Ships & Modules

No, this is exactly the thing people do not understand. If the target is tackled by your gang, you can approach it without significant increase in angular velocity /i hope you heard about it already/. Range control = no tracking issues. Do you get it?

Unlikely, looks like i will have to live with the fact, that there isnt pvp beyond "hit approach and f1-fx" for some people.

You also fail to account, that its MUCH MUCH harder to get under the guns of mega, because it has 4 mids - so it will counterscram and counterweb you and it has almost 2 times better tracking. Gl slowboating 8k with only 50m/s speed advantage you 1337 pvper...

Or you can spam missiles with tengu, torps with bomber or shoot 10k vollies from 80k with mael.

Or take a mega and do great dps while not playing sitting duck pvp like geddon and be able to actually tackle another target or reinforce tackle of your buddies.

Lasers also have the best optimal of any turret class. If you know how to fly in the appropriate range and kite you can apply a stupid amount of dmg.

Forget about tackle and burning around.

This is simple maths. The target is much easyer to hit at longer ranges because the turrets dont have to track it as much as when at very close range. Blasters cannot track their targets as well in their optimal because the range they operate in is so close the turrets cannot keep up as effectivly.

why not just upping the tracking (and damage) and to avoid stuff like shooting frigates with ease at short ranges, cut down range of the blasters (optimal and falloff) even further?

Proxyyyy's Changes (slight increases that will increase the close range pvp viabilty of blasters)


T2 Blaster Turret (After All requisite Lvl 5 Skills Applied)
-
Minus 20% - Hybrid Turret Activation

15% increase - Optimal
30% increase - Falloff
10% Increase - Tracking

Minus 15% - Signature Resolution

12.5% increase - Damage Modifier
Minus 11% - Duration

Gallente Cruisers/Destroyers/Frigates (T2) (Base, Blanket Increase)
-
Minus 10% - CPU

15% Increase - PowerGrid

25% increase - Structure

Base inertia or mass should be modified in some way as to increase agility of all gallente ships. Making gallente ships the most agile (faster align time and turn rate etc) bla bla bal.

Stasis Webifier 2
-
I also think stasis webifier 2 Optimal, should Increase from 10,000m - 12,500. Keeping 30% increase in range, when overloading. This is a broad boost to armor ships effectiveness, when engaging ships with higher velocity (solo). Increasing the margin for error for a Cynabal for example.

Heat/Thermodynamics = tracking increase for all turrets (just makes sense)
-
Another idea I had was a change or addendum to the current heat mechanics. Over Heated turrets should also have a increase in tracking along with increasing turret rate of fire. Currently that's not the case.

Well, the whole premise behind your argument is flawed. Large auto-cannons are not able to track battle-cruisers or cruisers well @ optimal range. Auto-cannons have the shortage optimal range of all turrets. If I'm to go by your reasoning. Then auto-cannons tracking should increase, so they can "track as well as the other turrets in blasters current optimal range."

You could only be referring to pulse lasers, because they're the only turrets able to do what you're suggesting.

Mind you, large blaster can also hit targets 9km, but with alot less applied damage than pulse lasers. Auto-cannons had the same issue until tracking enhancers were changed.

All comes back to range.

Also, here's a question. What is close range? Clearly close range is not the same for each class of ship.

For frigates I'd say anything under 5km. For Cruiser/Battle-Cruisers I'd say anything under 10 km. When it comes to battleships, anything under 20km would be close range in my mind or whatever large neutralizer range is.


-proxyyyy

You know, that squishy sound that your head is making from repeat smacking into wall is quite sickly. You are wasting brain matter arguing with them.

I'll ****** it down some more. Baltec1 stated and I'm paraphrasing here, because I'm to lazy to scroll back up. He wants "large blasters to be able to do damage in it's optimal like all the other turrets".

The premise of his argument is wrong. Large Auto-cannons cannot track battle-cruiser and cruiser hulls well if @ all in it's optimal, which is even lower than blaster optimal. So in fact another turret has the same issue, which means his statement about "all the other turrets" is wrong.

If you cannot concede that is fact, then you might as well start throwing yourself and whoever else into that wall (goofz).

ALSO!

CCP has stated back when the changes to stasis webifier and the rest of the velocity changes. That their changes were made to boost sub-battleship class pvp. Making Battle-cruisers and below more viable. As a result, battleships were not able to track smaller vessels well anymore (90% stasis webifier is gone).

So! If you are arguing for blasters to be able to track smaller targets in its optimal. Then you might as well do the same for auto-cannons, because they have the same problem, but worse because of having a even lower optimal than Hybrids.

(If boosting Minmatar again sounds ******** to you. Then that is what I feel when I read your reasons to do this and that)

See, the statement above was to reinforce the retard3dn3ss of the argument. I was trying to show you or remind you that battleships are not in fact suppose to track lower class ships well and they don't. Can you concede that point?

Plus, that is a good thing AND blasters and auto-cannons have the same issue. Lasers are unique because of it's range (optimal). But! All large turrets can track battleship class ships well. So, there is no problem with tracking. They're doing exactly what CCP intended them to do.

Anyways, what you should have said. Kinda like I do with no real argument behind it. I don't care what the other turrets can or cant do. Just do it like NIKE because I want my HYBRID boat to do something the other battleships cant. Track cruisers, like a medium turret.

See the problem is what you want is conflicting with the fact CCP and most pilots who fly lower class ships. Don't want battleships to be tracking smaller ships under-scram range well. Otherwise my extreme suggestion increase that would enable med turrets to track frigz and large turrets to track cruisers would be welcomed.

lasers operate out of web range, so they don't conflict with the buff to smaller ships. STOP REFERENCING THE GEDDON!

No. I have said, repreatedly, that I want blasters to TRACK targets like the other weapon systems can.

Autocannons are designed to operate in falloff. Pulse are designed to have zero reload time and longer optimal. Both weapon systems do their job very well.

Blasters are ment to be close range weapons but they suffer from tracking issues because of the close range.

And quite frankly, if you cannot hit BC and curiser with BS weapons you are doing something wrong.