Looks like the nanonerf is coming

[Amarr HM]

No I'm saying that people are making suppostions that the blog was based on these statements without showing me any hard evidence. Also all I'm reading in the blog is that ludicrous speeds need to be nerfed, so I'm presuming til someone proves otherwise your comments are conjecture or maybe you have some inside knowledge you aren't willing to share.

[Slayerik]

Nano-HACs are EDIT: made to dictate engagements. They aren't designed for DPS (which they do pretty good at) or tanks. The are awesome for deep roams in enemy territory where being slow = being blobbed. They are expensive, and very effective. Their expense is countered by the fact that you can escape many situations.

The rich heavy PVP guys will just find another way to dominate less coordinated groups, be it command ship / recon gangs, Turtle BS gangs, w/e.

A nerf was in order, but I don't agree with killing an entire playing style.

[Murgos]

No I'm saying that people are making suppostions that the blog was based on these statements without showing me any hard evidence. Also all I'm reading in the blog is that ludicrous speeds need to be nerfed, so I'm presuming til someone proves otherwise your comments are conjecture or maybe you have some inside knowledge you aren't willing to share.

Fuck off.  Everything you have said is conjecture, it's all conjecture.  The point of fact is that super fast interceptors don't do anything that bothers anyone while super-fast HAC's are overpowered.

[Amarr HM]

I'm not using conjecture I dissected the blog & used quotes from it to formulate an opinion or maybe you don't have enough command over the english language to understand what conjecture means. Oh wait ....

Fuck off.

you don't.

[Endie]

I'm not using conjecture I dissected the blog & used quotes from it to formulate an opinion or maybe you don't have enough command over the english language to understand what conjecture means. Oh wait ....

Fuck off.

you don't.

Unfortunately, given your point, you fucked up that quote pyramid rather spectacularly... 

[Amarr HM]

ouch busy watching the return of the premiership!

Anyway I think what I'm saying is your points would sound less filled with conjecture if you could somehow put forward an argument based on the blog rather than the reasons you particularly want to see a speed nerf. It just sounds like you are grasping at straws here and I am failing miserably at quoting you 

[eldaec]

The worrying aspects I see in the blog are:

1) They seem to think that the threat of nano ships is that they can't be hit whilst in range, but really the threat is that they can choose to be in or out of range almost instantly.

2) They seem to think that speed is a problem in many ship classes, where actually it is just (particular) HACs.

I'm now confused on whether Amarr is saying HACs aren't a problem (barring vagabonds), or saying interceptors are a problem as well as HACs, or that he's just saying CCP thinks anything that flies faster than missles is bad, or that he thinks anything faster than a missle is bad.

I agree that the blog says CCP think anything flying faster than missles is bad. I disagree with the blog.

[Amarr HM]

Eldaec my stance would be that HACs are only a little too fast, I agree polies are overpowered and that the amount of stacking possible to speed is way over the top so I'm not against a Nano nerf as long as it is treated liberally and it doesn't affect certain parts of the game. My interceptor experiment could have been applied to a HAC it wasn't to suggest that any particular ship is a problem but to demonstrate a way of reducing mid-high end speeds without affecting the average pilot I merely happened to use an interceptor that's all.

The same changes applied to a Vaga reduces it from 44km/s -19km/s and an Ishtar goes from 23km/s - 10km/s (roughly speaking). So what I've noticed is that only the Vaga can reach speeds where the shipclass boundaries are muddled. On an aside I do not agree that a ship being able to choose his terms of engagement is a problem if it can be countered with some ingenuity and I'm not sure wherein the problem starts here. Falcons are probably the worst arbitrator of this kind of behaviour and they hardly use speed at all.

[Slayerik]

10km Ishtars? Theory crafting is all fine and good but.....

WTF kinda implants you running?  Anyways, I know guys that flew with full snakes and lost em....I think if you put billions into your head, take them into hostile space and risk them, that it is ok to get a bit of an advantage.

[Nerf]

Shit, I'd like to see a 43km/s vaga.  My 200M ISK vaga setup went around 7 iirc.

[Amarr HM]

Just add 20% for the x-instinct booster then speed is 41.76 km/s to be exact.

[Nerf]

Heh, if someone wants to fly that, I say go right ahead.

Even Reg could only afford to lose a couple of those.

[Slayerik]

The ship isn't the expensive part - its the full snakes with shaqils

[Nerf]

Well yeah, and if you just got your 40km/s vaga popped, theres a pretty good chance you can kiss your pod goodbye.

[Predator Irl]

43 km/s ship... and people don't want a nerf? 

[bhodi]

43 km/s ship... and people don't want a nerf? 

Come on. With faction/officer gear, there is plenty of completely ridiculous shit that you can do. That doesn't mean that the game is broken.

For example, here's a wyvern that permatanks 10178 DPS and twenty-one T2 heavy neuts. A 22nd will break the cap recharge, but it will take more than an hour.


Or a claymore...

[Amarr HM]

Jaysus that Claymore is badass.

[Endie]

Jaysus that Claymore is badass.

Yes, but since it has better fittings than Shrike's titan, it's a touch theoretical...

Since we are theorycrafting itt, depending on what the projected effects are, it should be improvable.  It only has a squad commander, whereas with a wing commander and a fleet commander as well, each in caldari (7.5% bonus per level to shields), amarr (7.5% bonus per level to cap recharge) and gallente (7.5% bonus per level to armour amount) titans running each position you can boost the tank even further.  That's also less theoretical than the crazy fittings on that: I've been on ops with three titans in ang (albeit only two types).  I dunno if they combine, but I suspect they do, rather than the titan needing to be FC.

[Amarr HM]

Ok I hadn't really looked at it before but the web changes have screwed up Large turrets to some extent. You can now fit a BC with an afterburner orbit a BS at 500m and you won't be hit for anything by the large turrets as long as you maintain a speed of 100ms+ This is even better if you are in a HAC & AFs and inties will also be able to do it though drone damage will probably kill you. I'm not sure how missiles will work at that range though I imagine they are probably still fine.

[nurtsi]

I noticed you almost need no tank now to rat. I do my stuff in an Ishtar with AB and the BS rats can't hit me for shit (even with missiles). I'm armor tanked and the only time I actually go below 50% shield is when there's several cruiser rats shooting at me. Me like.

[Goumindong]

Ok I hadn't really looked at it before but the web changes have screwed up Large turrets to some extent. You can now fit a BC with an afterburner orbit a BS at 500m and you won't be hit for anything by the large turrets as long as you maintain a speed of 100ms+ This is even better if you are in a HAC & AFs and inties will also be able to do it though drone damage will probably kill you. I'm not sure how missiles will work at that range though I imagine they are probably still fine.

If you have an AB on your BC, you're never going to make it to 500m in order to avoid their turrets

[Amarr HM]

Ok I hadn't really looked at it before but the web changes have screwed up Large turrets to some extent. You can now fit a BC with an afterburner orbit a BS at 500m and you won't be hit for anything by the large turrets as long as you maintain a speed of 100ms+ This is even better if you are in a HAC & AFs and inties will also be able to do it though drone damage will probably kill you. I'm not sure how missiles will work at that range though I imagine they are probably still fine.

If you have an AB on your BC, you're never going to make it to 500m in order to avoid their turrets

Not necessarily true depends from where you start if you get a dropin right next to BS or similar ocurrence by the time he gets lock you'll be right on him and anyway these days you can always use a MWD and an Afterburner. But I do see it's not exactly a fully workable situation even though you are tanking his turrets you're pretty much condemned to fighting til the death or til reinforcements etc..

[Goumindong]

Not necessarily true in a cruiser or frigate. In a BC though, you're not going to make it.

[Amarr HM]

Ok here's my reasoning generally a close range fight, say at a gate, starts with two pilots locking and approaching each other. So if one ship is going 800m/s (battleship) and the other 1.2km/s (battlecruiser) by the time the battleship locks it 4.5 seconds x 2 km/s = 9kms, now we won't take into account momentum because align time slows the process down. So now the BC has only to tank damage for another 1-2 km @ 200m/s 5-10 seconds. Altough if you are the battleship pilot and think quick enough you can of course kite from a BC (strange as that may seem) and stop him getting in point blank range which is pretty horrible method of thinking for blaster ships.

Then to boot a BC waiting at an undock point of a station they can be right on top of you or what about being probed out and someone drops right on you it's very easy to get in close to a BS we don't all fly snipers all the time.

[Goumindong]

Assuming the BS isn't going the other way, the BC actually goes 1200ms/[1,000 is about right for a plated harbinger at maxed skills and its slightly faster than the gallente options].

Blaster ships simply need to stop thinking that 500m is their optimal range, its fucking 5km for a neutron thron and vs smaller ships you always operate best in falloff.

That also assumes that the BS doesn't have a web and scram and isn't a hyperion[mwd, ab, web, 1pt, injector or, mwd, web, 1pt, 2pt, injector] or Tempest. And isn't fitting heavy ECM drones.

[Amarr HM]

Not a lot of room to maneuver for blasters or autocannons you have to keep distance at 1-3km with autocannons and 1-6km with blasters to do optimal damage this is tough as you are usually a very very slow ship and orbiting is out of the question. It's mainly the mega that's fucked cause it doesn't have enough mids to cope with fitting two webs to do the job it's setup to do although if you drop a cap booster and don't rep you could risk it. The mega could do with a better tracking bonus or maybe as I've suggested elsewhere create a shorter range web that has more power like 5km 80% (never gonna happen) or perhaps even make webs scaling so the closer you are the more it webs 90% at point blank to 60% at 10km (would this create lag?). Anyway I just finished training T2 large blasters and a little concerned, I do think that you should at least be able to hit a BC at these ranges so the tracking formula must be borked, wouldn't you think increasing ship mass would also increase sig radius?. Anyhow I'll adapt just some opinions on what needs to be looked at.

[Goumindong]

Not a lot of room to maneuver for blasters or autocannons you have to keep distance at 1-3km with autocannons and 1-6km with blasters to do optimal damage this is tough as you are usually a very very slow ship and orbiting is out of the question. It's mainly the mega that's fucked cause it doesn't have enough mids to cope with fitting two webs to do the job it's setup to do although if you drop a cap booster and don't rep you could risk it. The mega could do with a better tracking bonus or maybe as I've suggested elsewhere create a shorter range web that has more power like 5km 80% (never gonna happen) or perhaps even make webs scaling so the closer you are the more it webs 90% at point blank to 60% at 10km (would this create lag?). Anyway I just finished training T2 large blasters and a little concerned, I do think that you should at least be able to hit a BC at these ranges so the tracking formula must be borked, wouldn't you think increasing ship mass would also increase sig radius?. Anyhow I'll adapt just some opinions on what needs to be looked at.

No, not really. You're messing up your hit formula, falloff really is not that bad to be in. Long range t2 ammo on large neutrons gives 27km of effective range and long range t2 on ACs 36k. Short range ammo works easily between 5 and 15km for nearly all sizes.

Battlecruisers have over twice the sig of cruisers, just get a bit farther out and rape them, revel in the fact that a blaster ship can reduce the damage incoming from large lasers a whole lot, that electrons and ions are easy to fit and offer huge tracking boosts. That its going to take them a lot of time to close the distance and that you can spread it simply by flying away from them or attempting to follow their orbit.

With scrams shutting off MWDs and webs not being as strong, close range high tracking weapons have received a large boost.

The mega doesn't need more tracking, if you need more tracking, fly a Hyperion, its got 5 meds for a second web,[increasing your tracking and ability to dictate range], its faster, it tanks harder and it does just as much DPS.

[Amarr HM]

No, not really. You're messing up your hit formula, falloff really is not that bad to be in. Long range t2 ammo on large neutrons gives 27km of effective range and long range t2 on ACs 36k. Short range ammo works easily between 5 and 15km for nearly all sizes.

Seriously if you are using blasters you really don't want to be using Iron and null pfft totally crud DPS and tracking, oh and I'm not really discussing falloff so it's a moot point.

Battlecruisers have over twice the sig of cruisers, just get a bit farther out and rape them, revel in the fact that a blaster ship can reduce the damage incoming from large lasers a whole lot, that electrons and ions are easy to fit and offer huge tracking boosts. That its going to take them a lot of time to close the distance and that you can spread it simply by flying away from them or attempting to follow their orbit. 

Bit hard to move if they switch off your MWD and dual web you... think Myrmidon. You don't want to be orbiting with blasters your main defence is your DPS.

With scrams shutting off MWDs and webs not being as strong, close range high tracking weapons have received a large boost.

That's why I suggest using an afterburner and orbiting at 500m/s large turrets won't hit you for shit unless your are dual webbed.

The mega doesn't need more tracking, if you need more tracking, fly a Hyperion, its got 5 meds for a second web,[increasing your tracking and ability to dictate range], its faster, it tanks harder and it does just as much DPS.

Hyperion doesn't come close to same DPS  unless you gimp it, if like me you want to passive tank a whole bonus is wasted they are pretty much made for dual repping and has even worse tracking than the Mega so wrong an a couple of counts there I'm afraid.

[Amarr HM]

Also don't confuse this for blasters are broke erm fix it nonsense it's that now you can exploit all large turrets a lot easier since they lowered web power . Turret based battleships will have to fit two webs now to ensure being able to hit targets in an up close slugfest.

[Endie]

This thread is now for Gou and Amarr to theorycraft until THE END OF TIME.

[Amarr HM]

This thread is now for Gou and Amarr to theorycraft until THE END OF TIME.

 

[Amarr HM]

I'm coming back with graphs then you're all screwed.

[Goumindong]

Seriously if you are using blasters you really don't want to be using Iron and null pfft totally crud DPS and tracking, oh and I'm not really discussing falloff so it's a moot point.

No, its not a moot point. Turrets have falloff for a reason, long range tech 2 ammo exists for a reason. Use them. No, seriously, use them

Bit hard to move if they switch off your MWD and dual web you... think Myrmidon. You don't want to be orbiting with blasters your main defence is your DPS.

Only if what you are shooting at is smaller than you. If its the same size or larger you want to orbit. Why? Because that maximizes transversal velocity. Why is maximizing transversal velocity good? Because you are very likely to have better tracking than them.[AC's excluded, though that wont matter, they will be running away from you. The Megathron is the exception to this exception since it has exceptional tracking]

That's why I suggest using an afterburner and orbiting at 500m/s large turrets won't hit you for shit unless your are dual webbed.

That is why you ignore everything that is said for no good reason? Getting to 500m is not easy. You have to get there first through about 10km of blaster fire against a ship that should also be maneuvering to reduce transversal and increase range.

Hyperion doesn't come close to same DPS  unless you gimp it, if like me you want to passive tank a whole bonus is wasted they are pretty much made for dual repping and has even worse tracking than the Mega so wrong an a couple of counts there I'm afraid.

Actually, due to the tier 3 HP bonus, the Hyperion has nearly as much EHP as the Megathron in a full passive setup. Unrigged, a Hyperion with 1 plate has 5.6% less EHP than the Megathron. Rigged, its 9.4%. [1600mm, eanm x2, DCII, 2x MFS for Hyp, 1600mm x 2, eanm x2, DCII, 2x MFS for Mega]

The Hyperion will do 4.8% more DPS when fit with Ogre IIs. When fit with a mixed drone set[5 warriors +2/2/1 and 4 ogres + 5 warriors in the mega] its 6.9% and when fit with ECM drones only its 14.1%.

The Hyperion loses some ability to out-transverse BS guns since it loses its tracking bonus and is a lot bigger, but gains more ability to dictate range in both speed[lower base mass + 1 less plate = faster and more agile], and the extra med slot. This allows it to both reduce transversal better against smaller ships via disabling, and dictate range and initiate transversal[by reducing the enemy battleships ability to counter maneuver] against similar sized ships. It is simply a lot better at doing whatever it is you want to be doing against the particular target and that out weighs any raw performance boost when dealing with a blaster ship[I.E. a solo/small gang ship]

Now, as a solo/small gang ship, it is better when repping. But that is only because repairing is far superior when alone[and not horribly out numbered] than a passive tank is, especially when carried to its full tech 2 exploitation potential.

If i have to come back with graphs. I will kill myself. And when my tainted spirit finds its destination, I will topple the master of that dark place. From my black throne, i will lash together a machine of bone and blood, and fueled by my hatred for having to explain this shit again, this fear engine will bore a hole between this world and that one. When it begins, you will hear the sound of children screaming - as if from a great distance. A smoking hole of nothing will appear above your head, and from it will emerge a thousand starving crows. As i slip through the widening maw in my new form, you will catch only a glimpse of my radiance before you are incinerated. Then, as tears of bubbling pitch stream down my face, my dark work will begin. I will open one of my six Excel spreadsheets, and I will plot the graph that ends the earth.

[JoeTF]

Uhm, fascinating. Matar and    blaster-fans in one thread.





Wasn't falloff range 50% miss rate?

Does anyone actually fit blaster/AC battleships outside of sisi?

Funny fact - I actually considered fitting AC Hurricane (as a damage support) a while ago, in between contemplating 5DD proof BS and using bombs to kill Titans, but then I realized it would have like 1.9km optimal, which kind of made the whole exercise pointless.

One serious question - what are theoretical advantages of blaster/AC ships against gankgeddons and torp-ravens?

[Amarr HM]

It's moot cause I wasn't discussing falloff you're the one who brought it up, it doesn't fit into the equation. I'm talking about angular velocity at close range and not being able to web smaller ships so you can at least hit them at all with large turrets. You basically have 0 DPS unless you dual web them check it out if you don't believe me. T2 what? Null doesn't even do 80% of the damage of say multifrequency, has 80% the range and half the tracking why would anyone settle for this crapola as a short gap is beyond me.

On the second point, as a BS blaster user you don't want to forfeit your DPS by orbiting this is how you deal with active tankers & missile users you need to strike them down fast and hard so they can't keep repping up, therefore wetting down your DPS negates your abilities more than theirs.

Sometimes you don't have to get to 500m you are already there eg. dropins and waiting at undock points I said that already.

fuck blasters Im training lasers anyway