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 : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (26)

Author Topic

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2010.05.06 19:36:00 - [241]
 

Originally by: NightmareX

I see what you mean, but that's Minmatars job to kite.

Amarr's job is to always keep range. While Gallente's job is always to get closest possible fastest possible. And Caldari's job with Missiles is something totally different again than the other 3 races have.
Blasters cannot do their job even if they get closest as fast as possible because they can't apply enough effective damage when at optimal because tracking sucks at very close range. Therefore better tracking proposed. QED.


NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.06 19:38:00 - [242]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 19:41:35
Originally by: X Gallentius
Originally by: NightmareX

I see what you mean, but that's Minmatars job to kite.

Amarr's job is to always keep range. While Gallente's job is always to get closest possible fastest possible. And Caldari's job with Missiles is something totally different again than the other 3 races have.
Blasters cannot do their job even if they get closest as fast as possible because they can't apply enough effective damage when at optimal because tracking sucks at very close range. Therefore better tracking proposed. QED.



If you just sit still and just shoots, then yeah, i see what you mean. But at least use your brain and move around to try and get the transversal down as much as you can.

Trust me, it helps alot to move around as much as you can.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.06 19:52:00 - [243]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 06/05/2010 19:54:47
Originally by: Bagehi
Fixed it for you. A Tempest would likely have neuts as well, so a blasterthron best kill it quick before it has 0 cap (doesn't take long). So, no, a rationally fit AC Tempest would laugh in the face of a Megathron. You don't fly a PVP ship solo without scram and/or nuet and expect to survive against another PVP ship. But, this is 1v1 with PVP ships (which rarely happens). In a gang or fleet, blaster boats are useless. Shooting a miner or ratter can be done as easily in a dustbin with a staple gun as anything else, not a rational niche for a ship if it can be done by any properly fit ship.
The tempest will die long before the blaster ship is capped out(if the Hyp is in close) This holds true even for a half and half hyperion that is running its rep the entire time, let alone a blaster ship that doesn't have one.

Neuts are less about dealing with ships the same size as you, and more about having an option to stop ships that are smaller than you.
Originally by: X Gallentius
Blasters cannot do their job even if they get closest as fast as possible because they can't apply enough effective damage when at optimal because tracking sucks at very close range. Therefore better tracking proposed. QED.
If the blaster ship isn't doing much damage, then neither is the other ship to the blaster boat. This can best be seen with the Mega and Hype. The Mega has a tracking bonus and so has the best relative tracking of any BS in the game. This means that if its missing, so is the other guy, except the other guy is missing harder.

The Hype has the space to fit 2 webs. This gives it even better real tracking than the Megathron which has the best raw tracking of any battleship in the game.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2010.05.06 20:13:00 - [244]
 

Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:14:19
Sounds good in theory... doesn't work so well in practice.

How about just having a blaster have an equal chance at hitting the same target at its intended range as an autocannon does as its intended range? That's it.

Not asking for more damage/volley. Not asking for more dps. Not asking for increased optimal. Not asking for increased falloff. Not asking for omni-damage ammo. Not asking for less cap usage. Just asking for equivalent functional tracking ability.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.06 20:34:00 - [245]
 

Originally by: X Gallentius
Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:14:19
Sounds good in theory... doesn't work so well in practice.
Theory is practice in EVE. Unless you're claiming that there is some bug that is messing up the tracking formula for blasters, claims that you are not hitting as well as others are simply not true.
Quote:
How about just having a blaster have an equal chance at hitting the same target at its intended range as an autocannon does as its intended range? That's it.
Alright, so lets reduce the tracking of blasters...

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2010.05.06 20:36:00 - [246]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
If the blaster ship isn't doing much damage, then neither is the other ship to the blaster boat. This can best be seen with the Mega and Hype. The Mega has a tracking bonus and so has the best relative tracking of any BS in the game. This means that if its missing, so is the other guy, except the other guy is missing harder.

The Hype has the space to fit 2 webs. This gives it even better real tracking than the Megathron which has the best raw tracking of any battleship in the game.
No other T1 or T2 Gallente ship has a tracking bonus with the exception of the Tristan (and it's a split weapons platform making the bonus only partially applicable). Is your proposed solution to add a tracking bonus to all Gallente turret boats?


X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2010.05.06 20:42:00 - [247]
 

Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:45:41
Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:44:47
Originally by: Goumindong
Stuff...

So neither ship can hit in the blaster ship's intended range. Only the autocannon can hit in the autocannon's intended range. See a problem here?

And intended range does not equal optimal range.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=98499&view=ships_weapons - You don't have much experience flying blaster ships, do you?

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2010.05.06 20:59:00 - [248]
 

Originally by: X Gallentius
Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:45:41
Edited by: X Gallentius on 06/05/2010 20:44:47
Originally by: Goumindong
Stuff...

So neither ship can hit in the blaster ship's intended range. Only the autocannon can hit in the autocannon's intended range. See a problem here?

And intended range does not equal optimal range.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=98499&view=ships_weapons - You don't have much experience flying blaster ships, do you?


hehe I have more kills with eagle only as kills he has :P
He must have awesome experience from ingame. Same applies to Nightmarix.

And they want to say us how good blasters are, they only see those on market or in eft.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.06 21:02:00 - [249]
 

Originally by: X Gallentius
No other T1 or T2 Gallente ship has a tracking bonus with the exception of the Tristan (and it's a split weapons platform making the bonus only partially applicable). Is your proposed solution to add a tracking bonus to all Gallente turret boats?
And the Taranis. That would leave the Thorax and Brutix without tracking bonuses(Deimos/Astarte have a falloff bonus). But they really don't have tracking problems.
Quote:
So neither ship can hit in the blaster ship's intended range. Only the autocannon can hit in the autocannon's intended range. See a problem here?

And intended range does not equal optimal range.
It seems that you did not get the irony in your comment. So let me explain it to you.

1) At the optimal range of AC's they have worse relative tracking than the blasters optimal range. Granted, looking at a ships tracking relative to optimal range is pretty dumb. Really all you care about is its tracking "whatever range you're at now". Which means that blasters track just as well or better than ACs.

2) You specified "hit chance" at "intended range". This is funny because the "intented range" of ACs is in falloff, which lowers hit chance. Such to equalize "hit chance" at each ships "intended range" you would have to reduce the tracking of blasters since blasters hit more often at their intended range than AC's do at theirs.

____

Of course both of those are pretty funny because they both subscribe to the fallacy that two ships can be different distances away from each other. But hey, its the fallacy that you used. So its the fallacy that I am perfectly happy to laugh at you for.
Quote:
You don't have much experience flying blaster ships, do you?
This is not the first time the same pointless allegation has come up. You are describing situations that cannot happen unless you are deficient as a pilot, ship fitter, or a bug exists. That ain't my fault.


X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2010.05.06 21:12:00 - [250]
 

Offhand...

Light Nuetron Blaster II: 0.3165 rad/sec
Heavy Nuetron Blaster II: 0.1 rad/sec

Light 200mm Autocannon II: 0.315 rad/sec
Heavy 425mm Autocannon II: 0.1056 rad/sec

Functionally the same tracking. Done with your trolling.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.06 21:30:00 - [251]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 06/05/2010 21:30:50
Originally by: X Gallentius
Offhand...

Light Nuetron Blaster II: 0.3165 rad/sec
Heavy Nuetron Blaster II: 0.1 rad/sec

Light 200mm Autocannon II: 0.315 rad/sec
Heavy 425mm Autocannon II: 0.1056 rad/sec

Functionally the same tracking. Done with your trolling.

Yes. That was the point. You see, you complained about the relative hit chance at "intended range". The relative hit hit chance is a function of both the intended range and the tracking. Since the intended range for AC's is in falloff, that has an effect on the hit chance of the weapon. Even at 0 transversal, AC ships will be missing at their intended range.

I was pointing out that your evaluation was ridiculous. Blasters clearly track just as well as AC's, pulse lasers clearly track worse. Range only has a function when you're describing the optimal range characteristics of the weapon, which is a separate issue all together.

If blasters have good tracking then they have good tracking, end of story.

Edit: I have just about gotten you to water, lets see if you'll drink.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.06 21:33:00 - [252]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 21:39:40
Originally by: X Gallentius
Offhand...

Light Nuetron Blaster II: 0.3165 rad/sec
Heavy Nuetron Blaster II: 0.1 rad/sec

Light 200mm Autocannon II: 0.315 rad/sec
Heavy 425mm Autocannon II: 0.1056 rad/sec

Functionally the same tracking. Done with your trolling.

Is this a way to show that you don't know much about how the weapons works at all?

Oh, and there isn't anything called: Heavy 425mm Autocannon II or Light 200mm Autocannon II FYI.

Sorry to say it, but i have a VERY bad feeling that there are many players here in this topic that just screams boost Blasters without even understanding how Blasters, Autocannons, Pulses or Torps works at all.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2010.05.06 21:38:00 - [253]
 

The numbers are accurate even if the name is wrong; you agree?


NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.06 21:48:00 - [254]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 22:11:16
Originally by: X Gallentius
The numbers are accurate even if the name is wrong; you agree?



Now, look at the optimal range of the Blasters, and then look at the optimal of the Autocannons.

Is that a good enough hint for you to realize that the ranges have alot to say on how your hit chance is?. LOL, looking at the tracking number only is going to make you look funny and dumb.

Like 800mm AC gun with EMP L. It have 3 km optimal with 0.054 tracking, while Neutron Blaster Cannon II with Antimatter L have 4.5 km optimal range and 0.05412 tracking.

When the 800mm AC guns gets to 4.5 km where the Neutron Blasters have it's optimal range, then the Neutron Blaster Cannon II have more tracking / hit chance than the 800mm AC gun, since the 800mm AC guns are then in falloff at 4.5 km. And falloff reduces your hit chance.

And then look at Mega Pulse Laser II with Multifrequency L. It have 15 km optimal range and 0.04219 tracking. And guess what?. At 15 km, the Mega Pulse Laser II have waaaaay way more tracking / hit chance than 800mm AC guns would ever dream of at 15 km.

The tracking and ranges on those guns with the stats i have is taken from ships with no tracking or range bonuses.

Now put the Neutron Blaster Cannon II on a Megathron and you will get 0.07442 in tracking with Antimatter L. And that is quite alot more tracking than a Tempest have with 800mm AC guns with EMP L, even more tracking that a Tempest with Dual 425mm AC guns with EMP L have to.

And this is somerhing you didn't understand?.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.06 21:50:00 - [255]
 

Hit chance, not tracking. Different things.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.06 21:53:00 - [256]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Hit chance, not tracking. Different things.

Yeah, i fixed it in my post.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2010.05.06 22:08:00 - [257]
 

I guess it is to much to ask for Goum and NMX free blaster threads, is it?

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.06 22:13:00 - [258]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 06/05/2010 22:16:17
Originally by: The Djego
I guess it is to much to ask for Goum and NMX free blaster threads, is it?

When someone just screams BOOST BLASTERS in here and then right after that just shows that they don't have a single clue on how those weapons works or other weapons works. Then yeah, someone have to protest.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.05.06 23:08:00 - [259]
 

I'm taking this approach:

I need a t1 battleship with t2 fitting that can perform really well in small gang roaming pvp. Having Level 5 skills in all battleships and having fought 3000~ battles, I have a pretty good "feel" for what works and what doesn't.

Right now, I feel that my best options for close range PvP battleship are the Dominix, Typhoon, and Tempest. Megathron would be pretty down on my list, below Rokh, Geddon, and Abaddon

That said, Megathron used to be my 2nd favorite ship - like 3 years ago.

The main issue with Megathron, and I suppose with blasters in general - fitting requirements are too harsh.

The damage advantage of blasters is completely insignificant in light of all the other variables that need to be considered. Ideally, I want to think that blasters are kings of close range pvp. But that's simply not true.

I give up on blasters, except when I decide to fit some electrons on Dominix - as something extra. I adapted by using other ships.

I don't believe there can be any meaningful progress regarding Blaster issue while CCP designer suffer from "damage phobia" illness. I don't think they have even acknowledged that they have this problem. It's much easier for playerbase to find work around this issue.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.06 23:18:00 - [260]
 

Ephemeron.

Back in the days when the Mega was the king of close range PVP, as you say. It's true. But, 3-4 years ago isn't today.

Ships back then wasn't as much balanced as they are today.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2010.05.07 02:09:00 - [261]
 

If you're having problems tracking equivalent sized targets with blasters then you might want to stop fitting afterburners to your megathrons and orbiting at 200m. It would probably help.

Giving blasters more tracking doesn't really do much for them. People who regularly experience tracking issues vs similar sized targets just need to learn how to play tbfh. Boosting tracking wouldn't do much to adress the part where blasters get owned by preety much all weapon systems when we discuss similar-sized ships with realistic fits.

Originally by: Ephemeron
The main issue with Megathron, and I suppose with blasters in general - fitting requirements are too harsh.

The damage advantage of blasters is completely insignificant in light of all the other variables that need to be considered. Ideally, I want to think that blasters are kings of close range pvp. But that's simply not true.

I give up on blasters, except when I decide to fit some electrons on Dominix - as something extra. I adapted by using other ships.

I don't believe there can be any meaningful progress regarding Blaster issue while CCP designer suffer from "damage phobia" illness. I don't think they have even acknowledged that they have this problem. It's much easier for playerbase to find work around this issue.


Preety much.

Kvo Vadis
Posted - 2010.05.07 05:23:00 - [262]
 

Originally by: X Gallentius

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=98499&view=ships_weapons - You don't have much experience flying blaster ships, do you?

Oh! That is why Goumindong creates posts in Blaster and Rail threads. Saying that Hybrid weapon is ok he protects Lasers from Hybrid boost Twisted Evil
It is smart

chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2010.05.07 06:27:00 - [263]
 

Well, assuming that

- CCP is damage phobic
- Blasters should not get more range/falloff, keep them in a short range niche (and weapon types varied)
- Blasters should not get a huge buff to tracking, so we don't BBQ frigates left right and center

How about lowering the fitting requirements on blasters and/or increasing the pg and cpu of blaster ships? Make blasters similar to autocannons - e.g. the thorax would be able to fit Ion blasters with a 1600 plate + MWD much like the rupture can fit 220's + 1600 plate + MWD.

The above would

- be a practical increase in dps to blasters (fitting larger guns = more dps)
- effectively increase the tank on the slow blasters ships as they get into range (due to fitting room)
- keep blasters with their current flavour, and weapons in their current niches

All without increasing the paper dps of blaster ships beyond what they can do now, keeping CCP happy with their numbers.

Cyan Cure
Posted - 2010.05.07 07:10:00 - [264]
 

Edited by: Cyan Cure on 07/05/2010 07:34:53
Originally by: Bagehi
Blasters are the shortest ranged weapons on the slowest ships. ACs are on the fastest ships and have longer range. Pulse have fairly insane range and only a slight decrease in damage compared to blasters and AC on ships that are faster and have more armor than blaster boats. Please explain how this is balanced.



Someone actually understood what i said. The problem with Blasters lies in the speed to fire range ratio, not in EFT numbers.

I'm but a humble alt, but can we PLEASE just ignore NightmareX and Goumindong from now on, i mean the first one only has a bare minimum of knowledge to fly her Tempest in 0.0 BS fleets and the other only flies Amarr in gangs. I'm here, cause i'd like to read about good ideas for fixing Blaster problerms we could present to the CSM and all i can find is this impotent EFT bullsh*t and really weak theorycrafting. It makes me want to slit my wrists.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.07 07:55:00 - [265]
 

Originally by: Cyan Cure
Someone actually understood what i said. The problem with Blasters lies in the speed to fire range ratio, not in EFT numbers.

I'm but a humble alt, but can we PLEASE just ignore Goumindong from now on
So i take it you would argue against increasing the speed, agility, and scan res, while reducing the signature of gallente blaster boats?

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.07 08:46:00 - [266]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 07/05/2010 09:06:14
Originally by: Cyan Cure
Edited by: Cyan Cure on 07/05/2010 07:34:53
Originally by: Bagehi
Blasters are the shortest ranged weapons on the slowest ships. ACs are on the fastest ships and have longer range. Pulse have fairly insane range and only a slight decrease in damage compared to blasters and AC on ships that are faster and have more armor than blaster boats. Please explain how this is balanced.



Someone actually understood what i said. The problem with Blasters lies in the speed to fire range ratio, not in EFT numbers.

I'm but a humble alt, but can we PLEASE just ignore NightmareX and Goumindong from now on, i mean the first one only has a bare minimum of knowledge to fly her Tempest in 0.0 BS fleets and the other only flies Amarr in gangs. I'm here, cause i'd like to read about good ideas for fixing Blaster problerms we could present to the CSM and all i can find is this impotent EFT bullsh*t and really weak theorycrafting. It makes me want to slit my wrists.

As long you can't counter attack or just counter on what i have said earlier, then you can't say that you all can ignore me or Goum, because what we have said it the fact.

And it's absolutely a fact if no one can counter argument it to not be true.

And also, it doesn't take long time to fully understand how all of the weapons work ingame. And not only that, but when it's about Blasters, then i know what i'm talking about. Because when you have used Blasters and the other weapon types on Sisi for about 4-5 years, then i think i know how they work.

And you also say that i have minimum of knowledge to fly a Tempest. LOL, is that a joke or?.

I'll just wait for the argument that i don't have many kills so i don't know much about the weapon typesLaughing.

Dusica
Amarr
Posted - 2010.05.07 09:13:00 - [267]
 

Edited by: Dusica on 07/05/2010 09:14:29
Originally by: Xahara
Edited by: Xahara on 30/04/2010 22:10:45
So, for the over 9000th time, I'm going to complain about how blasters need to be boosted.

For their current damage output, they do not have enough range to be effective. They're supposed to be a "cross" between pulse lasers and autocannons, therefore, their optimal and falloff should be a bit higher than 0kms (ok, I'm exagerating, but you get my point).

This makes blaster boats highly inneffective in combat, such as the Deimos, for example. I've stopped flying them for PVP completely, because they just get slaughtered (mainly because of the fact that it is indeed a crappy ship overall). And, on that note, I'd choose a Vagabond over a Deimos anyday to PVP in, or even a Zealot.

But anyways, the Deimos isn't the subject of this post. The fact that you can hit up to 45km with Pulse Lasers and Scorch ammo (and still do a lot of damage) is pretty overpowered compared to the not-so-powerful-anymore, range-defficient blasters.

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:


Gun Type - DPS (Dmg Mod X Hi Dmg Ammo / ROF) - Optimal + Falloff - Ratio [DPS X (Optimal + Falloff)]

Neutron Blaster Cannon II - 4.2 X 48 / 7.88 - 3,600 + 10,000 - 347,939
800mm Repeating Artillery - 3.234 X 48 / 7.88 - 2,400 + 19,000 - 421,569
Mega Pulse Laser II - 3.6 X 48 / 7.88 - 12,000 + 8,000 - 0.03375 - 438,578

425mm Railgun II - 3.3 X 48 / 9.56 - 28,500 + 24,000 - 869,874
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II - 12.807 X 48 / 40.16 - 24,000 + 35,000 - 903,123
Tachyon Beam Laser II - 5.4 X 48 / 12.50 - 26,000 + 20,000 - 953,856


Solution: Either increase blasters' damage to match their ridiculous range or increase their ridiculous range to match their damage.

I feel like I've covered most of the aspects in this post, so, support (or flame) away!

EDIT: Moar Numberz.


At first glance i see that you did nothing to calculate or account for cap requirements , powergrid and cpu requirements , ammo usage , tracking and damage types and ships that use those types of weapons ... therefor i cant see this viable statistics at all.

Xahara
StarFleet Enterprises
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2010.05.07 13:43:00 - [268]
 

Originally by: Dusica
Edited by: Dusica on 07/05/2010 09:14:29
Originally by: Xahara
Edited by: Xahara on 30/04/2010 22:10:45
So, for the over 9000th time, I'm going to complain about how blasters need to be boosted.

For their current damage output, they do not have enough range to be effective. They're supposed to be a "cross" between pulse lasers and autocannons, therefore, their optimal and falloff should be a bit higher than 0kms (ok, I'm exagerating, but you get my point).

This makes blaster boats highly inneffective in combat, such as the Deimos, for example. I've stopped flying them for PVP completely, because they just get slaughtered (mainly because of the fact that it is indeed a crappy ship overall). And, on that note, I'd choose a Vagabond over a Deimos anyday to PVP in, or even a Zealot.

But anyways, the Deimos isn't the subject of this post. The fact that you can hit up to 45km with Pulse Lasers and Scorch ammo (and still do a lot of damage) is pretty overpowered compared to the not-so-powerful-anymore, range-defficient blasters.

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:


Gun Type - DPS (Dmg Mod X Hi Dmg Ammo / ROF) - Optimal + Falloff - Ratio [DPS X (Optimal + Falloff)]

Neutron Blaster Cannon II - 4.2 X 48 / 7.88 - 3,600 + 10,000 - 347,939
800mm Repeating Artillery - 3.234 X 48 / 7.88 - 2,400 + 19,000 - 421,569
Mega Pulse Laser II - 3.6 X 48 / 7.88 - 12,000 + 8,000 - 0.03375 - 438,578

425mm Railgun II - 3.3 X 48 / 9.56 - 28,500 + 24,000 - 869,874
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II - 12.807 X 48 / 40.16 - 24,000 + 35,000 - 903,123
Tachyon Beam Laser II - 5.4 X 48 / 12.50 - 26,000 + 20,000 - 953,856


Solution: Either increase blasters' damage to match their ridiculous range or increase their ridiculous range to match their damage.

I feel like I've covered most of the aspects in this post, so, support (or flame) away!

EDIT: Moar Numberz.


At first glance i see that you did nothing to calculate or account for cap requirements , powergrid and cpu requirements , ammo usage , tracking and damage types and ships that use those types of weapons ... therefor i cant see this viable statistics at all.


Well, I'm not really the greatest mathematician around, so, I can't factor in everything that there is about guns in a simple ratio. Also, I only really chose to create a DPS/Range ratio, because the rest of the attributes are simply irrelevant in medium/large fleet engagements. Feel free to come up with better numbers.

Syris Anu
Blue Republic

Posted - 2010.05.07 14:24:00 - [269]
 


Jerick Ludhowe
Southern Cross Empire
Flying Dangerous
Posted - 2010.05.07 15:42:00 - [270]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
So i take it you would argue against increasing the speed, agility, and scan res, while reducing the signature of gallente blaster boats?


Honestly have not gotten a chance to freshen up on the entirety of the thread however I think this statement pretty much sums up the most reasonable solution to the issue as a whole.

I do not think that the issue lies in blasters inherently. The issue lies in the usage of blasters not specificly their individual stats as a module compared to other weapon types of "similar" ranges.

I think that the entire line of blaster oriented ships needs to be re-evaluated and have their sig, speed, and agility revamped to allow them to expand their engagement envelope w/o overpowering their primary weapon system compared to other races comparable weapons. Some minor slot changes/additions may potentially be needed as well, entirely another debate though.





Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : 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