Ships & Modules

Lol man you are so funny. I actually dress like that.

Well, if you need 10 to 1 odds in your favor to get a killmail... yeah, then you suck.
And bragging how you burned 30km to strike at a target that was webbed, scrammed, jammed, painted and generally already half dead strikes me as pretty pathetic.
The weirdest thing about these kills is actually that you did show up in the killmail. Your fleetmates were nice enough to hold back so you would make it on the killmail instead of finishing him quickly and get done with it, weren´t they?

I missed the qualifier "large" when I wrote that. Medium arties are reasonably well-balanced. Small arties might also be all right, but I don't fly frigs much. It's when you compare Scorch L with 1400mm that the advantages of long-range disappear under the weight of facefuck DPS.

I believe the appropriate response here is something to the effect of "OMG DRAEK AND TANGU STFU!!














AND THE FALCON, ALMOST FORGOT THE FALCON. FFS NERF"

Ahh, FFS, balance is fine.

Perhaps the aeon or nyx need a buff, just to kick those minnie pilots in the balls once more... sheesh.

I have looked, I have argued with you. You feel that all the turrets should be balanced - no withstanding this fantasy - the weapon systems need to be balanced with the ships that use them. Caldari top speed and agility was massively nurfed once because CCP was afraid that they would be too good at kiting. They added some refinements to missiles - but it was clear then as it is now that its not necessarily the weapon system - its on which ships those are used. Your position has been that projectiles are balanced with pulse and that hybrids are suffering. But you seem to miss the point that even with a massive damage boost - say 10% - people will still use ACs because along with their 'balanced' state - they just have better ships that are designed to avoid damage.

All I am arguing is that if projectiles are going to be balanced to pulse and hybrids - then the ships too need to be re-balanced accordingly. This point seems to elude you.



What does my being in PIE have anything to do with this. . .seriously. . .I did not think you were one to troll. Basing any argument on this is a logical error and is quite weak. I can argue my points because I have experienced many things outside of PIE - if i were just in PIE, I would have no basis to speak from. The inverse is true. If Ruah bothers you, I am sure I can post with other characters you may or may not recognize. . .I am sure they will not sound as RP as this or any of my other posts sound.

More to the point, 20km is disruptor range. Its 12km for the mega to cross the distance to a geddon that cannot kite it. Before it begins to out damage the Geddon. Once there, its a race. The damage the Geddon has 'gained' at range, vs. the pain that the mega will inflict once at range. Sure, its hypothetical - but then again - you bring a mega, your are not going to have damage projection. . .that is not a matter of balance, thats just bringing a knife to a gunfight. The key here is that once at close range, the geddon will not be able to track the mega as well either - and often is not sporting things like a web. Its actually a close fight - if the mega commits. But that is always been the Gallente motto - MWD is a one way ticket.



No, you are mis-representing my argument. My argument is that the weapon systems should be balanced with the ships in mind. you have a slow moving, heavily tanked ship with no utility - then give them the damage projection and dps to compete (and even then, give them major drawbacks) You have a very fast, high utility ship and you give them a similar weapon system (with few drawbacks) - then you have an unbalanced situation. What I have argued is that while Gallente frigates will be used more (because they are close range for all the races anyway) in the cruiser and up category - they still remain crappy NOT ONLY because of the weapon system, but because Mini ships were designed very well to overcome their inherent weakness' - which were super low dps in falloff (the TE buff is a dps buff for this reason) and mediocre dps at close range. The trick for a mini ship to beat an Amarr one is to get under its guns, the trick against the Gallente is to stay right at the falloff sweet-spot (which used to be very very tight), and against missiles was to use the low sig to get close. And all the while - the mini ship gets to choose whether to fight or not. Right now, it has all the advantages the ship gives, while doing basically everything the other races do 'almost' as well. What I have argued is that Mini ships do everything a Gallente ship wants to do, better. It trades a little damage for a lot of range and a lot of utility, speed, tracking, and options. Amarr ships have always remained a one-trick-poney. And that is why I laugh when people go from talking about hybrids to matching it with pulse, when it is projectiles that made hybrids redundant.

It is not that am I saying that Mini should be crap. . .I am saying they are too good. Little things like tracking and cap use and damage selection are meaningful in real combat that are just not really that apparent in theory-craft. And that all the Gallente buffs are going to compete directly with mini - agility buff, tracking buff, damage type (possible), base damage. . .these are all things to counter mini/projectiles. Not one gallente is complaining about damage projection - except when considering projectile damage projection with all that tracking.

Have I cleared up what I was arguing?

You should get out there and experience it a bit in FW or whatever - most Gallente pilots will tell you how nice it is as mini since the proj. buff.

The premis blaster turrets are broken is inaccurate (r3tard3d). Blaster turrets apply damage to cruisers, battle-cruisers and battleships @ optimal (+ tracking). For example; if a cruiser is not using a afterburner (which would make tracking difficult).

To apply damage. A ship using blasters must immobilized a target to be able to apply damage. Mainly because of limited projected damage. Low optimal and falloff require a target to be almost stationary and in optimal or any slight movement will see a significant drop in overall damage. Assuming blaster turret is able to track most targets (medium blaster do). Increased tracking cannot help blasters do more damage, when a ship is out of range (more falloff and or optimal does that).

Assuming a Brutix (for example) is not in a vacuum with a single target. A pilot (for the most part) will be engaging more than one opponent (suicide). With that in mind. Most ships optimal for that situation. Skirmish! Mobility, projected and applied damage @ range, without committing to a conventional engagement. Where ships project damage and mitigate incoming damage (logistics). Even if a blaster-Brutix (for example) had a substantial increase in damage. Sh!t Current dynamics would remain the same. Maybe not solo, but a fleet of Artillery-Hurricane will still be superior to a feet of 2000 damage per second Brutix.

CCP and most pilots should be able to mirror alot of the issues with regard to Gallente, with Minmatar and Caldari ships. For instance! A Hurricane, fitted with a armour plate and no tracking enhancers. Is far less viable compared to a heavy missile-Drake or shield-Harbinger. Even a shield-Hurricane, with no tracking enhancers, and 2 nano fibres. Is not the most viable set-up. Although, it's very mobile. If a 850dps Hurricane with limited projected and applied damage. Moving @ 2200 meters a second is not as viable as a general shield-Hurricane with 2 tracking enhancers. Then this Idea of Gallente being the most mobile and highest damage wont change much. Also, increasing damage and velocity of Gallente ships and hybrids. Then lowering blaster range would be counter to a boost and r3ard3d. You just limited applied damage and lowered optimal to the point where most any movement would result in a HUGE drop in damage (r3tard3d).

So! Provided the projectile changes did not happen. A shield-Harbinger would be superior to a Hurricane in many ways (shields or armour). Not so much in a one versus one situation (although a shield Harbinger would own a armor Hurricane), but against multiple targets. Something that range control, high velocity, tracking and damage projection plays a big part in.

The same issue can be found in a Ham-Drake versus Shield-Harbinger or a Fleet of Ham-Drakes versus a fleet of shield-Harbinger or artillery-Hurricanes.

Any ship that is not able to skirmish (for the most part). Is not very effective solo or in small fleet warfare, @ the moment. As the player base increases. This problem will be compounded for all ships that operate close range (even frigates).

To some this all up. The thing that sucks about blasters and most close range set-up is RANGE. You have to commit in a game where you will most likely be facing multiple targets and a myriad of factors (ecm, damp, neutraliser, tracking disruptor, logistics ). Once you accept this. You cant expect much from CCP. I'll use one last example to get my point across. A auto-cannon Thorax is still as bad as a blaster Thorax. Mind you, the ship is still sluggish with both set-ups, but once you put lasers on the thing. The Thorax becomes significantly better (try Lazar Thorax).

Yeah this is all true, though I think an agility/speed boost would be more feasible as it seems the biggest problem is moving from target to target where an enemy gang or fleet are spread out over 10s of km. I don't often have too much trouble getting into (and staying in) range (fighting that takes place 10-20km around you) and of course especially when ships are slower than you, so any significant increase in DPS would just tip the balance a little too much too often..Maybe do a little bit of both? Come to think of it that's what they've done with the winter update but I don't think it's quite enough. Hopefully they're just testing the water with this update, and that further buffs will come when they see it's not enough lol. It is pretty sweet though don't get me wrong, it's brought them to a respectable level. A 6x Neutron II shield Domi w/ 1 RCU with now 20% more tracking is no laughing matter.

10 to 1 odds? Man you must be an idiot. They fielded more and outnumbered us. We ended up losing. All I posted where the mach kills not even the other bs bc kills. Actually alot of them were jammed. They fielded 3more more mach s not including these two.

But hey cry more man. I enjoy my kills and my mega. Just because people ***** and moan about hybrids because they can't close range or can't hold their target is their fault. Gallants blaster boats will always be situational. Its how you adapt and use.that to your advantage that makes blasters effective. But by all means cry more. Your tears are so yummy.

*I was comparing an armor Tempest to an Armorgeddon, so no, it's only "slightly" faster. If you go with a shield fit, sure, but you'll lose all those preciously versatile mid slots for LSE's and invulns, will cut your EHP nearly in half, and suffer cap issues, making for an even more unfair comparison. But hey, you gain a couple hundred m/s! (Oh, and to be exact, the Armageddon is 1172 DPS rather than 1200. :semantics:)

*I left out the Sac because it uses missiles, and I wasn't aware we were comparing those. But very well;

Sac: 427 DPS applied perfectly out to 20km, 76k EHP. More open mids due to armor tank.
Vagabond: 516 base DPS (will be applying around 325 of that at 20km in fallof,) 36k ehp. Faster.

*And why can I not be serious about the Cane vs. Harb? Just because more people fly 'Canes does not make them better. If this was how the world works, this thread would be about how Drakes are OP, and how we should nerf Caldari.