open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked It's time to rebalance the weapons.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
Posted - 2009.05.26 19:55:00 - [91]
 

I'm still not completely sold on your analysis, Lian
But would I be correct in assuming that if you were to take the ships flown by participants from killmails and ships lost that these percentages would be proportianally the same? (bah, thinking about statistical analysis makes my head hurt, I need a beer)
When I think about falcons(pre-ecm changes) I know they were being used tons and by their nature they were difficult to kill, wouldn't that cause them to generate less lossmails while their participation on killmails was proportionally higher?

I would love to see EM and fusion swapped, i'm sure you'll find past posts of mine where i'm very adamant about just such a change.
Boosting of short range ammo for projectiles would mean a nerf to the long range ammo, artillery users wouldn't like that. Then again, T2 ammo removed the significance of damage differences in ammo types a long time ago.

I remember a long long time ago where CCP(I believe it was TomB who worked on it) tried to change all turret ammo to only have 3 variants: 3 +50% range, 2 +0% range and 3 -50% range(there is actually still an artifact from that ingame, cap use on hybrid ammo was never reverted to old valuesWink). While I believe such a change would be bad for lasers and hybrids it would be great for projectiles, I'd like CCP to explore that again for projectiles.

Beverly Sparks
Posted - 2009.05.26 21:39:00 - [92]
 

My entire alliance has been told to train amarr now. They have even released skill book packages for free. 'nuff said.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.27 00:38:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Keatu Krentor
I'm still not completely sold on your analysis, Lian
But would I be correct in assuming that if you were to take the ships flown by participants from killmails and ships lost that these percentages would be proportianally the same? (bah, thinking about statistical analysis makes my head hurt, I need a beer) When I think about falcons(pre-ecm changes) I know they were being used tons and by their nature they were difficult to kill, wouldn't that cause them to generate less lossmails while their participation on killmails was proportionally higher?



No, because I am simply interested in measuring existence, not in measuring success. Maybe an example will help everyone understand what's going on.

Suppose there's an Uber PVP Gang that has 20 perfectly fit ships and great (maybe even perfect!) pilots to go with them. They immediately replace ship losses.

Day 1: 5 kills, 0 losses (5 losses, 25 total ships, 20% coverage)
Day 2: 10 kills, 2 losses (17 losses, 37 total ships, 46% coverage)
Day 3: 27 kills, 5 losses (49 losses, 69 total ships, 71% coverage)
Day 4: 3 kills, 0 losses (52 losses, 72 total ships, 72% coverage)
Day 5: 4 kills, 1 losses (57 losses, 77 total ships, 74% coverage)
Day 6: 14 kills, 13 losses (84 losses, 104 total ships, 81% coverage)
Day 7: 112 kills, 5 losses (201 losses, 221 total ships, 90% coverage)
Day 8: 500 kills, 0 losses (701 losses, 721 total ships, 97% coverage)
...

It's pretty easy to see that it really doesn't matter whether they perform well or not. All that matters is that they do indeed eventually die. And they do - even if it's with a fantastic kill ratio. Again, I
am not claiming that looking at any subset of the victim's mails will give you some idea of whether or not that was a successful fit (or even looking at their mails). What I'm claiming is that you can see what's out
there
- existence, not success.


Quote:
I would love to see EM and fusion swapped, i'm sure you'll find past posts of mine where i'm very adamant about just such a change.
Boosting of short range ammo for projectiles would mean a nerf to the long range ammo, artillery users wouldn't like that. Then again, T2 ammo removed the significance of damage differences in ammo types a long time ago.

I remember a long long time ago where CCP(I believe it was TomB who worked on it) tried to change all turret ammo to only have 3 variants: 3 +50% range, 2 +0% range and 3 -50% range(there is actually still an artifact from that ingame, cap use on hybrid ammo was never reverted to old valuesWink). While I believe such a change would be bad for lasers and hybrids it would be great for projectiles, I'd like CCP to explore that again for projectiles.



I don't know that it would really change the ballgame too much for projectiles, though I admit it would really kinda suck for people who want to focus their damage around a certain range and would really nerf the utility of optimal range bonuses - afterall, one of the big advantages of optimal bonuses for Caldari is that it (theoretically) gives you the ability to use a higher damage ammo at closer range (such as the Eagle being able to use Thorium at 100km).

I'm not sure that the rail ships really need a nerf like that.

-Liang

Princess Misha
Caldari
Posted - 2009.05.27 01:05:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Princess Misha on 27/05/2009 01:27:31


Here is an idea:

Introduce Ammunition Plants in minmatar stations:

What they do?
They configure your projectile ammos

How?
All 7 projectiles variants are replaced with only 3 variants:
variant a: standard optimal + standard damage
variant b: 0.5 std optimal + 1.5 std damage (aka EMP like ammo)
variant c: 1.5 std optimal + 0.5 std damage (aka carbonised lead like ammo)
All 3 new projectile variants have 5 ammunition points.

What are ammunition points?
you can configure your projectile ammo:
2exp + 1kin + whatever damage type = 5 total ammunition point (AP)

The final damage type = damage points x AP:
For e,g lets say Medium variant b ammo has 22 damage points (M emp has total of 22 damage points: 10 emp + 4 kin + 8 exp),
if we configure this M variant b ammo as 2 exp + 2 kin + 1 th,
then this medium ammo will deal (2/5 *22)= 8.8 exp , 8.8 kin , 4.4 th damage.

E.g2, lets say i wanna configure variant c ammo for my artilleries (better optimal of variant c ammo)
M variant c ammo has 12 damage points (M Carbonised lead has total 12 damage points: 6 kin + 6 exp)
2 exp, 1kn, 2 emp AP config = 4.8 exp, 2.4 kin, 4.8 emp damage


What you think?

This will give projectile ammos damage type flexibility but at the expense of limited range type flexibility (IMO range flexibiity should be an amarr thing).

To simply market sales, only 'blank' ammo of the 3 variants (a,b,c) for each size (s,m,l,xl) can be sold. You require the Amunition plant to modify it into a USABLE ammo...

T2 ammo should be customisable... this way you minmatar can finally appreciate DAMAGE FLEXIBILITY...

Verx Interis
Amarr
SkyNet.
Posted - 2009.05.27 01:45:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Allen Ramses
Dual 650mm AC - 460 transversal at optimal +37.5% falloff 1 (9.6km)
Ion Blaster Cannon - 230 transversal at optimal (5km)
Mega Pulse Laser - 540 transversal at 80% optimal (16km)


WTF is this? I don't even get what these numbers mean or where they came from..

Mega Pulse Laser II: 0.03375 rad/sec
Ion Blaster Cannon II: 0.046 rad/sec
Dual 650mm AC: 0.048 rad/sec

As you can see, the laser has worse tracking by a good portion. Of course this is with your bizarre idea of comparing the med caliber weapons to the largest caliber laser. Even if there were a larger laser than a Mega Pulse (like a Tachyon Pulse *drool*), it would have even LESS tracking.


You're also forgetting that lasers are a huge ***** to fit properly, and use cap. While the Tachyon Pulse sounds awesome, there's no way it would fit easily on a Geddon, and it would suck most people's cap dry pretty damn fast.


Furthermore, Amarr ships that use said lasers only get one real bonus. Compare a neutron blaster with the Mega's bonuses to a megapulse with a Geddon's bonuses:

Statistic: Mega Pulse Laser II - Neutron Blaster Cannon II
CPU: 39.75 - 45.75
PG: 2475 - 2126.7
Cap use: 15 - 13.65
Rate of Fire: 4.2525 - 5.67
Damage: 5.6925 - 8.30156
Optimal: 15,000m - 4,500m
Falloff: 10,000m - 12,500m
Tracking: 0.04219 - 0.07442

The blaster does a lot more damage, has a ton more tracking, and a bit more falloff. The laser's only real advantage is the giant range, which imo makes up for it.


Look at ALL the info - You have to think about who would be flying what. There's more to this than just the stats for the turrets.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.27 03:05:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Verx Interis
WTF is this? I don't even get what these numbers mean or where they came from..

...

As you can see, the laser has worse tracking by a good portion.



Amusing for you to flame someone's post because you fail to understand it. Basically, the idea is that the weapon platform can "track" something at their optimal going that speed. It's taken by multiplying rad/s by meters. The way the tracking formula works (you do know right, you're not just spouting numbers that you don't know what mean, right?), it effectively means that either lasers can hit something going faster or they can hit something smaller with equal "precision".

For an in depth analysis of just what those numbers you just spouted mean, see http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1076161&page=2#32

It basically shows that an Abaddon can be fit to have more EHP and deal more raw damage outside of 7km (this is where falloff starts to affect blaster damage more than "bad tracking" affects laser DPS). 7km... that's less than half your optimal. And as we've already covered in this thread, lasers have a pretty easy time of it with resists these days.

So... come again?

Quote:

You're also forgetting that lasers are a huge ***** to fit properly, and use cap. While the Tachyon Pulse sounds awesome, there's no way it would fit easily on a Geddon, and it would suck most people's cap dry pretty damn fast.



Two words: cap booster. Problem solved as far as PVE goes. As far as PVE goes, lasers are already WTFPWN so I'm not seeing a bit of extra cap difficulty for moar damage as a bad thing for you?

Quote:

Statistic: Mega Pulse Laser II - Neutron Blaster Cannon II
CPU: 39.75 - 45.75
PG: 2475 - 2126.7
Cap use: 15 - 13.65
Rate of Fire: 4.2525 - 5.67
Damage: 5.6925 - 8.30156
Optimal: 15,000m - 4,500m
Falloff: 10,000m - 12,500m
Tracking: 0.04219 - 0.07442



Quote:
The blaster does a lot more damage, has a ton more tracking, and a bit more falloff. The laser's only real advantage is the giant range, which imo makes up for it.


No, its advantage is that it's better to use lasers inside web range than blasters.

Quote:
Look at ALL the info - You have to think about who would be flying what. There's more to this than just the stats for the turrets.


The irony indeed! Look at all the info!

-Liang

something somethingdark
Posted - 2009.05.27 07:56:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: something somethingdark on 27/05/2009 07:57:49
tbh i think linking the falloff mechanic to every gun type is wrongedy wrong wrong

there should be 3 types of calculations involved
optimal range : (regular sans the barely scratches and lightly hits bs)
and for lack of better words on my tongue
damage falloff and accuracy falloff
this should be diffrent for every weapon type
for example
lasers ... light goes pretty fast right ?
for the sake of game balance things obviously have to be taken a little out of the realm of "that makes perfect sense even irl"

anyways i would like to see the folowing

Pulse lasers : very quick rof, higher miss chance, medium optimal, medium damage falloff where accuracy is maintained(damage from 100%-50% of max), folowed by a very short accuracy falloff (where the lowest damage falloff is applyd (damage from 50%-0% )
Beam lasers : slow to rof, lower miss chance, high optimal, low damage falloff, higher accuracy falloff

crystals modify like they currently do
gleam = conflag = same as t1 optimal, high damage , higher cap use
scorch = as is now
aurora = as is now i guess... the tracking hit is a bit harsh...
empire faction crystals = slightly higher damage output, slightly higher cap needs
pirate faction crystals = slightly higher damage output no aditional cap need


Autocannons : redicolous rof, high miss chance, medium optimal, very low damage falloff, high accuracy falloff
Artys : extremely low rof , medium miss chance, high optimal, very low damage falloff, extremely high accuracy falloff

t1 Ammo : varys damage type + 1 low range higher damage + 1 high range lower damage
hail = quake = high damage, same range, uses cap
barrage = as is ?
tremmor = as is ? (sorry im not a seasoned mini pilot)
empire faction ammo = slightly higher damage , uses some cap
pirate faction ammo = slightly higher damage


Blasers : medium rof , lower miss chance , low optimal, very high damage falloff , tiny accuracy falloff
Rails : medium-high rof, medium miss chance , high optimal , medium damage falloff, medium accuracy falloff

t1 blaster = vary damage falloff/damage type
t1 rail = vary range from base
void = same range , higher damage, much more cap use
null = med optimal , same damage, slightly mrore cap use
spike = same range, higher damage, higher cap use
javelin = is now the high range one...
empire ammo = same range, slightly more damage, slightly more cap use
pirate ammo = same range slightly more damage
as a variation here you could do
gallente faction ammo (and gallente pirate) = slightly more damage
caldari faction ammo (and caldari pirate derived) = slightly higher range


Missiles sorted via rof :
rockets, medium yield, very high exp vel, medium exp radius
standard , low yield, high exp vel , medium-low exp radius
ham , high yield , high exp vel, high exp radius
heavy, medium yield, high exp vel, medium exp radius
cruise, high yield , medium high exp vel, high exp radius
torp, extreme yield, medium-low exp vel, extreme exp radius

rage = same range has t1, higher damage, higher exp radius(thats the drawback)
precision = smaller range than t1(the drawback) , same damage , lower exp radius
javelin = higher range than t1, lower damage (the drawback), same exp radius
empire faction = damage and exp radius slightly higher (but not as high as t2)
pirate faction = damage, exp radius , exp velocity slightly higher (but not as high as t2)



this has been brought to you by ADD

Ziester
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2009.05.27 11:35:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
Ask Darknesss if Blasters are as crap as you think they are. He will laught hard at you if you tell him that Blasters are crap / poor. And i think i trust that man when he says that Blasters is totally fine / very good atm. Same with Leilani Solaris. Both of them have shows that Blasters are working good in their movies.

Hi, ex-Infod verde bandit here.

This statement seems quite irrelevant to me, and you also know it.
A Movie Maker chooses the scenes he wants to show publicly, read, to draw viewers attention, interest. I wouldn't watch a 15 minutes movie with a BS desperately trying to hit a low-orbiting frigate.

What I'm saying here is movie scenes are situationnal. No way in New Eden you always 100% get the fights you want to Fraps.

Julie Thorne
14th Legion
Posted - 2009.05.27 11:50:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Liang

For an in depth analysis of just what those numbers you just spouted mean, see http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1076161&page=2#32



I thought that I'd write a long post about why you're wrong in that analysis of yours (setups, target, lack of webs, lack of hype, etc) and in your terrible, terrible 2nd post but then I realised that basing my arguments on your calculations was not a good idea and I could save lots of time if I just quoted something from you.

Originally by: Liang

Abaddon
...
~106K EHP, 916 Turret DPS
...
meters | Thron - AM | Thron - Null | Abaddon - MF| Geddon - MF | Mael - EMP | Mael - Hail
4500 | 932.6 | 733.1 | 919.0 | 622.6 | 687.8 | 465.5
5000 | 934.2 | 737.4 | 924.7 | 662.3 | 709.3 | 522.0
5700 | 930.0 | 741.7 | 930.2 | 704.3 | 730.1 | 582.2
8700 | 843.0 | 750.0 | 940.9 | 792.8 | 757.1 | 669.3
9600 | 799.8 | 751.1 | 942.4 | 805.7 | 754.9 | 661.6
10000 | 778.8 | 751.5 | 942.9 | 810.4 | 752.9 | 655.1
10100 | 759.9 | 727.7 | 912.0 | 811.4 | 752.4 | 653.2
15000 | 475.9 | 701.1 | 932.0 | 841.8 | 696.0 | 486.3
15300 | 458.7 | 694.8 | 931.9 | 842.0 | 691.2 | 473.9
20000 | 235.7 | 548.4 | 732.0 | 664.9 | 603.4 | 291.8
22400 | 160.8 | 455.7 | 551.6 | 501.8 | 552.9 | 218.0
25000 | 105.4 | 357.4 | 367.3 | 334.6 | 496.8 | 155.8



???

First I blamed the hit quality formula for the Abby's higher than expected damage (and by higher than expected I mean higher than the maximum) but then I realised that @4500m the Mega dealt less damage than its max, the Abby dealt more, even though 4.5km was optimal for both ships and the Mega had better tracking. It wasn't the hit quality you simply messed up the numbers.

So it became clear to me that your numbers were not to be trusted and arguing conclusions based on those numbers were meaningless.

I could go on and on about how you mislead people and forged numbers to prove your point but I'll just assume that you made an honest mistake and let you figure out where you went wrong.

TL;DR

Good People of the EVE Online forums!

Everyone should start training Amarr right now and start using Liang's Abbadon setup as soon as you're able to cause that setup is so good you'll deal more damage than your ships maximum!
(Well, at least according to her calculations. And I know I'm horrible but I couldn't resist Very Happy)

bubbly bird
Posted - 2009.05.27 12:20:00 - [100]
 



Look like a rather minor mmath error but the premise and point is sound enough.




At 4.5km i make it:

The abaddon hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 874dps out of 916 turret dps.

The megathn hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 921dps out of 935 turret dps.

At 5.0km:

The abaddon hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 882dps out of 916 turret dps.

The megathn hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 923dps out of 935 turret dps.

At 5.7km:

The abaddon hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 890dps out of 916 turret dps.

The megathn hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 920dps out of 935 turret dps.

At 8.7km:

The abaddon hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 905dps out of 916 turret dps.

The megathn hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 861dps out of 935 turret dps.

At 10.0km:

The abaddon hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 907dps out of 916 turret dps.

The megathn hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 816dps out of 935 turret dps.

At 15.0km:

The abaddon hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 892dps out of 916 turret dps.

The megathn hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 705dps out of 745 turret dps (NULL).

At 20.0km:

The abaddon hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 760dps out of 916 turret dps.

The megathn hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 595dps out of 745 turret dps (NULL).

At 25.0km:

The abaddon hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 718dps out of 730 turret dps (SCORCH).

The megathn hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 432dps out of 745 turret dps (NULL).

At 30.0km:

The abaddon hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 722dps out of 730 turret dps (SCORCH).

The megathn hits the unwebbed mwding max transversal raven for 272dps out of 745 turret dps (NULL).

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.27 12:56:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 27/05/2009 13:28:32
Originally by: Julie Thorne
Everyone should start training Amarr right now and start using Liang's Abbadon setup as soon as you're able to cause that setup is so good you'll deal more damage than your ships maximum! (Well, at least according to her calculations. And I know I'm horrible but I couldn't resist Very Happy)

Dude, i'm not gonna train something that is most likely to get a nerf soon™. I will ofc train Amarr when i don't have anything else to train.

The worst thing i know is to train something and hope to have a good ship with good weapons and then it gets nerfed. But then, Amarr BS'es with Lasers (Pulses) today are a weee bit to much overpowered. So take that into the picture though.

I rather train Gallente, Minmatar and Caldari, because those 3 races are not going to get any nerfs, they rather get some boosts if something is going to be changed with them.

And the best thing i know is to train for something and then it gets boosted. Nothing is better than that.

So i will rather say, train for something you like or train for something you know will get boosted instead of nerfed. Or train something that wont be touched and not nerfed instead of something that might end up by getting nerfed.

So i'll just say it how it is now. If you don't want your race to end up by getting nerfed, then Amarr isn't the race for you to train right now. Because me + many others have a bad bad feeling that Amarr is on the next to do list for CCP to nerf.

Edit: About the Lasers again. Like Liang in the other post about Blasters said, there he said that by nerfing the Lasers tracking, you then make them to not be good in the Blasters territory where Blasters should be the king / good. By nerfing the Lasers tracking to how it was before Lasers got the tracking boost, you will make Lasers a bit poor in close range where the Blasters are very good, and that's just totally right.

Yes the Lasers got a tracking boost some years ago so they could hit fast cruisers and HAC's better. But as you know, the speed was nerfed quite a bit not so long time ago. And because of that, the tracking on Lasers remain to high today. And that's why they need a tracking nerf today.

But still, even when you nerf the tracking on Lasers, they will still be pretty good at longer distances where Blasters can't hit at. And the main thing for Lasers is to be good at shooting targets at distances (Med & Long range).

And today, Lasers are way way to good in the area where Blasters should have a huge advantage over Lasers, but as things are today, Lasers are currently 95% as good as Blasters inside web range. It should not be like that, AT ALL.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:42:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/05/2009 15:08:16
Originally by: Julie Thorne

I could go on and on about how you mislead people and forged numbers to prove your point but I'll just assume that you made an honest mistake and let you figure out where you went wrong.



As a note, you open yourself up to criticism and accusation of bias when you don't have transparent methods. That said, you're right - I did find a typo (not in the formula, but in the assumed damage). It didn't substantially change the picture though (which I'm actually sure you know).

meters, Thron - AM, Abaddon - MF, Thron - Null
5000, 934.2, 905.9, 737.4
6600, 914.8, 916.0, 745.4
9600, 799.8, 923.2, 751.1
10000, 778.8, 923.7, 751.5
10100, 759.9, 893.5, 727.7
15000, 475.9, 913.1, 701.1
20000, 235.7, 717.1, 548.4
25000, 105.4, 359.9, 357.4

It seems to have shifted the Abaddon's primacy from 5700m to 6600m. For the record, the error was that I had the Abaddon doing 935 DPS instead of 916 (a difference of ~20 raw DPS, so the error should be bounded at ~21 DPS).

-Liang

Ed: ~2.2% error btw.

Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:07:00 - [103]
 

Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 27/05/2009 16:08:37
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 27/05/2009 16:07:41
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Keatu Krentor
...



No, because I am simply interested in measuring existence, not in measuring success. Maybe an example will help everyone understand what's going on.

Ok, think I understand better now what you're looking at.
Quote:
Quote:
...
I remember a long long time ago where CCP(I believe it was TomB who worked on it) tried to change all turret ammo to only have 3 variants: 3 +50% range, 2 +0% range and 3 -50% range(there is actually still an artifact from that ingame, cap use on hybrid ammo was never reverted to old valuesWink). While I believe such a change would be bad for lasers and hybrids it would be great for projectiles, I'd like CCP to explore that again for projectiles.



I don't know that it would really change the ballgame too much for projectiles, though I admit it would really kinda suck for people who want to focus their damage around a certain range and would really nerf the utility of optimal range bonuses - afterall, one of the big advantages of optimal bonuses for Caldari is that it (theoretically) gives you the ability to use a higher damage ammo at closer range (such as the Eagle being able to use Thorium at 100km).

I'm not sure that the rail ships really need a nerf like that.

-Liang
If you'll read what I wrote again, you can see i'm very specific it's only a change that could be of use for projectile turrets Smile. Both rails and lasers gain far more range variation with their optimal modifier then projectiles do and they only have 2 damage types(and allways with similar ratios), while projectiles can choose which damage types to deploy and gain relatively little from varying the optimal range modifier. Projectile turrets would benefit a lot from having 3 +60% optimal ammunition types(CL, Nuclear, Proton), 2 +0%(DPU, TSabot) and 3 -50% ammo types(EMP, Fusion, PP).

Verx Interis
Amarr
SkyNet.
Posted - 2009.05.28 03:06:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: Verx Interis on 28/05/2009 03:08:11
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Amusing for you to flame someone's post because you fail to understand it. Basically, the idea is that the weapon platform can "track" something at their optimal going that speed. It's taken by multiplying rad/s by meters. The way the tracking formula works (you do know right, you're not just spouting numbers that you don't know what mean, right?), it effectively means that either lasers can hit something going faster or they can hit something smaller with equal "precision".

For an in depth analysis of just what those numbers you just spouted mean, see http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1076161&page=2#32

It basically shows that an Abaddon can be fit to have more EHP and deal more raw damage outside of 7km (this is where falloff starts to affect blaster damage more than "bad tracking" affects laser DPS). 7km... that's less than half your optimal. And as we've already covered in this thread, lasers have a pretty easy time of it with resists these days.

So... come again?


That's interesting - I didn't know about that. I didn't mean to flame, I just didn't understand what those numbers meant. It seemed strange to judge tracking based on something other than tracking speed.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Two words: cap booster. Problem solved as far as PVE goes. As far as PVE goes, lasers are already WTFPWN so I'm not seeing a bit of extra cap difficulty for moar damage as a bad thing for you?


Neuts will still **** up even an injecting laserboat. I've had it happen to me. You can still get some shots off but random modules, including your guns. keep deactivating, even if you use injectors. Besides, injectors are on every ship. Lasers using more cap means the injector has less for the rep it's fueling.
Originally by: Liang Nuren
No, its advantage is that it's better to use lasers inside web range than blasters.


I don't understand - not trying to flame.. But it seems like for shortrange, blasters have twice the tracking speed. I see the whole transversal thing, but lasers being better in web range? That doesn't make much sense. Even with a web, lasers would have a hard time tracking at blaster range, at least it wouldn't do it as well as the mega's blasters. All I'm saying is that the base tracking speed number is a lot higher for the blaster, so it's going to track better. If it doesn't work that way, then something else is broken..

Lasers need a bit more tracking than blasters for their range cause a laserboat doesn't always get to web its target, while anything in blaster range is also in web range.

Quote:
Look at ALL the info - You have to think about who would be flying what. There's more to this than just the stats for the turrets.


Originally by: Liang Nuren
The irony indeed! Look at all the info!


I admit I overlooked some things. I do agree some things should be changed, but all the attacking of lasers is just going to get lasers nerfed. I'd rather see AC's get a ton more damage (so they do loads in their tiny optimals, but are usually in falloff) and see blasters get perhaps a bit of range oomph, though what might be more interesting is significantly less cap use. Or maybe blasters get more falloff. But

The thing with nerfs is that they tend to hurt worse than boosts for something else. I don't think weapons are that imbalanced, lasers have inherently better stats, as they have to because of the single bonus and large cap use. If you compare them with other ships bonuses, they are a bit more balanced, but the tracking does skew it a bit. Unfortunatley, you reduce laser tracking and they can't hit anything close up, esp with webs being less effective than they were before the laser tracking boost.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.28 05:12:00 - [105]
 

Quote:
I didn't mean to flame


Heh, well if its an edumacation you're wanting, I'm sure we can get you lined out pretty well. ;-)

Originally by: Verx Interis
It seemed strange to judge tracking based on something other than tracking speed.


Ya, it's part of the tracking formula... here's a copy for future reference:

Original Formula by Naughty Boy
((1.0/2.0) ** ((((Transv/(Range*Tracking))*(Sig_Res/Sig_Rad)) ** 2) +((max(0,Range-Optimal))/Falloff) ** 2))

Original hit quality formula by KzIg (http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?p=114333#114333)
Expected damage per shot = normal damage * [min(chance to hit, 1%)*3 + max(0,chance to hit - 1%)*(0.99+chance to hit)/2]

Quote:
Besides, injectors are on every ship. Lasers using more cap means the injector has less for the rep it's fueling.


I underlined the part you shouldn't do. Reps and lasers don't go well together, but really it's good riddance for bad rubbish. Active tanking is generally pretty fail these days due to increasing gang sizes and the opportunity cost of using cap for reps.

Resist bonuses are pure win, almost like 3 bonuses in one:
- ~33% bonsus to rep amount
- +33% EHP
+ 33% bonus to remote rep amount

It's slightly more complicated, but I'm sure you can see why resist bonuses >> rep bonuses.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
No, its advantage is that it's better to use lasers inside web range than blasters.


I don't understand - .. But it seems like for shortrange, blasters twice the tracking speed. ... Even with a web, lasers would have a hard time tracking at blaster range, ... the base tracking speed number is a lot higher for the blaster, so it's going to track better. If it doesn't work that way, then something else is broken..


Yep, and the part you're missing is optimal range. Once blasters get out of optimal range and into falloff, their damage starts to drop pretty tremendously. At optimal + falloff, you're dealing ~37.5% of your EFT DPS (this is one of the reasons why projectiles are hurting so bad!). What this is showing is that the penalty of being out of optimal very quickly overrides the penalty for being under optimal combined with "bad tracking" - And it doesn't even cover situations where there's multiple webs on target and tracking hardly matters at all.

Quote:
Lasers need a bit more tracking than blasters for their range cause a laserboat doesn't always get to web its target, while anything in blaster range is also in web range.


I'm gonna go with a no on that.

Quote:
I do agree some things should be changed, but all the attacking of lasers is just going to get lasers nerfed.


I'm aware of that - and right now lasers are really quite stand out above all the other weapon types. IMO we're really coming down to a line where they boost everything else or they nerf lasers.

Quote:
I don't think weapons are that imbalanced, lasers have inherently better stats, as they have to because of the single bonus and large cap use. If you compare them with other ships bonuses, they are a bit more balanced, but the tracking does skew it a bit.


Well, no, it's a bit more than the tracking. Think of it like this: lasers have an inbuilt 25% damage bonus - and then you get a ship damage bonus and a cap use bonus. That's (effectively) double damage bonused ships with a bonus to make sure you can run the darn things. Compare laser damage at 45km to projectile damage at 3km on bonused ships for a laugh.

The traditional defense of this has always been limited damage types and EM damage being really really bad. This was always somewhat false (definitely blown out of proportion), but these days with the rise of shield tanking it's utterly and unquestionably false.

Something has to be done, and I've seen some pretty compelling arguments that lasers simply need a raw damage nerf rather than a tracking nerf. :-/

-Liang

Sabine Perrine
Habitual Euthanasia
Posted - 2009.05.28 07:20:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Allen Ramses
Edited by: Allen Ramses on 23/05/2009 23:15:40

Missiles are in a state of lolfail right now. They have so many faults, it is disgusting to even think of them as a primary weapon system for ANY race. This needs to be fixed ASAP.

Tracking Mechanic
Because of the inherently flawed direct damage reduction based on signature radius alone, missiles often cannot

ever deal full damage to their intended target, specifically Minmatar ships which have much lower than average signature radii. It is in my opinion that this mechanic be removed from the game. There is absolutely no reason a direct hit on a stationary target would not deal full damage. The current mechanic is the following:


one might argue that minmatars lower then average sig radius is more then balanced by their lower then average sensor strength and ****ty optimal

Disscus.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.28 07:36:00 - [107]
 

I have a great example of the Blaster tracking problem. Just recently in my Thorax fitted with 5 tech 2 ion blasters, and 3 damage upgrades, I engaged with a small gang. After killing their thorax, i webbed and scrammed a Rifter. The rifter was within 2km of me, WEBBBED , SCRAMMED and had my heammerhead IIs and all guns on him, and i shot at him for over 1 minute without breaking his shield tank, then got blown up.

Pathetic.... the biggest problem with blasters is TRACKING.

I dont know yet just how much love blasters and their "boats" need, but they need SOME! If you can't hit anything moving at your OPTIMAL, when its webbed and scrammed, the high DPS don't really happen do they? Not to mention that the DPS isn't QUITE high enough to be fair for its range, come on... 2km for medium blasters?
how about ranges like this?
small: 2km opt
medium: 5-6km opt
large: 8-10km optimal
(all approx. of course)

If range stays at its ultra-close, increase damage a liiiittttle bit. Not asking for GODGUNS for the gallente here, just make it the way blasters are supposed to be, scary at close range
i.e. full gank deimos should have a 900# with implants, faction ammo and hac 5.

so, suggested fixes:

-just make blasters ABLE to hit a moving target (especially at their optimal, please)*this is most important

-either give quite a few more dps, or a useful range. maybe a balance of both, such as the ranges i suggested, and little less dps increase than i suggested.

bubbly bird
Posted - 2009.05.28 11:28:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Verx Interis


Neuts will still **** up even an injecting laserboat. I've had it happen to me. You can still get some shots off but random modules, including your guns. keep deactivating, even if you use injectors. Besides, injectors are on every ship. Lasers using more cap means the injector has less for the rep it's fueling.


Nuets screw over blaster ships just as much if not more as blaster ships not only need to MWD a lot to get into range but they also need to be inside even med nuet range of a target.

Lasers on the other hand can operate way outside even large nuet range.


Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.28 11:32:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 28/05/2009 11:34:15
Originally by: Leto Aramaus
I have a great example of the Blaster tracking problem. Just recently in my Thorax fitted with 5 tech 2 ion blasters, and 3 damage upgrades, I engaged with a small gang. After killing their thorax, i webbed and scrammed a Rifter. The rifter was within 2km of me, WEBBBED , SCRAMMED and had my heammerhead IIs and all guns on him, and i shot at him for over 1 minute without breaking his shield tank, then got blown up.

Pathetic.... the biggest problem with blasters is TRACKING.

I dont know yet just how much love blasters and their "boats" need, but they need SOME! If you can't hit anything moving at your OPTIMAL, when its webbed and scrammed, the high DPS don't really happen do they? Not to mention that the DPS isn't QUITE high enough to be fair for its range, come on... 2km for medium blasters?
how about ranges like this?
small: 2km opt
medium: 5-6km opt
large: 8-10km optimal
(all approx. of course)

If range stays at its ultra-close, increase damage a liiiittttle bit. Not asking for GODGUNS for the gallente here, just make it the way blasters are supposed to be, scary at close range
i.e. full gank deimos should have a 900# with implants, faction ammo and hac 5.

so, suggested fixes:

-just make blasters ABLE to hit a moving target (especially at their optimal, please)*this is most important

-either give quite a few more dps, or a useful range. maybe a balance of both, such as the ranges i suggested, and little less dps increase than i suggested.

By this statement, your doing something very wrong in your Thorax with with Medium Blasters.

So it's not the Medium Blasters who are the problem here.

And no, Blasters wont get a DPS, tracking or range boost.

bubbly bird
Posted - 2009.05.28 12:27:00 - [110]
 



Its interesting to note that when ppl like goumindong and others try to justify amaar/lasers being so much more effective than blasters they use terms and designate roles to races, IE: amaar/laser weapons/ships being a "gang pvp" race and gallente/blasters being a solo weapons/ships.

If such a thing is the case then it seems only right that blasters should get a tracking buff amoung other things as at the moment the tracking issues they have is causing them to be ineffective in their designated solo "role".

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:52:00 - [111]
 

Well, go ahead and explain to me what i should be doing. I'm not doing anything wrong in my thorax, and I expect them to get at least their tracking fixed. If not, hey who cares? I only wasted all 3 years of my character training to be a better blaster boat, no big deal right?

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:42:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: bubbly bird


Its interesting to note that when ppl like goumindong and others try to justify amaar/lasers being so much more effective than blasters they use terms and designate roles to races, IE: amaar/laser weapons/ships being a "gang pvp" race and gallente/blasters being a solo weapons/ships.

If such a thing is the case then it seems only right that blasters should get a tracking buff amoung other things as at the moment the tracking issues they have is causing them to be ineffective in their designated solo "role".

Yes it's true that Lasers are to effective in the territory where Blasters should be much much better.

And to fix that, the best way is to nerf the tracking or reduce the raw DPS on Lasers a bit.

Also remember, but boosting the tracking on Blasters, you have to remember that Blasters will be way to effective against frigs and cruisers agan. And we don't want that. So by boosting tracking on Blasters, you will then create another big problem. So here you will fix one thing, but create another big problem.

But if you nerf the tracking on Lasers, you will then take away the effectivnes Lasers have in the Blasters territory. And that's just totally right to make the Lasers (Pulses) to not be effective where Blasters is good, because where Pulses are good, there Blasters are damn crap. So by doing this, you will fix the problems that are for Blasters atm AND you will fix Pulses to, because they aren't supposed to have so good tracking today.

So what would you choose. To fix one problem and make another HUGE problem?, or will you fix 2 things and make no problems at all?.
Originally by: Leto Aramaus
Well, go ahead and explain to me what i should be doing. I'm not doing anything wrong in my thorax, and I expect them to get at least their tracking fixed. If not, hey who cares? I only wasted all 3 years of my character training to be a better blaster boat, no big deal right?

Stop crying and find another way to use your ship better, like many of us have done already.

And by the way. You seems to be one of the very very few that have problems with Medium Blasters. So i rather think the problem is with you no matter what.

Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:53:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Leto Aramaus
Well, go ahead and explain to me what i should be doing. I'm not doing anything wrong in my thorax, and I expect them to get at least their tracking fixed. If not, hey who cares? I only wasted all 3 years of my character training to be a better blaster boat, no big deal right?

What you should have done is use your range to your advantage, instead of staying 2km from the rifter you should have moved away.
Thorax vs. Rifter

steave435
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:58:00 - [114]
 

Quote:

What problems am i thinking of? Im thinking of a serious balancing issues that has nothing to do with tracking. Why on earth would i use blasters when i can use pulse lasers which provide 92% of the DPS with three times the optimal range? AND the ability to switch to long range ammo which allows you to hit out to 45km instead of 11km with Null.

Because the blaster boat can go in to its own optimal, and then apply its higher dps in combination with its better actual tracking to get a much higher percent of his dps actually applied to the target aswell, while you also get to keep extra cap for other stuff. You also hit kin/therm rather then em/therm, and since most ships armour tank, and armour tanks has much higher em resist then kinetic resist, kin beats em.

Quote:
Laser cap use is irrelevant.

Most Amarr ships have larger capacitors, faster cap regen, are buffer tanked, and have a bonus to laser cap use anyway. Think the 52 cap per second of the megapulse abaddons bad? Try the 72 of the x-large shield booster, not to mention your hardners don't nick 20% of your cap.

Yes, because most ships use active shield tanks in PVP. Right?
Even if they did, cry me a river, you'd have to fit 2 large and 1 small armour repper to get the same hp boost/s for armuour as you do with 1 single x-large shield booster. That use 80.1 cap/s and use 3 slots, 4606 grid and 116 cpu compared to the 72 cap/s, 1 slot, 550 grid, 230 cpu shield booster.

Quote:
Tracking? well the Rokh can't hit **** below 5km, and above 6.8 you lose any gains in dps due to fall off.

That happends to the geddon/abaddon/apoc even earlier.

JinChilla, nice graph, but increase that transversal number to something more realistic and you'll notice the blasters pulling ahead even more up close thanks to the better tracking (lasers have better tracking at optimal, but that doesn't mean ****, niether have issues hitting its intended target and should be able to hit undersized ships ok at their respective optimals when the target is webbed, but it's far easier to get in under the guns of a laser boat compared to a blaster boat).

Quote:
This would be true if and only if they removed cap boosters from the game. As it stands, no it is not 'fair'. It's not balanced. In fact, it's overpowered. Hence, I will at long last train it.

That actually makes it even more true: all ships can use cap boosters, but every ship gets the same amount of cap from it, so fitting a cap booster provides more extra cap for other stuff then firing guns on a non-amarr ship then it does on an amarr one. Even if all you want to do is fire your guns, the amarr ship will need to use more boosters to do so, running out faster.

Quote:
The more widely a certain type of ship and fit is used in eve means the more often a ship and fit will die, its the simple law of averages. You seem to think that using loss mails will only show fail fits but the fact is that you can have the best available fit in the game and still die.

Will a well fit ship survive more fights then a badly fitted one? Well fit ships still die, and so does badly fitted ones, but well fitted ships can survive in many situations where a badly fitted ship dies, for example a interceptor with cargohold expanders and no propulsion mod will die more often then a properly fitted interceptor fitted for speed tanking, possibly with a damage control or something for buffer. Assumning both fits were used equally in PVP, the properly fitted one would show up less on killboards since it can survive more fights before it dies. If both theese intys were used at the same time in every fight, and the fail fitted one died in every fight due to bad fit while the properly fitted one died in half the fights due to the good fit, the fail fit would show up twice as often as the well fitted one, despite the equal amount of use.
This is getting too long, will continue int he next post.

steave435
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:59:00 - [115]
 

Quote:
Day 1: 5 kills, 0 losses (5 losses, 25 total ships, 20% coverage)
Day 2: 10 kills, 2 losses (17 losses, 37 total ships, 46% coverage)
Day 3: 27 kills, 5 losses (49 losses, 69 total ships, 71% coverage)
Day 4: 3 kills, 0 losses (52 losses, 72 total ships, 72% coverage)
Day 5: 4 kills, 1 losses (57 losses, 77 total ships, 74% coverage)
Day 6: 14 kills, 13 losses (84 losses, 104 total ships, 81% coverage)
Day 7: 112 kills, 5 losses (201 losses, 221 total ships, 90% coverage)
Day 8: 500 kills, 0 losses (701 losses, 721 total ships, 97% coverage)
...

It's pretty easy to see that it really doesn't matter whether they perform well or not. All that matters is that they do indeed eventually die. And they do - even if it's with a fantastic kill ratio. Again, I
am not claiming that looking at any subset of the victim's mails will give you some idea of whether or not that was a successful fit (or even looking at their mails). What I'm claiming is that you can see what's out
there - existence, not success.

In your example, those 20 well fitted ships killed 670 other ships before they themselves died, and during that week they were out pew pewing, I'm sure there were alot of ships that managed to get away, and that would be much more frequently be the well fitted ships.

Your example actually disprove your own point, 20 well fit ships get to take part in hundreds of fights before they die, so 20 well fitted deaths equal about 100 fights (depending completely on how many hostiles were involved in each fight). If those ships were badly fitted, they would take part in 100 fights, but die 40, or 60, or 80, or 100 times instead of 20, resulting in being shown on killboards 2, or 3, 0r 4, or 5 times more, despite the same useage frequency.

Quote:
Amusing for you to flame someone's post because you fail to understand it. Basically, the idea is that the weapon platform can "track" something at their optimal going that speed.

As mentioned above, both weapons can hit their intended target at optimal, aswell as the target size below using the methods for increasing hit chance at different ranges, where a blaster boat will be in range to use a web while a laser boat is not, when using that optimal range. The difference is, a ship can move itself up close to the laser boat and speed tank it that way, but it can not do the same thing to a blaster boat due to the better tracking. Look at the DPS graphs posted earlier in this thread that include proper transversal (or even the one with only 9m/s, it shows the same thing), blasters pull ahead at close range due to tracking and pure dps, and after a while, the pulse lasers take over when tracking matters less and blasters start running into fall off.

Quote:
I underlined the part you shouldn't do. Reps and lasers don't go well together, but really it's good riddance for bad rubbish. Active tanking is generally pretty fail these days due to increasing gang sizes and the opportunity cost of using cap for reps.

That applies to remote reps aswell, and I don't think you'll argue that remote reps are useless and should not be fitted.




Finally, a few points of ym own:
In the OP and many of the posts following it, you only look at the stats of the gun itself, but you really need to combine the gun with the bonuses it gets from the ships it will be used on before making an analysis.
For example, lasers have cap issues, so along comes the geddon with a cap use bonus.
Projectiles has DPS issues, so here comes the Tempest with a dual damage bonus.
Blasters have range issues, so here comes the rokh with an optimal bonus.
Blasters have tracking issues, so here comes the mega with a tracking bonus, and with an extra mid compared to f.e. geddon to fit a web.

That is a paraphrased example taken from a dev post I read a while ago. A weapon system can not be compared and analyzed without first also including the bonuses of the ships it will be used with. F.e. 42,5% of extra tracking from t

Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:46:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: steave435

Finally, a few points of ym own:
In the OP and many of the posts following it, you only look at the stats of the gun itself, but you really need to combine the gun with the bonuses it gets from the ships it will be used on before making an analysis.
For example, lasers have cap issues, so along comes the geddon with a cap use bonus.
Projectiles has DPS issues, so here comes the Tempest with a dual damage bonus.
Blasters have range issues, so here comes the rokh with an optimal bonus.
Blasters have tracking issues, so here comes the mega with a tracking bonus, and with an extra mid compared to f.e. geddon to fit a web.

That is a paraphrased example taken from a dev post I read a while ago. A weapon system can not be compared and analyzed without first also including the bonuses of the ships it will be used with. F.e. 42,5% of ex...(missing part here?)


You're not completely correct about what devs said/did.
What they did is add bonuses to the weapon systems that are typical, aka usually present on the ships that weapon belong to, not specific ships.
Typical bonus for lasers is capacitor usage reduction, for projectiles it's a rate of fire bonus, for blasters a damage bonus and for rails optimal range.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.28 16:11:00 - [117]
 

One of the only players having problems? Go to the Top 3 list in this forum, Blasters are brought up least 3 times on each page, sometimes every other post is for a blaster fix. A lot are saying it is the tracking that has made them underpowered, and I just recently saw that for myself.

I'm not whining, I'm pointing out something that I believe needs balancing. You are telling me to find a better way to use my ship, and i should have gone further away from him, well you are missing the point. If you ever flew with blasters you would know they are supposed to be operating at really close range, my optimal is always around 2km, our guns should have good enough tracking to hit at optimal. Thats not whining and crying for a boost, thats a legitimate balance problem that a lot of other people are having. If I played the other races I would probably know about their balance issues, so dont think I only wan't my ships improved, i just know what their issues are because I use them.

Please stop telling me without any references that I'm wrong. Feel free to come up with examples to debate with my opinion, but it's not very convincing when you just say "no blasters aren't unbalanced stop crying"

Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
Posted - 2009.05.28 16:22:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: Leto Aramaus
One of the only players having problems? Go to the Top 3 list in this forum, Blasters are brought up least 3 times on each page, sometimes every other post is for a blaster fix. A lot are saying it is the tracking that has made them underpowered, and I just recently saw that for myself.

I'm not whining, I'm pointing out something that I believe needs balancing. You are telling me to find a better way to use my ship, and i should have gone further away from him, well you are missing the point. If you ever flew with blasters you would know they are supposed to be operating at really close range, my optimal is always around 2km, our guns should have good enough tracking to hit at optimal. Thats not whining and crying for a boost, thats a legitimate balance problem that a lot of other people are having. If I played the other races I would probably know about their balance issues, so dont think I only wan't my ships improved, i just know what their issues are because I use them.

Please stop telling me without any references that I'm wrong. Feel free to come up with examples to debate with my opinion, but it's not very convincing when you just say "no blasters aren't unbalanced stop crying"

I didn't just say that, I actually showed you in colour and in pictures what you should have done against that rifter. Being selectively blind really helps convince me your concerns are true, really it does, keep it up Laughing.
here it is again, it clearly shows that there is this magical thing called falloff that would help a blaster hit stuff all the way out to 6-7 km, perhaps you've heard of it? Now if you're saying that falloff is useless, then all these years of projectile users whining about falloff must be true and projectiles have been long overdue for a major boost.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.28 16:31:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: steave435

JinChilla, nice graph, but increase that transversal number to something more realistic and you'll notice the blasters pulling ahead even more up close thanks to the better tracking (lasers have better tracking at optimal, but that doesn't mean ****, niether have issues hitting its intended target and should be able to hit undersized ships ok at their respective optimals when the target is webbed, but it's far easier to get in under the guns of a laser boat compared to a blaster boat).



Comments:
- That really depends on what your idea of "reasonable transversal" is. As has been discussed, battleships will go ~15m/s when ga ng webbed, and cruisers aren't a whole hell of alot better (and that's on top of a gang having wider distributions).
- It's easier to stay 'out of effective range' of blasters than lasers - and going from "tackle range" to "under guns" is actually much harder to do with lasers than blasters. Consider warping in at 45km to get the tackle. With blasters, you don't take any damage to about 15km and then you breeze through 10km of "1000 DPS". With lasers in the same situation you have to wade through 38km of "900 DPS".

Quote:

That actually makes it even more true: all ships can use cap boosters, but every ship gets the same amount of cap from it, so fitting a cap booster provides more extra cap for other stuff then firing guns on a non-amarr ship then it does on an amarr one. Even if all you want to do is fire your guns, the amarr ship will need to use more boosters to do so, running out faster.



Actually, it doesn't make it all the more true. There is sufficient cap to run your guns, and you don't have active hardeners or a rep tank. There is no real difference between using 650 cap out of a 800 charge and using none as long as you can continue to fire. Again, cap use might be a real issue if they removed cap boosters. As it is now, it simply isn't worth mentioning.

Quote:
Will a well fit ship survive more fights then a badly fitted one? ... Assumning both fits were used equally in PVP, the properly fitted one would show up less on killboards since it can survive more fights before it dies. ...


No, you're measuring success, not existence. There's a big difference.

-Liang

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.28 16:40:00 - [120]
 

Once again... completely missing the point. You are trying to mock me and be sarcastic, and show me your graph again. That maybe could have worked, but when your tackled you can't keep a frigate at range, and... that is still not the point

I don't care what I should have done with todays blaster mechanics, I shounldn't have to go further away from my target to hit it, when I am supposed to be the best close range weapon. They need to be able to be that. you call me selectively blind, well, have you seen at ALL that I have said blasters should be able to hit their targets AT their optimal.

reapeat: blasters should be able to hit their targets AT their optimal.

Going out to 6km might have let me hit a rifter, that doesnt solve the balance issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but within the game, there are many ships that are specifically meant to be better than others at certain types of combat, and have certain major strengths. Gallente blaster boats are supposed to be specifically strong at close range, muscle, type combat. This isnt the case when you can't hit a target at your own optimal range or closer. I still want to hear a decent argument against that.



Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only