These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Hybrid weapon and Tech II ammo balancing

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
#961 - 2011-11-06 12:05:54 UTC
Tiger's Spirit wrote:
Dunmur wrote:
Rip Minner wrote:
Now I know alot of people hate this ideal but realy it looks to be the best fix for blasters that dont bring down the nerf hammer on any other race or make gallente boats op.

And that fix is simply to inc the falloff of blasters to match the range of auto's and pulses.

What you get is everyone hiting everyone alse and everyone geting a even shoot.

Auto Cannons will still be capless and be able to pick dmg type.

Blasters will still suck down cap and only do Kin/Therm.

Pulses will still be good becouse there always fighting in there optimal with fast ammo changes for range and there dmg is good and backed up with better def's then blasterboats.

I know it's kind of plain but it works with out braking things.



THIS is starting to sound like the only true solution.



Read back what i wrote before. Need a little range buff for gallentean ships too, not too much but they needed.
CCP changes start was fine but not enough. I think the speed and agility buff was good thinking, but need a littlebit better changes over 5-10m/s speed, but dont need create those gallentean ships to fastest in the game. The little tracking and fitting buff is fine, but i think thats idea need a littlebit change. Need more CPU because less CPU for guns decreasing the Weapon Upgrades CPU bonuses too.
Deimos need more PG.
Need rethinking the almost all gallentean ships. I told, change their bonuses and give to them scram range bonuses/lvl maximum to 20km with the best faction scrambler. (or test what is the best range which is useable but not overpowered)

A mega have 4.5 optimal + 13 falloff with neutrons. Need a little buff 25% to optimal is very short buff, thats changed to optimal to 5.725m,but i think thats acceptable. (null 11km would be change 13.75km)
Dont forget, a 800mm guns optimal is 3km with short range ammo, and 6km with barrage.
This is why i never understand the crying peaoples who tell us, "i dont want projectile from my blaster"

So, the falloff change need shorter range as AC.
Maybe 50% acceptable for falloff too.

Antimatter 13km falloff would be change to 19.5km, and null ammo fallof would be change from 16km to 24km with this changes.
Lower falloff than AC:

Null vs Barrage: 24 vs 32 (falloff) (ships without falloff bonuses)
but longer optimal:
Null vs Barrage 13km vs 6km (optimal)

13+24=37km vs 6+32=38km at optimal+1x falloff

I know at 2x falloff the range is changing significantly but dont forget blaster have better damage and over 1x falloff range the damage decreasing the significantly too.


Let's see with short range ammo.
Longer optimal:
Antimatter vs EMP: 5.725km vs 3km (optimal)
Shorter falloff:
Antimatter vs EMP: 19.5km vs 24km (falloff)

A think this changes with a little better speed changes and with scrambler ranges would be enough to balancing the blaster ships.

Rails: I told before. 10% damage wont be help for rails, at least need +10% ROF too, because they have the worst alpha. So if they have littlebit better DPS than other guns wont be unbalancing the game.

Gallentean Commandships:
CCP created the scramblers after speed nerf, their recon have scrambler range lvl/bonus, but other race have scrambler gang bonus warfare command ships. This is logical ?
I dont think so. Gallentean commandships is unuseable, they have maybe just one useable gang module. Change the matari CS scram bonuses to web+targetpainter bonus and add the scram bonus to the gallentean commandships.
This is just the first step which needed to make useable the gallente command ships.



Well thoughs changes would probly work but There OP.

You do know that "Need rethinking the almost all gallentean ships. I told, change their bonuses and give to them scram range bonuses/lvl maximum to 20km with the best faction scrambler" is hardwireing EW bounses to all blaster ships to make them work.

I mean realy what are we going to do for Caldire then Hardwire Jamming EW bounses to all there Hybird ships as well?

We are here to find ways to fix the weapon system not add EW to all Hybird ships.

Is it a rock point a lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship point a lazer at it and profit. I dont see any problems here.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#962 - 2011-11-06 12:17:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Rip Minner wrote:
Tiger's Spirit wrote:
Dunmur wrote:
Rip Minner wrote:
Now I know alot of people hate this ideal but realy it looks to be the best fix for blasters that dont bring down the nerf hammer on any other race or make gallente boats op.

And that fix is simply to inc the falloff of blasters to match the range of auto's and pulses.

What you get is everyone hiting everyone alse and everyone geting a even shoot.

Auto Cannons will still be capless and be able to pick dmg type.

Blasters will still suck down cap and only do Kin/Therm.

Pulses will still be good becouse there always fighting in there optimal with fast ammo changes for range and there dmg is good and backed up with better def's then blasterboats.

I know it's kind of plain but it works with out braking things.



THIS is starting to sound like the only true solution.



Read back what i wrote before. Need a little range buff for gallentean ships too, not too much but they needed.
CCP changes start was fine but not enough. I think the speed and agility buff was good thinking, but need a littlebit better changes over 5-10m/s speed, but dont need create those gallentean ships to fastest in the game. The little tracking and fitting buff is fine, but i think thats idea need a littlebit change. Need more CPU because less CPU for guns decreasing the Weapon Upgrades CPU bonuses too.
Deimos need more PG.
Need rethinking the almost all gallentean ships. I told, change their bonuses and give to them scram range bonuses/lvl maximum to 20km with the best faction scrambler. (or test what is the best range which is useable but not overpowered)

A mega have 4.5 optimal + 13 falloff with neutrons. Need a little buff 25% to optimal is very short buff, thats changed to optimal to 5.725m,but i think thats acceptable. (null 11km would be change 13.75km)
Dont forget, a 800mm guns optimal is 3km with short range ammo, and 6km with barrage.
This is why i never understand the crying peaoples who tell us, "i dont want projectile from my blaster"

So, the falloff change need shorter range as AC.
Maybe 50% acceptable for falloff too.

Antimatter 13km falloff would be change to 19.5km, and null ammo fallof would be change from 16km to 24km with this changes.
Lower falloff than AC:

Null vs Barrage: 24 vs 32 (falloff) (ships without falloff bonuses)
but longer optimal:
Null vs Barrage 13km vs 6km (optimal)

13+24=37km vs 6+32=38km at optimal+1x falloff

I know at 2x falloff the range is changing significantly but dont forget blaster have better damage and over 1x falloff range the damage decreasing the significantly too.


Let's see with short range ammo.
Longer optimal:
Antimatter vs EMP: 5.725km vs 3km (optimal)
Shorter falloff:
Antimatter vs EMP: 19.5km vs 24km (falloff)

A think this changes with a little better speed changes and with scrambler ranges would be enough to balancing the blaster ships.

Rails: I told before. 10% damage wont be help for rails, at least need +10% ROF too, because they have the worst alpha. So if they have littlebit better DPS than other guns wont be unbalancing the game.

Gallentean Commandships:
CCP created the scramblers after speed nerf, their recon have scrambler range lvl/bonus, but other race have scrambler gang bonus warfare command ships. This is logical ?
I dont think so. Gallentean commandships is unuseable, they have maybe just one useable gang module. Change the matari CS scram bonuses to web+targetpainter bonus and add the scram bonus to the gallentean commandships.
This is just the first step which needed to make useable the gallente command ships.



Well thoughs changes would probly work but There OP.

You do know that "Need rethinking the almost all gallentean ships. I told, change their bonuses and give to them scram range bonuses/lvl maximum to 20km with the best faction scrambler" is hardwireing EW bounses to all blaster ships to make them work.

I mean realy what are we going to do for Caldire then Hardwire Jamming EW bounses to all there Hybird ships as well?

We are here to find ways to fix the weapon system not add EW to all Hybird ships.


And what would be the point of training/flying ships needing Hardwires to "function" when everything else doesn't?
And what is the point of training some ship/ weapons not having the range, the speed or dmg when everything else does?
Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#963 - 2011-11-06 12:24:24 UTC
As Im reading all ideas. More and more I think that ccp do not change anything. Just little tweak up to give something to angry masses.. For me as im looking at this problem there is too much politics in it, coz ccp isnt doing anything Logic with hybrids and talos etc.. Something strange is happening I never saw something like that in any game, that someone so hard dont want to fix it. Its really strange. But problem can be in ccp internal communication or someone (ccp soundwave maybe) dont want to fix gallente for some reasons.

anyway i see only two options: make gallente the fastest Or switch stats between blasters and autocanons (so yes nerf hammer sorta) ew tweeks dont change anything.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#964 - 2011-11-06 12:27:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Grimpak
Rip Minner wrote:
Edit: I would put 4.) Inc blaster dmg. But that only buffs station games and gatecamping and the things blasters are already good for.



4 could be done if:
A) it would be a huge boost (30%+) and
B) they nerfed down range even further, and
C) made gallente ships more mobile.


blasters themselves should have near zero ability to project damage. that should be the ship's work.


also, the things that blasters are "already good for" atm are using a vindicator to run incursions.

station games are really quite "lol" if you think about it, and that's really more an issue of docking/undocking mechanics. fix that well, and station games are gone.


edit: also, frigates should be exempt to these changes. frigate-level blaster ships are already quite good.

[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
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
#965 - 2011-11-06 12:38:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Rip Minner
Grimpak wrote:
Rip Minner wrote:
Edit: I would put 4.) Inc blaster dmg. But that only buffs station games and gatecamping and the things blasters are already good for.



4 could be done if:
A) it would be a huge boost (30%+) and
B) they nerfed down range even further, and
C) made gallente ships more mobile.


blasters themselves should have near zero ability to project damage. that should be the ship's work.


also, the things that blasters are "already good for" atm are using a vindicator to run incursions.

station games are really quite "lol" if you think about it, and that's really more an issue of docking/undocking mechanics. fix that well, and station games are gone.


edit: also, frigates should be exempt to these changes. frigate-level blaster ships are already quite good.



Well if you nerf range to much more you mite at well just load up on smartbombs and cap injectors. That why you cant even be jammed when your in range. Just saying someone had to say it.

O and if made gallente ships more mobile it probly still would not work with even shorter range and fighting web/scrable range already to put dps down. I dont realy see it working.

web/scrable range right around 10km and out with overheating witch happends alot in pvp so realy on a normal day looking at 14km web/scrable range or the guy is new to EVE in that case easy kill in any ship.

Longest ranged blaster Neurtron Blaster Cannon tech 2. Navy Antimatter 4.5 optimal and 13 fall off. When fighting other ships your going to bounce between 12km-16km. Bouncing into and out of web/scrable range.

So lets say are wtfpwn blaster boat do's 1000 dps. At 12km were down about 25% to 750 dps and at 16km your lossing around 40% mybe alittle more or little less so lets just use 40% 600 dps. And yes I know that do's not look so bad but lets rewind before we even got into web/scrable range becouse back then were doing no to verly little dmg and still geting melted by auto's and pulses the hole time and just forget it if your one of thoughs guys that think your going to start out with null and change close up.

How ever if you happen to warp in on top of someone this is your time to shine.

Is it a rock point a lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship point a lazer at it and profit. I dont see any problems here.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#966 - 2011-11-06 12:45:32 UTC
Rip Minner wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Rip Minner wrote:
Edit: I would put 4.) Inc blaster dmg. But that only buffs station games and gatecamping and the things blasters are already good for.



4 could be done if:
A) it would be a huge boost (30%+) and
B) they nerfed down range even further, and
C) made gallente ships more mobile.


blasters themselves should have near zero ability to project damage. that should be the ship's work.


also, the things that blasters are "already good for" atm are using a vindicator to run incursions.

station games are really quite "lol" if you think about it, and that's really more an issue of docking/undocking mechanics. fix that well, and station games are gone.


edit: also, frigates should be exempt to these changes. frigate-level blaster ships are already quite good.



Well if you nerf range to much more you mite at well just load up on smartbombs and cap injectors. That why you cant even be jammed when your in range. Just saying someone had to say it.

O and if made gallente ships more mobile it probly still would not work with even shorter range and fighting web/scrable range already to put dps down. I dont realy see it working.



either that or on the next 5 years people will cry for a blaster nerf instead AC nerf.

in all honesty, in my near 8-years of game I have always seen blaster ships as ships that should do extremely high damage at point blank ranges, which means that they are ships that need to commit to the target to kill it, unlike matari ships that kite them, amarr ships that outtank them or caldari ships that outrange them.


also the range nerf shouldn't be that hard too. L blasters shouldn't be able to even scratch paint at 15km< range, and inside scram range (10km) they should totally pulverize anything.

leave damage projection to the ships.

[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
Dunmur
Tempered Logic
#967 - 2011-11-06 12:47:53 UTC
Rip Minner wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Rip Minner wrote:
Edit: I would put 4.) Inc blaster dmg. But that only buffs station games and gatecamping and the things blasters are already good for.



4 could be done if:
A) it would be a huge boost (30%+) and
B) they nerfed down range even further, and
C) made gallente ships more mobile.


blasters themselves should have near zero ability to project damage. that should be the ship's work.


also, the things that blasters are "already good for" atm are using a vindicator to run incursions.

station games are really quite "lol" if you think about it, and that's really more an issue of docking/undocking mechanics. fix that well, and station games are gone.


edit: also, frigates should be exempt to these changes. frigate-level blaster ships are already quite good.



Well if you nerf range to much more you mite at well just load up on smartbombs and cap injectors. That why you cant even be jammed when your in range. Just saying someone had to say it.

O and if made gallente ships more mobile it probly still would not work with even shorter range and fighting web/scrable range already to put dps down. I dont realy see it working.


Once again any buff to the ship will be all but pointless as it will transfer to other gun types for example a faster brutix with a scram/web bonus would still be better with autocannons.

They need to buff the gun NOT the ship
Phoenix Torp
Almost Absolute
#968 - 2011-11-06 12:51:05 UTC
And the new wave of trolls.
We get problems either about speed or range and there are other people they want range even more nerfed.
Would you be happy if we do:
- Small: optimal 500m
- Medium: optimal 1000m
- Large: optimal 2000m
I think is what all that you, Minmatar players, want.
Hopefully, it's easy to ignore chars...

http://eveboard.com/pilot/Phoenix_Torp
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#969 - 2011-11-06 12:53:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Grimpak
Phoenix Torp wrote:
And the new wave of trolls.
We get problems either about speed or range and there are other people they want range even more nerfed.
Would you be happy if we do:
- Small: optimal 500m
- Medium: optimal 1000m
- Large: optimal 2000m
I think is what all that you, Minmatar players, want.
Hopefully, it's easy to ignore chars...




only if you get to pull out no less than 2 to 4 times the damage than pulses and/or AC's, and they actually have a chance to catch the target.

then you can think about nerfing ranges, or alternatively, boost their optimals to the 4km/6km base range for M/L ranges and nerf their falloff hard.


it's the only thing I can accept as a counterbalance so that people whining about projectiles don't wine about blasters too.

[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
Dunmur
Tempered Logic
#970 - 2011-11-06 12:56:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Dunmur
Grimpak wrote:
Phoenix Torp wrote:
And the new wave of trolls.
We get problems either about speed or range and there are other people they want range even more nerfed.
Would you be happy if we do:
- Small: optimal 500m
- Medium: optimal 1000m
- Large: optimal 2000m
I think is what all that you, Minmatar players, want.
Hopefully, it's easy to ignore chars...




only if you get to pull out no less than 2 to 4 times the damage than pulses and/or AC's.


even then they would only be good in a very limited situation not much of a buff to the usefulness
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#971 - 2011-11-06 13:00:30 UTC
Dunmur wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Phoenix Torp wrote:
And the new wave of trolls.
We get problems either about speed or range and there are other people they want range even more nerfed.
Would you be happy if we do:
- Small: optimal 500m
- Medium: optimal 1000m
- Large: optimal 2000m
I think is what all that you, Minmatar players, want.
Hopefully, it's easy to ignore chars...




only if you get to pull out no less than 2 to 4 times the damage than pulses and/or AC's.


even then they would only be good in a very limited situation



better than now or where increasing range would only make them a ****-poor version of ACs or pulses.

no really, you think blasters do more damage than either of these, when in every situation the pulses and AC's do comparable damage (5-10% less tops) at 3x the range or even more or are mobile enough to apply the damage. increasing the range of blasters would still make AC's better at being blasters and pulses doing nearly the same damage at much more useful ranges.

[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
Dunmur
Tempered Logic
#972 - 2011-11-06 13:06:13 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Dunmur wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Phoenix Torp wrote:
And the new wave of trolls.
We get problems either about speed or range and there are other people they want range even more nerfed.
Would you be happy if we do:
- Small: optimal 500m
- Medium: optimal 1000m
- Large: optimal 2000m
I think is what all that you, Minmatar players, want.
Hopefully, it's easy to ignore chars...




only if you get to pull out no less than 2 to 4 times the damage than pulses and/or AC's.


even then they would only be good in a very limited situation



better than now or where increasing range would only make them a ****-poor version of ACs or pulses.

no really, you think blasters do more damage than either of these, when in every situation the pulses and AC's do comparable damage (5-10% less tops) at 3x the range or even more or are mobile enough to apply the damage. increasing the range of blasters would still make AC's better at being blasters and pulses doing nearly the same damage at much more useful ranges.


with those changes you are limiting there range for more damage which is compounding the issue which is they have no utility. They are good for 1 maybe 2 combat situations and thx to the lack of range cannot adapt to changes in the battle.

Welcome to the main reason nobody uses blasters.
Phoenix Torp
Almost Absolute
#973 - 2011-11-06 13:11:07 UTC
Dunmur wrote:


with those changes you are limiting there range for more damage which is compounding the issue which is they have no utility. They are good for 1 maybe 2 combat situations and thx to the lack of range cannot adapt to changes in the battle.

Welcome to the main reason nobody uses blasters.


Don't feed the troll...
Or at least don't quote it XD

http://eveboard.com/pilot/Phoenix_Torp
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#974 - 2011-11-06 13:25:30 UTC
Phoenix Torp wrote:
Dunmur wrote:


with those changes you are limiting there range for more damage which is compounding the issue which is they have no utility. They are good for 1 maybe 2 combat situations and thx to the lack of range cannot adapt to changes in the battle.

Welcome to the main reason nobody uses blasters.


Don't feed the troll...
Or at least don't quote it XD


sorry to burst your bubble troll, but this is not trolling. go back to the old forums and try to dig up the posts I made about this very issue.


Dunmur wrote:
with those changes you are limiting there range for more damage which is compounding the issue which is they have no utility. They are good for 1 maybe 2 combat situations and thx to the lack of range cannot adapt to changes in the battle.

Welcome to the main reason nobody uses blasters.



I don't mind blasters having **** poor ranges, the need to commit to a target and I don't even mind the trinity being mandatory on them, if they get the ability to to get in that range and rain doom and firestorm on them. that's how blasters were envisioned in the first place, point-blank cataclysmic-level high-damage weapons. constant boosts on the other competing weapons and HP buffs while the blasters remained nearly equal was what killed them in the first place.

adaptability on the battlefield is also a bit overrated too, unless you think on balancing them for solo, which is very silly in the first place.

but hey, if you want to run down that target at 50km while getting damage, that's fine. I'll just retreat after I blow this guy to bits/let my support make him easier to get to.

[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
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#975 - 2011-11-06 13:53:57 UTC
Grim has a very good experience with blasters or gallente ships and should not be trolled for he's ideas that I agree are extreme but can work, the single issue on he's ideas is that somehow matar must be nerfed in some way just like some other ideas.

If you give blasters 50-50 optimal/falloff then they profit from TE's at less extent than pulse or autos but become then something more useful, actual speed boost might be enough but you'll see matar rivers of tears because blasters do more dmg between 0 and 15km, OMG seriously...

If you give blasters the all optimal and 0 falloff for about 15km for larger gun type you still need fast ships = matar rivers of tears

if you keep the ships has they are, you'll save the forums from oceans of tears and childish rage quits but all you'll do is strap duc tape on 2 broken legs, you still can't run, you still can't catch stuff you still can't apply all dmg boosts you can ever give them unless in some specific situations -witch seems to stick to blaster ships like bugs.

You're (CCP) desperately trying to turn a 300ft truck concrete loaded tuned with some duc tape and turn it in to a 500 miles indy car, it's just impossible.
Dunmur
Tempered Logic
#976 - 2011-11-06 14:01:39 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
Grim has a very good experience with blasters or gallente ships and should not be trolled for he's ideas that I agree are extreme but can work, the single issue on he's ideas is that somehow matar must be nerfed in some way just like some other ideas.

If you give blasters 50-50 optimal/falloff then they profit from TE's at less extent than pulse or autos but become then something more useful, actual speed boost might be enough but you'll see matar rivers of tears because blasters do more dmg between 0 and 15km, OMG seriously...

If you give blasters the all optimal and 0 falloff for about 15km for larger gun type you still need fast ships = matar rivers of tears

if you keep the ships has they are, you'll save the forums from oceans of tears and childish rage quits but all you'll do is strap duc tape on 2 broken legs, you still can't run, you still can't catch stuff you still can't apply all dmg boosts you can ever give them unless in some specific situations -witch seems to stick to blaster ships like bugs.

You're (CCP) desperately trying to turn a 300ft truck concrete loaded tuned with some duc tape and turn it in to a 500 miles indy car, it's just impossible.


thats why I say boost range instead of speed or damage. Minmatar stay the fastest but gallente will have some much needed utility.

I think its quite clear the old vision of super short range face melters of doom just doesnt work with the way ccp nerfed speed so gallente need a fundamental change.
Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#977 - 2011-11-06 14:29:30 UTC
Dunmur wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:
Grim has a very good experience with blasters or gallente ships and should not be trolled for he's ideas that I agree are extreme but can work, the single issue on he's ideas is that somehow matar must be nerfed in some way just like some other ideas.

If you give blasters 50-50 optimal/falloff then they profit from TE's at less extent than pulse or autos but become then something more useful, actual speed boost might be enough but you'll see matar rivers of tears because blasters do more dmg between 0 and 15km, OMG seriously...

If you give blasters the all optimal and 0 falloff for about 15km for larger gun type you still need fast ships = matar rivers of tears

if you keep the ships has they are, you'll save the forums from oceans of tears and childish rage quits but all you'll do is strap duc tape on 2 broken legs, you still can't run, you still can't catch stuff you still can't apply all dmg boosts you can ever give them unless in some specific situations -witch seems to stick to blaster ships like bugs.

You're (CCP) desperately trying to turn a 300ft truck concrete loaded tuned with some duc tape and turn it in to a 500 miles indy car, it's just impossible.


thats why I say boost range instead of speed or damage. Minmatar stay the fastest but gallente will have some much needed utility.

I think its quite clear the old vision of super short range face melters of doom just doesnt work with the way ccp nerfed speed so gallente need a fundamental change.


But guys listen !!! CCP Wont do this !!! Imagine faces of mini guys at CCP HQ... Be serious this is not going to happen :( yet another protest is needed Or something like that. Like someone said "if you like this game stop play in it. Coz nothing going to change" sad but true.

We need more info from ccp side, but im afraid that they will stay with recent tweeks that they done and thats all what we can get. We also will see info soon, that ccp "fixed" hybrids and you may now back to game. Im 100% sure of it.
Lekgoa
Free State Project
#978 - 2011-11-06 14:32:02 UTC
I don’t use rails, but here’s my two isk on the blaster issue:

Blasters will never be good for fleets, but they're already pretty good for solo and small gang work, *as long as you have a good warp-in*. The tracking buff will certainly help applying damage at close range, but it doesn’t help with getting into range. Neither do the minor speed and agility buffs; let’s not kid ourselves. A major change in the hulls is necessary. Right now, Minmatar has a huge advantage in both speed and agility, which just doesn’t work.

Option 1: Make Gallente the fastest; Minmatar stays the most agile.
Effect: Gallente as juggernauts with good straight-line speed but low acceleration. Minmatar as sprinters that can outmaneuver other races.

Option 2: Gallente most agile by far, Minmatar fastest.
Effect: Gallente can close range quickly, Minmatar can still outrun them over time.

The obvious problem with Option 1 is that blaster boats would always be able to get into range, and with their superior dps and tank they could just overpower Minmatar ships. Option 2 therefore makes more sense: Gallente has the speed advantage early in the fight and can pull off Crazy Ivans more easily but isn’t always guaranteed to get into range. It makes sense logically too. Turn radius should be determined by speed and structural integrity (i.e. how fast can you turn without ripping your ship in half). Minmatar ships, with high top speeds and hulls held together by duct tape, should not be able to outmaneuver Gallente ships, which have medium speed and the best hulls in the game.

tl;dr: Gallente should be the most agile race by a decent margin.
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#979 - 2011-11-06 14:41:30 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Phoenix Torp wrote:
Dunmur wrote:


with those changes you are limiting there range for more damage which is compounding the issue which is they have no utility. They are good for 1 maybe 2 combat situations and thx to the lack of range cannot adapt to changes in the battle.

Welcome to the main reason nobody uses blasters.


Don't feed the troll...
Or at least don't quote it XD


sorry to burst your bubble troll, but this is not trolling. go back to the old forums and try to dig up the posts I made about this very issue.


Agreed.

But, Hybrids is the child Projectiles never wanted.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#980 - 2011-11-06 14:44:19 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
Grim has a very good experience with blasters or gallente ships and should not be trolled for he's ideas that I agree are extreme but can work, the single issue on he's ideas is that somehow matar must be nerfed in some way just like some other ideas.


only thing I can debate on matar nerfing is the falloff bonuses on the ships that have it.

ok yes, the TE overboost is a discussable issue. In hindsight it was something that should've been worked out while looking at the ships that have a falloff bonus.

TE's wouldn't be as maligned as they are atm if the falloff bonuses from those ships went from 10 to 5, I'm sure of it.

[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