open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked DPS graphs: BS vs. BC
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 : last (25)

Author Topic

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.12.22 23:08:00 - [631]
 

Originally by: maralt

Fixed.



And when your tackler or their tackler dies?

Quote:

You get nothing.

I like flying in small gang combat in fact it my favorite type of pvp, and i also do a little solo work if a feel like it although not much due to the amount of time wasted looking for targets but i never solo in a BS.


So what you're saying is that you trained a solo/small gang BS yet never intend to fly BS in solo and small gangs.

Well, that clears things up.

maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
Posted - 2008.12.22 23:21:00 - [632]
 

Edited by: maralt on 22/12/2008 23:46:28


Originally by: Goumindong

And when your tackler or their tackler dies?


Losing ships is part of eve pal, and most BS can comfortably fit a point including amarr.



Originally by: Goumindong
So what you're saying is that you trained a solo/small gang BS yet never intend to fly BS in solo and small gangs.


Did i just not say i fly in small gang pvp and that its my favorite type of combat in eve?...are you blind or just stupid?.

Solo BS pvp is virtually non existent due to the fact that BS suck at it ALL BS, some may have slot layouts that make them look like they could do well but that is it they LOOK like they could do well as the reality is that they have a p155 poor available target selection and even the fastest and most maneuverable are not even close to being fast and maneuverable to be useful as anything other than supported dmg dealers.

Its the changes to the game that have made amarr pulse BS overpowered compared to other close range BS, the choices ppl made ages ago (in my case mid 2003) are the most pathetic thing you could bring up to try and justify that overpoweredness, its as bad as assigning them "roles" that just happen to coincide with almost matching or overpowering every other system while also out ranging them..


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.12.23 00:00:00 - [633]
 

Originally by: maralt

Losing ships is part of eve pal, and most BS can comfortably fit a point including amarr.


Which means they are within 24km or closing to that distance... Which means they need webs to slow their targets down in order to hit them, neuts to shut off modules etc etc etc.

All the things that Amarr is bad at that you consistently ignore.

Quote:

Did i just not say i fly in small gang pvp and that its my favorite type of combat in eve?...are you blind or just stupid?.


No i read it just fine.e You fly solo/small gang pvp but don't to so in battleships.

Quote:
he choices ppl made ages ago (in my case mid 2003) are the most pathetic thing you could bring up to try and justify that overpoweredness


You've had 4 full years to change your mind. It takes <6 months to change BS spec and about 15 minutes to get railguns[under a week if you have no rail specs] Why haven't you?

Why have you consistently renewed your choice to not train gang BS then fly in a gang?

Quote:
Its the changes to the game that have made amarr pulse BS overpowered compared to other close range BS


Before the web changes there was no blaster outcry. The web changes have universally made blasters more valuable than pulses. Yet when the web changes hit you complain that blasters are broken?

maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
Posted - 2008.12.23 00:20:00 - [634]
 

Originally by: Goumindong


Which means they are within 24km or closing to that distance... Which means they need webs to slow their targets down in order to hit them, neuts to shut off modules etc etc etc.
All the things that Amarr is bad at that you consistently ignore.


Amarr need approaching ships webbed just as much as any other BS...IN OTHER WORDS NOT MUCH UNTIL UNDER 5KM, and tacklers can slow those that do need dealing with.


Originally by: Goumindong
Before the web changes there was no blaster outcry. The web changes have universally made blasters more valuable than pulses. Yet when the web changes hit you complain that blasters are broken?


Hello do you play eve?, blasters highest dmg is within web range so the web nerf effected them more than anybody, not only that but the ability to keep anything smaller than a slow ass BS within the blasters highest dmg range is also gimped to hell. The fact is that this nerf has forced all BS to need support ships to be effective and as such the dmg/range constraints on all the other BS apart from amarr especially blaster ships has gimped them the most.

While amarr are sitting pretty by being able to hit almost as hard as blasters under 10km while hitting harder from 10-30km and also being able to hit from 30-60+km a range and dmg ratio no other system can come close to matching.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.12.23 04:03:00 - [635]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 23/12/2008 04:02:54
Originally by: maralt

Amarr need approaching ships webbed just as much as any other BS...IN OTHER WORDS NOT MUCH UNTIL UNDER 5KM, and tacklers can slow those that do need dealing with.


Uhh no. Pulse lasers need approaching ships webbed much more than anyone else since they have the worst tracking.

This is basic game mechanics. Do you see the tracking of lasers at 11km on those graphs? And you're saying that they can go along just fine until 5km? Seriously?

Also, were we not just discussing what happens when your tacklers die or have to warp out? Certainly they would not be able to assist you after they've been driven off the battlefield in one way or another.


Quote:


Hello do you play eve?, blasters highest dmg is within web range so the web nerf effected them more than anybody, not only that but the ability to keep anything smaller than a slow ass BS within the blasters highest dmg range is also gimped to hell.


Blaster battleships have the highest tracking and the best ability to fit multiple webs. Which means the web changes affected them the least.

Quote:
While amarr are sitting pretty by being able to hit almost as hard as blasters under 10km while hitting harder from 10-30km


You keep bringing this up and it keeps being a lie.

maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
Posted - 2008.12.23 09:35:00 - [636]
 

Edited by: maralt on 23/12/2008 20:29:56

Originally by: Goumindong


Uhh no. Pulse lasers need approaching ships webbed much more than anyone else since they have the worst tracking.


Range and a ship approaching reduces transversal and negates tracking issues as you well know, so stop acting like amarr having lower tracking makes a damn bit of difference.


Originally by: Goumindong
Blaster battleships have the highest tracking and the best ability to fit multiple webs. Which means the web changes affected them the least.


So you think that the race that need webs the most to hold ships in range were least effected by the changes, cos i am pretty sure gallente have exactly the same slot layout they had pre nerf so from 90% to 60% x 2 (only really valid on the Hyperion as far as blasters are concerned) = considerably less?.

Shut up and stop posting.


Originally by: Goumindong
Do you see the tracking of lasers at 11km on those graphs?


I see them out damaging blasters in part of that range and doing 1000-1100dps under 11km and even longer if you include overheat on webs, the damage drops of on the "perfect transversal" graphs as they get closer but from 9km-13km and onwards they way way out damage blasters while are close to matching them down to 5km. And as i said that is with a "constant and perfect" transversal a actual impossibility in eve, so in reality lasers get a big boost in close range tracking/dmg not shown on the graphs.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.12.23 23:02:00 - [637]
 

Originally by: maralt


Range and a ship approaching reduces transversal and negates tracking issues as you well know, so stop acting like amarr having lower tracking makes a damn bit of difference.


MWD deactivation and Afterburners increase transversal and create tracking issues. Stop acting like having lower tracking isn't important when not two weeks ago you were *****ing about how "blasters can't hit anything because the tracking on the guns is messed up". Now you're reversing your entire argument?

Quote:
So you think that the race that need webs the most to hold ships in range were least effected by the changes, cos i am pretty sure gallente have exactly the same slot layout they had pre nerf so from 90% to 60% x 2 (only really valid on the Hyperion) = considerably less?.


Everyone needs webs just as much to keep targets from escaping. You think Amarr can stop ships from leaving their range with magic and fairy dust?

But the gallente ships are faster and more agile and more able to fit multiple webs which negate the ability of targets to escape by increasing the difference in your speed to the target.

The question in whether or not you're going to escape is not necessarily how slow you're going, but how slow you're going and how fast the other guy is going. You're maintaining a 50% speed advantage that no one else has. And you're maintaining sufficient tracking to hit at short ranges.

Quote:

I see them out damaging blasters in part of that range and doing 1000-1100dps under 11km and even longer if you include overheat on webs, the damage drops of on the "perfect transversal" graphs as they get closer but from 9km-13km and onwards they way way out damage blasters while are close to matching them down to 5km. And as i said that is with a "constant and perfect" transversal a actual impossibility in eve, so in reality lasers get a big boost in close range tracking/dmg not shown on the graphs.


Really? Because i seem them about even until 15km.

I see that inertia means that even if you web a target at 13km, they're going to slide much closer in to you[MWD's yo]. Which can only be negated by being fast and agile [which armarr are not].

I see when MWD's are turned off that effective transversal spikes and that typically happens on the far side of 10km approaching rather than the smaller side.

I see ships which are faster and smaller than than battlecruisers still being important in combat where transversal and tracking are more important.

I see repping being a strong and viable tactic which is not available to amarr ships.

I see being able to reduce incoming DPS against a BS via transversal an actual possibility now where-as it was previously impossible. [Which is very strong combined with repping....]

And i see you grasping at straws.

Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
Posted - 2008.12.24 02:02:00 - [638]
 

i want the stuff you are smoking Goumindong, it's seriously good stuff.
Quote:
...Which can only be negated by being fast and agile [which armarr are not].

no BS is agile, for the umpteenth time. none, none, none.
one faster than the other, yes. one more agile than the other, yes again. but relative values mean nothing when your absolute value is already low. amarr generally hold the third place when it comes to speed and agility, minmatar are first and caldari last(indeed, fittings can change the order). stop acting like you were wronged somehow with this, you need much less agility when you can effectively open fire from +45km away.
Quote:
I see repping being a strong and viable tactic which is not available to amarr ships.

so countless winning alliance tournament setups using remote repping abbadons are non existent and are a product of sheer imagination.
what exactly stops you from fitting a repper on your amarr ship? if there is something that amarr have plenty of, it's low slots.
is it maybe that you just dont't WANT to fit reppers? than why do you try to teach others how they should fit their ships with reppers? i do think that reppers are a viable fit, but only for specific situations. overall, a buffer tank is more versatile.
Quote:
I see being able to reduce incoming DPS against a BS via transversal an actual possibility now where-as it was previously impossible.

yes, especially against blaster ships. at 6 km(base optimal) a BS-ion-blaster tracks a 260m/sec target, a BS-dual heavy pulse at it's optimal tracks a 810m/sec target.

you had a post about webs on scrapheap, i read it back than. the concepts pointed in the same direction, the QR changes do.
BUT a much older concept is also that close renge ships are to be range tanked, and long range ships are to be tracking tanked. HOWEVER, you can use both tactics against blasters and none (effectively) against pulses.
Quote:
Quote:

I see them out damaging blasters in part of that range and doing 1000-1100dps under 11km and even longer if you include overheat on webs, the damage drops of on the "perfect transversal" graphs as they get closer but from 9km-13km and onwards they way way out damage blasters while are close to matching them down to 5km. And as i said that is with a "constant and perfect" transversal a actual impossibility in eve, so in reality lasers get a big boost in close range tracking/dmg not shown on the graphs.
Really? Because i seem them about even until 15km.

oh, "until 15km" is all of a sudden medium range? for lasers?
Quote:
I see when MWD's are turned off that effective transversal spikes and that typically happens on the far side of 10km approaching rather than the smaller side.
this happens only ONCE in the moment the mwd is turned off wenn slowing down from high speed. imho that spike is a mathematical glitch.
Quote:
I see being able to reduce incoming DPS against a BS via transversal an actual possibility now where-as it was previously impossible.

if your opponent is a blaster ship and you are close, the enemy has opposed his fighting terms upon you and you SHOULD loose. there should be no discussion about tracking. period.
arguing this is like saying in soccer, the keeper should be able to defend against shots from a 1m distance.

Captator
Perditus Peregrinus
Posted - 2008.12.24 02:40:00 - [639]
 

Quote:
Quote:
I see repping being a strong and viable tactic which is not available to amarr ships.
so countless winning alliance tournament setups using remote repping abbadons are non existent and are a product of sheer imagination. what exactly stops you from fitting a repper on your amarr ship? if there is something that amarr have plenty of, it's low slots. is it maybe that you just dont't WANT to fit reppers? than why do you try to teach others how they should fit their ships with reppers? i do think that reppers are a viable fit, but only for specific situations. overall, a buffer tank is more versatile.


Abaddon and apoc, how many high slots do they have? How many turret slots do they have? Spot the problem with using remote reps fitted to these ships... Abaddon particularly you cannot really fit a rep to, unless you fancy using an AC fit, it costs too much cap to run its guns, so you require dual injectors to run reps as well, then you burn through your cap charges too fast.

Quote:
Quote:
I see being able to reduce incoming DPS against a BS via transversal an actual possibility now where-as it was previously impossible.



yes, especially against blaster ships. at 6 km(base optimal) a BS-ion-blaster tracks a 260m/sec target, a BS-dual heavy pulse at it's optimal tracks a 810m/sec target.

you had a post about webs on scrapheap, i read it back than. the concepts pointed in the same direction, the QR changes do.
BUT a much older concept is also that close renge ships are to be range tanked, and long range ships are to be tracking tanked. HOWEVER, you can use both tactics against blasters and none (effectively) against pulses.




What transversal do you require to outtrack a dual heavy pulse at blaster optimal?
I think this is the point that is really central to Goum's argument, yes, you track like crap, but at blaster optimal, everything else has even greater difficulty tracking, comparing tracking at optimal for both systems is of course going to produce a massive imbalance, purely due to the way tracking works.

Quote:
Quote:
I see being able to reduce incoming DPS against a BS via transversal an actual possibility now where-as it was previously impossible.



if your opponent is a blaster ship and you are close, the enemy has opposed his fighting terms upon you and you SHOULD loose. there should be no discussion about tracking. period.
arguing this is like saying in soccer, the keeper should be able to defend against shots from a 1m distance.


If your opponent is in a blaster ship, they should be using their greater raw tracking to their advantage at their optimal, where (here) the lasers tracking is a lot worse. I.e. orbit you at a speed at the limit of their ability to hit at their optimal , while you will suffer from decreased hit chance due to less raw tracking.

In close range BS gangs, I haven't seen people giving up megathrons because they don't do enough applied dps. The web changes only make a difference solo, or in very small gangs (<5), and there it is obvious what you should be doing (read above...)

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.12.24 03:32:00 - [640]
 

Originally by: Chi Quan

no BS is agile, for the umpteenth time. none, none, none.
one faster than the other, yes. one more agile than the other, yes again. but relative values mean nothing when your absolute value is already low


Incorrect. Relative values do mean a lot even if the values are low. Especially since they are magnified by overloading.

Quote:
amarr generally hold the third place when it comes to speed and agility, minmatar are first and caldari last(indeed, fittings can change the order). stop acting like you were wronged somehow with this, you need much less agility when you can effectively open fire from +45km away.


Actually with the recent agility boost on Caldari(to having the best agility numbers for any ships), they only come last in speed. Amarr typically comes last in Agility and third in speed with an exception for the Prophecy, Harbinger, and Zealot.

No one is saying that Amarr should not be the least agile. What is being said this that that lack of speed and agility matters. That is is not something that can be ignored in the operation of ships in solo/small gang effectiveness[or any other effectiveness, but its applications are lower as gang size increases].

Quote:

so countless winning alliance tournament setups using remote repping abbadons are non existent and are a product of sheer imagination.


Which "winning alliance tournament setups" were these? There were some strong contenders, but no winners. IIRC the last serious contender lost to a bhaalgorn fit with a bunch of NOS/Neuts. And/or the Imperial Apoc that was downed by a dominix.

Not that that really matters, unless you want to claim that a basilisk, falcon, and 8 manticores[or Guardian/Purifiers] is a legitimate and powerful "small gang".

Quote:
what exactly stops you from fitting a repper on your amarr ship? if there is something that amarr have plenty of, it's low slots.
is it maybe that you just dont't WANT to fit reppers? than why do you try to teach others how they should fit their ships with reppers? i do think that reppers are a viable fit, but only for specific situations. overall, a buffer tank is more versatile.


On the Abaddon its cap. On the Geddon its fitting. On both you pretty much give up your MWD in order to fit it, which is a massive maneuverability disadvantage. Cutting off your nose to spite your face if you will.

Quote:

yes, especially against blaster ships. at 6 km(base optimal) a BS-ion-blaster tracks a 260m/sec target, a BS-dual heavy pulse at it's optimal tracks a 810m/sec target.


Ahh yes. Well, the next time i see a megathron that is simultaneously 15km and 5km from an Abaddon or Geddon i will keep this in mind.[Its important to note that the DHP/MP break gives you the least tracking increase for the most raw optimal range reduction, and DPS reduction of any turret system in the game. Its worse than going from neutrons to electron blasters]


Quote:

you had a post about webs on scrapheap, i read it back than. the concepts pointed in the same direction, the QR changes do.
BUT a much older concept is also that close renge ships are to be range tanked, and long range ships are to be tracking tanked. HOWEVER, you can use both tactics against blasters and none (effectively) against pulses.


Its here too. Though my design had afterburners to avoid turrets and MWD's to avoid missiles and their design had afterburners to avoid everything and MWD's as combat maneuverability.

BUT. That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that "tracking tanking" against blaster ships is ******ed unless you're in a better tracking blaster ship or smaller ship, which can't range tank anything.

The design has always been that larger ships rep/EHP tanked smaller ships and that smaller ships tracking tanked larger ships, that short range ships tracking and rep/EHP tanked longer ranged ships, and that longer ranged ships ranged tanked.

None of that has changed.

TBC...

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.12.24 03:51:00 - [641]
 

Originally by: Chi Quan

oh, "until 15km" is all of a sudden medium range? for lasers?


?

15km is pretty solidly over half way between the upper end of typical engagement ranges for solo/small gangs[24km]

Quote:
this happens only ONCE in the moment the mwd is turned off wenn slowing down from high speed. imho that spike is a mathematical glitch.


Only if any transversal reduction from closing is a "mathematical glitch".

Quote:
f your opponent is a blaster ship and you are close, the enemy has opposed his fighting terms upon you and you SHOULD loose. there should be no discussion about tracking. period.
arguing this is like saying in soccer, the keeper should be able to defend against shots from a 1m distance.


Yes, you should lose, i said that. I am not sure what you're getting at.

See, the QR changes made it possible for one BS[A Hyperion, Tempest, or Megathron] to use its transversal velocity to reduce the DPS of its opponent[In this case a Geddon or Abaddon] while not reducing its own DPS nearly as significantly. This is a good thing. Tracking being important in the short range is a good thing if you have the best tracking. Its good for blaster battleships, its good for blaster cruisers, its good for blaster battlecruisers, its good for blaster frigates. Its just plain good for blasters.

A Megathron has a nearly 100% relative tracking advantage against an Abaddon and some 50% against a Geddon, more if the Mega is fitting ions or elections.[A Hyperion has about 25% against an Abaddon and 0% against a Geddon]. This means that any amount of transversal that is applied that does not shut down all tracking entirely increases the time it takes the Abaddon to kill the Mega more than it increases the time it takes for the mega to kill the Abaddon. While the Hyperion doesn't have as much of an advantage, its much stronger active tank can magnify that advantage more[and its just going to walk all over a Geddon due to simple EHP, repping, dps figures anyway] and its ability to fit two webs means that its more able to extract that advantage when its ideal and nullify the advantage of an adversary when its not.

I.E. The web changes have increased the ability of short range battleships to kill longer ranged battleships by out-transversing their guns.

Before the web changes this was not at all possible and any fight in the close range was a simple question of DPS, repping and EHP[which, if you're EHP/DPS fit and not repping, the Amarr ship is probably going to win, especially if you're down drones due to a GCF the Amarr ships in a passive set were just plain more efficient]. This made Amarr ships a lot stronger than they should have been in the short range since their major weakness was nearly entirely absolved by 90% webs. This means that the change to webs in QR puts blasters back to their rightful place as the king of the short range.

maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
Posted - 2008.12.24 09:52:00 - [642]
 

Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 11:19:59



Originally by: Goumindong
MWD deactivation and Afterburners increase transversal and create tracking issues.


Not enough to be significant considering BS's available targets along with the marginal difference in tracking between races.



Originally by: Goumindong


I see that inertia means that even if you web a target at 13km, they're going to slide much closer in to you[MWD's yo]. Which can only be negated by being fast and agile [which armarr are not].


So a MWD running and approaching from range?...i doubt it will get to 13km if it tries that against a amarr ship as the transversal would be close to 0 so the dmg received from lasers would be massive all the way down to 5km or even closer if he does not immediately hit and sustain a orbit.

Negated by being fast and agile?...like BS are not....cos the insignificantly small amount of agility amarr lose compared to others is nothing, stop acting like gallente BS are interceptors compared to amarr ffs it makes you look like a total tard.



Originally by: Goumindong


15km is pretty solidly over half way between the upper end of typical engagement ranges for solo/small gangs[24km]


Here is the thing, 15km is close range not med range your redefining ranges to suit your overpowered system, but even if that is so id say that amarr need not only a tracking nerf (around 425mm rail should do it) but also a range one considering they have a available range way beyond 24km (upper end engagement range according to you.....) as far out as 60+km.

Or are you gonna redefine "Engagement range" again or just make up another "range" that justifies the overpoweredness of pulse.....


Kepakh
Posted - 2008.12.24 12:06:00 - [643]
 

Blaster boats are the only battleships that can track cruisers at close range. What else you need to discuss?

maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
Posted - 2008.12.24 12:21:00 - [644]
 

Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 14:48:56



Originally by: Kepakh
Blaster boats are the only battleships that can track cruisers at close range. What else you need to discuss?


Sorry bud but that is wrong, blasters have a marginally better chance to hit cruisers at close range due to better tracking, but hitting anything in close with a turret ship is all about transversal.

And because BS are really only gang ships and require support to be fully effective the base tracking of each system becomes less important as the gangs tacklers can reduce the transversal of target ships to a level any BS can hit at close range.

Some ppl (gourmindong/amarr) will try to preach that the marginal difference in BS top speed or agility makes a actual/real difference but the truth is that BS are and always will be very static dmg platforms relative to every other non capital class ship in the game and will always require support to be fully effective and as such the support makes up for any lack of a single mid slot or minor tertiary issues.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.12.24 19:13:00 - [645]
 

Quote:

Not enough to be significant considering BS's available targets along with the marginal difference in tracking between races.


Gallente BS are closer to battlecruiers than they are Abaddons...

Every difference is "marginal" and the tracking difference between pulse and blasters considering that one of the ships gets two webs and one of the ships gets a tracking bonus is positively huge

Originally by: maralt

So a MWD running and approaching from range?...i doubt it will get to 13km if it tries that against a amarr ship as the transversal would be close to 0 so the dmg received from lasers would be massive all the way down to 5km or even closer if he does not immediately hit and sustain a orbit.


Tanked battlecruiers have between 35 and 53k EHP without rigs. That is, assuming full damage from an Abaddon and no armor tanking between 35 seconds and 53 seconds. A battlecruiser goes some 1km/s and gets there in about 10 seconds.

Cruisers expect between 10-20k EHP but are much harder to hit, travel 60-90% faster harder to lock and take half the time to speed up.

You're going to have ships on top of you and they're going to mess you up.
Quote:


Here is the thing, 15km is close range not med range your redefining ranges to suit your overpowered system,


I am sorry, why is 15km "close range"? Because you want it to be?

The important question is "at what ranges to combats typically occur" and the answer is "12-15km start typically moving closer"

maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
Posted - 2008.12.24 19:39:00 - [646]
 

Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 20:05:40


Originally by: Goumindong
.

Every difference is "marginal" and the tracking difference between pulse and blasters considering that one of the ships gets two webs and one of the ships gets a tracking bonus is positively huge


You can hardly add the megas and the Hyperions bonuses together now can you, poor attempt to even try and suggest it tbh.

The difference is actually rather small when you consider the available targets BS have and the how much transversal those targets can actually realistically generate due to speed constraints against even a single web fitted ship.



Originally by: Goumindong
.You're going to have ships on top of you and they're going to mess you up.



And that applies to all gunnery BS if they are stupid enough to run around solo, hence the need for support if you flying a BS and the fact that the support more than makes up for only having 4 (mega) mid slots or even 3........

Originally by: Goumindong
I am sorry, why is 15km "close range"?


Available range in eve = 249km.

Now 15km is in around the first 5% of the available range in eve so if that cannot be considered "close" wtf can?.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.12.24 20:48:00 - [647]
 

Originally by: maralt

You can hardly add the megas and the Hyperions bonuses together now can you, poor attempt to even try and suggest it tbh.



I didn't suggest it. I said that its proper to combine the fact that blasters have much better tracking to start with as well as either of the advantages you see in the blaster battleships.

Quote:

The difference is actually rather small when you consider the available targets BS have and the how much transversal those targets can actually realistically generate due to speed constraints against even a single web fitted ship.


The graphs in this thread show blaster battleships doing roughly 2-3 times as much DPS against battlecruiesrs in web range...

I suppose you would call that "marginal"

Quote:

And that applies to all gunnery BS if they are stupid enough to run around solo, hence the need for support if you flying a BS and the fact that the support more than makes up for only having 4 (mega) mid slots or even 3........


Except for the high tracking, high agility BS with more webs. Then it doesn't apply to you.

Quote:

Available range in eve = 249km.

Now 15km is in around the first 5% of the available range in eve so if that cannot be considered "close" wtf can?.


Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

What matters is where fights typically occur. That its possible to lock to 249km has no bearing if you're not discussing engagements that are likely to occur from 249km.

Then again, if we are considering that(and using your logic) then pulse ships are woefully underpowered because Rokhs outrange them by 5 times. That is more than pulse out range blasters!

maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
Posted - 2008.12.24 21:04:00 - [648]
 

Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 22:13:57


Originally by: Goumindong


The graphs in this thread show blaster battleships doing roughly 2-3 times as much DPS against battlecruiesrs in web range...

I suppose you would call that "marginal"


From 2-5km blasters do ok against lasers as long as the transversal is at not above or below a certain level, but from 5-13km your kidding yourself cos in fact they show lasers almost matching blasters up to 9km and out damaging blasters just under 10km and upwards(a little fact you try hard to dismiss).




Originally by: Goumindong
Except for the high tracking, high agility BS with more webs. Then it doesn't apply to you.


Wrong it applies to them as well, and their are no high agility BS, only BS with slightly better agility than the others but they are all so low the little extra is irrelavant.


Originally by: Goumindong
Then again, if we are considering that(and using your logic) then pulse ships are woefully underpowered because Rokhs outrange them by 5 times. That is more than pulse out range blasters!


Wrong, my logic is fine as rokhs/rails do not close to match or out dmg pulse at close range, while pulse do exactly that to blasters in close with normal and especially against low transversal. Oh and a rokh with tracking comps hits at 249km, pulse on a amarr BS with tracking comps does not have 5x less range... not even close.

I find it odd that you noticed the fact that drones were missing of certain graphs as well as the rather insignificant agility differences between BS but miss such obvious things like these when they disprove your silly comparisons....................Rolling Eyes

Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
Posted - 2008.12.31 01:22:00 - [649]
 

Edited by: Chi Quan on 31/12/2008 01:25:57
ok, christmas is over, i hope everyone had a nice time, now back to business.
Quote:
The graphs in this thread show blaster battleships doing roughly 2-3 times as much DPS against battlecruiesrs in web range...

at what range exactly? at 2km sharp? lol (while true, it is completely ripped out of context. if that is to be a valid argument, than i could claim that lasers do 100x more damage just by choosing 40km, without mentioning the last bit ofc)
within the entire web range? hardly.
should i be in the mood, i will calculate the area under the respective damage curves to show you accurate numbers about damage potential. but tbh, this thread takes up far more time than i am willing to spend.
Quote:
Pulse lasers need approaching ships webbed much more than anyone else since they have the worst tracking.

they need mwding ships webbed in order to keep the sig radius inflated. when approaching a target 40km away, the targets angular velocity is far below the pulses tracking threshold.
Quote:
Blaster battleships have the highest tracking and the best ability to fit multiple webs.

once again you are making it sound like webs were optional, they are not and never were for blasterships. in fact blasterfittings have WAY more potential variability in the lows than in the mids.
besides, if you take a look at YOUR OWN graph here:
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Linkage for outsiders
you see that the geddon is doing almost as good dps at web range as the hype who is using TWO webs. so blasters definitely need more tracking. not to mention that you used ion blasters with more tracking, instead of neutrons.
Quote:
Quote:
While amarr are sitting pretty by being able to hit almost as hard as blasters under 10km while hitting harder from 10-30km
You keep bringing this up and it keeps being a lie.

yes, you may need to burn away from time to time, i indeed didn't mention that.
Quote:
Abaddon and apoc, how many high slots do they have? How many turret slots do they have? Spot the problem with using remote reps fitted to these ships... Abaddon particularly you cannot really fit a rep to, unless you fancy using an AC fit, it costs too much cap to run its guns, so you require dual injectors to run reps as well, then you burn through your cap charges too fast.


abbadon 8 highs, 8 guns | geddon (not apoc, since the apoc is a sniper) 8 highs, 7 guns
hyperion 8 highs, 8 guns | mega 8 highs, 7 guns (i'll leave that without comment)
about the dual injectors, according to Goumindong, dual webs on blasterships are mandatory. so for the sake of fairness, i see no reason why dual injectors should be omitted.
as for the cap issues in general, i think we already elaborated the cap need for mwds + blasters.
Quote:
What transversal do you require to outtrack a dual heavy pulse at blaster optimal?

why on earth should you use a pulse ship like a blaster boat? would it not make MUCH MORE SENSE to use where it's best? namely (quote Goumindong:) mid range?
but, while blaster ships fail at medium ranges(what they indeed should), pulse ships don't fail at short ranges, while totally dominating medium ranges.
for the record, at base neutron optimal of 7.2 km the tracking threshold is 390m/s for neutrons and 330m/s for megapulses (not taking sigres into account, since it's the same for both).
go down to neutron antimatter optimal of 4.5km and it's 243m/s and 189m/s. very achievable speeds imho.
TBC

Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
Posted - 2008.12.31 01:30:00 - [650]
 

Quote:
In close range BS gangs, I haven't seen people giving up megathrons because they don't do enough applied dps. The web changes only make a difference solo, or in very small gangs (<5), and there it is obvious what you should be doing (read above...)

according to your own words, blasterships were MEANT for solo/small gang work.
you will see ppl giving up megas, i assure you, just watch the killboards and remember the geddon+tackler vs 2 hyperions example a few pages back.
skilltime: large t2 lasers ~2 months + ~1 amarr bs 5. i'd say expect notable changes by mid february.
Quote:
Relative values do mean a lot even if the values are low. ...
wrong, absolute values may be very close to each other, but differ strongly relative to each other. this is especially true for very small or very big numbers. again an exemple: take a value of 0.01$ and 0.02$. while the later is relatively speaking TWICE as big as the first, the absolute value of both is minuscule. the importance of a value is determined by it's context.
Quote:
... Especially since they are magnified by overloading.

overloading is available for both parties, the net gain is (near) 0.
Quote:
Well, the next time i see a megathron that is simultaneously 15km and 5km from an Abaddon or Geddon i will keep this in mind.

when said mega is at 5km the amarr ships would have dealt enough damage to the blasterships on their rush to blaster range that the (relatively speaking) lower laser dps (geddon ~1010 and hype ~1175) will suffice to finish them off. provided we indeed have a small gang, BS-only combat situation.
if you have a tackler, say goodbye to the mega, as it won't catch the geddon in time(unless of course the mega is lucky enough to warp/spawn right into the geddon).
this is what we are saying here the whole time: unless you are lucky with your blastership, you can not win against a similar force, even if you fight at your terms.

Polinus
Caldari
Emptiness.
Posted - 2008.12.31 01:51:00 - [651]
 

You guys discuss too much..

there is only one sub-capital ship overpowered in eve. .. the FALCON!!

Woot! now I placed more wood in the fire and run away!!!!

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.12.31 09:26:00 - [652]
 

Originally by: Chi Quan

at what range exactly? at 2km sharp? lol (while true, it is completely ripped out of context. if that is to be a valid argument, than i could claim that lasers do 100x more damage just by choosing 40km, without mentioning the last bit ofc)


Between about 0-8km for all graphs between 0-10+ for select graphs.

Quote:

should i be in the mood, i will calculate the area under the respective damage curves


So long as you integrate twice. Bonus points if you understand what the second integration is for and can correct your function to account for the changes required.

Quote:

they need mwding ships webbed in order to keep the sig radius inflated. when approaching a target 40km away, the targets angular velocity is far below the pulses tracking threshold.


And? Why are ships approaching from 40km away? Not that that matters much as has already been explained.

If you want to sit off a gate at 40km with a big "kick me" sign stuck on your back, that is fine. Otherwise, on the gate is much more safe. If you're on the gate then you do not have a "40km buffer". And you're going to be sub 10km or less by the time you get a lock in most instances.

Quote:

once again you are making it sound like webs were optional, they are not and never were for blasterships. in fact blasterfittings have WAY more potential variability in the lows than in the mids.


What? I have never made it sound like webs are or were optimal. I said they have more ability to fit the "necessary modules" and more in supplementary fashion . And no, blaster ship low slot variability is pretty low compared to med slot variability. Your main change is between three things. Plates, Reps, and damage mods, everything else stays the same. [2 eanm, DC] The things that you can fit in your meds[so long as you're not a mega] have many more options. Sensor boosters, scramblers, webs, ECCM, injector, all depending on how you're fit and what you're doing.

Quote:

besides, if you take a look at YOUR OWN graph here:


Ahh yes, way to not read the graph and then take it out of context

1. The ship in question is the Abaddon, not the Armagedodn. The Geddon compares to the passive Hyperion.

2. You have a really freaking strange definition of "almost as good" considering the blue line is twice as high as the Green line until about 8km and considering the caveats that have been mentioned. I mean, ****, lets look at the point where the Abaddon is doing 200 DPS under 10km. That point is at about 3km. At 3km, the Hyperion is doing 350 DPS, 75% more. Now, At 19km, the Hyperion is doing 200 DPS and the Abaddon is doing 300, only 50% more. So if you're saying that the Abaddon is doing "almost as good" then you would also have to say that the Hyperion is doing "almost as good" to about 30km. Is it?

3. If you bothered to look at the passive comparison to the Abaddon you will notice that the "worse neutron blasters" are actually a **** tonne better when making the flat damage comparison than the Ions are. With 2 webs the low orbit tracking problems are nearly entirely negated. Ions are used on that graph because a "comparable" tank was to be used, which required a repair unit on the Hyperion lest it be down some 33% EHP without the means of recouping it.

4. You ignore the ability of each ship to dictate range. The 2 webs do not reduce the targets transversal, they reduce the ability of a smaller target to get close and reduce the ability of a larger target to get farther away.

Quote:

yes, you may need to burn away from time to time, i indeed didn't mention that.


With the least ability to do so in both agility, cap, and the least ability to fit multiple webs to give a more significant speed advantage over other ships

more coming.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.12.31 09:43:00 - [653]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 31/12/2008 09:53:04
Edited by: Goumindong on 31/12/2008 09:50:03
Quote:

why on earth should you use a pulse ship like a blaster boat? would it not make MUCH MORE SENSE to use where it's best?


Why on earth should you use a blaster ship like a pulse boat? Would it make much more sense to use where its best?

The answer that you're looking for is that two ships cannot be at two different ranges from each other. They can only be at one range from each other. At that range is where the tracking matters and whatever that range is, the ship with the higher number for tracking will track better.

Smaller ships will more or less always want to get closer to you. In those situations do you want

A: More range
B: More tracking
C: More webs
D: B and C

If you answered "D" you would be correct. The range is not valuable in those situations. That is not to say that it is not valuable but not in those situations.

You have the same situations when battleships get close to you.
Quote:

for the record, at base neutron optimal of 7.2 km the tracking threshold is 390m/s for neutrons and 330m/s for megapulses (not taking sigres into account, since it's the same for both).
go down to neutron antimatter optimal of 4.5km and it's 243m/s and 189m/s. very achievable speeds imho.


Its funny that you bring that up, since that "base number" is the 50% hit number. Which means that at 4.5km[a blaster BS will want to be a bit closer against a amarr bs likely since otherwise its going to be hard to attain high transversals without an MWD which is counter productive] at 189m/s transversal the laser ship will be hitting for 39.5% of its DPS and the blaster ship around 70% of its DPS. Before the blasters raw DPS advantage and armor DPS advantage and drone DPS advantages[likely] that is about 80% more DPS just due to hitting.

Originally by: Chi Quan

you will see ppl giving up megas, i assure you, just watch the killboards and remember the geddon+tackler vs 2 hyperions example a few pages back.


Actually i would rather watch Kil2.

Also, while players are rational actors they do not have perfect information. You can see this by the people moving away from active to passive tanks when active tanks have become strictly better in more situations.

Quote:
wrong, absolute values may be very close to each other, but differ strongly relative to each other. this is especially true for very small or very big numbers. again an exemple: take a value of 0.01$ and 0.02$. while the later is relatively speaking TWICE as big as the first, the absolute value of both is minuscule. the importance of a value is determined by it's context.


And the context says its really damned important when you're fighting things in such a small margin.

Quote:

overloading is available for both parties, the net gain is (near) 0.


Relative gain is pretty small, but the absolute gain is what is magnified. An overloaded rigged hyperion goes 1237m/s. An overloaded rigged Abaddon goes 968 A difference of about 250m/s. Before overloading the difference is about 170m/s.

Quote:
when said mega is at 5km the amarr ships would have dealt enough damage to the blasterships on their rush to blaster range that the (relatively speaking) lower laser dps (geddon ~1010 and hype ~1175) will suffice to finish them off.


Only if the blaster ships do not use their other advantages yes and you have a good amount of battleships(and the laser ships are set in a tactically disadvantageous position against other opposition types where they can easily be hit and run and/or swamped by a larger force). In those situations the laser ships should be winning. You going to be hitting sniper gang efficiencies soon, you've got to have pulse lasers fit in somewhere. You're also vastly underestimating the ability to reduce damage via transversal.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2008.12.31 21:31:00 - [654]
 

People need to stop trying to put ships in a specific situation to proove they are overpowered. Specially when its also very easy to put them on situation where they suck.

Example is the PUlSE ammar ships. I can EASILY kill a PULSE battleship with a hurricane with AB. Its very easy to avoid most its gun damage and kil its drones fast enough for your repairers stabilize your HP situation and keep them running with NOS and charges while you slowly eat the ammar battleship. I know I did at least 12 times in SISI during QR tests (from 12 attempts).

Try that against a mega and you become smoke almost instantly. I know.. I tried 6 times and lost in 5.


Pulse ships are better on some scenarios, blasters on others.


The discussion should be, what changed on the balance of occurrence on those scenarios? Why ships that were considered crap a few months ago now are considered good? Not much changed on them. What changed most was the perception of players on tactics and how pvp should be performed.

Theron Gyrow
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.01.01 10:43:00 - [655]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
People need to stop trying to put ships in a specific situation to proove they are overpowered. Specially when its also very easy to put them on situation where they suck.


No, it's very easy to think of situations where they suck. Getting those situations realised is not easy at all.

Quote:
Example is the PUlSE ammar ships. I can EASILY kill a PULSE battleship with a hurricane with AB. Its very easy to avoid most its gun damage and kil its drones fast enough for your repairers stabilize your HP situation and keep them running with NOS and charges while you slowly eat the ammar battleship. I know I did at least 12 times in SISI during QR tests (from 12 attempts).

Try that against a mega and you become smoke almost instantly. I know.. I tried 6 times and lost in 5.

Pulse ships are better on some scenarios, blasters on others.


Yes, everyone agrees on that. The problem is that the scenarios where blasters are better are exceedingly rare. Your example is a good one - it is a 1-vs-1 against a smaller target with AB starting at close range. Change any one of those, and pulses are better. That is not balance.

Quote:
The discussion should be, what changed on the balance of occurrence on those scenarios? Why ships that were considered crap a few months ago now are considered good? Not much changed on them. What changed most was the perception of players on tactics and how pvp should be performed.


Blasters have been suboptimal picks for a long while - torp Ravens and pulses were the smart choices - but they were at least feasible if you wanted a challenge. Alas, after the web nerf, their effective engagement envelope is just too crap compared to the other options.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.01.01 12:08:00 - [656]
 

Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 01/01/2009 12:14:32
Maybe true. But if you remember well. About 1 year ago people LOLed at the statement ammar has medium range advantage". People said it was useless.

At that time medium range engagement was considered a worthless scenario. People argued, what good on firing at 40 km if at that range your target will simply warp off? The game changed and the players mentality changed and reversed that.

Understanding this whole process is the only way to achieve a good balance. Sledgehammering boosts or nerfs left and right won't cut it.

Why the blaster boat advantage scenario suddenly got so rare? What can be done to change that?


My view is. The very small scale PVP is each day more rare. The intensive gank squads predominate. On this scenario there is no time to move into range before target dies. ON this scenario the medium range engagement is useful while the lack of mobility of amarr ships is not meaningful. Tackling with the firepower ship became less and less needed. More and more this became a role of specialized ships.

At past most opinions on ships were based on solo and very small scale pvp. Situations where blaster ships excel when compared to amarr ships.

Secondary causes. The overheat increased the short range . Specially disruptors went from 20 km to 28 km (t2 with overheat) That changes a lot the combat envelope and hurt a bit blaster boats. The hictors point range worsened even more this scenario.

Tertiary. The nerf of NOS. the dramatic reduction of cap warfare usage pulled of a lot of pressure that was being applied upon amarr ships. Now they don't suffer from the "everyone in the field will suck me dry" issue.

The speed nerf contributed a bit further to this scenario. But on my view is not the main reason. The speed difference on battleships just added 3-4 seconds to the approaching up to web range, but reduced about same time after you get into web range (13 km). The web and tracking issues are not that relevant between ships of same class. Mainly because webs only potentialize speed differences between the sides. THey do not give trackign advantage for 1 side. They give trackign advantage or penalty to either side since speed is a common and same value attribute between an armageddon and a megathron fighting each other. If one is standing still and other orbiting the speed wil affect both tracking wise. If both are webbed. The relative Results keep same with 60 % or 80% webs. If you get into a situation where the mega is unable to track then the geddon is unable as well.

The extended range of tackling and the increase in gang sizes is the main reason of current amarr supremacy. A supremacy that is not as supreme as some like to state.

How to solve that? Well its not easy.

But the main way is to widen a little bit the evelope where megathron can still track the geddon (just keeping the example for simplicity sake) while the geddon DPS is already reduced. My shot? remove or reduce the 25% tracking boost that ammar got about 1.5 years ago. No need to change their range , do not remove their main characteristic. A reduction on 15% on pulse tracking would be on spot I think.


But after that you need to check AC and be sure AC are balanced towards Pulses and blasters as well. Otherwise we are just postponign the issue into another thread, this time about AC....

Jalif
Minmatar
Snuff Box
Posted - 2009.01.01 13:00:00 - [657]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 01/01/2009 12:14:32
Maybe true. But if you remember well. About 1 year ago people LOLed at the statement ammar has medium range advantage". People said it was useless.

At that time medium range engagement was considered a worthless scenario. People argued, what good on firing at 40 km if at that range your target will simply warp off? The game changed and the players mentality changed and reversed that.

Understanding this whole process is the only way to achieve a good balance. Sledgehammering boosts or nerfs left and right won't cut it.

Why the blaster boat advantage scenario suddenly got so rare? What can be done to change that?


My view is. The very small scale PVP is each day more rare. The intensive gank squads predominate. On this scenario there is no time to move into range before target dies. ON this scenario the medium range engagement is useful while the lack of mobility of amarr ships is not meaningful. Tackling with the firepower ship became less and less needed. More and more this became a role of specialized ships.

At past most opinions on ships were based on solo and very small scale pvp. Situations where blaster ships excel when compared to amarr ships.

Secondary causes. The overheat increased the short range . Specially disruptors went from 20 km to 28 km (t2 with overheat) That changes a lot the combat envelope and hurt a bit blaster boats. The hictors point range worsened even more this scenario.

Tertiary. The nerf of NOS. the dramatic reduction of cap warfare usage pulled of a lot of pressure that was being applied upon amarr ships. Now they don't suffer from the "everyone in the field will suck me dry" issue.

The speed nerf contributed a bit further to this scenario. But on my view is not the main reason. The speed difference on battleships just added 3-4 seconds to the approaching up to web range, but reduced about same time after you get into web range (13 km). The web and tracking issues are not that relevant between ships of same class. Mainly because webs only potentialize speed differences between the sides. THey do not give trackign advantage for 1 side. They give trackign advantage or penalty to either side since speed is a common and same value attribute between an armageddon and a megathron fighting each other. If one is standing still and other orbiting the speed wil affect both tracking wise. If both are webbed. The relative Results keep same with 60 % or 80% webs. If you get into a situation where the mega is unable to track then the geddon is unable as well.

The extended range of tackling and the increase in gang sizes is the main reason of current amarr supremacy. A supremacy that is not as supreme as some like to state.

How to solve that? Well its not easy.

But the main way is to widen a little bit the evelope where megathron can still track the geddon (just keeping the example for simplicity sake) while the geddon DPS is already reduced. My shot? remove or reduce the 25% tracking boost that ammar got about 1.5 years ago. No need to change their range , do not remove their main characteristic. A reduction on 15% on pulse tracking would be on spot I think.


But after that you need to check AC and be sure AC are balanced towards Pulses and blasters as well. Otherwise we are just postponign the issue into another thread, this time about AC....



You sir, you know what you are talking about

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.01.01 13:28:00 - [658]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
At past most opinions on ships were based on solo and very small scale pvp. Situations where blaster ships excel when compared to amarr ships.


The problem is that they don't "excel" at it - they are "slightly better" for those engagements. (You seem to agree, just picking your comment there because I thought it was a good summary of the misconception)

Megathron has a chance against an Abaddon (the useful "small-gang BS" for Amarr). It doesn't "most likely beat it" - it "has a chance". If it doesn't start out too far, if it can utilize transversal, etc. The Hyperion has a slightly better chance in the 1vs1 scenario, but as soon as the Abaddon has a single friend, 2 Hyperions are in a definitive disadvantage.

Note that this would be fine with me. The problem is the "other side" - as soon as you have 3+ ships, the pulse advantages aren't just a "slight advantage" like in the scenarios above, pulses "excel" blasters.

That is, the Megathron will find it very, very difficult to get close to Abaddon or Armageddon effectiveness in a fleet of more than 3 ships. It won't just be "slightly worse", it will be much worse off. Hyperions in fleets of 3 ships or more are basically useless (their repper tank is worse than Mega's plate tank at some 1.4k to 1.6k incoming dps, or, 2-3 BS) - not just "not quite as useful" as an Abaddon, but "much less useful".

That's why people say there is an "inbalance".

You can see this nicely with the graphs posted here and discussed to death (with horrible argumentation from both sides, btw). They show that, against smaller, more mobile targets (BCs), where blasters should excel (better tracking, Hyp can fit multiple webs), it's "roughly balanced" (and even that is debatable - the blaster window where absolute dps is that much better is very small compared to the same window of pulses).

There are two options to "fix" this. Either, you rebalance the 10-25km range to reduce the differences there, or you rebalance the 0-10km range to increase the difference there. Some people asked for a plain dps upgrade for blasters to give them back their "face melting ability" compared to other weapon systems; others argued for more range, like giving Null a 1.5/1.5 modifier instead of 1.25/1.25; my favorite solution (mentioned quite early in the thread, now again by Kagura) is to take back the tracking bonus pulses got a while back. They have received a number of other boosts.

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2009.01.01 17:34:00 - [659]
 

Edited by: BiggestT on 01/01/2009 17:37:18
Looking at sechauls graphs on page 1 proves what alot of people are thinking.

I mean damn, the Abaddon is the top damage dealer out of ANY bs from 7-45km (<---The MAJORITY of all PVP takes place in this range set).

Combine that with its ability to fit a wicked buffer, large drone bay and free mids for tackle/cap etc...

Seriously, WTF.

Maybe lasors need a cap adjustment or something (take more cap). I ussually dont like nerfs to damage, tracking etc, but cap use could make things a bit more balanced (much more vulnerable to cap warfare, will cap out in large fleets etc).

edit: And I find it a funny coincidence that goumindong (<-spelling? lol) is basically the only one arguing against the data when he is infact, amarr.

Zamolxiss
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2009.01.01 18:10:00 - [660]
 

@Kagura Nikon

Hey.. firstly, it's a little dissapointing how after making such a nice argumentation, you came to the conclusion that Pulse ships need a tracking nerf..

I fly amarr, i've trained amarr when they sucked hideously, being the underdog was pretty nice cause it guaranteed a fight.. i've been here for a while, went threw the nano bs era, the nosfest era and all the others FOTM's.. the current situation does not compare with none of the previously mentioned.. Amarr is not an I WIN button.

If you've flown amarr Pulse boats before the tracking boost you must know how it is to be unable to hit anything below your ship class within the standard engagemnet range 0-20km..

With the recent web nerf and the fact that no amarr pulse boat has the mids to fit 2 webbs, some of them not even a drone bay, like the zealot.. a tracking nerf will simpy **** all pulse boats, rendering everything below theyr size totaly imune in a 1 vs 1 situation.. imo this is game braking for amarr pilots..

With a little common sense regading balance and a little knowledge about prevoius game mechanics and why changes were made the way they were made.. each individual here shouldn't have problems understanding why Simmilar class turrets sould have Simmilar tracking, not identical, not equal.. the diferences shouldn't be game braking.. like they were before.. we were there once, it's sad that most of the ppl here don't have that experience and generaly talk out of theyr asses..

Anyway, if a nerf to pulse lasers is going to happen, witch i doubt.. tracking should be left alone, i would rather see a range nerf witch will cripple pulse boats too, but not to the extent a tracking neef will..

2 cents


Pages: first : previous : ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 : last (25)

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