open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked IF blaster were suddenly fixed...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9

Author Topic

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.05.23 22:52:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: baltec1

I have been using the Hyperion for quite some time.

Solo? With other blaster ships? I remember you posting some mails with it, and I remember them being ganks where your fleets had mostly AC ships...

Originally by: baltec1
I say the guy with more experience than you is going to be better with the same weapon.
That has exactly ZERO relevance to balancing. For the weapon systems to be balanced, you have to assume that both pilots are equally skilled (so a nub vs a nub or a vet vs a vet). If blasters require you to be absolutely perfect with your gameplay in order for them to work, and the other weapon systems do not, then blasters are underpowered.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.05.23 23:13:00 - [212]
 

Originally by: Cambarus
That has exactly ZERO relevance to balancing. For the weapon systems to be balanced, you have to assume that both pilots are equally skilled (so a nub vs a nub or a vet vs a vet). If blasters require you to be absolutely perfect with your gameplay in order for them to work, and the other weapon systems do not, then blasters are underpowered.


Demanding a buff for a weapon that you cannot use but others can is equaly ******ed. You keep moving the goalposts evey time something punches a hole in your perfect bubble. Either it doesnt count because of a lack of experience, or it doesnt count because of too much.

You are contradicting yourself far too much to have any valid argument anymore.

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.05.23 23:31:00 - [213]
 

Originally by: baltec1

Demanding a buff for a weapon that you cannot use but others can is equaly ******ed. You keep moving the goalposts evey time something punches a hole in your perfect bubble.
Originally by: baltec1

Either it doesnt count because of a lack of experience, or it doesnt count because of too much.
YOU can't make an argument based on experience if YOU do not have any. This is a completely separate argument from the idea of removing player skill as a variable when discussing balance. If one of the top 100 guys, using mainly blasters, were to show up here and explain HOW blasters can be used well, then I'd listen, because they can provide legitimate insight to what the problems, perceived or real, are. You, on the other hand, cannot. The whole you need experience to argue experience thing is an argument aimed at YOU, not the eve population as a whole. The removal of player skill as a variable is a statement aimed at the eve population as a whole. The idea that the top 0.001% of eve has 1 or 2 people who use blasters in it being used as proof that blasters are fine is absurd, especially when, by it's very definition, the top 0.001% of eve's pvpers have skills in the game that 99.999% of the players will never attain. That's not balanced, not even close.

There's a KM floating around somewhere where some guy killed a thanny with a rifter (thanny was obviously afk but still, the KM is there). By your logic, because SOMEONE can do it means that the rifter is a valid counter for carrier hotdrops.

Originally by: baltec1

You are contradicting yourself far too much to have any valid argument anymore.
You've been repeating the same nonsense, with slight changes, since you've come here, and my main point to you has always been the same:
Go fly your damn ship, without the help of a 20 man AC gang, THEN come back and tell us how we're all doing it wrong.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.05.23 23:46:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: Cambarus
Originally by: baltec1

Demanding a buff for a weapon that you cannot use but others can is equaly ******ed. You keep moving the goalposts evey time something punches a hole in your perfect bubble.
Originally by: baltec1

Either it doesnt count because of a lack of experience, or it doesnt count because of too much.
YOU can't make an argument based on experience if YOU do not have any. This is a completely separate argument from the idea of removing player skill as a variable when discussing balance. If one of the top 100 guys, using mainly blasters, were to show up here and explain HOW blasters can be used well, then I'd listen, because they can provide legitimate insight to what the problems, perceived or real, are. You, on the other hand, cannot. The whole you need experience to argue experience thing is an argument aimed at YOU, not the eve population as a whole. The removal of player skill as a variable is a statement aimed at the eve population as a whole. The idea that the top 0.001% of eve has 1 or 2 people who use blasters in it being used as proof that blasters are fine is absurd, especially when, by it's very definition, the top 0.001% of eve's pvpers have skills in the game that 99.999% of the players will never attain. That's not balanced, not even close.

There's a KM floating around somewhere where some guy killed a thanny with a rifter (thanny was obviously afk but still, the KM is there). By your logic, because SOMEONE can do it means that the rifter is a valid counter for carrier hotdrops.

Originally by: baltec1

You are contradicting yourself far too much to have any valid argument anymore.
You've been repeating the same nonsense, with slight changes, since you've come here, and my main point to you has always been the same:
Go fly your damn ship, without the help of a 20 man AC gang, THEN come back and tell us how we're all doing it wrong.


Not all, just you. There have been several people who have come in here to tell you that you are wrong. Just about everyone can see blasters are a viable weapon and want some tweeks to make them more powerful. You on the other hand seem to have it in your head that nobody can do anything with them. People like you are going to end up getting blasters buffed to OP levels.

Henry Uliver
Posted - 2011.05.24 00:14:00 - [215]
 

LaughingYou're both terrible at quoting.

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.05.24 00:15:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: baltec1

Not all, just you. There have been several people who have come in here to tell you that you are wrong. Just about everyone can see blasters are a viable weapon and want some tweeks to make them more powerful. You on the other hand seem to have it in your head that nobody can do anything with them. People like you are going to end up getting blasters buffed to OP levels.
There are far more people crying that blasters are broken then there are people saying they're not, and the VAST majority of the people saying they're fine don't actually use them. And as far as me wanting them turned into horribly OP guns, my main suggestions so far have been a 15% DPS increase for blasters, and removal of on-grid warping for rails. Not exactly huge buffs (though ideally I'd like a bigger DPS increase, combined with a reduction to falloff, to make blasters more distinct and less like ACs)

Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2011.05.24 02:14:00 - [217]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Demanding a buff for a weapon that you cannot use but others can is equaly ******ed. You keep moving the goalposts evey time something punches a hole in your perfect bubble.

For some reason you're fixed on this idea of that because you can get kills with blasters, blasters are fine. Maybe you're just having trouble reading what you're saying, so I'll try and translate it into equivalent terms for you:

baltec > I can hit that pigeon with both my pellet gun and my rifle so they're balanced, stop crying
others > but the rifle can shoot further?
baltec > balanced
others > but the rifle doesn't use cap?
baltec > balanced
others > but the rifle is more accurate at range?
baltec > balanced! zomg whiners!
others > but the rifle will kill a greater variety of stuff?
baltec > JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T KILL THAT BULL WITH YOUR PELLET GUN DOESN'T MEAN IT's UNDERPOWERED COMPARED TO GUNS THAT CAN YOU HAVE NO VALID ARGUMENT LALALALALAALA
baltec > www.somesite.lol/killmail see I killed a bull with MY pellet gun
others > but there are 19 other guys on the mail and they all used rifles?
baltec > still counts

Hopefully now you can put on reality-glasses and look back through your posts to come up with a more reasonable argument than 'I get kills with them so they must be fine,' okay?

Straight Edged
Posted - 2011.05.24 02:27:00 - [218]
 

Edited by: Straight Edged on 24/05/2011 02:28:36
Guys should just give up and let the topic die.

There is only ONE argument to nerf/buff blasters. That is "Blaster ships are underused, it should be buffed"

All other arguments are stupid and easily debatable. Most of the arguers arent even using blasters religiously to even know it.

If you try to argue with your killmails they say
" hah, just because you have a killmail doesnt mean blaster is good yadayada"

If you show EFT that blasters do more or equal dps at any range AC can shoot at they will say
"hah, thats eft stop eft warrioring"

Same if you show EFT that railboats do more or equal dps at any 60km+ range compared to Artillery and lasers they say
"hah, you must use a ship that doesnt suit its role" to compare with "a ship which suits its role" (much like flying an autocannon raven to compare with a AC maelstrom)

This is how rediculous this thread is. Blasters is fine. What needs fixing is cruise missiles.

Show me a single person with an insane kb with a cruise missile ship
Show me a single cruise missile ship which is used in pvp religiously
Show me why cruise missile should take precedence to blasters, which is a totally fine weapon system.

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.05.24 03:05:00 - [219]
 

Originally by: Straight Edged

There is only ONE argument to nerf/buff blasters. That is "Blaster ships are underused, it should be buffed"
Actually there are several, off the top of my head I can tell you:
They have all the downsides of lasers without the absurd damage projection.
Armor tanked ships are bricks, and the lowest range weapon system in the game gets used on some of the slowest ships.
The DPS difference between blasters and ACs/Pulses is very small compared to their different ranges.
Because CCP nerfed webs, they often run into tracking issues, even in their optimals.
Basically the complaints tend to center around tracking, damage, range, and cap and ammo problems, also known as every single attribute the weapons have.

Originally by: Straight Edged

All other arguments are stupid and easily debatable. Most of the arguers arent even using blasters religiously to even know it.

Then debate them.
Originally by: Straight Edged

If you try to argue with your killmails they say
" hah, just because you have a killmail doesnt mean blaster is good yadayada"

Not really no, the problem is that the killmails being linked are NOT blaster killmails, they are AC killmails with a single guy in a blaster ship taking part in the fight.
Originally by: Straight Edged

If you show EFT that blasters do more or equal dps at any range AC can shoot at they will say
"hah, thats eft stop eft warrioring"

Actually I distinctly recall saying that you can't compare the raw DPS output of a mega and a pest, because the pest is so much more maneuverable, and has an extra utility high.

Originally by: Straight Edged

Same if you show EFT that railboats do more or equal dps at any 60km+ range compared to Artillery and lasers they say
"hah, you must use a ship that doesnt suit its role" to compare with "a ship which suits its role" (much like flying an autocannon raven to compare with a AC maelstrom)

Traditionally when comparing ships, you try and find 2 that have similar, if not identical, uses. I also distinctly remember seeing that an abaddon with megabeams does MORE gun DPS than a 425mm rail using VINDICATOR. So yeah, have fun claiming that rails do more dps.

Originally by: Straight Edged

This is how rediculous this thread is. Blasters is fine. What needs fixing is cruise missiles.

Cruise missiles are pretty bad. Why don't you go make a thread about it?
Originally by: Straight Edged

Show me a single person with an insane kb with a cruise missile ship
Show me a single cruise missile ship which is used in pvp religiously

I remember exceed used to use RR cruise ravens with quite a bit of success way back before the nano age, don't see why it wouldn't work now that all the ships have slowed back down. Go look for some of the house of prawn videos, I vaguely recall seeing some of their cruise raven shenanigans with those.
Originally by: Straight Edged

Show me why cruise missile should take precedence to blasters, which is a totally fine weapon system.
Cruise missiles being bad affects maybe 3 ships.
Hybrids being bad affects roughly 1 in 3 ships.
The scale of their problems is why more attention gets paid to blasters.

Ryan Starwing
Gallente
Cryptonym Sleepers
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.05.24 03:25:00 - [220]
 

Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 24/05/2011 03:26:30
Why dont you make your own cruise missle thread then? Just remove on grid probing and make the missiles land on the target faster; cruises will then be fine.

Hybrids are underpowered even when compaired to rockets now. Even in small gangs a laser boat can do everything a hybrid boat can do but with more range and for example a geddon can do the mega's job for less with more range. Blasters lack the face melting shock value that needs to go with them, and dont even get me started with rails.

PS:A certain type of rail does have a use though. It is called mineral compression.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.05.24 08:55:00 - [221]
 

Edited by: Naomi Knight on 24/05/2011 08:56:32
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Originally by: baltec1
Demanding a buff for a weapon that you cannot use but others can is equaly ******ed. You keep moving the goalposts evey time something punches a hole in your perfect bubble.

For some reason you're fixed on this idea of that because you can get kills with blasters, blasters are fine. Maybe you're just having trouble reading what you're saying, so I'll try and translate it into equivalent terms for you:

baltec > I can hit that pigeon with both my pellet gun and my rifle so they're balanced, stop crying
others > but the rifle can shoot further?
baltec > balanced
others > but the rifle doesn't use cap?
baltec > balanced
others > but the rifle is more accurate at range?
baltec > balanced! zomg whiners!
others > but the rifle will kill a greater variety of stuff?
baltec > JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T KILL THAT BULL WITH YOUR PELLET GUN DOESN'T MEAN IT's UNDERPOWERED COMPARED TO GUNS THAT CAN YOU HAVE NO VALID ARGUMENT LALALALALAALA
baltec > www.somesite.lol/killmail see I killed a bull with MY pellet gun
others > but there are 19 other guys on the mail and they all used rifles?
baltec > still counts

Hopefully now you can put on reality-glasses and look back through your posts to come up with a more reasonable argument than 'I get kills with them so they must be fine,' okay?


perfectly shows baltec's limited mental capacity , if he cant understand so simple comparisons at least he should stfu and be happy in his ownd world where blasters are balanced

Straight Edged omg you are so dumb...

baltec1
Posted - 2011.05.24 09:37:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen

others > but the rifle can shoot further? Blasters are close range weapons, treat them as such


others > but the rifle doesn't use cap? If you run out of cap get better cap skills because I have no more issues with blasters than I do with lasers.


others > but the rifle is more accurate at range? The complaint from people here is close range tracking. Blasters dont have issues with tracking at range

others > but the rifle will kill a greater variety of stuff? anything is game for a blaster

others > but there are 19 other guys on the mail and they all used rifles? welcome to the mini age, you are going to see a lot of rust with rifles

Hopefully now you can put on reality-glasses and look back through your posts to come up with a more reasonable argument than 'I get kills with them so they must be fine,' okay?


Tweeks can be made, mainly to med blaster fitting issues on cruiser sized hulls but blasters as a whole are not useless.

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.05.24 11:28:00 - [223]
 

Edited by: Swynet on 24/05/2011 11:31:58
Originally by: baltec1
Not all, just you. There have been several people who have come in here to tell you that you are wrong.


And there are a lot more telling you all you say is tons of crap.

Insisting an armour tanked ship should be shield fitted to be "awesome" or you suck fitting

Insisting blasters are fine when even dev's with all evidence think they don't

Insisting on showing your e-peen "I'm better than you so believe me" and the more you add the more you become... forget it.

Insisting blaster are fine and every one posting they aren't, are bad players, ok, pass you way out to "Auto-canons need some buff", thx.

Your contribution to this topic is totally useless and except maybe for noobs or another e-peen boy, seems no one takes your thoughts seriously for a second. Now if you just really want to make Cambarus write you won, he does Laughing

No one is saying blasters are totally useless, but 75mm Gatling rails also kill stuff and hit stuff do you use them that much?
There's a difference between useless and competitive that you obviously seem to ignore just to serve your e-peen



baltec1
Posted - 2011.05.24 12:33:00 - [224]
 

Originally by: Swynet


No one is saying blasters are totally useless,





So why are you disagreeing with me then?

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.05.24 18:37:00 - [225]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Swynet

No one is saying blasters are totally useless,


So why are you disagreeing with me then?
Because blasters have a very small niche, and no real advantage even when IN that niche. Some of us actually want to see blasters balanced because we like the idea of a balanced game, shocking, I know.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.24 18:48:00 - [226]
 

Quote:
Because blasters have a very small niche, and no real advantage even when IN that niche.


Well said.
I'd like to repeat my earlier post:

Looking at all three turret types objectively, why use blasters?
Compared to autocannons alone:
+ Slightly higher dps
+ Slightly better tracking
- Fixed damage type
- No range flexibility
- Cap use
- Heavier fitting reqs
- Two plus points are pretty much only on paper

Really, if you had someone asking which turret type to train, how would you justify hybrids to them?

Holdout
Posted - 2011.05.24 19:19:00 - [227]
 

Edited by: Holdout on 24/05/2011 19:19:06
This thread is now about Memorial Day.

Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday honors soldiers and is observed on the last Monday of May (May 30 in 2011). Formerly known as Decoration Day, it commemorates U.S. soldiers who died while in the military service. First enacted to honor Union and Confederate soldiers following the American Civil War, it was extended after World War I to honor Americans who have died in all wars.

NoLimit Soldier
Posted - 2011.05.24 19:44:00 - [228]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
Because blasters have a very small niche, and no real advantage even when IN that niche.

how would you justify hybrids to them?



Taranis/Ishkur/DareDevil

Past the frigate level though...I agree with you.

Beltantis Torrence
Wolfsbrigade
ShadowWolves.net
Posted - 2011.05.24 21:11:00 - [229]
 

There's some obvious issues with hybrids. I don't like, btw, that it seems like this discussion is totally focused on blasters and Gallente. Blaster Caldari or Rails on either suck terribly too.

Gallente Ships - Supposed to be focused on in your face damage - too slow with too poor tracking. Increase blaster base tracking slightly and increase the base speed of Gallente ships.

Caldari Ships - Supposed to have range - but no grid for guns and **** damage with 3 damage mods - Increase Caldari gun-boat PG and increase the base damage of short range railgun ammos - through thorium or so. Then the 20% range boost and terribad speed might actually be worth it.

Beltantis Torrence
Wolfsbrigade
ShadowWolves.net
Posted - 2011.05.24 21:37:00 - [230]
 

Originally by: Beltantis Torrence
There's some obvious issues with hybrids. I don't like, btw, that it seems like this discussion is totally focused on blasters and Gallente. Blaster Caldari or Rails on either suck terribly too.

Gallente Ships - Supposed to be focused on in your face damage - too slow with too poor tracking. Increase blaster base tracking slightly and increase the base speed of Gallente ships.

Caldari Ships - Supposed to have range - but no grid for guns and **** damage with 3 damage mods - Increase Caldari gun-boat PG and increase the base damage of short range railgun ammos - through thorium or so. Then the 20% range boost and terribad speed might actually be worth it.


Btw I also think its hilarious that Baltec takes these threads as a chance to post 20 times about how epic he is in his own mind rather than making any sort of coherent argument.

Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2011.05.26 15:59:00 - [231]
 

The biggest problem with broad comparisons of weapon types is that it really depends on which weapon size you look at. However, I believe AC always have better tracking on like for like weapon sizes.

As has been said, small blaster boats donít do too bad, this is because the boosts that the other weapon types got are marginal at this level so things are closer to how they used to be. However, once you get into the larger weapon classes those boosts really start to show, though due to the significant differences between Medium and Large blasters, this shows more in the medium class (the ability to project past the magic 10km is a huge deal as you do not, by default, need to be in scram and web range to deal damage).

Thing is, blasters and blaster boats (themselves) really havenít changed over the years. What has changed is a very long series of tweaks to other things that have either disproportionately, negatively impacted blaster boats or have boosted other weapons and so eroded into the benefits of blasters.

For example: Pulse lasers used to have (relatively) poor tracking and hit into solid resistance (armour tankers had an innately good EM resist and shield tankers always plugged their EM hole), but had good range and rof

ACs had the best tracking (and in general still do), high rof and variable damage. However, due to the worst of all optimal, was always forced to fight in fall off which wasnít that long so whilst it could kite it would have to come in close should it wish to do good damage and would have to slow down in order to not outpace their own tracking.

This meant that the good DPS and tracking of blasters had a significant edge in its ideal conditions.

Pulses had their tracking increased as over the years there was much whining that lasers were weak and this was one of many attempts to fix that. Then the armour resistances to EM (and shield resistances to Exp) were lowered, giving an effective damage boost to lasers. Not in and of itself a bad thing, but ate into the effectiveness of other ships.

The biggy for me came with the changes to tracking enhancers. A 30% boost to falloff meant that ACs could kite more comfortably and not have to come in as close in order to do higher damage and meant that they could maintain higher speeds without in running into tracking issues and so stay out of harms way (not risk getting caught by webs and scrams). The Exp damage increase to shield tankers was just icing on the cake.

In addition we have the change to scrams and webs, as blasters boats are the only medium or above size ships that need to be in scram/web range to deal damage, this effected them more than any other weapon type and the web changes exposed the tracking calculation at ultra close range.

Then there came rigs. The thing with rigs is that those you would use on a gallente blaster boat (at least) almost without fail have a penalty that hits a blaster boat hard. Armour rigs hit the speed they must have to work, hybrid rigs hit an already PG starved class meaning whatever damage is gained is lost by having to down grade guns and speed rigs reduce an already low armour belt.

So, blasters and blaster boats still function as they did back when they were FOTM, so have a definite value. However, all those around them have been boosted so that what they have is considered not worth the downsides. What are the answers? Thatís the tough one. Rolling back the many changes to the rest of the game would just be daft, they are positive changes after all. But nor would it make sense to just apply a raw DPS boost to blasters (imo). I think the answer must lie in minor tweaks here and there. 30% falloff is very high (especially when you fit multiples), what would the effect be of lowering it to 15% to match the optimal range boost? A slight tweak to pulse laser tracking so that close range ships can actually get under it? Something else?

Rushnik
Minmatar
Anhalter's Minions
Posted - 2011.05.26 17:05:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: Sable Schroedinger
* Here was a nice survey of the problems with blaster balance *


After reading this whole thread in a row I gave almost up while beeing annoyed by all that subjectiv rubbish at addressing the blaster/Gallente problem.
But this post made this thread worthwhile.
To be honest you can delete like 5 pages of this thread and save other people the time to read into the topic, but .. oh well.

After that nice summary I'd like to see people that fly Gallente to address this problem in a scientific constructiv fashion.
At least I demand that from the community of a game thats notorious of its complexity.

Somebody said that one way would be to take a Gallente only fleet into battle. I'm sure there are some bored people with time on their hands.

Dizeezer Velar
Caldari
League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees
Posted - 2011.05.26 21:25:00 - [233]
 

Blasters are the best platform for what I do, which is empire wardeccing. Most fights start within 10-15km at a gate or even closer at a station.

Blasters do perform fantastic at this range and though I have Amarr, Minmitar and Gallente BS at lvl 5, I find myself choosing a Gallente BS 7 times out of ten if I am solo. The only thing I'll choose over a Vindicator is a Bhaalghorn.

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.05.26 21:37:00 - [234]
 

Originally by: Dizeezer Velar
Blasters are the best platform for what I do, which is empire wardeccing. Most fights start within 10-15km at a gate or even closer at a station.

Blasters do perform fantastic at this range and though I have Amarr, Minmitar and Gallente BS at lvl 5, I find myself choosing a Gallente BS 7 times out of ten if I am solo. The only thing I'll choose over a Vindicator is a Bhaalghorn.
You DO realize that it's fairly unanimously agreed that the vindicator is exactly what a blaster ship SHOULD be, and that pretty much everyone thinks it does its job well yeh?

Straight Edged
Posted - 2011.05.26 22:03:00 - [235]
 

then fly your F'in ships with recon support (hugs,raps,araz).

Megathron has no problem catching people up as long as someone is webbing him down. A solo battleship with no support of any race will die quickly regardless of turret type.

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.05.27 04:31:00 - [236]
 

Originally by: Straight Edged
then fly your F'in ships with recon support (hugs,raps,araz).

Megathron has no problem catching people up as long as someone is webbing him down. A solo battleship with no support of any race will die quickly regardless of turret type.
A mega has to waste time getting into range. A geddon does not. The geddon has a MASSIVE advantage because of this, and this advantage is increased ten fold if you're using recons for tackle.

DarkAegix
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.27 06:39:00 - [237]
 

The vast majority of the time, autocannons track much better than blasters.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Also check out those ludicrous fitting requirements. The lowest blaster tier has about the same requirements as the highest autocannon tier.
The Rifter has more PG than the Incursus. (By 10%)
The Cyclone has more PG than the Brutix. (By 7%)
The Maelstrom has more PG than the Hyperion (By 36%)

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.05.27 07:34:00 - [238]
 

Originally by: DarkAegix
The vast majority of the time, autocannons track much better than blasters.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Also check out those ludicrous fitting requirements. The lowest blaster tier has about the same requirements as the highest autocannon tier.
The Rifter has more PG than the Incursus. (By 10%)
The Cyclone has more PG than the Brutix. (By 7%)
The Maelstrom has more PG than the Hyperion (By 36%)


bad game design thats all and noob lazy biased balance team

Digital Messiah
Gallente
N7 Corporation
PandaMonium.
Posted - 2011.05.27 07:40:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: DarkAegix
The vast majority of the time, autocannons track much better than blasters.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Also check out those ludicrous fitting requirements. The lowest blaster tier has about the same requirements as the highest autocannon tier.
The Rifter has more PG than the Incursus. (By 10%)
The Cyclone has more PG than the Brutix. (By 7%)
The Maelstrom has more PG than the Hyperion (By 36%)


Thank god someone brought a logical point of view into this discussion. You guys are acting like children fighting over ice cream flavors. Take note of this post and please follow example. This isn't about kill boards or who is wrong or right. It's about hybrid turrets Rolling Eyes

So now it's easy to see that in large comparison. It is harder to fit, track, and use hybrids, can anyone propose something that will help make this more balanced without making it the same as projectiles?

Azhpol
Gallente
Casa Del Wombat
Posted - 2011.05.27 07:49:00 - [240]
 

Originally by: Rushnik
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger
* Here was a nice survey of the problems with blaster balance *


After reading this whole thread in a row I gave almost up while beeing annoyed by all that subjectiv rubbish at addressing the blaster/Gallente problem.
But this post made this thread worthwhile.
To be honest you can delete like 5 pages of this thread and save other people the time to read into the topic, but .. oh well.

After that nice summary I'd like to see people that fly Gallente to address this problem in a scientific constructiv fashion.
At least I demand that from the community of a game thats notorious of its complexity.

Somebody said that one way would be to take a Gallente only fleet into battle. I'm sure there are some bored people with time on their hands.

You gonna pay the several billion isk such a fleet would cost to field, and then lose? Plenty of people bored enough, but not many willing to throw away that much money.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9

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