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

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.28 16:43:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: steave435
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).


No, it doesn't disprove my point because my point has nothing to do with success and everything to do with existence. The absolute only way that the random sample would be wrong is if there was a large portion of the active PVP base that simply never (not infrequently) died.

Quote:
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.


Um, they're used 2, or 3, or 4, or 5 times more too. Seems like a perfect measure of existence to me? Look at it this way: if you're measuring fish in a pond and there's one predator in the whole thing and millions of fast reproducing fish. You take a sample and all you get's the fast reproducing fish: your sample is not wrong. In fact, it's very accurate, and if anything "accidentally" including the single predator in a small sample would unduly bias your results!

Quote:
...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.


By the same token they can kite tank the blaster boat (which is even easier because it isn't in web range).

Quote:
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.


See, but that's the thing: the advantage of having that extra range way outweigns the advantage of having 5% more raw DPS under 7km. It's simply true - 7km is exceedingly short range for battleships.

Quote:

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.



I did that. That's why we see lasers outdamaging blasters from 7km.

Quote:
For example, lasers have cap issues, so along comes the geddon with a cap use bonus.

Or an Abaddon with a cap booster.

Quote:
Projectiles has DPS issues, so here comes the Tempest with a dual damage bonus.

Which still has less DPS than a Mealstrom - and the Mael is outdamaged at all ranges with 7 damage mods (3 gyro, 3 ambit, 2 TE) by a geddon (not to mention the Abaddon).

Quote:
Blasters have range issues, so here comes the rokh with an optimal bonus.

The Rokh is pretty fail actually, outdamaged at all ranges by lasers.

Quote:
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.


Or use an Abaddon, do more damage than the geddon and still have room for the Holy Quad Of PVP.

-Liang

[quot]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.


Yeah, and we have (and if you'd bothered to read the posts you'd know that) - and lasers are overpowered.

-Liang

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.28 17:31:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 28/05/2009 17:34:13
Originally by: Leto Aramaus
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.



Just because you failed to kill a small frig in your Thorax, it doesn't mean Medium Blasters are weak at all.

And if you think about that many are whining about Blasters, it's not the Medium Blasters the players are whining about, it's the Large Blasters.

But those who are whining about Large Blasters are most likely the same type of player like you. Your doing something very wrong. Or the players that are killing you are much much smarter than you.

Your one of the VERY few players here that are whining about MEDIUM BLASTERS. All of the other Blaster whine topics have been about Large Blasters, not all of the Blaster sized weapons.

Now i hope you get it why your doing something wrong.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.28 17:37:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: Electric Universe
it's not the Medium Blasters the players are whining about, it's the Large Blasters.


I think the difference is that med blasters can track 3 classes of ships really quite well (cruiser/bc/bs) while BS's can really only track one well (BS's). They can also get into range faster. On top of that, the only really decent medium sized laser platforms I can think of are the Zealot/Harbinger - and you can't really compare the Brutix, Ferox, or Myrmidon to the Harbinger because two of them are tier 1 and the other is in a different role. OTOH, the Zealot is virtually always regarded as better than the Diemost even up close.

It seems to me that the weapons do have similar problems as they scale down, but that they're generally covered up a bit better by ship variation and maneuverability. What this really does is speak volumes about how poorly battleships really fit into the game.

-Liang

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2009.05.28 17:53:00 - [124]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 28/05/2009 17:53:54
Originally by: Electric Universe

Just because you failed to kill a small frig in your Thorax, it doesn't mean Medium Blasters are weak at all.

And if you think about that many are whining about Blasters, it's not the Medium Blasters the players are whining about, it's the Large Blasters.

But those who are whining about Large Blasters are most likely the same type of player like you. Your doing something very wrong. Or the players that are killing you are much much smarter than you.

Your one of the few players here that are whining about MEDIUM BLASTERS. All of the other Blaster whine topics have been about Large Blasters, not all of the Blaster sized weapons.

Now i hope you get it why your doing something wrong.


TL;DR "Im right your wrong, for no special reason, simply because I think it is like this." Confused

Actualy your post contains only you do it wrong, not a single byte of text how to do it right(not like it is allways like this).

It is about medium Blasters to. Rolling Eyes
Use the range advantage is a very good idea, unfortunaly the ability to control this sayed range is not there if you get hit by a scram(what usely is in 9/10 cases against a frig).
I have used my Thorax only once since QR(no I donīt ride the ECM Drones fix all your problems train), I liked and flown it a lot before...


Btw, you might consider the forum ban as a break from posting. Im preaty shure this is the intention of some mods and why you got one in the first place.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.28 17:56:00 - [125]
 

The arguments that 'blasters are fine, lasers are fine, its all fine' are silly and without basis. Blasters and minmatar projectiles were among the top 5 issues in the (now-abandoned) issues with EVE thread. I'm going to rely on the player base as a whole rather than some pvp expert who, in his vast experience in hardcore, serious 0.0 fighting loves his megathron.

The reason amarr is the most popular is because they have 2-3x more optimal than the other two short-range turret types. All races can switch to a long-range variant to increase this optimal, but because Amarr starts with such a high base, the difference between the types grows dramatically.

Minmatar is borked because we live in falloff, and in falloff we instantly lose large portions of our potential damage. Our chances for high-damage hits go down dramatically and our overall dps suffers. Minmatar bs have always been sub-par because of this, but when the nano nerf made our recons and hacs painfully bad the entire race began to suck. Which sucks for me, as I have 40m sp and its all minmatar.

Blasters are borked because the trade of range for dps doesn't happen in enough significance. I, and most players, like the idea of blasters being a super-high-dps, short-range weapon, but they're not really. Their tracking is also worse than amarr and minmatar, which is counter-intuitive - if its a short-range weapon, it should be designed to deal with high transversals because as the target gets closer to the blasterboat its transversal will increase (assuming neither ship is approaching the other head-on).

IMO, the weapons systems should be easily designed around this basic idea - that you trade range for damage. So, racially, you'd have (referring to the short-range variants of each race):

amarr - longish range, medium-to-3rd dps
minmatar - medium range, medium dps
gallente - short range, clearly highest dps

and missiles are ... somewhere :P

To fix, I'd suggest boosting the tracking and increasing the damage of blasters by a large amount, call it 20-30%. I'd reduce the falloff penalties for every race by changing the damage formula (thusly helping minmatar greatly), and I'd lower amarr's damage / tracking.

But that said, I doubt it will happen. Minmatar reigned supreme in pvp for a good nearly 2 years, and now amarr is approaching its year of supremacy. The real question is which race is going to be super-uber after the amarr nerf, which has to happen.

bubbly bird
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:08:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: Electric Universe
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.


Reducing the raw DPS may work but a tracking nerf will be pointless due to the amount of webs used in combat.

Originally by: Electric Universe
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.


If blasters get a tracking buff frigs and cruisers can tank them using range because blasters are a close range system, just like they can tank lasers by getting in close cosa lasers are aparantly a med range system.

Only a idiot would engage a pulse BS in a cruiser at 45-50km, and on the flip side of the coin it should be that only a idiot should engage a blaster BS in a cruiser at close range.

Originally by: Electric Universe
But if you nerf the tracking on Lasers, you will then take away the effectivnes Lasers have in the Blasters territory.


The only place a laser tracking nerf will make lasers poor in blaster ranges is on a 1 v 1 EFT graph, on TQ in gang combat multiple webs make tracking irrelavant.

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:32:00 - [127]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 28/05/2009 18:56:04
Originally by: bubbly bird
Originally by: Electric Universe
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.


Reducing the raw DPS may work but a tracking nerf will be pointless due to the amount of webs used in combat.

Originally by: Electric Universe
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.


If blasters get a tracking buff frigs and cruisers can tank them using range because blasters are a close range system, just like they can tank lasers by getting in close cosa lasers are aparantly a med range system.

Only a idiot would engage a pulse BS in a cruiser at 45-50km, and on the flip side of the coin it should be that only a idiot should engage a blaster BS in a cruiser at close range.

Originally by: Electric Universe
But if you nerf the tracking on Lasers, you will then take away the effectivnes Lasers have in the Blasters territory.


The only place a laser tracking nerf will make lasers poor in blaster ranges is on a 1 v 1 EFT graph, on TQ in gang combat multiple webs make tracking irrelavant.

To the first thing.

There is 2 options. 1st option is to reduce the racking on Lasers so they hit very bad inside web range. No i'm not talking about gang combat now. Because in gang combat it would't have anything to say if you nerfed the tracking on Lasers by 75%, because the webbed targets are not going to move much anyways.

But for very small gang combat the tracking have ALOT to say. So for that case Lasers need a tracking nerf. Lasers shouldn't do 92% of the DPS that Blasters are doing in the Blasters optimal range. The DPS should be more like 50% of what Blasters are doing in optimal range for Lasers at that range.

2nd option is to recude the raw DPS on Lasers by like 10-15%. If you do that, you will then make the Lasers have poor damage inside web range, but still do great DPS from 30 km up to 60 km where the Lasers are supposed to do good DPS.

And because Lasers (Pulses) are MAINLY a med range weapon, it should only be good at med range and then be poor at close range. Like Blasters are good at close range but very poor at med range.

So to the last things from you.

If Blasters get a tracking boost, then they will absolutely be overpowered against frigs and cruisers again. And normally when cruisers is on your Battleship they are mostly inside web range, simply because cruisers are mostly close range fitted and can't hit outside of web range.

Like a close range fitted Thorax, he can't hit for **** outside of web range. Close range cruisers will simply become useless against Battlships again then. You saw how easily a BS could pretty much instapwn cruisers and alot of frigs before the web nerf right?.

The ONLY reason CCP nerfed the webs was because they wanted to prevent that from happening, and to let the cruisers and frigs get more usefull against BS'es. And the 2nd reason was because CCP nerfed the speed.

Then to the last thing. No, nerfing Lasers tracking / DPS will make Blasters very usefull over Lasers in small Battleship gangs. Lasers are fleet weapons anyways.

bubbly bird
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:00:00 - [128]
 

Edited by: bubbly bird on 28/05/2009 19:02:16
Originally by: Electric Universe


But for very small gang combat the tracking have ALOT to say. So for that case Lasers need a tracking nerf.


With just 2 webs a BS has its transversal reduced to point that even lasers with gimped to hell tracking hit them easily at blaster range.

So:

1. BS gangs so small they have LESS than 2 webs available (so only 1) do not exist.

2. Even if they did exist 2 webs make tracking unimportant.



Originally by: Electric Universe
If Blasters get a tracking boost, then they will absolutely be overpowered against frigs and cruisers again. And normally when cruisers is on your Battleship they are mostly inside web range, simply because cruisers are mostly close range fitted and can't hit outside of web range.


Cruisers ect work in web/close range now against BS because they can use transversal to avoid dmg, against blaster ships however they can be at close OR longer range to avoid or reduce incoming dmg and as such a tracking buff would still allow them to use longer range to tank blaster BS.

Originally by: Electric Universe
Then to the last thing. No, nerfing Lasers tracking will make small gang close range Gallente BS gangs very usefull over Amarr BS'es. Amarr BS'es are fleet BS'es anyways.


I dunno what sort of sized BS gangs you think happen on TQ but considering just 2 webs make even gimped to hell pulse BS tracking hit another BS just fine at blaster range the "small gangs" you are refering to need to consist of one ship...

So again i say and show that nerfing laser tracking will only make laser BS poor in blaster range on a 1 v 1 EFT graph because teams of 2 or more will have enough webs to make any tracking nerf pointless.

I think you need to step back and realise the differance between a theoretical situation and the reality of available pvp on eve, after all how often do you see a gang of just 2 BS on TQ cos the smallest BS gangs i see consist og a lot more than just 2 ships.

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:13:00 - [129]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 28/05/2009 19:26:58
Originally by: bubbly bird
Edited by: bubbly bird on 28/05/2009 19:02:16
Originally by: Electric Universe


But for very small gang combat the tracking have ALOT to say. So for that case Lasers need a tracking nerf.


With just 2 webs a BS has its transversal reduced to point that even lasers with gimped to hell tracking hit them easily at blaster range.

So:

1. BS gangs so small they have LESS than 2 webs available (so only 1) do not exist.

2. Even if they did exist 2 webs make tracking unimportant.



Originally by: Electric Universe
If Blasters get a tracking boost, then they will absolutely be overpowered against frigs and cruisers again. And normally when cruisers is on your Battleship they are mostly inside web range, simply because cruisers are mostly close range fitted and can't hit outside of web range.


Cruisers ect work in web/close range now against BS because they can use transversal to avoid dmg, against blaster ships however they can be at close OR longer range to avoid or reduce incoming dmg and as such a tracking buff would still allow them to use longer range to tank blaster BS.

Originally by: Electric Universe
Then to the last thing. No, nerfing Lasers tracking will make small gang close range Gallente BS gangs very usefull over Amarr BS'es. Amarr BS'es are fleet BS'es anyways.


I dunno what sort of sized BS gangs you think happen on TQ but considering just 2 webs make even gimped to hell pulse BS tracking hit another BS just fine at blaster range the "small gangs" you are refering to need to consist of one ship...

So again i say and show that nerfing laser tracking will only make laser BS poor in blaster range on a 1 v 1 EFT graph because teams of 2 or more will have enough webs to make any tracking nerf pointless.

I think you need to step back and realise the differance between a theoretical situation and the reality of available pvp on eve, after all how often do you see a gang of just 2 BS on TQ cos the smallest BS gangs i see consist og a lot more than just 2 ships.

No matter how you look at it, Lasers should NOT be good in the territory where Blasters are good. Atm Lasers are way to good in that territory.

And because a Blaster Mega for example is a good solo / small gang BS, then an Amarr BS with Pulses should not be able to do the same as a Blaster Mega and pretty much be as good as a Blaster Mega if those Amarr BS'es is doing the same as the Blaster Mega. That's what i'm trying to tell you.

Amarr BS'es with Pulses should not be good in small scale PVP. They should be good in large fleet PVP gangs. Yes, small scale PVP is something very many in EVE are doing today.

So if the Lasers gets more crap in the area where Blasters is supposed to be best by a large margin, then there will also be a very good reason to use a Blaster Mega over any of the Amarr BS'es with Pulses in small / medium PVP gangs.

And so you know. The ONLY reason there are so much whining about Large Blasters is because Amarr BS'es with Lasers (Pulses) are way to good atm. If Lasers haven't been so good at where Blasters are good, then there wouldn't be any of this epic whining on the forum about Large Blasters.

And boosting the tracking / DPS on Blasters isn't going to fix much, because if CCP are doing that, they will just create much more problems.

Yes they will probably fix Blasters it self, but when there will be many many more problems to fix after that again, then i don't think that's a smart move to take tbqh.

bubbly bird
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:32:00 - [130]
 

Edited by: bubbly bird on 28/05/2009 19:36:35

Originally by: Electric Universe

No matter how you look at it, Lasers should NOT be good in the territory where Blasters are good. Atm Lasers are way to good in that territory.


Maybe the problem is that lasers are to good but then maybe the problem is that blasters are not good enough.

Originally by: Electric Universe
And because a Blaster Mega for example is a good Solo / Small gang BS, then an Amarr BS with Pulses should not be able to do the same and pretty much be as good as a Blaster Mega if that ship is doing the same. That's what i'm trying to tell you.


There are no good solo BS any more because of how BS tracking, webs ect ect have been nerfed making them useless vs smaller ships, BS are just way to vulnerable against way to many ships to be used solo.

Originally by: Electric Universe
Amarr BS'es with Pulses should not be good in small scale PVP. They should be good in large fleet PVP gangs.


Well your out of luck then because you cannot nerf lasers tracking to the point that they will be poor in blaster range with webs available.

Originally by: Electric Universe
And so you know. The ONLY reason there are so much whining about Large Blasters is because Amarr BS'es with Lasers (Pulses) are way to good atm. If Lasers haven't been so good at where Blasters are good, then there wouldn't be any of this epic whining on the forum about Large Blasters.


I do not agree with you tbh as that is a over simplification of the true problem.

Ppl complain about BS blasters because they are poor in gang pvp compared to lasers, while also being poor at being the "solo pvp ship" they are supposed to be good at, simply because pretty much every ship in the classes below them can evade and or easily tank/tackle them.

WTF kind of so called "solo ship" is either worthless cos it cannot tackle/hold or can be easily tackled held or killed by every other ship in the game apart from a few in its own class/size?.LaughingShocked

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.28 20:15:00 - [131]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 28/05/2009 20:18:49
Originally by: bubbly bird
Edited by: bubbly bird on 28/05/2009 19:36:35

Originally by: Electric Universe

No matter how you look at it, Lasers should NOT be good in the territory where Blasters are good. Atm Lasers are way to good in that territory.


Maybe the problem is that lasers are to good but then maybe the problem is that blasters are not good enough.

Originally by: Electric Universe
And because a Blaster Mega for example is a good Solo / Small gang BS, then an Amarr BS with Pulses should not be able to do the same and pretty much be as good as a Blaster Mega if that ship is doing the same. That's what i'm trying to tell you.


There are no good solo BS any more because of how BS tracking, webs ect ect have been nerfed making them useless vs smaller ships, BS are just way to vulnerable against way to many ships to be used solo.

Originally by: Electric Universe
Amarr BS'es with Pulses should not be good in small scale PVP. They should be good in large fleet PVP gangs.


Well your out of luck then because you cannot nerf lasers tracking to the point that they will be poor in blaster range with webs available.

Originally by: Electric Universe
And so you know. The ONLY reason there are so much whining about Large Blasters is because Amarr BS'es with Lasers (Pulses) are way to good atm. If Lasers haven't been so good at where Blasters are good, then there wouldn't be any of this epic whining on the forum about Large Blasters.


I do not agree with you tbh as that is a over simplification of the true problem.

Ppl complain about BS blasters because they are poor in gang pvp compared to lasers, while also being poor at being the "solo pvp ship" they are supposed to be good at, simply because pretty much every ship in the classes below them can evade and or easily tank/tackle them.

WTF kind of so called "solo ship" is either worthless cos it cannot tackle/hold or can be easily tackled held or killed by every other ship in the game apart from a few in its own class/size?.LaughingShocked

No Blasters is good enough. The problem is that Lasers are way to good.

A Blaster Mega is still a very good solo / small gang PVP ship. I know many players that are using a Blaster Mega for solo / small PVP works today, but some of them are doing it with some alts that are scouting for them, so they know what they can come over.

It's all about being smart. Stupid players always dies no matter how good a ship is. And smart players can kill ALOT of things no matter how poor a ship isWink.

In small gangs from 1 up to 4 players you can make a Laser BS to feel it that their tracking is poor in close range if they get a tracking nerf. So it's all i'm thinking about, to make Amarr BS'es with Lasers (Pulses) somewhat poor in that size of gangs.

A Blaster Mega should be best at hitting targets inside web range that have more speed and that are not webbed by many. When i say best at hitting it means after how the standard are for large guns today to hit targets.

Today a Pulse fitted Amarr BS can do the same as a Blaster Mega. But they shouldn't. Lasers should be poor where the Blasters are good, and be good where the Blasters are poor.

That is how it's supposed to work.

And to the last thing.

You don't agree, but sorry to inform you, but that is the true fact. Because Large Blasters it self are very fine as it is now.

And because Blasters is fine, then they shouldn't be touched at all. But because Lasers are overpowered today, then it's THEM who need to be changed, not a weapon that is perfectly balanced to 2 other weapon systems.

Instead of changing Blasters and then have to change the Autocannons and then Torps, then it would just be much better to make Lasers more balanced to the 3 other weapon systems that ARE balanced to each others.

Just think about that to. You have to think way more widely and not just think right forward in a stright line.

bubbly bird
Posted - 2009.05.28 20:28:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Electric Universe


A Blaster Mega is still a very good solo / small gang PVP ship. I know many players that are using a Blaster Mega for solo / small PVP works today, but some of them are doing it with some alts that are scouting for them, so they know what they can come over.


I do not know anybody who solo's in a mega anymore because there are hacs, BC and recons ect that are much better solo ships and have a much greater target selection.



Originally by: Electric Universe
In small gangs from 1 up to 4 players you can make a Laser BS to feel it that their tracking is poor in close range if they get a tracking nerf.


1 is not a small gang it is solo so read above.

From 2-4 their are enough webs available to make tracking unimportant.

Originally by: Electric Universe
You don't agree, but sorry to inform you, but that is the true fact. Because Large Blasters it self are very fine as it is now.


They are useless against ships smaller than a BS making them useless for solo work as most ships in eve can kite and tackle or kill the ships that use them.

Its you that is looking at things too narrowly and without understanding the reality of available pvp for BS on TQ, im not going to waste my time arguing with somebody who thinks that solo BS pvp is regularly available on TQ as you are so out of touch its a joke.

Step back take a breath and look around because reality seems to have passed you by.

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.28 20:49:00 - [133]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 28/05/2009 21:01:29
Originally by: bubbly bird
Originally by: Electric Universe


A Blaster Mega is still a very good solo / small gang PVP ship. I know many players that are using a Blaster Mega for solo / small PVP works today, but some of them are doing it with some alts that are scouting for them, so they know what they can come over.


I do not know anybody who solo's in a mega anymore because there are hacs, BC and recons ect that are much better solo ships and have a much greater target selection.

Originally by: Electric Universe
In small gangs from 1 up to 4 players you can make a Laser BS to feel it that their tracking is poor in close range if they get a tracking nerf.


1 is not a small gang it is solo so read above.

From 2-4 their are enough webs available to make tracking unimportant.

Originally by: Electric Universe
You don't agree, but sorry to inform you, but that is the true fact. Because Large Blasters it self are very fine as it is now.


They are useless against ships smaller than a BS making them useless for solo work as most ships in eve can kite and tackle or kill the ships that use them.

Its you that is looking at things too narrowly and without understanding the reality of available pvp for BS on TQ, im not going to waste my time arguing with somebody who thinks that solo BS pvp is regularly available on TQ as you are so out of touch its a joke.

Step back take a breath and look around because reality seems to have passed you by.

Yes but not all have so much isk that they can affort to lose an uninsured HAC to over 100 mill isk. So some peoples still use cheaper alternatives. Like BS'es for example.

Yes a BC is a more cheaper ship to use, but they are pretty slow though to be a Battlecruiser.

Doesn't matter. Because solo PVP exist today, then the Amarr BS'es should be poor at that thing, while a Blaster Mega should be very good at that. Well a Blaster Mega is good at that today ONLY for smart peoples who knows 100% exacly what they are doing. But a Laser BS is way to good in that category.

Blasters works very good against cruisers and specially battlecruisers and ofc BS'es. To effectivly kill cruisers you need to know your ship 110% and know what your doing.

As NightmareX told earlier, when a Pilgrim dual tracking disrupt his Blaster Mega with 2x tracking disruption scripts and then he still hits the Pilgrim that are orbiting him at 3 km at a speed of 250 m/s. Yes the Pilgrim was webbed and was using an Afterburner. Isn't the tracking good enough by miles then?. I think it's very fine by that then. No his Blaster Mega coudn't MWD either because it was scrambled by the Pilgrim.

So how good do you really want the Blasters to track really?.

To be quite honest, i just think you want your ultimate instakill machine for frigs and cruisers back again.

No i'm not being rude now, i'm just taking a conclusion after how good i know Blaster BS'es are atm and after how you want Blaster BS'es to be boosted.

Now you can take a step back and take a breath with fresh air and think about what i'm saying now about the tracking thing with Blasters will be if you boost it now.

ANY good PVPers know EXACTLY what will happen if Blasters gets a tracking boost. And believe me when i say it. No one wants that to happen, because it goes against the reasons for the web nerf.

Edit: Nice way of ignoring the facts i said earlier about the other weapon systems that need to be boosted / changed to if Blasters gets a boost.

I think you should think about that to before you scream BOOST BLASTERS.

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.05.28 21:36:00 - [134]
 

the tradeoff range vs dps is one of the most common and accepted things in EVE i don understand why amarr and laser should be allowed to ignore this rule.
bigger the range smaller the real dps applied to the target and this include tracking and paper dps.

for this blaster should outdamage laser at short range in a significant way (not the case actually), while laser should outdamage blaster at long range and they actually do it very well.
AC are a versatile weapon so they should outdamage blaster at long range (not working actually) and get outdamaged at short range.
and always for the rule dmg vs range AC should outdamage laser at short range and they should get outdamaged at longer ranges, at the moment laser outdamage AC at every range.


the easiest solution would be nerf laser but i hope CCP wont do it laser are fine i seriously hope they will tweak AC and blaster to make them viable again.
also falloff formula need a rework badly and this is one of the main issue.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.28 22:21:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Electric Universe
Edited by: Electric Universe on 28/05/2009 17:34:13

Just because you failed to kill a small frig in your Thorax, it doesn't mean Medium Blasters are weak at all.

And if you think about that many are whining about Blasters, it's not the Medium Blasters the players are whining about, it's the Large Blasters.

But those who are whining about Large Blasters are most likely the same type of player like you. Your doing something very wrong. Or the players that are killing you are much much smarter than you.

Your one of the VERY few players here that are whining about MEDIUM BLASTERS. All of the other Blaster whine topics have been about Large Blasters, not all of the Blaster sized weapons.

Now i hope you get it why your doing something wrong.


And I still get the same answer with no backing. "You're doing something wrong". No... I'm not. I'm fighting at the close range my ship is meant to fight at, against a T1 frigate, that does indeed indicate something is wrong. Medium blasters are weak for the same reasons large ones are, and you are the wrong one by saying everyone else is talking about large blasters only, read the top 3 again, I don't really even remember seeing a post that says 'Large blasters only' as someones main issue. They all simply say blasters. Your argument that I am one of the only people having Medium blaster problems is completely false and unsupported. Now I hope that you get I am not doing anything wrong whatsoever. (of course you don't)

Blasters need balanced, it's not like I'm making this up. Read everything else that nearly 1 ouf ot 3 people are saying about them, they are currently inferior guns at any range. Yea, that isn't weak at all right?

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.28 22:45:00 - [136]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 28/05/2009 22:47:10
Originally by: Leto Aramaus
Originally by: Electric Universe
Edited by: Electric Universe on 28/05/2009 17:34:13

Just because you failed to kill a small frig in your Thorax, it doesn't mean Medium Blasters are weak at all.

And if you think about that many are whining about Blasters, it's not the Medium Blasters the players are whining about, it's the Large Blasters.

But those who are whining about Large Blasters are most likely the same type of player like you. Your doing something very wrong. Or the players that are killing you are much much smarter than you.

Your one of the VERY few players here that are whining about MEDIUM BLASTERS. All of the other Blaster whine topics have been about Large Blasters, not all of the Blaster sized weapons.

Now i hope you get it why your doing something wrong.


And I still get the same answer with no backing. "You're doing something wrong". No... I'm not. I'm fighting at the close range my ship is meant to fight at, against a T1 frigate, that does indeed indicate something is wrong. Medium blasters are weak for the same reasons large ones are, and you are the wrong one by saying everyone else is talking about large blasters only, read the top 3 again, I don't really even remember seeing a post that says 'Large blasters only' as someones main issue. They all simply say blasters. Your argument that I am one of the only people having Medium blaster problems is completely false and unsupported. Now I hope that you get I am not doing anything wrong whatsoever. (of course you don't)

Blasters need balanced, it's not like I'm making this up. Read everything else that nearly 1 ouf ot 3 people are saying about them, they are currently inferior guns at any range. Yea, that isn't weak at all right?

And why aren't you doing something wrong?.

If your not doing anything wrong. Then do this for me. Tell me this.

1. What setup did you use?. Tell me the exact setup.

2. How did you fly to the frig you was shooting and how was you moving when you did shoot the frig?.

3. Was the frig very fast or was the frig webbed?.

4. How was the frig fighting you?. Was he very close to your Thorax and orbiting you very fast?.

5. How high is your tracking on your Blasters. Tell me, was you using Electrons, Ions or Neutrons?.

6. Was you by the way using t2 Blasters with t2 close range ammo in it?.

I could probably have written down like 20 more questions. But i'm not gonna do it because your insisting that you did everything right no matter what.

Just to tell you a fact. If you have been using t2 Blasters with t1 faction ammo and did the right thing, you should have owned that frig.

When my Battlecruiser can melt frigs in no time, then your cruiser can do that to.

Anyways, i think there is some errors in one of the things i'm asking you about over. I'm 100% sure one or two of the questions over are the reasons for not killing that frig.

And not only that, but most of the players i know that use cruisers and Battlecruisers, that i also know are very good with those ships have never had problems to kill frigs with those type of ships.

And to the last thing. How many times do i have to say that nerfing the Lasers tracking or DPS will make Blasters the best by a big margin inside web range?.

Doing that is absolutely the easiest way. Instead of having to start messing with the 3 other weapon types just so they can be more inline with Lasers. Jesus you guys just want to go the hard and painfull way of fixing things.

Not only that, but by how good i know CCP after playing EVE for some years, i know CCP will mess something seriously up by messing with the 3 weapon systems.

So why do CCP have to boost Blasters, and then Autocannons and then Torps ONLY so they can be inline with Lasers?.

Dude, Lasers isn't more important than 3 other weapon systems. Why not just make the Lasers more balanced to the 3 other weapon systems THAT ARE balanced to each others?.

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.28 22:51:00 - [137]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 28/05/2009 22:55:20
And also to add.

If CCP have to boost Blasters, Autocannons and Torps, then it might be a big change that they will make those 3 weapon system unbalanced to each others.

When CCP finally got the 3 weapon systems to be VERY balanced to each others after the web and speed nerf, then you want CCP to change them and probably make them unbalanced to each others again?, like they was before, even when they boost them all 3.

Trust me when i say it. CCP will mess the balance up seriously between those 3 weapon types if they start changing them.

I will say it short. DO NOT TOUCH THOSE 3 WEAPON SYSTEMS NOW WHEN THEY FINALLY ARE VERY BALANCED TO EACH OTHERS.

Nerf Lasers and make them balanced to the 3 other weapon types instead. It's much easier to just sit there and fine tune / change Lasers to be balanced to the 3 other weapons.

And the chance to mess something up by doing that is also very small.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.28 23:30:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Electric Universe
Edited by: Electric Universe on 28/05/2009 22:47:10

And why aren't you doing something wrong?.

If your not doing anything wrong. Then do this for me. Tell me this.

1. What setup did you use?. Tell me the exact setup.

2. How did you fly to the frig you was shooting and how was you moving when you did shoot the frig?.

3. Was the frig very fast or was the frig webbed?.

4. How was the frig fighting you?. Was he very close to your Thorax and orbiting you very fast?.

5. How high is your tracking on your Blasters. Tell me, was you using Electrons, Ions or Neutrons?.

6. Was you by the way using t2 Blasters with t2 close range ammo in it?.

I could probably have written down like 20 more questions. But i'm not gonna do it because your insisting that you did everything right no matter what.

Just to tell you a fact. If you have been using t2 Blasters with t1 faction ammo and did the right thing, you should have owned that frig.

When my Battlecruiser can melt frigs in no time, then your cruiser can do that to.

Anyways, i think there is some errors in one of the things i'm asking you about over. I'm 100% sure one or two of the questions over are the reasons for not killing that frig.

And not only that, but most of the players i know that use cruisers and Battlecruisers, that i also know are very good with those ships have never had problems to kill frigs with those type of ships.

And to the last thing. How many times do i have to say that nerfing the Lasers tracking or DPS will make Blasters the best by a big margin inside web range?.

Doing that is absolutely the easiest way. Instead of having to start messing with the 3 other weapon types just so they can be more inline with Lasers. Jesus you guys just want to go the hard and painfull way of fixing things.

Not only that, but by how good i know CCP after playing EVE for some years, i know CCP will mess something seriously up by messing with the 3 weapon systems.

So why do CCP have to boost Blasters, and then Autocannons and then Torps ONLY so they can be inline with Lasers?.

Dude, Lasers isn't more important than 3 other weapon systems. Why not just make the Lasers more balanced

I can tell you exactly how I fought the rifter, I'm pretty sure I already have. My fitting is 5 heavy ion blaster IIs, Antimatter charge M, not tech 2 ammo as you probably assumed. 800mm plate, damage control, and 3 mag field stabilizers. Of course mids are MWD, web, scram. The rifter was webbed and scrammed, orbiting me at 1.5-2km. Oh I also had a medium hybrid turret damage implant, that does 3% damage to my blasters. And just so you know, my skills are well above average for blasters and gunnery in general.

Hey you recognize this one Electric? You're wrong, blasters need buffed because I said so. That logic should reach you huh?

Lasers need adjusted to hit with their current DPS at long range, and miss at short range.
Blasters need adjusted to hit with their current or higher DPS at short range, and miss at long range.

I don't know what the other guns need. But honestly, suggesting that ccp balance the game by making all the weapons crap, and bringing the good one down to be just as bad, is a terrible idea. that is not an EVE version I want to play in.

Electric you need to look at what you're saying, and think about it. You say nerfing lasers is the "easiest" way to balance weapons, well maybe some people want the "most balanced" or "most fun" method to be applied when reconfiguring the games turrets and weapons. I think you are just biased towards one type of gun and disagree with the majority because you dont want to see the other weapons system patched to be useful. As you have been saying yourself, nerfing one instead of improving the others is the best idea. Please...

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.28 23:50:00 - [139]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 29/05/2009 00:11:12
The way you want Blasters to be is not the way to go.

Blasters do way enough DPS. They actually have a nice DPS advantage already after the resists on armor omni tanked ships.

But Lasers are still doing to much DPS because of the tracking OR because it's just doing to much DPS.

The DPS inside web range should be much lower for Lasers.

And just remember, even if you nerf the Lasers so they do lower DPS inside web range, they will still do ALOT of DPS outside of web range where they are supposed to be good.

And if you boost the DPS more on Blasters, then what's the point with the HP buff all ships got some years ago?. The HP buff for all of the ships was so they could last longer in PVP.

If your gonna boost the DPS on the Blasters, it goes against THAT TO. The ships will just pop faster. And no we don't like that. Today in a fight, a BS will use alot of time to kill another BS. And it should be like that.

After what i see, the whiners are going against 3 things here.

First the web nerf, Here you just want more tracking on Blasters. But they wont get that because of the web nerf.

Second thing is the DPS. Some years ago all ships in EVE got a HP boost so ships could live longer in EVE after more and more players joined EVE. And here you want more DPS that goes against that to. No there will not be any DPS boost from Blasters because they are doing good enough DPS today.

And a range boost will not happen either on Blasters because it goes against being the closest range weapon in EVE.

I know exactly how Blasters, Lasers, Autocannons and Torps are SUPPOSED to work. And after how Lasers works today, they are to powerfull.

Wanna know why?. Ok listen here.

If you have been in this game for this long to know that CCP boosted the tracking on Lasers some years ago. They only did that so the Lasers could hit cruisers and HAC's better because they was so fast back then. That change that time was totally fine because Lasers really needed it.

Then some years after that when we finally get the expansion with the speed and web nerf. Then what happens?, yes, HAC's and cruisers gets ALOT slower.

And then Lasers still have that tracking boost to hit fast cruisers and HAC's. That isn't needed at all today.

If the speed and web nerf had come before the tracking boost had come to the Lasers, then the Lasers would never get that tracking boost.

That's something you don't understand. And that's also something that you don't see why the tracking on Lasers today should be taken back to how it was before that tracking boost to Lasers.

When an Abaddon with Pulses can hit a 3k m/s cruiser at 40 km pretty good then something is not right. If it had been at 1.5k m/s or something like that, it would be fine. But it's not fine at all when they hit a 3k m/s cruiser at 40 km pretty good.

You have to understand this.

If you don't understand this, then your to dumb to actually talk to when it's about PVP, so it will be no point for me to talk with you then.

And yes, i have been thinking about what i'm saying this time. And what do you think i will say after we have summed this over up?.

It's very easy to find / see where the real problem actually is.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.29 00:11:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: Leto Aramaus on 29/05/2009 00:32:07
I do agree with that you just said about how buffing the other 3 weapons will just counteract the hp buff. That could result if it was done really poorly.

However
-it could be possible to fix the other 3 weapons however they need it, without overpowering them so combat is just back to before HP buff stats

-the HP buff gave a big help to tanking ships but that doesn't mean when a certain weapons class doesn't technically "work", we should just leave it that way. What I want for blasters is to fine tune them up to be working, at their intended range, and supposed uber damage. not to make them the new nano's or completely null the HP buff and tank methods in game. They need fixed, wether lasers are overpowered and need nerfed, completely irrelevant to my particular suggestion.

Blasters. need. fixed. no questions about it really. As far as I'm concerned they aren't working as should be, all other issues aside.
Theres not much you can actually say to that Electric, but I know you'll try.

Edit: honestly after reading your posts about how large blasters are "fine", I have this to say. YES. a megathron with 8 large blasters (the highest damage close range weapon) should nearly insta-pwn a frigate thats webbed or t1 cruiser thats at its optimal range. picture this, a small, few man crewed frigate engages against a *BATTLESHIP*. That should be suicide, that should be. Battleships should be brought up to solo-able standards, and make them threats to small gangs. Make Battleships a deadly, multi faceted combat platform that could kill an gang of t1 cruisers if piloted by a skilled player. Few of the races BS's could do that now I would imagine. I'm sure a gang of 3, random but good pvp fit t1 cruisers could take down most "solo" battleship fits.

That BS rant is another issue entirely than the guns and tracking, but I'ts something I may start thread about.

whoyoulookingat
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2009.05.29 09:10:00 - [141]
 

Edited by: whoyoulookingat on 29/05/2009 09:10:49


I suggest the follow to fix close range guns (THESE ARE EXAMPLES):

Blasters:
up to max 7.5km Optimal / 2.5km falloff
x2 tracking
Leave damage types as they are

These are your up close, in your face, tear a new hole in your prey type of gun

AutoCannons:
Up to max 20km Optimal / 20km falloff (reduce falloff dps by half)
x1 tracking
Leave damage types / Adjust range modifiers to fit to new settings

AC's are your "I ain't getting close cos i ain't got a tank (or poor one) fitted" - Ships rely on speed & range yet currently suffer from the falloff syndrome which screws their DPS up.
Increased optimal rectifies this & the falloff is for those that are too nervous to get into tackling range.
Laughing

Pulse:
40km optimal / bugger all falloff
x.5 tracking
damage types the same / range multiplier possible tweaking required?

With the long optimal it's suffice to say that these should be used @ the maximum range for close combat (i'd be inclined to say they're more mid range though).
They shouldn't hit jack at up to 20km yet can tear things apart past this range or at the edge of the field.


Tracking wise, I kept to full digits instead of the usual 0.00whatevers to demonstrate the difference of each example type - obviously they are alot lower ingame but helps when trying to do examples.

TA DA - we now have 3 different weapons, all unique & all with a defined roll.

As for missiles - they have fof so can continue to spam even when jammed.. erm.. not sure what else!! hehe Laughing

Rordan D'Kherr
Amarr
Posted - 2009.05.29 09:15:00 - [142]
 

Hey, why can't we have only one weapon system instead of discussing every system to make it equal to each other?

Tyrkisk Peber
Minmatar
Republic University
Posted - 2009.05.29 09:22:00 - [143]
 

Edited by: Tyrkisk Peber on 29/05/2009 09:22:43
Originally by: Rordan D'Kherr
Hey, why can't we have only one weapon system instead of discussing every system to make it equal to each other?

This guy gets itWink.

Bah, stupid forum setting that wont set Electric as default character.

Karl Luckner
Caldari
Posted - 2009.05.29 09:25:00 - [144]
 

You can't buff blasters to the point they own everything inside webrange. I know, many people would like to have their solo pwnmobile back, but hopefully that is not gonna happen.
Best solution for me would be to let tracking enhancers and tracking comps give some falloff bonus additionally to the optimal bonus.
Blasters and projectile weapons would gain the most from that, and the increased range makes only sense due to the slower speed of our ships since Quantum suck.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.29 09:52:00 - [145]
 

x2 tracking is a bit hardcore, but its not unreasonable. If blasters are supposed to be close-range weapons, and transversal increases exponentially the closer you get to a moving target, then it would reason that their tracking is quite good.

however, the point still stands that the payoff for blasters in terms of trading range for dps is insufficient. for example, some lazy-man eft-numbers (all lvl5, just highs):

an abaddon with 8 megapulses, short-range t1 ammo:
- 482 dps
- 15k optimal, 10k falloff
- .04219 tracking

hyperion with 8 neutron blasters, short-range t1 ammo:
- 562 dps
- 4.5k optimal, 13k falloff
- .05412 tracking

mael with 8 800's, short-range t1 ammo:
- 423 dps
- 3k optimal, 20k falloff
- .054 tracking

I used t1 ammo because I'm avoiding the problems with t2.

- So minmatar is *royally* screwed, it begins with the lowest possible dps which then is further reduced by the falloff formula. Boost minmatar BS!
- Blasters have the highest dps (by 15%), but have 1/4 the optimal of the baddon - meaning its damage will be reduced by the falloff formula until its in range. Their tracking is the same as minmatar, which doesn't make sense, because they are the shortest-range weapon. Their tracking should be higher.
- The baddon does 2nd-highest dps at the longest range (and it gets ridiculous with scorch, which I'm not going to discuss), and has 20% less tracking than the others.

So, the question is would you trade 15% dps for 1/4 the range? Or would you take 15% less dps and 4x the range (or the completely absurd 10x range with scorch)? The answer is obvious.

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.29 10:01:00 - [146]
 

isdisco3, can you take a Megathron into that list to?.

I know your taking the tier 3 ships there, but a Megathron is good anyways.

Just to see how it is in comparsion to the others in that list.

But anyways, it's Lasers (Pulses) or Scorch that need to be changed.

Calexis Atredies
Quantum Industries
Prime Orbital Systems
Posted - 2009.05.29 11:23:00 - [147]
 

This is actually one of the better arguments for a boost/nerf I have seen in a while, the op is actually giving a concrete argument using the mathematics which no matter what the trolls say are actually the ruling factor in pvp. The only time this system breaks is when the game going into lag blob mode, in which case your mods use next to 0 cap and your guns seem to hit within their range without fail.

Trolls your trollfu is not strong enough try harder

Oh and btw I agree with the missle sig issue, I posted about that a while back... but ofc if the mass majority of caldari users are happy (ie the carebears) CCP don't really care what the few pvp'ers think.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.29 11:57:00 - [148]
 

Edited by: isdisco3 on 29/05/2009 11:58:05
here goes, previous list with tier 2 bs added (not doing t1 because of the phoon and dominix, neither of which really rely exclusively on turrets):

Tier 3:
an abaddon with 8 megapulses, short-range t1 ammo:
- 482 dps
- 15k optimal, 10k falloff
- .04219 tracking

hyperion with 8 neutron blasters, short-range t1 ammo:
- 562 dps
- 4.5k optimal, 13k falloff
- .05412 tracking

mael with 8 800's, short-range t1 ammo:
- 423 dps
- 3k optimal, 20k falloff
- .054 tracking
-------------------------------------------------

Tier 2:
Apoc with 8 megapulses, short-range t1 ammo:
- 386 dps
- 21km optimal, 10km falloff
- .04219 tracking

Megathron with 7 blasters, short-range t1 ammo:
- 492 dps
- 4.5km optimal, 13km falloff
- .07442 tracking

Tempest with 6 800 ac's, short-range ammo (obviously, it has 2 more highs):
- 397 dps
- 3km optimal, 20km falloff
- .054 tracking

-------------------------------------------

- In the tier 2, the amarr is less dominant, but still has the best damage above 4.5km. It has significantly less tracking than the other tier 2 counterparts.
- The mega has about 20% increase in damage over minnie / amarr, and great tracking to boot, but as we all know, bad range.
- Minmatar begins with 2nd dps (which would be higher due to torps / cruises, which it generally doesn't have the fitting room for) which will shrink to something like 250 in falloff. Its combined total range is 2km more than just the optimal of the apoc.

For clarity, im using t2 guns and all lvl 5 for the character. No changes in ammo type (as eft defaults to short-range, highest-damage), and no other mods on the ships.

whoyoulookingat
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2009.05.29 12:19:00 - [149]
 

I don't think Electric Universe understands the concepts of examples (or "eg.") - instead of just coming out with "That's a cr*p idea (beats chest)", most normal ppl usually say:
"not bad but xx amount of tracking is too much.. maybe yy amount instead compared to the others" Rolling Eyes
Want the basic basic version of how we know it's an example ? Do you actually see any guns that have a tracking speed of 1 ?? Ding Ding Ding - we have a winner LaughingLaughing
Here's it in really simplistic form for you to understand:

Minny AC's = 1 (that's our example base tracking)
Blasters = 2 (that double the tracking)
Pulse = 0.5 (that's half)

Now throw in optimal & falloff example ranges & that "supposedly cr*p idea" is do-able.

Obviously, WE have to post EXACT figures for gun tracking before idiots stop getting off their high horses and throwing their toys out the prams!

However, I'm not gonna do that.. I'm not even gonna bother re-quoting my original post as it's obviously too mind bendingly complicated or Simple for him to comprehend.

Saying CCP "wont" do something is like saying the sky ain't blue.. how many said falcons would never be nerfed, or speed whacked on the head (twice) ?
What next Electric - you gonna say they're never gonna change the optimal / dmg / falloff for guns ? rofl

And please say where i wanted this ultimate killing machine ???

You want balance - there it is in it's most simplistic form Twisted Evil Each weapon has it's advantages and disadvantages or isn't that what you want ??


/me goes gets a coffee, soaks up the rays & waits for more flamage CoolRazz

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.29 12:28:00 - [150]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 29/05/2009 12:48:47
Originally by: whoyoulookingat
I don't think Electric Universe understands the concepts of examples (or "eg.") - instead of just coming out with "That's a cr*p idea (beats chest)", most normal ppl usually say:
"not bad but xx amount of tracking is too much.. maybe yy amount instead compared to the others" Rolling Eyes
Want the basic basic version of how we know it's an example ? Do you actually see any guns that have a tracking speed of 1 ?? Ding Ding Ding - we have a winner LaughingLaughing
Here's it in really simplistic form for you to understand:

Minny AC's = 1 (that's our example base tracking)
Blasters = 2 (that double the tracking)
Pulse = 0.5 (that's half)

Now throw in optimal & falloff example ranges & that "supposedly cr*p idea" is do-able.

Obviously, WE have to post EXACT figures for gun tracking before idiots stop getting off their high horses and throwing their toys out the prams!

However, I'm not gonna do that.. I'm not even gonna bother re-quoting my original post as it's obviously too mind bendingly complicated or Simple for him to comprehend.

Saying CCP "wont" do something is like saying the sky ain't blue.. how many said falcons would never be nerfed, or speed whacked on the head (twice) ?
What next Electric - you gonna say they're never gonna change the optimal / dmg / falloff for guns ? rofl

And please say where i wanted this ultimate killing machine ???

You want balance - there it is in it's most simplistic form Twisted Evil Each weapon has it's advantages and disadvantages or isn't that what you want ??


/me goes gets a coffee, soaks up the rays & waits for more flamage CoolRazz


Keep your wet dream upLaughing. It makes me go LOL to it.

100% tracking boost on Blasters. LOL that's a really hot and wet dream dude. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

I wouldn't say that 'xx amount of tracking is not bad but it's to much'. Because when it's gets as high as you want it. It's going into dream world. And i wont even say 'is not bad but it's to much' because the amount you want is waaaaaaaay way to high.

That's why i say it's a crap idea.

I'm not saying CCP wont change the optimal / dmg / falloff for guns. I'm saying that they wont change the guns so the guns goes against many of the things that have happened lately, like the web nerf for example. That's why you wont see a tracking boost to Blasters for example.

And there is other reasons like i told earlier why some guns like Blasters wont get a DPS or range boost either.

I don't think CCP is stupid and nerf the webs and then later start to increase tracking on guns. What's the whole point with the web nerf thenLaughing?.

LOL your a joke if you don't see this. And how many times do i have to tell you this actually?. You just spew out number here and there and think everything will be fine without thinking about what will happen after you do such things as you want.

Anyways, i'm going to be away for a little while now. Not sure when i will be back.


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