These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Blaster boats still suck - Armor tanking + Blasters fundamentally incompatible

Author
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#1 - 2011-11-05 17:30:15 UTC
i think the topic says it all.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.

Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2011-11-05 17:47:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Hungry Eyes
pretty much. time for some re-evaluation of hybrid ammo, ships, and their bonuses.

honestly, i would be happy if blasters didnt even exist, and if railguns resembled a cross between autocannons and current iteration of rails - high range, high rof, high tracking, low alpha. on top of this, slight drone improvements. and there...a new gallente.

as a few others stated, i dont think CCP has the balls to bring about sweeping changes to hybrids (which are desperately needed). this means re-inventing ships, nerfing autocannons, etc. it's a very complex problem and i hope theyre beginning to realize this occurred only because they allowed the game to regress into derping with dramiels, drakes and canes.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#3 - 2011-11-05 18:36:32 UTC
I agree. Blasters have been hit with a steady stream of nerfs for quite some time, with the final nail being the web one. Now they are trying to applying a band aid to a festering wound and it's just not enough.

It's one of the reason I trained all races. Oh well. Smile

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2011-11-05 18:59:17 UTC
Mag's wrote:
I agree. Blasters have been hit with a steady stream of nerfs for quite some time, with the final nail being the web one. Now they are trying to applying a band aid to a festering wound and it's just not enough.

It's one of the reason I trained all races. Oh well. Smile



i appreciate that you, along with many others, trained all other races. but it's not "oh well"....some of us would like to fly gallente ships in pvp without getting laughed at.
Max Von Sydow
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2011-11-05 19:01:52 UTC
Fly a hulltanked neut myrm.
Jiji Hamin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2011-11-05 19:51:52 UTC
OP did not really articulate WHY blasters are bab and armor active tank needs to be fundamentally readressed. Here is my understanding of the issues, in case anyone (cough CCP Tallest cough) were oblivious to the matter(s) at hand:

First, a note: Eve was a very different game when it was first made, and so blasters and active tank being bad is the byproduct of years of systematic changes that have frowned on them.

1. the change in NOS mechanics meant that utility highs do not lead to the cap necesary for active tanking if you run one and pushed more people to neuts, which make it so people's cap gets ****** harder than they did years ago and when people utilize a neut over a nos they are damaging their own cap. less cap in the modern pvp environment means less viable active tanking.

2. While triple-rep myrmidons and hyperions are viable, people generally prefer their myrms with no guns or at least no blasters, and prefer their hyperions shield tanked. This says something about active armor tanking: it could be good, and some people understand the terror of such ships, but active tanking is like hybrids in general: the game devs treat it like its epic and uber and make it hard to fit, while buffer is easier to fit and often gives you better statistical survivability.
a. Active tanking in general needs a buff to make it worthwhile at all for small fights, and it will still struggle for the reason listed above (#1), it still will not be viable for fleet fights, etc. If we want to maintain ship diversity active tanking needs to be buffed with small-gang PvP as the target audience.
b. Ships with active armor bonuses, namely the Hyperion, need better resists. More resists would make the active tank on the hyperion better and also increase its EHP, giving it more leeway to have its tank overcome in small-scale fighting. Moreover, the hyperion would be better suited to fleet warfare with a buffer fitted, while still failing to out-buffer the abaddon.
c. Buffers inherently give better surviability (in terms of seconds) if you are taking ridiculous DPS and epicly better if receiving reps in all but the smallest fights. I do not think we should fight this. We should make it so active tank ships are uber for small fights, in the interest of maintaining ship diversity. In my humble opinion, we should NOT extend the active rep bonus to incoming reps...
d. ...but should instead buff active tanking with smaller-scale fighting in mind while making the Gallente ship-line in general more viable for big fights. It should be a shipline built ground-up for being a DPS-whoring ******* on lowsec gates and stations, while having enough viability for big fleet fights to not be gimped while also not trying to take turf away from already existing powerful ships. If we attempt to make it too similar to either minmatar or amarr, then game balance will be reduced to simple statements of which are better or worse. If guns and ships are too similar, one will always become strictly inferior or superior. Ships need to we weird and diverse for underdogs to have a place in the game. I think this attitude is most important for addressing active tanking than anything else.
e. it is just downright excessive to make armor reps cycle at the end not the beginning... that's just insult on top of injury.

3. Nano nerf ****** blasters for small gang/solo. The end.

Jiji Hamin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2011-11-05 19:52:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jiji Hamin
4. Because autocannons are falloff heavy and blasters were supposed to be uber dps, the game devs have continued to buff autos as if they were bad and give them epic bonuses on their ships while treating hybrids as fair, or even excessive, when they aren't. Perfect example: projectiles always get a 10% per level to tracking while hybrids get 7.5% per level. The reverse of this should be true.
a. This game mechanic choice has lead to some startling developments. I once heard someone say "you fly amarr ships for the guns and not the ships, you fly minmatar ships for the ships and not the guns" But this is no longer true. Autos have grown to have DPS that comes too close to compensating for their lack of accuracy at of falloff ranges, and the emphasis on falloff and the relatively recent (past few years) changes (buff) to Tracking Enhancer stats vis a vis falloff has given auto pilots so much incentive to utilize TEs that auto tracking, after the TEs are fit, is generally good enough to fight like blasters.
b. treating autos like they are worse than other guns because they are almost all falloff has meant that their fittings are considerably easier to manage than other guns, while hybrids had no such fair treatment, and the changes currently on sisi are only a small step towards addressing this. The weapon balance issues articulated above on top of the disparity in fitting/cap use makes it so that autocannons are universally superior to blasters in absolutely all ways. The "edge" on blaster DPS is a joke currently, and reducing fittings/cap and buffing tracking for blasters is a band-aid for a bullet wound.

5. Railguns fail to give hybrids an alternative for longer-range fighting. Blasters being mediocre and/or only for the smallest fights would be OKAY if rails didn't suck for "normal," larger PvP engagements. The changes currently on sisi do not currently position rails to be that epic, and although they currently look to be far more viable for sniping, using them for mid-range combat seems to be a pipedream.

6. Certain gallentean ships have weak base stats as if their blasters or their drones were OP, when ships form other racial lines have similar or better drones, utilize a better weapon system, and have better base stats (resists or mobility or whatever) to boot. The most atrocious example of this is the megathron, whose CPU and cap issues are just beginning to get addressed by the hybrid changes, while other things, like the 125m3 dronebay, has been balanced in the context of that ship like it is too uber, while other BSes are for most roles strictly better. The Typhoon, for example, has a 150m3 dronebay and is lower tier, but does not suffer in its stats as a counterbalance for it...

7. Active armor tanking does not jive all that well with blasters; all of the above problems afflict these ships currently, and going to the lengths necessary to full take advantage of that bonus and to get a freakish active armor tank (triple rep) up (which is only useful in the smallest fights) leaves you with no weapon upgrades, further punishing blasters. Just to add insult to injury, armor rigs slow you down, making it even more impossible to control range and thus stay unkited while solo or contribute your DPS against primary while with a gang. While this is all true for blasters when you use them as uber-DPS guns, there are still, despite this, currently effective uber-rep hyperions and the like out there. While we should seriously reconsider these ships, and it is true that in their current iteration their tank has a niche use and their lack of damage mods is painful, we should also be careful about claiming that active armor and blasters are fundamentally incommensurable, because the idea of that combo, effectively implemented, is a glorious thing to consider, and there is currently a small cult of players who make great use of these ships.

8. And finally I just realized I should take note of the single most obvious one that should have been listed first, although only an idiot would miss it: since eve launched almost a decade ago, fights are commonly much bigger than ever originally anticipated. This has not smiled on either blasters with their short range OR active tanks, which give you less seconds of life when receiving very heavy damage while also making you a worse candidate for receiving RR than if you had buffered, all while being harder to fit.

p.s. just to be clear, the myrmidon is epic, and while i wouldn't argue with a buff, i'm also not asking for one outside of active-tank-wide rebalance. also, if this ship gets wholly revamped in the way that much of the rest of the gallente lineup needs, i will not be alone as someone who is pissed.
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2011-11-05 19:57:58 UTC
Sadly this is true. However much I may use blasters, I limit them to three ships: Proteus, Vindicator, and Moros.

Off topic: Rail fix is easy, simply change warpable distance to 250 or 300 km. Problem solved.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2011-11-05 21:59:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Yeah, I don't think the changes really go far enough either. I'm comparing the Talos to the Tornado, Oracle, and even the Naga right now, and basically all three non-Gallente ships are superior for PvP.

Just comparing shield / nano / cloaserange gun setups, the Talos does ~100 more dps than the Tornado, but at 5+15km as opposed to 4+45km. The Talos lacks the mid slots to fit any kind of tank / tackle, and is p much forced to engage inside scram/web range, which is a massive disadvantage in PvP. By contrast, the Tornado does similar DPS, is faster, is extremely flexible with regard to engagement range, still tracks well enough to hit smallish things, has the slots to fit an actual tank, and gets to engage from the edge of point range (or outside it if things look edgy).

If you're going to insist on denying the Gallente boats range bonuses (seriously, pulse laser boats get optimal, AC boats get falloff, and blaster boats get the shortest ranges and no bonsus? Really?) then you need to make them absolute killdozers instead. Either make blasters do obscene amounts of damage (rather than "marginally more on paper but less dps at any range over 7km in actuality" as they do currently) or give Gallente ships large amounts of slots (since they need to devote at least two slots to tackling, unlike ships that can function at longer ranges), give them web bonuses (range, strength, or both), or give them immunity to MWD-impairing effects or something to give them some way to disengage from fights.

As it is, by flying a Gallente ship you gain ~15% more dps but trade that for ~95% worse survivability. You have to charge right into web/scram range of your target in a ship with no tank. This assumes a shield / nano fitting, since if you do fit an armor tank you'll never get into blaster range in the first place.

Either all blaster boats need a falloff bonus, or you should at least modify the range stats on blasters so that the range of the lightest weapons is equivalent to the current range of the heaviest weapons (so electron blasters have current neutron range, etc) and increase the ranges of the larger weapons proportionally-- currently only the largest-sized blasters in each class come anywhere close to having useful engagement ranges.

tl;dr: CCP need to look at how fights actually go down and reassess what they need to give players to incentivize charging into fights at zero. It's just so ******* dangerous that to make it worth doing you'd need a huge set of advantages over most other ships, not marginally increased dps output.
Jiji Hamin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2011-11-05 22:07:28 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Yeah, I don't think the changes really go far enough either. I'm comparing the Talos to the Tornado, Oracle, and even the Naga right now, and basically all three non-Gallente ships are superior for PvP.

Just comparing shield / nano / cloaserange gun setups, the Talos does ~100 more dps than the Tornado, but at 5+15km as opposed to 4+45km. The Talos lacks the mid slots to fit any kind of tank / tackle, and is p much forced to engage inside scram/web range, which is a massive disadvantage in PvP. By contrast, the Tornado does similar DPS, is faster, is extremely flexible with regard to engagement range, still tracks well enough to hit smallish things, has the slots to fit an actual tank, and gets to engage from the edge of point range (or outside it if things look edgy).

If you're going to insist on denying the Gallente boats range bonuses (seriously, pulse laser boats get optimal, AC boats get falloff, and blaster boats get the shortest ranges and no bonsus? Really?) then you need to make them absolute killdozers instead. Either make blasters do obscene amounts of damage (rather than "marginally more on paper but less dps at any range over 7km in actuality" as they do currently) or give Gallente ships large amounts of slots (since they need to devote at least two slots to tackling, unlike ships that can function at longer ranges), give them web bonuses (range, strength, or both), or give them immunity to MWD-impairing effects or something to give them some way to disengage from fights.

As it is, by flying a Gallente ship you gain ~15% more dps but trade that for ~95% worse survivability. You have to charge right into web/scram range of your target in a ship with no tank. This assumes a shield / nano fitting, since if you do fit an armor tank you'll never get into blaster range in the first place.

Either all blaster boats need a falloff bonus, or you should at least modify the range stats on blasters so that the range of the lightest weapons is equivalent to the current range of the heaviest weapons (so electron blasters have current neutron range, etc) and increase the ranges of the larger weapons proportionally-- currently only the largest-sized blasters in each class come anywhere close to having useful engagement ranges.

tl;dr: CCP need to look at how fights actually go down and reassess what they need to give players to incentivize charging into fights at zero. It's just so ******* dangerous that to make it worth doing you'd need a huge set of advantages over most other ships, not marginally increased dps output.



I like ship diversity, so i like the dps idea. sadly, right now, you need vigilant/vindicator damage bonuses plus bonused webs to be effective. I think all blasters should be made scarier, and those two ships should have smaller bonuses, rather than being virtually the only effective medium and large blasters ships. (that's an overstatement, I know, but you get the point)
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2011-11-05 22:35:46 UTC
Jiji Hamin wrote:


I like ship diversity, so i like the dps idea. sadly, right now, you need vigilant/vindicator damage bonuses plus bonused webs to be effective. I think all blasters should be made scarier, and those two ships should have smaller bonuses, rather than being virtually the only effective medium and large blasters ships. (that's an overstatement, I know, but you get the point)


Well I mean even the Vigilant / Vindicator are barely useable, even with their fun bonuses. I have a Vigilant but I spend most of my time flying my Loki-- they're both fast ships with decent dps and good tracking, and they both have a web bonus. The Vigilant has the strength bonus and the Loki has a range bonus. The Loki is actually useful for kiting, since you can burn away from a group of hostiles and engage tacklers that follow you at 20+ km. The Vigilant is actually better for killing tacklers, but because it has to wait for them to get within ~12-18km to do so it is an extremely dangerous ship to fly. You're constantly having to let ships get within scram / web range of you. If you're in the Loki and a hostile inty gets a point on you at ~20km and his 5 friends in battlecruisers all warp to him at zero as he does, it's not a problem-- you just continue burning away until the tackler is dead, then warp out. If you're in the Vigilant and a tackler gets a scram / web on you and their buddies warp to them at zero, they also land within web and scram range. Suddenly instead of having 5 points on you (and just burning out of their range) you have 5 scrams / webs on you and your ship is dead. Blasters = suicide range.
Cailais
The Red Pill Taker Group
Exxitium
#12 - 2011-11-05 23:03:45 UTC
There are some decent points made above - specifically with respect to how fleet fights tend to favour range set ups, passive or buffer tanking and the changes to nos set ups back in the day.

Something i havej not seen suggested ( beyond applying new bonuses to gallente ships ) is applying new bonuses to the ammunition itself..

For example has any consideration been given to hybrid ammo slowing a target as it applies damage? Or inflicting damage to a targets capacitor pool? There are alternatives to just adding more dps/range.

C.
Zagdul
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2011-11-05 23:22:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
The reason Gallente / Blasters suck is that Minmatar are so good.

Caldari and Amarr have their place with both races having good weapon platforms that have purpose.

The inherit problem with Blasters/Hybrids is that they don't really serve a purpose in EVE. There's no bonus to using them. Give hybrids a purpose, like... having small ships fear them or maybe the ammo itself, since it's stuck to kin/therm (hands down the easiest to tank across all races) has some kind of effect to enemy ships. For example, add a magnetic effect to them that maybe some ammo has a chance when hitting the target to drain cap, or slow the ship down or increase sig radius of the target... buff the tracking... something.

Give it purpose.

With the current changes, it does 'help' hybrids, however gallente's niche are their drones. Drones as they stand are absolutely horrible. So either Gallente need a drone buff or they need something to fix damn hybrids so that they are used again.

Minmatar = They get speed + web bonus (on recons) + best weapon in the game that doesn't use cap... list goes on.
Amarr = Tank like a boss, decent weapon system that doesn't have a load time.
Caldari = Great tank, slower boat shield tanked ship w/missiles which don't use cap.
Gallente = Drones, drones move slower than missiles, are easily destroyed and are too easily countered. The weapon platform is just atrocious and I find on most Gallente ships that are drone boats (Myrm) I'm fitting projectiles as they're just superior.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Mag's
Azn Empire
#14 - 2011-11-06 01:08:53 UTC
Hungry Eyes wrote:
Mag's wrote:
I agree. Blasters have been hit with a steady stream of nerfs for quite some time, with the final nail being the web one. Now they are trying to applying a band aid to a festering wound and it's just not enough.

It's one of the reason I trained all races. Oh well. Smile



i appreciate that you, along with many others, trained all other races. but it's not "oh well"....some of us would like to fly gallente ships in pvp without getting laughed at.
Mate I do understand and would love to fly blaster ships too. But this has been an issue for years and I just don't have any faith in CCP.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

tika te
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2011-11-06 01:27:17 UTC  |  Edited by: tika te
i allready postet this somwhere in the general discussions forum, but it belongs here...

just tested for few hours on sisi..

tl.dr.

-rails are ok; not supermegarockin' but ok.
-blasters are still broken. easier to fit now but the problems with range and rather bad tracking are still there.
tested with deimos, astarte, hyperion, talos...they're all too sloooooow for that weapon class.
fitting plates makes them agile like cotton woll. fitting armor rigs really hurts your allready crappy topspeed.
using active tank (with hybrids needing less pg and cap u can actually fit active tank now) works to a degree in 1on1 engagements; in small-scale fights you're lost with active tanking most of the time. (using active tank makes cap injectors must-have mods)
i'd say passive tanking bonuses are way better in 80% of cases

i also think the concept of blasters needs a major overhaul. fixing a stat here and there wont really fix the problem.

the base line ist simple: gallente warfare needs more competitive hulls and weapon systems. not superrior to other races, but in such a way that you actually consider flying gallente ships in all situations that eve gameplay has to offer; while gallente are quite ok for pve, and to some degree can be used in those 3-4 ships engagements, atm they completely miss the point in fleet and medsize warfare...

active tanking bonuses + short range blasters + (evtl.) drones as main weaponsystem --> the things you try to avoid on fleet setups i.e.

actually the talos is crapy as balsterboat, but since now it has same bonuses as the megathron, it can be used as more agile and price-efficent "pocket-megathron" aka. railboat...ofc. as a glasscanon version of mega..

offtopic:
-the new nebulae will definetely bring some gfx-glamour to tq..
-the new lightning modes is bit too dark in low/nullsec in my opinion..i could hardly see the texture on my deimos hull..
(-dreads, especialy moros/revelation can pretty much hurt subcaps. mwd'ing around in sth bigger than cruiser can make you perfect target/victim to their turrets. they'll prertty much one-shot you...it ... somehow... doesn't... feel right...)
Emily Poast
The Whipping Post
#16 - 2011-11-06 01:46:40 UTC
Im no expert, but the more people write about this, I think ultimately the simple fixes are the best. Other fixes, which might be better, are just going to be too complicated for CCP to implement. So, a summary of the simple ideas that will help are:

1. Increase blaster damage and tracking to obscene levels. + 50% at least.
2. Increase speed on all Gallente boats. They have to be the fastest (or close to) if they have the shortest range.

It doesnt fix our tanking or drone issues, but it makes our ships feared again, at least in their limited roles. No one will want to get close and if they do, they will be sure to pay. Its something at least.

Giving gallente a FAST specialized web drone that is actually useful may be helpful too. If we have good blaster damage, we can spare drones for projecting a web...
Jiji Hamin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-11-06 03:11:04 UTC
Emily Poast wrote:
Im no expert, but the more people write about this, I think ultimately the simple fixes are the best. Other fixes, which might be better, are just going to be too complicated for CCP to implement. So, a summary of the simple ideas that will help are:

1. Increase blaster damage and tracking to obscene levels. + 50% at least.
2. Increase speed on all Gallente boats. They have to be the fastest (or close to) if they have the shortest range.

It doesnt fix our tanking or drone issues, but it makes our ships feared again, at least in their limited roles. No one will want to get close and if they do, they will be sure to pay. Its something at least.

Giving gallente a FAST specialized web drone that is actually useful may be helpful too. If we have good blaster damage, we can spare drones for projecting a web...



also, imho, do a switcheroo in regards to bonuses. projectiles bonuses are less awesome, hybrids are more. like i said in my massive wall o text, a perfect example is that minnie ships all get 10% per level to tracking when they get a tracking bonus while hybrid ships all get 7.5% per level when they get a tracking bonus. It should honestly be the other way around.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2011-11-06 03:15:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Zagdul wrote:
The reason Gallente / Blasters suck is that Minmatar are so good.

Minmatar = They get speed + web bonus (on recons) + best weapon in the game that doesn't use cap... list goes on.
Amarr = Tank like a boss, decent weapon system that doesn't have a load time.
Caldari = Great tank, slower boat shield tanked ship w/missiles which don't use cap.
Gallente = Drones, drones move slower than missiles, are easily destroyed and are too easily countered. The weapon platform is just atrocious and I find on most Gallente ships that are drone boats (Myrm) I'm fitting projectiles as they're just superior.



Personally I think the Gallente should be reworked into closerange combat monsters-- their ships' gimmicks should get bonuses to afterburners (let them do MWD-speeds with ABs so they're effectively scram-immune), scram range (already a thing with their recons), and web strength. Make them fall somewhere between Minmatar and the other races in terms of absolute speed, but with great agility and let them do it with ABs to they can go into fights at close range while maintaining some degree of GTFO factor.

Also, increase blaster dps so that it scales in proportion to the amount of range they give up. Currently Caldari have long range, capless weapons, but they don't do too much dps and they take time to hit a target, Amarr have long range weapons that sacrifice some DPS and cap use for great range, good tracking, instant-hit and fast reloads. Minmatar have mid-ranged weapons that have ****** reload times and pretty high dps, excellent tracking, damage selection, good effective range, and don't use cap. Gallente are stuck with cap-sucking weapons (less so now, I know) that track a lot like autocannons but do about the same dps with massively gimped range and with limited damage types and terrible reload times.

Caldari: ranged, medium dps, flexible damage / target applications (equivalent of tracking)
Amarr: long-ranged, medium dps, fixed damage types, good tracking
Minmatar: medium-ranged, high dps, flexible damage types, excellent tracking
Gallente: ultra-short ranged, marginally higher dps than ACs, similar tracking

I do mostly small gang work, so here's an example of ship selections I actually choose between on a daily basis that I think exhibits the problem pretty clearly (numbers are approximate and based on my eveguy with LG snakes and shieldtanked, nano fittings [since armor fits are more or less suicidal]):

- Cynabal: 20-30km optimal engagement range, ~350 dps in that range band, 3.1+ km/s, super agile, will track frigates and larger, fits a nice tank (all around fantastic skirmish ship), fights outside scram range
- Navy Omen: 20-30km optimal engagement range (scorch), ~450 dps, 2.4km/s, fairly agile, tracks frigates and larger, fights outside scram range
- Machariel: 20-45km optimal engagement range, ~600-800 dps in that band, 2.4km/s, cruiser-level agility, tracks cruisers and larger (will kill frigates outside ~30km as well), fights outside scram range
Pulse apoc: 30-90km optimal engagement range, ~450 dps, slow, fairly fat, tracks cruisers and larger and doesn't need speed / agility since it can snipe, fights out of tackle range period

...and then we have blaster boats:

- Vigilant: 5-10km optimal engagement range, ~300-600 dps in that band, 2.6km/s, super agile, will track frigates and larger, extremely low EHP (~18k total-- 4k ehp less than a Vaga, ~10k less than a Cynabal), fights in scram range
Vindicator: 5-15km optimal engagement range, ~550-900 dps in that band, ~2km/s BC/nano-BS like agility, tracks cruisers and larger, fights in scram range

I'm not even gonna talk about other blaster boats since the Vindicator and Vigilant are pretty much better than them in every way. As you can see, in terms of usefulness, there is literally no reason other than novelty value that one would ever choose to fly a blaster boat. With the exception of absurdly well-fit active tanked gimmick ships (the deasdspace-fit, dual-rep injected vindicator, deadspace-fit 100mn AB strat-cruiser fits, etc) slow, armor tanked setups are near-suicidal due to their lack of speed / inability to disengage from fights. Only shield / nano fittings give blasterboats the speed and agility they need to get *into* an engagement properly (though not the ability to get out if it goes south), and to achieve these levels of speed and agility they must sacrifice nearly all their tank or their ability to tackle (sometimes both-- look at the Deimos). Then there's the fact that all these blaster setups need to engage inside scram range, which means that in all but the most controlled situations (say, a small gang with ECM support engaging a lone hostile ship) you're pretty likely to get tackled and die horribly.

In contrast, look at Minmatar ships. Minmatar ships trade a little bit of dps (10-15%) in exchange for greater speed, greater agility, bigger tanks, slot layouts that favor usable setups, capless weapons, what equates to "the same or better" tracking when you consider the different optimal ranges of autocannons, and, most importantly, the ability to do full damage from outside scram and web range (or in the case of the Mach, outside tackle range of any non-recon ship). The comparison between the Mach and the Vindicator is particularly instructive-- when you look at the fits I usually fly (which involve using one highslot for a utility module), the Vindicator actually does *less* dps than the Mach (with 8 guns it only does a hair more-- ~1050 dps as opposed to the Mach's 900-something), has drastically shorter range (it can't do much dps past ~20km), has to fight in scram range, fits a smaller tank, has worse scan res, and is about half as fast / agile. The slightly increased damage output is simply not worth the massive risk increase of having to fight in scram range in a slow, fat ship.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2011-11-06 03:28:21 UTC
tl;dr: Make all Gallente / blasterboats the second-fastest ships in the game, and the most agile. Give them bonuses to AB speed that allow them to do MWD-speeds using afterburners, thus rendering them scram-immune and suitable for closerange engagements. Either further-increase the tracking of blasters or give them web-strength or scram-range bonuses that allow them to shut down the speed of hostile ships more effectively and stay on top of them during fights. Adjust slot layouts so that shield-tanked, speed-based fits are possible without totally gimping tank / tackle.

Doing this would provide significant enough advantages / capabilities that going into scram range to fight would be a) possible, and b) less than suicidal. It would actually make Gallente extremely fun to fly.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2011-11-06 10:17:43 UTC
remember mimatar ships do half the dps when in falloff range.

I'm not saying blasters don't need more damage, but it needs t be balanced with range and speed mechanics.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

123Next page