These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#341 - 2014-12-29 09:36:06 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

What if the guns are underpowered but the hulls are overpowered to compensate? I submit that that would not be balanced and should be changed, were it the case.



If it were the case sure, right now it isn't. Autocannon ships are in a healthy position, they are on par kill wise with everything else, they sell just as well as the other options and they have traits that allow for fits and tactics other races don't have. We have people in here demanding a 10% buff to range while saying the cynable is useless, ignoring the fact that it already has a 50% bonus to falloff. If we add 10% to the range then adding TE to the ship will provide an even greater boost to range than it currently does pushing the ship once again into overpowered territory. The same goes for the stabber.

They effectively want to undo the TE nerf.

Daide Vondrichnov wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:


No, it's a fact, during many years this was expensive as hell and was shining because of its ability to fight, now it's not the case anymore.


Using that logic where are all the drakes?



BC nerf + Tiers 3 + Missile nerf + Mainly a doctrine ship.


Its still the exact same argument. Drakes were king of the hill, if what you say is true then we would see people using them for nostalgic reasons too. Its a poor argument, people don't fly bad ships and underpowered ships don't top kill statistics.
sytaqe violacea
Choir of morning
#342 - 2014-12-29 10:16:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Its still the exact same argument. Drakes were king of the hill, if what you say is true then we would see people using them for nostalgic reasons too. Its a poor argument, people don't fly bad ships and underpowered ships don't top kill statistics.


nah.
I love fly bad ships because it is good way to motivate nervous low sec residents to engage me.
Needless to say, role playing people fly their own race ships no matter how bad those ships are.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#343 - 2014-12-29 10:39:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
Badman Lasermouse wrote:
Baltec1's Solo Kills

When you've killed 18 ships solo, over your entire career, please don't come here and act like you are on top of the current Meta. I asked you before, please stop posting in my thread, you don't know what you are talking about.


Shocked



Lol


baltec1 wrote:
Nodire Hermetz wrote:

too see if a ship is good and/or popular you check one things first : Killboard



Ok then lets look at the KB.

The current most deadly ship is the saber.

The third most deadly ship and this months deadliest frigate is the Stiletto.

In sixth place is the cynable, an apparently useless ship.

Then we have the thrasher in tenth.

Near all sabers and stilettos uses autos and the cynable and thrasher a 50/50 split between autos and arty.


4 out of the top ten deadliest ships isn't exactly the hallmarks of an underpowered class. Blaster boats have nothing in the top ten unless you count the proteus but if we do that we have to count the loki too.


Well done.

You failed to realize none of those ships actually use medium autocannons.

Oh and whats a "cynable"?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#344 - 2014-12-29 13:21:41 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Diesel47 wrote:


Well done.

You failed to realize none of those ships actually use medium autocannons.

Oh and whats a "cynable"?


Sabre weaponry use.

1. 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 11,150 kills
2. 200mm AutoCannon II 9254 kills
3.150mm Light AutoCannon II 7675 kills

Stiletto weaponry use.

1. 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 4487 kills
2. 150mm Light AutoCannon II 2785 kills
3. 200mm AutoCannon II 2658 kills
4. 250mm Light Artillery Canno... 824 kills

Cynabal weaponry use

1.425mm AutoCannon II 5042 kills
2. 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 3593 kills
3. 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 2381 kills
4. 650mm Artillery Cannon II 409 kills
5. 720mm 'Scout' Artillery I 288 kills

Thrasher weaponry use.

1. 280mm Howitzer Artillery II 4208 kills
2. 200mm AutoCannon II 3569 kills
3. 280mm Howitzer Artillery I 1306 kills
4. 250mm Light Artillery Canno... 967 kills
5. 250mm Light Gallium Cannon 949 kills
6. 250mm Light Prototype Siege... 657 kills
7. 200mm AutoCannon I 527 kills
8. 280mm Prototype Siege Cannon 318 kills

Stats taken from the top 10 weaponry use of each ship in the month of December.

Looking at the likes of the cane, navy cane, Sleipnir, vaga and the stabber all of them show the most popular weapon is auto canons. We also see that the vagabond kills more than the Eagle, Sacrilege, Zealot and Deimos.

Please, do go on about how these ships don't use autos.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#345 - 2014-12-29 13:51:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Short-range turrets (Pulse Lasers, Blasters, and Autocannons) all suffer from a similar problem: since all T1 turret ammunition range bonuses apply only to optimal range and these turrets typically have very short optimal ranges to begin with, there is rarely any reason to use anything other than the shortest-range, highest-damage T1 ammo or T2 ammo. While this is most pronounced with Autocannons due to their almost exclusive reliance on falloff, all three suffer from this to an extent.

Long-range turrets (Beam Lasers, Railguns, and Artillery) enjoy the benefits of a wide spectrum of ammo selection. They have a viable tradeoff between damage, range, and/or tracking using only T1 ammo that short-range weapons generally lack.

This has been a long-standing disparity and there have been many balance passes attempting to rectify it.

In my mind, the best way to fix this is to change T1 ammo to have falloff bonuses in addition to optimal range bonuses. Whether this is best done by splitting existing bonuses equally between the two or having separate optimal and falloff bonuses that only apply to long-range and short-range turrets I can't say. But as long as T1 ammo is optimal-centric, short-range turrets will always favor their shortest-range T1 ammo (or T2). And, given the current balance of Autocannons in particular, they will continue to suffer the most from this lack of selection.

EDIT: None of this is to say that short-range turrets are necessarily broken, imbalanced, etc. But their lack of practical ammo selection when compared to long-range turrets is something I feel should be addressed.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#346 - 2014-12-29 14:06:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Im pretty sure baltec is trying so hard because he doesnt want to lose blaster supremecy. I just saw a video of a hyperion or mega shooting frigs at 30-50km with null. He also hasnt responded directly to my points. Just side-stepping it and repeating the same tired arguement that has already been discussed with counter points. He didnt even attempt to counter what God's or i have said.

He's afraid a medium range weapon will out range his close range weapon and doesnt like that. He wants blasters to be the new ac. His ignorance is overflowing with every post in the past page. I mean really? The sabre? You know how many sabres sit in null with a falcon alt? I mean the whole market data theory is so flawed.. its hard to take him seriously anymore.


I have responded to your points, several times now. You have ignored them every time and refuse anything that goes against you. There is no talking sense in this thread because you have made up your minds and won't budge, just like all of the other minority groups knocking around here.

If I was defending overpowered blasters then I ask you where are all of the blaster boats? If auto ships are no good then why do so many fly them in roaming gangs? If people don't buy the ships to use them then what exactly are they doing with them?

Lets have more stats.

When it comes to kills amounted per ship in the cruiser class (stabber, rax, arbi, moa and so on) the matari ships are on par with every other race. Are there outliers? sure. The cynable for example is the deadliest of the pirate ship while the Augoror is the most underwhelming killer out there. When it comes to popularity the blackbird, arbi, stabber, rupture, celestis and maller are all roughly in the same ballpark. The same numbers show up in the market data so yes, people who buy the ships are indeed using them.


No you haven't responded to them, you just keep saying the same thing about market or KB data and that's what your whole arguement relies upon. It is inaccurate data. A stabber can fit a/c's, it can brawl or kite, and can maybe fit 650 arty, it can fit rails, salvagers, neuts or any other combination of things in the highs. How does market data tell you how well a/c's apply damage in fall-off? Really, i'm quite interested. It only tells you about the SHIP, not the weapon system.

Just because people buy a/c's doesn't mean that are used for kiting, it could be for all the hurricanes that go roaming with your mega. Hurricanes do not kite anymore, they brawl. In fact, no a/c ship other than vagabond and stabber kite with a/c's, because they're the only ones with fall-off bonuses, and even with those bonuses, they still struggle. Without those bonuses, a/c's don't have a chance in hell of shooting tackle off past 20km.

Answer me this. If we used your logic with market data, and instead of A/C we replaced it with heavy missiles. Heavy missiles are used frequently in PVE, put on drakes, cyclones and w/e else can fit them. Market data will show numerous HML sales, and drake/cyclone sales. Does that mean heavy missiles are good at applying damage in a PvP scenario? Don't side step this question, don't re-word, its a yes or no question. Its the exact same principle you're applying to this conversation to a/c's.

Quote:
If I was defending overpowered blasters then I ask you where are all of the blaster boats? If auto ships are no good then why do so many fly them in roaming gangs? If people don't buy the ships to use them then what exactly are they doing with them?


Are you blind? Deimos, thorax, moa, eagle, vexor (sometimes), talos, mega, hyperion, kronos, prot, astarte, brutix etc

All those ships see use pretty frequently, and are common to run across when roaming (well except maybe the kronos/astarte since they're more skill intensive and expensive).

If auto ships are as good as you claim they are, why aren't you flying them more often? What are they not solo'ing as much as blaster ships are? They are in gangs because the low applied dps of a/c's isn't as big of a factor in those cases. When solo'ing its much more noticable.

Well, again, since you don't read and obviously ignore what examples i've given you already. A stabber can be fit to brawl using its low signature. A stabber can fit rails, and kite more effecitvely than using a/c's, and putting more dps down range. A hurricane can fit artillery, a cynabal can fit artillery, or be armor repped and brawl. Just because it has a fall-off bonus doesn't mean everyone is going to use it with a/c's. Vagabonds have brawl fits too (although subpar), not just kite fits.

You are so narrow minded in this debate, you can't think past fall-off bonus = everything fits a/c's to it. Don't you remember the abaddon's with artillery on them that was a pretty common doctrine back in the day? They completely ignored the bonuses on that hull in favor of the armor resist, and 8 turret slots to fit artillery. But, using your "market data" an abaddon back then would look good because they were selling, so 8 lasers on an abaddon is perfectly fine in a fleet setting right?

Quote:
sure. The cynable for example is the deadliest of the pirate ship while the Augoror is the most underwhelming killer out there. When it comes to popularity the blackbird, arbi, stabber, rupture, celestis and maller are all roughly in the same ballpark. The same numbers show up in the market data so yes, people who buy the ships are indeed using them


Ruppies have FW doctrines built around using artillery. Stabbers are slightly tankier fast tackle when compared to frigates. They are cheap, thats why they see use. What are the numbers on the vagabond? It is probably far lower because it is more expensive and not worth the dps you're putting down range.

Also, the one thing that makes me laugh is the KB stats have capsules listed at #9. Very accurate data you have.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#347 - 2014-12-29 14:11:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:


Well done.

You failed to realize none of those ships actually use medium autocannons.

Oh and whats a "cynable"?


Sabre weaponry use.

1. 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 11,150 kills
2. 200mm AutoCannon II 9254 kills
3.150mm Light AutoCannon II 7675 kills

Stiletto weaponry use.

1. 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 4487 kills
2. 150mm Light AutoCannon II 2785 kills
3. 200mm AutoCannon II 2658 kills
4. 250mm Light Artillery Canno... 824 kills

Cynabal weaponry use

1.425mm AutoCannon II 5042 kills
2. 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 3593 kills
3. 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 2381 kills
4. 650mm Artillery Cannon II 409 kills
5. 720mm 'Scout' Artillery I 288 kills

Thrasher weaponry use.

1. 280mm Howitzer Artillery II 4208 kills
2. 200mm AutoCannon II 3569 kills
3. 280mm Howitzer Artillery I 1306 kills
4. 250mm Light Artillery Canno... 967 kills
5. 250mm Light Gallium Cannon 949 kills
6. 250mm Light Prototype Siege... 657 kills
7. 200mm AutoCannon I 527 kills
8. 280mm Prototype Siege Cannon 318 kills

Stats taken from the top 10 weaponry use of each ship in the month of December.

Please, do go on about how these ships don't use autos.


Actually, if you read what he said, instead going on a raging hard-on KB fest, he stated that all the ship you listed (stilletto, thrasher, sabre) don't use medium a/c's, which is where the applied dps at fall-off is very poor. Are rifters kiting with a/c's at 20km? No, they scram kite, since its the only way to apply its anemic dps.

We aren't saying these ships don't use a/c's, but they aren't using them in the way you think.. how many sabre's kite with a/c's? They get a fall-off bonus do they not? Most sabres sit on a gate, bubble up and either run, or bust out the falcon alt to kill things, at point blank range.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#348 - 2014-12-29 14:12:44 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
As for that megathron, lets see if any of you know why it was fit like that and why the CFC allows me to fly it..


It's all about considering alternatives:

Laser ships could potentially do the same job, and without ammo, but keeping them cap stable is a pain.
Artillery ships could potentially do the same job, but once you get above a certain fleet size individual ship RoF outweighs individual ship Alpha.
A Rokh could potentially do the same job, but it's bigger sig would put it at a disadvantage against bombs.
Faction battleships could almost certainly do the same job better, but would also be far more expensive to replace en masse.


It's not the best at anything, but it's good at everything. It's got a huge engagement envelope and a minimal number of active modules, so it's easy to manage under heavy TiDi.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#349 - 2014-12-29 14:21:55 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


Actually, if you read what he said, instead going on a raging hard-on KB fest, he stated that all the ship you listed (stilletto, thrasher, sabre) don't use medium a/c's, which is where the applied dps at fall-off is very poor. Are rifters kiting with a/c's at 20km? No, they scram kite, since its the only way to apply its anemic dps.

We aren't saying these ships don't use a/c's, but they aren't using them in the way you think.. how many sabre's kite with a/c's? They get a fall-off bonus do they not? Most sabres sit on a gate, bubble up and either run, or bust out the falcon alt to kill things, at point blank range.


See updated post.

Most sabers do not have a falcon alt on standby, that's yet another myth in EVE. There are also more tactics than simply kiting things available for matari ships.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#350 - 2014-12-29 14:33:45 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
As for that megathron, lets see if any of you know why it was fit like that and why the CFC allows me to fly it..


It's all about considering alternatives:

Laser ships could potentially do the same job, and without ammo, but keeping them cap stable is a pain.
Artillery ships could potentially do the same job, but once you get above a certain fleet size individual ship RoF outweighs individual ship Alpha.
A Rokh could potentially do the same job, but it's bigger sig would put it at a disadvantage against bombs.
Faction battleships could almost certainly do the same job better, but would also be far more expensive to replace en masse.


It's not the best at anything, but it's good at everything. It's got a huge engagement envelope and a minimal number of active modules, so it's easy to manage under heavy TiDi.


It got picked because its a megathron hull, there is no tactical reasoning I just have an unhealthy love for the hulltype.Blink

The fleet this mega was in is a tengu fleet, the fit is adapted to match the fleet in every way. The nano is to align as fast as the fleet, the warp speed rig is to warp as fast, the MWD is to keep up (tengu fleet perma run their AB) the cap mods are to get the ship cap stable, shield buffer to match the logi in the fleet, the rails are so it can shoot at the correct range.
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#351 - 2014-12-29 14:45:25 UTC  |  Edited by: NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Baltec1 once again arguing endlessly in another thread out out inability to comprehend reality and refusal to admit he is wrong.

That clown has so said so many ridiculous things, I can't imagine anyone with much intelligence believing anything he has to say.

Baltec1, try getting a life instead of filling this forum with your nonsensical ramblings constantly.

You are a joke.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#352 - 2014-12-29 14:46:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaerakh
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:


Well done.

You failed to realize none of those ships actually use medium autocannons.

Oh and whats a "cynable"?


Sabre weaponry use.

1. 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 11,150 kills
2. 200mm AutoCannon II 9254 kills
3.150mm Light AutoCannon II 7675 kills

Stiletto weaponry use.

1. 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 4487 kills
2. 150mm Light AutoCannon II 2785 kills
3. 200mm AutoCannon II 2658 kills
4. 250mm Light Artillery Canno... 824 kills

Cynabal weaponry use

1.425mm AutoCannon II 5042 kills
2. 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 3593 kills
3. 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 2381 kills
4. 650mm Artillery Cannon II 409 kills
5. 720mm 'Scout' Artillery I 288 kills

Thrasher weaponry use.

1. 280mm Howitzer Artillery II 4208 kills
2. 200mm AutoCannon II 3569 kills
3. 280mm Howitzer Artillery I 1306 kills
4. 250mm Light Artillery Canno... 967 kills
5. 250mm Light Gallium Cannon 949 kills
6. 250mm Light Prototype Siege... 657 kills
7. 200mm AutoCannon I 527 kills
8. 280mm Prototype Siege Cannon 318 kills

Stats taken from the top 10 weaponry use of each ship in the month of December.

Please, do go on about how these ships don't use autos.


Actually, if you read what he said, instead going on a raging hard-on KB fest, he stated that all the ship you listed (stilletto, thrasher, sabre) don't use medium a/c's, which is where the applied dps at fall-off is very poor. Are rifters kiting with a/c's at 20km? No, they scram kite, since its the only way to apply its anemic dps.

We aren't saying these ships don't use a/c's, but they aren't using them in the way you think.. how many sabre's kite with a/c's? They get a fall-off bonus do they not? Most sabres sit on a gate, bubble up and either run, or bust out the falcon alt to kill things, at point blank range.


Not sure what you're smoking. Autocannons are exceedingly good at scoring kills outside of falloff. My corp, in a previous incarnation, used a loki to clear frigates in C5 site operations.

[Loki, New Setup 3]
Imperial Navy Energized Kinetic Membrane
Imperial Navy Energized Explosive Membrane
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Damage Control II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II

Domination Target Painter
Domination Target Painter
Domination Stasis Webifier
Domination Stasis Webifier
Domination Stasis Webifier

220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II

Loki Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter
Loki Electronics - Immobility Drivers
Loki Engineering - Supplemental Coolant Injector
Loki Offensive - Turret Concurrence Registry
Loki Propulsion - Chassis Optimization

This exact fitting regularly hit and killed sleeper frigates(in spite of them being NPCs these are not soft targets), at up to 27km. Check it, it doesn't have the on paper range. So don't you dare tell anyone that autocannons can't hit or kill anything in falloff. I also have a crow loss that also begs to differ with you(40km vs autocannon fit hurricane try working out that's possible).


Had to respond to this nonesense:
Bronson Hughes wrote:

Laser ships could potentially do the same job, and without ammo, but keeping them cap stable is a pain.
Artillery ships could potentially do the same job, but once you get above a certain fleet size individual ship RoF outweighs individual ship Alpha.


Lasers do have ammo. Anyone who bothers to play EVE knows this, and your point on Artillery makes absolutely no sense.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#353 - 2014-12-29 15:01:41 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:


Well done.

You failed to realize none of those ships actually use medium autocannons.

Oh and whats a "cynable"?


Sabre weaponry use.

1. 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 11,150 kills
2. 200mm AutoCannon II 9254 kills
3.150mm Light AutoCannon II 7675 kills

Stiletto weaponry use.

1. 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 4487 kills
2. 150mm Light AutoCannon II 2785 kills
3. 200mm AutoCannon II 2658 kills
4. 250mm Light Artillery Canno... 824 kills

Cynabal weaponry use

1.425mm AutoCannon II 5042 kills
2. 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 3593 kills
3. 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 2381 kills
4. 650mm Artillery Cannon II 409 kills
5. 720mm 'Scout' Artillery I 288 kills

Thrasher weaponry use.

1. 280mm Howitzer Artillery II 4208 kills
2. 200mm AutoCannon II 3569 kills
3. 280mm Howitzer Artillery I 1306 kills
4. 250mm Light Artillery Canno... 967 kills
5. 250mm Light Gallium Cannon 949 kills
6. 250mm Light Prototype Siege... 657 kills
7. 200mm AutoCannon I 527 kills
8. 280mm Prototype Siege Cannon 318 kills

Stats taken from the top 10 weaponry use of each ship in the month of December.

Please, do go on about how these ships don't use autos.


Actually, if you read what he said, instead going on a raging hard-on KB fest, he stated that all the ship you listed (stilletto, thrasher, sabre) don't use medium a/c's, which is where the applied dps at fall-off is very poor. Are rifters kiting with a/c's at 20km? No, they scram kite, since its the only way to apply its anemic dps.

We aren't saying these ships don't use a/c's, but they aren't using them in the way you think.. how many sabre's kite with a/c's? They get a fall-off bonus do they not? Most sabres sit on a gate, bubble up and either run, or bust out the falcon alt to kill things, at point blank range.


Not sure what you're smoking. Autocannons are exceedingly good at scoring kills outside of falloff. My corp, in a previous incarnation, used a loki to clear frigates in C5 site operations.

[Loki, New Setup 3]
Imperial Navy Energized Kinetic Membrane
Imperial Navy Energized Explosive Membrane
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Damage Control II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II

Domination Target Painter
Domination Target Painter
Domination Stasis Webifier
Domination Stasis Webifier
Domination Stasis Webifier

220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II

Loki Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter
Loki Electronics - Immobility Drivers
Loki Engineering - Supplemental Coolant Injector
Loki Offensive - Turret Concurrence Registry
Loki Propulsion - Chassis Optimization

This exact fitting regularly hit and killed sleeper frigates(in spite of them being NPCs these are not soft targets), at up to 27km. Check it, it doesn't have the on paper range. So don't you dare tell anyone that autocannons can't hit or kill anything in falloff. I also have a crow loss that also begs to differ with you(40km vs autocannon fit hurricane try working out that's possible).


Of course! How could i be so blind. It only takes a 700-1b isk loki for ac's to work. And by work, you mean against NPCs that burn towards you with 3 webs on them and dread blap.

Also thanks for proving my point about killing frigates. Its the only thing acs are good at. Try reading the whole thread before posting. I bet you that loki is only doing 200-250ish dps at 27km with barrage? L-O-L. You realize you are doing less than 50% of your dps at about 20km? My vagabond with barrage reaches out to 40km with barrage, and only does 300ish dps at 20km.

Yea that seems like a good trade off, 700-1b isk for a loki that does frigate lvl dps at range. Seems perfectly fine. You use the loki because of the webs, not because of ac.


Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Arla Sarain
#354 - 2014-12-29 15:23:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Stiletto weaponry use.

1. 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 4487 kills
2. 150mm Light AutoCannon II 2785 kills
3. 200mm AutoCannon II 2658 kills

Hilarity continues.
https://zkillboard.com/ship/11198/solo/

Along with the irony regarding sabres, who just rush into brawl range with A/Cs that are "not meant to be at that range because blasters".
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#355 - 2014-12-29 15:33:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaerakh
Stitch Kaneland wrote:

Of course! How could i be so blind. It only takes a 700-1b isk loki for ac's to work. And by work, you mean against NPCs that burn towards you with 3 webs on them and dread blap.

Tell me what part takes more than what you would spend on a HAC or a crusier to achieve that range. I'm dying to know what makes your argument stand on more than straw.

Edit:I forgot to address the webs, you know what those webs are for so I'm puzzled as to why(excluding purposeful misrepresentation for a dishonest argument) you would say the webs are used on the frigates or that the dreads could even hit the frigates. Only someone who has never lived in a wormhole would dismiss sleepers so off handedly as they would other NPCs.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:

Also thanks for proving my point about killing frigates. Its the only thing acs are good at. Try reading the whole thread before posting. I bet you that loki is only doing 200-250ish dps at 27km with barrage? L-O-L. You realize you are doing less than 50% of your dps at about 20km? My vagabond with barrage reaches out to 40km with barrage, and only does 300ish dps at 20km.

Completely missing the point. Any veteran can tell you that that is a solid fit for its purpose. The fact that you don't know after I have already told you tells me you're just another ignorant voice added to the echo chamber.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:

Yea that seems like a good trade off, 700-1b isk for a loki that does frigate lvl dps at range. Seems perfectly fine. You use the loki because of the webs, not because of ac.


Since you're quite happy to attack my anecdotes(and misrepresent them), I'll refer you to the one I mentioned about the crow, but you're obviously too fervid to listen to anything thing other than points that agree with you.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#356 - 2014-12-29 15:44:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
It got picked because its a megathron hull, there is no tactical reasoning I just have an unhealthy love for the hulltype.Blink

The fleet this mega was in is a tengu fleet, the fit is adapted to match the fleet in every way. The nano is to align as fast as the fleet, the warp speed rig is to warp as fast, the MWD is to keep up (tengu fleet perma run their AB) the cap mods are to get the ship cap stable, shield buffer to match the logi in the fleet, the rails are so it can shoot at the correct range.

I do love the Mega Hull. I flew Sniper Megas back in the day of AoE doomsdays. I loved it because of it's versatility, it's effectiveness, and because it just looks so badass. I also roamed losec in Blaster Megas, used them to shoot at POSes, etc.

Times have changed and ships have changed, but the utility and badass looks of the Mega haven't. I prey they never do.

Kaerakh wrote:
Had to respond to this nonesense:
Bronson Hughes wrote:

Laser ships could potentially do the same job, and without ammo, but keeping them cap stable is a pain.
Artillery ships could potentially do the same job, but once you get above a certain fleet size individual ship RoF outweighs individual ship Alpha.


Lasers do have ammo. Anyone who bothers to play EVE knows this, and your point on Artillery makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, lasers use crystals. But they change instantly (bumping up effective DPS), reload very infrequently (also bumping up effective DPS), and take up negligible cargo space (which is good, because you'll probably need it for cap booster charges). These are all of great benefit in pretty much any PvP situation, but particularly so in large fleet fights. Anyone who bothers to play EVE knows this.

Perhaps if I had said "without ammo issues" you would have understood what I was getting at?

The primary benefit of Alpha Strike is being able to volley ships off the field before they get a chance to respond. The downside to high alpha is a low rate of fire, meaning you can only volley ships at a relatively slow pace. Once your fleet gets large enough that you can volley enemy ships with lower-alpha weapons, the higher rate of fire means that you can kill enemy ships at a faster pace. Ever wonder why the CFC uses rail doctrines so often? Here's a hint: it's not just their range. With their numbers, they can volley enemy ships with rails more quickly than their enemies can with artillery.



Back on topic somewhat. Regarding folks mentioning the popularity of the Cynabal as proof that medium autocannons are in a good place: keep in mind that the Cynabal has a native bonus unique to cruiser hulls, namely higher warp speed, which makes it an excellent roaming ship. Instead of comparing something with a unique bonus, it may be wise to look at more "vanilla" hulls and see what's getting used a lot.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#357 - 2014-12-29 15:53:40 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:

Kaerakh wrote:
Had to respond to this nonesense:
Bronson Hughes wrote:

Laser ships could potentially do the same job, and without ammo, but keeping them cap stable is a pain.
Artillery ships could potentially do the same job, but once you get above a certain fleet size individual ship RoF outweighs individual ship Alpha.


Lasers do have ammo. Anyone who bothers to play EVE knows this, and your point on Artillery makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, lasers use crystals. But they change instantly (bumping up effective DPS), reload very infrequently (also bumping up effective DPS), and take up negligible cargo space (which is good, because you'll probably need it for cap booster charges). These are all of great benefit in pretty much any PvP situation, but particularly so in large fleet fights. Anyone who bothers to play EVE knows this.

Perhaps if I had said "without ammo issues" you would have understood what I was getting at?

Anyone who bothers to play EVE knows that cap boosters take up more cargo space than any other weapon system and that they chew through their individual charges faster than any weapon system. Also, any crystal worth using do this thing called breaking. It's a pretty radical new concept.

Bronson Hughes wrote:

The primary benefit of Alpha Strike is being able to volley ships off the field before they get a chance to respond. The downside to high alpha is a low rate of fire, meaning you can only volley ships at a relatively slow pace. Once your fleet gets large enough that you can volley enemy ships with lower-alpha weapons, the higher rate of fire means that you can kill enemy ships at a faster pace. Ever wonder why the CFC uses rail doctrines so often? Here's a hint: it's not just their range. With their numbers, they can volley enemy ships with rails more quickly than their enemies can with artillery.

Sweet, I guess we can all just forget that there are wings and squads and that organization beyond a singular blob exists.


Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Badman Lasermouse
Run and Gun Mercenary Corps
#358 - 2014-12-29 16:09:01 UTC
Stop straying off topic please. We are talking about a buff to Auto Cannon falloff range. Not about running sleeper sites, and not that crystals break. Bottom line is that Auto Cannon and Blaster engagement range have too much overlap when using null ammo, with a significant DPS advantage as well. Projectiles should be able to out DPS blasters at point range. In the current meta, without a falloff bonused hull they cannot.

-Badman
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#359 - 2014-12-29 16:15:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaerakh
Badman Lasermouse wrote:
Stop straying off topic please. We are talking about a buff to Auto Cannon falloff range. Not about running sleeper sites, and not that crystals break. Bottom line is that Auto Cannon and Blaster engagement range have too much overlap when using null ammo, with a significant DPS advantage as well. Projectiles should be able to out DPS blasters at point range. In the current meta, without a falloff bonused hull they cannot.


It is on topic(coming to the rescue of the people I responded to), the sleeper site information(what scant statements there are) is relevant to relaying what my observed experience is with autocannons, and the discussion about lasers is relevant because lasers were being compared to autocannons.

Also, by your standard how is mentioning blasters on topic? Stay on topic please! This is about autocannons not null loaded blasters. Roll

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Badman Lasermouse
Run and Gun Mercenary Corps
#360 - 2014-12-29 16:22:53 UTC
Please read my original post, or just stop posting in the thread entirely.

-Badman