open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Blaster Dilemma?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2010.11.16 05:04:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 16/11/2010 05:05:22
Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
Originally by: Kai Yuen
I'd rather see balance with no variety than variety with no balance.


So that explains your comments on my thread at least.

As for blasters, I always viewed them as shotguns. I think *just* longer range is taking away from this.
I think giving them an incredibly high alpha, high tracking, very short optimal and a falloff that places their intended dps for normal ranges to a reasonable level while allowing the up close killshot effect is the only way to keep them unique and usable.
I'll disclaim this with I haven't gone into a fight with blasters fitted yet and don't have the familiarity with the weapon, just offering up my perception. This idea also doesn't really address the concerns with the ships they are fitted on.

Yeah they're supposed to be like shotguns. Problem with blasters is not the blasters themselves its the big fat slow armor tanked ships they go on.

Improve the ships and then blasters can do their job. To take the rupture and thorax as a extreme example:

Thorax: Lower damage -170dps (due to having to fit electrons (Still need to fit a RCU to fit them))
Thorax: Lower speed -200ms mwd
Thorax: Less cap time 1/3rd the time
Thorax: Slighty better passive tank
Thorax: Less gun range
Thorax: +2 meds drones

Thats all from memory but its close if I remember correctly.

As you can see, the thorax, a ship thats supposed to close and fire at close range, would have an extremely difficult time if the ship its fighting is faster, can run its mwd longer, is faster without mwd, and can hit well at range.

The only thing a Thorax could do in this situation, is last a little longer before it dies.

Also to the people who say its not a solo game, since we're comparing ship vs ships it makes sense to compare 2 t2 cruisers together. You could add a tackler with web on both sides which would give you exactly the same result since both ships are now being webbed.

Now if you added speed to the Thorax at least the certain death factor is taken out of the equation. Would still be a hard fight but a winnable one.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.16 06:36:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Kabaal S''sylistha on 16/11/2010 06:36:30
It seems that the problem is that speed is the major factor and turning ability and acceleration don't factor in to make enough or any effect. Without that, there's not really much you can do - giving ships with an extreme of range (short or long) the speed advantage imbalances the playing field just as much, even if there are other factors playing in.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.16 07:09:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
Edited by: Kabaal S''sylistha on 16/11/2010 06:36:30
It seems that the problem is that speed is the major factor and turning ability and acceleration don't factor in to make enough or any effect. Without that, there's not really much you can do - giving ships with an extreme of range (short or long) the speed advantage imbalances the playing field just as much, even if there are other factors playing in.


The way it should have been done is to put hybrids on Minmatar and projectiles on Gallente, but its a little late for that. It makes no sense what-so-ever to put the shortest ranging weapons on the slowest ships and the most range flexible weapons on the fastest. Yes, blasters were meant to be shot guns, but it doesn't work. Just abandon the notion. CCP will never make Gallente ships fast or agile. Work with what you have.

Solution A: Buff Hybrids

Increase blaster range. QQ, they're no longer shot guns. At least they're balanced. Increase fall off as well, bring tracking up to speed. Cap based weapons should track better than non-cap based weapons. That's part of the balancing act.

Solution B: Nerf Projectiles

Reduce fall off and force the faster ships into web/scram range. Now it's battle. If you want to apply DPS you have to make yourself vulnerable. Isn't that the way it should be? Not, "watch me fly rings around you and apply DPS comfortably while you can't even fire back".

McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.16 07:50:00 - [34]
 

Nerfing the other guns or buffing hybrids (and especially blasters) to match or surpass other weapons will cause another problem altogether, and will not solve a totally different problem.

The problem it would create (besides shifting the whine over to a different weapon system which a lot love, spec-ed up to 5 for it and are now stuck with it till they skill up the new fotm blasters :P) is the fact that to keep the weapons diversified you don't need just to tweak the weapons, you need to tweak their platforms as well...

The ships dude. We're talking about revamping both cal and gal - not just the later. If you make blasters shoot as far as ACs for gal, then that means that a Rokh pilot would probably reach with iron or null almost as far as pulse with scorch. And if you get rid of Null's tracking penalty then it would out-track the scorch-pulse as well. Still, hybrids are more cap hungry and their ship platforms aren't the best cap pumpers out there.

Also, lets not forget the changes in tackling ewar. Its not just the fact that webs have been nerfed, so you can't catch up with other ships. It's also the introduction of the scram as a mwd nullifier, which basically means that the propulsion upgrade that nerfs your cap cannot even be used to travel the distance and close the weapon range gap. If you have a point and web, and you overheat the web, you would only keep up with your target for 1-2 KM, and then their overheated scram will stop you colder. But tbh, if you got that close you're lucky.

The problem that it won't solve is the problem of local repping is a tank of the past, that only misguided one month old players still use, due to eve pvp embracing the gangs and fleets over the solo. Why wouldn't it? You can achieve exponentially more the larger your fleet is, and it is supported in the game mechanics.

What I'm saying here is solo died a long time ago, and mare shadows of what it was still linger at the edges of fleet fights and hi sec griefing (although that's more like molesting rather than really fighting, but game mechanically it's still a 1v1... sort of). So yeah,. the bottom line of this is the fact that hybrids aren't really broken - its just that the style of play in which they out-perform other weapons is very seldom nowadays.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.16 13:55:00 - [35]
 

What about the introduction of tracking penalties to speed? I'm not saying "A ship can travel X fast, it tracks Y worse," but "Ship is traveling at X speed, it tracks Y% worse."

This would make it so burning at top speed constantly not always the strategic advantage. Taking a look at the tracking numbers after that would allow ships without a true higher speed and close range weapons to have a possibility of sticking to the target, unless the target wants to suffer the tracking loss.

For the FPS comparison, you don't shoot as well on the run. There's no such mechanic in Eve.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:55:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 16/11/2010 18:56:27
Edited by: The Djego on 16/11/2010 18:55:47
Originally by: Kai Yuen


Solution A: Buff Hybrids

Increase blaster range. QQ, they're no longer shot guns. At least they're balanced. Increase fall off as well, bring tracking up to speed. Cap based weapons should track better than non-cap based weapons. That's part of the balancing act.

Solution B: Nerf Projectiles

Reduce fall off and force the faster ships into web/scram range. Now it's battle. If you want to apply DPS you have to make yourself vulnerable. Isn't that the way it should be? Not, "watch me fly rings around you and apply DPS comfortably while you can't even fire back".


A is terrible, for anybody that can use more than just hybrids.

B is terrible since it takes much more away from other stuff than really make hybrids worth it. Leave alone that blaster pvp went pointless a hole year before CCP changed projectiles and TEs at all, it is not a issue.


Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.16 19:09:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: The Djego

A is terrible, for anybody that can use more than just hybrids.

B is terrible since it takes much more away from other stuff than really make hybrids worth it. Leave alone that blaster pvp went pointless a hole year before CCP changed projectiles and TEs at all, it is not a issue.



Oh right, Minmatar deserve to be OP for a whole year because it took that long for CCP to give them love. Fine, then blasters get OPed for more than a year after that because not only have we gone without love, but there's no talk about love inc for some time. Great logic.

Cleary, it IS an issue and just because you like riding the Minmatar wave doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for balance in the game.

A is a terrible idea for anybody that can use more than just hybrids? So wait, if you can use projectiles, balancing hybrids is a bad idea? What about those of us who ONLY use hybrids? We just get shafted? Terrible, biased, and weak argument.

B is a terrible idea because what, it doesn't give hybrids anything? Then what YOU give hybrids to make them worth something? I'm all ears. Until then, this is just another very weak, very biased argument.

I'm sticking to my original proposal because its the only one that makes sense. Set hybrids half way between energy and projectile in the stats that matter. Close range: falloff, optimal, tracking. Long range: alpha, DPS, tracking.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.16 20:09:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 16/11/2010 21:01:00
Originally by: Kai Yuen
Originally by: The Djego

A is terrible, for anybody that can use more than just hybrids.

B is terrible since it takes much more away from other stuff than really make hybrids worth it. Leave alone that blaster pvp went pointless a hole year before CCP changed projectiles and TEs at all, it is not a issue.



Oh right, Minmatar deserve to be OP for a whole year because it took that long for CCP to give them love. Fine, then blasters get OPed for more than a year after that because not only have we gone without love, but there's no talk about love inc for some time. Great logic.

Cleary, it IS an issue and just because you like riding the Minmatar wave doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for balance in the game.

A is a terrible idea for anybody that can use more than just hybrids? So wait, if you can use projectiles, balancing hybrids is a bad idea? What about those of us who ONLY use hybrids? We just get shafted? Terrible, biased, and weak argument.

B is a terrible idea because what, it doesn't give hybrids anything? Then what YOU give hybrids to make them worth something? I'm all ears. Until then, this is just another very weak, very biased argument.

I'm sticking to my original proposal because its the only one that makes sense. Set hybrids half way between energy and projectile in the stats that matter. Close range: falloff, optimal, tracking. Long range: alpha, DPS, tracking.


I can use every weapon and sub Cap ship in the game(caldari and amarr on the 2. Char)...

Blaster pvp is dead since QR, you live and die with the ability to deliver the damage at point blank, in anything than oversized active tanks.

I did actually fully max out any useful blaster hull in the game for the simple reason that solo/small gang high DPS gameplay was very useful for me. I even spend most of the nano age soloing in a plated mega/rax instead of nano HACs.

The ships where quite nice if you like solo/small gang, if you look for bigger stuff they where not so hot. The range problem was always present but acceptable if it gives you the expected advantage at point blank in exchange for it.

A means they will never be useful at point blank again, what would be sad. As you read correctly if you can also use the other 2 turret types that can already do this very well it even would be useless for people that can use them.

B means a flat out nerf to mini hulls, what is kills a lot of the flavour in EvE, it also doesn't help blaster pvp since the issues where present long before the boost itself, it only helped some people to put down her 2006 view on blaster pvp.

If the blaster concept(weapon and hulls) is rebalanced around close range again, by dealing superior damage(it lacks damage since the HP buff), stop being a slow brick and nail anything they catch with real webs instead the 60% joke it will be useful again.

The main reason because I fly nearly exclusively the pest instead of the mega this days is that it is the predator the mega was once. Since both perform utterly terrible at point blank, there is no reason to chose the mega over it.

Blaster pvp was always some kind of niche, however it was quite a powerful one and didn't let you question the outcome if you meet a skilled blaster pvper at point blank.

Edit: To clarify myself, I simply want back a blaster ship that is worth using again. I love blaster pvp, I pvp in a environment where I miss it and I'm nearly as emo as Bellum.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.16 22:12:00 - [39]
 

What if they modified it to a small optimal, high falloff, high tracking, high alpha weapon?

For illustration's sake, something like a 1K optimal + 10K falloff. You would have your small window of "holy****ow" damage, and you end up with the shotgun 'peppering' effect when you point in someone's general direction and let off a round.

I'd also like to see the animations reflect the shotgun blast idea, just to shake things up a bit.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.16 22:38:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: The Djego

I can use every weapon and sub Cap ship in the game(caldari and amarr on the 2. Char)...

Blaster pvp is dead since QR, you live and die with the ability to deliver the damage at point blank, in anything than oversized active tanks.



Ergo we fix it.

Originally by: The Djego

A means they will never be useful at point blank again, what would be sad. As you read correctly if you can also use the other 2 turret types that can already do this very well it even would be useless for people that can use them.



Good point, I should ask for second best tracking as well... oh wait... I did. Solved before it was an issue.

Originally by: The Djego

B means a flat out nerf to mini hulls, what is kills a lot of the flavour in EvE, it also doesn't help blaster pvp since the issues where present long before the boost itself, it only helped some people to put down her 2006 view on blaster pvp.



No it wouldn't, it would mean the Minmatar flavor wouldn't be as dominant as it is right now. Oh noes, not more variety.

Originally by: The Djego

If the blaster concept(weapon and hulls) is rebalanced around close range again, by dealing superior damage(it lacks damage since the HP buff), stop being a slow brick and nail anything they catch with real webs instead the 60% joke it will be useful again.



So... you're saying unnerf webs? I say extend web/scram range to compensate. Then at least we have a fighting chance to catch up. Either way, the faster ships need to be forced into web scram range, whether its making their range shorter or our range longer.

Originally by: The Djego

The main reason because I fly nearly exclusively the pest instead of the mega this days is that it is the predator the mega was once. Since both perform utterly terrible at point blank, there is no reason to chose the mega over it.



There's nothing good about the Mega, but at least it isn't a Rokh. The Rokh has no place in any fleet. No one does shield sniper BS, save Machariels which are a fleet class of their own. Give rails the second best alpha and tracking and they might be worth fielding.

Originally by: The Djego

Blaster pvp was always some kind of niche, however it was quite a powerful one and didn't let you question the outcome if you meet a skilled blaster pvper at point blank.



Now it's the exact opposite. Blasters are automatic fail. Is it wrong to want a happy medium?

Originally by: The Djego

Edit: To clarify myself, I simply want back a blaster ship that is worth using again. I love blaster pvp, I pvp in a environment where I miss it and I'm nearly as emo as Bellum.



Wow, we agree on something. I don't want blasters to blow at point blank, but I don't want them to be restricted to point blank only. That doesn't work anymore. Mimatar and Angel ships fly circles around us while comfortably tracking and hitting outside of web/scram range. I don't want 35km blasters. But is 15-20 too much to ask for? Even at 25 with good tracking will still hit well at 5km, especially if you make a decent portion of the total range falloff instead of optimal.

Harotak
Malicious Destruction
Posted - 2010.11.16 23:42:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Harotak on 16/11/2010 23:46:16
Originally by: Kai Yuen
So... you're saying unnerf webs? I say extend web/scram range to compensate. Then at least we have a fighting chance to catch up. Either way, the faster ships need to be forced into web scram range, whether its making their range shorter or our range longer.



I say increase web strength and range then make them have falloff so that you get 90% speed reduction at point blank, 45% at 10km, and 0% at 20km. This would also provide a nice boost for web-range bonus ships like the rapier/huginn

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.17 00:08:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Harotak

I say increase web strength and range then make them have falloff so that you get 90% speed reduction at point blank, 45% at 10km, and 0% at 20km. This would also provide a nice boost for web-range bonus ships like the rapier/huginn


If you're going to do that then leave the 60% part of the webs right where it is, at 9 or 9.5km. 10 shouldn't be all the way down to 45%, more like 55% or even the full 60%. Give Gallente ships a bonus to web falloff and you're good to go, just fix rails.

Torothanax
Posted - 2010.11.17 01:51:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Failgun Owner
Originally by: Torothanax
...bla-bla-bla...

Did you use Gallente ships? Rails? Thorax? ugh
There was no reason to use rails before the rebalance. Blasters wtfbbqpwneyouinthefaceevery time before. Warp in aquire target, approach target, hit mwd, lauch drones, activate scram/web, activate blasters, win. That's what pvp used to be. That was the only tactic. The thorax was one of the only ships to fly.

Rails on a thorax is no worse then artilery on a stabber, vaga, or a cyn. I know guys that use rails on megathrons in fleet. You know what kiting is don't you?

Torothanax
Posted - 2010.11.17 01:54:00 - [44]
 

You all need to get off the buff webs kick. They were nerfed for a very good reason. They aren't going to undo it.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.17 02:01:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Torothanax
There was no reason to use rails before the rebalance. Blasters wtfbbqpwneyouinthefaceevery time before. Warp in aquire target, approach target, hit mwd, lauch drones, activate scram/web, activate blasters, win. That's what pvp used to be. That was the only tactic. The thorax was one of the only ships to fly.

Rails on a thorax is no worse then artilery on a stabber, vaga, or a cyn. I know guys that use rails on megathrons in fleet. You know what kiting is don't you?


Right... kiting. You've never flow Gallente before, have you? Gallente ships are the slowest AND they're armor tanked. There's no such thing as kiting. Even Caldari can catch you.

Originally by: Torothanax
You all need to get off the buff webs kick. They were nerfed for a very good reason. They aren't going to undo it.


Oh noes, Minmatar might not be OPed. QQ threads inc. I like the buff webs idea a lot. Time to call CCP.

Torothanax
Posted - 2010.11.17 02:09:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Originally by: Torothanax
You need a cap booster on a passive tanked thorax? Really? Even with the cap bonus the ship gives to fitting mwd? Really??? Train some skills dude.

The double web admittedly doesn't work so well on a thorax, but if you expect a one on one fight, you're in the wrong game. Where's you're buddy and his web? Try a MWD/scram/web. How many cruisers pvp without a mwd? Yeah turn that off and web him, he aint moving fast enough to out track your guns anymore. Hell, lose the plates altogether and kite him to death with your drones at warp disruptor range. You've got 5 mediums II's right? Oh maybe you better train for those. If he does manage to close, then hit him with the blasters. He should be plenty softened up by then. Or just fit rails and hit him the whole time.

You talk like the rupture is sooo much superior. It isn't. Most people skip it and go right to the hurricane. You want tight fits, try the zealot. You want paper thin tank, go to the stabber. You wan't complete pvp suckage, try a moa some time. Don't act like the thorax is the worst ship on the block or the rupture is the best. Or that anything you've put forward proves blaster ships need a boost.


Nonsense.
Awesome rebuttle. I can tell you totally know what you are talking about.

Torothanax
Posted - 2010.11.17 02:12:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Kai Yuen
Originally by: Torothanax
There was no reason to use rails before the rebalance. Blasters wtfbbqpwneyouinthefaceevery time before. Warp in aquire target, approach target, hit mwd, lauch drones, activate scram/web, activate blasters, win. That's what pvp used to be. That was the only tactic. The thorax was one of the only ships to fly.

Rails on a thorax is no worse then artilery on a stabber, vaga, or a cyn. I know guys that use rails on megathrons in fleet. You know what kiting is don't you?


Right... kiting. You've never flow Gallente before, have you? Gallente ships are the slowest AND they're armor tanked. There's no such thing as kiting. Even Caldari can catch you.

Originally by: Torothanax
You all need to get off the buff webs kick. They were nerfed for a very good reason. They aren't going to undo it.


Oh noes, Minmatar might not be OPed. QQ threads inc. I like the buff webs idea a lot. Time to call CCP.
Call for web buffs all you like. CCP won't do it. But hey it's your time.

All I hear from most of you whiners, is "Whahhhhhh, I can't fit my ship properly." Or "Whaaaaaah I don't know game mechanics well enough to be effective in pvp." Neither is a legit reason to buff anything.

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2010.11.17 02:41:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 17/11/2010 03:00:04
Originally by: Torothanax
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Originally by: Torothanax
You need a cap booster on a passive tanked thorax? Really? Even with the cap bonus the ship gives to fitting mwd? Really??? Train some skills dude.

The double web admittedly doesn't work so well on a thorax, but if you expect a one on one fight, you're in the wrong game. Where's you're buddy and his web? Try a MWD/scram/web. How many cruisers pvp without a mwd? Yeah turn that off and web him, he aint moving fast enough to out track your guns anymore. Hell, lose the plates altogether and kite him to death with your drones at warp disruptor range. You've got 5 mediums II's right? Oh maybe you better train for those. If he does manage to close, then hit him with the blasters. He should be plenty softened up by then. Or just fit rails and hit him the whole time.

You talk like the rupture is sooo much superior. It isn't. Most people skip it and go right to the hurricane. You want tight fits, try the zealot. You want paper thin tank, go to the stabber. You wan't complete pvp suckage, try a moa some time. Don't act like the thorax is the worst ship on the block or the rupture is the best. Or that anything you've put forward proves blaster ships need a boost.


Nonsense.
Awesome rebuttle. I can tell you totally know what you are talking about.

You seem not to know quite what you are talking about, I'm assuming because the only gallante or caldari ships you fly are ECM or missile boats. You need a cap booster on a buffer tanked thorax because blasters use cap, getting into range uses lots of cap and because you are bound to run into something with a neut or two.

While your "kiting your target with a warp disruptor and your 5 medium drones" hes hitting you for full weapon damage and his 3 or 4 med drones. By the time you have "softened him up" with your 5 medium drones and no plate (aka no tank), your out of cap and spamming warp to object. Fitting rails does not solve the blaster problem.

The Rupture is definitely far superior to the Thorax with blasters the way they are at the moment. Look at your suggestions above and tell me how they could possibly work against a Rupture that is faster, does quite a bit more dps and has better longer range guns.

Hope that explains my "Nonsense" comment. I thought it was self explanatory.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.17 05:54:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Torothanax
Waaaah, balance threatens my OPness


Sorry if balance threatens you, but it will get there. Whether its web buffs or hybrid buffs, we'll be sure Gallente gets balanced again. Back to actually contributing to the thread.

Originally by: Infinity Ziona

You seem not to know quite what you are talking about, I'm assuming because the only gallante or caldari ships you fly are ECM or missile boats. You need a cap booster on a buffer tanked thorax because blasters use cap, getting into range uses lots of cap and because you are bound to run into something with a neut or two.

While your "kiting your target with a warp disruptor and your 5 medium drones" hes hitting you for full weapon damage and his 3 or 4 med drones. By the time you have "softened him up" with your 5 medium drones and no plate (aka no tank), your out of cap and spamming warp to object. Fitting rails does not solve the blaster problem.

The Rupture is definitely far superior to the Thorax with blasters the way they are at the moment. Look at your suggestions above and tell me how they could possibly work against a Rupture that is faster, does quite a bit more dps and has better longer range guns.

Hope that explains my "Nonsense" comment. I thought it was self explanatory.


The rupture is definitely superior to the thorax in every way. Sadly, in EVE speed is the ultimate equalizer. When you go faster you either get away or you win. In the case of the rupture vs thorax, it means you stay out of web/scram range while hitting comfortably. Anyone who says "kite" in Gallente doesn't actually fly Gallente. They're far too slow to kite, not to mention they have very long align times, meaning you can't whirl around and warp like a Minmatar ship can.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.18 19:34:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Kai Yuen
Good point, I should ask for second best tracking as well... oh wait... I did.
Solved before it was an issue.


It already got the best tracking. The problem is that this doesn't lead to a acceptable result figuring in the solo/small gang character of blaster pvp. It also doesn't help at controlling the target once you got it. Given blasters would do ok at medium range like the other guns, there would be no reason for CCP to give it back the bite at point blank.

Originally by: Kai Yuen
No it wouldn't, it would mean the Minmatar flavor wouldn't be as dominant as it is right now.
Oh noes, not more variety.


Again, the problem of blaster pvp is not that mini is good. The problem of blaster pvp is that blaster pvp is to weak in his own role.

Originally by: Kai Yuen
So... you're saying unnerf webs? I say extend web/scram range to compensate. Then at least we have a fighting chance to catch up. Either way, the faster ships need to be forced into web scram range, whether its making their range shorter or our range longer.


A higher web range always disfavours the ships with the smallest range, it is even worse if you consider that even during solo pvp you will not end up in 1o1s most of the time. Also it doesn't improve point blank performance in any way.
As much as I would like to have 90% webs back on any ride, I'm pretty sure it will not happen. However the idea to give blaster ships(Rax, Diemost, Brutix, Astarte, Mega) a bonus to web strength(25% on the T1, 50% on the T2) is not this unreasonable and fixes a lot of the issues QR caused to this hulls. Combined with 15-20% more dps, a higher base speed(a change to armor rigs what would archive the same) and a bit more agility would make blaster pvp attractive again.

Originally by: Kai Yuen
There's nothing good about the Mega, but at least it isn't a Rokh. The Rokh has no place in any fleet. No one does shield sniper BS, save Machariels which are a fleet class of their own. Give rails the second
best alpha and tracking and they might be worth fielding.


I actually don't snipe with my BS.

Originally by: The Djego
Originally by: Kai Yuen

Blaster pvp was always some kind of niche, however it was quite a powerful one and didn't let you question the outcome if you meet a skilled blaster pvper at point blank.


Now it's the exact opposite. Blasters are automatic fail. Is it wrong to want a happy medium?


A happy medium wouldn't be good at close range.

Originally by: Kai Yuen
I don't want blasters to blow at point blank, but I don't want them to be restricted to point blank only. Mimatar and Angel ships fly circles around us while comfortably tracking and hitting outside of web/scram range. I don't want 35km blasters. But is 15-20 too much to ask for?
Even at 25 with good tracking will still hit well at 5km, especially if you make a decent portion of
the total range falloff instead of optimal.


Well this is the point where we might disagree. I for myself have a vast interest in getting something back that reassembles pre QR blaster pvp. Since the stuff is slower this days and nano pilots have not vastly improved in player skill(my experience from the last 2 years) I would be perfectly happy with the range it got.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.18 20:02:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: The Djego

It already got the best tracking. The problem is that this doesn't lead to a acceptable result figuring in the solo/small gang character of blaster pvp. It also doesn't help at controlling the target once you got it. Given blasters would do ok at medium range like the other guns, there would be no reason for CCP to give it back the bite at point blank.



Yes, it would, not that it matters. Point blank PvP is dead. Adapt.

Originally by: The Djego

Again, the problem of blaster pvp is not that mini is good. The problem of blaster pvp is that blaster pvp is to weak in his own role.



Actually that's the single largest reason blaster PvP is dead. No one has problems catching a Drake.

Originally by: The Djego

A higher web range always disfavours the ships with the smallest range, it is even worse if you consider that even during solo pvp you will not end up in 1o1s most of the time. Also it doesn't improve point blank performance in any way.
As much as I would like to have 90% webs back on any ride, I'm pretty sure it will not happen. However the idea to give blaster ships(Rax, Diemost, Brutix, Astarte, Mega) a bonus to web strength(25% on the T1, 50% on the T2) is not this unreasonable and fixes a lot of the issues QR caused to this hulls. Combined with 15-20% more dps, a higher base speed(a change to armor rigs what would archive the same) and a bit more agility would make blaster pvp attractive again.



Only in the case that the faster ship has the greater amount of mid slots to dedicate to EWAR. Speed ships are shield tanked. That sucks up their mid slots, leaving very little for webs. Armor tanked ships are not so handi-capped.

Originally by: The Djego

I actually don't snipe with my BS.



Utterly irrelevant statement.

Originally by: The Djego

A happy medium wouldn't be good at close range.



Don't really care. Point blank PvP is dead. Scorch and autocannons have killed it. You can't fix it now.

Originally by: The Djego

Well this is the point where we might disagree. I for myself have a vast interest in getting something back that reassembles pre QR blaster pvp. Since the stuff is slower this days and nano pilots have not vastly improved in player skill(my experience from the last 2 years) I would be perfectly happy with the range it got.


It's not coming back. The game has changed too much. The only thing slower is Gallente. Minmatar are still screaming fast, and Angel ships make it look like the nano nerf never happened. You can't turn back the clock. Just make blasters viable in the modern game world instead of pining over the past.

Sir Drake
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.18 20:28:00 - [52]
 

just my 2 cents:

Blasters are okish but the blaster boats are rather bad for their intended purpose.
Increase basecap on the blaster boats as inbuild counter to the MWD penalty and change their cap-MWD penalty bonus to a MWD speed bonus.
That should fix most of blaster problems.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.18 23:13:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 18/11/2010 23:14:33
Originally by: Kai Yuen
Yes, it would, not that it matters. Point blank PvP is dead. Adapt.


It is dead because there is not a platform that does it well. I'm not really sure what you mean about adapting, since I rarely do close range this days.

Originally by: Kai Yuen
Originally by: The Djego
A happy medium wouldn't be good at close range.



Don't really care. Point blank PvP is dead. Scorch and autocannons have killed it. You can't fix it now.


People stated the same during nano age, where it was a lot more valid. If you think it is dead, puls/acs all the way, you won't regret it.

Originally by: Kai Yuen
Originally by: The Djego

Well this is the point where we might disagree. I for myself have a vast interest in getting something back that reassembles pre QR blaster pvp. Since the stuff is slower this days and nano pilots have not vastly improved in player skill(my experience from the last 2 years) I would be perfectly happy with the range it got.


It's not coming back. The game has changed too much. The only thing slower is Gallente. Minmatar are still screaming fast, and Angel ships make it look like the nano nerf never happened. You can't turn back the clock. Just make blasters viable in the modern game world instead of pining over the past.


I don't need to turn back the clock, 80% of all nano pilots still easy to catch, same as back in the days.

There is no "blaster ship from the past", people are more likely than ever to suicide herself into close combat, it just lacks the ship class to take advantage of this.

Rhinanna
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.11.19 01:50:00 - [54]
 

I completely agree Blasters are useless in very small fights without arranged fleets.

Soon as you have more than 4 people however blasters very quickly become one of the best weapons in the game.

Take the myrm for example, it can put out an easy 800dps (with not too good skills) and STILL gets a rep bonus. In a specifically fitted 2-3 man fleet so you have scram + web on the target they can easily inflict near full dps. It can also put out a much larger shield tank than a 'cane and match a cyclone.

If you make them blasters more powerful then you make them overpowered for fleet combat.

The real problem is range, armour tank + weapon that requires range dictation has to be shield tanked. My solution would be to rework the blaster boats to shield tank and suddenly they can do their job in small gangs more easily.

The gal ships that are primary drone boats would remain armour tanked. So long as the gal blaster ships remain slightly slower than minmatar with equal fits this should balance nicely and also gives us 1 shield race, 1 armour race and 2 mixed races. In case your wondering the myrm should stay armour tanked :) It would be too powerful with it's drone bay + dps + a decent top speed + decent tank.

Now I'll wait for the Gal tears cos they don't want to train shield skills Twisted Evil

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.19 02:40:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Rhinanna
I completely agree Blasters are useless in very small fights without arranged fleets.

Soon as you have more than 4 people however blasters very quickly become one of the best weapons in the game.

Take the myrm for example, it can put out an easy 800dps (with not too good skills) and STILL gets a rep bonus. In a specifically fitted 2-3 man fleet so you have scram + web on the target they can easily inflict near full dps. It can also put out a much larger shield tank than a 'cane and match a cyclone.



Sure, for a skirmish unstructured cluster**** then they might perform well, but most fleets aren't so careless. Even kiting drakes can avoid blaster fire. Armor tanks are just too slow.

Originally by: Rhinanna

If you make them blasters more powerful then you make them overpowered for fleet combat.



No, you make it viable in the modern game. Point blank range is dead. No ship performs it well, and if there was a ship that DID perform it well it sure as hell wouldn't be Gallente. Slow, fat, armor tanked, drone boats = fail blaster platform.

Originally by: Rhinanna

The real problem is range, armour tank + weapon that requires range dictation has to be shield tanked. My solution would be to rework the blaster boats to shield tank and suddenly they can do their job in small gangs more easily.



Never happen. Asking CCP to make Gallente shield would be like asking them for the old moms back.

Originally by: Rhinanna

The gal ships that are primary drone boats would remain armour tanked. So long as the gal blaster ships remain slightly slower than minmatar with equal fits this should balance nicely and also gives us 1 shield race, 1 armour race and 2 mixed races. In case your wondering the myrm should stay armour tanked :) It would be too powerful with it's drone bay + dps + a decent top speed + decent tank.

Now I'll wait for the Gal tears cos they don't want to train shield skills Twisted Evil


No, just fix the range to compete with ACs and pulses like it should be.

Rigel Silek
Gallente
Posted - 2010.11.19 07:08:00 - [56]
 

After reading through most of the responses to this I decided to do a quick experiment to see how the short range guns stack up. I know some of you say that you can only go by in game experience, but this is from EveHQ's fitter. The way I see it, the numbers in it are going to be what would happen at the most basic and optimal conditions. As such, I fitted out a Hyperion with 8 T2 neutron blasters, a Maelstrom with 8 T2 800mm repeating artillery, and a Abaddon with 8 T2 mega pulse lasers. No damage mods were fit and all skills were set to level 5. Highest DPS T2 ammunition/charges/crystals were then selected for each. Here's the result.

Hyperion: 6,750 Optimal / 6,250 Falloff (13km total) - 3,719.10 Alpha / 655.51 DPS

Maelstrom: 3,000 Optimal / 12,000 Falloff (15km total) - 2,290.97 Alpha / 538.39 DPS

Abaddon: 15,000 Optimal / 10,000 Falloff (25km total - 3,187.80 Alpha / 561.87 DOS

From this I can only conclude that blasters do more DPS than pulse lasers or auto-cannons; so simply increasing DPS of blasters isn't going to help. But from this it's hard to say that one is better than the other; though it's safe to say that, at least in this limited test, mega pulse lasers with conflagration have a definite range advantage.

I did this same test using highest DPS standard ammo (antimatter, EMP, and multifrequency) and found that the max range (optimal + falloff) for the Hyperion is 17km, for the Maelstrom it is 27km, and for the Abaddon 25km. This, to me, is more telling as it shows blasters with a 10km disadvantage vs an autocannon equipped opponent.

I know this isn't definitive and that in game the results may be different but it seems to me that those who call for an increase in blaster falloff and, possibly, tracking have the right idea. It would make sense to me for all short range guns to be at least passingly comparable, with similar optimal/falloff, tracking, damage. The same for longer range versions of the weapons.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.19 07:35:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Rigel Silek
After reading through most of the responses to this I decided to do a quick experiment to see how the short range guns stack up. I know some of you say that you can only go by in game experience, but this is from EveHQ's fitter. The way I see it, the numbers in it are going to be what would happen at the most basic and optimal conditions. As such, I fitted out a Hyperion with 8 T2 neutron blasters, a Maelstrom with 8 T2 800mm repeating artillery, and a Abaddon with 8 T2 mega pulse lasers. No damage mods were fit and all skills were set to level 5. Highest DPS T2 ammunition/charges/crystals were then selected for each. Here's the result.

Hyperion: 6,750 Optimal / 6,250 Falloff (13km total) - 3,719.10 Alpha / 655.51 DPS

Maelstrom: 3,000 Optimal / 12,000 Falloff (15km total) - 2,290.97 Alpha / 538.39 DPS

Abaddon: 15,000 Optimal / 10,000 Falloff (25km total - 3,187.80 Alpha / 561.87 DOS

From this I can only conclude that blasters do more DPS than pulse lasers or auto-cannons; so simply increasing DPS of blasters isn't going to help. But from this it's hard to say that one is better than the other; though it's safe to say that, at least in this limited test, mega pulse lasers with conflagration have a definite range advantage.

I did this same test using highest DPS standard ammo (antimatter, EMP, and multifrequency) and found that the max range (optimal + falloff) for the Hyperion is 17km, for the Maelstrom it is 27km, and for the Abaddon 25km. This, to me, is more telling as it shows blasters with a 10km disadvantage vs an autocannon equipped opponent.

I know this isn't definitive and that in game the results may be different but it seems to me that those who call for an increase in blaster falloff and, possibly, tracking have the right idea. It would make sense to me for all short range guns to be at least passingly comparable, with similar optimal/falloff, tracking, damage. The same for longer range versions of the weapons.


Wow, rational thought. And I thought I had seen it all.

The problem is people put too much stock in "uniqueness" and not enough in balance. "But but but... we don't want blasters to become autocannons". Then nerf autocannons. "But but but... they just got buffed". Then buff blasters/hybrids. "But but but... they're supposed to be a point blank weapon". Why? Because point blank PvP was good 4 expansions ago? It's dead now. The web nerf and autocannon buff saw to that, not to mention the release of the new Angel Cartel ships. So what if all of the close range AND long range weapons have a resemblance to one another. At least they'd be BALANCED. You can't balance blasters as a point blank weapon while leaving them on Gallente slugs. That's like chasing a dirt bike in a golf cart. No comparison in speed, acceleration, or align time. The fact that Gallente are out ranged by everyone just makes them lame. At least make them competitive.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.19 08:49:00 - [58]
 

A certain amount of uniqueness is necessary, obviously, or we'd all be in the same ship, same skills, etc. Of course it isn't near close to that situation, just saying.

I don't have any new ideas, just wanted to comment on that and say that the solution can't be to make the Gallente blaster boats faster. With speed playing such a huge role in determining what range combat occurs at, making the ship with bonuses to (what should be) the close range weapon will upset things a fair bit.

I see where you're coming from, Kai, but I doubt CCP will tweak blasters too far away from the shotgun design basis, and I doubt the blaster boats will get faster. That was the basis behind the high falloff tweak I suggested, which would allow it to operate at the other close weapon ranges but give it an ace up your sleeve if you can get in to optimal.

Darth Felin
Posted - 2010.11.19 15:22:00 - [59]
 

Quote:

The way it should have been done is to put hybrids on Minmatar and projectiles on Gallente, but its a little late for that. It makes no sense what-so-ever to put the shortest ranging weapons on the slowest ships and the most range flexible weapons on the fastest. Yes, blasters were meant to be shot guns, but it doesn't work. Just abandon the notion. CCP will never make Gallente ships fast or agile. Work with what you have.



It is too late to put hybrids on minmatar but it is not too late too remove blaster from slowboating Gallente armor tanks. My favorite idea is to change weapon specialization between caldari and gallente. Agile Caldari shield tanker should have blasters that they can use effectivly and long range missiles for "sniping" and gallente armortank bricks should use Rails as primary hybrid weapon for long range - it will compensate their low speed and drones as primary close range weapon.

Gwydion Telcontar
Gallente
Telcontar Enterprises
Posted - 2010.11.19 19:44:00 - [60]
 

The solution was stated earlier in the thread... give all Gallente blaster ships web bonuses. They don't all have to be 90% webs at lvl 5, but some of them should (ala vigilant, vindicator).


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

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