A capacitor use bonus should not count as a "bonus" when minmatar ships get that for free. I am not sure why CCP has to make it so that a ship can only have two bonuses, it seems rather silly. Maybe something simple like a tracking bonus?

The drake gets a bonus to resistances and a dps bonus, but do its guns use less cap than a harbinger? Yea, good bonus. It's not like lasers give a really big advantage to counter using all that cap.

Where's that 3rd cap bonus for blasterboats?

No. You get another bonus when you lose the cap bonus. That makes 2. You don't get 3rd when blasterboats get 2.

Blaster boats still use less cap than a harbinger per gun.
So a Brutix gets a bonus to dps and tank while still using less cap, and a thorax gets a bonus to dps and tracking while still using less cap.

By your logic, your laserboat gets a bonus to range. Remove scorch and we'll talk.

Or maybe boats are different. Winmatar may need a nerf, but that doesn't mean laserboats get a 3rd bonus so that it can pwn hybrids worse than they do now.

I agree with the OP, having a bonus to cap on amarr ships sucks when all that bonus does is to allow those weapons to function normally, thus it is not a bonus.

How about reducing cap requirements on all lasers, I've never understood how beam lasers should even require cap in the first place as (if I remember my optical physics correctly) all a beam laser needs is a continuous source of power (this is represented in the PG requirements as posted in the weapon description). Pulse lasers are a little different in that they rapidly fire multiple times per shot and as such need short bursts of power which is where a capacitor is needed.

So I would say, no cap on all beam lasers at the very least and reduced cap requirements for the more damaging, but shorter range pulse lasers.

Thats more homogenizing the weapons which I think is bad, they should all have a glaring disadvantage but have a massive advantage. Blasters do lolwtf dps with awesome tracking but **** range, projectiles can select damage types, fit easy, and use 0 cap with slightly better dps than missiles, lasers eat cap and have better damage projection.

Yet on the harbinger it is not really good enough to snipe and it doesnt have any advantages in a brawl.

Glad your alt agrees with your main. Why don't we just give you hybrids instead of lasers? Problems solved? After all, blasters get "awsome tracking" and rails get... what do they get again? All for less cap. Sounds like the perfect weapons for you.

Yeah, laserboats clearly deserves a special 3rd bonus, and hybrid boats don't.

That's the first time I've been called an Alt. I don't like it one bit. Still best not feed the obvious troll...

Glad your alt agrees with your main. Why don't we just give you hybrids instead of lasers? Problems solved? After all, blasters get "awsome tracking" and rails get... what do they get again? All for less cap. Sounds like the perfect weapons for you.

Yeah, laserboats clearly deserves a special 3rd bonus, and hybrid boats don't.

Thats rather paranoid assuming that is my alt. Please stop saying stupid ****.

Rails have omgwtfbbq range which used to be much more useful before CCP nerfed lock range. Rails suck different thread.

Hybrids don't need a 3rd bonus, and neither do most laser boats like the maller which is pretty good. As a brawler the harb can't eat capacitor like Rosie O'Donell drinks mayonaise while still staying viable and doesn't have an advantage sniping.

Blasters also use less cap and do more dps, lots more.

[quote=Commander Ted]

"omgwtfbbq range"

Lol, really? What do you call Scorch?

Yea your right 115km range with medium guns loaded with t2 ammo and 0 modules is utter ****.
I guess large rails having range longer than grid size is nothing special either right?

How about we compare cap usage. Harbinger with heavy pulse IIs consumes 9.6 cap/sec on guns, Brutix with 250mm rail IIs (lol rails) consumes 9.0 cap/sec on guns. Former is 0.6 cap/sec higher, but gets Scorch. I'll give you rail performance for that 0.6 cap/sec, deal? Oh wait, but that's not enough, you want a 3rd bonus. What are you smoking and can i haz?

Damn those rails. Now those are clearly OP, aren't they? Why don't you use them?

Comparing long range guns to short range guns in cap use. The Turret you are looking for is Heavy Beam Laser.

Blasters then, 8.4, huge difference. But I suppose these guns will be off while you get into range to tickle that scorchboat.

And who fit beams on their Harby instead of scorch?

Blasters then, 8.4, huge difference. But I suppose these guns will be off while you get into range to tickle that scorchboat.

And who fit beams on their Harby instead of scorch?

A capacitor use bonus should not count as a "bonus" when minmatar ships get that for free. I am not sure why CCP has to make it so that a ship can only have two bonuses, it seems rather silly. Maybe something simple like a tracking bonus or maybe even a really weird bonus like to a type of ewar?

The drake gets a bonus to resistances and a dps bonus, but do its guns use less cap than a harbinger? Yea, good bonus. It's not like lasers give a really big advantage to counter using all that cap.

The lack of a second bonus is balanced by the natural performance of lasers.
Honestly the Harbinger was fine before the patch and its equal if not a little better now.

Who cares about charts? There are so many factors that play into this chart, the Quality of the ships themselves isn't actually the most important.
Perhaps the harbinger isnt used as much because a lot of people have Drake skills from pve and minmatar are generally prefered for (solo) pvp? No idea but certainly possible.

The point is: i fly Harbinger(s) and I have used it in fleets meant for Hurricanes. The cap use of lasers isn't as much of a problem as you say it is.

Asking for a 3rd bonus, which would throw balance out the window, is not a good way to go.

All T1 ships have 2 bonuses which should be balanced against the ship they are on as well as other ships in their class and role. That system works.

A more logical idea would have been to ask for a cap recharge bonus instead, or something similar. But that would be of no help to fits that rely on cap boosters to keep running, while a cap need reduction does help in this field.

Lasers, like every other weapon system, have their own set of benefits and weaknesses.

Lasers have massive optimal, allowing for much more 'applied dps' when. compared to say projectiles which are almost always working in damage mitigating falloff.
It also does not require reloading, unless your using faction or T2 ammo.
I mean come on, a Zealot with Scorch M will easily have a 30km+ optimal range. Can any other weapon say the same?

All in all: Bonuses are for flavour, they should not make or break a ship.

Scorch is Amarrs saving grace. If conflag wasnt utter **** they could probably nerf scorch.

First off getting the numbers straight a Neutron Blaster II uses

-0.8 Cap per sec / 0 Mag Stab
-0.9 Cap per sec / 1 Mag Stab
-1.0 Cap per sec / 2 Mag Stab
-1.1 Cap per sec / 3 Mag Stab

While a Heavy Pulse Laser II uses

-2.6 Cap per sec / 0 Heat Sink
-3.0 Cap per sec / 1 Heat Sink
-3.2 Cap per sec / 2 Heat Sink
-3.4 Cap per sec / 3 Heat Sink

Lasers have massive optimal, and damage projection which is what justifies the lack of a bonus.

Asking for a 3rd bonus, which would throw balance out the window, is not a good way to go.

I think an important part of what everyone seems to be forgetting is that lasers..

...have instant ammo switching and have literally unlimited ammo unless you're using T2/faction crystals which still take damage pretty slowly.

I wish my projectile weapons and my missile bays (I fly Minmatar, so naturally I have both) could change ammo half as fast as lasers can change crystals.

No, really. You can fire an awful lot of times with those faction/T2 crystals before they break. Crystals take up nearly no space in the cargo, compared to the amount of ammo you'd need to make the same number of shots with any other gun. Lasers have a lot of benefits, but they're balanced by drawbacks and you're either failing or refusing to see the benefits because all you're interested in are the drawbacks.

Regarding the "make lasers take less cap and remove the cap bonus", I'm not going to touch that specifically but I do want to point out that some Amarr ships don't get a cap bonus to lasers, instead getting RoF and damage bonuses, or range and damage, or tracking and damage. The argument could possibly be made that cap-bonused ships are intended to more easily allow for active armor tanking as opposed to the ships without the cap bonus being intended mainly for passive armor tanking.

As long as my myrm can get a blaster bonus, my brutix a tracking bonus, and my drake can get an omni missile damage increase and a rate of fire boost

Or the harbinger could just get a useful bonus to replace it's current one.

None of those ships need a different bonus, the harbinger is at a great disadvantage being such a cap ***** and needs that cap bonus.

Having two bonuses shouldn't be an arbitrary rule because not all bonuses are created equal.

IE Active rep bonus vs resist bonus

ROF bonus vs true damage bonus

Tracking bonus vs range

Which means a different bonus (I've never flown amarr so I don't know what bonus should go in it's place) would fix that

So your saying that the harbinger's guns should use more cap than a microwarp drive because 3 bonuses would make it look different from the other ships?

I'm saying that if it gets another bonus so should every other bc

So if it's barely a bonus, the bonus should be change but you say that the cap bonus is needed which contradicts your argument

If it's bonuses are working that means it doesn't need a new one

They aren't working. They suck. The cap bonus is not good enough to make the ship viable and without the bonus the ship would be unusable. If you say that is contradictory you are a tool and I mean that.

Well **** you too, that just shows that the bonus is lower than where it should be since you just stated it's too small tp make a difference.

WHAT? How on earth would that fix anything? Even if the guns used 0 cap the harbinger would still suck.

Scorch suck? Why don't you crosstrain to hybrids?

WHAT? How on earth would that fix anything? Even if the guns used 0 cap the harbinger would still suck.

Then fit cap mods, ask for the bonus to get changed and stop complaining

Do you even know how to fit for pvp?
Alright so I fit a cap booster now I just have a ship that is outperformed by every other battlecruiser.

The Harbie has issues itself, it's a mediocre ship and didn't get enough change to give it a role anywhere.

But that doesn't affect the laser issue in general, which is really the crux of the thread, people are getting tied down on this 'Third bonus for harbies' thing and not looking at fixing the real problem.

If you fold the 50% ship bonus into Lasers themselves, LASERS STILL USE THE MOST CAP OF ANY WEAPONS.
Bolded to make the point. They still use significantly more cap than the equivilent Hybrids while at -50% cap use.

So the 'bonus' should be folded into the weapon. Maybe at only 40% to reflect the fact a lot of people only train ships to lvl 4, while 5 is 'specialisation'. That then frees up a 'bonus' (Which isn't a bonus since it is required to use lasers on any ship which isn't pirate, you can 'just' use lasers on the pirate ships, but since they have half the guns for the same DPS, they have a 50% cap reduction bonus already in that) that can actually be something interesting.
As well as allowing ships like the Maller & Abbadon to be viable as laser ships without capping out or requiring twin cap boosters just to shoot guns.

stuff

The Harbie has issues itself, it's a mediocre ship and didn't get enough change to give it a role anywhere.

But that doesn't affect the laser issue in general, which is really the crux of the thread, people are getting tied down on this 'Third bonus for harbies' thing and not looking at fixing the real problem.

If you fold the 50% ship bonus into Lasers themselves, LASERS STILL USE THE MOST CAP OF ANY WEAPONS.
Bolded to make the point. They still use significantly more cap than the equivilent Hybrids while at -50% cap use.

So the 'bonus' should be folded into the weapon. Maybe at only 40% to reflect the fact a lot of people only train ships to lvl 4, while 5 is 'specialisation'. That then frees up a 'bonus' (Which isn't a bonus since it is required to use lasers on any ship which isn't pirate, you can 'just' use lasers on the pirate ships, but since they have half the guns for the same DPS, they have a 50% cap reduction bonus already in that) that can actually be something interesting.
As well as allowing ships like the Maller & Abbadon to be viable as laser ships without capping out or requiring twin cap boosters just to shoot guns.

what about ships like the hurricane who get only 1.3 bonus since the harby get a straight +10% on 6 turret and the hurricane waste 2x5% bonus (granted one is a rof and that the only reason i put 1.3 bonus) or what about the brutix who get only 1 useful bonus the 10% damage and the repair bonus its completely wasted since the ship perform much better as a shield gank boat than a armor repping bleeder.

lasers have a built in damage bonus, if the cap usage get reduced also that damage bonus would be reduced, you really want that?

I fly at least as much Amarr as I do anything else and I don't support this for the harb or any other Amarr ships.

I read a thread similar to this some time ago that said all Amarr ships should get a 50% cap use role bonus and asked would the Abaddon really be overpowered if its cap wasn't so touchy? The short answer is yes. So ignoring the "where's X race's role bonus" threads which are 100% guaranteed to spawn in the wake of that decision there is just no reason for it. Amarr are not typically lacking compared to ships of other races to warrant second bonuses beyond what they have.

Amarr typically have stronger than average if not the strongest capacitors in each ship class available which goes a long way to mitigating the cap use of lasers, with decent skills the guns are not that big a strain and reducing the strain would just give that much more cap to use on everything else with my superior capacitor.

Reducing the base cap use of lasers is not a good option either or you risk running into an issue where kiting ships like Minmatar use lasers too because while projectiles are forgiving and at least partially effective at a huge variety or ranges no short range weapons can touch pulse/scorch for damage projection. On paper dps doesn't reflect this so much but scorch at optimal is usually the same as similar projectile turrets at optimal + falloff and therefore the projectile ship is doing ~50% of listed damage while the laser boat is doing ~100% with all else being equal.

Basically I feel like Amarr ships were balanced with the cap usage bonuses in mind and giving them something else would make them too good, especially in the hands of pilots with insane quantities of skill points. While in the short term it might make Amarr more appealing to low SP pilots there are people like myself who are approaching the stats you get in EFT with all level Vs loaded that would make you regret getting your way.

Can't agree more, the harbinger and Amarrian ships in general need a bonus to decrease the consumption of cap in lasers

Laser cap use bonus on Amarr ships:
So this became a pretty heated debate in the thread, and I'm going to address it even if it is a bit off topic.
The original design of lasers was that they essentially had a built in damage bonus, being more powerful in base damage than any other weapon system. In the time since launch however that specific damage advantage has diluted somewhat, as most of the buffs lasers received over the years were to tracking. Pulse lasers tend to have good damage and excellent range for short range guns, and Beams have good damage, fair range and excellent tracking compared to other long range options. There are a lot of Amarr ships that need help, as well as many that are working well. Certain problems are tied to the weapons themselves, for instance fittings on small lasers need help and many of the problems with beams are tied to the weapons. We're taking our first steps towards improving the fitting situation for frigates in the already announced changes for winter:

Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward.

That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.

Hey guys, just want to pop into this discussion with my perspective.

Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward.

That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.

That statement has not fundamentally changed. The solution to problems with certain Amarr ships isn't to remove the cap bonus across the board, or add a third bonus. It's to ensure that the strengths of each weapon system counterbalance the drawbacks.

This is an ongoing iterative project and we're not going to get there for all weapon systems overnight, but I can fairly firmly state that we're not going to remove the laser cap use bonus from the Amarr flavor and we're not going to start giving them 3rd bonuses across the board.

The problems aren't new. The solutions aren't forthcoming. My understanding from your statements is "Yeah, it's broken, and we're maybe going to fix it sometime in the nebulous future, perhaps even the distant future, but none of your ideas are what we're going to do, and no I can't tell you what we're going to do about it. You'll just have to put up with the brokenness until we do something about it"

Do you really expect us to be happy with that position?

MDD

The problems aren't new. The solutions aren't forthcoming. My understanding from your statements is "Yeah, it's broken, and we're maybe going to fix it sometime in the nebulous future, perhaps even the distant future, but none of your ideas are what we're going to do, and no I can't tell you what we're going to do about it. You'll just have to put up with the brokenness until we do something about it"

Do you really expect us to be happy with that position?

MDD

Hey guys, just want to pop into this discussion with my perspective.

I'll start by copypasting what I said in the Combat Frigs thread in relation to this question back before Retribution:


That statement has not fundamentally changed. The solution to problems with certain Amarr ships isn't to remove the cap bonus across the board, or add a third bonus. It's to ensure that the strengths of each weapon system counterbalance the drawbacks.

This is an ongoing iterative project and we're not going to get there for all weapon systems overnight, but I can fairly firmly state that we're not going to remove the laser cap use bonus from the Amarr flavor and we're not going to start giving them 3rd bonuses across the board.

You can be as happy or unhappy with me as you want, that's your prerogative. What I'm saying is that we're not going to remove the uniqueness of different turret types without good cause.
The balance between weapon types is better now that it has ever been in EVE, and after each expansion in the future it will keep getting incrementally better.

You can be as happy or unhappy with me as you want, that's your prerogative. What I'm saying is that we're not going to remove the uniqueness of different turret types without good cause.
The balance between weapon types is better now that it has ever been in EVE, and after each expansion in the future it will keep getting incrementally better.

You can be as happy or unhappy with me as you want, that's your prerogative. What I'm saying is that we're not going to remove the uniqueness of different turret types without good cause.
The balance between weapon types is better now that it has ever been in EVE, and after each expansion in the future it will keep getting incrementally better.

You can be as happy or unhappy with me as you want, that's your prerogative. What I'm saying is that we're not going to remove the uniqueness of different turret types without good cause.
The balance between weapon types is better now that it has ever been in EVE, and after each expansion in the future it will keep getting incrementally better.

Fozzie, if I came across as attacking you personally, then I apologize. That wasn't my intention (I blame low blood sugar grumpiness).

It merely seems like for all the attempts at balancing the weapon systems we never get there. Projectiles have been the go-to turret system for years. It would be interesting to see weapon type use versus time over the last several years.

MDD

You can be as happy or unhappy with me as you want, that's your prerogative. What I'm saying is that we're not going to remove the uniqueness of different turret types without good cause.
The balance between weapon types is better now that it has ever been in EVE, and after each expansion in the future it will keep getting incrementally better.

one thing i have thought about is with rail-guns and projectiles is that being bullets there is travel time involved if you ever watch sci-fi like stargate Atlantis and they start firing rail-guns you see the ammo in space moving to its target ...
point being lasers are the only weapon system that would genuinly be instant damage and it would explain its high cap requirement also would it not?

It's to ensure that the strengths of each weapon system counterbalance the drawbacks.

Looking at weapon systems themselves there are no drawback that counterbalanes strengths of Autocannons. Of course players want their weapon system to be as "balanced" as long-time CCP favorite.

Tackling (Range)
THAT is the issue, why Rails never worked, beam lasers are for suckers, and why Arties kinda work (alpha).

The problem is not just the cap use or Amarr ships in general, the problem lies within faulty EVE mechanics that have not worked properly since the beta, and that only have gotten worse as time went by.

A bit of history, so you can put the current situation into context.

When EVE was designed the races were meant, and in the first iterations even were, vastly different from each other.

Amarr and Caldari were meant to be very expensive, meaning that their ships were supposed to fight numerically outnumbered, Gallente was the middle race that could do everything well, and Minmatar were meant to be cheap-to-replace throwaways.

Conversely with that, Lasers were meant to be THE BEST allround weapon, hands down, no questions asked. Thus they were prenefred with massive cap use and only to be fielded by the capacitor race Amarr, whose ships were slow and expensive, but very tanky and well, SUPERLASERS.

But, we all know that didnt really happen, and over the years all ships , races and weapon systems were pretty much equalized to a point where everyone is basically the same with minor differences. Hell, even the Avatars are a wild racial mix nowadays.. so much for racial diversity..

Thats a shame in my book, but yeah....

Anyway, so as we are now, lasers are exactly en par with the other weapon systems, but they still carry that prenerf for a bonus that never happened, on ships that were never realized as what they were meant to be.

And as if that wasnt bad enough, we are, and always have been, cursed with fundamentally flawed game mechanics.


Tackling (Range)


THAT is the issue, why Rails never worked, beam lasers are for suckers, and why Arties kinda work (alpha).

Because there is no practical way to make a fight happen at range above 25ish km, all weapon systems going beyond that range, are basically pointless (pun).

Arties after many patches became the exeption because of high alpha which meant that you could destroy **** before it could just warp off, and we all know how great of a game mechanic it is when you simply freeze for a second to find yourself in a pod...

GF..... (great work on the tornado btw, REAAAAALLY well balaned and fun...)


So, tl:dr

**** you, read that **** i wrote and demand ccp to finally introduce long range tackle of some sort, and the associated (re)introduction of essential mechanics.

Looking at weapon systems themselves there are no drawback that counterbalanes strengths of Autocannons. Of course players want their weapon system to be as "balanced" as long-time CCP favorite.

In large fleet engagements, you dont even fit a point on your ship - so the distance between you and your target is not limited by 25 km. That's why rails DO work very well, with Rokhs and Nagas among the most used ships recently.
In medium-sized gang you will also have dedicated tacklers, and correct me if I'm wrong, but gallente recons would have a point range close to 100 km.
Small gangs - once again, use dedicated fast tackle. Dont under-estimate the power of those tiny devils which are interceptors.
Solo... even solo! You can camp a bubble and have some nice kills.

But yes, beam lasers sux and pulse would also be inferior if it were not for Scorch. Does anyone even fitted Tachyons btw?

That statement has not fundamentally changed. The solution to problems with certain Amarr ships isn't to remove the cap bonus across the board, or add a third bonus. It's to ensure that the strengths of each weapon system counterbalance the drawbacks.

This is an ongoing iterative project and we're not going to get there for all weapon systems overnight, but I can fairly firmly state that we're not going to remove the laser cap use bonus from the Amarr flavor and we're not going to start giving them 3rd bonuses across the board.

Nothing matters in large fleet engagements except EHP and DPS, so taking them as a metric, we should all just be flying dreads and titans anyway.. (who knows, atm we are heading there..)

Furthermore, bubbles? Sure, if youre a nullbear and get off at sniping pods, bubbles are your friend, but lets just cut the crap here. bubbles were meant to hinder fleet movements, not to set up ****** gatecamps all over null.

Sure you mentioned the gallente recons, can can longpoint to some 65 km effectively. BUT, remember how ONLY Gallente have that? Only two fully dedicated ships non the less? Does that seem balanced to you?
And what about ranges above 70 km? or even 100 km?

What I am advocating for is not a 100km warp scrambler, but a way to to make a fight happen at longer range.

Matter of fact I'd much rather see warp drives that needed time to spool up or something, and/or points that dont hold tackle indefinately but rather give people the option to either commit to a fight or dedicate everything to escaping.
You know, no more ****** ganks everywhere, but a serious trade-off for both the attacker and the attacked, where their actions can determine the outcome, instead of it being decided long before they enter a situation.

Hey guys, just want to pop into this discussion with my perspective.

I'll start by copypasting what I said in the Combat Frigs thread in relation to this question back before Retribution:


That statement has not fundamentally changed. The solution to problems with certain Amarr ships isn't to remove the cap bonus across the board, or add a third bonus. It's to ensure that the strengths of each weapon system counterbalance the drawbacks.

This is an ongoing iterative project and we're not going to get there for all weapon systems overnight, but I can fairly firmly state that we're not going to remove the laser cap use bonus from the Amarr flavor and we're not going to start giving them 3rd bonuses across the board.

Whats wrong with Minmatar ships with lasers?
If Amarr ships with projectiles are fine that is......

If it's all fine & dandy for Amarr ships to have their standard fits be Projectiles, why is it not ok for certain Minmatar ships to fit Lasers as a standard fit

The argument you are attempting to employ goes both ways. As I said, maybe not a 50% cap reduction, but right now, Lasers use somewhere around 330% the cap that Hybrids do as a base cap useage.

Yea your right 115km range with medium guns loaded with t2 ammo and 0 modules is utter ****.
I guess large rails having range longer than grid size is nothing special either right?

the weakest dps of all turrets?
falloff mechanics?
longest reload of all turrets?

That's why everyone put ACs on any ship with no weapon bonuses (or only a cap bonus) when they want to fit a turret.

A capacitor use bonus should not count as a "bonus" when minmatar ships get that for free. I am not sure why CCP has to make it so that a ship can only have two bonuses, it seems rather silly. Maybe something simple like a tracking bonus or maybe even a really weird bonus like to a type of ewar?


The drake gets a bonus to resistances and a dps bonus, but do its guns use less cap than a harbinger? Yea, good bonus. It's not like lasers give a really big advantage to counter using all that cap.

Why is it an arbitrary rule that a t1 ship can only have two bonuses? Especially when not all bonuses are created equal.

Lasers natural range doesn't really help much if ever. Every role that you can put a harbinger in other ships do better. The harbinger can't do anything but tank and shoot meh dps guns at 20km while it's max speed is meh.

I don't think removing the cap bonus is a good idea because that will mean the ultimate counter to a harbinger is a medium neut or two. Without the cap reduction bonus the harbingers guns would use more cap than a 10mn micro warp drive. I do not think lasers should have their cap use reduced either because it makes them interesting.

This is not a lasers vs hybrids and projectiles thread, this is a thread to look at the traits the harbinger lacks in thread.



Imagine for a second if the brutix had it's bonuses replaced with the harbingers and its fitting changed to accommodate lasers and got to keep its repair bonus. Would the brutix be OP? No. This is because it would be nearly the same ship, but with less dps, being less cap stable, and having longer range.

People fit AC on their ship when they don't care about their weapon. And you cannot avoid a weapon taking this place. If AC have this place, it's because of easy fitting and no cap use, which make them the most basic weapon you can find. There will always be an easiest weapon to fit, and there will always be a lowest cap cost weapon. But on unbonused hull, AC are worse than almost anything else : even dual150mm railguns have the same dps at 4km than 220mm AC, and Quad Light Beam Laser have more dps at all range and almost the same tracking. So there it is : AC only have their low fitting cost and no cap use, because the second you want something more than the cheapest garbage, you're better with a real weapon, but that come with a cost.

EFT warrior FTW:

Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M 60 DPS, 25 DPS at 12km
425mm AutoCannon II, EMP M 32 DPS, 15 DPS at 12km

Only problem is that fitting the laser needs like 50% more pg and cpu, so really is like autocannons have a built in bonus to fitting requirements since minmatar ships DON'T have 50% less cpu/pg.

Actually minmatar ships have a tons of free PG because of "But artillery is bonused too!". Therefore we have

1) Lowest fittings requirements
+
2) Tons of free PG

That's a blatant lie. 220mm AC does about 30-40% more dps than 150mm Railgun even at 4km without any modules (and superior tracking). Also 220mm AC have 50% more Tracking speed than Quad Light Beam Laser. Who would ever call 50% difference "almost the same"? What winmatar-lovers tend to ignore is that AC gets double benefits from TE/TC.

Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M 60 DPS, 25 DPS at 12km
425mm AutoCannon II, EMP M 32 DPS, 15 DPS at 12km

EFT warrior FTW:

Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M 60 DPS, 25 DPS at 12km
425mm AutoCannon II, EMP M 32 DPS, 15 DPS at 12km

Only problem is that fitting the laser needs like 50% more pg and cpu, so really is like autocannons have a built in bonus to fitting requirements since minmatar ships DON'T have 50% less cpu/pg.

Nope.

Tested on a Myrmidon (no weapon damage bonus, no weapon modules, all 5) :
Quad Light Beam Laser II w/ Gleam M : 35,14 dps @ 3+1,25 km ; 0,1266 rad/s
IN Multifreq : 34,64 dps @ 6+1,25 km ; 0,1013 rad/s
Dual 150mm Railgun II w/ Javelin M : 31,22 dps @ 4,5+7,5 km ; 0,0689 rad/s
CN Antimat : 30,77 dps @ 9+7,5 km ; 0,0551 rad/s
220mm Vulcan Auto Cannon II w/ RFEMP : 35,60 dps @ 1,35+11 km ; 0,1518 rad/s
28,48 dps @ ~7km
Hail : 39,73 dps @ 1,35+8,25 km ; 0,1063 rad/s
31,78 dps @ 5km
Barrage : 28,38 dps @ 2,7+16,5 km ; 0,1139 rad/s

Considering other ammo for LR weapons, barrage don't compete. 220mm/Hail is indeed better than QLBL/Gleam, but have less tracking (lol), and that's only up to 5km. D150mm railgun is better at 6km and above. I grant you that D150mm tracking is crappy. With RFEMP (standard ammo loaded in AC versus 1s length swap with beam), QLBL is better than 220mm AC.

The chery on the cake ? 220mm AC use more PG than D150mm or QLBL...

As I said, primitive weapon make very good default weapon and obvious choice when this is the last thing you need to put on your ship.

Fun fact : QLBL have almost the exact same base tracking than Heavy Pulse Laser, and more with Gleam ; and D150mm rail with javelin have almost the same tracking than Heavy Pulse with Conflag ; though Heavy Pulse hit farther than both of these weapons (and do more damage). That actually give some insight in fact.

get your numbers right...


HPL II, MF M: 36 DPS in optimal, 17 dps at 12km
425 AC, EMP M: 32 DPS in optimal, 16 dps at 12km

both used on a unbonused hull shooting at a ship with 0 velocity / transversal because we're comparing dps here.


Here's is a pretty graph in EFT:
http://i.imgur.com/oDERMPd.png



edit: and btw. while autocannons not only have less cpu / pg requirements, they also track better and use less cap, but their damage projection isn't that great in optimal tbh

For Punisher and Maller bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use was changed to bonus to all Armor Resistances. Why did you keep bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use for Harbinger??? Where is logic?

A capacitor use bonus should not count as a "bonus" when minmatar ships get that for free.

get your numbers right...


HPL II, MF M: 36 DPS in optimal, 17 dps at 12km
425 AC, EMP M: 32 DPS in optimal, 16 dps at 12km

both used on a unbonused hull shooting at a ship with 0 velocity / transversal because we're comparing dps here.


Here's is a pretty graph in EFT:
http://i.imgur.com/oDERMPd.png



edit: and btw. while autocannons not only have less cpu / pg requirements, they also track better and use less cap, but their damage projection isn't that great in optimal tbh

No, no they don't. Amarr ships have BETTER capacitor than minmatar ships mostly, when you consider running weapons, propulsion mods, tackle, some sort of tank. This is not only through a capacitor bonus, but also dramatically larger base cap amounts and faster regen. Not only are many minmatar ships short on capacitor (Vagabond, Cynabal, Sleipnir) for sustained engagements where their amarrian counterparts aren't, but Amarrian ships have many advantages to their weapons, that projectiles do not, including higher tracking, DRAMATICALLY better damage projection, longer range, higher dps, super fast reloading/crystal swapping.

So no, I strongly disagree. The capacitor bonus IS a very good bonus.

You are totally right, I messed it up as didn't realize the ship I took had heatsinks.

36 vs 32 dps is totally unbalanced having such fitting requirements and cap usage.

Thanks for fixing my numbers.

Why are there so many comparisons all of a sudden, between AC's and long rabe weapons?

Surely the point would be to compare long with long and short with short?

The point was to compare AC with the easiest fitting weapon of the other races. In fact, when AC are far easier to fit than arties, that's not the case for hybrid and laser turrets.

The second point was also to desilusion some people believing laser were worse than AC. That's wrong, because even the worse laser turret (the quad light beam laser people don't even consider fitting on their ship) is better than than the second grade AC.

Pushing the comparison with 425mm AC with Focused Medium Pulse Laser and Heavy Ion Blaster (because these weapons have roughly the same fitting requirements, more PG for 425mm and more CPU for the others), you can see that th dps advantage of 425mm AC don't even go beyond 4km, and the tracking are close (0,02 rad/s advantage for 425mm vs FMP). Blasters, for their part, have nothing else than insane dps, but everybody know they have a poor range, and again, FMP start to be better than heavy ion blaster at 4,5km.

Heavy Pulse laser is better than 425mm AC even at point blanc, provided you can track your target. HPL is also better than Heavy Beam laser up to its max range (22,5km) and use less cap.

The best contender to HPL is the Heavy Neutron Blaster, up to 5km.

So, HPL is undoubtebly the best medium weapon between 5km and its max range (22,5km). That's quite a large superiority range IMO, and well deserve some drawbacks. No doubt the cap cost is huge, but that is also the only thing preventing a ship from firing laser forever.

Capacitor bonus allow for sustained and easy use of the weapon (cap bonused HPL use a little more cap only than neutron blaster). And this bonus is not worse than an armor reping bonus for example.

The real question is if the ship need something else, because the objective is to balance the ships, not the bonuses, and because the weapon look more than good.

Lol, really? What do you call Scorch?

An overpriced T2 module with a painfully high minimum skill requirement that ultimate defeats the entire purpose of lasers not requiring ammunition.

Does one need a minimum skill of level 5 and a specialization skill to load a blaster with navy faction ammunition? Because that is what you need for every turret size to use scorch. Please take the time to compare skill training times between being able to fly a blaster fit battlecruiser and a scorch equipped frigate.

Scorch should not even be part of these discussions.

It's called void and null

Blasters are... serviceable without T2 ammunition. Almost everyone will advise you not to undock with lasers without T2 guns so you can use Scorch. With blasters and AC's the go to ammo is faction in almost all situations. With lasers Scorch is necessary beside INMF.

Scorch is insanely powerful, but even without it, lasers still are superior to any other weapon, even T2, for a wide range, except maybe missiles. The problem you may have is capacitor (with supposedly low skills, even more so) because of the time it will take to kill the ennemy without scorch dps.

And blasters have the same problem : without null, *any* ship will be able to kite you.

But that's more a problem of skill difference than balance.

No, no they don't. Amarr ships have BETTER capacitor than minmatar ships mostly, when you consider running weapons, propulsion mods, tackle, some sort of tank. This is not only through a capacitor bonus, but also dramatically larger base cap amounts and faster regen. Not only are many minmatar ships short on capacitor (Vagabond, Cynabal, Sleipnir) for sustained engagements where their amarrian counterparts aren't, but Amarrian ships have many advantages to their weapons, that projectiles do not, including higher tracking, DRAMATICALLY better damage projection, longer range, higher dps, super fast reloading/crystal swapping.

So no, I strongly disagree. The capacitor bonus IS a very good bonus.

A capacitor use bonus should not count as a "bonus" when minmatar ships get that for free. I am not sure why CCP has to make it so that a ship can only have two bonuses, it seems rather silly. Maybe something simple like a tracking bonus or maybe even a really weird bonus like to a type of ewar?


The drake gets a bonus to resistances and a dps bonus, but do its guns use less cap than a harbinger? Yea, good bonus. It's not like lasers give a really big advantage to counter using all that cap.

Why is it an arbitrary rule that a t1 ship can only have two bonuses? Especially when not all bonuses are created equal.

Lasers natural range doesn't really help much if ever. Every role that you can put a harbinger in other ships do better. The harbinger can't do anything but tank and shoot meh dps guns at 20km while it's max speed is meh.

I don't think removing the cap bonus is a good idea because that will mean the ultimate counter to a harbinger is a medium neut or two. Without the cap reduction bonus the harbingers guns would use more cap than a 10mn micro warp drive. I do not think lasers should have their cap use reduced either because it makes them interesting.




Imagine for a second if the brutix had it's bonuses replaced with the harbingers and its fitting changed to accommodate lasers and got to keep its repair bonus. Would the brutix be OP? No. This is because it would be nearly the same ship, but with less dps, being less cap stable, and having longer range.

I think in this case, as with what they say with the drake tank opedness. We need to look at the mods, not the ship. Maybe weapons need a re-balance, not the ship. Just saying.

only way to balance them is to make them all the same.

I agree with the OP, having a bonus to cap on amarr ships sucks when all that bonus does is to allow those weapons to function normally, thus it is not a bonus.

How about reducing cap requirements on all lasers, I've never understood how beam lasers should even require cap in the first place as (if I remember my optical physics correctly) all a beam laser needs is a continuous source of power (this is represented in the PG requirements as posted in the weapon description). Pulse lasers are a little different in that they rapidly fire multiple times per shot and as such need short bursts of power which is where a capacitor is needed.

So I would say, no cap on all beam lasers at the very least and reduced cap requirements for the more damaging, but shorter range pulse lasers.

you dont remember your physics correctly.