EVE Search - Railguns

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Railguns

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ihaz Yourstuff	Posted - 2011.08.29 16:27:00 - [1] Why do people say railguns suck right now? They seem fairly decent, what's so wrong with them?
William Cooly Sol Enterprises	Posted - 2011.08.29 16:31:00 - [2] Huge fitting requirements, huge cap usage along with taking ammo, absurd range with paint-chipping DPS compared to arties or beams, poor tracking, and the fact that they are hybrids, meaning your only alternative is blasters. - I troll stupid people.
Exploited Engineer	Posted - 2011.08.29 16:41:00 - [3] Originally by: Ihaz Yourstuff Why do people say railguns suck right now? Because they're worse than almost all alternatives. * Limited flexibility in damage type * Huge range which is useless * Poor tracking * Poor DPS * Use ammo * Caldari have almost no ships with an actual railgun dps bonus (either +ROF or +dam)
Shayla Sh'inlux Eve Space Exploration Guild	Posted - 2011.08.29 17:19:00 - [4] Edited by: Shayla Sh''inlux on 29/08/2011 17:19:19 Originally by: Ihaz Yourstuff Why do people say railguns suck right now? They seem fairly decent, what's so wrong with them? They're decent until you try the alternatives. They have relatively high fitting requirements (especially the cpu is high on the cpu-limited hulls they're supposed to go on) They take ammo as well as cap (no other non-hybrid gun does) Their DPS is terrible compared to arties and beams They have good range, which is good in theory except the hulls they are fitted on are clumsy and slow They have limited damage (like lasers), except that rails suffer from doing the most common and most tanked damagetypes To top it off, training rails also gives you blasters which are terrible and always have been terrible As of today, if you want to be the absolute king the solution is "missiles for PvE, autocannons with broken falloff ammo for PvP". Lasers are second best in both catagories.
Abdiel Kavash Caldari Paladin Order Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.08.29 17:24:00 - [5] Edited by: Abdiel Kavash on 29/08/2011 17:24:40 Railguns sacrifice every other attribute for their range. However in no realistic combat situation is THAT long range needed or even desired. Blasters sacrifice every other attirbute for their raw damage. However in no realistic combat situation you can actually apply a significant portion of that raw damage. So you are stuck with a gun which is excellent in one way that is completely useless to you, and sucks in every other way. ---
Naradius DEATHFUNK	Posted - 2011.08.29 17:37:00 - [6] Railguns are superb for transporting minerals...
Baraka Saibot	Posted - 2011.08.29 18:06:00 - [7] If you compare 1400mm howitzers, Mega beams and 425mm Rails. Beams is the best for DPS and tracking. Cap use and alpha. This goes to artillery. But! 425mm rails do more DPS and have better tracking than the 1400mm's, so why do everyone and their mom say that rails do pathetic DPS? When artillery have the worst DPS, most falloff and worst tracking? Their range is comparable to 1400mm's and better than Mega beams. Rails have the worst alpha. I can't see how the guns are completely broken and useless like people say. So, it must be the ships that are broken.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.29 18:22:00 - [8] Try fitting a full rack of 1400's on a Maelstrom. Now try a full rack of 425's on a Hyperion. Just saying.
quigibow	Posted - 2011.08.29 19:03:00 - [9] Originally by: Baraka Saibot If you compare 1400mm howitzers, Mega beams and 425mm Rails. Beams is the best for DPS and tracking. Cap use and alpha. This goes to artillery. But! 425mm rails do more DPS and have better tracking than the 1400mm's, so why do everyone and their mom say that rails do pathetic DPS? When artillery have the worst DPS, most falloff and worst tracking? Their range is comparable to 1400mm's and better than Mega beams. Rails have the worst alpha. I can't see how the guns are completely broken and useless like people say. So, it must be the ships that are broken. you are a moron and should never post again...
Dorian Tormak	Posted - 2011.08.29 19:07:00 - [10] Originally by: quigibow Originally by: Baraka Saibot If you compare 1400mm howitzers, Mega beams and 425mm Rails. Beams is the best for DPS and tracking. Cap use and alpha. This goes to artillery. But! 425mm rails do more DPS and have better tracking than the 1400mm's, so why do everyone and their mom say that rails do pathetic DPS? When artillery have the worst DPS, most falloff and worst tracking? Their range is comparable to 1400mm's and better than Mega beams. Rails have the worst alpha. I can't see how the guns are completely broken and useless like people say. So, it must be the ships that are broken. you are a moron and should never post again... Way to provide a competent argument! On the other hand, Tachyons are what should be there in place of MBLs.
Baraka Saibot	Posted - 2011.08.29 19:24:00 - [11] Edited by: Baraka Saibot on 29/08/2011 19:26:47 Originally by: quigibow Originally by: Baraka Saibot If you compare 1400mm howitzers, Mega beams and 425mm Rails. Beams is the best for DPS and tracking. Cap use and alpha. This goes to artillery. But! 425mm rails do more DPS and have better tracking than the 1400mm's, so why do everyone and their mom say that rails do pathetic DPS? When artillery have the worst DPS, most falloff and worst tracking? Their range is comparable to 1400mm's and better than Mega beams. Rails have the worst alpha. I can't see how the guns are completely broken and useless like people say. So, it must be the ships that are broken. you are a moron and should never post again... Okay, care to enlighten me to why? I come up with this point several times now, and mostly the the response is something similar, or "Nu-uh!!1 Arties are superior to failgunz in every way!!!!!". And in my opinion and several others, Tachyon's are pretty much a class for itself. Mostly because of their huge fitting attributes. 1400mm and 425mm rail guns don't really compare.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.29 19:38:00 - [12] I'm not precisely sure myself, but I'll conjecture it has to do with the difference in fitting them. The Maelstrom has (inexplicably) the same powergrid as the Abaddon, so fitting 1400's to it is trivial -- especially when you consider that it's a shield tanker. Fitting 425mm turrets on gallente (and Caldari) ships is significantly more difficult. Or such is my understanding.
Baraka Saibot	Posted - 2011.08.29 20:37:00 - [13] Originally by: Aamrr I'm not precisely sure myself, but I'll conjecture it has to do with the difference in fitting them. The Maelstrom has (inexplicably) the same powergrid as the Abaddon, so fitting 1400's to it is trivial -- especially when you consider that it's a shield tanker. Fitting 425mm turrets on gallente (and Caldari) ships is significantly more difficult. Or such is my understanding. That seems to be the case, all 425mm fits on either Caldari or Gallente ships are very tight. My point is, If you look up in the this thread for example that, alot of people saying that the rail guns have inferior DPS and tracking which simply isn't true. So, again. It's the ships.
Sydney Nelson	Posted - 2011.08.29 20:38:00 - [14] Just as a reference! My mission Hyperion with 8 Prototype Gauss 425s does 547dps (guns only, standard antimatter). You have to fit an ancillary current router to make everything fit. At 75km (max targeting range of Hype) it hits for 400dps (moving target, slight transversal, antimatter, 2 range-scripted TCs). At 10km it hits for 547dps (moving target, slight transversal, antimatter, 2 tracking speed-scripted TCs). I don't know how the other guns stack-up compared to this, as I don't fly them. It IS a little difficult to fit 425s on Gallente BS's, but there is a rig specifically designed for this (ACR). (Which in PVE typically takes the place of a CCC.) So basically, you sacrifice a little cap-time to fit it.
Shadowsword The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva	Posted - 2011.08.29 21:11:00 - [15] IMHO, railguns need -10% fitting requirments, -40% cap usage, +5% damage and +20% tracking. ------------------------------------------
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.29 21:32:00 - [16] Originally by: Shadowsword IMHO, railguns need -10% fitting requirments, -40% cap usage, +5% damage and +20% tracking. I know I'm not supposed to do this, but... 425mm Railgun II, Antimatter L: 16.6 DPS, 158 volley. 28.8km optimal, 24km falloff 0.00963 rad/s 3.14 GJ/s 2625 MW, 77 tf Mega Beam Laser II, Multifrequency L 19.2 DPS, 173 volley. 24km optimal, 16km falloff 0.0153 rad/s 7.22 GJ/s 3575 MW, 58 tf Shadowsword's Modified 425mm Railgun II, Antimatter L 17.4 DPS, 165.9 volley. 28.8km optimal, 24km falloff 0.11556 rad/s 1.88 GJ/s 2362.5 MW, 69.3 tf
E man Industries	Posted - 2011.08.29 21:35:00 - [17] Rail guns are great. They are the ultimate sniper weapon. But when hitting out past 150km you run into sensor limitations and the fact people can just warp to you. Sniping from these crazy ranges is not as usefull as it once was. i would like to see rails retain the crazy range with maybe easier fittings. More dps would be a result of fitting a mag stab instead of a fitting mod. Blasters are also great, just not on some of the slowest ships in the game. ______ Hello WoW players. Look at your toon, now back to me. Sadly it isn't me, but if it wasn't simplistic pre scripted linear mono dimensional game you could look like me. I'm in a Paladin
Zhilia Mann Tide Way Out Productions	Posted - 2011.08.29 22:11:00 - [18] Originally by: Aamrr I know I'm not supposed to do this, but... 425mm Railgun II, Antimatter L: 16.6 DPS, 158 volley. 28.8km optimal, 24km falloff 0.00963 rad/s 3.14 GJ/s 2625 MW, 77 tf Mega Beam Laser II, Multifrequency L 19.2 DPS, 173 volley. 24km optimal, 16km falloff 0.0153 rad/s 7.22 GJ/s 3575 MW, 58 tf Shadowsword's Modified 425mm Railgun II, Antimatter L 17.4 DPS, 165.9 volley. 28.8km optimal, 24km falloff 0.11556 rad/s 1.88 GJ/s 2362.5 MW, 69.3 tf Check that tracking calculation again. Not that I'd complain if 425 rails could out-track 425 ACs, but methinks it would imbalance the Megathron hull a bit.
Sydney Nelson	Posted - 2011.08.29 22:21:00 - [19] Originally by: Zhilia Mann Originally by: Aamrr I know I'm not supposed to do this, but... 425mm Railgun II, Antimatter L: 16.6 DPS, 158 volley. 28.8km optimal, 24km falloff 0.00963 rad/s 3.14 GJ/s 2625 MW, 77 tf Mega Beam Laser II, Multifrequency L 19.2 DPS, 173 volley. 24km optimal, 16km falloff 0.0153 rad/s 7.22 GJ/s 3575 MW, 58 tf Shadowsword's Modified 425mm Railgun II, Antimatter L 17.4 DPS, 165.9 volley. 28.8km optimal, 24km falloff 0.11556 rad/s 1.88 GJ/s 2362.5 MW, 69.3 tf Check that tracking calculation again. Not that I'd complain if 425 rails could out-track 425 ACs, but methinks it would imbalance the Megathron hull a bit. It should have been ".011556" Looks like a 0 got left-out.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.29 22:29:00 - [20] So it did. Thank you for correcting me. I'll edit my post for accuracy purposes.
Ineka Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2011.08.29 22:31:00 - [21] You should really spend some time reading threads about this older than 3 years and dozens of pages with con/prons. If you think rails are awesome and blasters are ultra then stick to those and train for them. If you really want to know what people using them now for a long time think about it, don't ask it, search and read.
Songbird Gallente T.I.E. Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.29 22:37:00 - [22] Originally by: Baraka Saibot If you compare 1400mm howitzers, Mega beams and 425mm Rails. But! 425mm rails do more DPS and have better tracking than the 1400mm's, so why do everyone and their mom say that rails do pathetic DPS? When artillery have the worst DPS, most falloff and worst tracking? first of all long range lazors go : dual heavy , mega beams, tachyons - if you wanna compare the mega beams you should match em with 350mm railguns. Second of all open up EFT and match the DPS of a 425mm rail vs a 1400 arty. They have exactly the same DPS (about 20 % lower than lazors) but arties have almost 4x the alpha of rails. And to top that arties use no cap to fire. rails fail
Baraka Saibot	Posted - 2011.08.29 23:11:00 - [23] Originally by: Songbird Originally by: Baraka Saibot If you compare 1400mm howitzers, Mega beams and 425mm Rails. But! 425mm rails do more DPS and have better tracking than the 1400mm's, so why do everyone and their mom say that rails do pathetic DPS? When artillery have the worst DPS, most falloff and worst tracking? first of all long range lazors go : dual heavy , mega beams, tachyons - if you wanna compare the mega beams you should match em with 350mm railguns. No, I really shouldn't. Show me the T1, non faction battleship without silly amounts of fitting mods that have 7-8 Tachyons. quote] Second of all open up EFT and match the DPS of a 425mm rail vs a 1400 arty. They have exactly the same DPS (about 20 % lower than lazors) but arties have almost 4x the alpha of rails. And to top that arties use no cap to fire. I sugggest you open up EFT too. It's not exactly the same. I'm just pointing out that rails have more DPS than artillery, better tracking about the same range, but more optimal. I can see that rail guns aren't great, they could use some love if you compare them to beams and their capacitor use that seems to the defining factor of how good a turret should be. But I'm pointing out they aren't as crappy as people say they are. Rather I would say that beams are little overpowered.
Dorian Wylde	Posted - 2011.08.29 23:28:00 - [24] Originally by: Exploited Engineer Originally by: Ihaz Yourstuff Why do people say railguns suck right now? Because they're worse than almost all alternatives. * Limited flexibility in damage type * Huge range which is useless * Poor tracking * Poor DPS * Use ammo * Caldari have almost no ships with an actual railgun dps bonus (either +ROF or +dam) Same as lasers, and it has better damage types than lasers. How exactly is range useless? Debatable. Blaster damage is still incredible. Compared to other weapons which have been buffed recently. Sort of like every other weapon. T2 and faction crystals still break, and drones can be shot down. Again, you're going to have a tough time explaining how range is a bad thing. Caldari turret ships usually get range bonuses, which means they can engage far beyond other ships of their class. I agree that hybrids need work, but posting foolishness like this is not going to get them fixed.
Shayla Sh'inlux Eve Space Exploration Guild	Posted - 2011.08.30 12:19:00 - [25] Quote: But! 425mm rails do more DPS and have better tracking than the 1400mm's, so why do everyone and their mom say that rails do pathetic DPS? When artillery have the worst DPS, most falloff and worst tracking? Because everyone understands "DPS" in a meaningless stat if you track if over infinite time. A 425 does about as much DPS as an 1400 over infinite time, but because the Howitzer does 4x the alpha, it takes the railgun almost 7 minutes to catch up.
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.08.30 13:35:00 - [26] Originally by: Dorian Wylde Same as lasers, and it has better damage types than lasers. Everything tanks Kinetic/Thermal. Lots of ships have an EM holeà so no. Quote: How exactly is range useless? Because it is only an advantage if it lets you either use shorter-range ammo to get your damage up compared to your opponent (which you do, but not enough to make a difference) or if you can outrange your opponent (which you can't, because at that range, they can just jump to you). Quote: Debatable. Blaster damage is still incredible. Blaster damage is slightly above AC/Pulses, but in such a narrow engagement band that you will never be able to apply that extra damage in practice. Quote: Compared to other weapons which have been buffed recently. More specifically: compared to other weapons which have been buffed even though there was no need to buff them. Quote: Sort of like every other weapon. Sort of. Except that every other weapon has the option (or forces you) to either consume ammo or consume cap. Hybrids forces you to do both, and doesn't provide any special advantage for this dual requirement. Quote: Again, you're going to have a tough time explaining how range is a bad thing. Caldari turret ships usually get range bonuses, which means they can engage far beyond other ships of their class. àat which point those ships warp closer and engage well below the tracking capabilities of the railguns. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Vice Admiral Spreadsheet Caldari	Posted - 2011.08.30 13:39:00 - [27] Railguns feel like this - 425mm Railgun II, Antimatter L: 1.2 DPS, 10 volley. 280.8km optimal, 240km falloff 0.00000 rad/s 300.14 GJ/s 5655 MW, 120 tf
Songbird Gallente T.I.E. Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.30 13:52:00 - [28] railguns use the same(t1) ammo that blasters use. If it dissipates so fast for the blasters why do railguns have so much range? On top of that why do all the caldari ships(railguns are caldari weapons primarily ) have bonus to range for such long ranged weapons? I say cut their range by 20% , raise dps by 20%, raise tracking by 5%(since they'll need to shoot at targets moving with higher angular velocities at the new shorter ranges) This way caldari ships get a meaningful bonus to hybrid range, dps is the same as tachyons , and gallente get mid range high damage weapon , since blasters suck so bad.
Rhathyl	Posted - 2011.08.30 14:13:00 - [29] correct me if I'm wrong, but when sniping at 150km+ I didn't think people could warp to you directly. Pilots can only warp to a can/object in space/fleet member.
Baraka Saibot	Posted - 2011.08.30 14:20:00 - [30] Edited by: Baraka Saibot on 30/08/2011 14:26:20 Edited by: Baraka Saibot on 30/08/2011 14:20:52 Originally by: Shayla Sh'inlux Quote: But! 425mm rails do more DPS and have better tracking than the 1400mm's, so why do everyone and their mom say that rails do pathetic DPS? When artillery have the worst DPS, most falloff and worst tracking? Because everyone understands "DPS" in a meaningless stat if you track if over infinite time. A 425 does about as much DPS as an 1400 over infinite time, but because the Howitzer does 4x the alpha, it takes the railgun almost 7 minutes to catch up. I fail to see the logic in that, If a 1400 howitzer does 972 alpha every 28.9 seconds and a 425mm Rail gun will alpha 250 every 6.88 seconds. 28.9/6.88 = 4.2, so let's just say that the rail gun will fire 4 rounds at the same time as the 1400mm, 4x250 = 1000 damage. Meaning, before the 1400mm can fire off it's second round, it will already have been out damaged by the 425mm rail gun. Where are you getting those 7 minutes? I'm I missing something here?

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.