EVE Search - Autocannon Issues

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Autocannon Issues

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:01:00 - [1] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 20:24:54 Autocannon Issues Before we begin This is a thread about autocannons vs autocannons. It has nothing to do with artillery, blasters, rails, beams, pulses or missiles. I don't care how ***** hard your megathron is to fit - this thread has nothing to do with it. I don't care if Tachs are getting a damage boost - this thread has nothing to do with it. I do care that artillery suck, but again this thread has nothing to do with it. If you want to discuss these issues work out the numbers yourself and make your own *** thread instead of derailing anything and everything about Minmatar. And that goes triple for Gronsak and his band of merry alts. Introduction At the moment, there is alomost zero reason to take 200mm, 425mm or 800mm autocannons into PVP. When reloading is taken into account, they do almost exactly the same damage as the next tier down (150mm, 220mm, Dual 650mm respectivly). This is becuase that although on the surface the top-tier autocannons do more damage, they can only hold half the ammo of the next size down and have far worse ROF. The extra 10 seconds spent reloading pretty much kills the extra damage they do, and the increased optimal range on the top-tier autocannons is useless, as autocannons are always used in their falloff. As CCP have said in the past that the best way to get them to look at things like this is providing numbers, I present some. Assuming maxed skills: Constants** Damage Skills Multiplier: 1.25 ([Size] [Class] Turret) x 1.15 (Surgical Strike) x 1.1 ([Size] [Sub-Class] Spec) = 1.58125 ROF Skills Multiplier: 0.9 (Gunnery) x 0.8 (Rapid Firing) = 0.72 Reloading Time: 10 seconds 150mm Autocannon II on a Rifter, with EMP S Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.25 (Rifter) x 1.58125 (damage skills) = 3.91359375 Damage Per Shot: 3.91359375 (Damage Mod) x 11 (EMP S damage) = 43.04953125 Rate of Fire: 2.25 (base) x 0.72 (rof skills) = 1.62 Number of Shots: 0.8 (capacity) / 0.01 (EMP S) = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 1.62 (rate of fire) x 80 (number of shots) + 10 (Reloading Time) = 139.6 seconds Damage per Magazine: 80 (number of shots) x 43.04953125 (damage per shot) = 3443.9625 Damage Per Second: 3443.9625 (damage per magazine) / 139.6 (magazine firing time) = 24.670218481375358166189111747851 DPS 200mm Autocannon II on a Rifter, with EMP S Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.25 x 1.58125 = 4.565859375 Damage Per Shot: 4.565859375 x 11 = 50.224453125 Rate of Fire: 2.5 (base) x 0.72 = 1.8 Number of Shots: 0.4 / 0.01 = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 1.8 x 40 + 10 = 82 seconds Damage per magazine: 40 x 50.224453125 = 2008.978125 Damage Per Second: 2008.978125 / 82 = 24.499733231707317073170731707317 DPS As you can see, the 150mm Autocannon II actually does marginally more normalized DPS than the 200mm Autocannon II, and that's with better tracking and much lower fitting requirements. The Rifter was chosen as it is seen as the Minmatar's main tech1 combat frigate, and has a damage bonus. I should point out that the situation is the same with any minmatar frigate with only a damage bonus (and not a ROF bonus) - the medium-tier autocannons do more normalized damage than the top-tier ones. Now onto the cruiser guns. I have chosen the Rupture for this so you can see the effects of the double bonus (+25% damage, -25% rate of fire).
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:02:00 - [2] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 20:42:57 Dual 650mm Autocannon II on a Typhoon, with EMP L Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.58125 = 3.130875 Damage Per Shot: 3.130875 x 44 = 137.7585 Rate of Fire: 5.06 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 (Typhoon) = 2.7324 Number of Shots: 8 / 0.1 = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 2.7324 x 80 + 10 = 228.592 Damage per magazine: 80 x 137.7585 = 11020.68 Damage per second: 11020.68 / 228.592 = 48.211135997760201581857632813047 DPS 800mm Autocannon II on a Typhoon, with EMP L Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.58125 = 3.6526875 Damage Per Shot: 3.6526875 x 44 = 160.71825 Rate of Fire: 5.63 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 = 3.0402 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.1 = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 3.0402 x 40 + 10 = 131.608 Damage per magazine: 40 x 160.71825 = 6428.73 Damage per second: 6428.73 / 131.608 = 48.847562458209227402589508236581 DPS Again, less than 1 dps in it. Dual 650mm Autocannon II on a Tempest, with EMP L Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.58125 x 1.25 (Tempest) = 3.91359375 Damage Per Shot: 3.91359375 x 44 = 172.198125 Rate of Fire: 5.06 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 (Tempest) = 2.7324 Number of Shots: 8 / 0.1 = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 2.7324 x 80 + 10 = 228.592 Damage per magazine: 80 x 172.198125 = 13775.85 Damage per second: 13775.85 / 228.592 = 60.263919997200251977322041016309 DPS 800mm Autocannon II on a Tempest, with EMP L Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.58125 x 1.25 = 4.565859375 Damage Per Shot: 4.565859375 x 44 = 200.8978125 Rate of Fire: 5.63 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 = 3.0402 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.1 = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 3.0402 x 40 + 10 = 131.608 Damage per magazine: 40 x 200.8978125 = 8035.9125 Damage per second: 8035.9125 / 131.608 = 61.059453072761534253236885295727 DPS Less than 1 dps in it again. As you can see, the top-tier autocannons have some serious issues that need to be worked out. Besides for NPCing far from home, there are no reasons to fit them.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:02:00 - [3] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 20:43:22 Comparison Chart (Rounded to 2DP) 150mm II Rifter: 24.67 DPS 200mm II Rifter: 24.5 DPS 220mm II Rupture: 44.15 DPS 425mm II Rupture: 44.15 DPS 220mm II Stabber: 35.32 DPS 425mm II Stabber: 35.32 DPS D650mm II Typhoon: 48.21 DPS 800mm II Typhoon: 48.85 DPS D650mm II Tempest: 60.26 DPS 800mm II Tempest: 61.06 DPS Solutions? 1) Increase the magazine size of the top-tier autocannons to match that of the medium-tier ones. The guns are balenced between themsleves besides this issue, which is screwing up everything. 2) (Originally by Xuthas) Decrease the reload time for projectiles to 5 seconds to allow them to spend less time reloading, and also to let them change ammo types quicker. I will add more as they are given in this thread. Now, lets try and get some intelligent discussion going, and the spelling police can stay the hell away from this one too.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:02:00 - [4] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 21:24:39 220mm Autocannon II on a Rupture, with EMP M Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.25 (Rupture) x 1.58125 = 3.91359375 Damage Per Shot: 3.91359375 x 22 = 86.0990625 Rate of Fire: 3.38 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 (Rupture) = 1.8252 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.05 = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 1.8252 x 80 + 10 = 156.016 seconds Damage per magazine: 80 x 86.0990625 = 6887.925 Damage Per Second: 6887.925 / 156.016 = 44.148837298738590913752435647626 DPS 425mm Autocannon II on a Rupture, with EMP M Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.25 x 1.58125 = 4.565859375 Damage Per Shot: 4.565859375 x 22 = 100.44890625 Rate of Fire: 3.75 x 0.75 x 0.72 = 2.025 Number of Shots: 2 / 0.05 = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 2.025 x 40 + 10 = 91 seconds Damage per magazine: 40 x 100.44890625 = 4017.95625 Damage Per Second: 4017.95625 / 91 = 44.153365384615384615384615384615 DPS Yes, the 425mms do 0.01 more DPS than the 220mms. OK, lets see what a sole ROF bonus does to the cruiser autocannons... 220mm Autocannon II on a Stabber, with EMP M Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.58125 = 3.130875 Damage Per Shot: 3.130875 x 22 = 68.87925 Rate of Fire: 3.38 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 (Stabber) = 1.8252 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.05 = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 1.8252 x 80 + 10 = 156.016 seconds Damage per magazine: 80 x 68.87925 = 5510.34 Damage per second: 5510.34 / 156.016 = 35.319069838990872731001948518101 DPS 425mm Autocannon II on a Stabber, with EMP M Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.58125 = 3.6526875 Damage Per Shot: 3.6526875 x 22 = 80.359125 Rate of Fire: 3.75 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 = 2.025 Number of Shots: 2 (capacity) / 0.05 (EMP M) = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 2.025 x 40 + 10 = 91 seconds Damage per magazine: 40 x 80.359125 = 3214.365 Damage per second: 3214.365 / 91 = 35.322692307692307692307692307692 DPS Again, the 425mms out damage the the 220mms by under 1 dps.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:03:00 - [5] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 20:45:04 ok, lets try out some of the suggestions. Key White: Original Value Yellow: Double the Top-Tier Magazine Size Red: 5 Second Reload Time (all tiers) Turret DPS (Rounded to 2DP) 150mm II Rifter: 24.67 DPS 150mm II Rifter: 26.57 DPS 200mm II Rifter: 24.5 DPS 200mm II Rifter: 26.09 DPS 200mm II Rifter: 27.90 DPS 220mm II Rupture: 44.15 DPS 220mm II Rupture: 47.17 DPS 425mm II Rupture: 44.15 DPS 425mm II Rupture: 46.72 DPS 425mm II Rupture: 49.60 DPS 220mm II Stabber: 35.32 DPS 220mm II Stabber: 37.74 DPS 425mm II Stabber: 35.32 DPS 425mm II Stabber: 37.38 DPS 425mm II Stabber: 39.68 DPS D650mm II Typhoon: 48.21 DPS D650mm II Typhoon: 50.42 DPS 800mm II Typhoon: 48.85 DPS 800mm II Typhoon: 50.78 DPS 800mm II Typhoon: 52.86 DPS D650mm II Tempest: 60.26 DPS D650mm II Tempest: 63.02 DPS 800mm II Tempest: 61.06 DPS 800mm II Tempest: 63.47 DPS 800mm II Tempest: 66.08 DPS
Anjerrai Meloanis	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:10:00 - [6] Edited by: Anjerrai Meloanis on 16/03/2006 18:11:38 This is basically the only thing i dislike about minmatar ships. We should get 10% damage per level not 5% rof and 5% damage. At least that way reloading would just be a side effect of doing lots more short-time damage. Also, didnt they make interceptors have 10% damage per level because the rof was bad for cpu load? I have a 1.3sec rof with autocannons on my Sleipnir lol.. uh.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:13:00 - [7] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 18:21:47 ok, it should all be sorted now
Anjerrai Meloanis	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:17:00 - [8] Dont suppose you could add the bottom tier guns for each as well? Also this issue seems relevant in prospect to artillery as they have the same issues with reloading. uh.
Vestalia Gaea	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:19:00 - [9] This post suits my decision making of whether to go for Minmatar to PvP or not, as i am very inclined to, but Minmatar seem to have more than a few problems with weaponry and DPS, hopefully CCP will fix it. And nice post, sorry i can't add to the discussion i'm an AC noob 'A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house.'
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:23:00 - [10] Originally by: Anjerrai Meloanis Dont suppose you could add the bottom tier guns for each as well? I would, but they do not suffer from this issue. The problem is only between the middle and top tier autocannons Quote: Also this issue seems relevant in prospect to artillery as they have the same issues with reloading. true - I am working on an artillery thread now (and compared to other weapons), but it will take a while to finish
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:28:00 - [11] awesome compiliation Sarmaul, i knew those issues beforehand but seeing them so neatly listed and documented made me cry again i'll try to think up some constructive comments but for now: i agree with the increases in clipsize but is that enough? Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Xuthas	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:39:00 - [12] I propose they change the reload time on projectile weapons to 5 sec. This would increase the dps of the largest autocannons slightly over the course of a fight. This would also help the minmatar change dmg types faster. Projectile weapons have the lowest dmg ammo and the lowest dps and try to make up for it in versatility of dmg types. This change would fix the AC problem and make projectile weapons even more in line with minmatar style of fighting(versatility over dps).
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:39:00 - [13] thank you Tiuwaz I've added a comparison chart so people can see all the numbers without having to scroll up and down
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:24:00 - [14] Originally by: Xuthas I propose they change the reload time on projectile weapons to 5 sec. This would increase the dps of the largest autocannons slightly over the course of a fight. This would also help the minmatar change dmg types faster. Projectile weapons have the lowest dmg ammo and the lowest dps and try to make up for it in versatility of dmg types. This change would fix the AC problem and make projectile weapons even more in line with minmatar style of fighting(versatility over dps). added
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:30:00 - [15] another possibilty would be to increase the falloff of top tier AC's by 10-25%, that would be an indirect dmg bonus aswell as strengthen the minnie approach of choosing the range this would be in junction with a clipsize increase i think i'd like that better than a straight dps boost Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Hakera	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:31:00 - [16] imo i have always used the medium turret of the ac range, ie the 150mm, 220mm & duel 650mm. For me it's the comprimise of fitting req's and ammo need against the lower range and dps that seem to make the top range ac's too hard to fit and the lowest range ones, chew too much ammo mainly. A clip size increase would be welcome without altering too much.
keepiru	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:33:00 - [17] Wow, thats certainly very conclusive. Good work man. ---------------- Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief. Barricades a speciality! Last stands on request.
Dark Eulogy	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:37:00 - [18] 5 second reload would be great
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:39:00 - [19] I'm going to knock up some figures for the increased clip size and 5 second reload (and both combined) to see what happens
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:18:00 - [20] Originally by: Sarmaul I'm going to knock up some figures for the increased clip size and 5 second reload (and both combined) to see what happens dont forget the artillery thread <3 Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Ms Muffins	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:22:00 - [21] Excellent work. Only one anal correction, everwhere you use the word "clip" you should use the word "magazine". They are actually two very different things.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:24:00 - [22] omg new numbers are up, and thank god notepad has find and replace :)
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:29:00 - [23] Originally by: Tiuwaz Originally by: Sarmaul I'm going to knock up some figures for the increased clip size and 5 second reload (and both combined) to see what happens dont forget the artillery thread <3 by "a while to finish", I mean tomorrow :)
Elaine Threepwood	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:39:00 - [24] Originally by: Sarmaul 800mm Autocannon II on a Tempest, with EMP L Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.58125 x 1.25 = 4.565859375 Damage Per Shot: 4.565859375 x 44 = 200.8978125 Rate of Fire: 5.63 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 = 3.0402 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.1 = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 3.0402 x 40 + 10 = 121.608 Damage per magazine: 40 x 200.8978125 = 8035.9125 Damage per second: 8035.9125 / 121.608 = 66.08045934477994868758634300375 DPS Finally, a comparison that has more than 1 dps in it. oops magazine firing time: 3.0402 x 40 + 10 = 131.608 gives a dps of 61.05 bit closer to the dual 650 damage, and explains why your damage went down when you doubled clip size...
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:41:00 - [25] Originally by: Elaine Threepwood stuff lol thanks
Zysco	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:50:00 - [26] nice work man. PS why are u in a nubcorp ? callon > I don't like traveling much, i think its cause my father used to beat me with a globe. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=300438New vid: "we're back
Testicular Testes	Posted - 2006.03.16 21:17:00 - [27] Quote: Yes, 220mms on a Stabber out-damage 425mms on a Rupture. The other way around. Your math shows it, but the commentary must have been done retroactively or while stoned, or both. Its also worth mentioning that while you're using less than your 40 rounds of largest guns in your class, you'll be doing ballpark of 3% more than the medium variant. Conversely, for fights that last another 10 seconds after that the medium sizes pull ahead significantly. All I really have to add here is large ACs are screwed, the impact of reloading is small compared to the fact that they do piddly extra anyway and the range bonuses being irrelevant (falloff being the selling point, like you said).
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 21:22:00 - [28] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 21:26:11 Originally by: Testicular Testes Quote: Yes, 220mms on a Stabber out-damage 425mms on a Rupture. The other way around. Your math shows it, but the commentary must have been done retroactively or while stoned, or both. I forgot to delete that - it was when I was comparing something else and forgot to change the text. It's completely irrelivent to the topic. Originally by: Zysco PS why are u in a nubcorp ? Not enough time to play atm - this was knocked up between computer crashes on my development machine
gron alt	Posted - 2006.03.16 22:04:00 - [29] Originally by: Sarmaul And that goes triple for Gronsak and his band of merry alts. yarrrrr, didnt notice my lack of posts sarm? i left the game few weeks back. anyways good luck with ur boost the arts campain
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 22:05:00 - [30] Originally by: gron alt Originally by: Sarmaul And that goes triple for Gronsak and his band of merry alts. yarrrrr, didnt notice my lack of posts sarm? i left the game few weeks back. anyways good luck with ur boost the arts campain how come?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: 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.