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

Drakarin
Gallente
Absentia Libertas Solus
Posted - 2010.11.19 21:33:00 - [61]
 

I've been using blasters on my Rohk for a few days now, and guess what I do with them? I run level 4 missions. Given everything I've read on the forums and battleclinic, I thought it wouldn't work, but it does. Very well.

Since the Rokh can tank just about anything under the sun, and then some, there's little to no danger in most missions.

The only problem with blasters for PvE, is that any ship capable of fitting high end mega neutrons is going to be very slow. I'd suggest a possible speed boost. If my ship moved just a bit faster then any mission would be viable and just wouldn't take so long.

This would also help some in PvP. As long as you can get into proper range, you will do some serious damage.

Maybe a slight tracking efficiency buff would be good too, but blasters aren't that bad. They sure as hell beat railguns.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.20 03:10:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
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.


CCP probably won't unnerf webs and the possibility of making Gallente faster is most definitely out of the question. Range is the only option left. They have to do SOMETHING. If there's another answer then I'm all ears.

Doctor Aibolit
Posted - 2010.11.20 04:59:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Drakarin
I've been using blasters on my Rohk for a few days now, and guess what I do with them? I run level 4 missions.

Almost every Caldari turrret ship has 10% optimal range per level. It slightly helps to solve the most significant problem of a blaster weapon - DPS application.

Jargo Stonecutter
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.20 11:21:00 - [64]
 

Just as an example to show why blasters (or the ships designed for them) need a boost:
Open EFT and try fitting the tier3 cruisers of each race with a 10mn MWD II, a full rack of their largest close range guns/launchers/drones the cruiser can fit without fitting mods and set skills to "All level V".
Now take a look at the cruisers DPS/gun range, Mobility and how long the cap lasts (and while at it take a look at the signature).

Only the Rupture is able to fit the everything without downgrading the guns AND still has the highest speed/agility, 2nd best DPS and to top it off lowest sig. wtf?
Maller is at least capable to fit some awesome tank and the Moa makes a decent sniper with rails but is a joke with blasters.
Coming to the Thorax, a dedicated blaster boat by design (as far as i know):
- 2nd best mobility
- best DPS even with downgraded guns (ions instead of neutrons for fitting reasons) BUT only because of the 2 extra drones it can field and has the lowest range of them all
- biggest signature
and what bothers me most
- cap last 1 second less (with everything running) than the Rupture although it gets a frigging bonus for it

Not sure what exactly needs to be changed but from my pov there needs to be some serious balancing getting done.

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2010.11.20 11:23:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Kai Yuen
CCP probably won't unnerf webs and the possibility of making Gallente faster is most definitely out of the question.

Why? Amarr are supposed to be the sluggish, heavy armor, long range race.
In the battleship bracket that's kinda still the case, but there it hardly matters. When it comes to cruisers, battlecruisers and heavy assault ships, though, Amarr ships seem to suddenly be just as fast or even faster then Galente ships.

It doesn't make any sense.
Of course range is of little advantage if you're not fast enough to maintain it.
But superior short range damage without the speed to even get there is totally useless.
Gallente as the race with the second fastest ships made more sense than what we have now. What's the current race balance concept anyway?

Drakarin
Gallente
Absentia Libertas Solus
Posted - 2010.11.20 12:48:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Doctor Aibolit
Originally by: Drakarin
I've been using blasters on my Rohk for a few days now, and guess what I do with them? I run level 4 missions.

Almost every Caldari turrret ship has 10% optimal range per level. It slightly helps to solve the most significant problem of a blaster weapon - DPS application.


The additional range doesn't really change all too much. Combined with Iridium ammo I can safely hit targets 20km away with good force (maybe equal to 350mm rails with antimatter) but again, doesn't change much.

The problem is tracking, and the ships that are supposed to use blasters are so terribly slow.

Cor Aidan
Shore Leave
Posted - 2010.11.20 13:40:00 - [67]
 

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.


What about tracking?

What is the possible tank on each ship with those weapons fit?

What about reload time?

What about cap stability? What happens to those numbers if each respective ship is webbed/scrammed?

You can't just look at the raw alpha/DPS number there, because there are more factors than just damage multiplier and ROF. Any meaningful consideration of weapon systems includes all the relevant effects. Balance is also about tradeoffs (consider the discussions regarding the Drake related to its relatively low sacrifice in tank to get reasonable DPS).

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2010.11.20 13:52:00 - [68]
 

The only reasonable fix is to increase the speed of gallante ships. I don't see why they wouldn't do this? Anyone have a good reason?

Jargo Stonecutter
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.20 15:36:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Infinity Ziona
The only reasonable fix is to increase the speed of gallante ships. I don't see why they wouldn't do this? Anyone have a good reason?


Speed of the gallente ships is ok compared to caldari and amarr but the minmatar ships are totally out of line given their other capabilities.
So from my pov either nerf the minmatars to an acceptable lvl or give gallente some web range + strength bonus (and some extra cpu/pg while at it) to let them do their job as close range brawlers.

Torothanax
Posted - 2010.11.21 06:42:00 - [70]
 

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.
20 mil sp in spaceship command. 12 mil sp in gunnery. 11 mil in missiles. Maxxed shield and armor tanking skills. Maxxed basic and support skills across the boards. Zero cap ship skills. I fly whatever I want and use any weapon system I want. Too bad you can't see our corp killboard. That'd give you a much better indication of what I really fly. BTW I doubt you'll find very many kills in or losses of a rupture for me. I'm not impressed with the ship.

I'd be more worried about pulse lasers loaded with scorch then ac's at 20 km. I still hear you whining about cap cap cap. Seriously train some skills. I think your best bet is to make some friends who know how to fly in a fleet rather then crying on the boards. You'd get more kills that way. Maybe then you wouldn't have to whine about how bad you are at fitting ships and game mechanics in general.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.21 08:54:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Tarron Sarek

Why? Amarr are supposed to be the sluggish, heavy armor, long range race.
In the battleship bracket that's kinda still the case, but there it hardly matters. When it comes to cruisers, battlecruisers and heavy assault ships, though, Amarr ships seem to suddenly be just as fast or even faster then Galente ships.

It doesn't make any sense.
Of course range is of little advantage if you're not fast enough to maintain it.
But superior short range damage without the speed to even get there is totally useless.
Gallente as the race with the second fastest ships made more sense than what we have now. What's the current race balance concept anyway?


Why? Because armor = slow. For one thing, armor = mass. Mass = less acceleration, more inertia, less thrust per kilogram = slow. All MWDs/ABs put out the same thrust. The less massive ships get better use of that thrust. Gallente ships are among the most massive without adding plates. Add plates and they're ******ed. How would you make them fast without completely changing that concept? You can't. Gallente = slow. Why would CCP rework the entire race just to change that? It's much more likely that they'll buff blasters to move into the field of mid-range combat, which is where everything happens now a days. Point blank = you died before you even got there. They were applying DPS while you were beelining right into their oncoming fire. Allow Gallente to apply DPS at semi-equivilant ranges to at least give them a fighting chance.

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2010.11.22 01:17:00 - [72]
 

Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 22/11/2010 03:41:40
Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 22/11/2010 01:26:15
Originally by: Torothanax
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.
20 mil sp in spaceship command. 12 mil sp in gunnery. 11 mil in missiles. Maxxed shield and armor tanking skills. Maxxed basic and support skills across the boards. Zero cap ship skills. I fly whatever I want and use any weapon system I want. Too bad you can't see our corp killboard. That'd give you a much better indication of what I really fly. BTW I doubt you'll find very many kills in or losses of a rupture for me. I'm not impressed with the ship.

I'd be more worried about pulse lasers loaded with scorch then ac's at 20 km. I still hear you whining about cap cap cap. Seriously train some skills. I think your best bet is to make some friends who know how to fly in a fleet rather then crying on the boards. You'd get more kills that way. Maybe then you wouldn't have to whine about how bad you are at fitting ships and game mechanics in general.

Nonsense.

Fleeting to get kills is for those who fail to utilize the capabilities of their ships and have poor knowledge of game mechanics. If your idea of pvp is get group, find ship, gank ship, then I feel sorry for you if you ever run into a good pvp'r while your alone.

Veaon
Posted - 2010.11.22 03:50:00 - [73]
 

Blasters don't really need that much (or any it could be argued) reworking, beyond the ammo changes that are coming (and hopefully wont suck). What needs looking at and reworking is gallente doctrine: ship stats and bonuses. Gallente blaster boats problems stem from where the pvp metagame has gone over time, which is towards range and agility leaving slow lumbering short ranged ships behind. Amarr have to some degree (but far from completly)avoided this by having some good t2 crystal choices and long range guns.

Ultimate #1 most critical do it yesterday priority should be rebalancing RAILGUNS (especially as this effects more than one race, meaning rails are responsible for a damn huge amount of overall game imbalance). We need a rail balance badly, very badly, coinciding with an overall look at gallente AND CALDARI ship stats and bonuses.

So long as I'm dreaming here I might as well mention the amarr/overall armor tanking balance pass that should follow the balance pass I talked about above, but hey, when pigs fly....

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.22 04:34:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Veaon
Blasters don't really need that much (or any it could be argued) reworking, beyond the ammo changes that are coming (and hopefully wont suck). What needs looking at and reworking is gallente doctrine: ship stats and bonuses. Gallente blaster boats problems stem from where the pvp metagame has gone over time, which is towards range and agility leaving slow lumbering short ranged ships behind. Amarr have to some degree (but far from completly)avoided this by having some good t2 crystal choices and long range guns.



"Maybe t2 ammo will save them..." "Oh quick, blame the ships!" feels like we've been down this road before...

Originally by: Veaon

Ultimate #1 most critical do it yesterday priority should be rebalancing RAILGUNS (especially as this effects more than one race, meaning rails are responsible for a damn huge amount of overall game imbalance). We need a rail balance badly, very badly, coinciding with an overall look at gallente AND CALDARI ship stats and bonuses.



I think hybrids as a whole need to rebalancing.

Originally by: Veaon

So long as I'm dreaming here I might as well mention the amarr/overall armor tanking balance pass that should follow the balance pass I talked about above, but hey, when pigs fly....


At least you get armor resist bonuses. Gallente get rep bonuses, which is just fail.

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2010.11.22 05:48:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Kai Yuen
"Maybe t2 ammo will save them..." "Oh quick, blame the ships!" feels like we've been down this road before...

It is the ships. Blasters work fine. They are short range weapons and I hope they stay like that because I like in your face blaster boat combat. If I wanted longer range weapons I would fly Minny ships.

As someone who uses blaster boats exclusively I have no problems killing people as long as I am able to land on top of them. I also have no problems killing people if they're in a similarly slow ship.

Problems only arise when I don't land on top of them and they're faster and can hit me from longer range.

The guns are not the issue, speed is the issue. Fix the ships you fix blasters without making them overpowered or exactly like projectiles.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.22 06:39:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Infinity Ziona

It is the ships. Blasters work fine. They are short range weapons and I hope they stay like that because I like in your face blaster boat combat. If I wanted longer range weapons I would fly Minny ships.

As someone who uses blaster boats exclusively I have no problems killing people as long as I am able to land on top of them. I also have no problems killing people if they're in a similarly slow ship.

Problems only arise when I don't land on top of them and they're faster and can hit me from longer range.

The guns are not the issue, speed is the issue. Fix the ships you fix blasters without making them overpowered or exactly like projectiles.


Again, we've been here before.

Originally by: Kai Yuen

Why? Because armor = slow. For one thing, armor = mass. Mass = less acceleration, more inertia, less thrust per kilogram = slow. All MWDs/ABs put out the same thrust. The less massive ships get better use of that thrust. Gallente ships are among the most massive without adding plates. Add plates and they're ******ed. How would you make them fast without completely changing that concept? You can't. Gallente = slow. Why would CCP rework the entire race just to change that? It's much more likely that they'll buff blasters to move into the field of mid-range combat, which is where everything happens now a days. Point blank = you died before you even got there. They were applying DPS while you were beelining right into their oncoming fire. Allow Gallente to apply DPS at semi-equivilant ranges to at least give them a fighting chance.

Reticenti
Loc-Nar
Posted - 2010.11.22 07:51:00 - [77]
 

Rails = No dps, terrible tracking, not much alpha, Blasters = High DPS, Terrible tracking, unreliable due to cap warfair. And i agree that gallente ships have a hard time getting in range to actually use their guns. I actually have stoped fitting hybrids, and now use AC's exclusively.

Check out my other post, i think its very relevant for the blaster dilemma. I think all hybrid ship pilots need to consider my other post as an alternative to actually fitting these terrible weapons.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1413302

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2010.11.22 13:14:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: Kai Yuen
Why? Because armor = slow.

Amarr ships generally have the most armor/hp, yet they're not the slowest ships.
I can't see your point.
Were you even trying to disagree with me in the first place? Because all of your arguments actually support my statement.
Gallente ships should not be the slowest. They should be the second fastest.
Oh and by the way, I think shield generators do weigh some pounds. Armor isn't all that makes a ship heavy.

Sir Drake
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.22 13:51:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Tarron Sarek

Gallente ships should not be the slowest. They should be the second fastest.


They are actually the 2nd fastest at base values in quite a lot of cases.
BUT as blasters have the shortest range and armor tank its simply not enough.
Befor gallente blaster ships can apply their dmg potential they usually get hammered pretty badly by the other races not to mention those minmatars who will kite till you blow up.
The real main problem from my pov arent the blasters or gallente ships but the overpowered capabilities of the minmatars in comparison to the other races.
(namely capless weapons, ac range, speed, agility)

Rigel Silek
Gallente
Posted - 2010.11.22 15:20:00 - [80]
 

I don't get why so many say hybrids have terrible tracking. They have the second best tracking of the three types. Now, that being said, since they are the shortest range weapons it would make some sense for them to have the best tracking but the difference seems to be relatively minor as I've used both and not had any tracking problems. Granted, this is in PvE and may be different in PvP.

Singoth
Dark Shadow Industries
Posted - 2010.11.22 15:27:00 - [81]
 

switch the stats of blasters and autocannons for the following things:

Blasters should get more falloff
Autocannons should get less falloff
Blasters should get a lower optimal range
Autocannons should get a higher optimal range
Blasters should have a longer cycle time
Autocannons should have shorter cycle time

Damage and Tracking stays the same, as those are fine.


this makes autocannons more for the fast ships (Minmatar), and blasters more for the slower ships (Gallente)
this way, ship bonuses still apply, while the guns are also adapted to the style of the faction which uses them.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.11.22 22:27:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: Kai Yuen on 22/11/2010 22:34:01
Originally by: Singoth
switch the stats of blasters and autocannons for the following things:

Blasters should get more falloff
Autocannons should get less falloff
Blasters should get a lower optimal range
Autocannons should get a higher optimal range
Blasters should have a longer cycle time
Autocannons should have shorter cycle time

Damage and Tracking stays the same, as those are fine.


this makes autocannons more for the fast ships (Minmatar), and blasters more for the slower ships (Gallente)
this way, ship bonuses still apply, while the guns are also adapted to the style of the faction which uses them.


No no no. Hybrids in general should be second best at EVERYTHING that counts for that weapon class.

Short range: Optimal, falloff, tracking.

Long range: Alpha, DPS, tracking.

They shouldn't have a SHORTER optimal. In fact, it should be longer. It SHOULD be longer than projectiles, but less than energy. Their falloff should be longer than energy turrets, but less than projectiles.

Why would you even touch the RoF on blasters? RoF is where the damage is for blasters. Changing that would only nerf them more. Don't touch the DPS. That's what makes blasters unique.

Originally by: Tarron Sarek

Amarr ships generally have the most armor/hp, yet they're not the slowest ships.
I can't see your point.
Were you even trying to disagree with me in the first place? Because all of your arguments actually support my statement.
Gallente ships should not be the slowest. They should be the second fastest.
Oh and by the way, I think shield generators do weigh some pounds. Armor isn't all that makes a ship heavy.


You missed the point... again. Armor is one of just many follies that make Gallente slow. What makes them slow is MASS. All propulsion modules have a fixed thrust output. The more massive the ship is, the less acceleration and top speed any given propulsion module will give you. Gallente ships are extremely massive. Adding armor plates only makes them more massive, and armor rigs just straight up nerf speed. Gallente will NEVER be fast. You won't get CCP to change their entire race concept to do that. Amarr aren't the fastest or the slowest, but they could care less. They can apply DPS at acceptable ranges with both weapon classes. Gallente can't do it with either. Blasters lack range and rail guns lack... everything. Speed is the wrong place to look for blasters.

Ultralord Megaforce
Posted - 2010.11.24 15:27:00 - [83]
 

Flying a Gallente blaster boat is like trying to box with T-Rex arms.

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2010.11.24 17:38:00 - [84]
 

Hybrids are lacking and need to get fixed. First and foremost their fitting requirements need to be reduced. Gallente and Caldari are 3 and 4 respectively when it comes to races and power grid on ships. There isn't a good reason why these "technologically advanced" races should have trouble fitting weapons on their ships when compared to the backwards Minmatar. Both blasters and rails should be the easiest weapons to fit in the game. Period. Allowing more fitting options alone would help hybrid weapon based ships.

Make the Gallente the most agile race in the game. The vagabond, for example, should outrun most other cruisers at 3km/s. But the deimos should get up to it's 1.5km/s shockingly fast.

Remove the armor rig penalty for those rigs designed to assist active tanking.

Increase the base capacitor on all Gallente Blaster ships. They should be able to run a MWD and their blasters with impunity.

Various posters in the forums have said that blasters would need a 300% tracking buff to get the same effect that existed under 90% webs. That's entirely too much - but blasters should get much better tracking then autocannons - not "similar"

Increase DPS for blasters. Lasers with scorch get 300% range and only a 9% DPS decrease compared to blasters. That's not right. You could even increase the damage bonus that a magnetic field stabilizer bestows. There's no reason heat sinks, gyros, and MFS all have to be equal. This plays to tank or gank too. You could also increase the chance of critical hits when using blasters as an off the wall idea.

Sir Drake
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.24 17:51:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf

...


Loving the proposed changes. Very Happy
Especially the agility buff without boosting speed would be a great (and logical) thing for the gallente blaster boats.

Osfrid
Posted - 2010.11.24 19:42:00 - [86]
 

Instead of sucking cap (actually blaster suck as much as pulse with -50% cap usage ship bonus... see brutix vs harbinger example on ALL V in EFT...), make blaster "give cap" instead when firing => problems with active tanking + mwd solved (mwd wouldn't be able to be run very long, but cap could be replenish quickly thanks to firing regen)

Instead of sucking... make the railgun good, with for example a piercing bonus side effect on target resists (and make the ship bonus for it). Now this gun could pack good realistic damage like a true railgun... (the more the resist, the best it will be, won't unbalance PvE either)

Now hybrid uniqueness is kept.

About the long range hybrid T2 ammo, they sucks because 25% of nothing will be always worse than 50% bonus on a good base value.
They should be at least 50%/50% bonus to be in line with the others T2 ammo... (keep the same layout Optimal/Falloff => Laser Good/Bad, Hybrid Avg/Avg and Projectile Bad/Good)

Then... with the ship design, make the gallente ship very agile... like they should be by design:
- glueing to target with mwd on
- fast align/acceleration to warp out as a "immobile" drone ship (sentry)

The caldari ship in the other hand should get their "kinetic" bonus on hybrid (+XX % piercing resist bonus on kinetic dmg for example). This with ammo rebalance (no need to get so many ammo for range purpose only...) should be enough for both side.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.24 20:02:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
Hybrids are lacking and need to get fixed. First and foremost their fitting requirements need to be reduced. Gallente and Caldari are 3 and 4 respectively when it comes to races and power grid on ships. There isn't a good reason why these "technologically advanced" races should have trouble fitting weapons on their ships when compared to the backwards Minmatar. Both blasters and rails should be the easiest weapons to fit in the game. Period. Allowing more fitting options alone would help hybrid weapon based ships.


Minmatar where always very easy to fit with ACs. It is far less of a issue if the concept behind blaster ships would deliver again. And yes I am fully aware that most blaster ships(even the mega) are pure fitting nightmares and require quite some expensive mods to fix the CPU issues.
However doing so always resulted in ships that could surpass targets in general combat scenarios.

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf

Increase the base capacitor on all Gallente Blaster ships. They should be able to run a MWD and their blasters with impunity.


Not sure about it, blaster pvp was always about that the brightest flame got the shortest live and was weak against cap warfare. It is a massive issue if you look at active tanking, but then again it is for any ship and kind of related back to the HP buff and the rig introduction what made buffer tanks much more usefull.

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf

Various posters in the forums have said that blasters would need a 300% tracking buff to get the same effect that existed under 90% webs. That's entirely too much - but blasters should get much better tracking then autocannons - not "similar"


This would help, but still you lack a superior ability to hold your target down what is very much required in my opinion and cost me quite some kills\ships in the 1vsX fights you manage to end up in blaster ship. Also a far superior tracking helps the bigger hulls much more out at the 10-25km than in the 10km range window what isn't actually the idea behind blaster pvp. A stronger web will archive a similar result while locking the advantage down to web range itself and fixes most of the issues in one go.

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf

Increase DPS for blasters. Lasers with scorch get 300% range and only a 9% DPS decrease compared to blasters. That's not right. You could even increase the damage bonus that a magnetic field stabilizer bestows. There's no reason heat sinks, gyros, and MFS all have to be equal. This plays to tank or gank too. You could also increase the chance of critical hits when using blasters as an off the wall idea.


Critical hits only add up to the DPS in the end, so it doesn't matter if you increase crits or base damage much(it does a bit since it boost min damage to).

A higher damage multiplier on MFS would make sense since it gives gank setups back the bite they need to compensate here rather weak tanks/buffer.

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2010.11.25 00:44:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: The Djego

This would help, but still you lack a superior ability to hold your target down what is very much required in my opinion and cost me quite some kills\ships in the 1vsX fights you manage to end up in blaster ship. Also a far superior tracking helps the bigger hulls much more out at the 10-25km than in the 10km range window what isn't actually the idea behind blaster pvp. A stronger web will archive a similar result while locking the advantage down to web range itself and fixes most of the issues in one go.



Boosting webs might fix blasters but would break many other ships in the process. Going under 10km of a target was a death sentence for a smaller ship before the web nerf. AB speed tanking is a viable tactic now and I'd hate to see that dissappear. Still, considering that BS fleets are getting eradicated by AB AHAC fleets, people might be more open to the idea....

If a fix absolutely HAD to involve webs I'd prefer their strength being boosted to no more then 70%. I thought about introducing scripts for webs - 5km and 80%. 10km and 60%. 15km and 40%. I definitely would oppose a "just for Gallente" web bonus.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2010.11.25 17:24:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 25/11/2010 22:07:38
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
Originally by: The Djego
This would help, but still you lack a superior ability to hold your target down what is very much required in my opinion and cost me quite some kills\ships in the 1vsX fights you manage to end up in blaster ship. Also a far superior tracking helps the bigger hulls much more out at the 10-25km than in the 10km range window what isn't actually the idea behind blaster pvp. A stronger web will archive a similar result while locking the advantage down to web range itself and fixes most of the issues in one go.



Boosting webs might fix blasters but would break many other ships in the process. Going under 10km of a target was a death sentence for a smaller ship before the web nerf. AB speed tanking is a viable tactic now and I'd hate to see that disappear. Still, considering that BS fleets are getting eradicated by AB AHAC fleets, people might be more open to the idea....


Well it isn't considerable hard for a smaller ship to avoid getting webed by a blaster ship, it also only even outs the odds in solo/small gang(like the blaster ship itself, the value quickly fades within bigger gangs). I for myself would like a stronger web across the board, however I think this won't happen again.

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
If a fix absolutely HAD to involve webs I'd prefer their strength being boosted to no more then 70%. I thought about introducing scripts for webs - 5km and 80%. 10km and 60%. 15km and 40%.


Well everybody would use 15km webs and it gives a lot more benefit for and against kitting ships and gangs than it would help close range focused ships. Your ability's to reach your gun range relay able in a blaster ship would also just take another nerf. This kind of concepts where around before the nano nerf to and not very popular from both points of view.

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
I definitely would oppose a "just for Gallente" web bonus.


Well a lot people will and I'm pretty sure it will become a very hot topic once CCP decides to actually address them.

A lot people feel the need of lessen the drawbacks and even out the guns itself to fit the current pvp style and tactic. However since we have tons of ships that work good at flexible ranges and that don't got the issues blaster ships got I don't see a lot of reason to do so.

Also I would not say "just for gallente" but "just for gallente medium and big blaster ships".

Torothanax
Posted - 2010.11.26 08:34:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Nonsense.

Fleeting to get kills is for those who fail to utilize the capabilities of their ships and have poor knowledge of game mechanics. If your idea of pvp is get group, find ship, gank ship, then I feel sorry for you if you ever run into a good pvp'r while your alone.
You seriously think ccp balances this game around one on one pvp? Clueless about Eve much?


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