These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Blasters getting fixed
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#81 - 2011-10-09 21:18:38 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
So, what you're saying is. You can already hit cruisers and battle-cruisers with large blasters. So what is the problem then? I assumed you were talking about firing @ targets without stasis webifier applied.

I thought that because you kept on bringing up the Armageddon and its optimal. Then you referred to all other turrets like you have again. You do know that blasters also operate in falloff like auto-cannons right? Auto-cannons do have optimal, but have a very broad falloff operational limit.

Funny thing is a Maelstrom with 800mm auto-cannons and no stasis webifier applied to a battle-cruiser or cruiser. Will have a very hard time tracking said ships (in settled orbit). I do find the Megathron has a easier time tracking said ships without a stasis webifier (tracking bonus). That's why solo Megathron setups can get away with not having a stasis webfier at all and still be able to apply good damage (under scram-range).

I think I've established only 'Large Pulse Lasers' can track smaller targets well around its optimal. Large auto-cannons can do SOME damage to sub-Battleships @ 'Large Pulse Laser' optimal, but ALOT LESS applied damage, because of falloff and can't track sub-battleships well in auto-cannon optimal. (To reiterate, 'Auto-Cannons' DO HAVE optimal for those who don't know.) However, Blasters have the worst applied damage @ Large Pulse Laser range because of limited falloff and even less optimal range. This range issue.

So Auto-cannons AND Blasters can't track sub-battleships well in their optimal. To change this you would need a substantial increase to 'Large Auto-Cannon' AND 'Large Blaster' tracking = )

Anyways, baltec1 you've kept me entertained for a bit. Thank you! I'll leave you to your thread and your thoughts. PEACE!

BUMP TO A FUNNY THREAD!

-proxyyyy
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#82 - 2011-10-09 21:46:12 UTC
Proxy, I find your posts rather difficult to understand at the best of times - they tend to be incoherent and poorly structured - but you seem to keep on going on about the difficulty of hitting with ACs at optimal. But, frankly, this is missing the point. You know full well that the greatly superior falloff of ACs gives them the ability to apply damage in falloff where tracking problems are reduced because of the lower angular velocity, and also that blasters can't do this nearly as effectively because of their greatly inferior falloff.

So talking about the ability of ACs to "hit at optimal", as you have done, is not particularly useful. Baltec was talking about the ability of blasters to hit at optimal because the low falloff of blasters gives them little choice. But the same rules do not apply to ACs.
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2011-10-09 22:08:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
m0cking bird wrote:
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.!


CCP Nozh also stated also that it would make sense to fit medium blasters and multispec ECM on BS to prevent her predictable downfall into the her absence of modern pvp of today.

Anybody serious on the topic stated that bigger blaster hulls just don't work with the QR changes. Beside the rabble about bigger ships should not hit smaller targets, the QR change left the question open on what should be the role for blaster BS. Technically you have a solo/small gang platform that doesn't offer the ability to actually be effective in realistic solo/small gang pvp scenarios, it suffer any penalty of the other hulls with the disadvantages of his own low range on top of it.

It never made sense to fly a blaster hull that couldn't hit targets very hard at her rather limited range in solo/small gang pvp. This doesn't mean that a blaster bs is supposed to hit frigs with full damage(even a mega couldn't hit frigs pre QR sub 5km even with the 90% web without the AB\web\scram changes) but being under the same "bigger can't hit smaller ships at close range" design theme they simply don't work as close range ships, because her scope of use is far to limited to make them useful if they suffer the same restrictions. You simply end up with a ship class that lack the range and EHP for bigger gangs and lack the speed, utility and med range damage projection a minmatar hull could offer in solo and small gang pvp for a few dps that doesn't make it useful in almost all pvp situations(down to 1o1).

Even if you boost the speed of gallente hulls to a reasonable level, it isn't particular hard to stay out of her range in smaller hulls, so why why it would be a problem at all to give blaster hulls her effectiveness at point blank at all in solo/small gang pvp?
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#84 - 2011-10-09 22:32:31 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Proxy, I find your posts rather difficult to understand at the best of times - they tend to be incoherent and poorly structured - but you seem to keep on going on about the difficulty of hitting with ACs at optimal. But, frankly, this is missing the point. You know full well that the greatly superior falloff of ACs gives them the ability to apply damage in falloff where tracking problems are reduced because of the lower angular velocity, and also that blasters can't do this nearly as effectively because of their greatly inferior falloff.

So talking about the ability of ACs to "hit at optimal", as you have done, is not particularly useful. Baltec was talking about the ability of blasters to hit at optimal because the low falloff of blasters gives them little choice. But the same rules do not apply to ACs.



It must be! Because you've reiterated what I've said. Plus, I understood what he was trying to say from the beginning, but I decided to play around for a bit.

Still, his argument is not factual because blasters and auto-cannons are not able to track well in their optimal. Sucks that blasters and auto-cannons optimal is under 6000m, because that makes tracking sub-battleships more difficult. Auto-cannons are in better shape because of broader operational ranges. Auto-cannons still suffer from lower applied damage because of falloff, but they do some damage. Not as much as pulse lasers, but it's better than no damage like blasters.

Which is why I got into semantics. You know, if blasters get a tracking increase yada-yada-yada. Then auto-cannons should too, because they have the same issue bla-bla-bla (lol). So, yeah! Was all a waste of time. I also hate the whole Megathron and Armageddon comparisons (fcking annoying).

Still it seems most pilots in eve don't want INSANE tracking. Example: Medium turrets being able to track frigates. I know because I've suggested it and many don't like the idea. That's the kind of tracking increase he would need to do what he's on about (100% or more and lower signature resolution I would assume, without really checking)...
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#85 - 2011-10-09 22:45:28 UTC
Jill Antaris wrote:
m0cking bird wrote:
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.!


CCP Nozh also stated also that it would make sense to fit medium blasters and multispec ECM on BS to prevent her predictable downfall into the her absence of modern pvp of today.

Anybody serious on the topic stated that bigger blaster hulls just don't work with the QR changes. Beside the rabble about bigger ships should not hit smaller targets, the QR change left the question open on what should be the role for blaster BS. Technically you have a solo/small gang platform that doesn't offer the ability to actually be effective in realistic solo/small gang pvp scenarios, it suffer any penalty of the other hulls with the disadvantages of his own low range on top of it.

It never made sense to fly a blaster hull that couldn't hit targets very hard at her rather limited range in solo/small gang pvp. This doesn't mean that a blaster bs is supposed to hit frigs with full damage(even a mega couldn't hit frigs pre QR sub 5km even with the 90% web without the AB\web\scram changes) but being under the same "bigger can't hit smaller ships at close range" design theme they simply don't work as close range ships, because her scope of use is far to limited to make them useful if they suffer the same restrictions. You simply end up with a ship class that lack the range and EHP for bigger gangs and lack the speed, utility and med range damage projection a minmatar hull could offer in solo and small gang pvp for a few dps that doesn't make it useful in almost all pvp situations(down to 1o1).

Even if you boost the speed of gallente hulls to a reasonable level, it isn't particular hard to stay out of her range in smaller hulls, so why why it would be a problem at all to give blaster hulls her effectiveness at point blank at all in solo/small gang pvp?



I agree with most of what you've said. That is why I suggested a insane increase in tracking and slight increases to range (built in tracking enhancer module). Effectively leaving the weapon system the same except for EXTREME TRACKING. Unfortunately blaster ships would still be kited and useless in fleet engagements. That's what most pilots don't like about blasters. Getting into range to apply damage.

So what do you do to fix that? Increasing tracking wont fix that. So, I suggested another extreme. EXTREME RANGE BOOST! Funny thing is. Pilots that don't even fly blaster ships don't want that to happen. Apparently they want the option not to use Gallente, because they have short range and are useless for fleet engagements. They like the concept and want to see it around, just not fly ships that use them (lol).

The only suggested change I diss-agree with is a EXTREME INCREASE in blaster damage. Can only see that going wrong.
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2011-10-09 23:30:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
The big problems with the large tracking boosts, that would be required to make gallente hulls effective at point blank, is that they scale terrible at higher ranges.

If anything a simple solution would be tweaking web strength on the hulls since it is hard capped at range. It doesn't give any particular advantage for bigger fights and it also slovens the range control issues, what a tracking change couldn't archive. It is a simple, predictable and logical change. You could even say you add extra benefits to serious improve them as a small gang heavy tackler(assuming you can say a mega in a armor BS gang acts as heavy tackler), however hitting stuff at 15-20km ranges if you have tackle is not really a problem. Key point is, you need 3.3 times the tracking to hit something at 4.5km instead of 15km, most hulls can do the later one just fine, the previous one is even problematic in the hulls that are actually supposed to work at 4.5km optimal.

Edit: To be fair lets add one question, bigger range adds better damage projection, higher usability in gangs, less requirement of range control etc... Limited range on the other hand provides you with a lot smaller scope of use(pretty much down to small gangs\solo),in the meta game even if you have a few more DPS in this scenario(if you made it in range) you still deal with a lot undersized stuff, making your damage advantage or even any damage your turrets could deal pretty much zero. Is this actually useful?

The concept of high damage at close ranges makes gallente hulls useful for small gang/solo stuff, however if the this can't be archived within realistic engagements it screams for actually addressing this issues.
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2011-10-10 03:11:05 UTC
I am very happy with hybrids being fixed.

Also, wtb t2 capital modules (blasters, reps, energy transfers, etc.) requiring the skills at 5. Lol
Cpt Fina
Perkone
Caldari State
#88 - 2011-10-10 05:11:38 UTC
If a mega isn't supposed to be able to hit sub BS hulls with its tracking bonus then that must mean that Dominixes and Hyperions exclusively should shoot at Dreadnoughts and Carriers?

My own vision (and my interpretation of how the community traditionally have considered) blasters and the other weaponsystems is that blasters should become more and more useless as the size of your gang grows – and for the longest of time this was something that most seemed to accept.
ACs and lasers were the weapon of choice for instant damageprojection at 5-30km ranges thus making them perfect for larger engagements. Blasterboats was compensated by owning in the small / solo scene with its superior damageoutput once in range.

But now I see more and more people promoting range and falloff increases to blasters – negating the core principle of the ship having to transverse some distance before apllying damage. It's basically calling for a more homogenous, and yes boring, set of weaponsystems in eve if you want each weaponsystem to be able to do what the others can. Blasters should suck ass in large gangs. Their right element is small gang / solo where you cannot rely on dual webs or tackling outside of your own e-war range.

The problem isn't just blasters –it's all the changes CCP has made to MWDs, webs, scramblers, NOS and the introduction of rigs which has become mandatory on a proper fit making blasterboats super slow. They need to do something other than just look at blasters (which does need a dps increase now that they've buffed the other weaponsystems).
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#89 - 2011-10-10 07:48:29 UTC
Forums tried to eat my post. C&P ftw.

Base stats pulled from EveWiki for 3 comparable BS-sized close range weapons. They all have the same RoF (7.875sec).

Given the same target flying in indentical fixed orbits around a ship with identical bonuses/skills, one with a Neutron Blaster II, an second with an 800mm Repeating Artillery II, and a third with a Mega Pulse Laser II.

optimal | falloff | tracking | DamMod |
Neutron II | 7.2km | 10km | .0433 rad/s | 4.2 |
Mega Pulse II | 24km | 8km | .03375 rad/s | 3.6 |
800mm Rpt II | 4.8km | 19.2km | .0432 rad/s | 3.234 |

the blaster will hit more frequently until it gets well out into falloff.

Lasers have the longest total engagement range in this group, and will apply effective dps from early on until the target begins to out track their guns.

Seems like large ACs have the same tracking as its comparable blaster. But they have the worst damage multiplier of the 3.

The only imbalance I see is the near identical tracking between AC and blaster. Gimp AC tracking, buff blaster tracking, or some combination of the two. Since tracking is less affected when at range, and AC have long falloff, I would buff blaster tracking by about .01 to .053.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Cpt Fina
Perkone
Caldari State
#90 - 2011-10-10 08:05:18 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
I would buff blaster tracking by about .01 to .053.


Webbed targets now fly 300% faster than they used to do and you promote a 1% tracking increase?

Balancing the game according to spreadsheet-symmetry is thw wrong way to do it imo. We have to ask ourselves what we want blasters, ACs and pulses to do, what roles they should fill and then work towards that while accepting that if some guns excell in one area they might, or should, rather suck in another.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#91 - 2011-10-10 08:43:43 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:


Still it seems most pilots in eve don't want INSANE tracking. Example: Medium turrets being able to track frigates. I know because I've suggested it and many don't like the idea. That's the kind of tracking increase he would need to do what he's on about (100% or more and lower signature resolution I would assume, without really checking)...


Not at all.

To get great tracking for blasters at very close range you can flip the way tracking works. The closer you get to a blaster, the better it will track so in effect, you will get the same ability to track your targets no matter the range with the drawback of having limited range. This would give blasters its unique roll, make them good at it but at the same time wont make then have crazy tracking at the longer ranges.

It would result in a close range ship that only hurt you more the closer you get.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2011-10-10 08:45:25 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Forums tried to eat my post. C&P ftw.

Base stats pulled from EveWiki for 3 comparable BS-sized close range weapons. They all have the same RoF (7.875sec).

Given the same target flying in indentical fixed orbits around a ship with identical bonuses/skills, one with a Neutron Blaster II, an second with an 800mm Repeating Artillery II, and a third with a Mega Pulse Laser II.

optimal | falloff | tracking | DamMod |
Neutron II | 7.2km | 10km | .0433 rad/s | 4.2 |
Mega Pulse II | 24km | 8km | .03375 rad/s | 3.6 |
800mm Rpt II | 4.8km | 19.2km | .0432 rad/s | 3.234 |

the blaster will hit more frequently until it gets well out into falloff.

Lasers have the longest total engagement range in this group, and will apply effective dps from early on until the target begins to out track their guns.

Seems like large ACs have the same tracking as its comparable blaster. But they have the worst damage multiplier of the 3.

The only imbalance I see is the near identical tracking between AC and blaster. Gimp AC tracking, buff blaster tracking, or some combination of the two. Since tracking is less affected when at range, and AC have long falloff, I would buff blaster tracking by about .01 to .053.


I hate doing this but...

Not to long ago I tried to explain ammo differences to a person so I have some screenshots I'll provide.

With guns, looking at just the base info on them won't give you a clear enough picture.

With AC's I pretty much ignore long-ranged ammo. I don't hit well when in optimal due to tracking and the penalties from using short-ranged ammo are very trivial with the falloff remaining unaffected.

The reverse is true with hybrids that live in optimal. Using Anti-matter has a ghastly effect on your ability to deliver damage cleanly, using different ammo can compensate for this - but such details aren't often provided. Mostly "hearsay" and the like.

The following was part of an answer I put together on the subject to someone - it was based on a vexor fit they wanted to use for DPS at gate-camp situations.

The range 7.5km was selected as a starting range that "makes sense" for a gate fight so that's what's shown with these little guns on this little ship.

These are damage analysis screenshots are from EVEHQ. I like the tool but beyond that, I haven't found a better breakout of such analysis info yet.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p301/kothall/VexorDamagebyAmmo-Antimatter.jpg
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p301/kothall/VexorDamagebyAmmo-Lead.jpg
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p301/kothall/VexorDamagebyAmmo-Iridium.jpg

I highlighted areas on it when I did the shots so it would be easier to see the more salient points on the effects of ammo but they're clear enough to see fully. It's based upon my skills (roughly 13.8 mill SP in gunnery) which aren't that trivial but aren't "all 5's".

You would see NOTHING like those shifts using short-ranged ammo in equivalent AC's due to the differences in falloff vs optimal focus.

I use these weapons systems. I know what effects work which ways and I also know what I actually can and cannot deliver vs what EFT and other such tools show.

AC's track better yet I hit tracking issues if things get too close so I keep them "in falloff". Blasters have weaker tracking and require things to be really close. You'd better have a web to deliver decently with them using higher-end ammo.

As others have stated - blasters work well *IF* you can get to use them to their full potential. The problem being you don't get those opportunities all that often due to how they work and, often, how they are loaded.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2011-10-10 08:54:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Soldarius wrote:
Forums tried to eat my post. C&P ftw.

Base stats pulled from EveWiki for 3 comparable BS-sized close range weapons. They all have the same RoF (7.875sec).

Given the same target flying in indentical fixed orbits around a ship with identical bonuses/skills, one with a Neutron Blaster II, an second with an 800mm Repeating Artillery II, and a third with a Mega Pulse Laser II.

optimal | falloff | tracking | DamMod |
Neutron II | 7.2km | 10km | .0433 rad/s | 4.2 |
Mega Pulse II | 24km | 8km | .03375 rad/s | 3.6 |
800mm Rpt II | 4.8km | 19.2km | .0432 rad/s | 3.234 |

the blaster will hit more frequently until it gets well out into falloff.

Lasers have the longest total engagement range in this group, and will apply effective dps from early on until the target begins to out track their guns.

Seems like large ACs have the same tracking as its comparable blaster. But they have the worst damage multiplier of the 3.

The only imbalance I see is the near identical tracking between AC and blaster. Gimp AC tracking, buff blaster tracking, or some combination of the two. Since tracking is less affected when at range, and AC have long falloff, I would buff blaster tracking by about .01 to .053.



Not exactly, since at blaster optimal +half fall off off it takes is two BS's going opposite directions at 300m/s (which is the nature of the orbit command) to over run tracking on large blasters, added to the fact that the blasters are down to a 65% chance to hit assuming antimatter and that they aren't carrying a load of TEs or dual TCs.

I regularly fly both hybrid and projectile battleships, I know which I would prefer all things being even.....projectiles are pretty much a give.

Look at hybrid ammo there are 8 range bands, and you have to stick with on or suffer the 10 second ammo swap. You cut you DPS 66% to use lead, roughly 40% with null (though it does have its uses) ect ect.

Opposed to AC's where ALL of the ammo is just a slight change in fall-off, and you don't really notice because you are always in falloff, but you DO get little benies like the x1.2 modifier to tracking on the midrange ammo which is quite nice. Otherwise there is only short range for damage and barrage for range. The optimals are so short that there is no real reason to use the longrange ammo, with 800mm repeaters its only good for about 10km.

Yet given a Maelstorm with 3TEs and a Blaster Hyperion with three TE's the Hype's can only engage inside 28km (optimal + falloff) with short range ammo, where the Maelstom has a 46km engagement envelope, that is a 40% advantage. Likewise null vs barrage is laughable. The Hyperion hits to 48km....for a whopping 148dps (with favorable resists) and the Mael is still doing around 300 with barrage.....at 76km

These are both T3 BS's with damage bonuses...that is a fair disparity, its also why you see Gallente pilots loading myrms with ACs, because sans turret bonus there is NOT a downside, the ACs are easier to fit, both on grid and cpu, use no cap, have three times the engagement envelope and generally make us smile. Where to deal with blasters you have to deal with

1) Cap boosters to keep your guns running
2) Big ASS ammo, seriously, a Hyperion can only carry something like 12000 rounds....that you are spitting out on a 3 second(ish) cycle 8 at a time
3)Carrying less ammo (again) because you have to deal with cap boosters of have an alt tailing your around in a blockade runner to drop more charges
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2011-10-10 09:13:39 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
Forums tried to eat my post. C&P ftw.

Base stats pulled from EveWiki for 3 comparable BS-sized close range weapons. They all have the same RoF (7.875sec).

Given the same target flying in indentical fixed orbits around a ship with identical bonuses/skills, one with a Neutron Blaster II, an second with an 800mm Repeating Artillery II, and a third with a Mega Pulse Laser II.

optimal | falloff | tracking | DamMod |
Neutron II | 7.2km | 10km | .0433 rad/s | 4.2 |
Mega Pulse II | 24km | 8km | .03375 rad/s | 3.6 |
800mm Rpt II | 4.8km | 19.2km | .0432 rad/s | 3.234 |

the blaster will hit more frequently until it gets well out into falloff.

Lasers have the longest total engagement range in this group, and will apply effective dps from early on until the target begins to out track their guns.

Seems like large ACs have the same tracking as its comparable blaster. But they have the worst damage multiplier of the 3.

The only imbalance I see is the near identical tracking between AC and blaster. Gimp AC tracking, buff blaster tracking, or some combination of the two. Since tracking is less affected when at range, and AC have long falloff, I would buff blaster tracking by about .01 to .053.



Not exactly, since at blaster optimal +half fall off off it takes is two BS's going opposite directions at 300m/s (which is the nature of the orbit command) to over run tracking on large blasters, added to the fact that the blasters are down to a 65% chance to hit assuming antimatter and that they aren't carrying a load of TEs or dual TCs.

I regularly fly both hybrid and projectile battleships, I know which I would prefer all things being even.....projectiles are pretty much a give.

Look at hybrid ammo there are 8 range bands, and you have to stick with on or suffer the 10 second ammo swap. You cut you DPS 66% to use lead, roughly 40% with null (though it does have its uses) ect ect.

Opposed to AC's where ALL of the ammo is just a slight change in fall-off, and you don't really notice because you are always in falloff, but you DO get little benies like the x1.2 modifier to tracking on the midrange ammo which is quite nice. Otherwise there is only short range for damage and barrage for range. The optimals are so short that there is no real reason to use the longrange ammo, with 800mm repeaters its only good for about 10km.

Yet given a Maelstorm with 3TEs and a Blaster Hyperion with three TE's the Hype's can only engage inside 28km (optimal + falloff) with short range ammo, where the Maelstom has a 46km engagement envelope, that is a 40% advantage. Likewise null vs barrage is laughable. The Hyperion hits to 48km....for a whopping 148dps (with favorable resists) and the Mael is still doing around 300 with barrage.....at 76km

These are both T3 BS's with damage bonuses...that is a fair disparity, its also why you see Gallente pilots loading myrms with ACs, because sans turret bonus there is NOT a downside, the ACs are easier to fit, both on grid and cpu, use no cap, have three times the engagement envelope and generally make us smile. Where to deal with blasters you have to deal with

1) Cap boosters to keep your guns running
2) Big ASS ammo, seriously, a Hyperion can only carry something like 12000 rounds....that you are spitting out on a 3 second(ish) cycle 8 at a time
3)Carrying less ammo (again) because you have to deal with cap boosters of have an alt tailing your around in a blockade runner to drop more charges
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2011-10-10 09:22:53 UTC
Cpt Fina wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
I would buff blaster tracking by about .01 to .053.


Webbed targets now fly 300% faster than they used to do and you promote a 1% tracking increase?

Balancing the game according to spreadsheet-symmetry is thw wrong way to do it imo. We have to ask ourselves what we want blasters, ACs and pulses to do, what roles they should fill and then work towards that while accepting that if some guns excell in one area they might, or should, rather suck in another.




oh I surely know what I want from blasters: shotguns shooting nuclear warheads, but unable to scratch paint at 10km+

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#96 - 2011-10-10 10:35:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
Cpt Fina wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
I would buff blaster tracking by about .01 to .053.


Webbed targets now fly 300% faster than they used to do and you promote a 1% tracking increase?

Balancing the game according to spreadsheet-symmetry is thw wrong way to do it imo. We have to ask ourselves what we want blasters, ACs and pulses to do, what roles they should fill and then work towards that while accepting that if some guns excell in one area they might, or should, rather suck in another.


You quit school after 4th grade or something?

.043 + .01 = .053, or a 23.26% increase. Learn math. Damn, that's not even algebra. Barely prealgebra. Decimals and percentages along with a bit of division.

I laid those stats out in spreadsheet style to make the comparisons easier to see/visualize. Since blasters are meant to be extremely short range high dps weapons, they should have better tracking than autocannons. This will also help them to hit orbiting targets at their optimal.

Hell, light electron blasters can't even hit a BS orbiting at 4000m for more than about 90% of the time. That is seriously screwed up.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#97 - 2011-10-10 13:21:47 UTC
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#98 - 2011-10-10 13:37:48 UTC
300%? Changes to stasis webifier, never effected tracking that severely. The fact that someone pulled out those random figures to substantiate their argument, is a joke.

With all that said. This is a massively multi-player game. Weapon systems that only operate @ short distances are not very viable in real world naval, air and mechanized combat. Why does it make sense in space? The whole concept is flawed. Blasters were not created to fill a niche (solo). They fell into that niche, because blasters are terrible most everywhere else.

Blasters have always been the way they are now since late 2007. Auto-cannons were in fact Superior and gave much better options to a pilot. While blasters were liner and to reliant on one ewar module (stasis webifier). Everything else could have changed, but as long as they had that 90%. It would masked how stagnate the concept of close range pvp is and the inability of the weapon system to adapt to changing game-play environment.

However, this does not apply to the frigate class, for the most part. Classes of ships cruiser and above have broader operational ranges. Pvp within this broader spectrum is more dynamic.

Close-range pvp seems more suited to the frigates. Where there's only slight differences in the operational ranges of weapon systems. Effectively having to apply damage under 9 kilometers, for the most part (warp scrambler range).

Cruisers and upwards are on a different, massive scale. Big difference compared to a frigates engagement envelope.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#99 - 2011-10-10 16:43:14 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:
300%? Changes to stasis webifier, never effected tracking that severely. The fact that someone pulled out those random figures to substantiate their argument, is a joke.
Webs used to slow you down by 90%. Now they slow you down by 60%. You used to be hitting 10% of your top speed when webbed, now you move at 40% of your top speed, which is a 300% increase over what it used to be. His numbers are most certainly not random.
m0cking bird wrote:

With all that said. This is a massively multi-player game. Weapon systems that only operate @ short distances are not very viable in real world naval, air and mechanized combat. Why does it make sense in space? The whole concept is flawed. Blasters were not created to fill a niche (solo). They fell into that niche, because blasters are terrible most everywhere else.
This much is true, but then, eve is a game, not real life. The idea of close-range-high-damage weapons may not work well in the real world, but in gaming it makes sense.

Blasters have always been the way they are now since late 2007. Auto-cannons were in fact Superior and gave much better options to a pilot. While blasters were liner and to reliant on one ewar module (stasis webifier). Everything else could have changed, but as long as they had that 90%. It would masked how stagnate the concept of close range pvp is and the inability of the weapon system to adapt to changing game-play environment.


Soldarius wrote:

You quit school after 4th grade or something?

.043 + .01 = .053, or a 23.26% increase. Learn math. Damn, that's not even algebra. Barely prealgebra. Decimals and percentages along with a bit of division.
They still need some more damage, maybe somewhere in the realm of 10-15%. Also, just throwing this out there, but when CCP buffed pulses (directly, not referring to the fact that they shifted the metagame over to heavily favour pulses) they upped their tracking by 25%. Asking for a 23% buff to blaster tracking, when they're the guns with the highest need for tracking in the game, is an insult.

Also I approve of what grimpack said, we need blasters that melt faces at close ranges but can't do anything past web range (more damage less falloff kthanks)
Cpt Fina
Perkone
Caldari State
#100 - 2011-10-10 20:59:28 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Cpt Fina wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
I would buff blaster tracking by about .01 to .053.


Webbed targets now fly 300% faster than they used to do and you promote a 1% tracking increase?

Balancing the game according to spreadsheet-symmetry is thw wrong way to do it imo. We have to ask ourselves what we want blasters, ACs and pulses to do, what roles they should fill and then work towards that while accepting that if some guns excell in one area they might, or should, rather suck in another.


You quit school after 4th grade or something?

.043 + .01 = .053, or a 23.26% increase. Learn math. Damn, that's not even algebra. Barely prealgebra. Decimals and percentages along with a bit of division.

I laid those stats out in spreadsheet style to make the comparisons easier to see/visualize. Since blasters are meant to be extremely short range high dps weapons, they should have better tracking than autocannons. This will also help them to hit orbiting targets at their optimal.

Hell, light electron blasters can't even hit a BS orbiting at 4000m for more than about 90% of the time. That is seriously screwed up.



My misstake, 0.01 =/ 1%.

Still, webbed targets now fly 300% faster than before – your specification of how much we should increase tracking is meaningless if blasters still can't perform in the scenario that they are supposed to perform. I think you way of approaching the isue is bad. We can't start to argue about wether we should increase tracking 23, 24 or 25% before we even know what they are supposed to do.

Who cares how well ACs, lsers and blasters track and reach in relation to eachother. That's totally irrelevant as long as they do what they are suppposed to. You might think that I quit school after 4rth grade but you're the one that's stuck with a fourth graders mentality "weee! Jimmy got more icecream than I did".

Grimpak wrote:

oh I surely know what I want from blasters: shotguns shooting nuclear warheads, but unable to scratch paint at 10km+


I totally agree with this vision and I believe this is how blasters traditionally have been considered ought to function by the community. I would even go so far to say that blasters might need a range decrease to compensate for the dps they should be dealing.

m0cking bird wrote:

300%? Changes to stasis webifier, never effected tracking that severely. The fact that someone pulled out those random figures to substantiate their argument, is a joke.


See cambarus response. Webbed targets now fly 300% faster without CCP improving the weaponsystem that relied on targets being webbed at 90%.

Judging from the rest of your posting you want to make blasters more like lasers and ACs in the way they operate in gang-combat. Homogenizing the weaponsystems is a step towards making the game bland and uninteresting. Why should every weaponsystem work in every situation?