It would be more logical that railgun makes bigger boom than laser.

if one weapon type made a significantly larger boom than the other, why use the other. Gameplay, not physics.

I am quite sure if you get a laser powerful enough you can make obi wan kenobi cring as well.

Bigger boom doesn't equal larger damage. Seems pretty straight forward, rail guns do more AOE, lasers do more damage in a smaller area. Minmatar... um.... burn up on the way down and spread radiation everywhere :P

Bigger boom doesn't equal larger damage. Seems pretty straight forward, rail guns do more AOE, lasers do more damage in a smaller area. Minmatar... um.... burn up on the way down and spread radiation everywhere :P

I am quite sure if you get a laser powerful enough you can make obi wan kenobi cring as well.

There are a lot of physics issues here that could make for fail immersion or great gameplay depending on how they implement it.

For instance:

You will be orbiting (if true Keplerian physics hold, which they likely don't) at a synchronous orbit, for Earth's orbital period, that would be around 36,000KM of altitude. Since no weapons in eve go that far, I am guessing that we are a Low Orbit (less than 400KM or so). Nothing can "orbit" at 100km, its physically impossible.

Also consider that Lasers are more precise at range, minus the attenuation due to atmosphere. So less splash damage or friendly fire concerns.

Rails, and projectiles do most of their damage due to their kinetic energy (kinetic energy more for projectile, lots for rails but with lots of heat energy as well). They would also do more splash damage but with pretty good accuracy.

Missiles is an interesting question though. ON the one hand they are guided, so they should be accurate, but they also have HUGE warheads on them so does that mean missiles have the highest splash damage? If so shouldn't they have less accuracy as a trade off?

So it would be interesting if the weapons types had different niches in bombardment.

Lasers for surgical strikes
Hybrids/Projectiles for "Normal" strikes
Missiles for Area denial bombing strikes.

Could be very interesting.

On the other hand, if all the weapons are the same effect, or if you can only use certain weapons for bombardment, then gameplay suffers as a result.

Those 3500mm slugs from a rag's autocannons sure gona have some kinetic happyjoyjoy when they land even without the warhead going off.

Those 3500mm slugs from a rag's autocannons sure gona have some kinetic happyjoyjoy when they land even without the warhead going off.

The projectile does not explode, it just punches through stuff.

Pod Pilot: Blab bla blaa electrons bla bla mass bla spreadsheet bla bla.

Dust bunny: It kills **** right ?

Pod Pilot: Um yes I suppose so.

There are a lot of physics issues here that could make for fail immersion or great gameplay depending on how they implement it.

For instance:

You will be orbiting (if true Keplerian physics hold, which they likely don't) at a synchronous orbit, for Earth's orbital period, that would be around 36,000KM of altitude. Since no weapons in eve go that far, I am guessing that we are a Low Orbit (less than 400KM or so). Nothing can "orbit" at 100km, its physically impossible.

Also consider that Lasers are more precise at range, minus the attenuation due to atmosphere. So less splash damage or friendly fire concerns.

Rails, and projectiles do most of their damage due to their kinetic energy (kinetic energy more for projectile, lots for rails but with lots of heat energy as well). They would also do more splash damage but with pretty good accuracy.

Missiles is an interesting question though. ON the one hand they are guided, so they should be accurate, but they also have HUGE warheads on them so does that mean missiles have the highest splash damage? If so shouldn't they have less accuracy as a trade off?

So it would be interesting if the weapons types had different niches in bombardment.

Lasers for surgical strikes
Hybrids/Projectiles for "Normal" strikes
Missiles for Area denial bombing strikes.

Could be very interesting.

On the other hand, if all the weapons are the same effect, or if you can only use certain weapons for bombardment, then gameplay suffers as a result.

ur forgetting ull be orbiting 100km or so above the planet so using a weapons system that deteriorates in less than 100km is pointless.. ie autocannons, blasters, pulse lasers assault/heavy/and some torps should all be incompatable with planetary bombardment.

You will be orbiting (if true Keplerian physics hold, which they likely don't) at a synchronous orbit, for Earth's orbital period, that would be around 36,000KM of altitude. Since no weapons in eve go that far, I am guessing that we are a Low Orbit (less than 400KM or so). Nothing can "orbit" at 100km, its physically impossible.

It would be more logical that railgun makes bigger boom than laser.

I still think that each type of weapon could have a distinct role in bombardment. Lasers make sense for precise strikes since they don't explode. Rails and projectiles are for kinetic damage and some explosions, and missiles could be for large splash anti personnel bombardment.