These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#101 - 2011-10-10 21:53:30 UTC
Indeed! For some reason I read base speed as something else. Anyways, you're correct.

HMMM! I'm eating the f*ck out of this turkey (thanksgiving).

The 300% increase in base velocity of ships, with 60% stasis webifier. Compared to old school 90% stasis webifier is a ancillary figure. While substantial. It's not consequential, without applying other factors. Base velocity is just part of the formula (tracking mechanics).

Any-who. Yeah! I suggest alot of things. I don't care whether they gain range or not. I'm fine with blasters as they are now. However, I am against a massive increase in blaster damage. Also, anyone who suggest blasters having even less range than they do now is ********. Having flown small electron blasters in the past (merlin) to find out for myself if tracking was a issue.

Small electron blasters is the shortest range weapon system in-game (not sure). The slightest movement from your target. Often resulted in a substantial loss of applied damage. That is less of a issue with medium electrons (Brutix), because of increased range and even less so for large electron blasters (Hyperion).

I quickly understood why most l33t Gallente pilots always tried to use higher tier blasters (never stopped using electrons on frigates for a long time though). Range and higher damage output was the reason many pilots choose neutrons over Ion and electrons...
Cpt Fina
Perkone
Caldari State
#102 - 2011-10-10 23:22:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Fina
As far as i understand it most people who argue for a fix for blasters are not complaining about small blasters.

I can personally only express myself about large blasters because I rarely use medium sized ones.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#103 - 2011-10-10 23:42:26 UTC
TBH less range on blasters is not a problem, as long as it's done via a reduction in falloff. Blaster optimal as it is now is a fairly good representation of what would be considered short range. It is also worth nothing that I don't think I've seen ANYONE make the argument that small blasters need fixing/changing, so your light electrons should (in theory) be unaffected by this anyway.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#104 - 2011-10-10 23:58:37 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
Cpt Fina wrote:
As far as i understand it most people who argue for a fix for blasters are not complaining about small blasters.

I can peronally only express myself about large blasters because I rarely use medium sized ones.


I was only referencing 'Small Electron Blasters'. Because some have suggested reducing range of blasters further (medium and large blasters), which is ********. Atleast, without a 90% stasis webifier to hold a target relatively still. Damage application would suffer from slight fluctuations in range.

For example: if your optimal is 1000m and your falloff is 2000m, provided you can track. A target moving 200 - 500m from your optimal would effect your damage application significantly.

Also, unlike most. I do believe small blasters should be boosted to compensate for the unnecessary changes made to small auto-cannons.
Cpt Fina
Perkone
Caldari State
#105 - 2011-10-11 00:17:48 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:

I was only referencing 'Small Electron Blasters'. Because some have suggested reducing range of blasters further (medium and large blasters), which is ********. Atleast, without a 90% stasis webifier to hold a target relatively still. Damage application would suffer from slight fluctuations in range.



Just as almost noone (except from you?) is promoting a buff to small blasters very few are promoting a buff to blasters in a vacuum. People are well aware of and has expressed concerns about the viabilty of blasterhulls in this day and age.

Either you have not followed the public discourse on this subject or you are purpously trying to delegitimize this standpoint by insinuating that "we" would like to see a rangereduction without other fixes to how these ships work.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2011-10-11 00:42:47 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:
Because some have suggested reducing range of blasters further (medium and large blasters), which is ********.



range reduction should happen only if blasterhulls get more mobile AND if they get their damage considerably boosted.


they don't really need range. in blasters, the damage projection should be done by the ships themselves and not the weapons. That should be the counterbalance to a weapon system that should be the incontestable damage dealer of their class, of the entire game.

[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
Klyst Lysander
Perkone
Caldari State
#107 - 2011-10-11 19:27:40 UTC
Range reduction?
Sure, let's make them point-blank weapons, so we can only apply damage IF our hull is intimately hugging the target's hull.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2011-10-11 21:08:30 UTC
Klyst Lysander wrote:
Range reduction?
Sure, let's make them point-blank weapons, so we can only apply damage IF our hull is intimately hugging the target's hull.



if I can get to the target and dish the damage equivalent of several Tzar Bomba's exploding at the same time, then yeah why not?

[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