These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Blaster Ships - Thoughts post Crucible?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arazel Chainfire
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-08-17 01:58:22 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


I know this is going to sound harsh, but this is why you should stop valuing EFT DPS and start relying on real DPS. That's the secret for why I fit ships like this: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12579270

-Liang


Just curious about your fit, but why 2 polycarbs 1 aux thruster and 2 nano's. Wouldn't you get better performance using a mix of overdrives/low friction nozzle joints, or I-stab's and auxiliary thrusters? Am I also correct in assuming that you run with this thing using links/implants, or do you get good performance from it even without links/implants?

-Arazel
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#42 - 2012-08-17 02:03:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
I'm glad somone mentioned Applied damage. That's the real issue with regard to blasters and that stems from range (damage projection). You know! Unless you're engaging static targets that don't move @ all (or 90% stasis webifier). Even the slightest deviation outside of blaster optimal sees double digit percentage losses in applied damage. Which has to do with one of the components of applied damage (range). This issue is most pronounce on the Frigate level (high velocity engagements in warp scramble and stasis webifier range).

That's why in the past when I used electrons over Ions and Neutrons on a Merlin (2010). I saw a significant loss in damage. If the prevailing theory was correct. Then tracking was the issue, not damage. Clearly that wasn't the case. Once I started using falloff and or Optimal rigs on the aforementioned electron-Merlin. The damage increased significantly.

Hybrid blaster's margin of error is significantly more comparatively. The aforementioned isn't the case for pulse lasers and autocannons that have significantly less margin of error comparatively. Applying damage @ 1,000 - 20,000m is infinitely superior to a small window of 1,000m - 6,000m. Infact, the Turret mechanics and game mechanics in general is bias towards long range weapon systems. The only mechanic that specifically curtails this fact is tracking. Which can be overcome by muliple modules = /

Anyway. Autocannons are superior in every ship class with 1 exception (battleships/large weapon turrets). You could argue the same about frigates/small weapon turrets...

To sum this sh!t up:

- This argument has been beaten to death a long time ago. The issue was related to the lack of 90% stasis webifier and damage projection (range).

- Of course there are those who continue on the whole "increase hull speed" to compensate for this, but that's been proven to be a bandaid @ best. Mainly because those hulls exist more so than ever and are still considered sub-optimal (pun) because of range.

BTW: CCP basically did what I was arguing for awhile. Atleast once I identified the issue (damage projection). They Increased blaster range. In this case, threw null ammunition and Lit. made blasters into autocannons on the battleship and frigate/destroyer level. They have around the same level of damage projection now and only pulse lasers are superior. All that's left to do is to do the same on the cruiser level. Which is whatever @ this point (f*ck !t).

So yeah! I was arguing for blasters having more range v0v


- end of transmission

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2012-08-17 02:11:35 UTC
Good post Killz.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#44 - 2012-08-17 04:12:21 UTC
Arazel Chainfire wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


I know this is going to sound harsh, but this is why you should stop valuing EFT DPS and start relying on real DPS. That's the secret for why I fit ships like this: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12579270

-Liang


Just curious about your fit, but why 2 polycarbs 1 aux thruster and 2 nano's. Wouldn't you get better performance using a mix of overdrives/low friction nozzle joints, or I-stab's and auxiliary thrusters? Am I also correct in assuming that you run with this thing using links/implants, or do you get good performance from it even without links/implants?

-Arazel


I believe the 4th stacking nerf gave me ~.5 sec align time. It works fine without links and implants, but it works better with links and implants. Like everything else. I personally don't buy the hype around Snakes though.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#45 - 2012-08-17 04:16:26 UTC
Major Killz wrote:
I'm glad somone mentioned Applied damage. That's the real issue with regard to blasters and that stems from range (damage projection). You know! Unless you're engaging static targets that don't move @ all (or 90% stasis webifier). Even the slightest deviation outside of blaster optimal sees double digit percentage losses in applied damage. Which has to do with one of the components of applied damage (range). This issue is most pronounce on the Frigate level (high velocity engagements in warp scramble and stasis webifier range).


Yeah, around optimal + half falloff things start to look significantly worse. Up until that point you're probably losing damage to tracking anyway.

Quote:

That's why in the past when I used electrons over Ions and Neutrons on a Merlin (2010). I saw a significant loss in damage. If the prevailing theory was correct. Then tracking was the issue, not damage. Clearly that wasn't the case. Once I started using falloff and or Optimal rigs on the aforementioned electron-Merlin. The damage increased significantly.


Yep, I believe the range on small electrons is too low to ever be useful without stacking up the TEs. It's a topic of spirited debate on Heretic vent though, and I have to admit that some of the fits that use them are pretty awesome.

Quote:

- Of course there are those who continue on the whole "increase hull speed" to compensate for this, but that's been proven to be a bandaid @ best. Mainly because those hulls exist more so than ever and are still considered sub-optimal (pun) because of range.


I admit my biggest goal with faster blaster hulls is Null kiting. But yeah, I see your point - without BS blasters or a stronger falloff bonus than we get today it's only marginally worth it.

Quote:

So yeah! I was arguing for blasters having more range v0v


You forgot to mention that the big thing everyone disagreed with you on there was that a large damage increase would increase damage across the entire spectrum instead of just at the tail end of it. I feel like we all got a little of what we wanted in the end though - and for the most part I'm pretty happy with them.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Korg Tronix
Mole Station Nursery
#46 - 2012-08-17 07:24:48 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
[quote=Major Killz]
Quote:

So yeah! I was arguing for blasters having more range v0v


You forgot to mention that the big thing everyone disagreed with you on there was that a large damage increase would increase damage across the entire spectrum instead of just at the tail end of it. I feel like we all got a little of what we wanted in the end though - and for the most part I'm pretty happy with them.

-Liang

Not to mention it would essentially make blaster a copy of ACs with some of the range buffs people wanted.

Blasters in there current state are pretty Damn sweet. A good example is people have started fitting Feroxes with Hybrids again

Evil: If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One! [zaps one of his minions accidentally, minion screams]
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#47 - 2012-08-17 13:29:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
I only argued for less cpu and power grid usage, less capacitor use, and an increase in blaster range.

The other people were on turning blasters into short range artillery and or a ridiculous increase in damage (something like 100 - 300%).

One of the biggest if not the root of most issues surrounding players issue in this game is thier own inability. Which CCP is always trying to please. Soon this game wont be that much of a sand box but, that's because most of the player base really don't want difficulty or any challenge @ all. Every change has been to make the game less difficult. Has anyone recently seen the new disability feature when you hover over a module?

After experiencing trying to help many pilots @ once. You know! Improving in terms of pvp to no avail. Mainly because of a sample of 200 pilots. Only 1 - 3% of them is worth the effort and will grow into really good pilots.

So, I just went back to my rule of 2 policy; 1 master and 1 apprentice. Although, now it's 1 master and 2 apprentice...

The changes to projectiles was for those who wanted better fleet ships. The changes to blasters was for those who wanted to be able to use hybrids in fleet more effectively. Before the changes it was too difficult and now it's easier.

All I want is star trek like transporters so I don't have to warp from gate to gate or travel threw all these ******** number of systems. I'm tired of clicking 'warp to' (very serious about this).


- end of transmission

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#48 - 2012-08-17 13:43:51 UTC
I fly small gang/solo in whs and lowsec and there blasters rule, and I don't really have any details in mind that would need adjusting now.

Null/Void/CNAM switching in 5 seconds made a huge difference, as well as the T2 ammo and hull speed buffs.




.
Zaraz Zaraz
Zontik Paraphernalia Inc
#49 - 2012-08-18 05:11:35 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Eternal Error wrote:
Kale Eledar wrote:

Also, thoughts on the Astarte, anyone?

The astarte is hilariously bad when you consider how much it costs.

Off the top of my head:
Shield buffer brutix ~50k EHP, ~800 dps
Armor buffer astarte ~80k EHP, ~900 dps (better falloff, but you have a web and are slower)
You can do an active astarte, it's something like 500 dps tank, 45k ehp, 800 dps

Unless you're friendless, have total disregard for ISK, or can't afford a proteus, I really don't see a reason to fly one.


Shield Myrmidon is 1000 DPS now that the drone damage mods have come out.

-Liang


WOW! Finally this BC doing more dps than a CRUISER!!! (previously Vexor > Myrm in dps (tho not in tank))
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#50 - 2012-08-18 06:15:07 UTC
Zaraz Zaraz wrote:
WOW! Finally this BC doing more dps than a CRUISER!!! (previously Vexor > Myrm in dps (tho not in tank))


Vexor: 4 * 1.25 = 5 effective turrets, 75m^3 bandwidth
Myrmidon: 6 * 1.0 = 6 effective turrets, 75m^3 bandwidth

The Vexor was never ahead of the Myrm in DPS when they were both fit out similarly.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#51 - 2012-08-18 06:51:58 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Zaraz Zaraz wrote:
WOW! Finally this BC doing more dps than a CRUISER!!! (previously Vexor > Myrm in dps (tho not in tank))


Vexor: 4 * 1.25 = 5 effective turrets, 75m^3 bandwidth
Myrmidon: 6 * 1.0 = 6 effective turrets, 75m^3 bandwidth

The Vexor was never ahead of the Myrm in DPS when they were both fit out similarly.

-Liang


The myrmidon is only a single turret better than the Vexor in terms of DPS.

Other BC are 2 turrets/launchers better than their cruiser counterparts.

"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."

 Kahlil Gibran
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#52 - 2012-08-18 07:55:27 UTC
Vilnius Zar wrote:
Blaster boats do ok in solo and small gang pvp, they're fairly useless in fleets.


Oh you are so wrongTwisted
Dorian Tormak
RBON United
#53 - 2012-08-18 13:23:29 UTC
Am I the only one that thinks blaster PvP is pretty much dead now, at least at the frigate level? The only reason to use blasters any more is if you're going for a ridiculous dual-rep or ASB tank and thus do not have the web to pull off the ability to use rails. Really, I mean, the blaster Daredevil, blaster Comet, even blaster Ishkur do not really work any more in low-sec. Blaster Incursus works good for it's size because of it's insane tanking ability and cheap price, and same goes for the Merlin, but I don't see any reason to use blasters when I could be using rails and not committing to the fight.

Think about it like this - the Rail Daredevil can do massive damage at around 15km while fielding a good tank and being basically un-catchable (at least 1v1) , so the rail version is still great, whereas the blaster Daredevil is kinda useless these days as most ships out there now just have too much tank and/or damage for it to keep up with.

I think they've ruined or are ruining blaster PvP, the only blaster Devil fit I like is one that uses Null and fights at the end of scram range using it's falloff bonus. They've turned blasters into AC rather than making blaster PvP more viable at it's intended ranges. Liang's posts are a testament to this, talking about the Null kiting Gallente ships and how she would like to get more range on ships like the Deimos. How about just make them work best in actual blaster range?

I just don't see any reason to choose blasters over rails at the frigate level. Actually I'm trying to remember if it was like this before all the recent changes, back in the good ol' "BUFF GALLLENTE" days, or whether it's just now that blasters are starting to suck.

I apologize if I am incoherent or anything else like that.

Holy Satanic Christ! This is a Goddamn Signature!
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-08-18 15:04:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Muad 'dib
i think compared to autos blasters need even more dps.

More smaller than larger but a buff, its pretty insane that autos (the best rival weapon) gets insane falloff and tracking it doesnt often use, blasters are left a little out in the cold.

EDIT: sorry i mean the autos performance compared to blasters is easy (autos have: low fitting, no cap use, great falloff, good dps, selectable damage type)

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#55 - 2012-08-18 16:42:32 UTC
Dorian Tormak wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks blaster PvP is pretty much dead now, at least at the frigate level? The only reason to use blasters any more is if you're going for a ridiculous dual-rep or ASB tank and thus do not have the web to pull off the ability to use rails. Really, I mean, the blaster Daredevil, blaster Comet, even blaster Ishkur do not really work any more in low-sec. Blaster Incursus works good for it's size because of it's insane tanking ability and cheap price, and same goes for the Merlin, but I don't see any reason to use blasters when I could be using rails and not committing to the fight.

Think about it like this - the Rail Daredevil can do massive damage at around 15km while fielding a good tank and being basically un-catchable (at least 1v1) , so the rail version is still great, whereas the blaster Daredevil is kinda useless these days as most ships out there now just have too much tank and/or damage for it to keep up with.

I think they've ruined or are ruining blaster PvP, the only blaster Devil fit I like is one that uses Null and fights at the end of scram range using it's falloff bonus. They've turned blasters into AC rather than making blaster PvP more viable at it's intended ranges. Liang's posts are a testament to this, talking about the Null kiting Gallente ships and how she would like to get more range on ships like the Deimos. How about just make them work best in actual blaster range?

I just don't see any reason to choose blasters over rails at the frigate level. Actually I'm trying to remember if it was like this before all the recent changes, back in the good ol' "BUFF GALLLENTE" days, or whether it's just now that blasters are starting to suck.

I apologize if I am incoherent or anything else like that.


I've gotten quite a few wins off of the following fits:

Enyo

and

Harpy

I've since downgraded the Harpy fit to an EM rig rather then a field extender and a normal MSE II. The Harpy in particular is nice - 9.6km optimal with Null. But frigate blaster combat is very alive and well.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#56 - 2012-08-18 17:34:23 UTC
Dorian Tormak wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks blaster PvP is pretty much dead now, at least at the frigate level? The only reason to use blasters any more is if you're going for a ridiculous dual-rep or ASB tank and thus do not have the web to pull off the ability to use rails. Really, I mean, the blaster Daredevil, blaster Comet, even blaster Ishkur do not really work any more in low-sec. Blaster Incursus works good for it's size because of it's insane tanking ability and cheap price, and same goes for the Merlin, but I don't see any reason to use blasters when I could be using rails and not committing to the fight.

Think about it like this - the Rail Daredevil can do massive damage at around 15km while fielding a good tank and being basically un-catchable (at least 1v1) , so the rail version is still great, whereas the blaster Daredevil is kinda useless these days as most ships out there now just have too much tank and/or damage for it to keep up with.

I think they've ruined or are ruining blaster PvP, the only blaster Devil fit I like is one that uses Null and fights at the end of scram range using it's falloff bonus. They've turned blasters into AC rather than making blaster PvP more viable at it's intended ranges. Liang's posts are a testament to this, talking about the Null kiting Gallente ships and how she would like to get more range on ships like the Deimos. How about just make them work best in actual blaster range?

I just don't see any reason to choose blasters over rails at the frigate level. Actually I'm trying to remember if it was like this before all the recent changes, back in the good ol' "BUFF GALLLENTE" days, or whether it's just now that blasters are starting to suck.

I apologize if I am incoherent or anything else like that.


Actually I can't imagine a time when I'd ever use rails on a Gallente ship, and my desire for "null kiting" is limited strictly to cruisers (Deimos/Vigilant) and BCs (Talos). For frigates and battleships, I prefer tank and gank smash style PVP - and you really don't have to look any further than my PVP videos to see this.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2012-08-18 18:16:41 UTC
Im just getting in to firgate pvp after having skipped it for so long, but as Dorian said - there are lots of common frigate fits that use rails now. Comets and Daredevils are really good with them. I ran into a rail daredevil fit with a faction web the other day. It ended poorly for me. I frankly don't see how another frigate can defeat it 1 v 1 with any regularity because you have such a tiny margin for error. (of course, it costs ~250M isk). There is also a very good 150mm rail Comet. 150s work well on the new Atron too.

Though a dual TD Hookbill will give all of them a bad day.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#58 - 2012-08-18 18:36:57 UTC
Hrett wrote:
Im just getting in to firgate pvp after having skipped it for so long, but as Dorian said - there are lots of common frigate fits that use rails now. Comets and Daredevils are really good with them. I ran into a rail daredevil fit with a faction web the other day. It ended poorly for me. I frankly don't see how another frigate can defeat it 1 v 1 with any regularity because you have such a tiny margin for error. (of course, it costs ~250M isk). There is also a very good 150mm rail Comet. 150s work well on the new Atron too.

Though a dual TD Hookbill will give all of them a bad day.


It's extremely difficult to kill a Daredevil in any frigate. But that's going to be true regardless and has nothing to do with the strength of rails vs blasters.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2012-08-18 19:40:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Hrett
Liang Nuren wrote:
Hrett wrote:
Im just getting in to firgate pvp after having skipped it for so long, but as Dorian said - there are lots of common frigate fits that use rails now. Comets and Daredevils are really good with them. I ran into a rail daredevil fit with a faction web the other day. It ended poorly for me. I frankly don't see how another frigate can defeat it 1 v 1 with any regularity because you have such a tiny margin for error. (of course, it costs ~250M isk). There is also a very good 150mm rail Comet. 150s work well on the new Atron too.

Though a dual TD Hookbill will give all of them a bad day.


It's extremely difficult to kill a Daredevil in any frigate. But that's going to be true regardless and has nothing to do with the strength of rails vs blasters.

-Liang


Look at his kills with the comet THIS MONTH (and previous months) for my pro corp-mate XG.

Of course, it's possible that rails have nothing to do with it and he is just a bad mofo (in fact that is likely).

EDIT: Fail link is fail. Look at his 'ships and weapons' pages. http://gallente.eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=173441

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-08-18 21:29:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
Muad 'dib wrote:
i think compared to autos blasters need even more dps.

More smaller than larger but a buff, its pretty insane that autos (the best rival weapon) gets insane falloff and tracking it doesnt often use, blasters are left a little out in the cold.

EDIT: sorry i mean the autos performance compared to blasters is easy (autos have: low fitting, no cap use, great falloff, good dps, selectable damage type)

Honestly I feel that blasters are solid, ACs just need a nerf, starting with their ridiculous falloff range.