by: Cohkka on 28/02/2009 16:32:50
Originally by: NightmareX
I don't know what you are on about, but Blasters works fine in gang combat now.
Yeah, they work so fine that in a closerange fight in a gang of 10 BS on each side a Railmega will outdamage a Blastermega 9 out of 10 times (speaking of the absolute damage dealt in a fight). Appart from that Rails have huge advantages in RR gangs/against RR gangs and a much better range flexability. They deal damage when they get webed/scrambled and they don't have to burn cap for the MWD.
The problem is they suck against Pulse at those ranges. At least they're better than blasters....
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:34:00 -
[980]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 16:36:12
Originally by: 7shining7one7
oh.. is this the ol' switcheroo?
Nope just somebody else like you who kicks his own butt within his own contradictory posting by arguing with no basis and foundation in truth or reality.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:36:00 -
[981]
What do people think about the neutron blaster rohk which hits out to 10km opt + 6.3km falloff with void or 17km opt + 16km falloff with null? Is a range buff to blasters really that op?
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:37:00 -
[982]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 16:40:25
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 16:34:14
Originally by: 7shining7one7
oh.. is this the ol' switcheroo?
Nope just somebody else like you who kicks his own butt within his own posting by arguing with no basis and foundation in truth or reality.
he was talking about using rails for midrange instead of blasters.. you misrepresent what he says by claiming he was comparing pulse and rails.. i catch you by saying you couldn't compare rails and pulse, and you try to pretend like you didn't just misrepresent him by saying oh i knew that but he didn't..
*cough*
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:39:00 -
[983]
Originally by: Trader20 What do people think about the neutron blaster rohk which hits out to 10km opt + 6.3km falloff with void or 17km opt + 16km falloff with null? Is a range buff to blasters really that op?
They do not see it as a OP buff they oppose it cos blasters are not their race and as such any buff even one they obviously do not understand is a sideways nerf to their systems in some shape or form.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:41:00 -
[984]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 16:42:02
Originally by: 7shining7one7
he was talking about using rails for midrange instead of blasters.. you misrepresent what he says by claiming he was comparing pulse and rails.. i catch you saying you couldn't compare rails and pulse, and you try to pretend like you didn't just misrepresent him by saying oh i knew that but he didn't..
YOU KNOW FOR SOMEBODY WHO GOT CAUGHT IN A LIE EARLIER FROM ANOTHER THREAD I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT YOU WOULD HAVE THE BRAINS NOT TO LIE AGAIN IN THE SAME THREAD WHEN THE PROOF IS ACTUALLY ON THE SAME PAGE...
Originally by: Goumindong 1. Why do they need to be better in gang combat? Rails are the Gallente gang combat weapon. Why do you not just fit rails instead?
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:41:00 -
[985]
A boost to tracking OR a slight range boost (or rather a damage boost to long range ammo).
Personally I'd prefer a tracking boost, that way the Mega would recieve its own unique strength and the Hyperion would be able to deal the damage it's s'posed to at the ranges blasters are intended for.
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:42:00 -
[986]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: Trader20 What do people think about the neutron blaster rohk which hits out to 10km opt + 6.3km falloff with void or 17km opt + 16km falloff with null? Is a range buff to blasters really that op?
They do not see it as a OP buff they oppose it cos blasters are not their race and as such any buff even one they obviously do not understand is a sideways nerf to their systems in some shape or form.
i wonder, how does it feel agreeing with your alt?
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:43:00 -
[987]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 16:46:03
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: Trader20 What do people think about the neutron blaster rohk which hits out to 10km opt + 6.3km falloff with void or 17km opt + 16km falloff with null? Is a range buff to blasters really that op?
They do not see it as a OP buff they oppose it cos blasters are not their race and as such any buff even one they obviously do not understand is a sideways nerf to their systems in some shape or form.
i wonder, how does it feel agreeing with your alt?
Im gonna need 30 bloody accounts with all these alts you say i have....
PS: Post with your main.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:46:00 -
[988]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: Trader20 What do people think about the neutron blaster rohk which hits out to 10km opt + 6.3km falloff with void or 17km opt + 16km falloff with null? Is a range buff to blasters really that op?
They do not see it as a OP buff they oppose it cos blasters are not their race and as such any buff even one they obviously do not understand is a sideways nerf to their systems in some shape or form.
i wonder, how does it feel agreeing with your alt?
Im gonna need 30 bloody accounts with all these alts you say i have....
Lol everyone who has posted in this thread is ur alt...even 7shinging which I'm wondering why ur arguing with urself .
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:47:00 -
[989]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
reading comprehension.. you really don't understand it yet do you?
you tried to say he compared pulse to rails.. i pointed out he didn't.. you then pretended like you never said that and that you knew you couldn't compare the two..
also i didn't lie, i just remembered some parts wrong.. you wanted a blaster with 20km optimal doing same damage as pulse multifreq (disregarding damage types) and then falloff to 30km which is even worse than just 30km optimal...
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:51:00 -
[990]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 16:52:14
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Im gonna need 30 bloody accounts with all these alts you say i have....
howcome? i only pointed out two..
ps: post MOAR with your alts so they can agree with your conclusions and you can be like yeah see it's true ppl agree.. the ones without any character image are particularly convincing.
|
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:53:00 -
[991]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 16:54:30
Originally by: 7shining7one7
you tried to say he compared pulse to rails..
He did and does...maybe you should read back a bit he considers pulse and rails to be comparable gang systems....
Originally by: 7shining7one7 also i didn't lie, i just remembered some parts wrong.. you wanted a blaster with 20km optimal doing same damage as pulse multifreq (disregarding damage types) and then falloff to 30km
Utterly wrong YET AGAIN..... AND THE POST IS EVEN IN THIS VERY THREAD.....
Originally by: 7shining7one7 which is even worse than just 30km optimal...
Wrong AGAIN even if i asked for what you claim blasters with 30km optimal would be better than blasters with 20....and i wanted neither ffs....
Are you on something or are you just mental and hear voices?????????????????............
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:57:00 -
[992]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 16:52:14
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Im gonna need 30 bloody accounts with all these alts you say i have....
howcome? i only pointed out two..
ps: post MOAR with your alts so they can agree with your conclusions and you can be like yeah see it's true ppl agree.. the ones without any character image are particularly convincing.
I was including the OP's who started this and the tach thread (as you seem to think i started them) along with the ppl who agreed with me on the tach thread (and you said were alts of mine as well)...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 16:59:00 -
[993]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 17:04:59
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
seriously dude.. your cognitive abilities and comprehension skills are completely out of wack.. either that or you're not even attempting to make sense.
pulse and rail ARE gang weaps.. pulse is inbetween rail and blaster.. blaster does much more damage than pulse.. pulse does slightly more damage than rails.. thus it's balanced out that way..
beam is for long range since beam cycles makes you see forever.. and you hit diddly with beam at short range.. even with multifrequency.. all that paper tiger theorycraft that says beams hit everything with max damage regardless of range is utter nonsense..
what YOU did was say something he didn't say.. and then you tried to pretend like you never said it.
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:00:00 -
[994]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 16:52:14
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Im gonna need 30 bloody accounts with all these alts you say i have....
howcome? i only pointed out two..
ps: post MOAR with your alts so they can agree with your conclusions and you can be like yeah see it's true ppl agree.. the ones without any character image are particularly convincing.
I was including the OP's who started this and the tach thread (as you seem to think i started them) along with the ppl who agreed with me on the tach thread (and you said were alts of mine as well)...
no but you started from page 1.. and completely overtook it posting several posts on every single f'ing page in a 28 page thread.. and you done the same with this one.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:02:00 -
[995]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
pointless, argumentative, lying, ignorant, troll
/IGNORE
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:06:00 -
[996]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7
pointless, argumentative, lying, ignorant, troll
/IGNORE
pulse and rail ARE gang weaps.. pulse is inbetween rail and blaster.. blaster does much more damage than pulse.. pulse does slightly more damage than rails.. thus it's balanced out that way..
beam is for long range since beam cycles makes you see forever.. and you hit diddly with beam at short range.. even with multifrequency.. all that paper tiger theorycraft that says beams hit everything with max damage regardless of range is utter nonsense..
yes i see how this is detrimental to your cause (hence the troll/iggy for great justice brushoff approach)
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:11:00 -
[997]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
and you hit diddly with beam at short range.. even with multifrequency..
YOU SAY BEAMS TO SUCK AS GANG MODULES COS OF TRACKING.....THEN HOW CAN RAILS BE GOOD WHEN BEAMS HAVE MUCH BETTER TRACKING THAN RAILS........
You are a ignorant troll..
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:14:00 -
[998]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Im sorry but are you the person in the post above saying that giving pulse their old tracking would make them "totally anemic at closer ranges".....rails have tracking a crap tonne worse than pulse had before they were buffed.
In gangs, their performance in the closer range is no problem.
There are a range of situations where the various weapons are useful. Lasers are on the smaller side of gang combat to the middle, rails on the middle to the large. In this comparison, they give up their ability to hit well at shorter ranges for the ability to hit over 100km.
If lasers had a much longer range, i could see them having a lower tracking. Them having a much longer range, however, is not really feasible for a number of reasons.
|
Madner Kami
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:16:00 -
[999]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean What i would do is increase the damage of blasters to at least match amarr scorch/mf dmg up to the 20km range with a steep falloff to 27/30km for gallente BS blaster ships.
This way amarr rule at 20+ to 45+ as they should, we are kinda level from 10-20km and gallente still get the 2-10km range, (under 2 nobody in a gunnery BS hits much/hard unless its a stationary barn door).
Bull****. I wouldn't mind large blasters doing their current max damage up to 10km with a slight boost in tracking speeds to counter some of the webnerf-effects a bit, but everything beyond that point will be so rediciulously overpowered. You clearly have no idea what would need to be adjusted to balance your proposition.
Quote: Considering we are giving blasters the same dmg as lasers get from 10-20km blaster fights will be only as fast as laser fights are now within those ranges, apart from the fact that lasers get a crap tonne more ehp and 25+km more doing that dmg...
Currently Blasters are doing more damage at short range with less energy consumption and way better tracking. And you want to practically triple their optimal range, lower their max damage by about 15-20% and keep their current tracking stats? That's bull**** and you know that. Maybe Pulse weaponry does well in higher ranges, but those are practically only usefull on Amarr ships and Amarr ships have issues in other regards. So if you demand the above stated, I want 1-2 more medium slots on all Amarr ships, more base speed on each and larger Dronebays. Deal?
Summary: Forget it, because you just want to level the playing grounds and that is what makes WoW fail epically more and more. If you like it that way, there's the door... What you demand is just overpowering one weapon system instead of countering and balancing the current effects of the general rules of engagement for PvP-fights.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:18:00 -
[1000]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Im sorry but are you the person in the post above saying that giving pulse their old tracking would make them "totally anemic at closer ranges".....rails have tracking a crap tonne worse than pulse had before they were buffed.
In gangs, their performance in the closer range is no problem.
There are a range of situations where the various weapons are useful. Lasers are on the smaller side of gang combat to the middle, rails on the middle to the large. In this comparison, they give up their ability to hit well at shorter ranges for the ability to hit over 100km.
If lasers had a much longer range, i could see them having a lower tracking. Them having a much longer range, however, is not really feasible for a number of reasons.
Crappy justification for a unbalanced system, even beams have awesome tracking compared to rails.
Pulse do not need the tracking they have but even with a 50ms transversal BS the tracking on rails is so bad they miss at close range as well as doing pitifully low dmg.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:23:00 -
[1001]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 17:24:26
Originally by: Madner Kami
Bull****. I wouldn't mind large blasters doing their current max damage up to 10km with a slight boost in tracking speeds to counter some of the webnerf-effects a bit, but everything beyond that point will be so ridiculously overpowered. You clearly have no idea what would need to be adjusted to balance your proposition.
Learn to read, nobody is asking for blasters to do their max dmg to 20km, just to match the dmg of lasers upto 20km.
Originally by: Madner Kami Currently Blasters are doing more damage at short range with less energy consumption and way better tracking. And you want to practically triple their optimal range...
Are you blind or just incapable of reading i said no such thing nor would i want that...
Come back when you can comprehend written English..
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:28:00 -
[1002]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Crappy justification for a unbalanced system, even beams have awesome tracking compared to rails.
Pulse do not need the tracking they have but even with a 50ms transversal BS the tracking on rails is so bad they miss at close range as well as doing pitifully low dmg.
Beams have much less range than rails. Which is why they track better. If you think there is a problem with the tracking on rails, why do you not suggest a change to that rather than a change to blasters?
Oh, and so you know, the tracking on a Megabeam Abaddon is .01914, the tracking on a 425 Mega is .01653 a difference of 15.8%(Difference between tachs and 425's is 5%). That is smaller than the difference in tracking between pulse and blasters.
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:28:00 -
[1003]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 17:35:49 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 17:32:24
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Im sorry but are you the person in the post above saying that giving pulse their old tracking would make them "totally anemic at closer ranges".....rails have tracking a crap tonne worse than pulse had before they were buffed.
In gangs, their performance in the closer range is no problem.
There are a range of situations where the various weapons are useful. Lasers are on the smaller side of gang combat to the middle, rails on the middle to the large. In this comparison, they give up their ability to hit well at shorter ranges for the ability to hit over 100km.
If lasers had a much longer range, i could see them having a lower tracking. Them having a much longer range, however, is not really feasible for a number of reasons.
Crappy justification for a unbalanced system, even beams have awesome tracking compared to rails.
Pulse do not need the tracking they have but even with a 50ms transversal BS the tracking on rails is so bad they miss at close range as well as doing pitifully low dmg.
i said rof on beams.. not tracking..
watch this: excluding fitting issues
tachyon beam laser II base rof = 12.30 425mm railgun II base rof = 9.56
megabeam laser II base rof = 9.00 350mm railgun II base rof = 7.31
beams need better tracking to compensate.. cause their dmg type sucks and cause their cycles are much slower..
in essence pulse with scorch works better than beams and beams need only be resorted to if > 40-50km ain't an issue. the scorch is a compensation crystal not wtfpwnage OP.. and i must say again.. just 1 tracking disruptor II cripples an amarr ship.. especially pulse ships. because while scorch has moderately long range the range/damage relation on the other crystals are horrendous..
and let's not even talk about how little dps beam fits do, if you can fit it properly at all that is
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:34:00 -
[1004]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 rant
Tell you what you fit 8 beams on a baddon and look at the tracking and DPS then try to fit 8 rails on a hype....it aint gonna happen.
So we are down to fitting 7 rails on a mega vs 8 beams on a baddon...wanna compare dps now...or ehp or tracking....
Trying to use 350mm rails to compare rof shows what a pathetic manipulative liar you are..
425mm railgun II base rof = 9.56 megabeam laser II base rof = 9.00
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:38:00 -
[1005]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7 rant
Tell you what you fit 8 beams on a baddon and look at the tracking and DPS then try to fit 8 rails on a hype....it aint gonna happen.
So we are down to fitting 7 rails on a mega vs 8 beams on a baddon...wanna compare dps now...or ehp or tracking....
Trying to use 350mm rails to compare rof shows what a pathetic manipulative liar you are..
425mm railgun II base rof = 9.56 megabeam laser II base rof = 9.00
ahahaha.. 425's are hybrid tachyon equivalents you imbicil.. 350's are megabeam equivalents..
you just don't get it..
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:38:00 -
[1006]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 beams need better tracking to compensate.. cause their dmg type sucks and cause their cycles are much slower..
They do more raw damage, that compensates for the slower refire rate. In nearly all instances higher damage and lower RoF are advantageous.
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:42:00 -
[1007]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: 7shining7one7 beams need better tracking to compensate.. cause their dmg type sucks and cause their cycles are much slower..
They do more raw damage, that compensates for the slower refire rate. In nearly all instances higher damage and lower RoF are advantageous.
considering how a 425 will be a full volley cycle ahead of a tachyon for every 4th cycle (at base) i'd say it evens out quite well indeed, especially taking dmg type into consideration.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:43:00 -
[1008]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: 7shining7one7 beams need better tracking to compensate.. cause their dmg type sucks and cause their cycles are much slower..
They do more raw damage, that compensates for the slower refire rate. In nearly all instances higher damage and lower RoF are advantageous.
considering how a 425 will be a full volley cycle ahead of a tachyon for every 4th cycle (at base) i'd say it evens out quite well indeed, especially taking dmg type into consideration.
Did you bother to include 8 beams vs 7 rails as well as ehp?......i doubt it tbh.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:44:00 -
[1009]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
So we are down to fitting 7 rails on a mega vs 8 beams on a baddon...wanna compare dps now...or ehp or tracking....
Shooting each other, the megatrhon has 2.6% more tracking(raw tracking advantage to the Abaddon, w/better sig rad going to the Mega), 6+5km more range(36+30 vs 30+20) and the Abaddon has a 40% EHP/DPS advantage.
The Mega will shoot more or less forever, and the Abaddon will run into cap problems in 2-4 minutes.
Within that range, drones are a factor, and bring the Megathron closer to the EHP/DPS figures of the abaddon, or allow utility in the form of stronger ECM and rep drones. If the megas can get longer range, they hit to 130+30 while the Abaddons will hit 108+20.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:46:00 -
[1010]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
considering how a 425 will be a full volley cycle ahead of a tachyon for every 4th cycle (at base) i'd say it evens out quite well indeed, especially taking dmg type into consideration.
Not really, no. They might get a slight advantage in DPS every 4 cycles, but it won't make up for the difference.
|
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:51:00 -
[1011]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 17:55:38
Originally by: Goumindong
Shooting each other, the megatrhon has 2.6% more tracking(raw tracking advantage to the Abaddon, w/better sig rad going to the Mega), 6+5km more range(36+30 vs 30+20) and the Abaddon has a 40% EHP/DPS advantage.
Rather large advantage...40% more ehp + more dmg when beams fight rails, and 40% more ehp and 1000% more optimal when pulse fight blasters (blasters get 20ish% more dmg at 4.5km though big woop).
Originally by: Goumindong The Mega will shoot more or less forever, and the Abaddon will run into cap problems in 2-4 minutes.
It has plenty of cap for a gang fight if it fits a cap mod and both ships need to do that.
Originally by: Goumindong Within that range, drones are a factor.
40ish dps less travel time....give it a rest..
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 17:53:00 -
[1012]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 17:57:00
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: 7shining7one7
considering how a 425 will be a full volley cycle ahead of a tachyon for every 4th cycle (at base) i'd say it evens out quite well indeed, especially taking dmg type into consideration.
Not really, no. They might get a slight advantage in DPS every 4 cycles, but it won't make up for the difference.
base resists on armor?
well besides apoc, paladin and nightmare tach's are very hard to fit.. EM damage type is the easiest to tank for for what armor tankers are concerned..
limabean.. tell me your dps, cap and tank with mega beams fitted on abaddon the geddon will also be particularly amusing.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:00:00 -
[1013]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 18:04:59
Originally by: 7shining7one7
limabean.. tell me your dps, cap and tank with mega beams fitted on abaddon
Rght after you tell me how blasters with 30km optimal are worse than blasters with 20km optimal and 0 dmg at 30km...
Just for laughs...
PS: GROW A PAIR AND POST WITH YOUR MAIN...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:06:00 -
[1014]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 18:04:59
Originally by: 7shining7one7
limabean.. tell me your dps, cap and tank with mega beams fitted on abaddon
Rght after you tell me how blasters with 30km optimal are worse than blasters with 20km optimal and 0 dmg at 30km...
Just for laughs...
PS: GROW A PAIR AND POST WITH YOUR MAIN...
bait to circular argument not taken, answer the question.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:07:00 -
[1015]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: The Djego Serious this is one of the worst vids in therm of claiming anything about Blasterperformance.
Not to sound wierd, but.....
Sorry but you, do sound wierd. I think anybody that ever have been in a Emprie war and RR boosted BS gang preaty much knows how this looks(preaty much exactly like you have seen it in the Vid, shown in a good way).
In a RR BS Slugfest you win by, having the better RR work in your gang than in the other, having more luck with the jam cycles of your falcons instead of the others, having enugh RR to outtank the other gang and switch this fast enught between the targets or slowing down the taken damage better than the other gang. Also by finding weak spots to attack with focused Fire(like Hacs, Logistics, Recons etc), using Cap Warefare, getting jams on the Logistics or the BS with RR spreding fire a bit that the other gang run out of lockable targets and have longer time till they can put RR on a new target by having to cancel one and locking the next etc.
It is not won by using Blasters over Lasers\Missles\AKs or draws any predictalbe picture where ships won because of her natural ballance against each other but having the better Gang and a good RR teamplay. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:07:00 -
[1016]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 TROLL
GROW A PAIR AND POST WITH YOUR MAIN...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:10:00 -
[1017]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7 TROLL
GROW A PAIR AND POST WITH YOUR MAIN...
the moment i make some points you know are true, you start to make small posts calling me troll instead of giving your regular elaborations.. it's so obvious..
you know you really ought to be a nicer person..
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:14:00 -
[1018]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 18:16:24
Originally by: 7shining7one7 TROLL
You reposted my main name in the tach thread for somebody who asked for it when i had clearly pointed out who it was in that thread, you have accused me of being every npc alt in this and the other thread and answering myself and you have on more than one occasion accused me of making outrageous requests for stupid buffs and been corrected 4 or 5 times between the two threads for doing so (but still continued did it multiple times).
You are a troll and you are not a nice person at all.
POST WITH YOUR MAIN OR GIVE OUT HIS NAME.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:15:00 -
[1019]
look at that.. i think he just capitulated
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:16:00 -
[1020]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
base resists on armor?
Yes, figured in.
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Rather large advantage...40% more ehp + more dmg when beams fight rails, and 40% more ehp and 1000% more optimal when pulse fight blasters (blasters get 20ish% more dmg at 4.5km though big woopRolling Eyes).
No, its 40% more EHPxDPS not 40% more EHP and more damage. The losses may or may not be worth it, since once you get outside of 30km, the Mega catches up rapidly. I would wager they were.
But the again, aren't amarr supposed to be the best in that middle range?
And no, the blasters advantages in 4.5km are both A: not only 20% more DPS, but B: not only measured in terms of DPS.
Quote:
It has plenty of cap for a gang fight if it fits a cap mod and both ships need to do that.
It caps out in 4 minutes or so while running its guns and sensor boosters only with a heavy injector. So if you're warping around, and having to use your MWD, you cut into that number significantly. Cap is not a non-factor for abaddons.
The mega caps out in 4 minutes running its guns and sensor boosters only with no cap mod. It has space(and i've given it) a medium cap booster, which will keep it 100% stable while firing its guns.
Quote:
drone dps less travel timeRolling Eyes....give it a rest.
Which doesn't make it useless. Note: Rep drones and ECM drones have 10km less travel time.
|
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:21:00 -
[1021]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 18:22:14
Originally by: Goumindong
No, its 40% more EHPxDPS not 40% more EHP and more damage.
8 beams on the baddon do a lot more dps than 7 rails on the mega...it is more ehp and dps...
Originally by: Goumindong It caps out in 4 minutes or so while running its guns and sensor boosters only with a heavy injector. So if you're warping around, and having to use your MWD, you cut into that number significantly. Cap is not a non-factor for abaddons.
Using a mwd is rare unless you are a blaster ship then its essential..
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:24:00 -
[1022]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 18:26:58 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 18:25:00
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 18:16:24
Originally by: 7shining7one7 TROLL
You reposted my main name in the tach thread for somebody who asked for it when i had clearly pointed out who it was in that thread, you have accused me of being every npc alt in this and the other thread and answering myself and you have on more than one occasion accused me of making outrageous requests for stupid buffs and been corrected 4 or 5 times between the two threads for doing so (but still continued did it multiple times).
You are a troll and you are not a nice person at all.
POST WITH YOUR MAIN OR GIVE OUT HIS NAME.
a) the guy who asked for it you declined typing it but asked him to find it for himself.. b) i accused you of being 2 (two) alts in this thread c) the buff you are trolling this thread with asking for is exactly the same that you trolled the tachyon thread with.. hey you even cross posted it earlier on.. and it's the same buff that i think is ridiculous d) all you've done is prove how little you know about amarr and illustrate how you can barely fit an abaddon properly.. (the dual rep abbaddon in the tachyon thread was hilarious..) something you had to admit later on.. and you were ripped a new one by about 60 different ppl in the other thread where you posted as murina before i even got there..
and you're not getting your lazyboy minipulse blasters regardless how hard you troll for it.. because it's just ridiculous and ruin any serious ideas for blaster changes.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:28:00 -
[1023]
Edited by: Goumindong on 28/02/2009 18:29:07
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
8 beams on the baddon do a lot more dps than 7 rails on the mega...it is more ehp and dps...
Yes, its more EHP and DPS together to the amount of 40%. It is not 40% more EHP and more DPS. The Abaddons EHP against antimatter is actually lower than the EHP against Multifreq for the Mega.
Quote:
Using a mwd is rare unless you are a blaster ship then its essential..
This is entirely not true. And you ignore the effect of warping
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:31:00 -
[1024]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 18:32:35
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 18:22:14
Originally by: Goumindong
No, its 40% more EHPxDPS not 40% more EHP and more damage.
8 beams on the baddon do a lot more dps than 7 rails on the mega...it is more ehp and dps...
Originally by: Goumindong It caps out in 4 minutes or so while running its guns and sensor boosters only with a heavy injector. So if you're warping around, and having to use your MWD, you cut into that number significantly. Cap is not a non-factor for abaddons.
Using a mwd is rare unless you are a blaster ship then its essential..
here you troll again.. dps is not inflicted damage.. and mwd'ing was your way of keeping blasterships out of range.. you should know.. you spent like 5 pages on it in the tachyon thread..
dude i know you're not that stupid, stop pretending that you are, this is getting ridiculous.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:32:00 -
[1025]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 18:35:33
Originally by: 7shining7one7
a) the guy who asked for it you declined typing it but asked him to find it for himself..
And yet you felt the need to troll the thread and re-post it for him...but will not post yours...COWARD
Originally by: 7shining7one7 b) i accused you of being 2 (two) alts in this thread
And a few in the other one..
Originally by: 7shining7one7 c) the buff you are trolling this thread with asking for is exactly the same that you trolled the tachyon thread with.. hey you even cross posted it earlier on.. and it's the same buff that i think is ridiculous
You do not understand it as you 30km optimal comments prove quite clearly.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 d) and you were ripped a new one by about 60 different ppl in the other thread where you posted as murina before i even got there..
Most posters on this and the other thread support a blaster buff its only a troll or two like you who do not.
POST WITH YOUR MAIN OR GIVE OUT HIS NAME.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:36:00 -
[1026]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7
a) the guy who asked for it you declined typing it but asked him to find it for himself..
And yet you felt the need to troll the thread and post it...but will not post yours...
Originally by: 7shining7one7 b) i accused you of being 2 (two) alts in this thread
And a few in the other one..
Originally by: 7shining7one7 c) the buff you are trolling this thread with asking for is exactly the same that you trolled the tachyon thread with.. hey you even cross posted it earlier on.. and it's the same buff that i think is ridiculous
You do not understand it as you 30km optimal comments prove quite clearly.
Originally by: 7shining7one7 d) and you were ripped a new one by about 60 different ppl in the other thread where you posted as murina before i even got there..
Most posters on this and the other thread support a blaster buff its only a troll or two like you who do not.
a) how is trolling the thread posting something you didn't try to hide? he appreciated it btw. b) show me where, please! c) minipulse blaster.. no thx.. that's what you're asking for.. and that's what you asked for in the other thread.. more importantly.. now you've lied about 3 points allready. d) a quick evesearch shows over 20 ppl calling you troll just on the first 5 pages..
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:39:00 -
[1027]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 18:39:54 In fact forget it
/ignore troll
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:40:00 -
[1028]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 18:43:42
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 18:39:54 In fact forget it
/ignore troll
hahaha... it's funny to watch you fold due to lack of material after all that jive you've been talking
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 18:41:00 -
[1029]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 18:46:16
Originally by: 7shining7one7 .......
/ignore lying troll
Have the balls to post your mains name like i did or troll elsewhere..
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:02:00 -
[1030]
wow this threads gone south.
But regardless, blasters need a boost on tracking and damage.
Regards Mag's |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:06:00 -
[1031]
Originally by: Mag's wow this threads gone south.
But regardless, blasters need a boost on tracking and damage.
YAY another of my alts.....
Anyway, i think the dmg buff most certainly needs to be done.
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 - 2009.02.28 19:08:00 -
[1032]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 19:16:24
Originally by: Mag's wow this threads gone south.
But regardless, blasters need a boost on tracking and damage.
You don't get it either do you?.
By doing that, you make combat in EVE now very unbalanced. And it also makes Blasters extremely overpowered. They will just be like they was before the web and speed nerf then.
What the hell is the point by nerfing webbers if you just boost the damage and tracking on guns so Blaster BS'es for example hit frigs and cruiser the same as they did before the web nerf?. I don't get you guys.
Stop crying for your noobieness in using Blasters. Adapt or die (Ingame)
No one want unbalanced combat in EVE.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:14:00 -
[1033]
Wow, so much nonsense. Stop accusing eachother of troling or use private comunication channels to sort this out. The thread is unreadable and noone want to post in a trol thread.
OT: Now I don't know why the Rail vs Beam debate came up but on a realistic fitting (Tachs and 425mm don't fit/aren't worth it appart from pure sniper fits) beams are supperior to Rails in every way (yes range as well) doing 40% more dmg on Abaddon than Rails on Mega and 20% more than Hype. Now I can understand the huge diffrences between closerange guns, and they make sense in a 1on1 scenario at least. But in the longrange department it's pretty obvious that things are out of ballance (mind you Artys have it even worse).
Personally I'd be happy if we get rails boosted and therefore make dual 250mm viable within todays combat style. Not making them as good as Pulse (worse tracking, spike making it even worse, up the pg requirements). And Arty getting a small gun as well, as well as making them alphastrike king again.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:22:00 -
[1034]
Originally by: NightmareX
By doing that, you make combat in EVE now very unbalanced. And it also makes Blasters extremely overpowered. They will just be like they was before the web and speed nerf then.
You mean making them a good ship for 1on1s against its intended targets? The only thing they're good at? Then, yes I want that to happen. They weren't better at that before the speed/web nerf, they were just better against smaller targets.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:26:00 -
[1035]
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: NightmareX
By doing that, you make combat in EVE now very unbalanced. And it also makes Blasters extremely overpowered. They will just be like they was before the web and speed nerf then.
You mean making them a good ship for 1on1s against its intended targets? The only thing they're good at? Then, yes I want that to happen. They weren't better at that before the speed/web nerf, they were just better against smaller targets.
No i mean in gang combats all from 5 to 50 ships. Blasters would be extremely overpowered there if the Blasters get a boost like that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:32:00 -
[1036]
Originally by: NightmareX Rant...
Mkay.
Regards Mag's |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:32:00 -
[1037]
Originally by: NightmareX
They hurt good enough on a BS now anyways in the 5 km range. Blaster BS'es are pretty good balanced now in 1 vs 1 fight, and gang combats.
In close range 1 v 1 (the area they are supposed to be the total kings) they do reasonably ok but not great.
But in gang combat even gourmindong recommends that ppl fit rails instead of blasters....
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 - 2009.02.28 19:33:00 -
[1038]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 19:33:36
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: NightmareX Rant...
Mkay.
Hmmm, like your omg boost blasters damage and tracking reply was any better.
It didn't had a single word there on why Blasters should get a damage boost and tracking boost.
Now care to give some good reasons?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:38:00 -
[1039]
Edited by: Cohkka on 28/02/2009 19:38:36
Originally by: NightmareX
No i mean in gang combats all from 5 to 50 ships. Blasters would be extremely overpowered there if the Blasters get a boost like that.
As I said in an earlier post a Railmega will outdamage a Blasterthron in a gang of about 10 BS against an equal sized gang at close range (realisticly speaking at a gate) 9 out of 10 times.
Not only that but it has other qualitys as well: It's not vulnerable to scram/web, therefore it can apply the damage at any time except when ECMed. It's better against RR gangs and it's better in RR gangs.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:39:00 -
[1040]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 19:40:58
Originally by: Cohkka
OT: Now I don't know why the Rail vs Beam debate came up but on a realistic fitting (Tachs and 425mm don't fit/aren't worth it appart from pure sniper fits) beams are supperior to Rails in every way (yes range as well) doing 40% more dmg on Abaddon than Rails on Mega and 20% more than Hype. Now I can understand the huge diffrences between closerange guns, and they make sense in a 1on1 scenario at least. But in the longrange department it's pretty obvious that things are out of ballance (mind you Artys have it even worse).
try fitting 8 megabeams on an abaddon and get it decent cap and tank,you'll start to notice the pg/cpu and cap issues quite fast. try fitting 8 beams on a geddon.. nah.. don't bother.. that's why you often see 7 beams. em/therm dmg type (less dmg inflicted) DPS <> damage inflicted.
|
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:42:00 -
[1041]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
try fitting 8 megabeams on an abaddon and get it decent cap and tank,you'll start to notice the pg/cpu and cap issues quite fast. try fitting 8 beams on a geddon.. nah.. don't bother.. that's why you often see 7 beams.
You just owned yourself, I don't need to do it myself.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
MenanceWhite
Amarr SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:47:00 -
[1042]
Looking at frigs and cruisers, blasters are totally fine. However once we look at battleships things starts to become different:
They're ok 1v1, but looking at general gameplay combat usually happens in gangs where they pretty much suck. I don't care about rails but I think that BS sized blasters or gallente blaster bs needs abit of tweaking. Right there are'nt many things they excel at (I cant think of anything at all tbh) ---
Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses
Originally by: Oveur
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:47:00 -
[1043]
Originally by: Cohkka Edited by: Cohkka on 28/02/2009 19:38:36
Originally by: NightmareX
No i mean in gang combats all from 5 to 50 ships. Blasters would be extremely overpowered there if the Blasters get a boost like that.
As I said in an earlier post a Railmega will outdamage a Blasterthron in a gang of about 10 BS against an equal sized gang at close range (realisticly speaking at a gate) 9 out of 10 times.
Not only that but it has other qualitys as well: It's not vulnerable to scram/web, therefore it can apply the damage at any time except when ECMed. It's better against RR gangs and it's better in RR gangs.
what you're essentially saying is that a stationary target with range is better to shoot with than ship that has to get close to the enemy to deal damage..
well yes.. obviously in RR gangs which require small range you don't get remote repped by storming towards the enemy..
but that doesn't mean blasters aren't awesome.. it's just combat STYLE that has changed.. blasters are still awesome it's just the strategies opt for sitting still instead of charging.
but i hardly think the solution is to make blasters midrange just to accomodate the play style and break a weapon system in the process..
again yeah it sucks for gallente when they dont want to use their powerful short range capabilities but sit still instead.. cause obviously amarr are kings of mid range same as ever.. and it just seems like gallente wants their cake and eat it too.. take it as you will..
|
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:48:00 -
[1044]
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: NightmareX Rant...
Mkay.
Seriously, stop being so mean against my lesser counterpart, i hate to wipe all the tears from the floor.
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:48:00 -
[1045]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 19:54:35 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 19:52:37
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 19:40:58
Originally by: Cohkka
OT: Now I don't know why the Rail vs Beam debate came up but on a realistic fitting (Tachs and 425mm don't fit/aren't worth it appart from pure sniper fits) beams are supperior to Rails in every way (yes range as well) doing 40% more dmg on Abaddon than Rails on Mega and 20% more than Hype. Now I can understand the huge diffrences between closerange guns, and they make sense in a 1on1 scenario at least. But in the longrange department it's pretty obvious that things are out of ballance (mind you Artys have it even worse).
try fitting 8 megabeams on an abaddon and get it decent cap and tank,you'll start to notice the pg/cpu and cap issues quite fast. try fitting 8 beams on a geddon.. nah.. don't bother.. that's why you often see 7 beams. em/therm dmg type (less dmg inflicted) DPS <> damage inflicted.
You just owned yourself, I don't need to do it myself.
what kind of answer is that. look at what you said and then at what i said. but hey.. apparently it's so motherf'ing easy to fit full rack of beams without any issues whatsoever on any amarr bs.. also it's rich coming from someone who just complained about people trolling eachother..
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:53:00 -
[1046]
Originally by: TrollmoreX
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: NightmareX Rant...
Mkay.
Seriously, stop being so mean against my lesser counterpart, i hate to wipe all the tears from the floor.
Sorry.
Regards Mag's |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 19:55:00 -
[1047]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 19:56:08
Originally by: TrollmoreX
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: NightmareX Rant...
Mkay.
Seriously, stop being so mean against my lesser counterpart, i hate to wipe all the tears from the floor.
Stop posting with my alts...
Anyway a boost to blasters is inevitable..
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Joe Logoffski
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 20:01:00 -
[1048]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Marn Prestoc
The only change I would agree with is to undo the tracking bonus that lasers recieved lastyear/yearbeforethat (can't remember exactly). Don't know why they got that with webs the way they were making the added tracking only truely helpful outside of web range which was already the strength of lasers.
This would have made sense if webs were still 90%, but i don't think it works when webs are 60%. It would make lasers totally anemic at closer ranges negating nearly any reason to use them over beam lasers
Quite honestly, looking at their optimal range (pulse), I dont think they were ever meant to work well in webrange.
The advantage they get by having a truly flexible range with instant crystal switching easily negates defficiencies in webrange combat.
It'd also help in balance against blasters (and ACs as well), which should have a distinct advantage over pulses at very close ranges.
So yea, tracking nerf to pulse would definitely be a good thing impo.
OT: some people really asking for a forum ban here it seems
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 20:11:00 -
[1049]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
what kind of answer is that. look at what you said and then at what i said. but hey.. apparently it's so motherf'ing easy to fit full rack of beams without any issues whatsoever on any amarr bs.. also it's rich coming from someone who just complained about people trolling eachother..
You owned yourself by suggesting fitting 8 turrets on a Geddon. And while you rant on about how difficult the Baddon is to fit with Beams you certainly have no idea how difficult it is to fit a Mega with 350mm, Hype being easier on fittings if you downgrade a few medslots. In the end, all fitting problems on both ships asside you end up getting 40% more gun DPS on the Baddon than on the Mega while getting 40% more EHP. Pretty nice don't you think?
You're wasting my time, as I don't see a reason to educate someone who obviously has no idea what he's talking about. You're wasting my time, as I don't see a rason in reading posts that don't make any sense (in both, a semantic and a logical sense).
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 20:12:00 -
[1050]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Anyway a boost to blasters is inevitable..and a tracking reduction to pulse would do them very little harm..
that entirely depends on what ccp thinks..
|
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 20:17:00 -
[1051]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 20:20:08
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: 7shining7one7
what kind of answer is that. look at what you said and then at what i said. but hey.. apparently it's so motherf'ing easy to fit full rack of beams without any issues whatsoever on any amarr bs.. also it's rich coming from someone who just complained about people trolling eachother..
You owned yourself by suggesting fitting 8 turrets on a Geddon. And while you rant on about how difficult the Baddon is to fit with Beams you certainly have no idea how difficult it is to fit a Mega with 350mm, Hype being easier on fittings if you downgrade a few medslots. In the end, all fitting problems on both ships asside you end up getting 40% more gun DPS on the Baddon than on the Mega while getting 40% more EHP. Pretty nice don't you think?
You're wasting my time, as I don't see a reason to educate someone who obviously has no idea what he's talking about. You're wasting my time, as I don't see a rason in reading posts that don't make any sense (in both, a semantic and a logical sense).
you don't see a "rason" huh..
learn2spell and reading comprehension.. i doubt you noticed that i said.. nah don't bother.. it should be obvious that this means you couldn't fit a full rack on a geddon..
less dps.. better dmg type kin/therm more and em/therm.. lack of mobility etc.
also thx for the hostility.. but no thx.
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 20:50:00 -
[1052]
Thanks for proving my point. Have a nice day.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 20:54:00 -
[1053]
Originally by: Cohkka Thanks for proving my point. Have a nice day.
whatever floats your boat..
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 20:54:00 -
[1054]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 20:54:28
Originally by: Cohkka Thanks for proving my point. Have a nice day.
Id be interested in your ideas on this "uber long range" you apparently posted a great deal about and are "demanding" gallente get....
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 20:57:00 -
[1055]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 20:54:28
Originally by: Cohkka Thanks for proving my point. Have a nice day.
Id be interested in your ideas on this "uber long range" you apparently posted a great deal about and are "demanding" gallente get....
Originally by: Cohkka
OT: Now I don't know why the Rail vs Beam debate came up but on a realistic fitting (Tachs and 425mm don't fit/aren't worth it appart from pure sniper fits) beams are supperior to Rails in every way (yes range as well) doing 40% more dmg on Abaddon than Rails on Mega and 20% more than Hype. Now I can understand the huge diffrences between closerange guns, and they make sense in a 1on1 scenario at least. But in the longrange department it's pretty obvious that things are out of ballance (mind you Artys have it even worse).
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:02:00 -
[1056]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 21:05:00 Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 21:04:39
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Linkage
Totally correct rails (and arties especially) do need a buff compared to beams, especially in the tracking and range departments...
Lets face it the other systems have been left in the dirt compared to both beams and pulse as far as effectiveness in TQ combat is concerned..
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Andrest Disch
Amarr Letiferi Praedones
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:09:00 -
[1057]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
try fitting 8 megabeams on an abaddon and get it decent cap and tank,you'll start to notice the pg/cpu and cap issues quite fast. try fitting 8 beams on a geddon.. nah.. don't bother.. that's why you often see 7 beams. em/therm dmg type (less dmg inflicted) DPS <> damage inflicted.
Seriously? |
Andrest Disch
Amarr Letiferi Praedones
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:21:00 -
[1058]
Originally by: NightmareX
Uhm, can i say seriously to you to?.
Did you even read what he said?. Gonna do this in caps lock so you can see what i say.
He said, T R Y FITTING 8 BEAMS ON A GEDDON, but then he said nah don't bother doing that, because it's really really hard to fit 8x Beams on a geddon without using RCU's. So then he said, that's the reason you often see 7x Beams geddons.
Not hard to understand dude.
You often see 7x beams on Geddons because geddons only have 7 turret hardpoints.
The fact that neither of you noticed this kinda undermines your points.
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:25:00 -
[1059]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 21:31:50
Originally by: Andrest Disch
Originally by: NightmareX
Uhm, can i say seriously to you to?.
Did you even read what he said?. Gonna do this in caps lock so you can see what i say.
He said, T R Y FITTING 8 BEAMS ON A GEDDON, but then he said nah don't bother doing that, because it's really really hard to fit 8x Beams on a geddon without using RCU's. So then he said, that's the reason you often see 7x Beams geddons.
Not hard to understand dude.
You often see 7x beams on Geddons because geddons only have 7 turret hardpoints.
The fact that neither of you noticed this kinda undermines your points.
woops?
the point is beams are tough to fit and they do em/therm.. and gallente has the dronage.. and if you want damage potential then don't even get me started on the capless phoon that can do like 1600 dps explo if taken to extreme to show the point.. and caldari.. wtftorps.. and awesome cruise and tankage..
but yeah.. obviously amarr needs to get shafted because what they've allways done all of a sudden became relevant instead of lolamarr.. that's clearly the way to go.. and however convoluted mr beansforbrains wants to make it, that's exactly what he wants.. and he wants to use that as an excuse to boost blasters AND rails to the extent that they pwn everything because apparently paper dps is now actual damage inflicted.. and amarr has no issues whatsoever.. who would've thunk it.
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:27:00 -
[1060]
Originally by: NightmareX
He said, T R Y FITTING 8 BEAMS ON A GEDDON, but then he said nah don't bother doing that, because it's really really hard to fit 8x Beams on a geddon without using RCU's. So then he said, that's the reason you often see 7x Beams geddons.
Not hard to understand dude.
Nahh, it's impossible to fit 8 Beams on the Geddon without the 8th turret hardpoint. You and shining one bit the bait. That's why I told him to not waste my time.
I don't know how much exactly it shows of your competence in fitting/combat, but in my opinion not very much. Again I see no reason to argue with someone who has to be thought these basics.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:31:00 -
[1061]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 21:34:23
Originally by: Andrest Disch
Originally by: NightmareX
Uhm, can i say seriously to you to?.
Did you even read what he said?. Gonna do this in caps lock so you can see what i say.
He said, T R Y FITTING 8 BEAMS ON A GEDDON, but then he said nah don't bother doing that, because it's really really hard to fit 8x Beams on a geddon without using RCU's. So then he said, that's the reason you often see 7x Beams geddons.
Not hard to understand dude.
You often see 7x beams on Geddons because geddons only have 7 turret hardpoints.
The fact that neither of you noticed this kinda undermines your points.
With all of the rabble rabble rabble in this topic, there is nothing new that someone in this topic can get confused sometimes.
Anyways, with 7x Beams fitted on a geddon, your almost 2k over the Powergrid the geddon have anyways. So you still have to fit an RCU or a powergrid rig. With a t2 powegrid rig, you have like 165 powergrid left after you have fitted 7x Beams II.
Still, i had a point on what i said.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andrest Disch
Amarr Letiferi Praedones
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:32:00 -
[1062]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
woops?
Even when I didn't see that, your arguement is that a ship designed for seven turrets can't easily fit eight?
That's not a good argument, as if it could fit eight easily the geddon would have to be nerfed. What was the point in even bringing it up? I can only assume you're trying to disguise your mistake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:34:00 -
[1063]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 21:34:52
Originally by: Andrest Disch
Originally by: 7shining7one7
woops?
Even when I didn't see that, your arguement is that a ship designed for seven turrets can't easily fit eight?
That's not a good argument, as if it could fit eight easily the geddon would have to be nerfed. What was the point in even bringing it up? I can only assume you're trying to disguise your mistake.
it was a sarcastic like.. try fitting 8 on geddon.. oh wait.. (because he was talking about beams having more raw dps than rails and i was illustrating that it brought issues to fit full racks and some only had 7 and even with 7 still had issues)
but meh.. not even when i directly said that that was what i implied in the post thereafter.. not even then, can you actually read the post before flaming based on false pretenses.. kudos m8..
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:37:00 -
[1064]
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: NightmareX
He said, T R Y FITTING 8 BEAMS ON A GEDDON, but then he said nah don't bother doing that, because it's really really hard to fit 8x Beams on a geddon without using RCU's. So then he said, that's the reason you often see 7x Beams geddons.
Not hard to understand dude.
Nahh, it's impossible to fit 8 Beams on the Geddon without the 8th turret hardpoint. You and shining one bit the bait. That's why I told him to not waste my time.
I don't know how much exactly it shows of your competence in fitting/combat, but in my opinion not very much. Again I see no reason to argue with someone who has to be thought these basics.
hey moron, lookie
you didn't even notice it either cause you were too busy..
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:55:00 -
[1065]
Stop making excuses and being angry about it, you screwed up. I explicitly said the ships would do that damage, not the guns alone. I don't need to edit my posts a few times for them to be correct in actual fact.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:59:00 -
[1066]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 22:01:03
Originally by: Cohkka Stop making excuses and being angry about it, you screwed up. I explicitly said the ships would do that damage, not the guns alone. I don't need to edit my posts a few times for them to be correct in actual fact.
and i explicitly pointed out that amarr has issues fitting beams and if you want to use the geddon as an example pray tell the grid/cpu it's got left after fitting 7 beams.. and then kindly understand the role of scorch for megapulse..
but see you don't like to talk about that do you.. so you'd rather turn this into a flame fest about weither or not you thought i knew or didn't know that the geddon has 7 hardpoints, eventhough i clarified that in the post right after..
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 21:59:00 -
[1067]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 21:59:34 Reply 1000 snypa.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 22:14:00 -
[1068]
Originally by: NightmareX No i mean in gang combats all from 5 to 50 ships. Blasters would be extremely overpowered there if the Blasters get a boost like that.
Because anybody allready brings Blaster ships to this kind of fight cause they got the higher EFT DPS allready, nobody flyes ships that stay out of the 4.5km and Null + Falloff donŠt reduces Blaster Damage by a very serious amount and MWDing after a Target donŠt puts you out of RR range to other BS with better Range? Fights with 10+ are for a very obvious reason Amarr/Caldari theritory in general, before you draw the ABP Card, you could swap the Megas with Gedons/Abaddons, Gank Ravens or Mealstroms, it would look exactly the same with less fancy MWDing around and more F1-F8 from where you are, anybody that pvped in Gangs of this size simply knows that getting in range is worst than beeing in range and itŠs donŠt get better with multiple Targest, it gets worse.
Originally by: NightmareX
And also, by giving Blasters a damage + tracking boost, it will make them seriously overpowered in a 1 vs 1 fight to.
They hurt good enough on a BS now anyways in the 5 km range. Blaster BS'es are pretty good balanced now in 1 vs 1 fight, and gang combats.
You can outtank a Blaster Mega(gank fitted) with any Tier 3 BS at Blaster Optimal by using T2 mods and Rigs(you need a Combat booster or Tanking Hardwirings to manage it if the Pilote has a DPS increasing imps and/or DPS increasing Rigs, what need to be T2 by the current stacking penaltys to make it worth it) in a PVP fitting. 900-1000 omni DPS Tank, even only during overheat will make you Gank prove vs the 1250 DPS fittings.
You running a DPS/EHP battle on any Amarr BS what is mostly won by Imps\higher Skills instead of a real advantage once you are at your range(what is mostly offseted by the higher EHP Amount and fact that one ship will be in range all the time, while the other most likely not and have to spend time/Cap/HP to get there in the frist place).
Buffer Raven will give you a serious Run for the Money if well fitted and skilled(Point and Web/Painter) even if you see quite some ravens around, a very tiny percentage of them actualy role in this way, fortunaly. Yes It had a nerf with the QR Missle changes, making it a less ganky but still represents a top notch oponent by trying to use the range Advantage(MWD fitted, and yes it is faster and more agile after rigging/Plates you fit on Blaster Ships) or the increased Mobility a short range to reduce incomming DPS.
Mealstorm can still outtank a Mega with a 5 Slot Tank leaving you with a Point, still it is more of a Gang ship. It can outtank not gank fitted Blaster ships with a 4 Slot Tank to in 1o1s.
Phoon can kite and neut it or try to move itself that close that the Mega wonŠt have a realistic chance to chew thrue the buffer in time(moving under 1k forcing the Mega to kill its own cap with MWD+Guns running).
Even the Pest can do serious hurt with 2 Neuts and TDs, but is as well in need of a boost for a long time.
Domi beats Mega&Hype in general if you canŠt break the tank fast(meaning you have to be in a Gank/Plate Fitting and 3 Damagemods + very good Skills + Imps) in the common Neuts/Heavy Tank setup, and runs very close in Gank Fittings(I personaly lost with the Domi in 10% Structure last time I had a 1o1 vs Lofty.
Rohk outtanks you, while getting a head start in Range and a more cap efficent Tank(Amp + Resistance Bonus + Abiltiy to overload the Invu).
Duels of tanked Blaster Ships run down to the point who manages the Tank/Cap better(with overheat). I personaly managed to outtank a Slaved/Plated Navy Mega from a buddy of mine in my active Tanked Navy Mega that wasnŠt even rigged, by using a Core C/SS Armor Rep Combo(including overheat of Hardners and Reppers) till he was down to 10% Armor and Im still sitting on a comfortable 80% Armor and 10 Cap Charges left.
Your Point about 1o1 Ballance?
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 22:25:00 -
[1069]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 22:27:17 some very good points djego.. i'm not against blaster changes not reasonable ones.. but what i am against is this tard beansomething.. running around saying nerf amarr in all kinds of convoluted or outright ways.. when they got diddly to do with it and are just fine.. but he's taking any excuse to try to make the devs shaft amarr cause he don't understand the role of scorch and the issues with beams etc. that amarr has and pretends like raw dps is inflicted dps and ignores natural resists, mobility or lack thereof, cap/fitting issues, crystals and their range/damage (he thinks scorch automatically hits full effect on any target between 45k and 0 and that no other crystal is required) and so on...
that said.. i'm not exactly sure that 20km optimal for blasters is the solution.. but i'm pretty sure amarr is not the issue..
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 22:32:00 -
[1070]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 22:32:26
Originally by: 7shining7one7
some very good points djego.. i'm not against blaster changes not reasonable ones.. but what i am against is this tard beansomething.. running around saying nerf amarr in all kinds of convoluted or outright ways.. when they got diddly to do with it and are just fine.. but he's taking any excuse to try to make the devs shaft amarr cause he don't understand the role of scorch and the issues with beams etc. that amarr has and pretends like raw dps is inflicted dps and ignores natural resists, mobility or lack thereof, cap/fitting issues, crystals and their range/damage (he thinks scorch automatically hits full effect on any target between 45k and 0 and that no other crystal is required) and so on...
that said.. i'm not exactly sure that 20km optimal for blasters is the solution.. but i'm pretty sure amarr is not the issue..
AND AGAIN THE LYING TROLL GOES ON A RANT ABOUT THINGS NEVER SAID......
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean I do not think lasers particularly need a nerf either as that would hot help blasters in the least.
JUST HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GONNA TALK CRAP IN THIS THREAD...????
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 22:36:00 -
[1071]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
AND AGAIN THE LYING TROLL GOES ON A RANT ABOUT THINGS NEVER SAID......
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean I do not think lasers particularly need a nerf either as that would hot help blasters in the least.
JUST HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GONNA TALK CRAP IN THIS THREAD...????
how many times are you gonna talk about nerfing pulse tracking speed wouldn't be bad, or calling amarr overpowered a kazillion times in the other thread using the char murina..
exactly..
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 22:39:00 -
[1072]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 22:43:21
A slight tracking reduction would do nothing to hurt pulse muppet, and pulse have been used as a reference point in this thread by loads of ppl and apart from a few off hand comments about tracking no nerfs have been asked for, at least not by me..
YOU ARE A LYING TROLL.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 22:44:00 -
[1073]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 22:39:50
A slight tracking reduction would do nothing to hurt pulse muppet, and pulse have been used as a reference point in this thread by loads of ppl and apart from a few off hand comments about tracking no nerfs have been asked for at least not by me..
YOU ARE A LYING TROLL.
dude saying it a kazillion times won't make eve search go away, but you have fun now.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 22:50:00 -
[1074]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 22:54:13
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
A slight tracking reduction would do nothing to hurt pulse muppet, and pulse have been used as a reference point in this thread by loads of ppl and apart from a few off hand comments about tracking no nerfs have been asked for at least not by me..
YOU ARE A LYING TROLL.
dude saying it a kazillion times won't make eve search go away, but you have fun now.
I have along with others used lasers and the stats laser ships get as a reference point for showing the issues with blasters, i have also on MANY occasions IN BOTH THREADS said that nerfing amaar is NOT the solution as it will not help blasters in the least.
If you are to thick to understand the difference between using lasers as a reference point and asking for a nerf that is you problem and your stupidity/ignorance.
But if it makes you happy i will say it YET AGAIN:-
"NERFING AMARR IS POINTLESS AS IT WILL NOT FIX THE ISSUES WITH BLASTERS AT ALL SO IT IS POINTLESS TO DO SO (ALTHOUGH A REDUCTION IN TRACKING WOULD NOT HURT THEM)".
HAPPY NOW TROLL?????....
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 22:54:00 -
[1075]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 22:56:07
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
But if it makes you happy i will say it YET AGAIN:-
"NERFING AMARR IS POINTLESS AS IT WILL NOT FIX THE ISSUES WITH BLASTERS AT ALL SO IT IS POINTLESS TO DO SO (ALTHOUGH A REDUCTION IN TRACKING WOULD NOT HURT THEM)".
HAPPY NOW TROLL?????....
Yes, your bolded caps and graceful sprinkles of underlinings brings joy to my heart.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 22:57:00 -
[1076]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 22:57:45
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
But if it makes you happy i will say it YET AGAIN:-
"NERFING AMARR IS POINTLESS AS IT WILL NOT FIX THE ISSUES WITH BLASTERS AT ALL SO IT IS POINTLESS TO DO SO (ALTHOUGH A REDUCTION IN TRACKING WOULD NOT HURT THEM)".
HAPPY NOW TROLL?????....
Yes your bolded caps brings joy to my heart.
Why?????....if you are true to your normal form you will forget/ignore that i have just said this (as you have done in this thread and the other one) within a page or two....
YOU ARE A TROLL
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 - 2009.02.28 22:59:00 -
[1077]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 23:04:03
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Why?????....if you are true to your normal form you will forget/ignore that i have just said this (as you have done in this thread and the other one) within a page or two....
YOU ARE A TROLL
Uhm, why do you call peoples here for trolls when your the biggest one and the best one to troll here?.
Oh btw, The Djego, i agree to some of you points there. But i'm still holding on that Blasters are fine atm.
sophisticatedlimabean, when you can explain stuffs like The Djego did here now, then i'm gonna talk with you. But when your only whining because you sucks donkey with Blasters, it wont change anything.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 23:01:00 -
[1078]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
and i explicitly pointed out that amarr has issues fitting beams and if you want to use the geddon as an example pray tell the grid/cpu it's got left after fitting 7 beams.. and then kindly understand the role of scorch for megapulse..
but see you don't like to talk about that do you.. so you'd rather turn this into a flame fest about weither or not you thought i knew or didn't know that the geddon has 7 hardpoints, eventhough i clarified that in the post right after..
Again, excuses. I know the Geddon has problems fitting Beams and I don't know who in their right mind would try that instead of using platforms designed to do it (Apoc, Abaddon) but I'll say it again: Have you tried fitting a Mega with 350mm?
The Geddon is dirt cheap and you expect it to fit a full rack of Beams and buffer? Not going to happen untill you can do the same on a Dominix.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 23:05:00 -
[1079]
Originally by: NightmareX
Uhm, why do you call peoples here for trolls when your the biggest one and the best one to troll here?.
Did you actually bother to read what you quoted???.
The clown has been told over and over and over in multiple threads that i do not think amaar needs a nerf but he insists on making post after post claiming things like i want blasters with 30km optimals and that i want amaar nerfed...
Do you think he has memory issues?, is mental?, or do you think he is just a pitiful troll making up extreme and totally unrealistic stories to try and emo up support...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 23:09:00 -
[1080]
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: 7shining7one7
and i explicitly pointed out that amarr has issues fitting beams and if you want to use the geddon as an example pray tell the grid/cpu it's got left after fitting 7 beams.. and then kindly understand the role of scorch for megapulse..
but see you don't like to talk about that do you.. so you'd rather turn this into a flame fest about weither or not you thought i knew or didn't know that the geddon has 7 hardpoints, eventhough i clarified that in the post right after..
Again, excuses. I know the Geddon has problems fitting Beams and I don't know who in their right mind would try that instead of using platforms designed to do it (Apoc, Abaddon) but I'll say it again: Have you tried fitting a Mega with 350mm?
The Geddon is dirt cheap and you expect it to fit a full rack of Beams and buffer? Not going to happen untill you can do the same on a Dominix.
ok now i could go on with this but instead i'll ask you this.. (to kinda get us back on track) would you like everyone to fight midrange by default?
and do you want every long range weapon to be the same strength and have the same range?
just a question.. personally i think that would suck.. but i'm asking you.
|
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 23:13:00 -
[1081]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 23:07:18
Originally by: NightmareX when you can explain stuffs like The Djego did here now, then i'm gonna talk with you. .
When you can do the same instead if "waaa me on sissi in my ecmpest" you may be worth talking to...
Originally by: NightmareX
Uhm, why do you call peoples here for trolls when your the biggest one and the best one to troll here?.
Did you actually bother to read what you quoted???.
The clown has been told over and over and over in multiple threads that i do not think amaar needs a nerf but he insists on making post after post claiming things like i want blasters with 30km optimals and that i want amaar nerfed...
Do you think he has memory issues?, is mental?, or do you think he is just a pitiful troll making up extreme and totally unrealistic stories to try and emo up support...
dude there's an entire threadnaught over 20 pages with you on every one of them.. spamming graphs and spinning anything you can to make amarr seem superior.. you even come up with dual rep abaddon fits that can run for 4 minutes and are dependent on having a can nearby filled with cap boosters.. just so you could cram enough dps out for it to get over 1100 raw..
(you posting under the pseudonym muriana) but if you wanna try pretend like it didn't happen so you can like maintain your rep then that's chill too brosef.. i gotcha back
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 23:16:00 -
[1082]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 23:17:04
Originally by: 7shining7one7 troll
Do your troll search thing and find me asking for specific nerfs to amarr in any of those threads......(apart from maybe a minor tracking nerf)......
I bet i can find multiple posts with me saying that nerfing amaar is pointless not a option as it would not help the blaster problem....
You are a liar and a troll.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 23:25:00 -
[1083]
Edited by: The Djego on 28/02/2009 23:32:06
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 22:27:17 some very good points djego.. i'm not against blaster changes not reasonable ones.. but what i am against is this tard beansomething.. running around saying nerf amarr in all kinds of convoluted or outright ways.. when they got diddly to do with it and are just fine.. but he's taking any excuse to try to make the devs shaft amarr cause he don't understand the role of scorch and the issues with beams etc. that amarr has and pretends like raw dps is inflicted dps and ignores natural resists, mobility or lack thereof, cap/fitting issues, crystals and their range/damage (he thinks scorch automatically hits full effect on any target between 45k and 0 and that no other crystal is required) and so on...
that said.. i'm not exactly sure that 20km optimal for blasters is the solution.. but i'm pretty sure amarr is not the issue..
Range isnŠt the problem, it is the drawback what forces Blaster ships to small Gang/solo and limits them in bigger gangs.
The Problem is the ability to projekt the EFT DPS on the target at your Optimal well enught to get a advantage(looking at the Web changes here). More Tracking would help, while still leaving especialy the Medium sized Ships like the Thorax/Brutix preaty much dead against anything with a Scrambler in the same class(since you are with Electrons/Ions in 99% of the Fittings and they loose 60% of her damage allready till 9km with Null(scram Range). Fitting a Scram on your ship to isnŠt the ultimate solution here, since if both ships are out of MWD the ship with the bigger range still wins.
Aditonal to this with the Torp/EM Resist changes other ships comming quite close to your DPS(not only in EFT but also in actual gameplay), taking away your advantage of DPS(for what you have to pay in Range in the beginning).
Prestocs approch with the nerfed Lasers would be solid, but it wouldnŠt actualy improve the role of Blaster Ships in small Gang, it would only nerf Amarr back to a pure fleet role. I for myself would not welcome this, actualy the Tanks this days are preaty insane compared to the DPS(keep in mind I usely fly full gank setups with Gallente) even before you took fancy Combat Boosters and Faction Stuff into account.
I personaly suggested mutliple times a Bonus to web strengt that would give Blaster ships the needet advantage within 12km range back(where they should have a advanatge after all) and give Medium sized Blasters Ships a chance to in a fights involving a Scrambler. The Bonus donŠt have to be as strong as on the Kronos, even 50% of this would help a lot in general gameplay and prevents them from beeing kited within Web Range.
Personaly I would like to see another 5-10% DPS increase on Blasters(even in ROF to increase the Cap need) to give real gank fittings a real chance back to break tank fittings of her own class, so the Glass cannon concept actualy starts working again compared to the Tanks we see atm on TQ(keep in mind that tanking still is easyer and faster to skill, easyer to boost with Rigs, Combat Boosters, Imps and Faction/Complex Mods).
Minmatar Recons should also have the same role Bonus, since they are atm just crap because of the nerfed Webs.
This and the reballancing of Optimal/Falloff for AKs like on SHC sugestedThread would make Mini/Gallente again the choice in solo/small gang giving both back the beaf they lost with the 90% Web and the QR Changes to Nano(ofc including a fix to Rockets and HAMs aswell since they lack to much against her own sized counterparts).
Like sayed before ballanced Ships in PVP is down to the varity/role against ballanced overall. I for myself chose the first in any way, since it keeps EvE more interesting.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 23:27:00 -
[1084]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 23:34:54
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 23:07:18
Originally by: NightmareX
Uhm, why do you call peoples here for trolls when your the biggest one and the best one to troll here?.
Did you actually bother to read what you quoted???.
The clown has been told over and over and over in multiple threads that i do not think amaar needs a nerf but he insists on making post after post claiming things like i want blasters with 30km optimals and that i want amaar nerfed...
Do you think he has memory issues?, is mental?, or do you think he is just a pitiful troll making up extreme and totally unrealistic stories to try and emo up support...
Dude, it was a simple reply to you for calling other for Trolls.
Now wanna come with something meaningfull instead of trolling like mad?.
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 28/02/2009 23:07:18
Originally by: NightmareX when you can explain stuffs like The Djego did here now, then i'm gonna talk with you. .
When you can do the same instead if "waaa me on sissi in my ecmpest" you may be worth talking to...
And answer me one thing, where did i mention an ECM Tempest on sisi here?. I haven't been talking about it for a long long time now.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 23:36:00 -
[1085]
Originally by: NightmareX
Now wanna come with something meaningful?.
Tell you what if you post summat that does not involve a kronos or any other silly sissi fit i may listen to you.
If you can manage to reply to others with something other than a "that will ruin the balance in eve" comment with nothing to back it up i may do the same for you.
But until then you will reap what you have sown....
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 - 2009.02.28 23:40:00 -
[1086]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 23:42:10
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Now wanna come with something meaningful?.
Tell you what if you post summat that does not involve a kronos or any other silly sissi fit i may listen to you.
If you can manage to reply to others with something other than a "that will ruin the balance in eve" comment with nothing to back it up i may do the same for you.
But until then you will reap what you have sown....
You must really have a really really really big problem with sisi.
In absolutely every reply to me, you have to either mention sisi or my ECM Tempest. Do you have some mental problems with that or?.
And by the way, you haven't explained why i'm wrong here: LINK.
Care to do some explaining?, or are you still gonna whine like a whiney crybaby and troll others?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 23:43:00 -
[1087]
Originally by: NightmareX
In absolutely every reply to me, you have to either mention sisi or my ECM Tempest. Do you have some mental problems with that or?.
In virtually every reply you made earlier you used a sissi fight you had in one pimped ship or another to try and discredit a post of mine or others......you are reaping what you have sown suck it up and deal..
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 - 2009.02.28 23:46:00 -
[1088]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 23:51:44
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
In absolutely every reply to me, you have to either mention sisi or my ECM Tempest. Do you have some mental problems with that or?.
In virtually every reply you made earlier you used a sissi fight you had in one pimped ship or another to try and discredit a post of mine or others......you are reaping what you have sown suck it up and deal..
So my ECM Tempest / normal t2 fitted Mega is pimped with t2 stuffs. yeah, that's really cool.
PIMPED TEMPEST / Megathron WITH T2 SETUP. That's something new.
And if you think about my Navy Mega setup, then yes, that one is pimped, but how much have i talked about my Navy Mega here?.
The thing about my Navy Mega started because one idiot saw that i gave my setup to one in local that i was fighting. Then he went emo rage and went oh look at that, look at his e-peen. Jealous bastards.
I have mostly talked about the normal Mega and a Tempest. And a little about Amarr BS'es to.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 23:51:00 -
[1089]
Plenty of ppl including me have told you why that vid is worthless, you just lack the TQ pvp experience to see how simple and basic that sort of combat is and also how MANY types of BS could have done it as easily and how amarr would have been just as or even more effective.
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 - 2009.02.28 23:53:00 -
[1090]
Edited by: NightmareX on 28/02/2009 23:55:26
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Plenty of ppl including me have told you why that vid is worthless, you just lack the TQ pvp experience to see how simple and basic that sort of combat is and also how MANY types of BS could have done it as easily and how amarr would have been just as or even more effective.
That vid is not worthless AT ALL. Your just to scared to just realize that that's how Blaster BS gangs are fighting today in empire and low sec.
Oh, since Amarr BS'es are so much better in gang combats, then show me a movie where it's more Amarr BS'es than it is Gallente BS'es in a fleet bigger than 8 ships.
I don't think you can find one tbfh.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 23:58:00 -
[1091]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 00:02:19
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Plenty of ppl including me have told you why that vid is worthless, you just lack the TQ pvp experience to see how simple and basic that sort of combat is and also how MANY types of BS could have done it as easily and how amarr would have been just as or even more effective.
That vid is not worthless AT ALL. Your just to scared to just realize that that's how Blaster BS gangs are fighting today in empire and low sec.
Sit outside station, see ship's undock, drop drone swarm to cause lag spike, call lockable targets, melt targets, RR as needed, rinse and repeat.
Basic BS empire/low sec combat 101, and has been for a loooooong time although the introduction of ECM alts has made it even easier......
But you seem to think this is a modern affection... you don't see much of it or real gang pvp on sissi i suppose...
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 00:01:00 -
[1092]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 00:05:29
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Plenty of ppl including me have told you why that vid is worthless, you just lack the TQ pvp experience to see how simple and basic that sort of combat is and also how MANY types of BS could have done it as easily and how amarr would have been just as or even more effective.
That vid is not worthless AT ALL. Your just to scared to just realize that that's how Blaster BS gangs are fighting today in empire and low sec.
Sit outside station, see ship's undock, drop drone swarm to cause lag spike, call lockable targets, melt targets, RR as needed.
BS empire/low sec combat 101 and has been for a loooooong time although the introduction of ECM alts has made it even easier......
But you seem to think this is a modern affection... you don't see much of it or real gang pvp on sissi i suppose...
Yeah, it's not like you can fight at a planet when the enemies are sitting at the stations. They can't just use magic and wosh, they are at a planet.
They HAVE to fight them where they have the chance to fight them.
ABP doesn't care where they fight, simply because all they are after is to kill them. It's why they have got a contract.
And just to let you know. i see more than you think i do on sisi.
I see basicly everything on sisi, because peioples are trying out all kind of different combat styles on sisi, they are using all kinds of ships and different setups to test out ships and that.
I see fights at FFA 1 that are with gang all from 3 vs 3 up to like 15 vs 15+ or 15+ vs 15.
So it's no excuse that i'm alot on sisi to test out things. I can test out everything i want to test out on sisi.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:08:00 -
[1093]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 00:10:02
Originally by: NightmareX
Yeah, it's not like you can fight at a planet when the enemies are sitting at the stations. They can't just use magic and wosh, they are at a planet.
They HAVE to fight them where they have the chance to fight them.
ABP doesn't care where they fight, simply because all they are after is to kill them. It's why they have got a contract.
They may or may not care but the fact is that like anybody with the slightest clue they fight in the place that gives them the biggest advantage and theirs none bigger than sitting on a undocking port with RR ready to drop a drone swarm......
Seriously bud the vid means very little to anybody who understands BS combat and proves nothing apart from the fact that they know how to exploit the undock mechanics...
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 00:10:00 -
[1094]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 00:11:42
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Yeah, it's not like you can fight at a planet when the enemies are sitting at the stations. They can't just use magic and wosh, they are at a planet.
They HAVE to fight them where they have the chance to fight them.
ABP doesn't care where they fight, simply because all they are after is to kill them. It's why they have got a contract.
They may or may not care but the fact is that like anybody with the slightest clue they fight in the place that gives them the biggest advantage and theirs none bigger than sitting on a undocking port with RR ready to drop a drone swarm......
Seriously bud the vid means very little to anybody who understands BS combat and proves nothing.
So would fighting at station give them more advantage then fighting at a gate?.
And again, the movie doesn't show noobs witout clues or pvp experience anything, because they are not smart enough to see what's happening in the movie.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:11:00 -
[1095]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Yeah, it's not like you can fight at a planet when the enemies are sitting at the stations. They can't just use magic and wosh, they are at a planet.
They HAVE to fight them where they have the chance to fight them.
ABP doesn't care where they fight, simply because all they are after is to kill them. It's why they have got a contract.
They may or may not care but the fact is that like anybody with the slightest clue they fight in the place that gives them the biggest advantage and theirs none bigger than sitting on a undocking port with RR ready to drop a drone swarm......
Seriously bud the vid means very little to anybody who understands BS combat and proves nothing.
So would fighting at station give them more advantage then fighting at a gate?.
Not knowing the answer to that question shows you should sit quietly and just read posts instead of making them.
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 00:13:00 -
[1096]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Yeah, it's not like you can fight at a planet when the enemies are sitting at the stations. They can't just use magic and wosh, they are at a planet.
They HAVE to fight them where they have the chance to fight them.
ABP doesn't care where they fight, simply because all they are after is to kill them. It's why they have got a contract.
They may or may not care but the fact is that like anybody with the slightest clue they fight in the place that gives them the biggest advantage and theirs none bigger than sitting on a undocking port with RR ready to drop a drone swarm......
Seriously bud the vid means very little to anybody who understands BS combat and proves nothing.
So would fighting at station give them more advantage then fighting at a gate?.
Not knowing the answer to that question shows you should sit quietly and just read posts instead of making them.
Did i ask my self that question, or did i ask you?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:14:00 -
[1097]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 00:14:28
Originally by: NightmareX
Did i ask my self that question, or did i ask you?.
If you already know the answer you were being manipulative and as such will be ignored.
Make a statement that can be debated and discussed or not, do not play word games.
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 00:16:00 -
[1098]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 00:16:15
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 00:14:28
Originally by: NightmareX
Did i ask my self that question, or did i ask you?.
If you already know the answer you were being manipulative and as such will be ignored.
Make a statement that can be debated and discussed or not, do not play word games.
I did ask you to get an answer from you. I already know the answer dude.
But until you have answered my question, then it's you that are manipulative.
Learn to read maybe?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:19:00 -
[1099]
Originally by: NightmareX I already know the answer dude.
Learn to read maybe?.
If you already know the answer then you do not need me to answer.
Learn to be direct maybe?.
PS: i will never answer a manipulative question like that so have the balls to make a direct statement or not its up to you.
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 00:21:00 -
[1100]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 00:25:28
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX I already know the answer dude.
Learn to read maybe?.
If you already know the answer then you do not need me to answer.
Learn to be direct maybe?.
PS: i will never answer a manipulative question like that so have the balls to make a direct statement or not its up to you.
Hahahahahahahahahah, so your saying that if i know the answer, i don't need the answer from you?. Well ok, take this. Does Blasters need to be boosted?. No they don't. I did know the answer to that. Would you say the same?.
HELLLLLOOOOOOOOOO, i'm not after my own answer, i'm after YOUR answer.
But ok, if you mean that we have the same answer on both thing about the fighting at gate or station would be any different, then fine fine, we both agree that there is no difference.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:24:00 -
[1101]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 00:26:03
Originally by: NightmareX Does Blasters need to be boosted?.
No they don't.
For somebody who earlier insisted of full details before he was willing to reply you tend to give very little in the way of explanations for your statements....
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 00:27:00 -
[1102]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 00:33:36
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX Does Blasters need to be boosted?.
No they don't.
For somebody who earlier insisted of full details before he was willing to reply you tend to give very little in the way of explanations for you statements....
And you gives any better explanations on why Blasters need to be boosted?.
Your just whining all day long because you suck donkey ass with Blasters. Get it?.
And by the way. You quoted the wrong part of my reply. Learn to quote the real thing in my replies instead of taking out something in my reply that doesn't really have anything to do with my question and then just gives out a pooor excuse to just get away from the question i was really asking.
That's something your very good at, to twist your replies away from the real questions i'm asking you.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:34:00 -
[1103]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 00:35:05
Originally by: NightmareX
And you gives any better explanations on why Blasters need to be boosted?.
Actually if you read i have given full spread posts with details, graphs, comparisons to other systems with additional references to regular and well known styles on pvp on TQ.
And the best responses from you come in one liners like "that will utter ruin the balance of eve" or "i beat 5 noobs in BS and CS in my pimped kronos so i know gang pvp" ect ect.....
Or you paste a link to a vid containing a really basic form exploitative pvp and you actually think it proves a damn thing.
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 00:37:00 -
[1104]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 00:42:06
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 00:37:13
Originally by: NightmareX
And you gives any better explanations on why Blasters need to be boosted?.
Actually if you read i have given full spread posts with details, graphs, comparisons to other systems with additional references to regular and well known styles on pvp on TQ.
And the best responses from you come in one liners like "that will utter ruin the balance of eve" or "i beat 5 noobs in BS and CS in my pimped kronos so i know gang pvp" ect ect.....
Or you paste a link to a vid containing a really basic form exploitative pvp and you actually think it proves a damn thing cos the pilots were in blaster ships, when any noob knows you can do what they did with any BS and proly better with amarr...
Awesome reply there, is that the best you can say.
And your graphs is nothing more than EFT warrioring dude. Whatever your reason is, it's still pure and simple EFT warrioring even for TQ.
And yeah, my t2 fitted Kronos is REALLY pimped.
About the thing you say about Lasers are better in PVP, yeah they might be better in PVP when your starting a fight at 35-45 km range. But as you can see, those in the ABP movie are warping right on top of the enemies, and then, Blasters are much better.
It's simple, it all depends on your play style. It's not like it is Lasers -> Play style. It's way more Play style -> Lasers or any other weapons.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:42:00 -
[1105]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 00:37:56
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 00:35:05
Originally by: NightmareX
And you gives any better explanations on why Blasters need to be boosted?.
Actually if you read i have given full spread posts with details, graphs, comparisons to other systems with additional references to regular and well known styles on pvp on TQ.
And the best responses from you come in one liners like "that will utter ruin the balance of eve" or "i beat 5 noobs in BS and CS in my pimped kronos so i know gang pvp" ect ect.....
Or you paste a link to a vid containing a really basic form exploitative pvp and you actually think it proves a damn thing.
Awesome reply there, is that the best you can say.
And your graphs is nothing more than EFT warrioring dude. Whatever your reason is, it's still pure and simple EFT warrioring even for TQ.
See, you are given a full explanation with several references to regular in game TQ events and scenarios and look at your juvenile and ignorant response...
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 00:44:00 -
[1106]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 00:45:42
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean See, you are given a full explanation with several references to regular in game TQ events and scenarios and look at your juvenile and ignorant response...
So saying that your EFT warrior graph is real TQ experience, yeah i have to agree to that, right everyone?.
Lets all pat sophisticatedlimabean on his shoulder for being very good at PVP only because he can show stats on different ships on EFT.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:46:00 -
[1107]
Originally by: NightmareX
So saying that your EFT warrior graph is real TQ experience, yeah i have to agree to that, right everyone?.
See....,you ignore all but what you choose to fixate on in order to dismiss with a single comment all the other things you are unable to deal with.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:48:00 -
[1108]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
would you like everyone to fight midrange by default?
I don't know what this has to do with me. Most fights start at those ranges and they end at those ranges. Every ship has to deal with it, as does the Blasterboat. The fighting doesn't start when you actually engage the guns. So in fact everyone is fighting at those ranges already, are you following me? I'd like the lowest tier Rails to become the weapon of choice for such engagements and close the gap between being ultra colserange and longrange. They serve no purpose right now and would be ideal with more damage and reworked fitting requirements.
Quote:
and do you want every long range weapon to be the same strength and have the same range?
Oh surely not, I'd like Beams to be better at everything. More Alpha than Artilery, more dps than Rails, and better tracking and range, too. I don't know what world you're living in, but in my world this is called imbalance.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:49:00 -
[1109]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 00:52:21
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 00:46:17
Originally by: NightmareX
So saying that your EFT warrior graph is real TQ experience, yeah i have to agree to that, right everyone?.
Lets all pat sophisticatedlimabean on his shoulder for being very good at PVP only because he can show stats on different ships on EFT.
See....,you ignore all but what you choose to fixate on in order to dismiss with a single comment all the other things you are unable to deal with.
What do i ignore?. Yes i ignore your pure eft warrior crap. THAT'S WHAT I'M IGNORING.
If you could have shown us some real experience with the ships instead of showing your utterly ******ed EFT warrior graphs, then it would be something else.
Like you, you only shows graphs, while i tests out all kinds of ships in all kinds of situations on sisi. I at least have some combat experience from that.
And i haven't shown a single graph in this topic to. Because showing those graphs is for noobs who thinks those graphs are everything.
Doing sisi PVP is 86479657489674897 times more worth than those EFT graphs FYI.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:57:00 -
[1110]
Originally by: NightmareX
What do i ignore?. Yes i ignore your pure eft warrior crap. THAT'S WHAT I'M IGNORING.
No you are using the graphs to justify ignoring all the rest of the postings on here.
The graphs were used to show that in normal combat that a webbed BS did not have enough transversal to give a real negative effect in regards to lasers and blasters, and it did that perfectly.
I even logged into sissi and tested available orbits, and that is where i got that screenie of you in your pimped navy mega "testing fit" you were using to waggle your epeen in local....
But like i say you totally ignore that and focus on the fact the very valid graphs were made with EFT.....
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 00:58:00 -
[1111]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 01:01:12
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
What do i ignore?. Yes i ignore your pure eft warrior crap. THAT'S WHAT I'M IGNORING.
No you are using the graphs to justify ignoring all the rest of the postings on here.
The graphs were used to show that in normal combat that a webbed BS did not have enough transversal to give a real negative effect in regards to lasers and blasters, and it did that perfectly.
I even logged into sissi and tested available orbits, and that is where i got that screenie of you in your pimped navy mega "testing fit" you were using to waggle your epeen in local....
But like i say you totally ignore that and focus on the fact the very valid graphs were made with EFT.....
And your not ignoring anything in this topic?, naaaaah, your not ignoring many of the really really important things about Omni tanks and resists and signature radius and speed etc. NAH, that's something you haven't ignored at all.
And posting my setup to my Navy Mega to a m8 in local i was fighting on sisi is e-peen?. Dude, stop being a ******.
Was i saying, omg guise look at mah uber pwnage drool fit on my Navy Mega. I'm gonna poast it in local to show how awesome i'am?.
No i was posting it there because the player i was fighting wanted to know my setup. Hard to understand?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:01:00 -
[1112]
Originally by: The Djego Edited by: The Djego on 28/02/2009 23:32:06
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 28/02/2009 22:27:17 some very good points djego.. i'm not against blaster changes not reasonable ones.. but what i am against is this tard beansomething.. running around saying nerf amarr in all kinds of convoluted or outright ways.. when they got diddly to do with it and are just fine.. but he's taking any excuse to try to make the devs shaft amarr cause he don't understand the role of scorch and the issues with beams etc. that amarr has and pretends like raw dps is inflicted dps and ignores natural resists, mobility or lack thereof, cap/fitting issues, crystals and their range/damage (he thinks scorch automatically hits full effect on any target between 45k and 0 and that no other crystal is required) and so on...
that said.. i'm not exactly sure that 20km optimal for blasters is the solution.. but i'm pretty sure amarr is not the issue..
Range isnŠt the problem, it is the drawback what forces Blaster ships to small Gang/solo and limits them in bigger gangs.
The Problem is the ability to projekt the EFT DPS on the target at your Optimal well enught to get a advantage(looking at the Web changes here). More Tracking would help, while still leaving especialy the Medium sized Ships like the Thorax/Brutix preaty much dead against anything with a Scrambler in the same class(since you are with Electrons/Ions in 99% of the Fittings and they loose 60% of her damage allready till 9km with Null(scram Range). Fitting a Scram on your ship to isnŠt the ultimate solution here, since if both ships are out of MWD the ship with the bigger range still wins.
Aditonal to this with the Torp/EM Resist changes other ships comming quite close to your DPS(not only in EFT but also in actual gameplay), taking away your advantage of DPS(for what you have to pay in Range in the beginning).
Prestocs approch with the nerfed Lasers would be solid, but it wouldnŠt actualy improve the role of Blaster Ships in small Gang, it would only nerf Amarr back to a pure fleet role. I for myself would not welcome this, actualy the Tanks this days are preaty insane compared to the DPS(keep in mind I usely fly full gank setups with Gallente) even before you took fancy Combat Boosters and Faction Stuff into account.
I personaly suggested mutliple times a Bonus to web strengt that would give Blaster ships the needet advantage within 12km range back(where they should have a advanatge after all) and give Medium sized Blasters Ships a chance to in a fights involving a Scrambler. The Bonus donŠt have to be as strong as on the Kronos, even 50% of this would help a lot in general gameplay and prevents them from beeing kited within Web Range.
Personaly I would like to see another 5-10% DPS increase on Blasters(even in ROF to increase the Cap need) to give real gank fittings a real chance back to break tank fittings of her own class, so the Glass cannon concept actualy starts working again compared to the Tanks we see atm on TQ(keep in mind that tanking still is easyer and faster to skill, easyer to boost with Rigs, Combat Boosters, Imps and Faction/Complex Mods).
Minmatar Recons should also have the same role Bonus, since they are atm just crap because of the nerfed Webs.
This and the reballancing of Optimal/Falloff for AKs like on SHC sugestedThread would make Mini/Gallente again the choice in solo/small gang giving both back the beaf they lost with the 90% Web and the QR Changes to Nano(ofc including a fix to Rockets and HAMs aswell since they lack to much against her own sized counterparts).
Like sayed before ballanced Ships in PVP is down to the varity/role against ballanced overall. I for myself chose the first in any way, since it keeps EvE more interesting.
this is real good Djego.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:07:00 -
[1113]
Originally by: NightmareX
And your not ignoring anything in this topic?, naaaaah, your not ignoring many of the really really important things about Omni tanks and resists and signature radius and speed etc. NAH, that's something you haven't ignored at all.
I have ignored nothing, speed is at the very essence of the transversal effects and mwd/cap issues i have been looking at, omni tanks and resists including available ehp have been a topic of discussion i have gone over many times.
And considering we have been discussing BS i will admit that sig radius has not been a topic of great discussion but if you have any great or earth shattering insights about sig radius then go ahead and post them.
So instead of saying "sig radius" and thinking it justifies your position how about telling me how you think it makes such a earth shattering difference in the BS and systems we are discussing.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:09:00 -
[1114]
Edited by: The Djego on 01/03/2009 01:14:00
Originally by: NightmareX
That vid is not worthless AT ALL. Your just to scared to just realize that that's how Blaster BS gangs are fighting today in empire and low sec. And then, just to damn scared again to realize that Blasters works perfect in those fights like ABP have shown.
Oh, since Amarr BS'es are so much better in gang combats, then show me a movie where it's more Amarr BS'es than it is Gallente BS'es in a fleet bigger than 8 ships.
Well don't ask CVA now, because they use Amarr BS'es mostly because they are roleplaying.
I don't think you can find one tbfh.
The Vid is worthless to anyting about ballance questions. Anybody that actualy PVP on TQ in Low Sec\Empire Wars knows that Puls/Torp Fittings do the same job in 9/10 Cases without the need of MWDing after your target to get in range. ABPs donŠt fail for fielding Blaster Setups, it is the ultimate solution for fight in an close to docking\jumping Range in Empire wars(to kill things before deagressing/docking) but PVP isnŠt like this all the time. It is like comparing Moorhuhn with Coutnerstrike, in both you see a crossair moving and a klick, but it isnŠt actualy the same if you know both games.
The reason you see less Amarr Vids is that this fights are simply less interesting to watch(fly Amarr and you know what I mean). There are even full Mini/Caldari PVP Shield tanke Gangs around(including Logistics) that arenŠt this funny, /me looking at Wrong Alliance here(yes I have killed several in 1vsX and had a very deacend Thorax vs Stabber match against her Team Captain from the last Tournament during the Nano Age).
Someone that actualy got PVP experiance should not estimate useablity of Ships/Weapons on Vids over his own his experience.
I personaly had a Fraps of me pawning a Cane, Pest and Mega in one row with my Navy Mega without dropping into Armor. I deleted it, because It wouldnŠt be any kind of interesting to anyone how know how EvE works and this actualy only happen because of a huge amount of Fail on the other ships(unfortualy a lot of Fraps I get/got, it is easy dooing or getting jammed this days).
I personaly would recogmant the Vid "Reckless" to you. It shows the Mega Perfomance in 2006 with mutliply deaths(that couldnŠt be avoided by piloting) drawing the closest picture on how it is to fly a Mega in actual PVP engagements you face in this kind of ship(even with all the advantates the ship got 2006 on TQ if you where risky enught to spend a fortune on T2/Faction Mods). Funny as it is, exactly this Vid let me start training Gallente and maxing out the Mega, and I donŠt regret it for a second(it was like this till Trinity) the race for people that start fights they are unable to leave, taking a bite on baits, gooing all in with expensive Setups to slug downs at close range. The Blaster ship today is fare from beeing in the position like 2006, the hole game has shifted, yet some people canŠt let go on the idea that was around on this time what a Blaster Ships is suposed to do, and how it should performe against other ships at his range...
The game we play now is actualy like special olymipcs for Blaster ships, where getting a Target down to your Range isnŠt a indicator for winning a fight and ships donŠt have to avoid your range to win at all. Gum would now say, yes it is ballanced, but actualy it isnŠt on the TQ version we play(Oppertunity cost Gum you still lack one resonse on this one). ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:10:00 -
[1115]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 01:14:11
Originally by: The Djego Range isnŠt the problem, it is the drawback what forces Blaster ships to small Gang/solo and limits them in bigger gangs.
The Problem is the ability to projekt the EFT DPS on the target at your Optimal well enught to get a advantage(looking at the Web changes here). More Tracking would help, while still leaving especialy the Medium sized Ships like the Thorax/Brutix preaty much dead against anything with a Scrambler in the same class(since you are with Electrons/Ions in 99% of the Fittings and they loose 60% of her damage allready till 9km with Null(scram Range). Fitting a Scram on your ship to isnŠt the ultimate solution here, since if both ships are out of MWD the ship with the bigger range still wins.
Aditonal to this with the Torp/EM Resist changes other ships comming quite close to your DPS(not only in EFT but also in actual gameplay), taking away your advantage of DPS(for what you have to pay in Range in the beginning).
Prestocs approch with the nerfed Lasers would be solid, but it wouldnŠt actualy improve the role of Blaster Ships in small Gang, it would only nerf Amarr back to a pure fleet role. I for myself would not welcome this, actualy the Tanks this days are preaty insane compared to the DPS(keep in mind I usely fly full gank setups with Gallente) even before you took fancy Combat Boosters and Faction Stuff into account.
I personaly suggested mutliple times a Bonus to web strengt that would give Blaster ships the needet advantage within 12km range back(where they should have a advanatge after all) and give Medium sized Blasters Ships a chance to in a fights involving a Scrambler. The Bonus donŠt have to be as strong as on the Kronos, even 50% of this would help a lot in general gameplay and prevents them from beeing kited within Web Range.
Personaly I would like to see another 5-10% DPS increase on Blasters(even in ROF to increase the Cap need) to give real gank fittings a real chance back to break tank fittings of her own class, so the Glass cannon concept actualy starts working again compared to the Tanks we see atm on TQ(keep in mind that tanking still is easyer and faster to skill, easyer to boost with Rigs, Combat Boosters, Imps and Faction/Complex Mods).
Minmatar Recons should also have the same role Bonus, since they are atm just crap because of the nerfed Webs.
This and the reballancing of Optimal/Falloff for AKs like on SHC sugestedThread would make Mini/Gallente again the choice in solo/small gang giving both back the beaf they lost with the 90% Web and the QR Changes to Nano(ofc including a fix to Rockets and HAMs aswell since they lack to much against her own sized counterparts).
Like sayed before ballanced Ships in PVP is down to the varity/role against ballanced overall. I for myself chose the first in any way, since it keeps EvE more interesting.
this is real good Djego.
Now i haven't readed the link there, but other than that, i pretty much agree to that to, except for the damage / tracking boost to Blasters.
Gonna read the thing Marn Prestoc have posted there to see if there is anything good there.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:12:00 -
[1116]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 01:13:03
Originally by: The Djego
The Vid is worthless to anyting about ballance questions. Anybody that actualy PVP on TQ in Low Sec\Empire Wars knows that Puls/Torp Fittings do the same job in 9/10 Cases without the need of MWDing after your target to get in range. ABPs donŠt fail for fielding Blaster Setups, it is the ultimate solution for fight in an close to docking\jumping Range in Empire wars(to kill things before deagressing/docking) but PVP isnŠt like this all the time. It is like comparing Moorhuhn with Coutnerstrike, in both you see a crossair moving and a klick, but it isnŠt actualy the same if you know both games. ..........................................
Well ok, that's something that can be discussed more.
But they are at least showing that Blasters works fine for the type of combat they do.
No one can deny that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:22:00 -
[1117]
Originally by: The Djego
The Vid is worthless to anything about balance questions. Anybody that actually PVP on TQ in Low Sec\Empire Wars knows that Puls/Torp Fittings do the same job in 9/10 Cases without the need of MWDing after your target to get in range. ABPs donŠt fail for fielding Blaster Setups, it is the ultimate solution for fight in an close to docking\jumping Range in Empire wars(to kill things before deagressing/docking) but PVP isnŠt like this all the time. It is like comparing Moorhuhn with Counterstrike, in both you see a crossair moving and a klick, but it isnŠt actualy the same if you know both games.
Correct.
Originally by: The Djego Someone that actually got PVP experience should not estimate usability of Ships/Weapons on Vids over his own his experience.
Some ppl only have real experience on sissi so they need others vids even if they show worthless data tbh...
Originally by: The Djego The game we play now is actually like special olymipcs for Blaster ships, where getting a Target down to your Range isnŠt a indicator for winning a fight and ships donŠt have to avoid your range to win at all. Gum would now say, yes it is balanced, but actually it isnŠt on the TQ version we play(Opportunity cost Gum you still lack one response on this one).
Yup blasters need work doing to them.
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 01:26:00 -
[1118]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 01:27:04
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Yup blasters need work doing to them.
Boost Blasters, then we have to get the Autocannons boosted to, and by doing that, you might make Autocannons really overpowered over lasers / missiles again.
I do not want that to happen. Sorry, but that's like making lots of things in pvp extremely unbalanced.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:26:00 -
[1119]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 01:29:34
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
And your not ignoring anything in this topic?, naaaaah, your not ignoring many of the really really important things about Omni tanks and resists and signature radius and speed etc. NAH, that's something you haven't ignored at all.
I have ignored nothing, speed is at the very essence of the transversal effects and mwd/cap issues i have been looking at, omni tanks and resists including available ehp have been a topic of discussion i have gone over many times.
And considering we have been discussing BS i will admit that sig radius has not been a topic of great discussion but if you have any great or earth shattering insights about sig radius then go ahead and post them.
So instead of saying "sig radius" and thinking it justifies your position how about telling me how you think it makes such a earth shattering difference in the BS and systems we are discussing.
You haven't ignored anything?. is that a joke or what?.
If you haven't ignored the things about resists and the general things about omni tanks today, you would see that Lasers are not as good as your telling they are. Your telling everyone here that Lasers are owerpowered, when they are not.
Lasers are being used as a comparison for blasters in this and other threads and as such are overpowered by that comparison. They are way more effective than blasters at their longer ranges but almost as good as blasters at closer "so called" blaster ranges.
Now this is because blasters need work and are for want of a better description underpowered in relation to lasers, but the terms apply and as such a buff to blasters NOT a nerf to lasers is required.
PS: And to AC.
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 01:29:00 -
[1120]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 01:33:11
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Lasers are being used as a comparison for blasters in this and other threads and as such are overpowered by that comparison. Thet are way more effective than blasters at their longer ranges but almost as good as blasters at closer "so called" blaster ranges.
Now this is because blasters need work and are for want of a better description underpowered in relation to lasers, but the terms apply and as such a buff to blasters NOT a nerf to lasers is required.
PS: And to AC.
Yes, the lasers are almost as good as Blasters in close range, your right on that.
But again, you fail to realize that the resists to EM and Thermal on an Megathron who have an omni tank is so strong that the Lasers is not that good after all. And because of that, Amarr BS'es have higher EHP to compensate for that.
That's what you fail to see, and that's why you should take the resists on omni tanks into the picture. But you fail everytime to do that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:33:00 -
[1121]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 01:34:00
Originally by: NightmareX
Yes, the lasers are almost as good as Blasters in close range, your right on that.
But again, you fail to realize that the resists to EM and Thermal on a Megathron who have a omni tank is so strong that the lasers is not that good anylonger.
The MAX dmg done on ever mixed race BS fight says you are wrong....
Are blasters as good at 45km (laser optimal) as lasers are at 5 (blaster optimal)?...nope blasters cannot even hit at that range while laser are doing their max dmg.
Now the thing is that nobody including me want them to be, all that is being asked is for a minor dmg and tracking adjustment at closer ranges.
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 01:35:00 -
[1122]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 01:35:32
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 01:34:00
Originally by: NightmareX
Yes, the lasers are almost as good as Blasters in close range, your right on that.
But again, you fail to realize that the resists to EM and Thermal on a Megathron who have a omni tank is so strong that the lasers is not that good anylonger.
The MAX dmg done on ever mixed race BS fight says you are wrong....
Are blasters as good at 45km (laser optimal) as lasers are at 5 (blaster optimal)?...nope blasters cannot even hit at that range while laser are doing their max dmg.
Now the thing is that nobody including me want them to be, all that is being asked is for a minor dmg and tracking adjustment at closer ranges.
Stop with the yadda yadda talk. Blasters are close range weapon, not mid range weapon.
Get it?. Or are you proving to be even more stupid?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:37:00 -
[1123]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 01:42:46
Originally by: NightmareX
And the smart peoples who use their brains like djego says i am also wrong.
Stop with the yadda yadda talk. lasers are mid range weapon, not close range weapon.
Lasers are doing more DPS in the 5 km range than blasters do in the med, even with very high resists to EM and Thermal resists.
Get it?. Or am i proving to be even more stupid?.
YES..
See what i did there...
PS: I see you are still using insults and one liners instead of details and facts...
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 01:41:00 -
[1124]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 01:38:12
Originally by: NightmareX
And the smart peoples who use their brains like djego says i am also wrong.
Stop with the yadda yadda talk. lasers are mid range weapon, not close range weapon.
Get it?. Or am i proving to be even more stupid?.
YES..
Se what i did there...
Ow look, if that's all you can do to edit others post to look uber cool your self, then you don't have much to do.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:43:00 -
[1125]
Originally by: NightmareX ad hom
Oh dear are we here already...
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 01:44:00 -
[1126]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 01:45:33
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX ad hom
Oh dear are we here already...
Can i get a hug?. So i can take away your tears from your face while i hug you.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:45:00 -
[1127]
Originally by: NightmareX ad hom and troll
/ignore until on topic responses and valid arguments resume...
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 01:48:00 -
[1128]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 01:56:35
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX ad hom and troll
/ignore until on topic responses and valid arguments resume...
Like your on topic here your self?. It's you that made me go off topic again by replying something about my ECM Tempest and sisi when it was not that i was talking about. You did that when i replied with some facts about Blasters and Gallente BS'es that you didn't had the braincells or balls to answer on. So you had to come with a stinked reply just to twist you away from the facts i gave you.
Ok let me get this clear.
You prove everything in this topic by using noob EFT graphs with some dumb stats.
I prove something here by actually using the ships and using different setups on them and use them in most ways you can use them in to find out how each ships is on sisi, or how they perform. And then gets some good data / stats about the ships that way.
What is most important of those 2 things?.
Don't tell me your uber noob EFT stats are more worth.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:56:00 -
[1129]
Originally by: NightmareX
You prove everything in this topic by using noob EFT graphs with some dumb stats.
No the graphs were to show that in a BS fight transversal is irrelevant, although a live orbital test was also done.
This is the second time this has been explained to you in this thread within the last 2 pages from now on comment like the above will be considered trolling and dealt with accordingly.
Almost all of the other data regarding scenarios ect comes from real time experience on sissi not eft, eft is used primarily for minor details aiding the facts given with hard data.
Originally by: NightmareX I prove something here by actually using the ships and using different setups on them and use them in most ways you can use them to find out how each ships is on sisi.
You have done 0 testing for this thread and have produced no data apart from linking a vid that was not yours in the first place and proves nothing that adds to this topic.
If you have valid and provable data produce it and give conclusions.
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 01:59:00 -
[1130]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 02:02:39
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
You prove everything in this topic by using noob EFT graphs with some dumb stats.
No the graphs were to show that in a BS fight transversal is irrelevant, although a live orbital test was also done.
This is the second time this has been explained to you in this thread within the last 2 pages from now on comment like the above will be considered trolling and dealt with accordingly.
Almost all of the other data regarding scenarios ect comes from real time experience on sissi not eft, eft is used primarily for minor details aiding the facts given with hard data.
Originally by: NightmareX I prove something here by actually using the ships and using different setups on them and use them in most ways you can use them to find out how each ships is on sisi.
You have done 0 testing for this thread and have produced no data apart from linking a vid that was not yours in the first place and proves nothing that adds to this topic.
If you have valid and provable data produce it and give conclusions.
What does that video have to do with my question there?
And have you tested alot of ships lately to find out how they perform?. No you haven't. You have only gone after some silly stats.
Ok, let me ask you this question.
Why are you saying Lasers are overpowered?.
Is it because they are better than Blasters at 45 km?.
Or is it because your EFT shows you uberomgwtfpwnage DPS you can do at 40-45 km?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 02:08:00 -
[1131]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 02:10:26
Originally by: NightmareX
Why are you saying Lasers are overpowered?.
Is it because they are better than Blasters at 45 km?.
Or is it because your EFT shows you uberomgwtfpwnage DPS?.
See you paid no attention to post 1053 & 1055 what so ever or you would not need to ask that question.
The data gathered, this thread, and ppl like myself and djego among others are here because blasters are underpowered in the reasonably available combat for BS on TQ eve, especially compared to lasers that are by FAR the most powerful and effective system in eve.
As such data has being gathered and comparisons have been made to show that fact so that a reasonable fix can be made without screwing up the game and balance more than it already is.
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 02:12:00 -
[1132]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 02:16:01
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 02:10:26
Originally by: NightmareX
Why are you saying Lasers are overpowered?.
Is it because they are better than Blasters at 45 km?.
Or is it because your EFT shows you uberomgwtfpwnage DPS?.
See you paid no attention to post 1053 & 1055 what so ever or you would not need to ask that question.
The data gathered, this thread, and ppl like myself and djego among others are here because blasters are underpowered in the reasonably available combat for BS on TQ eve, especially compared to lasers that are by FAR the most powerful and effective system in eve.
As such data has being gathered and comparisons have been made to show that fact so that a reasonable fix can be made without screwing up the game and balance more than it already is.
I don't know why you are rabbeling about that Lasers have way more DPS than Blasters at med range when Blasters clearly are close range weapon ONLY at the post 1053 and 1055.
It doesn't work to compare a very close range weapon to med range weapon. It just doesn't work dude.
Stop doing that comparsion. It doesn't belong here.
I know that's the thing you are trying to explain, but why explain it when comparing a close range weapon to a med range weapon doesn't work?.
Yes i know Lasers works ok in close range to, but Blaster ships have a huge advantage over Laser ships in close range.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 02:18:00 -
[1133]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 02:22:05
Originally by: NightmareX
It doesn't work to compare a very close range weapon to med range weapon. it just doesn't work dude.
If we are to enforce your strict rule of "weapons should not do dmg in others preferred ranges they should not be compared" as blasters do 0 at laser optimal then lasers should do 0 at blaster optimal..but they do not they do plenty of dmg..
You enforce a absolute on blasters by saying they should do no dmg at laser optimal but ignore the fact that lasers do plenty of dmg at blaster optimal.
To balance this blasters should do a bit more dmg in the 10-20km range than they do 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 02:22:00 -
[1134]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 02:24:34
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
It doesn't work to compare a very close range weapon to med range weapon. it just doesn't work dude.
If we are to enforce your strict rule of "weapons should not do dmg in others preferred ranges" as blasters do 0 at laser optimal then lasers should do 0 at blaster optimal..but they do not they do plenty of dmg..
You enforce a absolute on blasters by saying they should do no dmg at laser optimal but ignore the fact that lasers do plenty of dmg at blaster optimal.
Did i say that Lasers should do 0 damage at Blasters optimal and Blasters should do 0 damage in lasers optimal?.
Where the hell do you get those things i have never said from?.
All i was saying is that it's not working to compare a close range weapon system to a med range weapon system.
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean To balance this blasters should do a bit more dmg in the 10-20km range than they do now.
That's the wrong way to go. And like others have said to you about that to, that are making Blasters to be more like Lasers.
And no one want that to ever happen.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 02:24:00 -
[1135]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 02:25:55
Originally by: NightmareX
Did i say that Lasers should do 0 damage at Blasters optimal and Blasters should do 0 damage in lasers optimal?.
You do not need to say it because they do.
Lasers at 5km = max raw dmg. blasters at 45km = 0 raw dmg.
Omni resist and dmg types hardly matter when you hit for 0 pal.
Originally by: NightmareX
That's the wrong way to go. And like others have said to you about that to, that are making Blasters to be more like Lasers.
And no one want that to ever happen.
Read the scrap heap thread..plenty of ppl think its a good idea actually.
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 02:26:00 -
[1136]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Did i say that Lasers should do 0 damage at Blasters optimal and Blasters should do 0 damage in lasers optimal?.
You do not need to say it because they do.
Lasers at 5km = max raw dmg. blasters at 45km = 0 raw dmg.
Omni resist and dmg types hardly matter when you hit for 0 pal.
Yey, lasers are doing Max raw damage at 5 km, yey.
How much of those DPS'es are left when you take the EM and Thermal resists into the picture?.
Did you forget about the resists again?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 02:30:00 -
[1137]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 02:31:01
Originally by: NightmareX
Yey, lasers are doing Max raw damage at 5 km, yey.
How much of those DPS'es are left when you take the EM and Thermal resists into the picture?.
Did you forget about the resists again?.
I forgot nothing you just did not read properly again.
A crap tonne more than the 0dps blasters get at lasers 45km optimal....
But as a number they get around a 30% reduction for dmg type compared to blasters at 5km on a standard onmi tank.
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 02:32:00 -
[1138]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 02:35:18
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 02:31:01
Originally by: NightmareX
Yey, lasers are doing Max raw damage at 5 km, yey.
How much of those DPS'es are left when you take the EM and Thermal resists into the picture?.
Did you forget about the resists again?.
I forgot nothing you just did not read properly again.
A crap tonne more than the 0dps blasters get at lasers 45km optimal....
But as a number they get around a 30% reduction for dmg type compared to blasters at 5km on a standard onmi tank.
And you still compare a close range weapon to a med range weapon.
And what did i say in the reply there?, did i talk about anything at 45 km, or did i talk about doing damages in the 5 km range?.
Learn to read.
Only stupid players compare a close range weapon to med range weapon only so they can have a reason on why lasers are so uberawesome.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 02:34:00 -
[1139]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 02:35:49
Originally by: NightmareX
And you still compare a close range weapon to a med range weapon.
Are you dumb or what?.
Il tell you what when lasers do the exact same dmg at 4.5km (blaster optimal) that blasters do at 45km(laser optimal) il stop comparing them...deal dumbo?.
Ppl do not want to compare laser to blasters as it shows how UP blasters are and how OP laser are ny comparison.
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 02:36:00 -
[1140]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 02:40:16
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
And you still compare a close range weapon to a med range weapon.
Are you dumb or what?.
Il tell you what when lasers do the exact same dmg at 4.5km (blaster optimal) that blasters do at 45km(laser optimal) il stop comparing them...deal dumbo?.
What does the 45 km range on Lasers have to do with the DPS on Lasers and Blasters in 5 km range?.
Do i ask anything about DPS on lasers at 45 km when i'm talking about DPS for the 2 weapon systems in the 5 km range?, no i'm not.
I'm talking about within 5 km, not 45 km.
Again, learn to read.''
Ok, just to be like you. If you post one more time about Lasers at 45 km when i'm talking about Lasers and Blasters in the 5 km range, then i'm going to report you for going off topic.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 02:39:00 -
[1141]
Originally by: NightmareX
What does the 45 km range on Lasers have to do with the DPS on Lasers and Blasters in 5 km range?.
I'm talking about within 5 km, not 45 km.
Again, learn to read.
Hey lasers are med range not short range............
Again learn to comprehend.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 02:41:00 -
[1142]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 01:27:04
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Yup blasters need work doing to them.
Boost Blasters, then we have to get the Autocannons boosted to, and by doing that, you might make Autocannons really overpowered over lasers / missiles again.
I do not want that to happen. Sorry, but that's like making lots of things in pvp extremely unbalanced.
You have to boost Aks, if you boost Blasters. Both weapon Systems are suposed to play in the same scenario with diffrent advantages\drawbacks. There is no way you can boost one without nerfing the other to crap(like the Falloff\Optimal fix from SHC would nuke Blasters without adjustments in the small and Medium Turret selection).
With the 60% Web, Missle changes, speed changes, overall Tank\Gank vs Speed\Doge changes we at a point where a serious ballance between solo/small Gang and big Gang things is needet.
Nerfing tracking/gank on Lasers wouldnŠt improve small scale PVP, improving Blasters and Aks would, by a very serious amout. Both weapons are loosing ground in bigger fights, for a obivous reason anyway. Handing out limitations is ok, as long if they go her stong points in the end(including Rockets and Hams ofc).
Gallente/Minmatar speced Players do this for a reason and there should be return in there PVP style that enalbes them to overcome more gang based ships in her limited habit of solo/small scale PVP.
Even if it looks out of ballance in 1o1s, EvE shifting more and more away from this kind of PVP and it allready hands out high rewards towards Amarr\Caldari Ships in Gang PVP without puting serious advantages on AKs\Blasters in Small Scale\Solo gameplay.
Ballance isnŠt that all woking equal well in the same situation, is is everything has itŠs strong points and getting compleetly ownd in his weak points that lead to gameplay where it matters what kind of Weapon/Ship/Tactic/Fitting you field for your fight.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 02:42:00 -
[1143]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
What does the 45 km range on Lasers have to do with the DPS on Lasers and Blasters in 5 km range?.
I'm talking about within 5 km, not 45 km.
Again, learn to read.
Hey lasers are med range not short range............
Again learn to comprehend.
Yeah, wasn't that what i was saying to you that Lasers are med range weapon and cannot be compared with a close range weapon?.
But you just rabbled away about something that i have never talked about.
Trying poorly to be funny?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 02:46:00 -
[1144]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 02:50:45
Originally by: NightmareX
Yeah, wasn't that what i was saying to you that Lasers are med range weapon and cannot be compared with a close range weapon?.
Il tell you what lets compare dmg reduction in each systems optimal to see if you actually this ignorant or just playing dumb...
Lasers in blaster optimal 4.5km (CLOSE RANGE) get a 30% dmg reduction vs a omni tank due to their dmg type.
Blaster in lasers optimal 45km(MED RANGE) get a 100% reduction vs any tank you like including a raw untanked hull with 0 resists.
Im going to bed you will either see the irony or you are just trolling....
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 02:51:00 -
[1145]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 02:55:56
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 02:48:04
Originally by: NightmareX
Yeah, wasn't that what i was saying to you that Lasers are med range weapon and cannot be compared with a close range weapon?.
Il tell you what lets compare dmg reduction in each systems optimal to see if you actually this ignorant or just playing dumb...
Lasers in blaster optimal 4.5km (CLOSE RANGE) get a 30% dmg reduction vs a omni tank due to their dmg type.
Blaster in lasers optimal 45km(MED RANGE) get a 100% reduction vs any tank you like including a raw untanked hull with 0 resists.
And you still compare a close range weapon to a med range weapons.
How many times do we have to punch it into you face that doing that doesn't work. Maybe i should use a sledgehammer next time to punch it into you face.
Stop with that. You not getting anywhere by showing that. It only shows that all you can do is to poast that only to make peoples think that Lasers are overpowered. When they are not, even when they have better range on the Lasers.
BTW, i'm seeing the irony that you can only show the comparsion between a close range weapon and a med range weapon that doesn't work at all. And because you simply don't have a clue on what other to say. It's not hard to see that.
Compare a close range weapon to a close range weapon. Then you might get some ways by doing that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 02:53:00 -
[1146]
Edited by: Goumindong on 01/03/2009 02:54:53
Originally by: The Djego
You have to boost Aks, if you boost Blasters. Both weapon Systems are suposed to play in the same scenario with diffrent advantages\drawbacks
And if you boost AC's you'd have to boost lasers and....
Quote:
With the 60% Web, Missle changes, speed changes, overall Tank\Gank vs Speed\Doge changes we at a point where a serious ballance between solo/small Gang and big Gang things is needet.
Every time you say this and ignore that all of these changes have advantaged blaster ships.
Quote:
Gallente/Minmatar speced Players do this for a reason and there should be return in there PVP style that enalbes them to overcome more gang based ships in her limited habit of solo/small scale PVP.
1. They easily can overcome ships that have a gang orientation.
2. If you're saying they need to overcome "more" gang based ships as in "more in number" then no, they don't. Because that would hilariously break the game.
|
Joe Logoffski
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 06:49:00 -
[1147]
Edited by: Joe Logoffski on 01/03/2009 07:01:55 Just reduce pulse laser tracking slightly, making them effective only from 10km upwards.
There is no reason a short-range weapon system needs to be effective from 0-55km, thats blatantly overpowered.
Now if they havent got enough tracking to work well in the 0-10km range that creates the niche blasters and autocannons need against them.
Right now they can only try to get very close but dont get rewarded as pulses lose out on 5-20% dps maximum (at extreme short ranges only even, requiring perfect maneuvering to have any noticeable effect, and impossible out of 1vs1 scenarios pretty much due to multi-webbing), make that 75% dps loss below 5km and we have better balance.
And before you flame, take into account blasters and ACs have usually tracking trouble when still in falloff and not even in optimal, why should pulses be allowed to exploit 90% of their optimal while blasters and ACs cant even exploit 30% of theirs properly?
Optimal range does mean 'optimal' in the sense of the word, and going below optimal should result in tracking issues, it does for blaster and AC and has to for pulses too.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 07:02:00 -
[1148]
Edited by: Ephemeron on 01/03/2009 07:05:24
Originally by: Joe Logoffski Just reduce pulse laser tracking slightly, making them effective only from 10km upwards.
Nerfing is a bad thing. Right now people are happy with pulse lasers and unhappy with blasters - at least some people. Why would you want to make a change that would make the happy people unhappy, while the unhappy people get nothing?
Proper way to move forward is by boosting blasters - emphasize their strengths and weakness, make them more distinct from other short range weapons. Make blasters undisputed kings of high damage at close/difficult to control ranges.
|
Joe Logoffski
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 07:12:00 -
[1149]
Edited by: Joe Logoffski on 01/03/2009 07:13:25 Edited by: Joe Logoffski on 01/03/2009 07:12:54
Originally by: Ephemeron Nerfing is a bad thing. Right now people are happy with pulse lasers and unhappy with blasters - at least some people. Why would you want to make a change that would make the happy people unhappy, while the unhappy people get nothing?
Well the problem is that because the happy people are too happy, the unhappy people are unhappy.
Pulses would still be vastly superior in the >10km range, what is so wrong with giving blasters and ACs their territory to play in?
The problem is, you'd need a massive boost to blasters and autocannons to make it worthwhile, or a rather small nerf (I'd even call it balancing tbh) to pulses which is the better solution as everything else is perfectly in line.
People could still be happy with their pulse lasers, they'll still have the best effective range on shortrange guns (10-55km), just not superior everywhere from 2.5-55km.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 07:37:00 -
[1150]
Quote: Pulses would still be vastly superior in the >10km range, what is so wrong with giving blasters and ACs their territory to play in?
We need to establish a clear definition of roles for each of the 3 close range guns.
My current belief is that those roles are the following: *) Blasters - highest damage, difficult to fit, difficult to operate *) pulses - best optimal range, uses lots of cap, uses lots of grid, small falloff *) autocannons - easiest to fit, great falloff range, bad optimal, bad damage
If we can agree to that, then we should emphasize strengths and weaknesses of each weapon type. We should avoid taking main role of a gun and diminishing it in favor of balance thru sameness
|
|
Joe Logoffski
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 07:55:00 -
[1151]
Edited by: Joe Logoffski on 01/03/2009 07:57:33
Originally by: Ephemeron
My current belief is that those roles are the following: *) Blasters - highest damage, difficult to fit, difficult to operate *) pulses - best optimal range, uses lots of cap, uses lots of grid, small falloff *) autocannons - easiest to fit, great falloff range, bad optimal, bad damage
That are no roles, its just a description of the current state of the systems.
blasters: the shortrange tool, high damage but useless above 13km pulses: the longrange tool, high damage but useless below 10km autocannons: variable range, works well at all ranges but inferior to the primary system for that range
I say it again, a turrets tracking needs to be considered in relation to its optimal range loading the closerange ammo, i.e. blaster tracking should be good for 4.5km and up, AC tracking should be good for 3km and up, pulse tracking for 15km and up.
|
Koloch
Amarr Warriors Lost
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 09:22:00 -
[1152]
The question you have to ask yourself Joe is; Are you unhappy with how blasters perform against against Amarr or is it how blasters perform against all other ships. If you nerf pulses there is no way in hell you will also get a boost to blasters. So globally the performance of your ship wont change. It's just that easy.
When you start attacking a specific races weapon system which most people feel is pretty balance in the global sense of eve it comes across that you really aren't interested in balance, but more about balancing bs vs bs - which as most experienced players will know this isn't how you balance a game.
From a pulled back perspective blasters do look like they need a very slight boost to dmg that's it.
|
EvilD's EvilTwin
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 09:57:00 -
[1153]
Edited by: EvilD''s EvilTwin on 01/03/2009 10:04:14
Originally by: Koloch The question you have to ask yourself Joe is; Are you unhappy with how blasters perform against against Amarr or is it how blasters perform against all other ships. If you nerf pulses there is no way in hell you will also get a boost to blasters. So globally the performance of your ship wont change. It's just that easy.
When you start attacking a specific races weapon system which most people feel is pretty balance in the global sense of eve it comes across that you really aren't interested in balance, but more about balancing bs vs bs - which as most experienced players will know this isn't how you balance a game.
From a pulled back perspective blasters do look like they need a very slight boost to dmg that's it.
well said
this all started with web nerf...nerfing pulse tracking will not help the mega keep targets in range and slow enough to do the massive damage that it did before..that will not help blasters at all
if you want to help blasters...either change a ship bonus to web strength or increase dmg....imo increase dmg because thats the role blasters are supposed to fill: unrivaled dmg but at extremely close range....and we all know that most ships a battleship will be shooting at will be webbed a few times over
Originally by: Joe Logoffski
Optimal range does mean 'optimal' in the sense of the word, and going below optimal should result in tracking issues, it does for blaster and AC and has to for pulses too.
lol it does...anything that is orbiting even at moderate speeds will take far weaker hits from pulse...its a matter of: in a gang situation, which is what this is about, that ship below 10km that you wouldn't normally be able to hit even decently, is webbed a few times and is able to be hit easily with any weapon system.....the problem is that blasters don't enough extra dmg to make them shine in comparison to amarr...therefore boost dmg
also......is it just me or did this thing grow 7 pages today???
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 10:03:00 -
[1154]
Originally by: Joe Logoffski
Just reduce pulse laser tracking slightly, making them effective only from 10km upwards.
While i understand what you are saying and have been trying to drum the concept into nightmareX's think skull in the last page i doubt it can and should be done.
1. To get it so BS pulse miss other BS at close range you would need to really screw with the tracking, rails suck at close range but they still hit BS under 10km and only drop off at around 5ish km, so pulse would need worse tracking than rails to miss under 10km.
2. Any nerf to amarr would not fix the blaster problem just make the amarr players go total emo, and even more than they are now.
3. The better solution is to make blasters better within blaster range, as blasters can hit already at 10-20km giving them a boost in dmg at those ranges cannot be considered a buff outside their "roled" range and it also makes them more effective in gang combat. Also giving some sort of a tracking buff so they do not suffer because of their loe optimal may also be a good idea although it would need to be done carefully so they do not get a greater target selection than other BS.
A examination of how well BS lasers track smaller ships with t1 ammo at range will give us a idea..
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 10:22:00 -
[1155]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 10:22:33
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin
lol it does...anything that is orbiting even at moderate speeds will take far weaker hits from pulse...
That is not actually accurate, when you are talking about the target being a BS, pulse have tracking enough to hit it for their full dmg even under 5km without a reduction because of tracking.
BC do get a reduction if they are at closer ranges but we are talking about well under 10km again and that is if they are still getting 188 ms transversal so proly unwebbed.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
EvilD's EvilTwin
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 10:28:00 -
[1156]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 10:22:33
That is not actually accurate, when you are talking about the target being a BS, pulse have tracking enough to hit it for their full dmg even under 5km without a reduction because of tracking.
BC do get a reduction if they are at closer ranges but we are talking about well under 10km again and that is if they are still getting 188 ms transversal so proly unwebbed.
sorry but your wrong...if the ship your shooting, regardless of size, is orbiting at a moderate speed below 8km or so...even 90 i'd say, your hits are a good bit weaker than they are at 15km...trust me i've been flying amarr for a while now...if you would like to test this we can arrange a meeting on sisi if you wish....
and just to prevent the inevitable "SISI IS NOT LIKE TQ BLAHBLAH!!"...i know...it would be to check hit quality at 15km vs hit quality below 10km
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 10:33:00 -
[1157]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 10:34:33
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 10:22:33
That is not actually accurate, when you are talking about the target being a BS, pulse have tracking enough to hit it for their full dmg even under 5km without a reduction because of tracking.
BC do get a reduction if they are at closer ranges but we are talking about well under 10km again and that is if they are still getting 188 ms transversal so proly unwebbed.
sorry but your wrong...if the ship your shooting, regardless of size, is orbiting at a moderate speed below 8km or so...even 90 i'd say, your hits are a good bit weaker than they are at 15km...trust me i've been flying amarr for a while now...if you would like to test this we can arrange a meeting on sisi if you wish....
and just to prevent the inevitable "SISI IS NOT LIKE TQ BLAHBLAH!!"...i know...it would be to check hit quality at 15km vs hit quality below 10km
Fine say when as im available now
EDIT: DOH and sissi is down...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
EvilD's EvilTwin
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 10:43:00 -
[1158]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 10:39:09 Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 10:34:33
Fine say when as im available now
EDIT: DOH and sissi is down...
PPS: i never dismiss actual data from sissi, i only dismiss sissi warriors flying t2 rigged, full slave implanted BS claiming the 1 v 1 BS fights they have are a good bassis for gang pvp balance on TQ.
hehe....hmm try for 0400 eve time tomorrow night?
and yea i agree with ya about sisi combat being a basis for tq
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 10:48:00 -
[1159]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 10:47:56
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin
hehe....hmm try for 0400 eve time tomorrow night?
and yea i agree with ya about sisi combat being a basis for tq
That is 4am where i am bud....so il be in bed
And yea sissi is for raw data gathering like this or even teamwork training if you have a dedicated corp, but general "owning of ffa1" and 1 v 1 warriors in pimped fits are pointless/spineless players using the 100isk per module and the BF area rules to hide behind.
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 11:19:00 -
[1160]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 11:22:29
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 10:47:56
Originally by: EvilD's EvilTwin
hehe....hmm try for 0400 eve time tomorrow night?
and yea i agree with ya about sisi combat being a basis for tq
That is 4am where i am bud....so il be in bed
And yea sissi is for raw data gathering like this or even teamwork training if you have a dedicated corp, but general "owning of ffa1" and 1 v 1 warriors in pimped fits are pointless/spineless players using the 100isk per module and the BF area rules to hide behind.
First off, we have gangs in FFA 1, like there is gangs on TQ.
Second. So what?, every damn module cost 100 isk on sisi. Does it have anything to say if modules cost 100 isk on sisi?.
It's a Test Server after all. It cost 100 isk so everybody can test out modules there. And the reason things cost 100 isk each and not 1 isk is to prevent market hoarding.
And yeah, i have been collecting raw datas from alot of ships and setups on sisi the 3 last years. Dang, i though you already did know that, but nahhh, you think i sucks because i do 1 vs 1 fights and do fighting in FFA 1. But Even when i do it, i fight like we fight on TQ there many many times.
But when others talk about Sisi, nah then it's fine, then they are on Sisi for raw data collection, yeah right.
Ok, from now on after sophisticatedlimabean uber cool definition, a t2 fitted ECM Tempest is a pimped Tempest. Gonna say that to everyone that ask about a Tempest setup, that sophisticatedlimabean said that if you want to have a uber pimped setup on a Tempest, then fit a t2 setup.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 11:22:00 -
[1161]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 11:24:27
Originally by: NightmareX
Ok, from now on after sophisticatedlimabean definition, a t2 fitted ECM Tempest is a pimped Tempest. Gonna say that to everyone that ask about a Tempest setup, that sophisticatedlimabean said that if you want to have a pimped setup on a Tempest, then fit a t2 setup.
Ppl fly different when things cost only 100isk in ffa and BF..
So you have t1 rigs and no slave set when you fit/fly it do you???...
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 11:24:00 -
[1162]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 11:24:31
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Ok, from now on after sophisticatedlimabean definition, a t2 fitted ECM Tempest is a pimped Tempest. Gonna say that to everyone that ask about a Tempest setup, that sophisticatedlimabean said that if you want to have a pimped setup on a Tempest, then fit a t2 setup.
So you have t1 rigs and no slave set when you fit it do you???...
LOL, t2 rigs and Slaves is not pimped. It's pimped when you fit officer and deadspace modules to you ship, then it's pimped.
Not a damn single t2 module or implant on TQ or Sisi is pimped dude lol.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 11:26:00 -
[1163]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 11:24:31
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Ok, from now on after sophisticatedlimabean definition, a t2 fitted ECM Tempest is a pimped Tempest. Gonna say that to everyone that ask about a Tempest setup, that sophisticatedlimabean said that if you want to have a pimped setup on a Tempest, then fit a t2 setup.
So you have t1 rigs and no slave set when you fit it do you???...
LOL, t2 rigs and Slaves is not pimped. It's pimped when you fit officer and deadspace modules to you ship, then it's pimped.
Not a damn single t2 module or implant on TQ or Sisi is pimped dude lol.
Nobody i know flies a gang BS with T2 rigs and a full slave set, your data is worthless.
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 11:29:00 -
[1164]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 11:32:32
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 11:27:39
Originally by: NightmareX
LOL, t2 rigs and Slaves is not pimped. It's pimped when you fit officer and deadspace modules to you ship, then it's pimped.
Not a damn single t2 module or implant on TQ or Sisi is pimped dude lol.
Nobody i know or have ever known flies a gang BS on TQ with T2 rigs and a full slave set, your data is worthless if you actually had any which you do not.......
Your wrong.
My old CEO in the corp D00M, also Darknesss use a Navy Mega with t2 Trimarks and Slaves. And i know alot more that does the same.
And when i was in D00M, i had a corp mate that had a Vindicator with some Aux Nano Pump II's as rigs.
I even know some peoples that fits t2 rigs on t1 cruisers to.
Now wanna come with more excuses?.
My data on sisi is worth 329534237921974367987 times more than you think.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 11:32:00 -
[1165]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 11:35:59 Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 11:35:19
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 11:27:39
Originally by: NightmareX
LOL, t2 rigs and Slaves is not pimped. It's pimped when you fit officer and deadspace modules to you ship, then it's pimped.
Not a damn single t2 module or implant on TQ or Sisi is pimped dude lol.
Nobody i know or have ever known flies a gang BS on TQ with T2 rigs and a full slave set, your data is worthless if you actually had any which you do not.......
Your wrong.
My old CEO in the corp D00M, also Darknesss use a Navy Mega with t2 Trimarks. And i know alot more that does.
Now wanna come with more excuses?.
I never saw him use it but even if he did on occasion it is a utter rarity and not even close to being something you see large gangs of anywhere in eve.
Lie/exaggerate more...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Suitonia
Gallente interimo End of The Line.
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 11:33:00 -
[1166]
A very low percentage of people on TQ use t2 rigs and slaves. It's definatly not the norm.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 11:35:00 -
[1167]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 11:36:26
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean I never saw him use it but even if he did on occasion it is a utter rarity and not even close to being something you see large gangs of anywhere in eve.
Lie/exaggerate more...
Like your not lieing, at all?.
When i was in Triumvirate, also in D00M, we had a war against the privateers Alliance. So some of us from the alliance went into empire to fight them. And Darknesss was using hit t2 trimarkes, Slaved Navy Mega there alot.
Originally by: Suitonia A very low percentage of people on TQ use t2 rigs and slaves. It's definatly not the norm.
I know, but peoples still use it, and there is not excuses to not use it on Sisi.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
cucac
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 11:35:00 -
[1168]
The point between blasters and pulse is: If the fight is in 20 km range , pulse win because blasters can't even touch other ship, which is fine, it is around pulses optimal not blasters and the fight can go for pulses without scratch. But the problem is that when the fight gets at under 10km, clearly blaster teritory, the fight can easily go both ways, thanks to +ehp of ammar, only slight reduction in dps of pulses and only slight dps advantage of blasters which should be extremly powerful because they operate at extremly close range, in which is hard to get, hard to stay, and harder to control transversal. So in my opinion blasters deserve at least a slightly bigger dps advantage in their domain (-10km ) than they have now.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 11:37:00 -
[1169]
The only time t2 rigs and hg implants were worth commenting on as test material from sissi was in the nano age when they were regularly used on TQ, and to claim that the data from t2 rigged and slaved navy megas is worth anything in regards to balancing BS for gang combat on TQ shows what a joke you and your idea of the reality of TQ eve has become.
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 12:04:00 -
[1170]
Ok, to try and get some of you to realize this.
First, we start with Lasers and Amarr BS'es. Lasers are know for doing EM and Thermal damage. That means they are doing the worst damages you can do ever in EVE against armor tanked / omni tanked ships.
That also means when Amarr BS'es meets other armor tanked ships / omni tanked ships, they will face a problem with their damage. So to compensate for the poor DPS you get from that, they have given Amarr BS'es alot more EHP.
Second. Now we goes to Blasters and Gallente BS'es. Blasters are doing Kinetic and Thermal damages. Witch means they have a better DPS potensial than Lasers on other armor tanked / omni tanked ship than Lasers get. And Blasters do more DPS in the 5-6 km range than lasers, projectiles and missiles do.
And because of the Blasters damage types, ships with an omni tank use to melt way faster than you melt to Lasers who are doing EM and Thermal damages. So what i see here, is a balance in the high DPS Blasters have and the high EHP Amarr BS'es have.
So those 2 things goes up nicely to each others. pretty bslanced to me.
Third. Now we are going to Projectiles. Projectiles can do all types of damages. And can change damage types in middle of a fight. That is actually an advantage Projectiles have. But then Projectiles doesn't do very high DPS though, but still, they can change to any damage types. Ythen there have to be something that makes up for the low DPS on Projectiles.
Yes, Minmatar BS'es that use an armor tank gets 20% better EM resists on armor than any other armor tanked BS do. So that also makes up for the good range lasers have and alsl makes up for the fact that Amarr BS'es can shoot us long time before we can shoot them. So the EM resists here helps alot on that.
And on the Minmatar BS'es you can fit neuts. Like on a Tempest. And neuts is the worst nightmare a cap hungry ship can meet tbh.
So the neuts and some EW on the Minmatar BS'es makes up for the low DPS Projectiles have.
Fourth. Missiles and Caldari BS'es that use missiles. Missiles or Torp Launchers can also use any damage types and do some great DPS. But then, Caldari BS'es are shield tankers. And shield tanks are much weaker to EM and Thermal damage than armor tanks are.
So Amarr BS'es have a good advantage here. That they are doing EM and Thermal damage. But Caldari BS'es also have an advantage that makes up for that, yes they can use any damage types and they can fit dual Heavy Neuts like we can on Minmatar BS'es.
Again, neuts or EW like Tracking Disruptor or ECM is the worst thing Amarr and gallente ships can meet.
So by this, i see the whole picture here of all of the weapon systems and the advantages and disadvantages they have.
So i see that every weapon systems are balanced to work good where another weapn system are working bad. And every BS have their advantages and disadvantages to like i have written over.
By this, i see the things on every ships that makes up for some advantages another ship have over one ship.
This is why i'm trying to tell you here that like it is now, things are pretty balanced. It's balanced in it's own ways where lasers are good, there is Blasters crap etc, and where Blasters is best, there is lasers not THAT good and so on.
I hope you get a picture of how this is working.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:05:00 -
[1171]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 12:05:22
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 11:44:00
Originally by: NightmareX
I know, but peoples still use it, and there is not excuses to not use it on Sisi.
There is a good reason NOT to use it if you want any data you give to be taken seriously for balancing on TQ.
So i should go after how many use t2 rigs anmd slaves on TQ rather than go after how many are using t2 rigs and slaves on sisi?. Yeah, your a smartypants.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:08:00 -
[1172]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 12:08:07 Ops, double post.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:24:00 -
[1173]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 12:31:58
Originally by: NightmareX
First, we start with Lasers and Amarr BS'es. Lasers are know for doing EM and Thermal damage. That means they are doing the worst damages you can do ever in EVE against armor tanked / omni tanked ships.
And the best against shield extender buffered tanks, but armour tanks are the most used in BS combat at the moment.
Originally by: NightmareX Second. Now we goes to Blasters and Gallente BS'es. Blasters are doing Kinetic and Thermal damages. Witch means they have a better DPS potensial than Lasers on other armor tanked / omni tanked ship than Lasers get. And Blasters do more DPS in the 5-6 km range than lasers, projectiles and missiles do.
Stupid comment cos if lasers are bad cos of dmg type against Armour plug/plate fits then obviously blasters are going to be better.
Originally by: NightmareX So those 2 things goes up nicely to each others. pretty balanced to me.
Fine...
But then by that comment you make that the dmg reduction lasers get is fully balanced by their ehp, you prove blasters need a boost as lasers also get 1000% more optimal than blasters that is balanced by nothing blasters get.
Quoting ship stats that everybody knows like a month old noob without applying them to real time and available TQ pvp is pointless.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:27:00 -
[1174]
Originally by: NightmareX
So i should go after how many that use t2 rigs and slaves on TQ rather than go after how many are using t2 rigs and slaves on sisi?. Yeah, your a smartypants. Hi5 dude, awesome way of thinking.
You are the one claiming that you have loads of buddies and you doo all this "testing" with them for the betterment of TQ eve...
So organizing and refitting t1 BS with t1 rigs and no HG slaves should hardly be a chore and at least the data you gather would be valid, after all they are only 100isk each......
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:30:00 -
[1175]
Originally by: NightmareX
This is why i'm trying to tell you here that like it is now, things are pretty balanced. It's balanced in it's own ways where lasers are good, there is Blasters crap etc, and where Blasters is best, there is lasers not THAT good and so on.
That is why you are wrong and you say it yourself above.
Where blasters are good lasers still do ok but where lasers are good blasters do nothing.....
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 12:35:00 -
[1176]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 12:35:44
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
So i should go after how many that use t2 rigs and slaves on TQ rather than go after how many are using t2 rigs and slaves on sisi?. Yeah, your a smartypants. Hi5 dude, awesome way of thinking.
You are the one claiming that you have loads of buddies and you doo all this "testing" with them for the betterment of TQ eve...
So organizing and refitting t1 BS with t1 rigs and no HG slaves should hardly be a chore and at least the data you gather would be valid, after all they are only 100isk each......
Would it be any different if me and my buddy fits t2 rigs and slaves?, no it doesn't, welp, the ship last 2 min longer than normal. Yes both of our ships last 2 mins longer. It's the end of the world.
It's not any different from letting one of us die 2 mins faster.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:45:00 -
[1177]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 12:48:18
Originally by: NightmareX
Would it be any different if me and my buddy fits t2 rigs and slaves?, no it doesn't, welp, the ship last 2 min longer than normal. Yes both of our ships last 2 mins longer. It's the end of the world.
It's not any different from letting one of us die 2 mins faster.
Yea i mean you being a real pro "tester" on sissi can obviously see how unimportant those two minutes are when you are comparing say a ship with low or no cap issues from firing its weapons VS a ship that is utterly cap dependent and uses up a bucket tonne if not all in two minutes let alone a EXTRA 2 minutes....oh yea your a real "PRO-TESTER".......
Try clueless noob sissi epeen warrior who needs a 100isk per module safety net... that name suits you better...
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 12:48:00 -
[1178]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 12:48:45
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Would it be any different if me and my buddy fits t2 rigs and slaves?, no it doesn't, welp, the ship last 2 min longer than normal. Yes both of our ships last 2 mins longer. It's the end of the world.
It's not any different from letting one of us die 2 mins faster.
Yea i mean you being a real pro "tester" on sissi can obviously see how unimportant those two minutes are when you are comparing say a ship with low or no cap issues from firing its weapons vs a ship that is utterly cap defendant and uses up a bucket ton if not all in two minutes let alone a EXTRA 2 minutes....oh yea your a real "PRO-TESTER".......
Try clueless noob sissi epeen warrior who needs a 100isk per module safety net... that name suits you better...
So i'm a noob sisi tester because most of us who are fighting on sisi agree to use almost the same implants (Slaves or Crystal) and rigs to test out different ships and setups?.
Yeah, cool man, awesome way of thinking.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
cucac
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:49:00 -
[1179]
Omni tank means same resists against all dmg ( at least similar ) so your "em/therm dmg is less effective against armor" point is not valid. All your points are not valid because you state them not on facts but on some foggy feelings wihtout proper calculations and from watching some blasterbs movies.
How can you answer on fact that while fight is in pulse range domain, blasters do absolutely nothing so they get totaly owned, and when the fight is in blaster range domain, fight could go ether way ? There is something wrong with that i think.
As was said, where blasters are home, pulse do OK, where pulse are home, blasters do nothing at all.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:51:00 -
[1180]
Originally by: NightmareX
So i'm a noob sisi epeen warrior who plays eve with a 100isk per ship/module safety net and has no clue about the reality of BS combat on TQ
YES.
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 12:52:00 -
[1181]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 12:53:40
Originally by: cucac As was said, where blasters are home, pulse do OK, where pulse are home, blasters do nothing at all.
And it's supposed to be like that.
Then i can say. Where lasers are good at doing DPS, at 20 km for example, then i'm good to wtfpwn your cap in my Tempest.
Oh noes, Amarr BS'es can't do that. or they can do that probably, but your screwing up your cap seriously if you fit a Heavy Neut on your Amarr BS.
Oh noes, my Tempest can do something very good where an Amarr BS sucks donkey to do that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:53:00 -
[1182]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
So i'm a noob sisi epeen warrior who plays eve with a 100isk per ship/module safety net and has no clue about the reality of BS combat on TQ
YES.
Can i get a hug from you?.
Nice way to edit others post to look uber pwnsause you self noob.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:53:00 -
[1183]
Originally by: cucac Omni tank means same resists against all dmg ( at least similar ) so your "em/therm dmg is less effective against armor" point is not valid. All your points are not valid because you state them not on facts but on some foggy feelings wihtout proper calculations and from watching some blasterbs movies.
How can you answer on fact that while fight is in pulse range domain, blasters do absolutely nothing so they get totaly owned, and when the fight is in blaster range domain, fight could go ether way ? There is something wrong with that i think.
As was said, where blasters are home, pulse do OK, where pulse are home, blasters do nothing at all.
Yay a winner...
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 12:54:00 -
[1184]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: cucac Omni tank means same resists against all dmg ( at least similar ) so your "em/therm dmg is less effective against armor" point is not valid. All your points are not valid because you state them not on facts but on some foggy feelings wihtout proper calculations and from watching some blasterbs movies.
How can you answer on fact that while fight is in pulse range domain, blasters do absolutely nothing so they get totaly owned, and when the fight is in blaster range domain, fight could go ether way ? There is something wrong with that i think.
As was said, where blasters are home, pulse do OK, where pulse are home, blasters do nothing at all.
Yay a loser...
Yes, finally he admitted it.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:56:00 -
[1185]
Originally by: NightmareX
Then i can say. Where lasers are good at doing DPS, at 20 km for example, then i'm good to wtfpwn your cap in my Tempest.
Wrong you are gonna get melted by his gang and so are the rest of your gang...
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 12:58:00 -
[1186]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 13:00:18
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Then i can say. Where lasers are good at doing DPS, at 20 km for example, then i'm good to wtfpwn your cap in my Tempest.
Wrong you are gonna get melted by his gang and so are the rest of your gang...
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Look, you said gang. Oh wait, not like i'm in a gang to fool.
The thing that an Amarr BS melt my Tempest is sooooooooooooooo wrong and those who say that are idiots.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 13:00:00 -
[1187]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Then i can say. Where lasers are good at doing DPS, at 20 km for example, then i'm good to wtfpwn your cap in my Tempest.
Wrong you are gonna get melted by his gang and so are the rest of your gang...
You forget im a t2 rigged, hg slaved epeen sissi 1 V 1 warrior and the reality of TQ combat bears no relation to anything i say
.....YUP...
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 13:01:00 -
[1188]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 13:04:22
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Then i can say. Where lasers are good at doing DPS, at 20 km for example, then i'm good to wtfpwn your cap in my Tempest.
Wrong you are gonna get melted by his gang and so are the rest of your gang...
You forget im a t2 rigged, hg slaved epeen sissi 1 V 1 warrior and the reality of TQ combat bears no relation to anything i say
.....YUP...
And you forget that the others i'm fighting there does have t2 rigs and Slaves or Crystal sets, so why should i not use it then when all others are using it?.
It's not like i'm going to get any better datas from my combats if i use T1 rigs and no Slaves and then goes up against lots of players with t2 rigs and Slaves / Crystal sets. That's even worser. You cannot even compare that.
Answer me that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 13:04:00 -
[1189]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 13:04:40
Originally by: NightmareX
And you forget that the others i'm fighting there does have that t2 rigs and Slaves or Crystal sets, so why should i not use it then?.
Answer me that.
POST 1111.
Also in your deluded ranting you ignore the fact that 1 v 1 is not a thing you see on TQ in the first place and we are discussing gang combat........you are so out of touch is laughable..
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 13:06:00 -
[1190]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 13:12:21
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
And you forget that the others i'm fighting there does have that t2 rigs and Slaves or Crystal sets, so why should i not use it then?.
Answer me that.
POST 1111.
Also in your deluded ranting you ignore the fact that 1 v 1 is not a thing you see on TQ in the first place and we are discussing gang combat.....
And what does the Slave sets and t2 rigs on sisi have to do with 1 vs 1 on TQ?. God your so stupid.
Learn to read. I said when EVERYBODY ELSE ON SISI is using t2 rigs and Slaves / Crystals on sisi, then why shouldn't i use it then whatever fighting i do on sisi?.
LOL, your reading experience is lower than a 5 years old kid.
And about you rant in post 1111!oneoneone111.
You to dumb to understand what i'm saying anyways, so is there no point to explain anything to you at all.
You only goes omgomgomgomgomgomgomgomgbooooohooooooooo, it's only sisi, so yadda yadda yadda, without even giving an explanation.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 13:13:00 -
[1191]
Originally by: NightmareX
And you forget that the others i'm fighting there does have t2 rigs and Slaves or Crystal sets, so why should i not use it then when all others are using it?.
It's not like i'm going to get any better datas from my combats if i use T1 rigs and no Slaves and then goes up against lots of players with t2 rigs and Slaves / Crystal sets. That's even worser. You cannot even compare that.
Answer me that.
Because then you dont get realistic data. All your testing is gone through the roof then, because it wont be the same what would happen on tq (in a realistic situation). You get it? All you testing is what would happen, when you in a hg slave clone and t2 rigged ship, meets another player, who has hg slaves and t2 rigs too. In a 1vs1 situation. If you can manage to get those fights on tq everytime, then it's fine for you, but it's not what the majority of eve players can do or want to do.
-- Zuba |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 13:13:00 -
[1192]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 13:14:13
Originally by: NightmareX
Learn to read. I said when EVERYBODY ELSE ON SISI is using t2 rigs and Slaves / Crystals, then why shouldn't i use it then whatever fighting i do?.
Learn to comprehend.
If your tests are to be applied to the reality of TQ combat you must fit the way most ppl do on TQ and fight in the same types of pvp.
And that is NOT 1 V 1 BS combat in a controlled area and it does NOT involve T2 rigs or HG SLAVES ect...
You experience, comprehension and posting maturity is that of a 5 day old noob....from wow
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 13:16:00 -
[1193]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 13:20:16
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
Learn to read. I said when EVERYBODY ELSE ON SISI is using t2 rigs and Slaves / Crystals, then why shouldn't i use it then whatever fighting i do?.
Learn to comprehend.
If your tests are to be applied to the reality of TQ combat you must fit the way most ppl do on TQ and fight in the same types of pvp.
And that is NOT 1 V 1 BS combat in a controlled area and it does NOT involve T2 rigs or HG SLAVES ect...
You experience is that of a 5 day old noob.
Good God, you must be the stupiest player i have have seen here in EVE.
WHAT THE HELL DOES T2 RIGS AND SLAVES DO OTHER THAN MAKE YOUR COMBAT LAST LONGER?.
It's not a damn difference. It's like saying, awww baawwww, everybody fits a t1 Gyrostab on TQ, but on sisi we can use a t2 Gyrostab. What does that do, yes it only makes both of us to do some more damage over the t1 Gyrostab.
Doesn't make a difference at all in the real combat for us except that we do more damage to each others, and dies a little faster.
The combat experience will still be the exact same.
That was one example.
Get it?, or are you still to dumb to understand what a noob will understand after 1 day in EVE?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 13:19:00 -
[1194]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 13:21:51
Originally by: NightmareX
WHAT THE HELL DOES T2 RIGS AND SLAVES DO OTHER THAN MAKE YOUR COMBAT LAST LONGER?.
TELL THAT TO THE HIGH CAP DEPENDENT RACES YOU CLUELESS SISSI WARRIOR NOOB.
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 13:22:00 -
[1195]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 13:25:10
Originally by: NightmareX
WHAT THE HELL DOES T2 RIGS AND SLAVES DO OTHER THAN MAKE YOUR COMBAT LAST LONGER?.
TELL THAT TO THE HIGH CAP DEPENDENT RACES YOU CLUELESS SISSI WARRIOR NOOB.
Oh noes, they have high cap or use much cap, like that's gonna make a big difference.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 13:28:00 -
[1196]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 13:33:15
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
WHAT THE HELL DOES T2 RIGS AND SLAVES DO OTHER THAN MAKE YOUR COMBAT LAST LONGER?.
TELL THAT TO THE HIGH CAP DEPENDENT RACES YOU CLUELESS SISSI WARRIOR NOOB.
Oh noes, they have high cap, like that's gonna make a big difference.
High cap usage and gun cap dependency..
2+ mins added onto a fight for a ship that has high cap dependency is a eternity.
If you had even the slightest clue you would understand that.
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 13:36:00 -
[1197]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 13:33:15
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
WHAT THE HELL DOES T2 RIGS AND SLAVES DO OTHER THAN MAKE YOUR COMBAT LAST LONGER?.
TELL THAT TO THE HIGH CAP DEPENDENT RACES YOU CLUELESS SISSI WARRIOR NOOB.
Oh noes, they have high cap, like that's gonna make a big difference.
High cap usage and gun cap dependency..
2+ mins added onto a fight for a ship that has high cap dependency is a eternity.
If you had even the slightest clue you would understand that.
Ships that have those cap problams should fit some cap implants and one cap rig. And using a cap implant and fitting a t2 cap rig, is going to make that up.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 13:39:00 -
[1198]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 13:44:05 Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 13:43:36
Originally by: NightmareX
Ships that have those cap problems should fit some cap implants and one cap rig. And using a cap implant and fitting a t2 cap rig, is going to make that up.
So a unrealistic fit that reduces ehp ect just to face another unrealistic fit and neither bear any resemblance to TQ fits....
And you go even further from reality of BS combat on TQ....
Originally by: NightmareX
Are we gonna go more on topic so we don't get more warnings for going off topic, or are we still gonna go this way we are going now where you will get no where?.
Il tell you what you stop posting silly sissi dream fits that do not exist on TQ in active regular combat and il stop pointing out that your results are worthless...
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 13:42:00 -
[1199]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 13:39:48
Originally by: NightmareX
Ships that have those cap problems should fit some cap implants and one cap rig. And using a cap implant and fitting a t2 cap rig, is going to make that up.
So a unrealistic fit that reduces ehp ect just to face another unrealistic fit and neither bear any resemblance to TQ fits....
And you go even further from reality of BS combat on TQ....
Do you eve log into TQ to do anything other than swap skill training?...
So you rather have cap problems instead of having a little lower EHP and then a way more stable cap?.
Yeah, that's a smart way to go.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 13:44:00 -
[1200]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 13:45:30
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Il tell you what you stop posting silly sissi dream fits that do not exist on TQ in active regular combat and il stop pointing out that your results are worthless...
And i will stop posting about sisi when you can stop taking my replies off topic everytime i try to go on topic and when you can stop editing my replies so you look ubercool your self.
Deal?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 13:45:00 -
[1201]
/IGNORE SISSI WARRIOR UNTIL HE POSTS VALID DATA THAT APPLIES TO ACTUAL COMBAT AND REAL TIME REGULAR FITTINGS ON TQ.
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 13:48:00 -
[1202]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 13:54:25
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
/IGNORE SISSI WARRIOR UNTIL HE POSTS VALID DATA THAT APPLIES TO ACTUAL COMBAT AND REAL TIME REGULAR FITTINGS ON TQ.
And i will ignore you until you realize that your not right about anything here. Because when you read this here and then see that this is how combat in eve are today when it's about the different ships and weapon systems.
When you see the whole picture there, then i'm gonna talk with you again.
All you was replying in that link to my post there is that you are only right yadda yadda yadda and totally i'm wrong. But no, i'm the right one there, simply because i gave a full explanation of how every weapon systems works and how the different ships works to in EVE. And you just ignore it and think EVE is like you think it is in your noob dream world.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:02:00 -
[1203]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 14:03:35
Originally by: NightmareX
But no, i'm the right one there, simply because i gave a full explanation of how every weapon systems works in EVE.
Full explanation???...
/nightmareX...missed/ignored
Insta reload and its effect in actual TQ BS combat Capless systems and its effect in actual TQ BS combat Cap dependent systems and its effect in actual TQ BS combat Effects of webs and overheat and its effect in actual TQ BS combat Relative speeds and its effect in actual TQ BS combat Available range and its effect in actual TQ BS combat
ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ECT ECT ECT...
And he fact that gang combat is what BS do on TQ not 1 v 1
You gave nothing but a very very basic overview of the systems that any noob could read on the beginners part of the forum, you applied them to nothing and missed out so much its a joke.
Originally by: NightmareX Before you get on topic, i'm totally ignoring you. You not adding anything worth reading to this topic anyways. So not really worth to use energy to reply to you anyways.
YAAAAAAY...-1 TROLL.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:03:00 -
[1204]
collected some gems:
tachs amarr amarr maralt? hint didn't take? let's all go play WoW look, it makes epic lies with a straight face truth about tach apoc vs mega rail (10 raw dps) the graph spam begins, trying to spin that amarr is overpowered/outdamage blasters and ac at 0-20km em hardener em highest natural armor resist on omni fits
(and we're not even past page 5 yet..)
a gem later on - murina fail fits doesn't even make amarr OP
things to know: murina = sophisticatedlimabean/maralt.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:05:00 -
[1205]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX [
But no, i'm the right one there, simply because i gave a full explanation of how every weapon systems works in EVE.
Full explanation???...
/nightmareX...missed/ignored
Insta reload and its effect in actual TQ BS combat Capless systems and its effect in actual TQ BS combat Cap dependent systems and its effect in actual TQ BS combat Effects of webs and overheat and its effect in actual TQ BS combat Relative speeds and its effect in actual TQ BS combat Available range and its effect in actual TQ BS combat
ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ECT ECT ECT...
And he fact that gang combat is what BS do on TQ not 1 v 1
You gave nothing but a very very basic overview of the systems that any noob could read on the beginners part of the forum, you applied them to nothing and missed out so much its a joke.
Your still ignored by me, because your to dumb to understand anything.
BTW, you was lying, because you didn't ignore me.
I'm not gonna talk about anything when it's about combat in EVE with you before you realize the basic things in the link i posted..
Just remember, i'm still ignoring you until you see the whole picture in that link, and before you get fully back on topic.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:12:00 -
[1206]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 14:12:12
Originally by: 7shining7one7 SOME REAL PRO QUOTING/TROLLING
1 down 1 to go.
I cannot believe you spent all that time trolling though god knows how many pages of posts just to get those few quotes....
Did i pop your main or summat..
PS: you seem to be obsessed about me posting with my cyno alt so how about you grow a pair and tell us who your main is ......
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 14:12:00 -
[1207]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 14:15:47
Originally by: 7shining7one7 collected some gems:
tachs amarr amarr maralt? hint didn't take? let's all go play WoW look, it makes epic lies with a straight face truth about tach apoc vs mega rail (10 raw dps) the graph spam begins, trying to spin that amarr is overpowered/outdamage blasters and ac at 0-20km em hardener em highest natural armor resist on omni fits
(and we're not even past page 5 yet..)
a gem later on - murina fail fits doesn't even make amarr OP
things to know: murina = sophisticatedlimabean/maralt.
This^^
Hahah, those links are pure comedy gold. It's funny to see that sophisticatedlimabean / Murina get's smacked to death there because he is soooooo wrong abut everything there.
And i know he will come back and defend him self by saying naaaaaah, i'm not wrong at all, because you know...... i'm right, yeah, i'm more right than you about everything, because i know it. Yup yup.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:16:00 -
[1208]
Originally by: NightmareX ad hom
....
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 14:39:00 -
[1209]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 14:42:20
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 14:38:20
Originally by: NightmareX Everything there is true
Oooo look a few ppl disagreeing with me how odd for ppl to have differing opinions on a eve forum........
A few?. LOL that made my day. Thanks for that one.
Was that all you could defend your self with from those links that got posted?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:42:00 -
[1210]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
You have to boost Aks, if you boost Blasters. Both weapon Systems are suposed to play in the same scenario with diffrent advantages\drawbacks
And if you boost AC's you'd have to boost lasers and....
Since Lasers are intendet to work in exactly the same situations equaly well than Blasters and Aks? ATM you get the Optimal Range Range(that very fast shifts in a Trackingboost instead of a Trackingproblem since you donŠt suffer Hit chance Penaltys like the Weapons with less Optimal and more Falloff this quick) and DPS for having the weaker Damagetypes vs Omnitanks(what is in 9/10 Cases offsted by a EHP advantage in the beginning). In Situations you run into a Neut Ships you would be equally well out of firepower in a Blastership nearly at the same time(in you are in a Active Tanked even fare quicker).
Do you even realize if both working equaly well(in this situation), one is allready broken?
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
With the 60% Web, Missle changes, speed changes, overall Tank\Gank vs Speed\Doge changes we at a point where a serious ballance between solo/small Gang and big Gang things is needet.
Every time you say this and ignore that all of these changes have advantaged blaster ships.
Not again this stupid discussion, I explaind this to you multipe times why the advantages you see arnŠt advantages on TQ, while you repeeting this line again and again without starting a real discussion. You still down the reply on the oppertunity cost.
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
Gallente/Minmatar speced Players do this for a reason and there should be return in there PVP style that enalbes them to overcome more gang based ships in her limited habit of solo/small scale PVP.
1. They easily can overcome ships that have a gang orientation. 2. If you're saying they need to overcome "more" gang based ships as in "more in number" then no, they don't. Because that would hilariously break the game.
1. Ofc they do and there arnŠt any Threads about Rockets, Hams, Aks or Blasters on the Froums. When did you read the last Blasters\AKs\Rockets\Hams\Torps are op Topic, because they serious outperforme other Weapons in her intendet role?
2. No I donŠt actualy mean this. Even if It would be hilariously broken in your Opinion I would call it hilariously funny, would be kind of a cure to the bing a bigger Blob sydrome and create situations where it wouldnŠt be just stupid to warp in close range Gank Ships into a sniper Blob(asuming there is no lag in eve ofc) instead of bringing your own Sniper Blob or stuff like this. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:42:00 -
[1211]
Holy hell, I come back from a week for Cuba, and the thread has an extra 20 pages
*Starts reading*
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:43:00 -
[1212]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 14:44:09
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 14:38:20
Originally by: NightmareX ad hom
Oooo look a few ppl disagreeing with me how odd for ppl to have differing opinions on a eve forum........
dude.. i could pull out like 500 examples of this if i went through the entire threadnought.. those were just A FEW SNAPSHOTS of some hilarity from the first 5 pages.. by that time there had allready been several ppl calling you troll..
so please just shut your mouth.. djego made some nice points earlier and all you seem to do is post drivel.. and at the rate you're spawning threadnoughts i reckon you don't have much better to do.. shouldn't you be at a gate camp or something?
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:46:00 -
[1213]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 14:44:09
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 14:38:20
Originally by: NightmareX ad hom
Oooo look a few ppl disagreeing with me how odd for ppl to have differing opinions on a eve forum........
dude.. i could pull out like 500 examples of this if i went through the entire threadnought.. those were just A FEW SNAPSHOTS of some hilarity from the first 5 pages.. by that time there had allready been several ppl calling you troll..
so please just shut your mouth.. djego made some nice points earlier and all you seem to do is post drivel.. and at the rate you're spawning threadnoughts i reckon you don't have much better to do.. shouldn't you be at a gate camp or something?
Yup he's ignoring The Djego, me and you. No wonder why this topic is so long now when he doesn't want to listen.
Yes, The Djego made some good points and still had some bad points.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:52:00 -
[1214]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 14:55:53 Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 14:54:52
Originally by: 7shining7one7 off topic ad hom
Originally by: NightmareX
Was that all you could defend your self with from those links that got posted?.
I have no need to defend myself as i back up most of the things i say.
Still the crown jewel was missed in my opinion...
You remember the projectiles have "holes" in them in eve but lasers are a light beam and "fragment" when you approach them so like a kid with a microscope moving it towards a target, and as such they get reduced dmg....
nightmareX backed you on that as i recall...
laser beams in eve "fragment" when you approach them (POST 294)
projectiles have "holes" in them in eve and laser do not...(POST 300)
PRICLESS & CLUELESS
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 14:55:00 -
[1215]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 14:56:39
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7 off topic ad hom
Originally by: NightmareX
Was that all you could defend your self with from those links that got posted?.
I have no need to defend myself as i back up most of the things i say.
Still the crown jewel was missed in my opinion...
You remember the projectiles have "holes" in them in eve but lasers are a light beam and "fragment" when you approach them so like a kid with a microscope moving it towards a target, and as such they get reduced dmg....
nightmareX backed you on that as i recall...
laser beams in eve "fragment" when you approach them
projectiles have "holes" in them in eve and laser do not...
PRICLESS & CLUELESS
And the things you defend you back with is how combat is in EVE is?.
LOL what you defend you back with is disney land and your dream world dude.
Anyways, read THIS.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:57:00 -
[1216]
Originally by: NightmareX AD HOM TROLL
POST CONTENT OR BE GONE.
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 14:59:00 -
[1217]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX AD HOM TROLL
POST CONTENT OR BE GONE.
Oh noes, he couldn't defend back, so he had to make an emo rage post so he can try to look cool.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 14:59:00 -
[1218]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Holy hell, I come back from a week for Cuba, and the thread has an extra 20 pages
*Starts reading*
You only missed about 15 pages epic trolling from my lesser counterpart, NightmareX. Other than that, not much.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:01:00 -
[1219]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 15:02:36
Originally by: The Djego
Since Lasers are intendet to work in exactly the same situations equaly well than Blasters and Aks? ATM you get the Optimal Range Range(that very fast shifts in a Trackingboost instead of a Trackingproblem since you donŠt suffer Hit chance Penaltys like the Weapons with less Optimal and more Falloff this quick) and DPS for having the weaker Damagetypes vs Omnitanks(what is in 9/10 Cases offsted by a EHP advantage in the beginning). In Situations you run into a Neut Ships you would be equally well out of firepower in a Blastership nearly at the same time(in you are in a Active Tanked even fare quicker).
Exactly lasers have the the strengths of blasters and the dmg they lack they make up for with EHP, but none of the weaknesses like range.
WE both agree on this and so does nightmareX when you say it but when i do he does not, i suppose bending him over about his sissi stats upset him...
Originally by: The Djego Do you even realize if both working equaly well(in this situation), one is allready broken?
That is why blasters need a fix.
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 15:01:00 -
[1220]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 15:04:44
Originally by: TrollmoreX
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Holy hell, I come back from a week for Cuba, and the thread has an extra 20 pages
*Starts reading*
You only missed about 15 pages epic trolling from my lesser counterpart, NightmareX. Other than that, not much.
I'm trolling?. Oh crap, you only mised the 37 pages with troll from another person here.
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean That is why blasters need a fix.
And if Blasters need a fix, then Projectiles need a fix, and when Projectiles need a fix, then Missiles needs a fix to.
And i can guarantee you by doing that, something might get really overpowered again, and then we are all over it again, boost boost boost boost or nerf nerf nerf whine topic all over the eve forum again.
Whatever you boost or nerf today, something might get overpowered or underpowered by that anyways.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:03:00 -
[1221]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 15:05:13
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
aha.. you can find 1 example where i try to tell you that you don't hit everything with scorch at below 45km mostly due to tracking.
the other example you give a false label and it says no such thing.
and i can find 500+ examples of you outright lying and misrepresenting sjit and being called a troll.. in the same thread
i think this says it best what you are.
and what's even worse.. when someone makes points you can't refute then you start calling them troll.. happened to me and atleast 10 others in that thread.. and it's easy to find.. come to think of it there's even 1 in one of the few examples i posted from the 5 first pages..
you're a stupid ass troll that want amarr nerfed, and you want to start threadnoughts filled with gibberish but with high post counts hoping that ccp will then believe it is relevant.. that's why you don't want to solve anything but just want to keep idiotic discussions going based on stupid ass claims..
|
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:04:00 -
[1222]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: TrollmoreX
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Holy hell, I come back from a week for Cuba, and the thread has an extra 20 pages
*Starts reading*
You only missed about 15 pages epic trolling from my lesser counterpart, NightmareX. Other than that, not much.
I'm trolling?. Oh crap, you only mised the 37 pages with troll from another person here.
Yeah, your alt.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:05:00 -
[1223]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
aha.. you can find 1 example where i try to tell you that you don't hit everything with scorch at below 45km mostly due to tracking.
For somebody who is commenting in lying and posting links you should really be more careful with the utter lies you post...link quote incoming..
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 15:06:00 -
[1224]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 15:11:03
Originally by: TrollmoreX
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: TrollmoreX
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Holy hell, I come back from a week for Cuba, and the thread has an extra 20 pages
*Starts reading*
You only missed about 15 pages epic trolling from my lesser counterpart, NightmareX. Other than that, not much.
I'm trolling?. Oh crap, you only mised the 37 pages with troll from another person here.
Yeah, your alt.
Count how many replies my alt Fatality Killer have in this topic. That's my alt. Oh wow, 4-5 replies, bawww, that's 37 pages with replies.
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7
aha.. you can find 1 example where i try to tell you that you don't hit everything with scorch at below 45km mostly due to tracking.
For somebody who is commenting in lying and posting links you should really be more careful with the utter lies you post...link quote incoming..
Bwhahahah, you don't know what to say about those links, because those links shows exactly the thing about you. Aka lying troll.
Care to defend your self on why your right in those links?. I bet you can't.
Don't you get it sophisticatedlimabean that those links that was posted about you only shows one thing?. No you don't get it, but i do.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:07:00 -
[1225]
Originally by: TrollmoreX
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: TrollmoreX
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Holy hell, I come back from a week for Cuba, and the thread has an extra 20 pages
*Starts reading*
You only missed about 15 pages epic trolling from my lesser counterpart, NightmareX. Other than that, not much.
I'm trolling?. Oh crap, you only mised the 37 pages with troll from another person here.
Yeah, your alt.
no, one of your mains. (busted)
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:10:00 -
[1226]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 15:11:40 THE CROWN JEWEL
Originally by: 7shining7one7 only lateral movement affect guns.. but lasers don't fire projectiles.. they fire a beam.. there's no holes in the beam.. thus it's instant and focused.. it's light.. and when they get closer to the optimal of the crystals optimal focus point for the laser beam.. then the effect diminishes and it gets less dps..
also the laser is less focused than it is at the optimal.. look at it like a magnifying glass.. when the glass is significantly far away it focuses the light and it burns the newspaper or whatever you used as a kid, when you put the magnifying glass too close.. the focus fades and the beam diminishes..
same thing going on in the ingame physics..
You heard it here first folks lasers are real in eve and projectiles have holes in them...
PRICLESS..
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:11:00 -
[1227]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
Originally by: TrollmoreX
Originally by: NightmareX
You only missed about 15 pages epic trolling from my lesser counterpart, NightmareX. Other than that, not much.
I'm trolling?. Oh crap, you only mised the 37 pages with troll from another person here.
Yeah, your alt.
no, one of your mains. (busted)
Confirming that i am NightmareX's main.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:13:00 -
[1228]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 15:13:56 Bah, nvm.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:14:00 -
[1229]
Edited by: TrollmoreX on 01/03/2009 15:16:08
Confirming all troll/hatemail goes to NightmareX
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:20:00 -
[1230]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 15:24:36 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 15:22:25
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 15:11:40 THE CROWN JEWEL
Originally by: 7shining7one7 only lateral movement affect guns.. but lasers don't fire projectiles.. they fire a beam.. there's no holes in the beam.. thus it's instant and focused.. it's light.. and when they get closer to the optimal of the crystals optimal focus point for the laser beam.. then the effect diminishes and it gets less dps..
also the laser is less focused than it is at the optimal.. look at it like a magnifying glass.. when the glass is significantly far away it focuses the light and it burns the newspaper or whatever you used as a kid, when you put the magnifying glass too close.. the focus fades and the beam diminishes..
same thing going on in the ingame physics..
You heard it here first folks lasers are real in eve and projectiles have holes in them...
PRICLESS..
dude projectiles path DOES have hole in them.. projectiles are not a beam.. because they are a a projectile therefore they don't take up a full line from a to b.. a laser is a constant beam from the moment it fires till it stops..
and that post was posted much after when i initially said that you don't just hit everything with scorch below 45km mostly due to tracking.. which is what you kept trying to insinuate that you didn't need any other crystal between 15 or 45km.. and that multifreq and scorch was all you needed..
now.. you got 1 example of me getting some theorycraft somewhat in accurate in order to explain why lasers behave the way they do.. and i got in the same thread.. 600 examples of you either being called a troll or deliberately lying about actualities in the game in order to try to make amarr look overpowered..
and the only "defence" you can muster is to call me a lying troll.. which i can quote you do to atleast 10 other ppl in the other thread whenever they started to state things you couldn't refute.
|
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:23:00 -
[1231]
Originally by: NightmareX
sophisticatedlimabean, you should really stop taking others posts out of topic. If i see you reply to one that comes with somethng that have with this topic to do and then you goes emo rage and takes that reply out of topic one more single time. I'm going to report you for getting everyone here to go off topic.
I will do the exact same to you including reporting for foul language that you use a lot despite the language filter along with the ad hom insults you use as well as emorage posting.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:26:00 -
[1232]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 15:26:41
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
sophisticatedlimabean, you should really stop taking others posts out of topic. If i see you reply to one that comes with somethng that have with this topic to do and then you goes emo rage and takes that reply out of topic one more single time. I'm going to report you for getting everyone here to go off topic.
I will do the exact same to you including reporting for foul language that you use a lot despite the language filter along with the ad hom insults you use as well as emorage posting.
and here he goes again.. how many ad hominems do you want from the other thread from your mouth? not just towards me and nightmare but many others too.. i can give you hundreds.. you got nothing whatsoever to back you except hoping ppl will do TL;DR and believe your short summaries..
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:26:00 -
[1233]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
sophisticatedlimabean, you should really stop taking others posts out of topic. If i see you reply to one that comes with somethng that have with this topic to do and then you goes emo rage and takes that reply out of topic one more single time. I'm going to report you for getting everyone here to go off topic.
I will do the exact same to you including reporting for foul language that you use a lot despite the language filter along with the ad hom insults you use as well as emorage posting.
Uhm, your the one that use fould language here.
Ok, lets test this. I will now report you for lying to me, and then see whos the one that gets the ban.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:29:00 -
[1234]
Originally by: 7shining7one7
dude projectiles path DOES have hole in them.. projectiles are not a beam.. because they are a a projectile therefore they don't take up a full line from a to b.. a laser is a constant beam from the moment it fires till it stops..
Utterly and totally WRONG yet again.
The mechanics of gunnery systems in eve are math based inside you PC and as such are exactly the same per system as a math based mechanic.
Projectiles do not have holes in them as you are not actually firing anything in eve you are activating a mathematical calculation with a visual effect, the same with beams they are also based on the exact same math but are given a different visual effect on your screen and the calculation includes different dmg types ect.
How can you not comprehend?.
.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:30:00 -
[1235]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 15:36:05 Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 15:32:11
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 15:27:07
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
sophisticatedlimabean, you should really stop taking others posts out of topic. If i see you reply to one that comes with somethng that have with this topic to do and then you goes emo rage and takes that reply out of topic one more single time. I'm going to report you for getting everyone here to go off topic.
I will do the exact same to you including reporting for foul language that you use a lot despite the language filter along with the ad hom insults you use as well as emorage posting.
Uhm, your the one that use fould language here.
I will now report you for lying to me, and then see whos the one that gets the ban.
I suggest you include a link to it...
(i think il start with post 1096 + 1042)...and done....i guess i was not lying..
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 15:35:00 -
[1236]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 15:38:21 The post has been reported.
Return to forum
Now enjoy that sophisticatedlimabean.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:36:00 -
[1237]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 15:45:54
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: 7shining7one7
dude projectiles path DOES have hole in them.. projectiles are not a beam.. because they are a a projectile therefore they don't take up a full line from a to b.. a laser is a constant beam from the moment it fires till it stops..
Utterly and totally WRONG yet again.
The mechanics of gunnery systems in eve are math based inside you PC and as such are exactly the same per system as a math based mechanic.
Projectiles do not have holes in them as you are not actually firing anything in eve you are activating a mathematical calculation with a visual effect, the same with beams they are also based on the exact same math but are given a different visual effect on your screen and the calculation includes different dmg types ect.
How can you not comprehend?.
i was saying with those posts you took out of context how each weapon system worked so that you understood what the basic principle was behind them being different and having different strengths and weakness and how scorch did NOT hit everything from 0 to 45km.. (as in why projectiles work more in fall off and why lasers work mostly within optimal and sucky in falloff)
and then i make one theorycraft mistake by saying that lasers loose damage when they get close due to it being too far below their optimal.. and partly because of tracking.. when it was primarly because of tracking.. AND THATS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN PIN ME ON.. in a 28+ threadnought.. and i can easily find like 600 examples in the same thread of you directly trolling, misrepresenting, making silly scenarios, and outright lying about things.. and being called a troll by other people..
1:600 ratio.. you loose..
oh wow it's a online game.. REALLY.. i never realized that you f'ing clown.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:37:00 -
[1238]
i think il start with post 1096 + 1042...and done....i guess i was not lying about you foul launguage.....
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 15:39:00 -
[1239]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 15:40:41
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean i think il start with post 1096 + 1042...and done....i guess i was not lying about you foul launguage.....
I did not report you for using foul language, i was reporting you for lying and taking others reply that are on topic out of topic. And for acusing me for something i have never said.
Oh noes, some foul language. It's not like i'm a 6 years old kid that starts crying for hearing a little nasty word.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:40:00 -
[1240]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 15:40:42
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean i think il start with post 1096 + 1042...and done....i guess i was not lying about you foul launguage.....
dude.. pot meet kettle.. the other threadnought speaks volumes.. nearly all your replies were basically condescending.. if you're wondering why we're being an ass towards you take a look in the mirror..
FURTHERMORE.. you tried to report me in the other thread like 20 times.. everytime i said something you couldn't refute you called me troll.. but nothing happened.. i wonder why.. maybe it could be because you're full of it..
|
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:51:00 -
[1241]
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:53:00 -
[1242]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 15:53:46 Anyway...
As has been pointed out by myself, djego and many others blasters have weaknesses that lasers do not have and the only real weakness lasers have is compensated by the ehp the ships using them get.
The problem is even more pronounced when in reference the most common form of BS combat in eve GANG COMBAT.
This idea is a good one to improve the effectiveness of blasters and has been given support by many from both races:
http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=22955&start=45
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:53:00 -
[1243]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 15:40:42
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean i think il start with post 1096 + 1042...and done....i guess i was not lying about you foul launguage.....
dude.. pot meet kettle.. the other threadnought speaks volumes.. nearly all your replies were basically condescending.. if you're wondering why we're being an ass towards you take a look in the mirror..
FURTHERMORE.. you tried to report me in the other thread like 20 times.. everytime i said something you couldn't refute you called me troll.. but nothing happened.. i wonder why.. maybe it could be because you're full of it..
In before the next 'OMG ItS OBVIOUS YOUR SUCK AND ARE A TROLL ' reply by my lesser counterpart
Ps NightmareX ill troll the forums for ya while your enjoying your 30-90 days off.
|
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:54:00 -
[1244]
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 15:40:42
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean i think il start with post 1096 + 1042...and done....i guess i was not lying about you foul launguage.....
dude.. pot meet kettle.. the other threadnought speaks volumes.. nearly all your replies were basically condescending.. if you're wondering why we're being an ass towards you take a look in the mirror..
FURTHERMORE.. you tried to report me in the other thread like 20 times.. everytime i said something you couldn't refute you called me troll.. but nothing happened.. i wonder why.. maybe it could be because you're full of it..
Dont forget to report his alt as well, the name of is is said on the last page iirc.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:55:00 -
[1245]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 15:53:46 Anyway...
As has been pointed out by myself, djego and many others blasters have weaknesses that lasers do not have and the only real weakness lasers have is compensated by the ehp the ships using them get.
The problem is even more pronounced when in reference the most common form of BS combat in eve GANG COMBAT.
This idea is a good one to improve the effectiveness of blasters and has been given support by many from both races:
http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=22955&start=45
To be really honest with you now. If there really is a weapon that REALLY need to be boosted, then it's the Projectiles.
I think we all can agree on that.
Boost Projectiles before you touch Blasters, if that's needed.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:57:00 -
[1246]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 15:53:46 Anyway...
As has been pointed out by myself, djego and many others blasters have weaknesses that lasers do not have and the only real weakness lasers have is compensated by the ehp the ships using them get.
The problem is even more pronounced when in reference the most common form of BS combat in eve GANG COMBAT.
This idea is a good one to improve the effectiveness of blasters and has been given support by many from both races:
http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=22955&start=45
To be really honest with you now. If there really is a weapon that REALLY need to be boosted, then it's the Projectiles.
I think we all can agree on that.
Boost Projectiles before you touch Blasters, if that's needed.
Want me to quote some of the thousand replies by you that 'AC's are totally fine and that your a noob and you obviously suck if you think otherwise'?
You really like to own yourself huh?
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:58:00 -
[1247]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 15:57:49
Originally by: TrollmoreX Want me to quote some of the thousand replies by you that 'AC's are totally fine and that your a noob and you obviously suck if you think otherwise'?
You really like to own yourself huh?
I really recommend you to read my reply again.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
TrollmoreX
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:59:00 -
[1248]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 15:57:49
Originally by: TrollmoreX Want me to quote some of the thousand replies by you that 'AC's are totally fine and that your a noob and you obviously suck if you think otherwise'?
You really like to own yourself huh?
I really recommend you to read my reply again.
Nothing is going to save your skin now, brother.
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:59:00 -
[1249]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 16:00:28
Originally by: TrollmoreX
Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 01/03/2009 15:40:42
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean i think il start with post 1096 + 1042...and done....i guess i was not lying about you foul launguage.....
dude.. pot meet kettle.. the other threadnought speaks volumes.. nearly all your replies were basically condescending.. if you're wondering why we're being an ass towards you take a look in the mirror..
FURTHERMORE.. you tried to report me in the other thread like 20 times.. everytime i said something you couldn't refute you called me troll.. but nothing happened.. i wonder why.. maybe it could be because you're full of it..
Dont forget to report his alt as well, the name of is is said on the last page iirc.
i never reported you once dude.. that's the funny part..
oh alts.. you mean trollmoreX/trader20/maralt/sophisticatedlimabean/murina/cucac... yeah i think that was all of em
QUICK.. to the biomass mobile!
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:01:00 -
[1250]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 16:02:37
Originally by: TrollmoreX
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 15:57:49
Originally by: TrollmoreX Want me to quote some of the thousand replies by you that 'AC's are totally fine and that your a noob and you obviously suck if you think otherwise'?
You really like to own yourself huh?
I really recommend you to read my reply again.
Nothing is going to save your skin now, brother.
Save my skin?. Well i was honest enough to say that Artilleries need a Boost long way before Blasters need a boost.
The thing about boosting Artilleries have gone for years. It have been going since the first HP buff to all ships.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:01:00 -
[1251]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Anyway...
As has been pointed out by myself, djego and many others blasters have weaknesses that lasers do not have and the only real weakness lasers have is compensated by the ehp the ships using them get.
The problem is even more pronounced when in reference the most common form of BS combat in eve GANG COMBAT.
This idea is a good one to improve the effectiveness of blasters and has been given support by many from both races:
http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=22955&start=45
To be really honest with you now. If there really is a weapon that REALLY need to be boosted, then it's the Projectiles.
I think we all can agree on that.
Boost Projectiles before you touch Blasters, if that's needed.
But as i see it now today, it's not needed to boost either Blasters os Projectiles.
Whan i talk about boosting projectiles, then i'm talking about the Atrilleries. Not Autocannons. The Autocannons are fine as they are now.
Il allow that comment to go unreported even though it was off topic for a fix blasters thread...
And il agree that arties are the suckiest gunnery system in eve and do need a boost, even if this is not the thread for it and nor does it justify delaying a fix to blasters.
Id even support it and argue just as tenaciously if a fix arties thread was started.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:04:00 -
[1252]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Il allow that comment to go unreported even though it was off topic for a fix blasters thread...
Quoted for extreme irony!
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:04:00 -
[1253]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Il allow that comment to go unreported even though it was off topic for a fix blasters thread...
And il agree that arties are the suckiest gunnery system in eve and do need a boost, even if this is not the thread for it and nor does it justify delaying a fix to blasters.
Id even support it and argue just as tenaciously if a fix arties thread was started.
I just pointed out that there is another weapon system that have 4789375 times more priority to get boosted long way before Blasters do.
Nothing wrong by saying that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:06:00 -
[1254]
Originally by: cucac Omni tank means same resists against all dmg ( at least similar ) so your "em/therm dmg is less effective against armor" point is not valid.
No, it does not. "Omni tank" means fitting omni resist modules such as invulnerability fields, Energized Adaptive Nano Membranes, and Damage Controls.
The practice you are referring to is called "tri-hardening" which is putting three specific hardeners on in order to have even resists. It is, in all ways, a foolish proposition.
The way we can determine this by looking at how strong tanks are when using the same number of slots. If you use three specific hardeners and a DC or you use 2 eanms, a DC, and a plate, you will nearly universally come out ahead in universal EHP with the 2 eanms, dc, and a plate. When you run the numbers on a battleship, you will find that you end up trading roughly 5k EHP kinetic, thermal, and explosive, for roughly 50k(or more) EHP EM. If you assume that all damage types are roughly equal in distribution (which is almost true), then you're trading 15k EHP for 50k EHP.
Such, unless you know what you're facing, its in all ways a bad idea to use specific hardeners(unless you've got a massive repping tank on a capital ship). If you want, you can run the payoff matrix yourself and see how bad an idea it is.
Originally by: Ephemeron Nerfing is a bad thing
No, its not. In the end, people will play your game if its fun, and nerfing, in some situations, is the easiest and best way to make the game fun.
This occurs when only one thing is out of line and that thing is better than the others. When one thing is out of line and its worse than the others, you buff. When its more than one thing, you choose whichever is closer.
Quote: emphasize their strengths and weakness, make them more distinct from other short range weapons
It is quite ironic that you are posting this in a thread where everyone else wants to extend the range of blasters to make them better in a gang, to make them less distinct weapons.
Aside: What do you think of the signature radius of the Hyperion.
Originally by: The Djego
Since Lasers are intendet to work in exactly the same situations equaly well than Blasters and Aks?
No, it was a comment relating to their general strengths and weaknesses. I was saying they are pretty close to each other in efficacy and if you boost one, you're going to have to boost the rest.
Quote:
Not again this stupid discussion, I explaind this to you multipe times why the advantages you see arnŠt advantages on TQ, while you repeeting this line again and again without starting a real discussion.
No, you haven't. You've said "nuh uh". And each time i explain again how these mechanics work and how they hanged and what that means for the ships.
Quote:
1. Ofc they do and there arnŠt any Threads about Rockets, Hams, Aks or Blasters on the Froums. When did you read the last Blasters\AKs\Rockets\Hams\Torps are op Topic, because they serious outperforme other Weapons in her intendet role?
I am not sure what you're saying.
Quote:
2. No I donŠt actualy mean this. Even if It would be hilariously broken in your Opinion I would call it hilariously funny, would be kind of a cure to the bing a bigger Blob sydrome and create situations where it wouldnŠt be just stupid to warp in close range Gank Ships into a sniper Blob(asuming there is no lag in eve ofc) instead of bringing your own Sniper Blob or stuff like this.
No, it would not be a cure for the "bring a bigger blob" syndrome. People would just bring a bigger blob of the better ships.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:06:00 -
[1255]
Originally by: NightmareX
I just pointed out that there is another weapon system that have 4789375 times more priority to get boosted long way before Blasters do.
Nothing wrong by saying that.
Start a thread this one is for blasters.
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 16:09:00 -
[1256]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 16:10:12
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
I just pointed out that there is another weapon system that have 4789375 times more priority to get boosted long way before Blasters do.
Nothing wrong by saying that.
Start a thread this one is for blasters.
Pfffft, it's still nothing wrong to say that Blasters is not the weapon system that need a boost now. And then i just pointed out what weapon system that really need to be boosted long way before Blasters.
I was still on topic about Blasters when i said that Blasters doesn't need to get a boost now today. I was talking about the Blasters so. Even when i mentioned Artilleries.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:24:00 -
[1257]
Originally by: NightmareX
Pfffft, it's still nothing wrong to say that Blasters is not the weapon system that need a boost now. And then i just pointed out what weapon system that really need to be boosted long way before Blasters.
I was still on topic about Blasters when i said that Blasters doesn't need to get a boost now today. I was talking about the Blasters so. Even when i mentioned Artilleries.
Dear god is pointless argumentative trolling all you do?.
Blasters need a boost they are hardly better in the ranges that they are supposed to be supreme while they are useless at ranges all the other systems especially lasers do great in.
The pvp that they are supposed to excel in is no longer a option and they are awful in gangs compared to pulse BS.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:26:00 -
[1258]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 16:34:14
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX
Pfffft, it's still nothing wrong to say that Blasters is not the weapon system that need a boost now. And then i just pointed out what weapon system that really need to be boosted long way before Blasters.
I was still on topic about Blasters when i said that Blasters doesn't need to get a boost now today. I was talking about the Blasters so. Even when i mentioned Artilleries.
Dear god is pointless argumentative trolling all you do?.
Blasters need a boost they are hardly better in the ranges that they are supposed to be supreme while they are useless at ranges all the other systems especially lasers do great in.
The pvp that they are supposed to excel in is no longer a option and they are awful in gangs compared to pulse BS.
Reported for calling me a troll. When i'm not. I was just telling the truth there dude.
And the way someone in this topic want to boost Blasters, is totally going to make Autocannons and Torps really borked.
Maybe we should come with a new idea on how we can boost Blasters or the ships that have bonuses to Blasters?. It might even get aprooved by me if it's good and as long it's not making the other 2 weapon systems really borked.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:37:00 -
[1259]
Edited by: Andnowthenews on 01/03/2009 16:37:06
Originally by: NightmareX
Reported for calling me a troll. When i'm not. I was just telling the truth there dude.
Reported for lying about me calling you a troll when i clearly asked you a simple question and made no accusation what so ever.
On topic.
If blasters need a boost (and they clearly do) they just need one the time frame is not important, just because other systems need one as well is a topic for another thread.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:39:00 -
[1260]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 16:45:23
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX
Reported for calling me a troll. When i'm not. I was just telling the truth there dude.
Reported for lying about me calling you a troll when i clearly asked you a simple question and made no accusation what so ever.
On topic.
If blasters need a boost (and they clearly do) they just need one the time frame is not important, just because other systems need one as well is a topic for another thread.
So when i said that Blasters don't need a Boost, and then you come here and call me a troll.
Then i think that you are the one who are trolling here.
And i'm gonna lol hard if you reported me, because i was only saying that Blasters don't need a boost, and then you say i'm lying about you when i reported you. And then you said i was a troll for only telling that Blasters dont need to be boosted.
Awesome man, you just shoot your self in the foot there.
If you really reported that, and the devs see those replies, who is the one that will get a warning for trolling then?.
Ok, one more off topic reply from you now, then there will be another report of you. I'm tired of you to take everyone off topic in every reply we post here.
I was on topic when i was saying that Blasters don't need to be boosted. So there is no excuses that i was any off topic that way.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
7shining7one7
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:43:00 -
[1261]
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Dear god is pointless argumentative trolling all i do?.
****, i missed one.
|
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:46:00 -
[1262]
Originally by: NightmareX
So when i said that Blasters don't need a Boost, and then you come here and call me a troll.
I called you nothing i asked you a question LTR.
Blasters are in real need of a boost as they are way too infective as gang ships.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:48:00 -
[1263]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 16:51:48
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX
So when i said that Blasters don't need a Boost, and then you come here and call me a troll.
I called you nothing i asked you a question LTR.
Blasters are in real need of a boost as they are way too infective as gang ships.
Originally by: Andnowthenews Dear god is pointless argumentative trolling all you do?.
Do i need to make it any clearer for you?.
And again. I have to laught to the comment that Blasters are way too infective as gang ships / weapons.
I see that your still trying extremely hard to get me off topic here. Maybe i should report you again for doing that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:51:00 -
[1264]
Edited by: Andnowthenews on 01/03/2009 16:51:47
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX
So when i said that Blasters don't need a Boost, and then you come here and call me a troll.
I called you nothing i asked you a question LTR.
Blasters are in real need of a boost as they are way too infective as gang ships.
Originally by: Andnowthenews Dear god is pointless argumentative trolling all you do?.
Do i need to make it any clearer for you?.
No its perfectly clear as i can see quite clearly and understand written English well enough to see that is a question not a statement.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:54:00 -
[1265]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 16:54:24
Originally by: Andnowthenews Edited by: Andnowthenews on 01/03/2009 16:51:47
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX
So when i said that Blasters don't need a Boost, and then you come here and call me a troll.
I called you nothing i asked you a question LTR.
Blasters are in real need of a boost as they are way too infective as gang ships.
Originally by: Andnowthenews Dear god is pointless argumentative trolling all you do?.
Do i need to make it any clearer for you?.
No its perfectly clear as i can see quite clearly and understand written English well enough to see that is a question not a statement.
And why do you ask if i'm a troll, when in fact you are the one that is trolling?.
Because i was not trolling at all in that reply, and then you get here and ask if i'm a troll?. And why are you asking that question. I will ofc say i'm not a troll in that reply. But in your eyes i would be a troll anyways.
Sweet jesus man.
Get it now?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:08:00 -
[1266]
Edited by: Andnowthenews on 01/03/2009 17:10:06
Originally by: NightmareX off topic + TLDR
Anything on topic to add on this new page an explanation to why you think blasters are fine when on SHC gourm and all the others think the fix is a good idea done properly?.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:10:00 -
[1267]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 17:15:43
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX TLDR
Can i assume it was another rant/justification that went in great off topic detail about how you are not a troll have never been a troll and will report anybody who goes into great detail about irrelevant off topic subjects..........
Try harder to prove that your right.
Ow look at that, your trying really hard to find a way to twist you away from what i was telling.
Awesome way to prove that your right.
EDIT:
Originally by: Andnowthenews Edited by: Andnowthenews on 01/03/2009 17:10:06
Originally by: NightmareX off topic + TLDR
Anything on topic to add on this new page an explanation to why you think blasters are fine when on SHC gourm and all the others think the fix is a good idea done properly?.
No with you here it's not possible to go on topic about Blasters here.
Haven't Goum told us many many times in this topic that boosting Blasters like you for example want them to be, then it's going to make them extremely overpowered while making some other weapons systems really underpowered and also makes combat in EVE very unbalanced?.
He have told that many times here. I don't care what he have said on SHC, when he have said something totally different here in this topic. That is what count, what he have said here in this topic.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:11:00 -
[1268]
Originally by: NightmareX off topic troll
Look up i edited.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:14:00 -
[1269]
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX off topic troll
Look up i edited.
Look at my edited reply to, also the one before your posted here.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:23:00 -
[1270]
Edited by: Andnowthenews on 01/03/2009 17:25:58 Edited by: Andnowthenews on 01/03/2009 17:24:01
Originally by: NightmareX
Haven't Goum told us many many times in this topic that boosting Blasters like you for example want them to be, then it's going to make them extremely overpowered while making some other weapons systems really underpowered and also makes combat in EVE very unbalanced?.
I have made no posts about it, i am not a alt of your running mate no matter what that other fool insists on saying although i do think its funny how long the list is getting, when anybody post agreement he puts them on it heh. Very amusing considering he is a alt himself imho.
And the only posts i read of gourmindongs on here are those about rails being better than blasters in gang combat and that rails are also the comparable system to pulse, and that pretty much says it all as far as im concerned.
The underpowered system in eve as we speak is blasters, the fix suggested would not make them OP it would put them right.
|
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:24:00 -
[1271]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 17:26:05
Originally by: Andnowthenews The underpowered system in eve as we speak is blasters, the fix suggested would not make them OP it would put them right.
So Artilleries is not more borked than Blasters is?.
Yeah it will put the Blasters right to put other weapons system down the drain. Isn't that cool to do?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:28:00 -
[1272]
Originally by: NightmareX
So Artilleries is not more borked than Blasters is?.
As you were told on the last page, start a thread about it this one is for fixing a nd balancing blasters.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:29:00 -
[1273]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 17:31:39
Originally by: NightmareX
So Artilleries is not more borked than Blasters is
lol runs out of arguments starts off topic posts about arties....
Good job you are not policing yourself or you would get yourself banned from reporting off topic comments...
PS: YAY ANOTHER ALT:-
trollmoreX/trader20/maralt/sophisticatedlimabean/murina/cucac/and now the news...
Bolded mine.
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 17:30:00 -
[1274]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 17:36:02
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX
So Artilleries is not more borked than Blasters is?.
As you were told on the last page, start a thread about it this one is for fixing a nd balancing blasters.
Dude, when you say Blasters are the weapon that need a fix most, i take that as a pure lie. And then i reply by giving you the fact that Artilleries are in need of a boost waaaaaaaaay more than Blasters.
I don't need to make a new topic everytime i just want to meantion another weapon system in this topic.
And the thing that Artilleries need a boost waaaaaaay before Blasters or any other weapons sytems are a pure fact. So try all you want to take that fact away, but you can't.
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
So Artilleries is not more borked than Blasters is
lol runs out of arguments starts off topic posts about arties....
Good job you are not policing yourself or you would get yourself banned from reporting off topic comments...
So your saying that i'm just gonna let peoples tell that Blasters are the weapon that need a fix most when that's a lie?.
What the hell i'am supposed to say. I'am supposed to say yes Blasters need a fix much much more than Artilleries do?.
When someone makes a topic about something, then we are all free to say that for example that Blasters are not the weapon that needs a fix most. I'm still on topic, because i'm still talking about Blasters.
And what about you when you talk about lasers when the topic is about Blasters?. Ok, reporting you for going off topic.
Dude, i'm not an idiot.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:41:00 -
[1275]
Edited by: Andnowthenews on 01/03/2009 17:41:57
Originally by: NightmareX tldr+off topic troll
It seems to me that you did not have much to say in this thread from the start and now you have ran out of even that you spend most of you time trying to explain your off topic trolling as being insightful...
Its not, take a day off and read your posts tomorrow and you will see just how manic and pointless you posting have been over that last few pages.
Im done with you so reply/justify all you like but your wasting your breath to try and win a argument with me cos this is what i think and its not gonna change by you mouthing off at me, you will just reinforce/prove it..
Im gone..
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:41:00 -
[1276]
Edited by: Goumindong on 01/03/2009 17:41:55
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Anything on topic to add on this new page an explanation to why you think blasters are fine when on SHC gourm and all the others think the fix is a good idea done properly?.
If by "gourm" you're referring to me, then no, that is not true. Marns falloff suggestion is ridiculous. It would bring the "advantage point" for Amarr/Gallente to 21km. It would bring the "advantage point" for Amarr/Minmatar to 37.5km. It would obviate pulse lasers since in any situation you would ever want to fly them you would be better off lobbing torps instead (due to comparative tank issues). I argued quite strongly against it in that thread and will continue to do so.
Aside:
Reported for reportedly reporting the reported post of reports about reporting reportedly reported posts.
Goodness you people, get a room.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:43:00 -
[1277]
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX tldr+off topic troll
It seems to me that you did not have much to say in this thread from the start and now you have ran out of even that you spend most of you time trying to explain your off topic trolling as being insightful...
Its not, take a day off and read your posts tomorrow and you will see just how manic and pointless you posting have been over that last few pages.
Im done with your reply/justify all you like but your wasting your breath to try and win a argument with me cos this is what i think and its not gonna change by you mouthing off at me you will just reinforce it..
Im gone..
Oh like you have anything more to add to this topic?.
All you can do is to whine whine whine and troll everybody else in this topic.
So when you talk about blah blah blah Lasers and booooo Blasters, then that is not off topic?. Yes it must be off topic when you talk about Lasers in a Blaster topic.
Get the point?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:46:00 -
[1278]
You seemed to agree with the idea but not the broad application, and wanted it done on a ship by ship, module by module application instead.
Originally by: Goumindong It will also have a lot of unintended consequences.
Better to look at things individually and fix the balance problems there.
Or did i read wrong.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:46:00 -
[1279]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 17:46:26
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 01/03/2009 17:41:55
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Anything on topic to add on this new page an explanation to why you think blasters are fine when on SHC gourm and all the others think the fix is a good idea done properly?.
If by "gourm" you're referring to me, then no, that is not true. Marns falloff suggestion is ridiculous. It would bring the "advantage point" for Amarr/Gallente to 21km. It would bring the "advantage point" for Amarr/Minmatar to 37.5km. It would obviate pulse lasers since in any situation you would ever want to fly them you would be better off lobbing torps instead (due to comparative tank issues). I argued quite strongly against it in that thread and will continue to do so.
Aside:
Reported for reportedly reporting the reported post of reports about reporting reportedly reported posts.
Goodness you people, get a room.
So your not lying at all now Andnowthenews?. Nah, all Goum said on SHC or any other places in your dream was true.
See, my point still stands. Your a lying troll Andnowthenews.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:49:00 -
[1280]
Originally by: Goumindong
Quote: emphasize their strengths and weakness, make them more distinct from other short range weapons
It is quite ironic that you are posting this in a thread where everyone else wants to extend the range of blasters to make them better in a gang, to make them less distinct weapons.
Aside: What do you think of the signature radius of the Hyperion.
This is the opinion of one Person in this Thread, one person != everyone. Many people stated mutliple times that range isnŠt the problem on blasters, it is the efficency at her range.
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
Since Lasers are intendet to work in exactly the same situations equaly well than Blasters and Aks?
No, it was a comment relating to their general strengths and weaknesses. I was saying they are pretty close to each other in efficacy and if you boost one, you're going to have to boost the rest.
Why not quoting the rest?
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Goumindong
Not again this stupid discussion, I explaind this to you multipe times why the advantages you see arnŠt advantages on TQ, while you repeeting this line again and again without starting a real discussion.
No, you haven't. You've said "nuh uh". And each time i explain again how these mechanics work and how they hanged and what that means for the ships.
You keep evade multiple times a comment on my situational examples(related to TQ gameplay) where the big advantages you think to see in the raw data preaty much fail leading to the intendet advantage on TQ. So far we had Hype vs Mega, DPS vs DPS, Tracking vs Tracking, Range vs Range, Damage Type effects vs Armor/T2/Shields, so is this nothing, all points invalid, all arguments wrong?
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
1. Ofc they do and there arnŠt any Threads about Rockets, Hams, Aks or Blasters on the Froums. When did you read the last Blasters\AKs\Rockets\Hams\Torps are op Topic, because they serious outperforme other Weapons in her intendet role?
I am not sure what you're saying.
Serious?
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
2. No I donŠt actualy mean this. Even if It would be hilariously broken in your Opinion I would call it hilariously funny, would be kind of a cure to the bing a bigger Blob sydrome and create situations where it wouldnŠt be just stupid to warp in close range Gank Ships into a sniper Blob(asuming there is no lag in eve ofc) instead of bringing your own Sniper Blob or stuff like this.
No, it would not be a cure for the "bring a bigger blob" syndrome. People would just bring a bigger blob of the better ships.
So having 100 Blaster Ships in a Gang would be practical in the current Primary is..., Secendary is... F1-F8 gameplay we have, over 100 Lases/Rail/Arti fitted Ships to make it FOTM?
I personaly highly doubt this, it is practial in a smaller gangs and donŠt traslates to good up to bigger ones. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:53:00 -
[1281]
Originally by: Andnowthenews ]
FROM SHC:
You seem to have confused a singular complaint taken from a bevy of complaints aimed at a specific failing of the proposal combined with the reason that specific problem was a problem and the solution to the problem of the complaint as acceptance that there both is a problem and that the fix is good.
How you did that, will vex me until i figure out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:54:00 -
[1282]
Originally by: The Djego
Originally by: Goumindong
It is quite ironic that you are posting this in a thread where everyone else wants to extend the range of blasters to make them better in a gang, to make them less distinct weapons.
Aside: What do you think of the signature radius of the Hyperion.
This is the opinion of one Person in this Thread, one person != everyone. Many people stated mutliple times that range isnŠt the problem on blasters, it is the efficency at her range.
I actually wanted them to do slightly better dmg at ranges they already hit at (10-20km) not extend the range any as that would not really suit the blaster idea.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:58:00 -
[1283]
Edited by: Andnowthenews on 01/03/2009 18:00:34 Edited by: Andnowthenews on 01/03/2009 17:59:54
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Andnowthenews ]
FROM SHC:
You seem to have confused a singular complaint taken from a bevy of complaints aimed at a specific failing of the proposal combined with the reason that specific problem was a problem and the solution to the problem of the complaint as acceptance that there both is a problem and that the fix is good.
It was just a post i saw that seemed to agree with the idea but not with applying it to every ship/system in eve and as such i agree with you.
But it seems you did not mean your posts to look that way so meh...it was a genuine error and i apologies for misreading it, hopefullly before the psycotic troll has me hunged or summat.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:02:00 -
[1284]
Originally by: The Djego
This is the opinion of one Person in this Thread, one person != everyone. Many people stated mutliple times that range isnŠt the problem on blasters, it is the efficency at her range
I am sorry, i have to deal with a number of people with multiple varying opinions. The vast majority of them have been arguing for an "increased gang role by extending the range of blasters".
If you want more efficiency in your range, i suggest flying a Hyperion.
Quote:
Why not quoting the rest?
The same reason i don't quote nested trees. Space.
Quote:
You keep evade multiple times a comment on my situational examples(related to TQ gameplay) where the big advantages you think to see in the raw data preaty much fail leading to the intendet advantage on TQ. So far we had Hype vs Mega, DPS vs DPS, Tracking vs Tracking, Range vs Range, Damage Type effects vs Armor/T2/Shields, so is this nothing, all points invalid, all arguments wrong?
I have not evaded anything. The rest i have no clue what you're talking about.
Quote:
Serious?
Seriously. I have a hard time reading your stilted English as it is. I understand that its not your first language and so am not begrudging you for it, but that doesn't make it any easier to understand what point you're trying to get across.
Quote:
So having 100 Blaster Ships in a Gang would be practical in the current Primary is..., Secendary is... F1-F8 gameplay we have, over 100 Lases/Rail/Arti fitted Ships to make it FOTM? Rolling Eyes
I personaly highly doubt this, it is practial in a smaller gangs and donŠt traslates to good up to bigger ones.
Currently, of course not. But that was not the question. You purported a situation in which warping in at close range with a small group of blaster ships would give you enough of an advantage to beat a larger group of ships. I responded by saying "if that were possible, people would just bring a larger group of the ships that were better"
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:04:00 -
[1285]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 18:06:08
Originally by: Andnowthenews it was a genuine error and i apologies for misreading it
Thanks for finally admitting it that you missreads here.
Now if you only could do an apologie to all of the others here that are trying to tell you something here, then it would be good.
Now, ktnxbai.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:06:00 -
[1286]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 18:06:30
Originally by: NightmareX
Now if you only could do the same to all of the others here that are trying to tell you something here.
As you are my alt i suggest you start learning from djego, oh and me...
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 18:07:00 -
[1287]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 18:08:13
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 18:06:30
Originally by: NightmareX
Now if you only could do the same to all of the others here that are trying to tell you something here.
As you are my alt i suggest you start learning from djego, oh and me...
LOL.
Oh, i also recommend you to requote my reply there, since i edited it while you was replying to it.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:08:00 -
[1288]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 18:06:08
Originally by: Andnowthenews it was a genuine error and i apologies for misreading it
Thanks for finally admitting it that you missreads here.
Now if you only could do an apologie to all of the others here that are trying to tell you something here, then it would be good.
Now, ktnxbai.
I was not talking to you troll, go harass you buddy you fool you add nothing to this thread.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:09:00 -
[1289]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 18:10:23
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 18:06:08
Originally by: Andnowthenews it was a genuine error and i apologies for misreading it
Thanks for finally admitting it that you missreads here.
Now if you only could do an apologie to all of the others here that are trying to tell you something here, then it would be good.
Now, ktnxbai.
I was not talking to you troll, go harass you buddy you fool you add nothing to this thread.
Oh the tears, they are so delightful.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:11:00 -
[1290]
Originally by: NightmareX
Oh the tears, they are so delightfull.
You are the most disgusting and pathetic child troll on this entire forum.
|
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:12:00 -
[1291]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 18:15:40
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: NightmareX
Oh the tears, they are so delightfull.
You are the most disgusting and pathetic child troll on this entire forum.
Now i feel hurt by you, i'm now gonna go and emo cry in a corner, just because of you.
Damn you, you destroyed all of my good feelings i had here now.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:23:00 -
[1292]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 18:24:23
Originally by: NightmareX
constant troll
You are gonna get banned and you so deserve it.
Anyway on topic.
Measuring success vs failure we see blaster gangs hardly winning against laser gangs even when fights start at 5km and never without heavy loses but if a fight started at 20+km we would see massive losses of blaster ships and very light losses for the laser gang.
Include the fact that in almost all situation on killboards we see lasers as top dmg dealers then id say this is a priority issue that needs fixing.
/waits for troll...
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 18:24:00 -
[1293]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 18:25:59
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX
constant troll
You are gonna get banned and you so deserve it.
And you would not get banned because?.
Dude i was just defending my self from someone that are calling me for troll, when in fact it's him that are trolling me. Because i said something that he knows is true, and are angry because of that.
I have the full right to defend back.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:27:00 -
[1294]
Originally by: NightmareX rant
/ignore
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 18:29:00 -
[1295]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 18:35:19
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: NightmareX rant
/ignore
Yeah that's all you can say when you can't answer on my questions.
It's nothing new that you have to call someone for troll when you realize that your wrong and cannot answer back.
I'm waiting for you to go raaaaaaaaaabbbbbbleeeee rabble rabble again.
Ok just to try and get more on topic again. I will say this all over again about the Blaster boost that someone want to have here.
If the Blasters are going to get boosted like sophisticatedlimabean are saying, they are going to get extremely overpowered and will absolutely be OP and FOTM then, and will also make Autocannons and Missiles totally obsolete / useless in PVP, and will do so no one will ever use Autocannons or Missiles ever again. And by that, this boost will make combat very very unbalanced.
That's all.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:37:00 -
[1296]
Originally by: The Djego
Graph from SHC
This is vs a 2 EANM+DCU Tank it is the worst case scenario for any Laser based ship. While Amarr/Gallente/Caldari T2 Ships have very good Kin Resists(and Therm, since Amarr will plug this hole) and Hardner Tanks also.
Hyperions DPS with AN crashes rapidly after 16km, Null Hype after 24km. Abaddon is very simlar to the Null Hype with Multifrequency(25 DPS diffrence in itŠs worst case scenario while still having the option to instant switching over to Scorch if required). Mealstorm is subpar with Barrage after 26km against the Scorch Abaddon(again in the worst case szenario for resistances for Lasers).
I can agree that for Antimatter the Range is to high(on the BS level, 8-10km instead of 16 would be more resonalbe) and Null gets a bit to much range(but not that drasticly, should fade more at 20km instead of 24km). Still keep in mind that Neutrons are restrict the Blaster Ships to weak tanks/buffer fits, what is not the case for 800er/Mega Puls fittings(exept on the Gedon). This is why I perfere mostly a solution around the Webs, since they only give a advantage where the Blaster Ship should have one, in Web range.
I can hardly see any kind of serious out of ballance issues for the Meal in this grap(keep in mind it based on the worst case for the Laser BS from the resistance point of view).
I have a couple of reservations and they are similar to yours but it does not look bad imho and certainly not "the end of balance in eve".
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:37:00 -
[1297]
Originally by: NightmareX
If the Blasters are going to get boosted like sophisticatedlimabean are saying, they are going to get extremely overpowered and will absolutely be OP and FOTM then, and will also make Autocannons and Missiles totally obsolete / useless in PVP, and will do so no one will ever use Autocannons or Missiles ever again. And by that, this boost will make combat very very unbalanced.
That's all.
Explain pls. More detailed.
-- Zuba |
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 18:51:00 -
[1298]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 18:51:29
Originally by: Zubakis
Originally by: NightmareX
If the Blasters are going to get boosted like sophisticatedlimabean are saying, they are going to get extremely overpowered and will absolutely be OP and FOTM then, and will also make Autocannons and Missiles totally obsolete / useless in PVP, and will do so no one will ever use Autocannons or Missiles ever again. And by that, this boost will make combat very very unbalanced.
That's all.
Explain pls. More detailed.
Do i really need to explain that?. It's clearly that this will be the problems if that boost ever happens.
But anyways, since you asked and did not troll or flame me, i'm gonna give you an example.
Well atm, Autocannons have a big falloff on their guns. And that means when we are more out of Blaster range today, we can still hit them, but with crappy DPS.
But then take this boost into the picture. We then makes Blasters into a Laser clone so you can hit pretty good at 30 km as Lasers do because of their range.
Then that Blaster ship goes up against an Autocannon boat. What will happen here then?. Yes the Blasters will have longer range on the optimal than Autocannons ever can dream off, and Autocannons have to go into deep deep falloff and still be outdamaged by Blasters by like 3-4 times in every ranges Autocannons have.
As things are today, a Tempest for example should not go into a Blaster Mega's web range to be honest. That's the reason we stay out of their web range and shoot them in our falloff range. That's the advantage Autocannons have.
The advantage Blasters have in the web range / 5 km range is that they can melt things pretty damn fast.
I hope you get a picture of this example. I could give you 5 more examples, but it will be ALOT to write.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 19:00:00 -
[1299]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:02:01
Originally by: Zubakis
Explain pls. More detailed.
In the graph blaster hype are doing a entire ship melting earth shattering.... 60dps at 30km.....
The AC mael is doing 180dps at 30km...
Lasers are doing 240dps at 30km..
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 19:02:00 -
[1300]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 19:06:27
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:01:04
Originally by: Zubakis
Explain pls. More detailed.
In the graph blaster hype are doing a entire ship melting earth shattering.... 60dps at 30km.....
The AC mael is doing 180dps at 30km...
Yeah before you boost the range on the Blasters so they can do more damage in the 25-30 km range.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 19:06:00 -
[1301]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:06:26
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 19:03:25
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
In the graph blaster hype are doing a entire ship melting earth shattering.... 60dps at 30km.....
The AC mael is doing 180dps at 30km...
Lasers are doing 240dps at 30km..
Yeah before you boost the range on the Blasters so they can do more damage in the 25-30 km range.
Sorry to interrupt your usual deluded ranting but this is a graph after the systems have been adjusted.....
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 19:09:00 -
[1302]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 19:09:51
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:06:26
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 19:03:25
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
In the graph blaster hype are doing a entire ship melting earth shattering.... 60dps at 30km.....
The AC mael is doing 180dps at 30km...
Lasers are doing 240dps at 30km..
Yeah before you boost the range on the Blasters so they can do more damage in the 25-30 km range.
Sorry to interrupt your usual deluded ranting but this is a graph after the systems have been adjusted.....
And by boosting the range on Blasters, you are also destroying the only advantage Autocannons have in PVP, also to fight in optimal / outside of web range.
First of all, a Tempest doesn't have a huge armor, and with the damage Blasters will push out then at 15-18 km range will be so insane that a Tempest for example is doomed to lose anyways.
And doesn't come with this that bawwww, Lasers have a good damage at 20-25 km anyways. Because when you take the EM and Thermal resists into the picture, those damages at those ranges doesn't bother me, at all.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 19:13:00 -
[1303]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:15:16
Originally by: NightmareX
And by boosting the range on Blasters, you are also destroying the only advantage Autocannons have in PVP, also to fight in optimal / outside of web range.
AM is still virtually useless to use outside web range or should be with a tweak (try reading the graph and my earlier post before you rant) and null already hits outside web range NOW and has not had a dmg buff so its the same.
Originally by: NightmareX And doesn't come with this that bawwww, Lasers have a good damage at 20-25 km anyways. because when you take the EM and Thermal resists into the picture, those damages at those ranges doesn't bother me
Resists were taken into account on the graph and they were worst case for lasers...
Did you even bother to read or look at the graph before you began posting???....
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 19:15:00 -
[1304]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 19:15:32
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Did you even bother to read or look at the graph before you began posting???....
And you think those graphs are everything in PVP?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 19:16:00 -
[1305]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:16:24
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 19:15:11
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Did you even bother to read or look at the graph before you began posting???....
And you think those graphs are everything in PVP?.
You must think they do as you hit emo red line in the above posts....
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 19:19:00 -
[1306]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 19:24:40
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:18:05
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Did you even bother to read or look at the graph before you began posting???....
And you think those graphs are everything in PVP?.
You must think they do as you hit emo red line in the above posts....
And at least read it instead of just going off on a major delusional and incorrect rant..again.
I'm ranting for telling you that those graphs are not everything in PVP and that there are many many factors other than just DPS and EHP that count in when it's about PVP?. And how many times have i told you this in this topic?. LOTS of times. But meh, you just ignore it all.
Jesus, everything in your world is ranting or trolls whatever we say.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 19:24:00 -
[1307]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:25:54
Originally by: NightmareX
I'm ranting for telling you that those graphs are not everything in PVP?.
ERM no the rant was when you claimed the graph was gonna get a boost to tracking and dmg in the 25-30km range (AND THAT I ASKED FOR ONE) when it is actually complete and in the above post i agree that antimatter should get a range reduction so it is not worth using over 10km (POST 1232).....
That dear boy was you ranting.
Your comments on the graph were made after you realized you made a fool of yourself again by ranting on without comprehension or understanding...
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 19:28:00 -
[1308]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Your comments on the graph were made after you realized you made a fool of yourself again by ranting on without comprehension or understanding...
Oh really?.
That comment was actually made before your post. I took it from and earlier post and took it into the post after. I edited it out like 5 secs after i wrote that in the earlier post before that.
So no excuses dude.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 19:32:00 -
[1309]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:35:36
Originally by: NightmareX
That comment was actually made before your post. I took it from and earlier post and took it into the post after. I edited it out like 5 secs after i wrote that in the earlier post before that.
If you look in a dictionary under "rant" you may see a example that looks a lot like your above post..
You spend so much time and make so many posts explaining in convoluted ways of how you posted with bla bla bla before, after, within, without, up, down, left, right, today, yesterday, me, you ect ect..
Do you think i or anybody else even care about you trying to cover your silly mistakes??.
Take a day off and a chill pill for gods sake.
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 19:43:00 -
[1310]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 19:45:30
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:39:55
Originally by: NightmareX
That comment was actually made before your post. I took it from and earlier post and took it into the post after. I edited it out like 5 secs after i wrote that in the earlier post before that.
If you look in a dictionary under "rant" you may see a example that looks a lot like your above post..
You spend so much time and make so many posts explaining in convoluted ways of how you posted with bla bla bla before, after, within, without, up, down, left, right, today, yesterday, me, you ect ect..
Do you think i or anybody else even care about you trying to cover your silly mistakes??.
You give nothing to this thread take a day off and a chill pill for gods sake.
And i forgot to ask you about one thing.
If you realy wanted to have a boost on the damage on Blasters at the 25-30 km range, the blasters should clearly have more dps at those ranges than only 60 DPS when Lasers have 240 DPS at that range. Wasn't that DPS after the boost right?. And didn't you want the Blasters to do around the same DPS as Lasers at those ranges?.
Oh wait, you was twisting on the reply to get away so you don't look like an idiot.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 19:47:00 -
[1311]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:47:42
Originally by: NightmareX
And i forgot to ask you about one thing.
If you really wanted to have a boost on the damage on Blasters at the 25-30 km range
STOP RIGHT THERE.
I never asked for or even mentioned a boost in dmg from 25-30km that happened somewhere in your obsessed delusional head, because you think it would give you a reason to rant.....
You need help.
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 19:51:00 -
[1312]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 19:55:21
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:47:42
Originally by: NightmareX
And i forgot to ask you about one thing.
If you really wanted to have a boost on the damage on Blasters at the 25-30 km range
STOP RIGHT THERE.
I never asked for or even mentioned a boost in dmg from 25-30km that happened somewhere in your obsessed delusional head, because you think it would give you a reason to rant.....
You need help.
If i need help, then help me to explain why you was telling that you wanted a range boost on Blasters so you could get more DPS as lasers on the 25-30 km range then?. Or at least much much better damages at those ranges.
You was clearly saying that earlier.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 19:53:00 -
[1313]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
This is the opinion of one Person in this Thread, one person != everyone. Many people stated mutliple times that range isnŠt the problem on blasters, it is the efficency at her range
I am sorry, i have to deal with a number of people with multiple varying opinions. The vast majority of them have been arguing for an "increased gang role by extending the range of blasters".
The guy you quoted didnŠt. I also donŠt want this, because I know what kind of problems this would cause.
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
If you want more efficiency in your range, i suggest flying a Hyperion.
We allready had this discussion.
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
You keep evade multiple times a comment on my situational examples(related to TQ gameplay) where the big advantages you think to see in the raw data preaty much fail leading to the intendet advantage on TQ. So far we had Hype vs Mega, DPS vs DPS, Tracking vs Tracking, Range vs Range, Damage Type effects vs Armor/T2/Shields, so is this nothing, all points invalid, all arguments wrong?
I have not evaded anything. The rest i have no clue what you're talking about.
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
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
Serious?
Seriously. I have a hard time reading your stilted English as it is. I understand that its not your first language and so am not begrudging you for it, but that doesn't make it any easier to understand what point you're trying to get across.
Im sorry, my apologies for my bad english.
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Djego
So having 100 Blaster Ships in a Gang would be practical in the current Primary is..., Secendary is... F1-F8 gameplay we have, over 100 Laser/Rail/Arti fitted Ships to make it FOTM?
I personaly highly doubt this, it is practial in a smaller gangs and donŠt traslates to good up to bigger ones.
Currently, of course not. But that was not the question. You purported a situation in which warping in at close range with a small group of blaster ships would give you enough of an advantage to beat a larger group of ships. I responded by saying "if that were possible, people would just bring a larger group of the ships that were better"
That is a very interesting sentence. Having the in theorie better ships avaidalbe but having them unpractical in bigger gangs(because of her combat Range). So the better ships arnŠt better in larger groups, what makes the meaning of "bring more of the better ships" actualy a very complex thing.
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.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 19:54:00 -
[1314]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 19:47:42
Originally by: NightmareX
And i forgot to ask you about one thing.
If you really wanted to have a boost on the damage on Blasters at the 25-30 km range
STOP RIGHT THERE.
I never asked for or even mentioned a boost in dmg from 25-30km that happened somewhere in your obsessed delusional head, because you think it would give you a reason to rant.....
You need help.
If i need help, then help me to explain why you was telling that you wanted a range boost on Blasters so you could get more DPS as lasers on the 25-30 km range then?.
You was clearly saying that earlier.
Wrong i said nothing about boosting blasters the 25-30km range you are delusional or just lying to cover making a fool of yourself once again.
The actual ranges i mentioned are only a page or two back maybe you should go check before you post again huh?...
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 19:57:00 -
[1315]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 19:58:21
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Wrong i said nothing about boosting blasters the 25-30km range you are delusional or just lying to cover making a fool of yourself once again.
The actual ranges i mentioned are only a page or two back maybe you should go check before you post again huh?...
Want me to quote you on that?.
Or maybe you have changed you mind maybe. Because like 10-15 pages ago you wanted to have Blasters to take almost as much DPS at Lasers do in 25-30 km range.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 19:58:00 -
[1316]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 20:04:15
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean Wrong i said nothing about boosting blasters the 25-30km range you are delusional or just lying to cover making a fool of yourself once again.
The actual ranges i mentioned are only a page or two back maybe you should go check before you post again huh?...
Want me to quote you on that?.
100% yes as post 1088 (page 37) shows the ranges i was talking about......
post 1088 kthnxbye...
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Koloch
Amarr Warriors Lost
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 20:39:00 -
[1317]
I still don't understand why you think range is the way to balance blasters. I think you are after something different - like an increased role in medium range combat and not really balance while maintaining variation ? I don't think the lines between the races should be blurred.
Blasters should remain ultimate close range in your face weapons. The advantage blaster ships have over pulse is they are designed to work with a speed mod allowing them to move into their optimal range, the amarr ship can not dictate range. If I'm in a blaster ship I can care less about hitting further out. I want to get into range quickly and put the hurt on.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente Delinquent Habits
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 20:52:00 -
[1318]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 01/03/2009 20:55:36
Originally by: Koloch I still don't understand why you think range is the way to balance blasters. I think you are after something different - like an increased role in medium range combat and not really balance while maintaining variation ? I don't think the lines between the races should be blurred.
Actually im against any real range buff, the boost in the graph is more about giving blasters marginally more dmg within the rages it already has.
Originally by: Koloch Blasters should remain ultimate close range in your face weapons.
While i agree with this somewhat you need to understand that they are not very "ultimate in close range" any more.
Originally by: Koloch The advantage blaster ships have over pulse is they are designed to work with a speed mod allowing them to move into their optimal range, the amarr ship can not dictate range. If I'm in a blaster ship I can care less about hitting further out. I want to get into range quickly and put the hurt on.
While that is great and maybe effective in 1 v 1 or very very limited numbers gang combat in eve makes it impracticable as even a gallente BS travels well under 1000ms (hype is 865ms) with top skills and a T2 mwd.
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.
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 20:56:00 -
[1319]
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.
|
NightmareX
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 20:58:00 -
[1320]
Edited by: NightmareX on 01/03/2009 21:01:52
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.
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.
I have tried very hard to explain that to him the last 12-16 pages that Autocannons will get obsolete if the blasters gets a boost like that.
But he wont listen.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
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] |