open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Blaster tracking with graphs
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:22:00 - [151]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 17:27:14
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Hello,

Blaster tracking per se isn't that bad. It's the gash tracking formula that goes wrong at close ranges. Meaning that, even though you have this nice close-range weapon... you really don't want to be 'up close' as everything under the sun can get under your guns... even if it is virtually blotting out the Sun.

That and, going solo in medium and in particular, large Blasterboats is tantamount to suicide with the changes to the game over the last 2-2.5 years.

Shame really.




Ding, look here everybody. This man have finally seen this now. I have seen this for like years now that the tracking on Blasters isn't the problem, the real problem is the tracking formula.

Fix the tracking formula like i have said gazzillions of times, and then the things with the tracking on guns will start to work like it should.
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
i just pwned myself yet again....


I like this as well while you are yet again making a fool of yourself....


http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=6


1 kill with a navy mega ever......and on the weapons used 1 kill with a Ion Blaster Cannon II.LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing

You are such a tool.LaughingLaughing

Uhm, you can't read dude, my Navy Mega used Neutrons like it always have, and not Ions. So why Ions is there is a good question.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:59:00 - [152]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 18:00:39
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
Blaster (and autocannon) DPS needs a small boost too, but i think either improving the ammo (and ammo varieties - especially the T2 ammo) is maybe better than boosting the blaster itself.

Yeah, atm t2 ammo aren't any good. So if CCP can fix the t2 ammos, it would be great.

A good example of why the t2 ammos are really unbalanced is Scorch against the other t2 ammos. No other t2 ammos like Null or Barrage comes close to how good Scorch is.

Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:02:00 - [153]
 

Oh dear, battleclinic epeen waving at its best Rolling Eyes

Pilot #3085 and #31k something (Laughing), both ingame since 2005, smacking each other to no end who has more pvp knowledge and is thus entitled to decide what blasters should be like.

Let #467 give you a good advice, stop boasting with your stats and try to argue facts, battleclinic ranking shows exactly nothing.

marakor
Gallente
Anti Lag Forum Smackers
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:33:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: NightmareX


Oh btw, nice, 3 players that doesn't agree with me out of like 50. Nice dude, that's an epic amount of players that doesn't agree with meLaughing.




Actually thats 3 players pointing out what a clueless noob troll you are i could post more but i cannot be bothered, theres many many many more that know theres a problem with blasters and close range BS game balance.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:36:00 - [155]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 18:39:31
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX


Oh btw, nice, 3 players that doesn't agree with me out of like 50. Nice dude, that's an epic amount of players that doesn't agree with meLaughing.




Actually thats 3 players pointing out what a clueless noob troll you are i could post more but i cannot be bothered, theres many many many more that know theres a problem with blasters and close range BS game balance.

Explain in DETAILS what kind of problem Blasters have please.

Let me see if i can find out where your problem is because you have so much problems with Blasters.

Yes, i agree, there is a problem with Blasters, but that problem IS NOT caused by the Blasters it self. So in all, the problem is not with the Blasters. This problems is actually in all kinds of weapons that use the tracking formula.

So i rather see the tracking formula fixed before anything else.

Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:43:00 - [156]
 

Originally by: NightmareX

Anyways, just to make a point here. So here is a question to you Lilith Velkor. Who is right about the Blasters between me and sophisticatedlimabean aka marakor here?.


Uhm, you didnt really get what I was talking about I think, its not which of you both is right or wrong (not that I could be arsed to read through that stupid flamefest anyway), my point was that debate between you two is utterly pointless and of no use to the thread.

I dont intend to get dragged into something like that either, and I'd suggest either you or him just let it go, its not leading anywhere.


Blasters much like autocannons have a hard time to compete in a gang situation against pulse lasers, and its a combination of poor focus in the platforms, issues with ammunition, and to a large part also the way bigger engagements prefer dps@range vs EHP so much (aka excellence of amarr BSs in this respect to a huge degree).

Against each other they compare pretty good actually (imo blasters a bit better still, but that might be a case of me being minmatar mainly and the grass being greener on the other side), but could use a boost to close the gap to pulses. Still, a good solution to even out things needs to take all three short-range turrets as well as the short-ranged missile variants in consideration, the simple "boost this, nerf that" approach will just flip a coin imo.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:47:00 - [157]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 18:56:42
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: NightmareX

Anyways, just to make a point here. So here is a question to you Lilith Velkor. Who is right about the Blasters between me and sophisticatedlimabean aka marakor here?.


Uhm, you didnt really get what I was talking about I think, its not which of you both is right or wrong (not that I could be arsed to read through that stupid flamefest anyway), my point was that debate between you two is utterly pointless and of no use to the thread.

I dont intend to get dragged into something like that either, and I'd suggest either you or him just let it go, its not leading anywhere.


Blasters much like autocannons have a hard time to compete in a gang situation against pulse lasers, and its a combination of poor focus in the platforms, issues with ammunition, and to a large part also the way bigger engagements prefer dps@range vs EHP so much (aka excellence of amarr BSs in this respect to a huge degree).

Against each other they compare pretty good actually (imo blasters a bit better still, but that might be a case of me being minmatar mainly and the grass being greener on the other side), but could use a boost to close the gap to pulses. Still, a good solution to even out things needs to take all three short-range turrets as well as the short-ranged missile variants in consideration, the simple "boost this, nerf that" approach will just flip a coin imo.

Alright, i get your point.

Yeah, can't we just say that, before marakor makes a reply and explains why Blasters have issues, then lets just ignore the fool?. Personally, i have ingored him from now on, and i mean it this time.

I'm sure he's going to post something just to try and get me to reply more, but if he do that, it only means one thing. He's an idiotWink.

Because so far, he have just replied with really poor calculations and really ****ty setups on a Megathron and an Abaddon that makes no sense. And just to make the Megathron looks bad in every possible ways. That's typical Laser FOTY bois to do.

Like me, i only reply with facts when someone is lying about something that isn't true, so i just make a reply then and fix what they did wrong in the topic and explain to them what they are doing wrong. Other than that, i'm not replying here much anyways.

I at least made a nice calculation on why a Megathron is working really nice in RR BS gangs even to a tier 3 BS. I didn't include tracking in my calculations earlier even when i listed them down, because in RR BS fight, the tracking doesn't mean much. It's only in really really small gangs the tracking means something, up to like 3-4 max vs the same.

Dabljuh
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:02:00 - [158]
 

Edited by: Dabljuh on 26/10/2009 19:05:36
Back to blasters...

Two basic paths of fixing them have now been provided, neither of which are exclusive or rule the other path out:

a) buff blasters / nerf pulses. Basically obvious, the question is how much blasters should be buffed.

For example: double the tracking and 25% more dps for blasters, 20% tracking nerf for pulses.

b) fix the tracking formulas which make sure that no turret can ever hit _anything_ ever orbiting inside a radius of a few kms, which is what inherently gimps any turret weapon with a few kms range. I find this a rather interesting interpretation.

For example: add a bit to the formula like this: effectiveTargetSig = (10km*(absolutetargetSig/r)) (r=distance in km) formula for hitting stuff. I.e. the closer something is the easier it is to hit it because of its increased apparent signature, and conversely, the further away something is, the smaller its relative signature.

That would mean that a frig at 1km distance has the relative signature radius of a battleship, and conversely, at 100km a battleship has the relative signature radius of a frig.

marakor
Gallente
Anti Lag Forum Smackers
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:07:00 - [159]
 

Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 19:08:05
Originally by: Dabljuh
Back to blasters...

Two basic paths of fixing them have now been provided, neither of which are exclusive or rule the other path out:

a) buff blasters / nerf pulses. Basically obvious, the question is how much blasters should be buffed.

For example: double the tracking and 25% more dps for blasters, 20% tracking nerf for pulses.


Tracking is rather unimportant tbh dude but more dmg could not hurt things.

Originally by: Dabljuh
b) fix the tracking formulas which make sure that no turret can ever hit _anything_ ever orbiting inside a radius of a few kms, which is what inherently gimps any turret weapon with a few kms range. I find this a rather interesting interpretation.


This may help a little and not just blaster BS.


How about C as well.

You may want to include a buff to cpu and grid to the mega so it can at least fit a reasonable tank without using faction mods and a large injector in stead of a medium when it uses neutrons.





PS:
Originally by: NightmareX


KTNXBAI.



Good bloody riddance.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:10:00 - [160]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 19:11:19
Originally by: Dabljuh
Back to blasters...

Two basic paths of fixing them have now been provided, neither of which are exclusive or rule the other path out:

a) buff blasters / nerf pulses. Basically obvious, the question is how much blasters should be buffed.

For example: double the tracking and 25% more dps for blasters, 20% tracking nerf for pulses.

b) fix the tracking formulas which make sure that no turret can ever hit _anything_ ever orbiting inside a radius of a few kms, which is what inherently gimps any turret weapon with a few kms range. I find this a rather interesting interpretation.

For example: add a bit to the formula like this: effectiveTargetSig = (10km*(absolutetargetSig/r)) (r=distance in km) formula for hitting stuff. I.e. the closer something is the easier it is to hit it because of its increased apparent signature, and conversely, the further away something is, the smaller its relative signature.

That would mean that a frig at 1km distance has the relative signature radius of a battleship.

I don't think that's going to work good. It will rather makes 3805738 times more problems instead of fixing the few issues that are with the tracking formula now.

I would to begin with fix the tracking formula and then lets see how good Blasters for example are against other ships in Blasters optimal range. Or very very close like 100m or something.

If that doesn't work any better, then we can start to look at other options.

Dabljuh
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:22:00 - [161]
 

Edited by: Dabljuh on 26/10/2009 19:32:49
Edited by: Dabljuh on 26/10/2009 19:25:56
Originally by: marakor
How about C as well.

You may want to include a buff to cpu and grid to the mega so it can at least fit a reasonable tank without using faction mods and a large injector in stead of a medium when it uses neutrons.
I'll be the first to agree that gallente ships in general have way too little grid for their stated purposes. But this is sort of offset by them having way more drone bandwidth and bay for their stated purpose as well. That's not a blaster issue, that's a much larger and more complex "racial ship balance" issue.

Considering the geddon has about 30% more grid than the thron, while lasers only eat about 10% more grid for the same 'class' I do wonder what the rationale behind this is. But I am in no way experienced enough with BS combat to make any meaningful statements on that topic, and to be honest, I do not find that they belong in this thread.

Originally by: NightmareX
I don't think that's going to work good. It will rather makes 3805738 times more problems instead of fixing the few issues that are with the tracking formula now.
OMG, GTFO Troll. Stupid, stupid Troll. That IS meant to be a fix TO the tracking formula.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:31:00 - [162]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 19:32:52
Originally by: Dabljuh
OMG, GTFO Troll. Stupid, stupid Troll.

OMG OMG chill dudeLaughing.

I just told you that the change you wrote down over is not fixing much when it makes more problems than it fixes. Nothing wrong to say that when that's the fact.

Anyways, yes i also agree that the Megathron need a little more Powergrid and CPU. That's something i have been saying for ages now. And by doing that, it might fix some few things on the Megathron that might be a problem for some.

marakor
Gallente
Anti Lag Forum Smackers
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:31:00 - [163]
 

Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 19:38:11

Originally by: Dabljuh
Originally by: marakor
How about C as well.

You may want to include a buff to cpu and grid to the mega so it can at least fit a reasonable tank without using faction mods and a large injector in stead of a medium when it uses neutrons.


I'll be the first to agree that gallente ships in general have way too little grid for their stated purposes. But this is sort of offset by them having way more drone bandwidth and bay for their stated purpose as well. That's not a blaster issue, that's a much larger and more complex "racial ship balance" issue.


The issues cannot really be separated due to the fact that blasters need to be fitted onto ships and that the extra drones ect are always calculated into the dps figures and is in fact a much larger and more complicated issue that it seems.


In actual fact the "blaster issue" is in actual fact a much larger issue to do with all close range BS combat that involves multiple battleships and most of their relative stats (not just turrets), and its been a problem since the web nerf along with several other seemingly unrelated game changes that also include ships top speed and their acceleration curves.

Dabljuh
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:39:00 - [164]
 

Originally by: marakor
In actual fact the "blaster issue" is in actual fact a much larger issue to do with all close range BS combat that involves multiple battleships and most of their relative stats (not just turrets), and its been a problem since the web nerf along with several other seemingly unrelated game changes.
Here's the thing: Does the Mega really have to fit neutrons? Ions do virtually the same damage, the real difference is their lower range.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:43:00 - [165]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 19:50:23
And just to have this said to. The ONLY reason why someone takes Blasters for crap atm is because Lasers is to overpowered atm, and then finds the Blasters to be crap.

But the thing isn't that the Blasters are crap, the thing is that the Lasers with Scorch is waaaay way to good. And then thinks Lasers are working as they should, while they aren't, and then scrams BOOST Blasters.

So, the best way is not to boost Blaster to get it to how an overpowered weapon type is, because when something is overpowered, then the overpowered thing need to be nerfed.

There is 3 options. 1. Nerf the DPS on Lasers in general. 2. Nerf the DPS by 10% on Close range ammos like Multis for Lasers and nerf the DPS by 15% on med range for med range ammo like Scorch. 3. Nerf the tracking on Lasers in whole by 25%.

One of those things needs to be done.

You know, Lasers need to have a bit more disadvantage than just a bit of cap usage.

Doesn't matter if Blasters will get 15% DPS boost, because Lasers is still going to be better because you have insta reload of ammos, no ammo usage, good range and good tracking and so on.

Peoples will still find that to be much much better than a 15% DPS boost to Blasters. So they will still use Lasers no matter what. So i find the DPS boost thingie on Blasters to be invalid.

So before anything is changed on Lasers, a DPS boost to Blasters will never happen.

And i knjow exactly what will happen after the Blaster eventually would get a 15% DPS boost, then the noobs in megas will start to scream 'I NEED MORE TRACKING, I NEED MORE RANGE' and so on, this boost this and that will never end no matter what.

Dabljuh
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:50:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 19:47:58So, the best way is not to boost Blaster to get it to how an overpowered weapon type is, because when something is overpowered, then the overpowered thing need to be nerfed.
Shouldn't blasters be vastly overpowered inside their range? Given that their range is by far the lowest in the game?

marakor
Gallente
Anti Lag Forum Smackers
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:52:00 - [167]
 

Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 20:00:26

Originally by: Dabljuh
Originally by: marakor
In actual fact the "blaster issue" is in actual fact a much larger issue to do with all close range BS combat that involves multiple battleships and most of their relative stats (not just turrets), and its been a problem since the web nerf along with several other seemingly unrelated game changes.
Here's the thing: Does the Mega really have to fit neutrons? Ions do virtually the same damage, the real difference is their lower range.


The RR setup with a single mag stab drops the turret dps by around 6.1% and considering how narrow the damage gap is between blasters and other systems like pulse already narrowing it even furthar while also reducing their available range is not the best way to go in my opinion.

If blasters are supposed to be the in your face and destroy you weapons then they need a considerable boost in DPS and a tank + cap that allows that sort of capability.


Originally by: Dabljuh
Shouldn't blasters be vastly overpowered inside their range? Given that their range is by far the lowest in the game?


They should be vastly more powerful but "overpowered" is not the best word to describe it on these forums buddy.Wink

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:54:00 - [168]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 20:07:50
Originally by: Dabljuh
Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 19:47:58So, the best way is not to boost Blaster to get it to how an overpowered weapon type is, because when something is overpowered, then the overpowered thing need to be nerfed.
Shouldn't blasters be vastly overpowered inside their range? Given that their range is by far the lowest in the game?

I'm not directly saying they should be overpowered inside Blasters optimal, but except for that, i agree that Blasters should be much better than Lasers inside Blasters optimal. Blasters already have HUGE DPS inside 5 km. And that's good enough DPS by miles.

When a Neutron fitted Mega does 9.76% more DPS with 1 damage mod over an Abaddon that have 2x damage mods after resists and still have 25% more resists than the Mega, then yeah, Blasters is doing pretty nice DPS already. But not good enough when you think about how much better range for example you gets with Lasers over Blasters.

So, the only problem like i said over is that the DPS on Lasers are way to high inside 5 km where Blasters is supposed to be the king. We cannot just start to boost Blasters because Lasers is to good there. That's not how we fix things.

So that's why i'm saying, nerf the Lasers DPS inside 5 km by at least 10% and 15% at med range.

Then the Blasters will be the absolute DPS monster inside 5-6 km and then Lasers still be the king at med range and still have good tracking. Because Lasers are supposed to be good at range and hit ships quite good at range because Amarr ship or ships that use Lasers aren't really ships that are fast, so they need the range and the tracking so they can make up for the low speed and poor agility etc etc.

And on top of this. In Dominion Projectiles will be fixed / boosted, so now Projectiles will be pretty balanced to the other weapon systems as long Lasers gets it's nerf it need.

When Lasers get nerfed in DPS, then every of the weapons will be pretty balanced to each others to how each weapons works.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:18:00 - [169]
 

Your opinions are welcome - both of you. But your constant flaming is utterly ******ed. Besides, NMX has changed his tune to be much more reasonable regarding blasters. Where traditionally he's insisted that they are the end-all be-all of PVP combat, we see that he now is putting more emphasis on range. I think we can all agree that when Dominion rolls around, blasters may need some examining.

But, then again, maybe they won't. The TC/TE buff is probably more beneficial to my blaster ships than my AC ships, so I'm really looking forward to seeing how that turns out for blasters before I go saying that blasters need some really huge buff.

-Liang

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:24:00 - [170]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 20:37:07
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Your opinions are welcome - both of you. But your constant flaming is utterly ******ed. Besides, NMX has changed his tune to be much more reasonable regarding blasters. Where traditionally he's insisted that they are the end-all be-all of PVP combat, we see that he now is putting more emphasis on range. I think we can all agree that when Dominion rolls around, blasters may need some examining.

But, then again, maybe they won't. The TC/TE buff is probably more beneficial to my blaster ships than my AC ships, so I'm really looking forward to seeing how that turns out for blasters before I go saying that blasters need some really huge buff.

-Liang

Yes, this is exactly what i want to see. I want to see how Projectiles and Blasters will perform in Dominion before we looks on the next thing. You never know if there is some stealth boosts in Dominion that can make some things with Blasters better. Stealth boosts have happened before and it might happen again.

The tracking formula is also a thing that i really want to see fixed, because we all knows that the tracking formula is crap today.
Originally by: marakor
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 20:23:46
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Your opinions are welcome - both of you. But your constant flaming is utterly ******ed. Besides, NMX has changed his tune to be much more reasonable regarding blasters. Where traditionally he's insisted that they are the end-all be-all of PVP combat, we see that he now is putting more emphasis on range.



Yea well he has gone from jumping into threads making stupid claims and having no idea how to fit a blaster ship let alone how to fly one to still jumping into threads and making stupid claims but at least its been hammered into his r****ded brain that theres at least a problem now....and it only took a year or so to get the moron clued up.Rolling Eyes


And ROFL, and you still don't get into your dumb head that the problem i'm talking about is NOT BLASTERS even when the real problem does affect Blasters. How many times do i have to tell you that the real problem is the tracking formula and Lasers to some points?.

I don't know how small your head is, but it's starting to looks really tiny when you don't get it what both me and Liang are talking about is not about Blasters it self.

Congratulations for actually proving again that you don't even have a damn clue about what we are talking about.

No matter what, the next thing that needs to be looked at is the tracking formula. After that, we can look into Blasters if that is needed at all, and Lasers ofc.

Bigpimping
Pimp Inc.
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:12:00 - [171]
 

Guys, seriously, you are just making yourselves look silly. Blaster fix is an important topic with pwetty graphs and you are making it cry.Crying or Very sad

sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:12:00 - [172]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
I think we can all agree that when Dominion rolls around, blasters may need some examining.

But, then again, maybe they won't. The TC/TE buff is probably more beneficial to my blaster ships than my AC ships, so I'm really looking forward to seeing how that turns out for blasters before I go saying that blasters need some really huge buff.

-Liang



The problems caused because the tracking formula misses at 0km needs sorting although most ships i know of in any game or reality cannot hit a ship or are unwilling to fire on one that is docked/parked against its hull lol so its not as "unrealistic" as ppl claim.

Im not sure i see it as much of a benifit to any ships really although i know a lot of drone ship pilots that will be crying as it was a great way to reduce incoming fire from as larger ship by sitting on its hull while your drones orbited and chewed it up.....WinkVery Happy


The patch may change things but its definatly wise to wait until its done its not like we have not waited long enough already for things to be fixed.

Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:35:00 - [173]
 

Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 26/10/2009 21:42:58
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean

The problems caused because the tracking formula misses at 0km needs sorting although most ships i know of in any game or reality cannot hit a ship or are unwilling to fire on one that is docked/parked against its hull lol so its not as "unrealistic" as ppl claim.


The 0m problem has been fixed already.

Originally by: Apocrypha 1.5.1 patchnotes
It is now possible to shoot objects that are 0 meters away with turrets, and hit them (this is still subject to tracking.)


While its nice to have it sorted out, I dont see that much changed there tbh, tracking becomes a real issue at the 500m range already for all BS turrets at minimal transversal (and for none of them it makes sense to go that close), so its a rather cosmetic change anyway as far as BS are concerned and for the smaller ship classes as well since you wont be hugging each other much at all.

Saves you some trouble in PVE though I guess with those pesky structures :P

marakor
Gallente
Anti Lag Forum Smackers
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:36:00 - [174]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
The setup you used there are really ****ty fitted. It's the poor mans fit. Learn how to fit a Mega AND an Abaddon. And fit them like i have done. My 2 setups are good setups to use on those 2 ships.




You can see the setups i used?...please go ahead and show me cos i never posted the exact fits you fool.


BTW your amarr navy eanm fit and med cap injector for the mega is the joke fit on this thread and many ppl have said so and that the mega needs more PG and CPU so it can fit a good tank and use a large injector.

You only put it together so it made blaster BS look like they have a better tank than they actually do.....you failed btw as most ppl dont use faction eanms on megas you fool.LaughingLaughing

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:38:00 - [175]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 21:39:32
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
The setup you used there are really ****ty fitted. It's the poor mans fit. Learn how to fit a Mega AND an Abaddon. And fit them like i have done. My 2 setups are good setups to use on those 2 ships.




You can see the setups i used?...please go ahead and show me cos i never posted the exact fits you fool.


BTW your amarr navy eanm fit and med cap injector for the mega is the joke fit on this thread and many ppl have said so and that the mega needs more PG and CPU so it can fit a good tank and use a large injector.

You only put it together so it made blaster BS look like they have a better tank than they actually do.....you failed btw as most ppl dont use faction eanms on megas you fool.LaughingLaughing

ROFL, i can easily find out what kind of setups your using by your armor resists and the other stats you have posted. I'm not a noob with EFT dudeWink.

Ohhh, matter in fact that most Mega pilots use cheap faction mods on their Megas so they can be a little more effective for some few mill extra isk.

grl pwr
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:43:00 - [176]
 

Originally by: NightmareX


Ohhh, matter in fact that most Mega pilots use cheap faction mods on their Megas so they can be a little more effective for some few mill extra isk.


I have used megas for a long time in gang combat and ive neveer used them.

Link to proof of multiple blaster mega mails with amaar navy eanms fitted or stfu.

CCP Zymurgist


Gallente
C C P
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:58:00 - [177]
 

Thread cleaned. Remember to post constructively and on topic.

PS: Blasters rock!

honey bunchetta
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:59:00 - [178]
 

Edited by: honey bunchetta on 26/10/2009 22:01:27
Originally by: NightmareX

You really did fail to read what i wrote there.

First of all, i didn't mention any Amarr Navy EANM's in that quote.


You used amarr navy eanm's in the figures and links to fits you posted above are you now retracting those fits and stats and saying that they are wrong?.

Originally by: NightmareX
Making the Mega better for some few extra mill isk is something i would do to.


Saying its something you "would do" clearly shows its something you have never done, you really should not post things in threads about fixing problems saying what others would or would not do when you have not done them yourself.


PS: WOW the thread shrunk 2 pages while i was typing.

Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.10.26 22:03:00 - [179]
 

Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 26/10/2009 22:19:42
Originally by: grl pwr
Originally by: NightmareX


Ohhh, matter in fact that most Mega pilots use cheap faction mods on their Megas so they can be a little more effective for some few mill extra isk.


I have used megas for a long time in gang combat and ive neveer used them.

Link to proof of multiple blaster mega mails with amaar navy eanms fitted or stfu.


Well to be fair, I've seen quite a few people resort to faction and deadspace mods, but thats more because they need to work around the extremely tight fitting on a RR Mega, i.e. regain some lost effectiveness rather than improve in the first place.

The 6 cpu you can save on the AN EANM are kind of a big deal actually depending on the fit, and the little extra EHP isnt horrible either.


But then again, there is the question if you are really supposed to be able to fit RR, heavy injector and a full rack of neutrons easily. The Tempest might be able to mount dual RR without trouble, but the damage output drops considerably and you lose way more dealt dps than you can repair on one of your gangmates in comparison. Might just be a case of different focus after all.

Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Posted - 2009.10.26 22:08:00 - [180]
 

Just wanted to say that CCP claimed to have fixed the zero error on the tracking formula.

They claimed that the centre of the ball-like object is now being used as the zero point meaning the "size" of your ships ball radius means you'll never actually have a 0km target, because it will really be the ball radius as minimum range - even though it may display 0m on the overview.

Proof that "ball size" does indeed matter. Though no matter how big your balls, blasters still need a stiff examining. Wink


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (11)

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