open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [ISSUE] Blasters 2.0
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (26)

Author Topic

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.03 20:32:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Ogogov

DPS matters regardless of EHP, because the additive power of many players shooting at a single ship is greater than the capacity of any single local tank, and that's the key that you are not seeing.
No. I am seeing what happens when you add up DPS. But if you increase EHP by 1% it has the same effect as decreasing the DPS of every ship of your opponents fleet by 1%.

If you have 20% more EHP then it takes 20% more DPS to kill you in the same time frame. Which is the same as your opponent having 20% less DPS.
Quote:
Funny, because I was under the impression that being higher on the killmail means you contributed more, proportionately, to destroying that target
Such Guardians and Falcons are worthless mirite?

Besides the inherent inefficiencies involved using that as a metric (damage types come to mind) you're discounting the effect of people shooting you on your fleets damage.

Imagine for a second that you are shot first in a fleet compared to if you're shot last. If you're shot first the amount of damage that you do is equal to the time it takes the enemy to kill you multiplied by your DPS.

If you're shot last the amount of damage that you do is equal to the time it takes to kill every ship in front of you multiplied by your DPS. This means that when you increase your EHP if you're called early you increase the total damage that everyone in your fleet does.

This portion of your contribution does not show up at the top of killmails. It does not make you look like a hero. but it does win fleet fights, and that is what makes fleet ships good. And that must be accounted for when examining whether or not ships are good
Quote:
I'm here because I've already determined hybrids are poorly balanced
So you came to a conclusion using uncritical methods and you're surprised that someone is going to challenge that?
Quote:
Why on earth would I want to subject myself to that?
Because you care about understanding EVE enough to have these discussions

Note: Targeting delays are a symmetrical issue that apply to both DPS and EHP equally. I.E. if you're destroying ships fast enough that the limiter for destroying ships becomes your lock time, then that same reduction in effectiveness that is applied to a targets EHP is applied to your DPS.

Ogogov
Gallente
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.05.04 00:18:00 - [182]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Ogogov

DPS matters regardless of EHP, because the additive power of many players shooting at a single ship is greater than the capacity of any single local tank, and that's the key that you are not seeing.
No. I am seeing what happens when you add up DPS. But if you increase EHP by 1% it has the same effect as decreasing the DPS of every ship of your opponents fleet by 1%.


Lolwut? You're confusing resists with EHP, I think. 1% EHP of a 100k tank would be 1k more Effective Hit Points. How is that going to matter when you're getting hit by 400,000dmg in alpha strike? That's going to give you an extra microsecond?

Quote:

If you have 20% more EHP then it takes 20% more DPS to kill you in the same time frame. Which is the same as your opponent having 20% less DPS.
Quote:
Funny, because I was under the impression that being higher on the killmail means you contributed more, proportionately, to destroying that target
Such Guardians and Falcons are worthless mirite?

also words... words...... words....hurfblurf...



No, you're pretty wrong.

Then you might as well add lag back into the equation which brings DPS back into the equation as the dominant arbitrating force because the team that is doing more damage (alpha OR dps) will destroy more ships faster and 'win' in this extremely simplistic, hypothetical engagement that still has utterly no bearing on the OP.

You've clearly put alot of effort into this but at this point I'm going to leave you with the last word because it's quite clear you've Forrest Gumped the argument and run off the pitch and onto some train tracks.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.04 04:40:00 - [183]
 

Originally by: Ogogov
Lolwut? You're confusing resists with EHP, I think. 1% EHP of a 100k tank would be 1k more Effective Hit Points. How is that going to matter when you're getting hit by 400,000dmg in alpha strike? That's going to give you an extra microsecond?
A 1% increase in EHP will require 1% more DPS to kill you within the same time frame. Whether that timeframe is a millisecond or ten.

If your targets have 100k EHP and you're doing a 400,000 alpha strike, then 75% of your DPS is pointless. Clearly you only needed 100k alpha and you have 400k. Anything over the 100k alpha is then wasted

If you're saying that "omg the alpha is so high that their hit points never matter" then at the same time "omg the alpha is so high that our DPS doesn't matter either".
Quote:
Then you might as well add lag back into the equation which brings DPS back into the equation as the dominant arbitrating force because the team that is doing more damage (alpha OR dps) will destroy more ships faster and 'win' in this extremely simplistic, hypothetical engagement that still has utterly no bearing on the OP.
If you add lag back into the equation then that reduces the effectiveness of your DPS just as much as it reduces the effectiveness of your hit points

As for the OP.

It appears, as we can see from page 6(The OP's posts on it, near the top). That the OP thinks that battleship engagement range within 50km is what we're discussing (and that, for some strange reason he thinks AC's can reasonably hit that far without TE's) and is a valid "scope" that it makes sense to talk about the "blaster" problems.

This is to say that the strength of railguns is within the scope of "blaster" problems and that makes this discussion relevant.

I mean hell, this is taken directly from the OP
Quote:
Currently, Gallente ships are a very hard choice for large fleet engagements, since blasters don't hit far enough, thus forcing us to use failguns instead (see what I did there?). Let me put some ratio numbers in here:
_____________

The fact of the matter is this:

You don't know what you're doing. You don't know why there is a problem with blasters. And you cannot hope to fix it before you educate yourself about the game that you're playing.

Blasters have not fallen in strength since their heyday. Other weapons have not seen significant advancements that would put them out of commission. In the heyday of blasters 45km scorch still existed and the Geddon still had 8 low slots and 5 heavy drones. In the heyday of blasters, vagabonds still out-ranged and out-sped deimos. In the heyday of blasters the Rupture was still better than the Thorax. In the heyday of blasters, the Tempest still had its versatility and range advantages over the Mega. In the heyday of the blaster you were still better off in a nano-domi.

None of that changed. What changed was how people play the game. And blasters will never be what you want them to be until people stop playing the game the way they do now and they forget the knowledge that led them to make other choices.

That last bit is a little harsh, there are boosts that can make blaster boats good again. But they don't have to do with damage or tracking or web speed, or AB boosts or any other sorts of convoluted junk. They have to do with making blaster ships proficient at prosecuting solo/small gang PvP and with systems that encourage those types of gangs to exist

You would know this if you bothered to read the paper that I pointed you towards. But you don't because you don't seem interested in actually fixing the problem, you seem interested in getting a cookie. After which you're going to ***** that it wasn't as sweet as it ought to have been.

Royaldo
Gallente
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch.
Sev3rance
Posted - 2010.05.04 04:54:00 - [184]
 

Im not sure what heyday you are talking about. But before changes to siege launchers, added hp's to all ships, projectile ammo and clips, changes to tracking enhancers, before nanos first came around...you know back then... blasters rocked.

Mimiru Minahiro
Posted - 2010.05.04 05:18:00 - [185]
 

Edited by: Mimiru Minahiro on 04/05/2010 05:19:16
Originally by: Goumindong
In the heyday of blasters 45km scorch still existed and the Geddon still had 8 low slots and 5 heavy drones. In the heyday of blasters, vagabonds still out-ranged and out-sped deimos. In the heyday of blasters the Rupture was still better than the Thorax. In the heyday of blasters, the Tempest still had its versatility and range advantages over the Mega. In the heyday of the blaster you were still better off in a nano-domi.

None of that changed. What changed was how people play the game.


Goumi is correct that these things were around back in the "heyday" of blasters (minus the ruppy being "better" than the rax... to some degree that is subjective. They both were/are good boats at different play styles).

BUT, to be perfectly fair in our dissimination of information:

-base EM/EXP resistances got changed (only a "nerf" to Gallente as hybrids dont shoot either type. But they do have drones so its not that drastic....so long as you are in the situations where drone use is truely viable)

-During that same patch amarr got a 15%dmg boost in addition to the resist change. (this may have been to Lg. Guns only...i forget tbh)

-90% webs were nerfed. Yes a web'd ruppy was still faster than a web'd Rax prior to the nerf; however the speeds at which a ruppy could drift into falloff if caught meant that more dmg could be applied. This is coupled with the fact that at close range the speed (while faster than a Rax) was not sufficient to cause blasters tracking issues

-since the "heyday" (where according to Goumi the Ruppy was better than the Rax)projectiles have recived boosts to dmg and tracking.


IMO blasters/rails are not OMGcrappy in reality. However, the power creep that has occured leaves them slightly lacking even under prime conditions for thier use. They do not need large buffs to be competative.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.04 05:55:00 - [186]
 

Originally by: Royaldo
Im not sure what heyday you are talking about.[...]...you know back then... blasters rocked.
1) Changes to tracking enhancers boosted blasters relative to lasers and missiles. Also boosted AC's more, but that advantage was irrelevant

2) Adding HP to ships makes blaster ships better not worse. Any time you extend the length of fights you increase the strength of high damage/short range weapons.

3) Nano's didn't "Come around". They were always there. People just did not understand how strong they were.
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro
-base EM/EXP resistances got changed
This doesn't have as large an effect as you would think on the viability of lasers compared to blasters in the area where blasters could have an advantage.

Mainly it served to make scorch better, but scorch isn't typically used in small fights as much as it is in larger ones(except as an opener). In those instances lasers were better anyway. For the sphere of influence of blasters, the changes were much smaller since it was dampened by the thermal damage on MF and drones.
Quote:
-During that same patch amarr got a 15%dmg boost in addition to the resist change. (this may have been to Lg. Guns only...i forget tbh)
This simply did not happen. There was no strict damage boost to Amarr for any weapons. There was a tracking boost( a big one), but that had little effect on applied damage intra class. And even with relative tracking blasters have a big advantage.
Quote:
-90% webs were nerfed. Yes a web'd ruppy was still faster than a web'd Rax prior to the nerf; however the speeds at which a ruppy could drift into falloff if caught meant that more dmg could be applied. This is coupled with the fact that at close range the speed (while faster than a Rax) was not sufficient to cause blasters tracking issues
The drift on webs has nothing to do with the amount it slows you down. If they were drifting out of web after then they're drifting out of web after. The rupture was not better than the Rax simply because of webs. The Rupture was better simply because it was better at everything that the Rax did.
Quote:

-since the "heyday" (where according to Goumi the Ruppy was better than the Rax)projectiles have recived boosts to dmg and tracking.
Bonuses to damage and falloff yes, not bonuses to tracking(bonuses to ammo you won't ever use does not increase your tracking)

The "laser changes" that made a difference(with respect to the strength of blasters) was really the boost to the zealot from a 4 turret ship that was worthless to a 5 turret ship that had a role. The omen also got boosted but it wasn't really enough to make it not ****ty. The reason that Amarr battleships were good after was not because they got boosted, but because they were good before.
Quote:
(minus the ruppy being "better" than the rax... to some degree that is subjective. They both were/are good boats at different play styles).
[...]
IMO blasters/rails are not OMGcrappy in reality. However, the power creep that has occured leaves them slightly lacking even under prime conditions for thier use. They do not need large buffs to be competative.
The issue is that people have realized that that play style that the rax occupied is weak. Not that it was not weak before.

If you got rid of all the laser and AC changes(barring the Zealot), people would still prefer pulse ships and AC ships over blaster ships. People do not realize why this is the case and cannot reconcile that choosing a race should be about choosing what you want to do rather than changing their choice of race to do what they want is why none of these solutions will fix anything, or will break more in the process.

Its why the blanket laser changes were bad, its why the blanker projectile changes were bad, and it will be why blanket blaster changes will be bad if they go through.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2010.05.04 06:12:00 - [187]
 

I am going to briefly throw myself into this verbal melee while I'm good and drunk.

Originally by: Goumindong

If your targets have 100k EHP and you're doing a 400,000 alpha strike, then 75% of your DPS is pointless. Clearly you only needed 100k alpha and you have 400k. Anything over the 100k alpha is then wasted

If you're saying that "omg the alpha is so high that their hit points never matter" then at the same time "omg the alpha is so high that our DPS doesn't matter either".



All of the FCs that I know will opt to go "overkill" and launch all 400k of that DPS at on target rather than waste time wondering how much of a tank the enemy ships have or many of his/her ships will be needed to kill each one of the enemy's and call separate targets for different squads, etc.
So yeah, once you go over a certain amount of people on either side of a battle (I'm talking more than 100 on either side) then unless you are in a capital, any tank is pretty much worthless.

Once you bring those numbers down to something more sane (say, 20 on 20?), then EHP becomes a VASTLY bigger factor.


That said, I do wonder what this has to do with blasters. Confused

Originally by: Goumindong

The fact of the matter is this:

You don't know what you're doing. You don't know why there is a problem with blasters. And you cannot hope to fix it before you educate yourself about the game that you're playing.



Good sir, I took the liberty of checking your killboard. You have never once used a Gallente ship. Or blasters or railguns for that matter. All you have every flown have been Amarr laserboats and Rifters.
This leads me to conclude that you have been using EFT numbers this whole time and have no real experience in actually using them in a real combat environment.

I invite you to try flying nothing but Thoraxes, Brutixes, and Megathrons for a month using ONLY hybrid weapons. Let us see how well you fare.

Originally by: Goumindong

Blasters have not fallen in strength since their heyday. Other weapons have not seen significant advancements that would put them out of commission.



However blasters, and hybrids in general, have not been given any "buff" either... not like the other weapon systems.


Originally by: Goumindong

What changed was how people play the game. And blasters will never be what you want them to be until people stop playing the game the way they do now and they forget the knowledge that led them to make other choices.



Player choices were also fueled, in part, by changes made the game as well. They go hand-in-hand.

When lasers were buffed people realized that, in exchange for a 10% to 15% decrease in damage, they could fire at 3x the range of blasters and completely avoid the 10km "zone of death." And if anyone got too close to their "medium range" laserboats, scram/web them and tracking no longer an issue.


Originally by: Goumindong

... there are boosts that can make blaster boats good again. But they don't have to do with damage or tracking or web speed, or AB boosts or any other sorts of convoluted junk. They have to do with making blaster ships proficient at prosecuting solo/small gang PvP and with systems that encourage those types of gangs to exist



I've said it before, I'll say it again: as EvE grows and gains new players solo combat will become rarer and rarer. Why? Because people find safety in numbers. It's human nature (I call it the "herd effect"). And even if you try to artificially prevent this people will find ways around it (always have, always will).

This leaves Gallente boats in a odd situation as they are technically geared towards small scale/solo combat.
So you are right in that fixing blasters and/or hybrids in general won't "fix" things with the game overall. But it is simpler to tinker with one weapon systems and to see what happen rather than to screw with an entire line-up of ships, much less the game mechanics themselves. And none will guarantee anything.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.04 06:36:00 - [188]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 04/05/2010 06:47:55
Originally by: Goumindong
If you got rid of all the laser and AC changes(barring the Zealot), people would still prefer pulse ships and AC ships over blaster ships.
I want to take a little bit of time to explain why this might be true.

Imagine for a second a game that looks like so. P1 and P2 are the players, C and H are the choices and (X,Y) represents the payoffs to player 1 and player 2.


P2 C H
P1
C (0,0) (-1,1)
H (1,-1) (0,0)

Such that if player 1 chooses C and player 2 chooses C, each person has a payoff of 0.

Now, in this situation the obvious choice to do the best is to choose H. If payoffs are changed such that the game now looks like so.


P2 C H
P1
C (0,0) (-1,2)
H (2,-1) (0,0)

The obvious choice is still to choose H.

This is what the changes to lasers and AC's largely were. the problem was that before the changes, people were not seeing the game as I described above, but were seeing the game as if it was advantageous to choose C. Only after the changes did they realize that H was the better choice, even though H was a better choice all along

This is roughly what has happened here.

I mean, before the laser changes what were the problems with lasers? If I was to be believed the problems lay in issues with downfitting, capacitor use for new players, the ease of fitting omni tanks, and the fact that the sub-bs ships sucked ass(harbinger excluded).

I have certainly changed my views since then. I have become more in favor of boosting cruisers in radical ways, i have given up on the whole "making lasers not totally suck for newer players" thing. And I care less about omni tanks(and their effect on Minmatar or Amarr) for a variety of reasons.

But the point still stands. The changes to lasers that went through had little effect on the strength of laser ships(probably only really having an effect of boosting the Harbinger) relative to others. It did not boost the things that needed to change (Omen, Prophecy, Maller, Punisher, etc still suck) because those things even after the changes were not good enough to reasonably use and did boost the things that didn't need to be changed (anyone saying that the Abaddon or Geddon needed to have more true DPS was smoking illicit substances).

The same can be said for minnie and the projectile changes. Did the Rupture, Rifter, Vagabond, and Hurricane really need range expansion and damage increases? Did the Tempest, Maelstrom, and Typhoon? Could changes to the Maelstrom/Pest have been made to make the Mael a better sniper and the Pest a better AC ship without boosting the rest of the ships? Yea, i bet that could have happened. But it didn't, and its because people whether good intentioned or not, keep thinking that they can just change damage and tracking on a whole class of items and make things "good again"

This is what blanket changes to blasters/railguns will be. If you do it you will just be setting up the next stupid whine about how some other weapon system is underpowered(probably still blasters frankly)

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.04 06:46:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: ShahFluffers
So yeah, once you go over a certain amount of people on either side of a battle (I'm talking more than 100 on either side) then unless you are in a capital, any tank is pretty much worthless.

Once you bring those numbers down to something more sane (say, 20 on 20?), then EHP becomes a VASTLY bigger factor.
The point was that both tank and damage is pretty much worthless in that situation. Since you have so much overkill anyway neither matters.

But eventually it will matter as you say, and when it does, they both matter and they both matter in the method that I described
Quote:
I invite you to try flying nothing but Thoraxes, Brutixes, and Megathrons for a month using ONLY hybrid weapons. Let us see how well you fare.
And you think that would change if you just increased their weapon strength? Yea, it would not. Also, blasters are after missiles, medium AC's and Recons. Blasters don't fit my play style and probably won't for quite a while. Not an issue with them per se as it is me making a choice. Even if they were boosted as you want i would not choose them
Quote:
This leaves Gallente boats in a odd situation as they are technically geared towards small scale/solo combat.
So you are right in that fixing blasters and/or hybrids in general won't "fix" things with the game overall. But it is simpler to tinker with one weapon systems and to see what happen rather than to screw with an entire line-up of ships, much less the game mechanics themselves. And none will guarantee anything.
Easier to tinker with them?

No. Its much harder to tinker with them than it is to tinker with individual ships. When you tinker with one ship, one thing in the system changes. That you're simply doing it 3-4 times doesn't matter. When you tinker with weapons, everything in the system changes, even what you don't want to change

Its actually much easier to change the system to encourage people to fight in smaller groups than you think. But if you want to do that you might have to attempt to understand how people make choices relating to how large their gangs are. The link in my sig might be informative to that point.

Gravaton Cleric
Posted - 2010.05.04 07:00:00 - [190]
 

Agreed,

Blasters hould be upgraded.

All I am saying is the blaster need some serious tweaking to bring it in line with other turret type weapons!

YARRRR!!

Amongrimm
Posted - 2010.05.04 11:27:00 - [191]
 

i miss the "omg that megathron is approaching me!"-moments...

supportet: blaster dps boost; need for close-facemelting weapon
NOT supportet: range boost; no need for another midrange weapon Mad

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.04 12:40:00 - [192]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 04/05/2010 12:41:26
Originally by: Amongrimm
i miss the "omg that megathron is approaching me!"-moments...Mad

Sorry to say it, but that time is over long time ago.

You wont see a Blaster Mega like that again.

The reason for it is the few HP boosts that CCP have done.

But still, i can still feel a little like that when i'm facing a Neutron Mega in my Dual 650mm Tempest. So it's still scary in that way.

ma perke
Posted - 2010.05.04 13:55:00 - [193]
 

blasters need change - more damage&tracking; less range

deimos needs more ehp to make it alive during approach to target

Amongrimm
Posted - 2010.05.04 15:10:00 - [194]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 04/05/2010 12:41:26
Originally by: Amongrimm
i miss the "omg that megathron is approaching me!"-moments...Mad

Sorry to say it, but that time is over long time ago.

You wont see a Blaster Mega like that again.

The reason for it is the few HP boosts that CCP have done.

[...]


sure a neutron mega isn't that funny sitting next to u and firing away, but not much scarier than an abaddon or a raven (examples) which both have that bbq-sphere of the mega but bigger ones^^
I just think mega and other blaster platforms should be much more of a threat when in optimal than other mid range ships.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.04 15:41:00 - [195]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 04/05/2010 15:42:06
Originally by: Amongrimm
Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 04/05/2010 12:41:26
Originally by: Amongrimm
i miss the "omg that megathron is approaching me!"-moments...Mad

Sorry to say it, but that time is over long time ago.

You wont see a Blaster Mega like that again.

The reason for it is the few HP boosts that CCP have done.

[...]


sure a neutron mega isn't that funny sitting next to u and firing away, but not much scarier than an abaddon or a raven (examples) which both have that bbq-sphere of the mega but bigger ones^^
I just think mega and other blaster platforms should be much more of a threat when in optimal than other mid range ships.

Well, when we are talking Mega vs Tempest here, then in fact the Mega is 5 times more scary than the Abaddon is to my Tempest, simply because the EM and the Thermal resists on the Tempest is quite high and the Abaddon doesn't do much damage to me then. It's the same with other ships that takes EM and Thermal damages.

This is tested many times. I'm not even scared to 2x Raven's that shoot EM torps, because last time that happened, i tanked both of them, since my EM resist is pretty high, so i tanked them with 1x LAR II.

Cyan Cure
Posted - 2010.05.05 09:27:00 - [196]
 

Edited by: Cyan Cure on 05/05/2010 09:31:48
Hey,

I'm comming back to the game after a long break, so i might be a bit rusty, but i'd like to add my 2 cents to the argument. The problem is in the ships. You can have an awesome armor repair amount or tracking, but in the end of the day you only have one bonus to damage, you move with the speed and grace of a brick in a bucket of tar and have minimal effective range. Gallente ships (partialy because of blasters, but mostly because of the ships' design) are easy to exploit, when going into fight with Minmatar and Amarr ships you know you're going in with a handicap, they'll do damage sooner and you won't be able to balance that cause you don't do much more damage overall, if they can pull range on you, you'll die without chances to win, going against Caldari blaster boats is kicking yourself in the balls, because they have your DPS and alot better tank. Ofcourse all of this applies to Caldari too, but they're alot more effective with Null in scrambler range, also they have easier time fitting Ion guns due to low PG requirement on shield tank.

I'd simply reduce the mass of Gallente and Caldari blaster boats, because i can't wrap my head around the fact that ships with lowest range are one of the slowest.

Also, Goumindong and NightmareX, your elaborated examples matter only to you and don't matter on a daily basis. I don't have much to work with here, but it doesn't seem you have any experience with blasters at all.

RP McMurphy
Hegemonic Research
CUST0S M0RUM
Posted - 2010.05.05 10:53:00 - [197]
 

Edited by: RP McMurphy on 05/05/2010 10:53:43
Originally by: Goumindong
And you think that would change if you just increased their weapon strength? Yea, it would not. Also, blasters are after missiles, medium AC's and Recons. Blasters don't fit my play style and probably won't for quite a while. Not an issue with them per se as it is me making a choice. Even if they were boosted as you want i would not choose them


dude, u just admited that u are not using blasters, u never were and never will. So in this case, u are arguing against blaster buff just because u are either afraid of blasters beeing better then they are now and your tactics of killing blaster boats with range and better dps will become obsolete or u are afraid that u will have to skill some other weapons too to use them in some situations..

Anyway, i think blasters should be death bringers, and that is FAST and HEAVY death bringers. They were until two things happened: HP buff all accross the universe and web nerf. With first, we couldnt do anymore hit, melt, run tactics, u have to stay there and risk it to be: blobed or get problems with tracking since webs cannot hold stuff still anymore. With second, even if u got into "fair" equal fight, any sane pilot will start orbit u and slowly moving away, thus causing problems with tracking and sooner or later get into your falloff where your eft dps doesnt count anymore.

I was specced pilot for gallente and i respecced to amarr and minie just because gallente became slowest hitters and meh when it came to fighting.

I still rather choose lasers beacuse it gives me engagement range of 45km with scorch, 15km with MF for 90% dps of 5km ranged blasters, or projectiles for engagement range of 30km with short range ammo, good tracking and no cap usage, while ships are fast and agile.

Mayyee
Posted - 2010.05.05 13:01:00 - [198]
 

strongly supported!

long range weapons I give a crap about, but if blasters get their chainsaw-of-eve-flavor back... OMG close range weapons would be so balanced and each with its own flavor, sweet!

Lucus Ranger
Gallente
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.05.05 17:53:00 - [199]
 

Completely supported. I want to fly my blasterships again, even though I do love my lasers and autos lol.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.05 19:11:00 - [200]
 

Originally by: RP McMurphy
dude, u just admited that u are not using blasters, u never were and never will. So in this case, u are arguing against blaster buff just because u are either afraid of blasters beeing better then they are now and your tactics of killing blaster boats with range and better dps will become obsolete or u are afraid that u will have to skill some other weapons too to use them in some situations..
If you've bothered to read what i've wrote on the issue(see link in sig) you will know that that clearly is not the case.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.05.05 19:40:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: RP McMurphy
dude, u just admited that u are not using blasters, u never were and never will. So in this case, u are arguing against blaster buff just because u are either afraid of blasters beeing better then they are now and your tactics of killing blaster boats with range and better dps will become obsolete or u are afraid that u will have to skill some other weapons too to use them in some situations..
If you've bothered to read what i've wrote on the issue(see link in sig) you will know that that clearly is not the case.


Goum likes the status quo, but wants artillery nerfed a bit so his lasers are the best choice in all situations again.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.05 20:09:00 - [202]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: RP McMurphy
dude, u just admited that u are not using blasters, u never were and never will. So in this case, u are arguing against blaster buff just because u are either afraid of blasters beeing better then they are now and your tactics of killing blaster boats with range and better dps will become obsolete or u are afraid that u will have to skill some other weapons too to use them in some situations..
If you've bothered to read what i've wrote on the issue(see link in sig) you will know that that clearly is not the case.


Goum likes the status quo, but wants artillery nerfed a bit so his lasers are the best choice in all situations again.



What? Seriously, what is it with you and lying? The changes that I proposed boost blaster boats specifically, cruisers specifically, frigates specifically, and the only changes to laser ships (bar frigates and cruisers) are nerfs

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.05.05 21:38:00 - [203]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: RP McMurphy
dude, u just admited that u are not using blasters, u never were and never will. So in this case, u are arguing against blaster buff just because u are either afraid of blasters beeing better then they are now and your tactics of killing blaster boats with range and better dps will become obsolete or u are afraid that u will have to skill some other weapons too to use them in some situations..
If you've bothered to read what i've wrote on the issue(see link in sig) you will know that that clearly is not the case.


Goum likes the status quo, but wants artillery nerfed a bit so his lasers are the best choice in all situations again.



What? Seriously, what is it with you and lying? The changes that I proposed boost blaster boats specifically, cruisers specifically, frigates specifically, and the only changes to laser ships (bar frigates and cruisers) are nerfs


I'm not sure where the "lie" was.

"Battleships are largely balanced." = you like the status quo for BS.

You want local reps to be boosted to handle instant damage = indirect nerf to artilleries.

If your argument is that lasers are not the best choice in PVP, I guess that can be debated. Overwhelmingly, most people would argue that lasers are the best choice in PVP though, bar mid-range, where high damage artillery ships shine.

At the same time as boosting local reps, you switch the local rep bonuses from several Gallente ships with the resist bonuses on several Amarr ships. Net change? Amarr have bonuses for the new and improved local reps and Gallente are left with incompatible fitting options (higher built-in resists mean a plate is a better choice than resistance mods, but plates slow your ship down which you don't want on a blaster ship).

You are arguing against a boost for blasters in this thread, remember, yet claiming you propose a boost for blasters?

These points withstanding, I agree that cruisers and frigates need to be reworked as the roles laid out for them in 2003 have been completely overshadowed or removed by other ships since that time.

Oh, I also don't agree with this "nerf T2" talk.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.05 21:50:00 - [204]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
"Battleships are largely balanced." = you like the status quo for BS.
And what did I change about BS balance? You didn't actually check did you?
Quote:
You want local reps to be boosted to handle instant damage = indirect nerf to artilleries.
Uhhh. Are you reading the same thing that I am reading? Because that is not what I suggested and that is not what would happen in either case
Quote:
At the same time as boosting local reps, you switch the local rep bonuses from several Gallente ships with the resist bonuses on several Amarr ships. Net change? Amarr have bonuses for the new and improved local reps and Gallente are left with incompatible fitting options (higher built-in resists mean a plate is a better choice than resistance mods, but plates slow your ship down which you don't want on a blaster ship).
Uhh, yea you didn't read it did you? Not only did I not suggest that(neither boosting local reps in that manner, or giving Amarr those bonuses), but to suggest that resistance bonuses are worse than rep bonuses. Man what? You should just hang your hat in shame at that one. Seriously, you should not be having any discussion on balance if you think that one.
Quote:
You are arguing against a boost for blasters in this thread, remember, yet claiming you propose a boost for blasters?
I am arguing against a boost for blasters. Because boosting blasters is a terrible idea. It will not fix the problem and will simply create more whines, just like the laser boosts and the AC boosts.
Quote:
Oh, I also don't agree with this "nerf T2" talk.
What "nerf t2" talk? No one suggested that.



Frances Ducoir
Gallente
Koshaku
Dark Syndicate.
Posted - 2010.05.05 22:23:00 - [205]
 

Edited by: Frances Ducoir on 05/05/2010 22:42:23
You can lament all day long here GouminDONG, blasters will get boosted.
Its only a matter of time... so please for the sake of god...
STFU, GTFO of the forums for once and get some fresh air... you seem to be in urgent need.

And people... stop replying to him. He is a fanatical anti-gallente troll (and some kind of wannabe-assembly-hall-celebrity).
According to the time he spends trolling gallente-balancing related threads he has absolutely no life at all. He is doing such since years now!
Dunno what this is all about, but maybe he is trying to force a meme and wants to become a forum celebrity or something.

You can't argue with him, because he will always find another excuse and twist your words, so just ignore him. Very Happy

He throws unrealistic dps numbers into discussions (not considering falloff etc.). When you tell him, that his numbers are off, he babbles something about "its not all about the dps".
Laughing

Sorry mate... but you are just ridiculous.
I eagerly await your whines when something will finaly be done about the blaster problems.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.05.05 22:40:00 - [206]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 05/05/2010 22:40:41
Originally by: Goumindong
And what did I change about BS balance? You didn't actually check did you?

You made the Maelstrom a more agile battleship (because turning was apparently a problem). You gave the Mega longer lock range and increased scan strength (neither matter if the ship can't get into range). You made the Hype slightly faster, which is a slight boost to a solo blaster fit.
Originally by: Goumindong
Uhhh. Are you reading the same thing that I am reading? Because that is not what I suggested and that is not what would happen in either case

"For battleships, the fitting of repair/boosters units needs to be brought down closer to the level of 1600mm plates/extenders..." This is a huge boost to local reps: the ability to fit more reps than could be fit previously.
Originally by: Goumindong
Uhh, yea you didn't read it did you? Not only did I not suggest that(neither boosting local reps in that manner, or giving Amarr those bonuses), but to suggest that resistance bonuses are worse than rep bonuses. Man what? You should just hang your hat in shame at that one. Seriously, you should not be having any discussion on balance if you think that one.

Astarte gets resists, loses reps. Absolution gets reps, loses resists. Brutix gets a resist bonus, loses rep bonus. While I'm at it, WTF Omen?
Originally by: Goumindong
I am arguing against a boost for blasters. Because boosting blasters is a terrible idea. It will not fix the problem and will simply create more whines, just like the laser boosts and the AC boosts.

I highlighted the part where you agree with me. You don't want to boost blasters, you think a little more speed or a little extra targeting range/strength is what they need.
Originally by: Goumindong
The changes that I proposed boost blaster boats specifically

Small boosts that are diminished when you also boosted other ships.
Originally by: Goumindong
What "nerf t2" talk? No one suggested that.

You want to cut the skill requirements for them. Effectively, everyone who has put the time in to use them will be left with having trained to level 5 (if you forget doing this, the jump from lvl4 to lvl5 is extremely long) as being a minor boost in damage. Making T2 the "baseline" means the training people put in does not provide as much of an advantage as it used to. Less advantage = nerf.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2010.05.05 22:43:00 - [207]
 

Do not feed the troll Exclamation

Frances Ducoir
Gallente
Koshaku
Dark Syndicate.
Posted - 2010.05.05 22:44:00 - [208]
 

do NOT argue with goumindong Rolling Eyes

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.05.05 22:50:00 - [209]
 

Originally by: Frances Ducoir
do NOT argue with goumindong Rolling Eyes


Sometimes I think he sincerely believes this stuff (I mean, he wrote a 19 page document) and a little rational criticism is all it will take for him to realize that he is wrong. Then he argues that the Rokh is bordering on being an overpowered ship.

Frodo Zsakos
Posted - 2010.05.05 22:58:00 - [210]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: Frances Ducoir
do NOT argue with goumindong Rolling Eyes


Sometimes I think he sincerely believes this stuff (I mean, he wrote a 19 page document) and a little rational criticism is all it will take for him to realize that he is wrong. Then he argues that the Rokh is bordering on being an overpowered ship.



No the rokh is truely an op ship it was proven with math ,why cant you still accept it?Shocked


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (26)

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