Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
118
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
Autocannons are ridiculously easy to fit compared to blasters or pulse lasers.
Minmatar ships have lots of powergrid because of the high PG cost of artillery, but when fitting low cost autocannons, it leaves open an abundant amount of fittings to optimize on tank, propulsion, utility, neuts, etc.
Amarr and Gallente do not have this capability.
The strongest autocannon has lower fitting that middle range pulse lasers and blasters.
Autocannons may do less dps than both, but minmatar ships tend to have double weapon bonuses to compensate for that weakness (double rof and damage bonus).
Autocannons make up for the weaker damage for damage selection. Lasers and Hybrids cannot change their damage types.
For example we have a sleipnir going against and absolution.
The sleipnir has high EM/therm resist while the Absolution has high Exp/Kin resists.
The absolution is stuck with Em/therm and will always be shooting at the sleipnir's highest resists.
The sleipnir can use Phased Plasma or EMP and hit the weakest resists of the Absolution. Doing much more effective dps(the sleipnir already outdpses the Absolution by eft damage alone).
Autocannons gain a massive range bonus from tracking enhancers with 30% falloff bonus.
Pulse lasers have scorch resulting in a long optimal, but very short falloff. The short falloff is a downfall in that pulse will do virtually no damage beyond their optimal.
Autocannons will hit with lesser damage, but regardless hit their target beyond the range of pulse lasers. Barrage 50% falloff bonus on top of 30% tracking enhancer bonus is a big bonus.
So the range difference between Pulses and Autocannons are balanced.
Autocannons have tracking close to blasters, while having many times the range. Pulse lasers suffer from low tracking compared to other short range weapons. Blasters have very short range while only having a small amount more tracking that Autocannons.
Autocannons use no capacitor to fire. Blaster boats and Pulse boats are helpless when neuted.
Last but not least Projectile ammo has a bonus to tracking which is infinitely better than the cap use reduction of hybrid charges and frequency crystals.
TLDR:
Autocannons are superior to other short range guns due to: -Low fitting costs on minmatar ships with high fitting -Lower damage weakness negated by minmatar ships with dual weapon dps bonuses -Selectable Damage Type to do more effective dps than lasers or blasters -Use no capacitor to fire -Benefits greatly from tracking enhancers of 30%+ to falloff with 50% bonus with barrage to be able to reach very far -Very good tracking with good range -Has ammo has boosts tracking rather than cap usage.
I believe that autocannons should be a model for short range weapons to be balanced around.
Lasers definitely needs a look at after the projectile and hybrid changes.
Blasters could also be given something as well. |
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
251
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nobody uses auto-cannons, cept for rifters, hurricanes, Ruptures, stabers, Cyclones , tempests, maelstroms, typhoons and their T2 and faction variants.
Also Myrmidons, Prophecies, and a few other odd-ball fits. |
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2177
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
When you realize that ACs nearly always engage in their falloff, you'll start understanding the balance. TEST Alliance BEST Alliance |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
953
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
I can think of three other forum headings where this tired old horse carcass can be bludgeoned some more. GD isn't one of them. Here's your sign... |
Lilliana Stelles
Mindstar Technology Executive Outcomes
169
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
>double rof
Wait, what? Show me this ship, please.
|
Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, devs hated Gallente and Ammar. The end. |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
118
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
Akirei Scytale wrote:When you realize that ACs nearly always engage in their falloff, you'll start understanding the balance.
Consider that AC can hit (lesser damage, but still damage) targets at ranges that blasters and even pulse cannot. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
547
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Read all your post and you bring some good points that have already been largely discussed in many other threads.
However I don't think any sort of nerf is needed simply because Minmatar hulls and gunnery are quite well designed generally, some have fitting issues too, the best thing to do imho is to bring other weapon systems to the same efficiency level without making them the same. Hybrids and specially T2 blaster long range ammo is an excellent step on the good direction, however we still need to wee what CCP Ybert(sry can never spell the rest) will bring to the table about cruiser/battle cruiser sized hulls revamp, weapons and T1/T2/T3 hulls.
At this point seems that specially the hulls are the biggest problem with old bonus/stats etc, once this is done I think some gunnery adjustments will be made but right now it's probably a bit too soon to speculate.
All I can hope is that he will do the same awesome job he did with frigates. *fingers crossed* brb |
Lilliana Stelles
Mindstar Technology Executive Outcomes
169
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
Parsee789 wrote:Akirei Scytale wrote:When you realize that ACs nearly always engage in their falloff, you'll start understanding the balance. Consider that AC can hit (lesser damage, but still damage) targets at ranges that blasters and even pulse cannot.
... with multifreq, maybe. Pulse lasers can hit extreme ranges with other ammo types, whereas ammo barely helps ACs as it benefits optimal instead of falloff. |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
120
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:07:00 -
[10] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Read all your post and you bring some good points that have already been largely discussed in many other threads.
However I don't think any sort of nerf is needed simply because Minmatar hulls and gunnery are quite well designed generally, some have fitting issues too, the best thing to do imho is to bring other weapon systems to the same efficiency level without making them the same. Hybrids and specially T2 blaster long range ammo is an excellent step on the good direction, however we still need to wee what CCP Ybert(sry can never spell the rest) will bring to the table about cruiser/battle cruiser sized hulls revamp, weapons and T1/T2/T3 hulls.
At this point seems that specially the hulls are the biggest problem with old bonus/stats etc, once this is done I think some gunnery adjustments will be made but right now it's probably a bit too soon to speculate.
All I can hope is that he will do the same awesome job he did with frigates. *fingers crossed*
I am not advocating for any nerfs to autocannons, I am saying that autocannons is a model that the other short range weapons should be balanced around.
For starters Pulse lasers need to have their powergrid need reduced for medium and small class ships. |
|
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
2401
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
AC optimal is very close and ships that fit AC are close range brawlers. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
|
ISD Stensson
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
34
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
Thread moved from EVE General Discussion to Features & Ideas Discussion forum. ISD Stensson Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
120
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:23:00 -
[13] - Quote
Lilliana Stelles wrote:Parsee789 wrote:Akirei Scytale wrote:When you realize that ACs nearly always engage in their falloff, you'll start understanding the balance. Consider that AC can hit (lesser damage, but still damage) targets at ranges that blasters and even pulse cannot. ... with multifreq, maybe. Pulse lasers can hit extreme ranges with other ammo types, whereas ammo barely helps ACs as it benefits optimal instead of falloff.
If you know the mechanics off falloff, you know this isn't true.
Lets do a comparison.
425mm autocannon II:
2.4km optimal
9.6km falloff
Heavy Pulse Laser II
12km optimal
4km falloff
Max range (range up to where guns start doing no damage)= Optimal + 2x falloff
425mm:
2.4 + 2X(9.6)
2.4+ 19.2 = 21.6
HPL:
12 + 2x(4)
12+8 = 20
425mm will do damage further out than HPL at a small difference, but lets add in some other factors:
Now consider long range short gun ammo and tracking enhancer:
425mm+barrage+TE 2.4(1.15) + 19.2x(1.5x1.3) = 2.76 + 37.44 = 40.2km
HPL+scorch+TE 12(1.15x1.5) + 8x(1.3) = 20.7 + 10.4 =31.1km
As you can see 425mm autocannon will continue to hit and damage the target further out than heavy Pulse laser, heavy pulse laser will do more damage within its range, but 425mm will continue to inflict damage beyond HPL range.
Now consider short range high damage ammo, it becomes interesting:
425mm+emp+TE
2.4(1.15x.5) + 19.2x(1.3)=1.38 + 24.95 = 26.34 km
HPL + Multifreq + TE
12(1.15 x .5) + 8x(1.3) = 6.9 + 10.4 = 17.3 km
Autocannons only receive a very small penalty to using short range ammo compared to Heavy Pulse Laser.
Autocannons using short range ammo will greatly outrange Pulse lasers using short range.
Range is balanced in a sense. |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
120
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:AC optimal is very close and ships that fit AC are close range brawlers.
What do you call the vagabond then? |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
216
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:48:00 -
[15] - Quote
That Tracking Enhancers give +30% falloff is the main reason why autocannons are so effective. With a couple, they are encroaching on Scorch territory in terms of mid range dps. A Tracking Enhancer will boost Barrage dps more than a Gyrostabilizer across most of falloff range. It's just wrong. Lasers have so many downsides to compensate for their good damage projection, and then autocannons get to be almost as good while having every imaginable advantage too! The Tracking Enhancer should be reduced to +15% falloff.
The other thing which in my opinion isn't right is ease of fitting. This is what allows things like Sleipnirs with XL-ASBs, Hurricanes with 2x medium neuts on top of a standard fit, 1600mm Ruptures with MWD that needs no fitting mods, etc. Autocannons aren't that bad anymore to deserve such low fitting requirements.
PS: the Heavy Pulse Laser is not the right turret to compare to a 425mm Autocannon, the Focused Medium Pulse Laser is the closest equivalent. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
120
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 21:07:00 -
[16] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:That Tracking Enhancers give +30% falloff is the main reason why autocannons are so effective. With a couple, they are encroaching on Scorch territory in terms of mid range dps. A Tracking Enhancer will boost Barrage dps more than a Gyrostabilizer across most of falloff range. It's just wrong. Lasers have so many downsides to compensate for their good damage projection, and then autocannons get to be almost as good while having every imaginable advantage too! The Tracking Enhancer should be reduced to +15% falloff.
The other thing which in my opinion isn't right is ease of fitting. This is what allows things like Sleipnirs with XL-ASBs, Hurricanes with 2x medium neuts on top of a standard fit, 1600mm Ruptures with MWD that needs no fitting mods, etc. Autocannons aren't that bad anymore to deserve such low fitting requirements.
PS: the Heavy Pulse Laser is not the right turret to compare to a 425mm Autocannon, the Focused Medium Pulse Laser is the closest equivalent.
An issue that arises is that Artillery uses lots of powergrid, but autocannons use fairly little.
The same does not apply to Hybrids or lasers where both short range and long range use a lot of fitting.
Hybrids recently got a fitting reduction that mitigated this issue.
Lasers however remained unadjusted. It is a problem for small and medium size. Battleships have plenty of grid, but below BS, the ships run out of powergrid quickly due to the relatively high fitting cost of even short range lasers. |
PinkKnife
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
179
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 22:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
PS: the Heavy Pulse Laser is not the right turret to compare to a 425mm Autocannon, the Focused Medium Pulse Laser is the closest equivalent.
How do you figure that? What metric are you using to compare the two? Not all races have three of every turret. |
Serithin
Rage Against Machine
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
yea as a minmatar pilot i will say yes with ACs i have great range and tracking but with even 800mmIIs on a Tempest full long range fit an AC will still have an optimal of about 6k and any minmatar pilot knows if you outside your optimal...... well nuff said your doing atleast half damage im sorry but amarr and gallente (i also fly gallente) have far superior fittings compared to minmatar.
All we have is speed and powergrid OVERALL of course I.E. not all ships having tanking bonuses and only the loki has resist bonuses.
We might be able to hit you and have an EFT of over 9000 DPS but unless we can get face to face with you were pretty screwed.
Again nuff said fly minmatar and youll realize were all about getting to a target ASAP or we die pretty fast.
As far as the calculations that were posted AF has nothing to do with optimal and since we already have a 0km optimal (atleast sometimes it feels like it) even 50% bonus to optimal on 3km is only 1.5km added.
This totals to 4.5km with modules like i said around 6km 8km max ( as far as ive seen even on my 425 IIs on my vagabond) and that the only range we can actually do any real damage and btw 50% negative range bonus applies to our falloff and optimal so quit whining you amarr guy easily got 30km to have long range ammo and pick us off and as far as gallente.
Its called a webb we use them you can too and ive seen blaster do full damage at 20km so yea stop it please unless your going to brawl face to face like we ARE FORCED TO. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1113
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:38:00 -
[19] - Quote
I have a question.
Why would an Amarr ship use a TE over a TC?
Generally, if I want range, I would fit a TC with an optimal script. I think that makes the gap much closer.
Also, the damage output at that range for autos would be pitiful. |
Serithin
Rage Against Machine
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
^^^^ agreed liek i said right outside of optimal is half at around 20km its hit or miss for 100damage if im lucky and also agree minmatar have high tracking so a couple of TE's work TC works better when even flying gallente not sure about amarr though |
|
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:51:00 -
[21] - Quote
I'll stay out of the theorycrafting, but I think we can agree that ACs are "fixed" after all these ages.
I must agree that Projectile/ACs did receive a bit too much love.
Hybrids got some love over the course of the last months, but it was a bit more about eye candy. T2 Projectile Ammo is imo too effective now.
As for Amarr, I'm guessing CCP will look into lasers once they approach the BC/BS bracket. confirthisposmed
"When I'm through with you, there won't be anything left..." |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
222
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:34:00 -
[22] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:
PS: the Heavy Pulse Laser is not the right turret to compare to a 425mm Autocannon, the Focused Medium Pulse Laser is the closest equivalent.
How do you figure that? What metric are you using to compare the two? Not all races have three of every turret.
The FMP is closest in terms of fitting requirements. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
131
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:27:00 -
[23] - Quote
Serithin wrote:yea as a minmatar pilot i will say yes with ACs i have great range and tracking but with even 800mmIIs on a Tempest full long range fit an AC will still have an optimal of about 6k and any minmatar pilot knows if you outside your optimal...... well nuff said your doing atleast half damage im sorry but amarr and gallente (i also fly gallente) have far superior fittings compared to minmatar. All we have is speed and powergrid OVERALL of course I.E. not all ships having tanking bonuses and only the loki has resist bonuses. We might be able to hit you and have an EFT of over 9000 DPS but unless we can get face to face with you were pretty screwed. Again nuff said fly minmatar and youll realize were all about getting to a target ASAP or we die pretty fast. As far as the calculations that were posted AF has nothing to do with optimal and since we already have a 0km optimal (atleast sometimes it feels like it) even 50% bonus to optimal on 3km is only 1.5km added. This totals to 4.5km with modules like i said around 6km 8km max ( as far as ive seen even on my 425 IIs on my vagabond) and that the only range we can actually do any real damage and btw 50% negative range bonus applies to our falloff and optimal so quit whining you amarr guy easily got 30km to have long range ammo and pick us off and as far as gallente. Its called a webb we use them you can too and ive seen blaster do full damage at 20km so yea stop it please unless your going to brawl face to face like we ARE FORCED TO.
I call your reply crap, if you knew turret mechanics then you know you are lying.
If you are in Optimal and 50% falloff, you do around 85% of your normal dps.
Optimal and 100% falloff you do 50% of your normal dps.
Now consider this: Autocannons are barely affected by the range penalties of short range ammo. (unless using tech 2). You only receive at most a 10% decrease in your range.
While Pulse lasers take a big 50% hit in their range.
When normal short range ammo shortens falloff, then we can talk about the range disadvantages of autocannons. |
CrazySpaceHobo
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:PinkKnife wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:
PS: the Heavy Pulse Laser is not the right turret to compare to a 425mm Autocannon, the Focused Medium Pulse Laser is the closest equivalent.
How do you figure that? What metric are you using to compare the two? Not all races have three of every turret. The FMP is closest in terms of fitting requirements.
Thats just differences in the weapon systems as a whole, the 425mm is the largest of the medium autocannons, and the heavy pulse is the largest of the medium pulse lazers. Easy comparison. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
42
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:03:00 -
[25] - Quote
CrazySpaceHobo wrote:[quote=Takeshi Yamato] Thats just differences in the weapon systems as a whole, the 425mm is the largest of the medium autocannons, and the heavy pulse is the largest of the medium pulse lazers. Easy comparison. Easy comparison, though 425mm are easier to fit than focused medium pulse or ion blasters. AC are plain easier to fit than blaster, and use only a little more CPU than pulse laser ; though, you can compensate for CPU with meta4 mods whereas you cannot do anything about PG. Worse : amarr boat have *very crapy* CPU, and are often short on it despite the low CPU requirements of pulse laser.
Then, saying that minmatar ship have some fitting problem is a joke at best. Minmatar ship are the easiest to fit by far, to the point minmatar pilot forgot we have to make sacrifices for a fit because they can fit anything they want on their ships. Beging the same for other ships have no sense, it's powercreep and not necessary. If ships have PG and CPU, that is by purpose, to limit their ability to fit anything they want. Minmatar are cheating with this. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
222
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:52:00 -
[26] - Quote
CrazySpaceHobo wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:PinkKnife wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:
PS: the Heavy Pulse Laser is not the right turret to compare to a 425mm Autocannon, the Focused Medium Pulse Laser is the closest equivalent.
How do you figure that? What metric are you using to compare the two? Not all races have three of every turret. The FMP is closest in terms of fitting requirements. Thats just differences in the weapon systems as a whole, the 425mm is the largest of the medium autocannons, and the heavy pulse is the largest of the medium pulse lazers. Easy comparison.
Yes and this "difference in weapon systems" is precisely that lasers are a higher tier weapon than autocannons.
A Heavy Pulse Laser requires 40% more CPU and 50% more PG than a 425mm AC. Calling this a fair comparison is completely wrong. It needs to be compared to the Focused Medium Pulse which is designed with similar fitting requirements in mind. Or do you think that comparing Dual 180mm ACs to 425mm ACs is a fair comparison too? An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
222
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:09:00 -
[27] - Quote
This is how a 425mm AC II compares to a Focused Medium Pulse Laser II. Both fits have 3x Tracking Enhancer II and 3x damage mods and max skills.
http://imgur.com/eE2E7 (Scorch/Barrage) http://imgur.com/ALdvo (Fleet EMP/Navy MF)
If you have trouble figuring out which is which, the AC has a gradual drop in damage whereas the laser has a sudden drop.
The two turrets are not equal in fitting, but are the closest match. The 425mm AC requires 16% more PG than the FMP which in turn requires 16% more CPU than the 425mm AC. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
309
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:08:00 -
[28] - Quote
Parsee789 wrote:
I believe that autocannons should be a model for short range weapons to be balanced around.
This will lead to homogenisation, producing weapons systems that are similarly effective in all situations. Easy weapon fitting is also bad (e.g. Hurricane, Drake, t3 BCs) as few compromises or decisions have to be made, you just slap on the usual top-tier weapons, leading to homogeneity of fits and predictable gameplay.
Nor is Pulse a good model for a weapon system, mainly because of Scorch, enabling effective engagement ranges that are simply too large for a single weapon system - like ACs, they're too good in too many situations. A better model is blasters, which come with some fitting challenges and have a relatively well-defined engagement window, making tactical positioning and mobility more important. |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
135
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:01:00 -
[29] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Parsee789 wrote:
I believe that autocannons should be a model for short range weapons to be balanced around.
This will lead to homogenisation, producing weapons systems that are similarly effective in all situations. Easy weapon fitting is also bad (e.g. Hurricane, Drake, t3 BCs) as few compromises or decisions have to be made, you just slap on the usual top-tier weapons, leading to homogeneity of fits and predictable gameplay. Nor is Pulse a good model for a weapon system, mainly because of Scorch, enabling effective engagement ranges that are simply too large for a single weapon system - like ACs, they're too good in too many situations. A better model is blasters, which come with some fitting challenges and have a relatively well-defined engagement window, making tactical positioning and mobility more important.
Autocannons is unbalance compared to other short range weapons.
Autocannon range is not an issue with 30% tracking enhancer falloff bonus and the fact that high damage ammo does not gimp the range compared to other short range ammo. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1127
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:39:00 -
[30] - Quote
Still wondering why you would fit a TE, ratehr than a scripted TC, on an armor tanking laser boat.
Also, you don't compare guns on fittings. All lasers have higher fittings because Amarr have higher fittings.
Maybe compare based on damage, range, or rate of fire, but not fittings. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |