While this is true - blasters are effective against same-size ships once you've got into range - there are some caveats to add.

The first one is the one of getting into range. Putting the shortest-range turrets on slow, armoured hulls makes little sense, especially when their competitors are in fast shield boats with lots of room for gyros and TEs.

Second, "same-size ship". Pulse and ACs have the ability to apply DPS to smaller ships by trading range for transversal. Blasters are the only turret that has neither the range nor tracking to effectively do this. This is not justificable.

Third, and possibly most importantly, Pulse and ACs are also capable of tearing **** up at close range, but also have the med-range option, which begs the question "Why use a blasterboat?" Blasters need a much greater applied damage advantage over ACs and Pulse at blasters' optimal. Why do ACs, which are supposed to be used in falloff (hence the AC-boats' high speeds) deserve tracking that is often superior to blasters? Why should ACs have selectable damage types to increase their applied damage in the small-scale engagements that blasterboats are designed for?

Sure, you can increase the applied damage advantage of blasters, relative to ACs and Pulse, by increasing blaster damage and tracking. But I feel that the magnitude of the boost necessary to give blasters the advantage that they deserve close up would be deeply problematic, and we should also look at the other half of the problem, meaning reducing Pulse and AC applied damage close up. This might entail looking at reducing Pulse and AC tracking, and possible AC base damage too.