Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |

Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
307
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP FoxFour
In real life, the strength of a laser is often expressed in watts. Watts is a measure of the amount of energy per second they can put out.
See for example this article on a real life laser weapon: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-01/navys-free-electron-laser-weapon-takes-big-leap-forward-powerful-new-electron-injector
Hybrid and Projectile turrets already have their barrel width in the name (ie. 250mm Railgun) why shouldn't lasers carry their wattage in the name? It fits nicely into a science fiction universe. The gigawatt values here very roughly reflect the actual energy consumption of the lasers too.
So this my proposal:
Frigate lasers Light 2 Gigawatt Pulse Laser (formerly Gatling Pulse Laser) Light 3 Gigawatt Pulse Laser (formerly Dual Light Pulse Laser) Light 4 Gigawatt Pulse Laser (formerly Medium Pulse Laser)
Cruiser lasers Medium 10 Gigawatt Pulse Laser (formerly Medium Focused Pulse Laser) ... (if it existed, this laser would be 15 Gigawatt) Medium 20 Gigawatt Pulse Laser (formerly Heavy Pulse Laser)
Battleship lasers Large 50 Gigawatt Laser (formerly Dual Heavy Pulse Laser) ... (if it existed, this laser would be 75 Gigawatt) Large 100 Gigawatt Laser (formerly Mega Pulse Laser)
Capital lasers X-Large 500 Gigawatt Laser (formerly Dual Giga Pulse Laser) 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
309
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Syndic Thrass wrote:Ravcharas wrote:Yep, using watts or something like it makes a lot of sense. Capacitors are charged in like Giga Joules or some such **** so naming them by Watts would A. Lead to boring as all hell names and B. Quite on the contrary, it would make no sense whatsoever seeing as Watts measure power and joules measure energy, I think ou lost a t somewhere in that naming convention of yours.
Watts and joules are both valid to indicate the strength of a laser. Joules is the total energy, while watts is joules per second.
The advantage of using watts here in EVE is that we don't have to worry about the number matching the capacitor consumption (which can change very significantly).
A 1 gigajoule laser could easily have peak power of several gigawatts if the beam duration is shorter than one second. 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
309
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 15:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
By the way, "I" in meta 1-4 modules is really unnecessary. See this one here:
Dual Modal Pulse Laser I
We players don't consider this module to be tech 1. We consider it to be meta 1-4 or a "named module" 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
310
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:While we are discussing metas, can we change the meta of prop mods so that they are all the same names for the highest existing meta? Its not a big deal, but its an annoyance every time I have to search the market for a prop mod
Ie, the best meta frig mwd is limited, but for 10mn sizes, its experimental, and for 100mn its prototype.
ABs and MWDs were the first renamed modules, and this was THE reason why people disliked the change I believe, because at first glance the renaming didn't change much at all... 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
310
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 16:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Murashu wrote:The new module names (limited, experimental, prototype) still make no sense to me as far as explaining how one is slightly better than the other. Please explain to me how a new or old player should know that a limited item has better stats than an experimental item? I find myself searching the attibutes page looking for the meta level more now than ever before  If you really want to make this simple for us to understand and stop trying to confuse us with each new expansion go with something simple. Meta 1 - Small Pulse Laser Meta 2 - Medium Pulse Laser Meta 5 - Large Pulse Laser Meta 1 - 10mn Afterburner Meta 6 - 100mn Microwarp Drive so on and so on.
You're indeed totally confused on what meta levels are.
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
313
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 19:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sphit Ker wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: (...) why shouldn't lasers carry their wattage in the name? This can "take" for as long as you stick to a scale people are already used to. As in, meg, gig and tera. Small, medium and large. Just saying.
Check the capacitor consumption of the lasers. They're all in the gigajoule range. 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
315
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 19:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
Aamrr wrote:I rather like the gigawat convention, but it should probably be abbreviated. 200mm turrets, 50GW lasers
This is a good suggestion. I also like shorter module names, just didn't think of it at the time of writing the post.
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
315
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 20:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:Naming lasers after their power (Megawatt, Gigawatt, Terawatt etc) isn't a great idea give that:
A) They already have a power grid usage measured in Megawatts B)They already have a a Cap consumption value, measured in Gigawatts C) Their use of both cap and PG changes as skills and rigs are applied.
So you end up with a situation where a Laser's name corresponds to neither its power usage nor its energy cost (and overlaps with both), and doesn't scale with the damage it puts out.
Actually it makes sense, but to those less familiar with the definition of power and energy it might seem nonsensical.
The capacitor consumption is the amount of energy that goes into a shot. For a Heavy Pulse Laser II with max skills, this is about 5 gigajoule before any crystals.
This energy is converted into light and projected onto the target in a few short pulses. Some of the energy is lost during the conversion process. Let's assume 1/5 is lost .
I suggested the Heavy Pulse Laser to be called Medium 20GW Pulse Laser.
The 20GW number matches perfectly if we pretend that the laser expends its 4 GJ in a series a series of short pulses that last 0.2 seconds in total. The pulses are effectively 20GW laser beams.
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
316
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 21:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
This is the final wattage naming suggestion.
1) An explanation on how the numbers I proposed were obtained
I looked at the energy cost per shot of all tech 1 pulse lasers with max skills and no crystals loaded.
Gatling Pulse Laser I: 1.3 GJ Dual Light Pulse Laser I: 2 GJ Medium Pulse Laser I: 3.3 GJ
Focused Medium Pulse Laser I: 6 GJ Heavy Pulse Laser I: 10 GJ
Dual Heavy Pulse Laser I: 18.75 GJ Mega Pulse Laser I: 30 GJ
Dual Giga Pulse Laser I: 240 GJ
With this I get an idea on what kind of scale these are operating at and roughly how they differ in power. Since this is a game we have some artistic freedom and we can go with pretty numbers that follow a clear progression, as long as they are reasonable.
2) Taking into account the feedback by other players, I have modified the original proposal slightly:
Frigate lasers Small 2GW Pulse Laser (formerly Gatling Pulse Laser) Small 3GW Pulse Laser (formerly Dual Light Pulse Laser) Small 4GWPulse Laser (formerly Medium Pulse Laser)
Cruiser lasers Medium 10GW Pulse Laser (formerly Medium Focused Pulse Laser) ... (if it existed, this laser would be 15GW) Medium 20GW Pulse Laser (formerly Heavy Pulse Laser)
Battleship lasers Large 50GW Laser (formerly Dual Heavy Pulse Laser) ... (if it existed, this laser would be 75GW) Large 100GW Laser (formerly Mega Pulse Laser)
Capital lasers Capital 500GW Laser (formerly Dual Giga Pulse Laser) 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
316
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 21:44:00 -
[10] - Quote
And here are beam laser names. Note that their wattage should be lower despite higher energy costs as they maintain a lower energy beam for longer compared to pulse lasers. :
Small 1GW Beam Laser (formerly Dual Light Beam Laser) Small 2GW Beam Laser (formerly Medium Beam Laser)
Medium 3GW Beam Laser (formerly Quad Light Beam Laser. This one has actually lower cap consumption than the Medium Beam Laser, but not giving it a higher wattage seems wrong) Medium 4GW Beam Laser (formerly Focused Medium Beam Laser) Medium 8GW Beam Laser (formerly Heavy Beam Laser)
Large 16GW Beam Laser (formerly Dual Heavy Beam Laser) Large 24GW Beam Laser (formerly Mega Beam Laser) Large 36GW Beam Laser (formerly Tachyon Beam Laser)
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
316
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 21:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:nitpicking
This is still a game and we don't have to concern ourselves with simulating everything accurately. If we did, we should rightfully throw the whole idea of skills reducing cap usage out. 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
374
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 19:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:I know 3 things:
Having a "limited" meta item being better than a "upgraded" meta items is super confusing and doesn't make sense for me and any other person I've talked with... It should be T1 -> limited -> upgraded -> experimental -> prototype (Advanced???) -> T2
Agreed. Limited actually sounds like it would be worse than the regular tech 1 version. Here's my take on a more descriptive progression:
T1 -> Modified -> Upgraded -> Improved -> Advanced -> T2 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
388
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 15:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
Aaron Greil wrote:as an actual scientist and a dedicated amarr pilot, I would love if the naming scheme followed actual real life laser conventions. For all the other gun types, someone can simply punch in a number, like 425mm, or 800mm or 220mm, etc. to find the gun they're looking for. So, lets use the same for lasers! Since real life lasers are measured by their power output in watts, why not do the same thing. If a true class IV (can cause serious injury) laser is about 10 watts, then: small lasers: gatling --> 100 kW dual light --> 200 kW medium --> 500 kW
...
You can see the energy usage of lasers in its attributes tab. Even the smallest laser requires several GJ of energy each cycle.
In real life, roughly how efficient are lasers in converting input energy into an actual beam? That might help CCP finding appropriate watt numbers Drakes & Tengus online: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1208/fbaugust.jpg |

Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
388
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 17:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:And my problem with using number for lasers is this attribute is adjusted by skills, ships, implants, and I think boosters.
True, however I've explained why this only appears to be a problem but isn't necessarily so with a bit of imagination.
1 GW = 1 GJ over 1 second.
2 GW = 1 GJ over 0.5 seconds.
3 GW = 1 GJ over 0.333 seconds.
etc.
Since the actual duration of the beam isn't specified anywhere (cycle time must include cooling time) there isn't any numerical contradiction. The beam intensity is probably anything but linear, but most likely follows a bell curve or similar progression. The wattage could refer to peak or average power.
As for actual capacitor usage changing it's also not necessarily a problem. With a standard crystal, cap usage is reduced by 50%. This would be the standard mode of operation. when a multifrequency crystal with 0% cap usage reduction is used, one could simply say that cycling through frequencies causes the beam to last twice as long - the wattage stays the same, energy input is doubled. Alternatively, that cycling through frequencies costs a lot of extra energy with increased destructive power coming from rapidly varying frequencies on the target, not increased wattage.
I'm sure there are other perfectly valid explanations.
Basically what I'm saying is that with a bit of imagination there isn't any problem. EVE has stuff that makes alot less sense than this. Drakes & Tengus online: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1208/fbaugust.jpg |
|
|