These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey] Large Energy Turrets

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lugalzagezi666
#841 - 2013-05-30 08:45:54 UTC
Kreeia Dgore wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

At 40 km an abaddon or even the old armageddon is MASSIVELY more powerful than a maesltrom on damage projection! Nto a bit.. MASSIVELY!

And how is that relevant in any case in any discussion in any universe? Also, your statement is based on nothing. But hey, you tried :-)

Btw you still didn't cope with the idea that while many races actually rely on capacitor the amarr are getting the worst of it since they aren't capable to feed their own weapons, let alone another modules.

Thats how it is relevant Lol :
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:
Special note : when thread about fixing amarr ships/weapons pops up, always bring scorch argument and start making up fantastic scenarios where scorch owns blasters and autocannons combined. Use spreadsheets if you must, just protect projectiles and blasters at all cost!


So as laserboat pilot basically you are supposed to force enemy fleet consisting of faster and more agile ships to start fight exactly at 40km with your slower, fatter, slower locking and massively cap dependant bricks with close to 0 utility- and pray to amarrian god (or empress or who do they believe in) that enemy fleet stays where it is. Lol

Btw real numbers instead of kagura trolling :
abaddon - 650 dps at 45k, 3k alpha, fixed damage type, -52 cap/s
maelstrom - 680 dps at 45k, 11k alpha, selectable damage type, 0 cap used
oddysey domi - 660 dps at 45k with gardes, 0 cap used, no pg used, 60 cpu used
oddysey phoon - 900+ dps at 45k range with cruises and drones, no cap used, selectable damage type, 720dps at lock range
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#842 - 2013-05-30 09:56:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:
So as laserboat pilot basically you are supposed to force enemy fleet consisting of faster and more agile ships to start fight exactly at 40km with your slower, fatter, slower locking and massively cap dependant bricks with close to 0 utility- and pray to amarrian god (or empress or who do they believe in) that enemy fleet stays where it is. Lol

Yes, and as blasterboat pilot, you are supposed to run after your target while running a poor active armor tank sucking your cap, and hope it sustain enough fire by the time you catch the target, if you manage to do it at all.

And as a caldari pilot, you are in an immovable brick, despite the shield tank, so fire your missiles, and hope the ennemy don't firewall them all, or is not in an AB ship to negate all your damages, and just hope he will die before you.

And as a minmatar pilot, you can't take on anything, because your ships and weapons are the weakest, so you hope to be fast enough and your ennemy dumb enough to don't have anything able to slow you down so you will be able to run away when (not if) a flet half organized come.

That's called balance : the pros of your weapons and ships are balanced with drawbacks, so they are not OP. Your immovable amarr brick is unmatched between 10 to 70km, and you can hit everything between 5 to 70km. And guess what ? In a fleet fight, if the ennemy fleet is within 70km, there is ALWAYS a ship farther than 5km.

Only missiles have a better damage application, but they have hard counters, like firewall or AB.

Oh, and I'd like to see the fit from where you take these numbers, because if the Maelstrom have the best dps of all, then you're doing it wrong.
John 1135
#843 - 2013-05-31 22:13:14 UTC  |  Edited by: John 1135
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:
So as laserboat pilot basically you are supposed to force enemy fleet consisting of faster and more agile ships to start fight exactly at 40km with your slower, fatter, slower locking and massively cap dependant bricks with close to 0 utility- and pray to amarrian god (or empress or who do they believe in) that enemy fleet stays where it is. Lol

Btw real numbers instead of kagura trolling :
abaddon - 650 dps at 45k, 3k alpha, fixed damage type, -52 cap/s
maelstrom - 680 dps at 45k, 11k alpha, selectable damage type, 0 cap used
oddysey domi - 660 dps at 45k with gardes, 0 cap used, no pg used, 60 cpu used
oddysey phoon - 900+ dps at 45k range with cruises and drones, no cap used, selectable damage type, 720dps at lock range

+1

Instead of flat cap costs CCP could consider integrating a laser cap-use function. Cap use might then ramp after the first few dozen cycles to a peak. Pulsing the laser off resets the curve. So lasers still need to be pulsed off, yet managed correctly more cap can be left available to other modules. Thus laser-boats would hopefully gain manouevrability options. It would have an interesting interaction with Heat Sinks, which would remain as they are.

While doing that they should introduce crystals that amplify thermal as other posters have suggested, and in doing so rationalise the range bands to reinforce laser domination of the mid-range. So in both T1 and T2 their would be say 4 crystals. Thermal amplified in close, and EM out far. (It is that way now, but it would be pushed further.)
John 1135
#844 - 2013-05-31 22:15:38 UTC  |  Edited by: John 1135
failpost ftw
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#845 - 2013-05-31 22:38:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Ioci
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:
So as laserboat pilot basically you are supposed to force enemy fleet consisting of faster and more agile ships to start fight exactly at 40km with your slower, fatter, slower locking and massively cap dependant bricks with close to 0 utility- and pray to amarrian god (or empress or who do they believe in) that enemy fleet stays where it is. Lol

Yes, and as blasterboat pilot, you are supposed to run after your target while running a poor active armor tank sucking your cap, and hope it sustain enough fire by the time you catch the target, if you manage to do it at all.

And as a caldari pilot, you are in an immovable brick, despite the shield tank, so fire your missiles, and hope the ennemy don't firewall them all, or is not in an AB ship to negate all your damages, and just hope he will die before you.

And as a minmatar pilot, you can't take on anything, because your ships and weapons are the weakest, so you hope to be fast enough and your ennemy dumb enough to don't have anything able to slow you down so you will be able to run away when (not if) a flet half organized come.

That's called balance : the pros of your weapons and ships are balanced with drawbacks, so they are not OP. Your immovable amarr brick is unmatched between 10 to 70km, and you can hit everything between 5 to 70km. And guess what ? In a fleet fight, if the ennemy fleet is within 70km, there is ALWAYS a ship farther than 5km.

Only missiles have a better damage application, but they have hard counters, like firewall or AB.

Oh, and I'd like to see the fit from where you take these numbers, because if the Maelstrom have the best dps of all, then you're doing it wrong.


You have nailed EVE to the wall. It's why Goons blob drakes and if they nerf drakes, goons will blob something else.

All the ships in this game are junk and the only thing that overcomes the Junk factor is to blob the ever loving shite out of them. Unfortunately even if they trippled every sub cap tank and quadrupled DPS, it's still a blob first game.

EVE is a gank-a-boy game and it always will be. Learn to appreciate it or learn to play another game.

Add On: With these changes to large energy weaps, they will serve their purpose. What I wrote could and will be seen as negative but on the topic, the changes are fine.

If you are up for micro management on tiericide, make dual Beams ranged, Heavy Beams damage and Tachyon for siege. Right now dual beams have no role if the only thing that defines them is easy fit guns. That can be done to all the large guns groups.

R.I.P. Vile Rat
Arya Greywolf
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#846 - 2013-05-31 23:51:47 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
words


Are you so anti-amarr that you monitor this and the amarr BS rebalance thread every day?

I think you're personally investing too much into this argument; you've lost an Amarrian ship in pvp exactly ONCE in the time you've played EVE.

This may seem like a personal attack and therefore a strawman argument, but the fact that you personally seem to have near zero experience flying amarr ships, (battleship especially, because you seem to have a personal hate for anyone that is presenting a logical argument in those threads) has a real connection to the issue at hand: you don't know what you're talking about.

And don't reply to me saying that I don't have any experience flying amarr ships, because my point still stands. You're the one trying so desperately, replying to every post, to knock down any form of good balance surrounding amarrian BSs and large pulses/beams.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#847 - 2013-06-01 00:53:43 UTC
Arya, Bouh has long since exposed his prejudice on the matter. Hell, damn near a hundred pages ago I got him to outright admit that he is only interested in making sure Railguns have as much of a slice of the pie as possible. And that he views Beams as a threat to that.

At which point he began to spout nonsense about engagement ranges that don't actually exist in practical combat. Or such idiocy as this:

Quote:
as a minmatar pilot, you can't take on anything, because your ships and weapons are the weakest


Lol@arty. And let's also ignore the fact that speed is very literally the most powerful stat a ship has, and for just about the entire history of the game, Minmatar have had a monopoly on it.

Quote:
And as a caldari pilot, you are in an immovable brick, despite the shield tank, so fire your missiles, and hope the ennemy don't firewall them all, or is not in an AB ship to negate all your damages, and just hope he will die before you.


Quote:
Only missiles have a better damage application, but they have hard counters, like firewall or AB


Yeah, sure, that's balance. Roll

Listen up. Missiles are not used because they are just plain bad, not because they have hard counters. Their damage application is actually the worst in the game, because they have way more mitigating factors to their use.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#848 - 2013-06-01 10:51:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Arya, Bouh has long since exposed his prejudice on the matter. Hell, damn near a hundred pages ago I got him to outright admit that he is only interested in making sure Railguns have as much of a slice of the pie as possible. And that he views Beams as a threat to that.

[...]

Listen up. Missiles are not used because they are just plain bad, not because they have hard counters. Their damage application is actually the worst in the game, because they have way more mitigating factors to their use.

You realize that you are admitting that you strickly don't care about the fate of railguns in the game and hence about balance nor about beams identity ?

And have you ever brought even ONE solution for the BALANCING problem of beams ? No. The only thing you want is more cap and more PG, what would only kill railguns. But you don't care about the fate of railguns, and hence about balance, so I doubt you are able to bring any idea on the subject.

As for missiles, have you ever heard about the Tengu ? Or the Hawk ? Or the Hookbill ? Or the Caracal ? Or the Drake ? Yeah, missiles are absolutely not used. Never. Thanks for proving one more time that you know nothing about the game.

And about why I spend so much time here, it's because amarr carebear whiners here only care about making their precious lasers better at pve to compensate for their badness. More than in any other threads, amarr whiners base their arguments on NOTHING, not even fit, and only complain about the racial identity of their chosen race.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#849 - 2013-06-01 12:49:38 UTC
Quote:
You realize that you are admitting that you strickly don't care about the fate of railguns in the game and hence about balance nor about beams identity ?


At what point in that statement you quoted did I say anything of the sort? I merely said I found your rabidly stalwart defense of your chosen weapon system both tiresome and obvious.

Quote:
And have you ever brought even ONE solution for the BALANCING problem of beams ? No. The only thing you want is more cap and more PG, what would only kill railguns. But you don't care about the fate of railguns, and hence about balance, so I doubt you are able to bring any idea on the subject.


Again with the railguns, what did I say? Roll

So, first you say I have offered no solutions, then tell me that I did, but you just don't like em. Yeah, this is a reasonable individual right here... And, not that you would have ever read any of my posts to know, offered numerous solutions, *starting* with making beams actually fittable. Then moving into changes with both lowering their alpha, increasing their rate of fire, and a drastic alteration of the crystal system, which is badly broken. But once again, not that you would know.

Quote:
As for missiles, have you ever heard about the Tengu ? Or the Hawk ? Or the Hookbill ? Or the Caracal ? Or the Drake ? Yeah, missiles are absolutely not used. Never. Thanks for proving one more time that you know nothing about the game.


You're really an idiot, do you know that? At what point did we stop talking about Battleship size weapons here? This is the LARGE energy turret thread after all. But no, let's just throw out random ship names and call it an argument... Ferox! Er... wait, that's not an argument after all.

Quote:
And about why I spend so much time here, it's because amarr carebear whiners here only care about making their precious lasers better


And you only care about making sure railguns stay better than beams, you've already said this. Why is your obvious and evident self interest any better than ours? It's not, you just like to drape yourself in the flag and pretend you're better. When, given the ****** fits you have been posting, you are in fact much worse than most of us.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Samas Sarum
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#850 - 2013-06-01 15:13:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Samas Sarum
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
You realize that you are admitting that you strickly don't care about the fate of railguns in the game and hence about balance nor about beams identity ?


At what point in that statement you quoted did I say anything of the sort? I merely said I found your rabidly stalwart defense of your chosen weapon system both tiresome and obvious.

Quote:
And have you ever brought even ONE solution for the BALANCING problem of beams ? No. The only thing you want is more cap and more PG, what would only kill railguns. But you don't care about the fate of railguns, and hence about balance, so I doubt you are able to bring any idea on the subject.


Again with the railguns, what did I say? Roll

So, first you say I have offered no solutions, then tell me that I did, but you just don't like em. Yeah, this is a reasonable individual right here... And, not that you would have ever read any of my posts to know, offered numerous solutions, *starting* with making beams actually fittable. Then moving into changes with both lowering their alpha, increasing their rate of fire, and a drastic alteration of the crystal system, which is badly broken. But once again, not that you would know.

Quote:
As for missiles, have you ever heard about the Tengu ? Or the Hawk ? Or the Hookbill ? Or the Caracal ? Or the Drake ? Yeah, missiles are absolutely not used. Never. Thanks for proving one more time that you know nothing about the game.


You're really an idiot, do you know that? At what point did we stop talking about Battleship size weapons here? This is the LARGE energy turret thread after all. But no, let's just throw out random ship names and call it an argument... Ferox! Er... wait, that's not an argument after all.

Quote:
And about why I spend so much time here, it's because amarr carebear whiners here only care about making their precious lasers better


And you only care about making sure railguns stay better than beams, you've already said this. Why is your obvious and evident self interest any better than ours? It's not, you just like to drape yourself in the flag and pretend you're better. When, given the ****** fits you have been posting, you are in fact much worse than most of us.


I just stopped responding to him. He's just going to pull out the "will kill Rails, can't do it" argument for ANY buff to beams even though its blatantly obvious to everyone in the room they need it. Hmm no one but expensive 4-turret BS's use Beams (and Oracles lulz) and this doesn't send a giant red flag that something is broken with the fittings? Mega-beams using the same amount of cap as Tachyons is indefensible and should be fixed. It's not worth arguing anymore, CCP already has a rebalance hopefully coming soon so these weapons don't gather cobwebs.

Even though Rail Rokh's are being bought up by the dozens as a new alpha ship for shield fleets, it's our job to keep beams totally unusable and keep the Amarr happy with just Scorch for everything as per usual.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#851 - 2013-06-02 11:22:57 UTC
So, again I will try to explain some basics : balance is the work of making everything different but viable, giving everything a niche where they can shine.

Right now, railguns are fairly balanced, but beams are not.

What you propose is to replace railguns by beams. So after your solutions, we would have beams fairly balanced and railguns not.

That is stupid, because that balance nothing.

Hence, that is NOT a *balancing* solution, because that solve absolutely no *balance* problem. This may be hard to understand,so here why : if, when you balance something, you broke something else, then you FAILED at *balancing*.

Hence, CCP CANNOT just buff beams if that kill railguns.

Hence, you need a comprehensive solution for beams.

The problem is that you don't understand the tracking formula and only see the game in the scope of pve, so I doubt any of your solution could solve anything unless beams and railguns become the same, which would be homogenization.

Also, *balancing* != *homogenization*

You understand now ? Wanna fix beams ? Propose something to make them useful AND different from railguns. Hint : railguns niche is dps at long range, so your beams CANT have this niche too.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#852 - 2013-06-04 02:30:58 UTC
Quote:
Right now, railguns are fairly balanced, but beams are not.

What you propose is to replace railguns by beams. So after your solutions, we would have beams fairly balanced and railguns not.


Railguns are good now. Yes, they are.

No one has proposed replacing railguns with beams. No one. You have spun that nonsense up all on your own, to attack a strawman argument that no one here has actually made. You do this because you know you cannot argue that beams have say in a wretched state for the entire history of the game and aren't worth using whatsoever.

What people here want to see happen, is to have beams not have inferior stats to railguns in every aspect aside from half a TC worth of tracking. Tracking isn't that valuable that every other stat can afford to be worse. No bullshit you try to say makes that true either.

Quote:
Hence, CCP CANNOT just buff beams if that kill railguns


You haven't made any arguments even coming close to justifying that simply making beams actually fittable on Amarr hulls, that somehow no one will ever fit a railgun on a Caldari ship ever again. In fact the very concept is so ******** you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it with seriousness.

So yeah, CCP can do whatever they want. They can nerf resists on already ****** ships and not compensate for it, too. They did. They could nerf railguns into the ground next week, because they own the game and they can do what they want. So once again you are just blowing smoke and capslock out of your ass.

Quote:
Wanna fix beams ? Propose something to make them useful AND different from railguns. Hint : railguns niche is dps at long range, so your beams CANT have this niche too.


Pure horseshit. Rails and Beams actually occupy the exact same niche. Much like Arty (low dps, high alpha), shares it with Missiles (low dps, high alpha).

Those are their category. Rails and Beams are in the same category, high sustained dps at long ranges.

So why then is one so much, much worse than the other? There is no good answer for that. Buff beams. I don't care about the repercussions you wildly postulate will occur, the fact of the matter is that having unfittable guns is not ok, not now, not ever. Fixing that comes first.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Samas Sarum
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#853 - 2013-06-04 03:30:50 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
Right now, railguns are fairly balanced, but beams are not.

What you propose is to replace railguns by beams. So after your solutions, we would have beams fairly balanced and railguns not.


Railguns are good now. Yes, they are.

No one has proposed replacing railguns with beams. No one. You have spun that nonsense up all on your own, to attack a strawman argument that no one here has actually made. You do this because you know you cannot argue that beams have say in a wretched state for the entire history of the game and aren't worth using whatsoever.

What people here want to see happen, is to have beams not have inferior stats to railguns in every aspect aside from half a TC worth of tracking. Tracking isn't that valuable that every other stat can afford to be worse. No bullshit you try to say makes that true either.

Quote:
Hence, CCP CANNOT just buff beams if that kill railguns


You haven't made any arguments even coming close to justifying that simply making beams actually fittable on Amarr hulls, that somehow no one will ever fit a railgun on a Caldari ship ever again. In fact the very concept is so ******** you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it with seriousness.

So yeah, CCP can do whatever they want. They can nerf resists on already ****** ships and not compensate for it, too. They did. They could nerf railguns into the ground next week, because they own the game and they can do what they want. So once again you are just blowing smoke and capslock out of your ass.

Quote:
Wanna fix beams ? Propose something to make them useful AND different from railguns. Hint : railguns niche is dps at long range, so your beams CANT have this niche too.


Pure horseshit. Rails and Beams actually occupy the exact same niche. Much like Arty (low dps, high alpha), shares it with Missiles (low dps, high alpha).

Those are their category. Rails and Beams are in the same category, high sustained dps at long ranges.

So why then is one so much, much worse than the other? There is no good answer for that. Buff beams. I don't care about the repercussions you wildly postulate will occur, the fact of the matter is that having unfittable guns is not ok, not now, not ever. Fixing that comes first.



By his logic we should also break pulses while we're at it, they occupy the same niche as blasters and replace them by being so good.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#854 - 2013-06-04 04:01:10 UTC
Samas Sarum wrote:


By his logic we should also break pulses while we're at it, they occupy the same niche as blasters and replace them by being so good.


Other than that 'small' useage Blasters have on all those Caldari & Gallente ships.
Pulses get used on Amarr ships that are bonused for them
Blasters get used on Caldari & Gallente ships that are bonused for them.
Rails get used on Caldari & Gallente ships that are bonused for them
Arti gets used on Amarr ships that are bonused for Beams......

Hmmmm, wait a minute....
Maybe, just maybe there is something wrong with Beams after all.
And Beams should get buffed so that Beams get used on Amarr ships bonused for them. Rather than ignoring the bonuses and using a different unbonused weapon system.
yafes han
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#855 - 2013-06-04 09:06:41 UTC
patch notes are out and we have a little surprise
http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for
oracle
Amarr Battlecruiser Skill Bonuses: -10% to large laser cap use and +5% to large laser damage.

There is not much thing left to say for the already least used attack bc
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#856 - 2013-06-04 09:47:56 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Pure horseshit. Rails and Beams actually occupy the exact same niche. Much like Arty (low dps, high alpha), shares it with Missiles (low dps, high alpha).

Those are their category. Rails and Beams are in the same category, high sustained dps at long ranges.

So why then is one so much, much worse than the other? There is no good answer for that. Buff beams. I don't care about the repercussions you wildly postulate will occur, the fact of the matter is that having unfittable guns is not ok, not now, not ever. Fixing that comes first.

Yes they occupy the same niche and that is the problem. And no, arties are not in any way comparable to missiles (but the cap use). In fact, missiles are closer to beams than anything else. They are high damage application weapons.

And that is the problem, on top of, as I already explained, pulse being too long range for beams to live.

Yes, because beams have this for them : the dps at short range. No LR turret rivals beams for this but pulse... (And beams have more dps than railguns at close range BTW).

And you are really bad at this game if you consider two TC (the tracking advantage mega beams have over railguns) to be worthless. The instant ammo swap is also a great advantage for LR weapons. But nevermind.

No wonder all these cries if everything is the same for you.

Again, the problem of beams is not that they are bad per se, but that their operative range is already occupied by pulse lasers. To save beams, you need an idea to differenciate them from railguns AND pulse. *There is no other way.*
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#857 - 2013-06-04 10:15:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Bouh Revetoile wrote:


Again, the problem of beams is not that they are bad per se, but that their operative range is already occupied by pulse lasers. To save beams, you need an idea to differenciate them from railguns AND pulse. *There is no other way.*


I get the impression with Beams is that they're an attempt to produce a weapon system that can deliver most of the performance of rails and Scorch, while having the ability to switch from one to the other in a second. There's some merit in that idea, but it's not delivering properly atm.

However, as Bouh says, you have to be very careful with identifying changes because it becomes very easy to just end up obsoleting rails. And having large rails as an unused, obsolete weapon system is just as objectionable as having beams in that situation - or at least it should be to the Amarr pilots in this thread...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#858 - 2013-06-04 10:15:53 UTC
Quote:
patch notes are out and we have a little surprise
http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for
oracle
Amarr Battlecruiser Skill Bonuses: -10% to large laser cap use and +5% to large laser damage.

There is not much thing left to say for the already least used attack bc


Kind of confused how this is an issue. That's how the Oracle has always been.

Anyway, I have Bouh ignored again because once again his coherence has dropped below that of a crackhead.

That said, since this has gone live (no, the servers aren't up yet, I just meant it's all in the patch notes), how much longer do you guys guess it will take them before lasers are properly balanced?

As in, how long do you think it will take before the rebalance Rise mentioned actually hits the table?

My guess is 3 months, but I always was an optimist. They probably have to un-f*** all the ships they ruined with the resist nerf first. In which case 6 months.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#859 - 2013-06-04 10:30:41 UTC
Quote:
However, as Bouh say, you have to be very careful with identifying changes because it becomes very easy to just end up obsoleting rails. And having large rails as an unused, obsolete weapon system is just as objectionable as having beams in that situation - or at least it should be to the Amarr pilots in this thread...


I'd be careful listening to what that imbecile says. He switches his self-contradictory positions every time someone corners him on his shaky logic throughout all of these threads.

The fact of the matter is that the mere concept, that somehow Beams actually being worth using on hulls bonused for them will invalidate Railguns being used on hulls bonused for them, is laughable.

Neither of them are skewed to an extreme of statistics as Artillery is. The mere fact that Artillery is skewed so high towards alpha damage (in conjunction to being a capless weapon) is what makes it viable to use Artillery on unbonused ships. Dps doesn't scale insanely well in blobs, burst damage does.

Neither Beams nor Railguns share any of those traits.

So what are we really arguing here? "Invalidating Railguns" can only mean one of two things. Either Beams will become OP enough that, like Arty, people are fitting them on unbonused ships. Or, Beams being finally viable will make people just flat out stop using ships that are bonused for Rails in favor of Amarr ships.

Both are not possible outcomes. As mentioned, lack of cap use is part of what makes Arty so attractive. But has Arty being popular on unbonused hulls somehow made the Minmatar Battleships plunge into disuse? No. The cause and effect simply isn't there to make that a concern, same thing with Beams, which actually have more drawbacks when used on unbonused hulls because they are not capless. Thus, if Arty didn't end up invalidating other weapon systems or it's race's own ships, Beams won't either.

So, I ask you, how is it "very easy to end up obsoleting rails"? How, precisely?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#860 - 2013-06-04 10:52:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
However, as Bouh say, you have to be very careful with identifying changes because it becomes very easy to just end up obsoleting rails. And having large rails as an unused, obsolete weapon system is just as objectionable as having beams in that situation - or at least it should be to the Amarr pilots in this thread...


I'd be careful listening to what that imbecile says. He switches his self-contradictory positions every time someone corners him on his shaky logic throughout all of these threads.


I've only read the last couple of pages, but his posts seem sensible and thoughtful, while yours seem bitter and angry.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that the mere concept, that somehow Beams actually being worth using on hulls bonused for them will invalidate Railguns being used on hulls bonused for them, is laughable.


I don't understand why this would be laughable. Both of them are designed for long-range work. If beams and rails, and the ships mounting them, have no strongly defining characteristics, such as those of artillery that you yourself mention, then if a ship mounting one is superior to the other, then the other will be obsoleted. This seems obvious - after all it explains the current domination of rail Rokh over beam BS on the fleet scale.

As Bouh says, you need an idea that makes beams different to rails, in the same way that artillery is different to both rails and beams. Alternatively, you could propose changes to rails.

I haven't read enough of this thread to know what changes you are proposing to beams, I'm commenting on more general balancing philosophy.