EVE Search - Do auto-cannons have a point?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Do auto-cannons have a point?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
KeeganWaffle Sky Fighters 8	Posted - 2013.10.07 04:20:00 - [1] - Quote From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore. They have less DPS then blasters at point blank. They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch. I think the whole "blasters track better" thing needs to be moved over to auto-cannons.
Taoist Dragon Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo 595	Posted - 2013.10.07 04:27:00 - [2] - Quote no they don't have a point... that's an entirely different module! That is the Way, the Tao. Balance is everything. http://taoistdragon.blogspot.com.au/
Taoist Dragon Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo 595	Posted - 2013.10.07 04:32:00 - [3] - Quote KeeganWaffle wrote: From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore. They have less DPS then blasters at point blank. They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch. I think the whole "blasters track better" thing needs to be moved over to auto-cannons. LOL Lets compare the worst case scenarios for a weapon system then complain that they are crap eh? Good logic there. Don.'t think about their lack of cap requirement or damage selection or rediculasly low fitting requirements or their looooooong falloffs or anything.... just pick on their couple of weakness and summize they are worthless.....I do hope you don't do company analysis for a living. That is the Way, the Tao. Balance is everything. http://taoistdragon.blogspot.com.au/
Bertrand Butler Cras es Noster 102	Posted - 2013.10.07 04:35:00 - [4] - Quote ACs track much better than pulse lasers, hit consistently farther than blasters, have easy fitting requirements, require no cap to run, can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges. Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly.
KeeganWaffle Sky Fighters 8	Posted - 2013.10.07 04:48:00 - [5] - Quote Bertrand Butler wrote: ACs track much better than pulse lasers,(are you sure about that? because when comparing pular laser and auto cannon fits for diferent fleet comps, the laser ships always seem to squeeze out more tracking) hit consistently farther than blasters (oh wow i can do 10% of my dps at range? how useful in the current meta of pvp), have easy fitting requirements (and are only bonused on ships that racially lower fitting), require no cap to run (but most laser and blaster ships have much strong local capacitors to make up for it), can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges. (not as good projection as lasers) Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly.
Bertrand Butler Cras es Noster 102	Posted - 2013.10.07 05:09:00 - [6] - Quote Quote: (are you sure about that? because when comparing pular laser and auto cannon fits for diferent fleet comps, the laser ships always seem to squeeze out more tracking) Yes, I'm sure. A problem with many pulse kiters is that they are more agile than the lasers they use...XD Quote: (oh wow i can do 10% of my dps at range? how useful in the current meta of pvp) As I said previously, many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs. Quote: and are only bonused on ships that racially lower fitting Other modules are not though, and ACs allow for easier fitting. Thats one of the reasons you also encounter them in other racial hull loadouts, even unbonused. Quote: but most laser and blaster ships have much strong local capacitors to make up for it And not make up for cap warfare as well. Quote: not as good projection as lasers Only with OP Scorch, and then you run into cap/fixed damage/tracking issues. Again, ACs are balanced now. Learn how to use them.
Taoist Dragon Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo 597	Posted - 2013.10.07 05:51:00 - [7] - Quote KeeganWaffle wrote: Bertrand Butler wrote: ACs track much better than pulse lasers,(are you sure about that? because when comparing pular laser and auto cannon fits for diferent fleet comps, the laser ships always seem to squeeze out more tracking) hit consistently farther than blasters (oh wow i can do 10% of my dps at range? how useful in the current meta of pvp), have easy fitting requirements (and are only bonused on ships that racially lower fitting), require no cap to run (but most laser and blaster ships have much strong local capacitors to make up for it), can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges. (not as good projection as lasers) Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly. Ok a lot of projectile using hulls have tracking bonuses. this coupled with the naturaly good tracking of A/C often puts them at the top or if not pretty damn close to the best tracking. As for damage projection I suggest you read up on how falloff mechanics actually works. For example in my standard rifter fit I can actually hit out to about 18km range with A/C's! But anything past 8-9km range is pretty anemic damage. A/C are (in)famous for their low fitting requirements. And as far as I know there is no ship that lowers the fitting requirements of weapon systems?! The no cap is one of the strongest bonuses that A/C have. Yes the other cap using racial ships have stronger base capacitors but the balances out in the end. The project v lasers is mainly aroudn the whole issue with scorch. Scorch is very powerful and give the best short range weapons excellent projection with lasers having great optimals. However tie this with the lower tracking of lasers and the tracking penalty of scorch gives the playing field much more variabilty. Yes in a stand up fight scorch beats barrage hands down for damage projection is they just sat at range and pummeled each other. But guess what? that never happens. I am not a A/C fanboi or anything as I use all weapon systems with equal skills etc and I really do like my amarr ships and lasers. However A/C are a potent weapons system when utilised to their advantages. Don't rule them out on 1 or 2 points. nothing is that simple in eve. That is the Way, the Tao. Balance is everything. http://taoistdragon.blogspot.com.au/
Baggo Hammers 132	Posted - 2013.10.07 06:10:00 - [8] - Quote Bertrand Butler wrote: ACs track much better than pulse lasers, hit consistently farther than blasters, have easy fitting requirements, require no cap to run, can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges. Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly. This. I like my ACs. If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.
Mocam EVE University Ivy League 320	Posted - 2013.10.07 06:21:00 - [9] - Quote Bertrand Butler wrote: ACs track much better than pulse lasers, hit consistently farther than blasters, have easy fitting requirements, require no cap to run, can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges. Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly. You also have the fact that both lasers and blasters will go offline if your cap goes empty. AC's won't.
Verity Sovereign Sovereign Fleet Tax Shelter 574	Posted - 2013.10.07 06:27:00 - [10] - Quote They go on the fastest ships... Enemy has blasters, keep out of blaster range, kill with autos (which have much longer falloff). Enemy has pulse lasers? close the distance, where your tracking is better than theirs... and of course you can cap out either of your foes, and stop them from firing, but not vice versa. Don't try to make projectiles as OP as they were again
Nalha Saldana Saldana Hardware Corporation 739	Posted - 2013.10.07 07:12:00 - [11] - Quote Verity Sovereign wrote: They go on the fastest ships... Enemy has blasters, keep out of blaster range, kill with autos (which have much longer falloff). Enemy has pulse lasers? close the distance, where your tracking is better than theirs... and of course you can cap out either of your foes, and stop them from firing, but not vice versa. Don't try to make projectiles as OP as they were again This. Also a lot of minmatar have spare highs that with a neut makes you able to win a lot of fights and even if you end up caping yourself out, your guns will continue to cycle.
Morrigan LeSante The Lost and Forgotten Troopers 408	Posted - 2013.10.07 07:43:00 - [12] - Quote The real question is, do heavy missiles have any point any more
Bouh Revetoile TIPIAKS 369	Posted - 2013.10.07 08:11:00 - [13] - Quote KeeganWaffle wrote: From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore. They have less DPS then blasters at point blank. They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch. I think you are some "the glass is half-empty" type of guy. They have more range than blasters. They have more tracking and same dps at close range than pulse. They don't use cap. They have selectable damage. They have very low fitting. You see ? :-)
Valleria Darkmoon Heretic Army Heretic Initiative 128	Posted - 2013.10.07 10:00:00 - [14] - Quote This may sound slightly off topic but there is such a thing as on paper and in practice. Case in point me and two corp mates got into a 3v4 frigate fight a few days ago, myself in an Arty Rifter with a Punisher and Tristan rounding us out. I had the lowest listed dps of the three of us at ~105, yet I ended up as top damage dealer on ALL FOUR enemy ships, despite being the second target when the Tristan's ancillary rep didn't break. But I fit with AB, scram and web and set to hit at about 8 km. The short range high damage enemy setups did poor to no damage to me at 8 km, making their gang tankable, while my arties would sometimes punch clean through the shields of a Slasher ASB tank and into armor/structure. With the setup I'm using getting the correct range and slowing the target enough to really let my tracking bonus hit home meant that I was able to apply a greater percentage of my listed dps than my counterparts with higher listed damage and as a result I caused more damage overall. It's all about finding a set up that is designed with an engagement range in mind and making it work. Things like ACs have worse projection than lasers and worse dps/tracking than blasters sounds bad on paper but in reality controlling the range of the engagement can easily allow you to avoid either of the worst case scenarios. Additionally, controlling the range of the engagement is something Minmatar generally does quite well already. The worst case scenarios then are largely a result of poor planning/piloting and not a fault in the weapon. We all know already that even the best laid plans can go straight down the toilet in this game though and very quickly at that, but that is true for any weapon system and by no mean limited to or a comment on ACs as a whole. So in practice there are many situations where ACs will perform quite well and these are situations that you can set up to create in a realistic scenario, just as I did with my Arty Rifter. I actually like just about everything these days and can feel that if you're willing to go through the inevitable failures trying to work out the kinks you can find a ship, weapon and setup to make almost anything work.
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 1252	Posted - 2013.10.07 10:35:00 - [15] - Quote Bertrand Butler wrote: ACs track much better than pulse lasers, hit consistently farther than blasters, have easy fitting requirements, require no cap to run, can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges. Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly. This, ACs are awesome. removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Jacob Holland Weyland-Vulcan Industries 182	Posted - 2013.10.07 12:32:00 - [16] - Quote KeeganWaffle wrote: oh wow i can do 10% of my dps at range? how useful in the current meta of pvp At Optimal + 50% Falloff (and assuming you're tracking, firing at an appropriately sized target...etc) you will be doing more than 80% of your paper DPS. To get your damage down as low as 10% of your paper DPS you would need to extend your engagement range to about Optimal + 170% Falloff (IIRC)...
stoicfaux 3207	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:07:00 - [17] - Quote http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Accuracy_falloff <-- Pretty falloff graph. http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Turret_Damage#Damage_loss_from_Falloff_and_Tracking <-- Everything.
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1477	Posted - 2013.10.07 14:41:00 - [18] - Quote They might have a point but t2 ammo rebalance is completely ******. Ac's basically have the same engagement range as blasters and half the dps + worse tracking. Selectable damage types can be awesome but missiles have that too and well Just all in all AC's, as much as i like seeing minmatar being nerfed to hell. Are in a pretty bad spot atm, there are not many AC ships i'd consider using. BYDI recruitment closed-ish
Goldensaver Personal Defense LtD. 250	Posted - 2013.10.07 17:23:00 - [19] - Quote KeeganWaffle wrote: From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore. They have less DPS then blasters at point blank. They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch. I think the whole "blasters track better" thing needs to be moved over to auto-cannons. Gotta say, I really appreciate that he's at least honest and says "Scorch", as opposed to "Lasers".
Kitty Bear Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance 897	Posted - 2013.10.08 00:22:00 - [20] - Quote good info stoic I always forget about the e-uni files it's a lot of math, but it's not as complicated as it first appears and it does explain quite nicely how ac's aren't crap
Donbe Scurred University of Caille Gallente Federation 315	Posted - 2013.10.08 01:10:00 - [21] - Quote Paul Otichoda alt detected? Just sayin' cause this is would be the next logical step to his whine threads about weapons not working.
Jack Miton Semper Ubi Sub Ubi 2353	Posted - 2013.10.08 01:16:00 - [22] - Quote ACs are fine, the ships they go on however have been seriously outclassed by the last year or so of changes. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1486	Posted - 2013.10.08 02:18:00 - [23] - Quote Goldensaver wrote: KeeganWaffle wrote: From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore. They have less DPS then blasters at point blank. They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch. I think the whole "blasters track better" thing needs to be moved over to auto-cannons. Gotta say, I really appreciate that he's at least honest and says "Scorch", as opposed to "Lasers". Scorch need to be nerfed to the ground Maybe then amarr laser boats can be properly balanced. BYDI recruitment closed-ish
Blodhgarm Dethahal Transcendent Sedition Dustm3n 36	Posted - 2013.10.08 03:09:00 - [24] - Quote Garviel Tarrant wrote: Goldensaver wrote: KeeganWaffle wrote: From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore. They have less DPS then blasters at point blank. They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch. I think the whole "blasters track better" thing needs to be moved over to auto-cannons. Gotta say, I really appreciate that he's at least honest and says "Scorch", as opposed to "Lasers". Scorch need to be nerfed to the ground Maybe then amarr laser boats can be properly balanced. Care to explain why Scorch needs a nerf? They are the only ammo that pushes short range gun's optimal range to reasonable distances... they pay for it in limited damage types, heavier cap use, and the worst tracking out of all 3 short range guns. I'm not seeing why they need to nerfed. -Bl+¦d Transcendent Sedition is recruiting! Join "TSED Recruitment" chat ingame to talk to us if you are interested in Wormhole life!
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1486	Posted - 2013.10.08 03:35:00 - [25] - Quote Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote: Garviel Tarrant wrote: Goldensaver wrote: KeeganWaffle wrote: From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore. They have less DPS then blasters at point blank. They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch. I think the whole "blasters track better" thing needs to be moved over to auto-cannons. Gotta say, I really appreciate that he's at least honest and says "Scorch", as opposed to "Lasers". Scorch need to be nerfed to the ground Maybe then amarr laser boats can be properly balanced. Care to explain why Scorch needs a nerf? They are the only ammo that pushes short range gun's optimal range to reasonable distances... they pay for it in limited damage types, heavier cap use, and the worst tracking out of all 3 short range guns. I'm not seeing why they need to nerfed. Scorch needs to be nerfed so that amarr ships can be buffed. Pretty sick of all amarr lasers boats only being used "because scorch" Same applies to all t2 ammo, t2 ammo is supposed to be niche ****, not your god damn go too. BYDI recruitment closed-ish
Goldensaver Personal Defense LtD. 250	Posted - 2013.10.08 08:34:00 - [26] - Quote Garviel Tarrant wrote: Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote: Care to explain why Scorch needs a nerf? They are the only ammo that pushes short range gun's optimal range to reasonable distances... they pay for it in limited damage types, heavier cap use, and the worst tracking out of all 3 short range guns. I'm not seeing why they need to nerfed. Scorch needs to be nerfed so that amarr ships can be buffed. Pretty sick of all amarr lasers boats only being used "because scorch" Same applies to all t2 ammo, t2 ammo is supposed to be niche ****, not your god damn go too. As he said, it largely ends up being the reason to fly Amarr. I've got an Amarr character, I fly mostly Amarr on the character... but what it comes down to for ships is: scramkite Executioners, scramkite Tormentors, kiting Slicers, kiting Omens, kiting Coercers, kiting NOmens, kiting Oracles... you get the idea. What is it that makes this work? In every single case I listed, the answer is Scorch. If I didn't have Scorch would I fly any of that the way I am flying it now? No. Absolutely not. I probably wouldn't fly it... well, that's a lie. Amarr ships are very pretty. But I would feel bad about flying them.
To mare Advanced Technology 264	Posted - 2013.10.08 08:35:00 - [27] - Quote Garviel Tarrant wrote: They might have a point but t2 ammo rebalance is completely ******. Ac's basically have the same engagement range as blasters and half the dps + worse tracking. Selectable damage types can be awesome but missiles have that too and well Just all in all AC's, as much as i like seeing minmatar being nerfed to hell. Are in a pretty bad spot atm, there are not many AC ships i'd consider using. this null vs barrage make AC useless but the wheel keep spinning one day ccp will buff AC again or nerf blaster
Robert Lefcourt Smutjes Revenge 18	Posted - 2013.10.08 09:26:00 - [28] - Quote KeeganWaffle wrote: From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore. They have less DPS then blasters at point blank. They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch. I think the whole "blasters track better" thing needs to be moved over to auto-cannons. Just no. Think of adjustable damagetype, think of zero energy consumption. I'm pretty much pleased with where they are now.
To mare Advanced Technology 264	Posted - 2013.10.08 10:44:00 - [29] - Quote yes all the people that dont use AC are pleased with them
Bertrand Butler Cras es Noster 104	Posted - 2013.10.08 10:50:00 - [30] - Quote To mare wrote: yes all the people that dont use AC are pleased with them Why aren't you pleased then? The fact that short range weapons are more balanced now than in the winmatar days does not mean that ACs are bad. It means they are balanced (or to put it another way, less imbalanced). Want to talk about balance issues? Lets talk about how HMLs fare now, or how medium rails did before Odyssey. Stop whining, play the game.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.