These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

AMMO, why such a disadvantage

Author
failpirate
The Unknown Bar and Pub
#21 - 2012-05-21 15:39:05 UTC
Daneel Trevize wrote:
If anything, Minmatar ships should be less able to select damage types. Caldari are typically bonused just for kinetic, perhaps projectiles should be more tied to explosive?


as a minmatar pilot, i can say you're wrong and you should feel bad about yourself.
Daemon Ceed
Ice Fire Warriors
#22 - 2012-05-21 22:28:35 UTC
Dare Knight wrote:
Vordak Kallager wrote:
The general PvP ship doesn't have any glaring resist holes. Damage type is not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.


^ This ^

If it were such a big deal, people wouldn't use Amarr ships for PvP. Nor would people use Hyperions as blaster boats. I can't think of hardly any cases where you wouldn't omni-tank, except if you KNOW for SURE that X fleet will only be carrying X ammo type and NOTHING else with 0% chance of them changing or using drones.


I echo what Dare said. The beauty of blasters is that you're typically hitting one of the two hardest to effectively tank damage types (Kinetic/Thermal) since damage specific hardeners usually go towards the biggest resist hole. Those are typically EM or Explosive for T1 ships.

Now if someone knew that there was a blaster or Drake heavy fleet they were going to take on they could tank specifically against kinetic/thermal but leave their explosive/EM wide open. It's not a wise choice as the enemy could always switch up their fleet or ammo type if it's using missiles.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-05-22 04:12:43 UTC
Weapons are messed up a bit that way - outside of just ammo but can also be seen as simply an area to dispute and argue about.

All weapons can be jammed via ECM, FOF's work around it but these are rarely brought along except when people expect ECM to be used against them -- "they suck". Powered weapons also have limits with respect to neut/nos taking them off-line.

The delay on missile delivery of damage is one balancing factor to all the flexibility that missiles get. If a missile can reach a target, it will deliver the same damage at max and min "able to hit" ranges yet you won't hear any end to Caldari pilots complaints about these weapons, even without tracking considerations nor falloff reductions involved in their use. "missiles suck!"

Projectiles tend to be what everyone bases all their arguments upon no matter what weapons systems they use. They are highly preferred for fitting due to these non-powered issues as well as their tracking being superior. The lack of penalty to their falloff is why many like using short-ranged ammo all the time vs trade-offs of using longer ranged ammo. There really aren't many downsides to these weapons the way they are these days. That falloff use is why a lot of your "EFT Warrior" numbers look so nice on paper but tend to come in a tad shot in reality. As such, always look at some claims about them.

When arguments come up about weapons, blasters are always referenced and usually more "EFT warrioring" going on. A Moros can do "big numbers" yet those huge numbers have under 6k optimal and 19k falloff. Such ranges, for these monster ships, are pretty trivial but, again, the "theory of use" rules most such arguments.

Lasers can swap ammo and instantly be back shooting - all others take 10 seconds to swap that damage type and, in a fight, 10 seconds can be a chunk of time. Kin/therm tend to be very strong choices against pretty much anything PvE or PvP if you don't know what you will be facing. (what you load vs what you may pack along "in case").

So on and so forth.

The number of threads on these topics is "historically" numerous and often hotly argued - especially by whomever may be seen as having an advantage at any given time.

Welcome to the "dissatisfied with my options" club - it always has room for more and a growing population.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#24 - 2012-05-22 05:47:42 UTC
Mocam,

I hereby send you back to your University books and lectures:

- projectiles don't have superior tracking, blasters have best short range tracking, lasers best long range (arties have worst)
- hybrid ammo change takes only 5 seconds

Best regards,

Roime
Chairman
Satisfied with the Mustachious Blaster Option Club



.

ROXGenghis
Perkone
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-05-22 14:53:47 UTC
Roime wrote:
- projectiles don't have superior tracking, blasters have best short range tracking, lasers best long range (arties have worst)

That may have been true at one point, but looking at the actual weapon stats, ACs actually have equal or better tracking than Blasters now.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2012-05-22 18:53:24 UTC
ROXGenghis wrote:
That may have been true at one point, but looking at the actual weapon stats, ACs actually have equal or better tracking than Blasters now.


(in-game tracking numbers, baseline)
800mm Repeating AC II: 0.0432
Neutron Blaster Cannon II: 0.05196

425mm Autocannon II: 0.1056
Heavy Neutron Blaster II: 0.12

You were probably looking at tracking numbers in-game while sitting in a tracking bonused hull. But baseline, blasters have the best tracking. And practically speaking as well, since most of their popular gunships get a tracking bonus.

Mocam wrote:

When arguments come up about weapons, blasters are always referenced and usually more "EFT warrioring" going on. A Moros can do "big numbers" yet those huge numbers have under 6k optimal and 19k falloff. Such ranges, for these monster ships, are pretty trivial but, again, the "theory of use" rules most such arguments.


A blaster Moros has about 15km optimal, not 6km and you can comfortably extend that optimal to nearly 50km and still retain over 10k DPS (similar to other gank-fit close-range dreads). So no, saying the Moros has the best DPS isn't "EFT warrioring", it's TQ reality.

Previous page12