Monday, October 4, 2010

Blasters, or how I learned to switch to Amarr instead of dealing with them

When I originally started training, I focused almost entirely on gallente.  I loved the idea of ships that went straight intothe enemy, opened fire, and just tried to kill them before they killed me.  However, the game has changed a little since I first started, and one of the biggest changes was to webs. 

Now, a change to webs doesn't seem that major, but it had profound effects for blaster ships.  Blasters are purposefully created to have high damage but very low range.  Blaster ships depend on getting ships into the killzone and pounding them.  However, changes to webs made it harder to hold ships in place once you had them in close. 

Secondly, blasters have very poor tracking as a result of their low range.  While the tracking numbers look fairly good when you just compare the value to other weapons systems (lasers), factoring in optimal range shows a very different picture.  Now, you see that it takes very little transversal inside of blaster range to mitigate the damage, as opposed to the amount of transversal required to escape damage from a BS using scorch ammo.

These factors have a huge effect on actual dps applied in a fight, as opposed to theoretical dps.  In a long slug match against bigger ships, gallente ships can be top damage dealers as they can actually operate in their optimal range and tracking.  But in quicker fights, or more more evenly sized or smaller opponents, lasers have a huge advantage.  They can start applying damage much more quickly, as they don't have to burn into range, and don't lose much time switching targets, as there is a good chance their new target will also be in range.  These factors, combined with their fairly high level dps, make lasers a great weapon, and made me train Amarr.

I still have a soft spot in my heart for some gallente ships (Taranis, I'm looking at you), but think that blasters could really use some extra help.  A lot of ideas have been thrown around on forums, from a huge increase in damage, or tracking, or some combination of the two.  I have another possibility to throw into the mix, split webs the same way that scrams/disruptors are split.  Have a 40-50% web that reaches to 14k (t2), and a 80-90% web that reaches to 5k (t2), as one example.  Now, we have a layered set of disruptor, weak web, scram, strong web that an opponent has to consider.  Also, now when a blaster ship manages to get you in kill range, you're going to feel it for a long time. However, with the agility of gallente ships, you also have a good chance to use a war of manuever and a long range web to stay out of their optimal.

What are your suggestions?


  1. I for one like the idea of scripted webs. Range and strength script.

  2. I'm afraid that scripted webs make it too easy to get the best of both worlds, whereas different modules actually will truly have fitting decisions.

  3. (Boilerplate Newbie disclaimer: blah blah blah)

    A problem I see with increasing the capability of webs is that there is currently no existing counter in the game other than avoiding the given range and ECM.

    If there was a module introduced that permitted a resistance or means to mitigate the web, much like the decision to fit ECCM for instance, this might seem like a more balanced concept than my fragile newb mind can currently process.

    Am I missing something obvious as far as the current advantages / disadvantages of web use in game today? It seems that it is almost a 'must have' module already?

  4. A way to mitigate webs would be nice, as they are a must have module. The problem is, the current webs aren't actually strong enough to help some blaster fit ships to hit close range ships, which is strange since blaster ships are supposed to be great at close range. This is tracking issue, due to the extremely low ranges that are optimal for blasters.

    An increase to tracking would help, as would stronger webs. I liked the idea of a layered systems of webs because it creates a valid fitting choice that people must make, and will change their tactics and those of their opponents as well.

    I'm not sure if this is the best idea, but I wanted to throw it out there as a conversation starter.

  5. On the scripted web (tackling mods in general):
    Having a higher reload time on the scripts, might mitigate the problem of a stasis web script so that you can choose before an encounter but not within how you want to go. But I agree, it might be too strong but would put more pressure on the pilot and therefore pilot skill would matter even more (which I think would be a good thing).

    In general on modules (sorry if I derail your thread to much Az., just tell me and I will stop adding my thoughts on hardly related matters):
    I for one would love to have different sized mods for pretty much all modules. So there would be a small, medium and heavy web. The bigger the higher the effect is (same with points), with a counter in the ships warp core strength (with BS having a high one, frigates a low one, maybe with minmatar having a higher one compared to Amarr - as they are used to run away from their early days). I always found it quite strange that a little frigate is able to fit the same module as a BS and hold one down as good as a bigger ship. I am not sure on the numbers but 2 frigs holding one cruiser and 2 cruisers holding a BS might be a general direction to go...

    Having Mods, Rigs and maybe even skills to add to your warp core strength (and on the other side tackling strength as well) might lead to more depth (do we want that in Eve? I for one do).

    An as I am talking modules now, why does the SDA only work for ECM and not for the other EWAR modules?