Posted - 2009.03.16 11:35:00 - [542]

 

Originally by: heslookinatu

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

If you just want the best it isnt even close, go amarr.

---

Not interested in the FOTM best i figured the post made that pretty clear.

---

oh, for christ sakes. well hell, blasters are as non-FOTM as you can get, stay with them!

just because amarr are FOTM doesnt mean there is anything bad with training them. ive got some SP in amarr guns, best SP i ever spent.

even if amarr get nerfed into obscurity next week, those lasers will still serve you well in missions, where the lack of ammo replacement requirements means you can easily salvage as you go!

Posted - 2009.03.16 11:44:00 - [544]

 

I do tend to agree that "easy" probably isn't the best word, haha, and shouldn't be the primary concern when balancing the game. Lasers at the moment are great to use, so perhaps instead of nerfing them it would just be better to tweak the other weapon systems.

Nonetheless, discussion comparing blasters to other weapon systems would be useful I think. Not every pilot flies Amarr, even though they are FOTM.

Posted - 2009.03.16 13:15:00 - [546]

 

Lol. People are still arguing about this?

Blasters don't do enough peak DPS to justify their user over any other weapon type, including autocannons, and they don't have enough tracking to perform well at their optimal range.

Tl;dr: they suck when compared to other weapon systems. What is so hard to understand about that?

Lasers do as good or better than blasters vs. 'omni tanks'. Heck, with most of my current tank setups, EM resistance is usually the lowest of the four. Nightmare doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

With lasers and torps doing so much more DPS at range than blasters do at point blank Goumindong doesn't know wtf he's talking about either.

I'm half tempted to make a DHP Megathron just to shut people up.

Posted - 2009.03.16 16:20:00 - [548]

 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 16/03/2009 16:29:05

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Lol. People are still arguing about this?

Blasters don't do enough peak DPS to justify their user over any other weapon type, including autocannons, and they don't have enough tracking to perform well at their optimal range.

Tl;dr: they suck when compared to other weapon systems. What is so hard to understand about that?

Lasers do as good or better than blasters vs. 'omni tanks'. Heck, with most of my current tank setups, EM resistance is usually the lowest of the four. Nightmare doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

With lasers and torps doing so much more DPS at range than blasters do at point blank Goumindong doesn't know wtf he's talking about either.

I'm half tempted to make a DHP Megathron just to shut people up.

---

So if your any smart as you say. Then explain why does both Megathron and Tempest or other battleships have EM and probably the Thermal as the highest resists when they are using armor omni tanks?.

Because of the armor omni tank resists, a Blaster Mega does about 30% more DPS than a Pulse Geddon or Abaddon does in web range. No wonder why Amarr ships have more EHP than any other BS'es. They just don't get the EHP bonuses for no reasons.

And when a gank geddon or a gank Abaddon can't manage to break a 1x Large Armor Repairer II, 1x Damage Control II, 2x EANM II's and 1x 1600mm Plate Tempest with 3x t1 Trimarks as long the Tempest have cap, then no, sorry to say it, but the Laser DPS is not as good as the FOTM players says it are.

Tempest also have the crappiest tank of all of the battleships in game right?.

If 30% more DPS isn't enough advantage in web range for a Blaster Mega, then i don't know. But for me, someone seems to think and want the Megathron to be the ultimate badass pwner like it was before.

The time when the Mega was that IS OVER. Every battleships is balanced so one battleships can't just pwn the hell out of another battleship, like a Mega did long time ago. The battleships today is balanced so they should last equally long.

And each of the BS'es have it's own advantages that makes the ships good in it's own ways.

Now Bellum, i'am wrong about this?. If yes, then explain me what i have told here that is wrong.

Oh btw, both NightmareX and Goum is very right about many things here. Specially when it's about the omni tanks and the resists. And also, NightmareX is totally right about the Lasers. Lasers is not that important that 3 other weapons systems have to be boosted just so they can get in the same boat as Lasers.

Sorry, CCP will never do that.

Posted - 2009.03.16 16:50:00 - [550]

 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 16/03/2009 17:28:09

Originally by: maralt

---

Edited by: maralt on 16/03/2009 16:44:38

Originally by: Electric Universe

---

Because of the armor omni tank resists, a Blaster Mega does about 30% more DPS than a Pulse Geddon or Abaddon does in web range.

And when a gank geddon or a gank Abaddon can't manage to break a 1x Large Armor Repairer II, 1x Damage Control II, 2x EANM II's and 1x 1600mm Plate Tempest as long the Tempest have cap, then no, sorry to say it, but the Laser DPS is not as good as the FOTM players says it are.

---

You are missing the point of this thread as anybody can quote 1 v 1 BS fits that are effective at tanking a single BS. The ammo DMG reduction a while back among other things made it so active tanking is always effective at tanking incoming DMG from a single BS while a ships cap lasts.

Originally by: Electric Universe

---

If 30% more DPS isn't enough advantage in web range for a Blaster Mega, then i don't know. But for me, someone seems to think and want the Megathron to be the ultimate badass pwner like it was before.

---

Firstly you must consider the fact that the 30% more dmg is easily off set by the 50% more EHP laser BS get, then you must factor in the instant ammo change and last but most certainly not least blaster optimal is 4.5km while laser optimal is 45km so there is a 1000% more optimal on top of the other factors.

Originally by: Electric Universe

---

The time when the Mega was that IS OVER. Every battleships is balanced so one battleships can't just pwn the hell out of another battleship, like a Mega did long time ago. The battleships today is balanced so they should last equally long.

---

And this is the problem as in its 4.5km optimal the blaster battleship is supposed to be pwning the hell out of every other BS in a 1 v 1 situation, that was its role and now not only is the 1 v 1 BS combat a form of pvp that is no longer done any more. But as you clearly point out the blaster ship no longer has the advantage it is supposed to have.

---

I have readed your whine in this topic, and do you really think there is a point to tell you something?.

If you say that resists doesn't have anything to say, then let me just say one thing, your dumb. Simple as that.

Every damn PVPer knows that resists are as much important than EHP and DPS.

I don't know how many in this topic that have told you that, but it's not few.

EDIT: After looking in EFT. I just fitted a megathron with this in low slot.

1x Damage Control II, 2x EANM II's, 3x 1600mm RTP and 3x t1 trimarks. And with this setup with all skills on level 5, the Megathron have 40237 armor hp.

The Abaddon with the same things on with everything on level 5 have 44124 armor hp.

The Megathron here have 156363 EHP while the Abaddon have 214846 EHP. And by that, it's 37% more EHP than a Megathron have.

So where is your lie about 50% more EHP?.

Posted - 2009.03.16 17:04:00 - [552]

 

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

If blasters really had 30% more damage than lasers - then there would be no room to complain, at all.
Even a 20% damage advantage would be sufficient to differentiate blasters as "the most damaging weapons in EVE".

But the real damage advantage of blasters is much smaller, and in fact it is simple to calculate:
Both mega pulse and neutrons have rate of fire as 7.88 sec. The damage modifier difference is:

mega pulse II: 3.6
neutron blaster II: 4.2

Therefore, the percentage by which neutron blaster damage is bigger than mega pulse is: 16.67%

Is 16.7% extra damage really worth the extreme CPU requirement, the bad tracking, the bad optimal range and barely enough falloff to do 50% damage at 15 km?

That 16.67% damage advantage evaporates as soon as you get just 2-3 km out of your optimal.

So yea, a 30% damage advantage would definitely make it worthwhile, but the current one is just not significant enough.

---

Yeh, by looking at the gun stats, they have 16.67% damage advantage.

But take in the omni tanks into the picture, then how much better will the % get then?.

Posted - 2009.03.16 17:25:00 - [554]

 

Edited by: maralt on 16/03/2009 17:38:31

Originally by: cucac

---

Doesn't OMNItank means same resist for all ? 1 hardener +- in individual fitting and there goes your advantage. 16% really doesn't cover the range difference, not to mention that even when blasters are in optimal, they have problems with tracking.

---

The standard 2 x eanm, 1 x dcu, plate buffer tank gives EM as its highest resisted DMG and so reduces lasers that do EM thermal dmg to doing 30% less dmg than blasters that do kinetic and thermal damage.

Hardly a big deal when you consider that the DMG reduction is subjective and in some cases:

1. Against other tanks lasers are the better choice for dmg types, although truth be told those tanks are not used on BS really but they are used on quite a few T2 ships.

2. The have 37% more ehp compared to blaster ships.

3. Instant reload if a ship is altering its range.

4. No need to reload for 10 seconds after a very limited amount of shots.

5. 400%-1000% more optimal range.

Posted - 2009.03.16 17:48:00 - [556]

 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 16/03/2009 17:49:55

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Originally by: Electric Universe

---

Yeh, by looking at the gun stats, they have 16.67% damage advantage.

But take in the omni tanks into the picture, then how much better will the % get then?.

---

It is a mistake to lose yourself in the specifics when there are 1000s of different possibilities. I believe this is the main reason why this discussion will never end - people get too caught up in specifics.

There's a different way to look at it: if omni tanks are indeed some kind of problem, start a thread about them and discuss how they impact the game, and whether they should be adjusted or not. But in this thread we are just comparing gun stats and performance in general, not just on omni tanks.

---

We cannot just compare gun stats. Well we can, but then things doesn't get right at all when we compare the different ships and weapons etc.

Anyways, if we only compare the gun stats, then Blasters (Neutrons) does 16.7% more DPS than Lasers (Pulses) before any resists. And for me, that is an enough advantage for Neutrons when you get into web range.

Posted - 2009.03.16 18:52:00 - [558]

 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 16/03/2009 18:59:34

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

The way I see it, neutron blasters should have 25% more damage than mega pulse, not 16.&%
That's an overall 10% increase.

Unlike blasters, mega pulse have great range versatility - up to 46 km optimal range. Also, as mentioned before, neutron blasters have big CPU fitting requirement which makes it much more difficult to fit than mega pulse or ACs.

If you take all the possible combat engagements and average them out - lasers will have more damage on the enemy, mostly due to range advantages. Only a small portion of possible engagements benefits blasters more than lasers.

We don't need a big change to blasters or other weapons. Just a small boost

---

I see some of you points Ephemeron. But still, the Lasers only have the range advantage, also that they do a bit more DPS from 20 km up to 45 km.

The resists are there anyways, and the Lasers can't just kill ships faster because they are many with Lasers, even at range. The resists are still resists.

Without resists a BS will pop in 2-3 secs to a gang of 10 BS'es. With the omni tank resists added, they will last a bit longer.

Yes they will have way more chance to win if the other gang have to MWD closer to them. That's why i say Lasers only have a range advantage.

What happens if a gang with alot of Blaster BS'es warps in on top of the ships with Lasers or other ships?, yes they gets blasted to hell and back in no time.

With Blaster ships, you have to warp in as closest as possible to the targets and with Lasers you have to warp into the targets at more range, so they have to MWD and get more damaged before they get to the Lasers ships.

That's what we are called, advantages on it's own ways.

Posted - 2009.03.16 19:04:00 - [560]

 

Edited by: Trader20 on 16/03/2009 19:05:09

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Lol. People are still arguing about this?

Blasters don't do enough peak DPS to justify their user over any other weapon type, including autocannons, and they don't have enough tracking to perform well at their optimal range.

Tl;dr: they suck when compared to other weapon systems. What is so hard to understand about that?

Lasers do as good or better than blasters vs. 'omni tanks'. Heck, with most of my current tank setups, EM resistance is usually the lowest of the four. Nightmare doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

With lasers and torps doing so much more DPS at range than blasters do at point blank Goumindong doesn't know wtf he's talking about either.

I'm half tempted to make a DHP Megathron just to shut people up.

---

Blasters don't have enough tracking to perform well at their optimal range? lol... If your in optimal range and ur using blasters the target should be dual webbed/scrammed anyway so tracking is a non-issue to any good blaster pilot. The problem is gettin into blaster optimal.

Posted - 2009.03.16 19:09:00 - [562]

 

Originally by: Electric Universe

---

That's why i say Lasers only have a range advantage.

---

Doesn't a range advantage equate to a damage advantage?

Oh and that 16% figure, I just don't see it. (I may have very dark glasses on atm)

Lasers track far better at their optimal than Blaster, so that figure doesn't fit.
Lasers are hitting for more damage over time than Blasters, unless ofc you're lucky and land right on the target.
Even then, the small extra damage just doesn't justify the use of blasters.

I still love the 'in your face' attitude of blasters ship, but it's lost it's edge and definition.

Posted - 2009.03.16 19:12:00 - [564]

 

Originally by: Mag's

---

Originally by: Electric Universe

---

That's why i say Lasers only have a range advantage.

---

Doesn't a range advantage equate to a damage advantage?

Oh and that 16% figure, I just don't see it. (I may have very dark glasses on atm)

Lasers track far better at their optimal than Blaster, so that figure doesn't fit.
Lasers are hitting for more damage over time than Blasters, unless ofc you're lucky and land right on the target.
Even then, the small extra damage just doesn't justify the use of blasters.

I still love the 'in your face' attitude of blasters ship, but it's lost it's edge and definition.

---

No range is not damage. Range and damage is 2 different things.

And about the 16.7% better DPS on Neutrons over Pulses on the gun stats only. Take a look HERE Mag's.

Posted - 2009.03.16 19:17:00 - [566]

 

Edited by: Trader20 on 16/03/2009 19:18:34
1. Lasers track far better at their optimal than Blaster, so that figure doesn't fit. Because pulse optimal is past web/scram range. Blasters are meant to fight targets that are webbed/scrammed
2. Lasers are hitting for more damage over time than Blasters, unless ofc you're lucky and land right on the target. True, pulses are hittin the target more often but em damage is the highest resist on omni armor tank, so damage going through is less then the blasters therm/kin.
3.Even then, the small extra damage just doesn't justify the use of blasters. Blaster are situational weapons, and that situation happens to be right ontop of a webbed/scrammed target. While pulses are a more of a mid-range turret. Different play styles for different guns.

Posted - 2009.03.16 19:19:00 - [568]

 

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Originally by: Electric Universe

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

I also look at it this way:

if another 10% pure damage boost to blasters is considered unbalanced, then game balance should be restored by a slight nerf to blaster tracking and/or optimal and falloff ranges.

That type of balancing emphasizes blaster role as the ultimate short range weapon. It makes different weapon roles more clearly defined, something that seems to be lacking right now.

---

Still, around 30% more DPS for Neutrons over Pulses in web range with an omni tank should be enough anyways.

Nothing more to add to that.

---

The omni tank argument is a red herring. If blasters were clearly superior against omni tanks, people would stop fitting omni tanks. People choose to fit them now knowing that overall, they get the biggest advantage, not because they want blasters to have more damage for sake of game balance.

---

I know what your talking about. But how many of the PVP'ers today use Omni tank?. mostly everyone. So the omni tank thing is as much valid as the other things as EHP and DPS.

Posted - 2009.03.16 19:26:00 - [570]

 

Originally by: Electric Universe

---

I know what your talking about. But how many of the PVP'ers today use Omni tank?. mostly everyone. So the omni tank thing is as much valid as the other things as EHP and DPS.

---

The onmi tank only really applies to BS as snipers along with a lot of hacs, recons and even BC ect use other systems that give other resistances.

PS: You have a very distinctive posting style and as such the paragraph at the bottom of post 548 made me chuckle.....