| Author |
Topic |
Ashira Twilight |
Posted - 2010.08.25 16:00:00 - [ 31]
 Originally by: Seriously Bored
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 25/08/2010 15:34:01
Originally by: Proxyyyy
Amarr have terrible hulls (worst in-game), but they excel at medium-ranges and good at close-range (which is where most pvp happens). All races have a downside. Mimatar hulls excel at nothing, and are good at everything (which for a long time, was said to be a bad thing). Minmatar have the, weakest tanks of all races, and do the least damage (or did do the least damage). high velocity and agility was the only way to make up for this.
If blasters, did more damage, they would be able to destroy their target long before help arrives etc (the diffrence between autocannon and blaster tracking is not even worth mentioning, cause its minute)...
I think this is why I still prefer the damage increase route. Fixing Gallente hulls helps Gallente, but Hybrids would still be laughable on the Caldari side.
Increasing damage on Blasters makes them even more fearsome at close range (and raises the damage curve farther into falloff), but the gamble of getting into range would still exist to balance it for Gallente. The weapons would then do respectable damage on the Caldari side while being able to apply their damage further, instead of the philosophy that a range bonus is no bonus at all when it comes to Hybribs.
IMHO, simple changes are the best changes, as they come with the fewest unintended consequences.
Take all of it with a grain of salt I guess. I haven't dug into curves, graphs, and stats on this subject in a long while.
I've been in favor of a 10-15% damage increase in all hybrid ammo, and taking a look at increasing the damage bonus on gallente ships(like they did on the vindicator). Though, both might be a bit OP. = ) |
Cipher Jones
Minmatar |
Posted - 2010.08.25 17:01:00 - [ 32]
Again I must point out the most powerful ships are the slowest. You would have to LOOK for the imbalance in that.
Every thing about web range of the attacker and the defender can be applied to all of the other races, and all of the other races do more damage closer also. |
Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo |
Posted - 2010.08.25 17:06:00 - [ 33]
The problem I see with this fix is that mass effects other things other than speed.
To make enough difference, the mass on gallente ships would have to be almost doubled, which would make them unpopular in 0.0 alliances where they do a lot of bridging, it would also gimp the gallente recons in a BOPS situation ...
On the other hand, the matari having a greatly reduced mass would be even fotm for BOPS situation where fuel consumption really matters ...
I know these problems seem slight, but still they should be taken into consideration |
Baneken
Gallente
The New Knighthood
Apocalypse Now. |
Posted - 2010.08.25 18:23:00 - [ 34]
Other boost for gallente would be fixing e-war drones (not ECM they're already too good). |
Proxyyyy
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 18:25:00 - [ 35]
Originally by: Sigras
The problem I see with this fix is that mass effects other things other than speed.
To make enough difference, the mass on gallente ships would have to be almost doubled, which would make them unpopular in 0.0 alliances where they do a lot of bridging, it would also gimp the gallente recons in a BOPS situation ...
On the other hand, the matari having a greatly reduced mass would be even fotm for BOPS situation where fuel consumption really matters ...
I know these problems seem slight, but still they should be taken into consideration
Dude, of course the issue is low velocity. Unfortunately, you cant address these issues without gimping an entire race(Minmatar have weak tanks and low damage comparatively). Since we know that blasters are not the issue(for the most part), but the philosphy behind close-range combat. Then its quite obvious, CCP, should improve blaster-ships abilties with-in scram range (make close-range combat more viable). Plus, Serpentis-ships have very high veloctiy, and they still can be kited. So, you want to make gallente ships the fastest, with large tanks and highest damage? |
ChalSto
Galactic Shipyards Inc
Huzzah Federation |
Posted - 2010.08.25 18:39:00 - [ 36]
CCP will adress Blasters the day EvE isnt around anymore.....
...or they fired their incompetent DEVs that "try" to resolve the problem. |
Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo |
Posted - 2010.08.25 18:54:00 - [ 37]
Edited by: Sigras on 25/08/2010 18:56:25 Originally by: Cipher Jones
Again I must point out the most powerful ships are the slowest. You would have to LOOK for the imbalance in that.
Every thing about web range of the attacker and the defender can be applied to all of the other races, and all of the other races do more damage closer also.
this statement is simply not true: most lasers operate out of the 10k envelope, all lasers if you consider scorch crystals Missiles ... yeah enough said Projectiles do actually do more damage the closer you get but the fact is that you actually can do damage outside of 10k With 425s you can easily get optimal+falloff=25 which means at 12k you're still doing 75% of your damage |
Noisrevbus |
Posted - 2010.08.25 20:12:00 - [ 38]
Edited by: Noisrevbus on 25/08/2010 20:55:05 Originally by: Sigras
What do you think of these changes:
1. Change the range of T2 warp scramblers to 6k
2. Give a role bonus to the low damage interceptors (Ares Malediction Raptor and Stiletto) that is 100% bonus to the range of warp scramblers
3. Increase webs to 75% web
It's the same suggestions you've seen mentioned or hinted about in the past, and they are still not very orginal and come from an aspect of looking at weapon systems, trying to change the game around them instead of adapting the weapon systems and/or ships using them to the game-mechanical environment, and thus risking to ruin far more important aspects of the game than just causing balance issues among turrets. Let me give you some examples in response: 1. Will affect Gallente ships far more than anything else. Scrams are still predominantly used on ships with bonuses and roles tailored for them (Gallente Recons and Proteus, Gallente Armor tankers with free midslots and Tackle Frigates). In most situations outside of the specialized ships the range modifier have little bearing. 2. The same reason as the end of the first point: do those ships really need it? Will it have an overall impact on the game? Will Ceptors Scramming at 15-20 km have any real value? Will it have an effect that benefit Hybrid platforms? How will Interceptors with a Scram range equalling Gallente EAS, Recons and Stratcruiser affect Gallente as a race? 3. You can turn the argument around in terms of Webs. Even if it's likely to be positive for a solo Hybrid platform to have stronger local webs (volume), will it be positive for the rest of the game? How will it affect Minmatar EAS, Recon and Stratcruisers (you know, the race people currently cry nerf at) - do they need the boost? Do those ships need competition of new ships with ship bonuses within their domain? Just because some Hybrid-oriented players want to gain better tackle effect for their weapons, and are not satisfied with the options that already exist (eg., bring a Rapier, bring/fly a Faction-Thorax). How will universal 75% webs affect smaller gangs trying to combat larger gangs? How will it affect solo players trying to combat gangs? You run the risk of improving blobs vs. small gang and small gang vs. solo - since you will boost spare tacklers (eg., a Dramiel with a web-boost; or throw-away Stilettos with improved webs - do they need the boost?). So anyone who have the luxury of bringing extra tackle will benefit, and they will benefit far more than the guy trying to solo with a Mega. A boost to webs in that regard is indirectly a nerf to any ship relying on kiting or sig tanking. Does EVE - the game - as a whole need that? No. The same tired repetition of other suggestions:1. Hybrids need tweaks to tracking, if they have tracking issues (i'm still not convinced, but open for impression - and disappointed that it's not given more attention). 2. Hybrids need tweaks to working ranges (that is adaption to existing breakpoints, such as better performance at 10-15km (Scram/Web/MNeut) and 20-30km (Point/LNeut/Bubble)*. 3. Hybrids need a major revision of grid requirements, across the board (for ships so reliant on optimum range and raw damage, having such issues to field top tier is devastating). 4. Several Hybrid-platforms need bonuses that do not conflict with each other (range+tank, mwd+short range, tracking yet tracking issues etc). 5. Active armor tanking need tweaks to bonus application; someone mentioned speed penalties on active rigs, bonus also affecting repair-recieved for ship-gang option/adaption etc. *) Just a very basic example: If M.Neutron/Null was 10+10 (5.6+7.8) base and L.Neutron/Null was 20+20 (11+16) base, ranges would be more in tune with ranges standardised by tackle and bonuses/mods/rigs to range would impact more / also harmonize with the game. At the same time it would still be unique in relation to Lasers and Projectiles. |
Sadayiel
Caldari
Inner Conflict
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 20:57:00 - [ 39]
i ever tought that hybrids should take way less time to swap ammo types..
sure it's not the solution to all but can't understand why it takes 10 sec to trade dmg for range on hybrids while the lasers do it in 3 sec with ease...
also this should buff up a bit the dmg issues of blasters and rails(mostly for blasters) as you can start dealing dmg sooner and if you get close enough then quickly swap to the heavy ammo and attempt to end you enemy. |
Umega
Solis Mensa
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 21:08:00 - [ 40]
Changing the armor rig penality from velocity to whatever sounds good for gallente, but should figure what it is going to do for minmatar and amarr ships as well. Imagine the effects of such on zealot gangs, canes, ruppies, phoons.. I hate the penality too and all for its change, but I don't see how overall beneficial it'll be to gallente growth instead of promoting what already exists.
Making Gallente fastest is just asking for the overpowered ship design. When it comes to small gang warfare, perhaps people should adjust their approach and actually give scripted TDs on armor tanked galls some better test runs. Imagine ishtars, myrms, ishkurs with their open mids for dual-prop with a change to making gallente naturally fastest running scripted TDs that kill tracking or range depending on ship against, with drones ripping apart the helpless ship as the gally dictates range to suit scenario. Just a tad overpowered.
Grid overall I'd agree is something that should be addressed. Even with high caliber skills, it is a ***** to fit neutrons and even ions sometimes to the point you have to sacrifice lows and/or rig and implant slots to make it happen when all those slots could open up other avenues.
I fear losing the diversity with a change to hybrids. Whats overall the best dps dread? Yeah. You got to account for a variety of different aspects and what happens when hybrids are made a mirror image of either proj or laser, game loses some of its flavor. As it is right now.. lasers got consistence at med to long range, proj have their rainbow and alpha, hybrids got either highest dps, or best optimal/rof at range. Missiles fellow different calculations, not going to inculde them. They are just sorta good at everything save rockets and non-aml lights.
**** on EFT.. it doesn't tell the full story. Neither does fleet numbers and KMs really. Alpha rules cause people see the higher numbers on a ship that lands harder on the first shot, how long do ships last in fleet fights? Yeah. So it doesn't end up accounting for blasters need to get in range, thus applying no dmg sometimes, or rails low alpha but higher RoF and consistence to accuracy when not firing in falloff.. which over time would add up to potentially higher DPS, but doesn't usually happen when ships go boom so swiftly.
So with that, imo.. changes to grid for hybrids is a given. And ammo.. keep their therm/kin, but change the 'cap need bonus' to increased RoF and remove range penality. No range changes in any hybrid ammo(other than T2 ammo), simply differences in dmg applied and RoF increase. What this does is given option for increased alpha or increased dps, example - antimatter could hit hardest, slightly harder than now.. but has lowest RoF increase where has say Iron hittest weakest, but has highest RoF increase. And the rest work inbetween those in the spectrum much as it does now with cap/range.
And give blasters a T2 ammo that increases falloff by 50% instead of 25% and doesn't do the -25% tracking. Blasters tracking is fine overall, I see people complain about it but what I think they are encountering is how the chance-to-hit formula works when in falloff.. a current null ammo just makes matters worse gimping tracking with **** optimal+falloff only applying a 25% to falloff.
Short Story - Can't have it all, but I think grid change and removal of range/cap changes with addition of RoF increments to hybrid's ammo could make the difference everyone wants without going overpowered. |
Noisrevbus |
Posted - 2010.08.25 21:23:00 - [ 41]
Edited by: Noisrevbus on 25/08/2010 21:29:14
Out of space =/
I just want to expand a bit further on that last example with ranges, to explain the statement and provide some rough example (that some random troll will probably yell loudly about). Especially since arguing the range-argument is a bit of a peripheral side of the overall discussion, that doesn't get much attention (and is usually brushed aside).
If you look at the Eagle today, with it's two range bonuses, the double bonus is soaked by the disparity between Blaster optimal and falloff. Despite a double bonus it only reaches scram/web optimals with null (it's long range ammo). A ship with a falloff bonus, like the Deimos, is nowhere near scram/web optimals and a fair bit short of 24km base point range in optimal+falloff despite the bonus. Something closer to 10+10 would put it's optimal around scram/web fringe and optimal+falloff around 24km points. Likewise an unbonused ship would be at 10 scram/web and 20 low-tech points / bonused scrams.
A 20+20 null-loaded BS would not only better conform to the range-options of other BS, but also be able to push different standard ranges by utilizing heat (the 20-25 range is far more interesting to play within for heat than 15-20, since there is so much more going on there to consider or exploit in pressured timeframes). With few exceptions, 15-20 is merely a transportation time/range between two standard ranges.
Obviously, these are all simplified examples to illustrate the point and you can tweak them within the odd click or fractions as you please, to reach a balance. Hopefully you'll see that they make more sense even with these rounded-up examples, because the problem right now is that their ranges are not based on anything relative to the game. Things that make the, as commonly accepted good, weapon systems (and/or ships) in the game good - their application and logic: a 25km optimal or optimal+falloff makes alot of sense; a 5.6 optimal and 14.38 optimal+falloff make no sense at all and doesn't relate to any figure or situation you'd usually find yourself in.
Instead of fixing everything else (the game) around Hybrids, perhaps Hybrids should be fixed to stem in with the rest of the game?
"But everything will be the same!!!?"
No, it won't. 10+10 isn't even reminiscent of 1+20 or 25+5. It's in fact more in the 'middle' and less prone to stumble towards Projectiles than it's current 5+15 type of balance (all current ranges rounded-off for simple reference).
Other ammunition types will obviously have their own ranges, but should follow same logic (and balance). |
Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo |
Posted - 2010.08.26 00:06:00 - [ 42]
So I just want to confirm what you're saying ... you want medium blasters to be 10+10 and medium projectiles to be 1+20?
So basically you want autocannons to be useless again ... I mean blasters would then have significantly more damage from 1 all the way out to like 28 with this setup ... perhaps balancing blasters isn't as easy as you thought |
EFT Worrier |
Posted - 2010.08.26 10:47:00 - [ 43]
Rails need a general damage to be competitive.
blasters need more range, or at least a t2 ranged ammo comparable to scorch.
blasters ships need a new type of ship bonus that suits the current post-web-nerf, post-scram-MWD changes. |
Noisrevbus |
Posted - 2010.08.26 11:27:00 - [ 44]
Originally by: Sigras
So I just want to confirm what you're saying ... you want medium blasters to be 10+10 and medium projectiles to be 1+20?
So basically you want autocannons to be useless again ... I mean blasters would then have significantly more damage from 1 all the way out to like 28 with this setup ... perhaps balancing blasters isn't as easy as you thought
In essence, yes. An ideal of "up towards 10+10" (wether it's 8.5+9 or w/e, is up to Devs and math-oriented people to tweak at their discretion, i'm not one of those people). I just outline a logic: that current blaster ranges are not relative to other mechanics [such as tackle] and that it's sheer idiocy to call for changes to other mechanics [such as tackle] to deal with deficiencies among Hybrid turrets since you'd solve one problem by creating ten new problems. I then used 10+10 as a simplistic example to illustrate presumtive effective combat ranges for a couple of Blaster boats with long range tech II ammo loaded, and tried pointing to how it would make sense. Your reply to that is "then Projectiles will be the worst weapon system". I write two long posts full of arguments you could try to discuss in a constructive manner, and that's all you have to say? I'm disappointed, starting a thread about Blasters but not being prepared to properly iron out the topic. All huff and puff. |
Korg Leaf
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard |
Posted - 2010.08.26 12:19:00 - [ 45]
Sigras is right though the changes you suggest would completely obsolete projectiles, as blasters would do more damage in the projectiles tiny optimal and then continue to outdamage and out track it out to 10km, and im not sure how the fall off curve would work but im fairly sure, you would then continue to outdamage it out to 20km.
All blasters need is a boost to either there damage and there tracking as then when they catch the ship the proceed to **** face |
raukosen |
Posted - 2010.08.26 12:50:00 - [ 46]
Edited by: raukosen on 26/08/2010 12:53:48
Edited by: raukosen on 26/08/2010 12:49:56
Projectiles aren't going to be made obsolete just because blasters out-dmg them. You still have no cap usage and selectable dmg types. On top of that you have fking amazing Minmatar ships while we have ships that use a fkton of cap for their guns and have active tank bonuses. For ships like the Deimos to be good you'd have to do more than just buff blasters.
Also, if you're talking 10+10 with Null then ACs are still going to > blasters because you're comparing 10+10 of null with 2+20 for close range ammo (and dmg types) that does more dmg and tracks better. |
Korg Leaf
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard |
Posted - 2010.08.26 12:55:00 - [ 47]
Edited by: Korg Leaf on 26/08/2010 12:55:21
I know the gallente ships are lacking, i mean its fairly uselss buffing blasters to the point where they obsolete projectiles main good points, range. Im all for fixing gallente ships, would love to have a reason to fly my deimos but making blasters have even higher damage, tracking then giving them autocannon range, with large optimals seems a little imbalanced.
I would prefer if gallente ships had either a hitpoints bonus or be the fastest ships before mwd, but with a large mass to compensate, giving them enough either buffer or speed to get into range.
The hitpoint bonus would sort of work as a speed bonus as well as you wouldnt have to fit large plates to get the armor hp you get at the moment. |
Korg Leaf
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard |
Posted - 2010.08.26 12:57:00 - [ 48]
Im fairly sure the numbers he quoting are null numbers, but to get 2+20 on cruiser sized hulls you need tracking enhancers or be using barrage, thats not a standard number for medium autos with high damage ammo. |
The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc. |
Posted - 2010.08.26 13:19:00 - [ 49]
Originally by: Korg Leaf
The hitpoint bonus would sort of work as a speed bonus as well as you wouldnt have to fit large plates to get the armor hp you get at the moment.
HP Bonuses will always lead to heavy plated slow ships, since you will make the most of it by fitting more and bigger plates. |
Korg Tronix
Heretic Army |
Posted - 2010.08.26 13:22:00 - [ 50]
Edited by: Korg Tronix on 26/08/2010 13:21:54
Thats true, i realised that afterwards, still dont think essentially giving them roughly the same stats as projectiles but with bigger optimals and cap usage is the answer to improving blasters.
Im leaning more to buffing the speed of gallente ships but making the mass bigger so they can be the fastest ships inside scram range but minmatar can keep the kiting hit and run style outside of scram range
Also oops posted with my alt |
souhyeahright |
Posted - 2010.08.26 13:29:00 - [ 51]
Originally by: Korg Tronix
Im leaning more to buffing the speed of gallente ships but making the mass bigger so they can be the fastest ships inside scram range but minmatar can keep the kiting hit and run style outside of scram range
I've actually wondered about that as well - say doubling blaster ships' base speeds, but also doubling their mass and agility, so a thorax would do ~430 m/s with its mwd off, but have an unchanged top speed/align time with the MWD active. And as others have said, CCP really should come up with less debilitating penalties for armor repair/resist rigs and buff damage rigs a lot. T1 damage rigs should have their fitting costs halved and their bonus increased to the level of the current T2 rigs. |
Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo |
Posted - 2010.08.26 16:53:00 - [ 52]
Edited by: Sigras on 26/08/2010 16:54:21 Originally by: Noisrevbus
In essence, yes.
An ideal of "up towards 10+10" (wether it's 8.5+9 or w/e, is up to Devs and math-oriented people to tweak at their discretion, i'm not one of those people). I just outline a logic: that current blaster ranges are not relative to other mechanics [such as tackle] and that it's sheer idiocy to call for changes to other mechanics [such as tackle] to deal with deficiencies among Hybrid turrets since you'd solve one problem by creating ten new problems.
The the problem I see with both our solutions is that there are too many variables involved, buffing blaster ranges sounds great until you consider that this effect needs to scale, IE if medium blasters are 10+10 what are large blasters? 18+18? I'm not sure that's such a great thing ... especially when you consider the rokh would be 27+18 and higher damage than a maelstrom. Originally by: Noisrevbus
Your reply to that is "then Projectiles will be the worst weapon system". I write two long posts full of arguments you could try to discuss in a constructive manner, and that's all you have to say? I'm disappointed, starting a thread about Blasters but not being prepared to properly iron out the topic. All huff and puff.
I apologize for the brevity / lack of detail in my notes ... I'm posting on my phone from work! |
Wardeneo
Minmatar |
Posted - 2010.08.26 17:00:00 - [ 53]
Edited by: Wardeneo on 26/08/2010 17:02:50 Originally by: FT Diomedes
Removing the velocity penalty on active tanking armor rigs would be a good start.
I like the idea of this but this would then boost all armour tanking ships not just gallente thus we would be back to square 1, so instead i propose that gallente blaster ship like deimos and mega n brutix etc have a role bonus that cancels the velocity penalty of the rigs, then that will boost gallente blaster boats n not help make armour tanking ships like canes even faster n thus stop the next "omg canes are even more overpowered" style trolling that would follow within a month.... also blaster boats like deimos shuould have a slight base velocity increase and a slight mass reduction and a slight power grid boost and maybe in the deimos's case replace useless high for another medium/low slot. as for blasters themselves, maybe a slight base damage boost and/or tracking boost and/or a slight boost in optimal range would be sufficient, n with all these "slight boosts" im talking about, they would not have to be big increases, but all/some of these small increases together would help make gallente blaster boats more viable and not overpowered. -wardeneo- EDIT: Typo's |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction |
Posted - 2010.08.27 08:17:00 - [ 54]
Originally by: Wardeneo
Edited by: Wardeneo on 26/08/2010 17:02:50
Originally by: FT Diomedes
Removing the velocity penalty on active tanking armor rigs would be a good start.
I like the idea of this but this would then boost all armour tanking ships not just gallente thus we would be back to square 1, so instead i propose that gallente blaster ship like deimos and mega n brutix etc have a role bonus that cancels the velocity penalty of the rigs, then that will boost gallente blaster boats n not help make armour tanking ships like canes even faster n thus stop the next "omg canes are even more overpowered" style trolling that would follow within a month....
also blaster boats like deimos shuould have a slight base velocity increase and a slight mass reduction and a slight power grid boost and maybe in the deimos's case replace useless high for another medium/low slot.
as for blasters themselves, maybe a slight base damage boost and/or tracking boost and/or a slight boost in optimal range would be sufficient, n with all these "slight boosts" im talking about, they would not have to be big increases, but all/some of these small increases together would help make gallente blaster boats more viable and not overpowered.
-wardeneo-
EDIT: Typo's
Why not just boost the base speed of the hulls, rather than prat around with a rigging role bonus? |
Moose Burger |
Posted - 2010.08.27 09:06:00 - [ 55]
You guys are wrong.
Hybrids should stay as they are now.
All you need to do , is learn to blob.
If you are alone, trying to rambo towards blaster range, to a target which is known to have a web and a scram , then of course you will die a shameful death.
You need to learn to pick targets. Targets like hulks and and retrievers dont have webs and scrams. Pew pew themn
And also, learn to blob stuff. If you have 15 blasterboats, a single ship with scram and web can only stop ONE blaster boat from getting close, while the ship itself will be in range of web and scram themselves. That means 14 unwebbed MWD can raep his ass. And win eve. |
The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc. |
Posted - 2010.08.27 09:34:00 - [ 56]
Originally by: Moose Burger
You guys are wrong.
Hybrids should stay as they are now.
All you need to do , is learn to blob.
If you are alone, trying to rambo towards blaster range, to a target which is known to have a web and a scram , then of course you will die a shameful death.
You need to learn to pick targets. Targets like hulks and and retrievers dont have webs and scrams. Pew pew themn
And also, learn to blob stuff. If you have 15 blasterboats, a single ship with scram and web can only stop ONE blaster boat from getting close, while the ship itself will be in range of web and scram themselves. That means 14 unwebbed MWD can raep his ass. And win eve.
You sound bitter or something. |
Meditril |
Posted - 2010.08.27 09:53:00 - [ 57]
Edited by: Meditril on 27/08/2010 09:54:57
Edited by: Meditril on 27/08/2010 09:53:52
I really can't hear it any more. Blasters are fine as they are. What I mean is: Biggest blasters of the same size do around 20% more damage than biggest AC's of the same size. That's fair: Blaster do more damage, AC's have slightly more range and tracking. (BTW: The damage AC's do at falloff range is pathetic.)
If you think you need more range then get your drones out (most Gallente Ships have droens, you remember?) or fit rails (which do less damage then blasters but still do good damage if compared to AC's or Arty.)
If you think you need more tracking then fit a web or a tracking enhancer or (hey this is also possible!) fit not the largest/best blaster of get a smaller one which has better tracking. (BTW: Even Vagabond has problems hitting anything close if fitted with biggest AC's... so many Vaga Pilots fit smaller AC's of medium size.)
You simply can't have everything... biggest damage, most drones, highest tracking and best range. So leave blasters alone as they are! |
Moose Burger |
Posted - 2010.08.27 09:58:00 - [ 58]
Of course.
One page with 3 topics on the same bull crap. obviously it will make people go insane.
The only reason this kind of topic prop up is because of the creation of a new bandwagon, and full-time imaginary pvp players.
In reality, even blaster dreads never had problem getting their own target. i dont see how blaster sub-cap ships should complain for any reason. |
Dusica
Amarr |
Posted - 2010.08.27 11:27:00 - [ 59]
Most of gimped blaster ships are ships with some kind of armor rep bonus ... that armor rep bonus should be buffed and armor rigs velocity penalty should be reduced all around.
so there is not much wrong with blasters but with boats and that is nothing new just watch t1 amarr ships and t1 caldary crap apart from drake harb and above. |
The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc. |
Posted - 2010.08.27 12:15:00 - [ 60]
Originally by: Moose Burger
Of course.
One page with 3 topics on the same bull crap. obviously it will make people go insane.
The only reason this kind of topic prop up is because of the creation of a new bandwagon, and full-time imaginary pvp players.
So you are butt hurt because people got a different opinion about weapons in internet spaceship games? Originally by: Moose Burger
In reality, even blaster dreads never had problem getting their own target. i dont see how blaster sub-cap ships should complain for any reason.
I guess cyno in range >>> mwding in range. Also I got told that posses are not very likely to go anywhere, but I could be wrong here. |
|
All Channels
Ships and Modules
