EVE Search - Hybrids v. Projectiles

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Hybrids v. Projectiles

» 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)
VJ Maverick Caldari Maverick Specialized Services	Posted - 2007.02.09 18:20:00 - [1] Can someone please give me the quick rundown of the respective advantages and disadvantages of hybrids and projectile weapons? AC v. Blasters and Rail v. Arty. Thanks.
Ishquar Teh'Sainte Maza Nostra RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.09 18:39:00 - [2] blasters: pro: great damage potential good tracking con: only kin/therm damage type need cap to fire ultra-short range ACs: pro: different damage types best tracking of all turrets no cap needed allmost no fitting requirements in comparison to other turrets con: lack a bit of damage output short range (due to the big fall-off they are not THAT ultra-shortrange) rails: pro: relative good tracking good rof -> useful DPS con: only kin/therm as damage types they need mediocre amount of cap damage is mediocre arty: pro: good alpha no cap usage con: range dictates damage type slow rof crappy tracking high fitting requirements (especially PG) ___________________ -Skellibjalla- Life is a garden of perceptions. Pick your fruit.
Christopher Dalran	Posted - 2007.02.09 18:42:00 - [3] Edited by: Christopher Dalran on 09/02/2007 18:40:23 Rails/blasters - High energy consumption, Higher average DPS, stuck into kinetic/thermal damage types. Long optimal very small falloff AC's - Shorter optimal, very long falloff, No energy consumption, variable damage types Arty's - Shorter Optimal, very long falloff, Huge alpha strike but long refire rate and lower DPS, variable damage type but absolutly HORRID tracking. general Projectile - Can fire with no cap, can vary damage types to coincide with weak resists, can cover a large range. Hybrid - Higher DPS, Longer optimal but can cover a smaller range because of small falloff. The big advantage projectiles have over hybrids is you can fire them with no cap, the advantage of hybrids is they do more DPS over time. Rails/artys - long range bad tracking weapons, they dont hit up close Blasters/AC's - close range weapons with good tracking, they hit close fast orbiting ships but anyone faster than you can avoid fire by gaining distance. You need to be in a fast ship to use these.
VJ Maverick Caldari Maverick Specialized Services	Posted - 2007.02.09 18:46:00 - [4] Thanks. This is great so far. What do you mean by range dictates damage? Also, regarding the alpha strike of artillery vs. sustained DPS of railguns - what are the practical implications of this distinction?
Samirol The Scope	Posted - 2007.02.09 18:47:00 - [5] blasters you go up and kick the *****es in the face ACs you beat them with a bat I buy insane sigs, mail me ingame.
Sir Drake	Posted - 2007.02.09 18:55:00 - [6] Hybrid vs Projectile In general hybrids do better DPS but do need cap to fire and only do Therm & Kin damage. Projectiles dont need cap and can switch their dmg with their ammo. I wont go into comparing fitting requirements as i think they should only used on the according ships. AC vs Blasters - ACs have better falloff range (~1/3 more), better RoF, NEED NO CAP! - Blaster have better optimal (~1/3 more), better damage, better DPS Rail vs Arty - Rails have way better RoF, bit better optimal and better DPS. - Artys have great damage (if they hit) and therefore make a very good Alpha Strike weapon), better falloff ------------------------------------------------------- Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer I like that.
VJ Maverick Caldari Maverick Specialized Services	Posted - 2007.02.09 18:57:00 - [7] So by alpha strike, you mean that the artillery damage is frontloaded, right?
Olirtad Fiven	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:25:00 - [8] Originally by: VJ Maverick So by alpha strike, you mean that the artillery damage is frontloaded, right? alpha strike = first strike the high damage mod and slow rate of fire mean that each of your strikes have very high damage but the time between strikes is long, making the artillery a good weapon when you for example have to warp out all the time with just enough time to fire once.
Sir Drake	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:26:00 - [9] Pretty much,yes. One heavy damage volley and after that a long waiting time till it fires again which kills the DPS. ------------------------------------------------------- Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer I like that.
darkmancer	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:33:00 - [10] High Alpha Stike; Say Arties do 1000 Damage per Shot and fire once per 10 sec. DPS will be 100 Now say Rails do 800 every 7 seconds DPS will be 115 (roughley) Damage for Arties 1000(0 secs), 2000(10), 3000(20), 4000 (30) For Rails 800(0),1600(7),2400(14),3200(21),4000(27) If the fight lasts less than 20 secs arties are better due to higher alpha, above that rails out dps. There's lots of other considerations (no cap use means arties my be better at the end when the other person runs out), range, ship layout etc. But there's the advantage of high alpha, please the advantage tends to get more pronounced as more ships are involved. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:34:00 - [11] Originally by: Ishquar Teh'Sainte blasters: ACs: pro: different damage types best tracking of all turrets no cap needed allmost no fitting requirements in comparison to other turrets con: lack a bit of damage output short range (due to the big fall-off they are not THAT ultra-shortrange) The almost no fitting requirements is only true with the frigates. With cruisers they do have somewhat less but are much closer to all other turrets and with battleship turrets the grid requirements of autocannons is practically the same as for blasters in the same tier. Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Karasu Kaizoku Caldari Project Mortormis	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:39:00 - [12] Originally by: Samirol blasters you go up and kick the ****es in the face ACs you beat them with a bat Yup that's about how it goes, though I use projectiles because even the long range T2 ammo for autocannons is pretty good, not to mention you use your falloff range for your fighting range. Which in most cases can put me a little distance away. - CCP are forum ***'s for removing a signature .00001 byte over the limit.
VJ Maverick Caldari Maverick Specialized Services	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:42:00 - [13] Why do you use the falloff range for your fighting range? Isn't your chance to hit only 50% at your fall-off?
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:45:00 - [14] Originally by: VJ Maverick Why do you use the falloff range for your fighting range? Isn't your chance to hit only 50% at your fall-off? 50% chance to hit is still more then 0% chance to hit. Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
VJ Maverick Caldari Maverick Specialized Services	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:48:00 - [15] Originally by: Reatu Krentor Originally by: VJ Maverick Why do you use the falloff range for your fighting range? Isn't your chance to hit only 50% at your fall-off? 50% chance to hit is still more then 0% chance to hit. Yes but 100% to hit at your optimal is better than 50% to hit at your fall-off, especially since we're talking about alpha strikes on low ROF turrets where you really can't afford to miss.
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:56:00 - [16] Originally by: VJ Maverick Originally by: Reatu Krentor Originally by: VJ Maverick Why do you use the falloff range for your fighting range? Isn't your chance to hit only 50% at your fall-off? 50% chance to hit is still more then 0% chance to hit. Yes but 100% to hit at your optimal is better than 50% to hit at your fall-off, especially since we're talking about alpha strikes on low ROF turrets where you really can't afford to miss. I was actually referring to blasters vs. autocannons , eg. a rupture can use falloff to it's advantage when fighting against a thorax with medium blasters. Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Aurael Drakewing Legio Immortalis	Posted - 2007.02.09 20:03:00 - [17] Originally by: VJ Maverick Yes but 100% to hit at your optimal is better than 50% to hit at your fall-off, especially since we're talking about alpha strikes on low ROF turrets where you really can't afford to miss. True, but high-alpha, low-ROF is only applicable to Howitzers (the long-range guns). Autocannons, OTOH have low-alpha, high-ROF...in fact I do believe that ACs have the highest in-class ROF, hence why they have short optimals and long falloffs, to counter the high ROF
Sir Drake	Posted - 2007.02.09 20:04:00 - [18] Dont forget that the targets are in most cases moving and at falloff the transversal is lower than in optimal. So the chance to hit is actually better than 50% at falloff and way less than 100% on optimal, in the end i dont think they are that much apart that you could really tell. ------------------------------------------------------- Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer I like that.
Red Harvest	Posted - 2007.02.09 20:08:00 - [19] Originally by: Aurael Drakewing Originally by: VJ Maverick Yes but 100% to hit at your optimal is better than 50% to hit at your fall-off, especially since we're talking about alpha strikes on low ROF turrets where you really can't afford to miss. True, but high-alpha, low-ROF is only applicable to Howitzers (the long-range guns). Autocannons, OTOH have low-alpha, high-ROF...in fact I do believe that ACs have the highest in-class ROF, hence why they have short optimals and long falloffs, to counter the high ROF RoF on ACs is great (i got 3.1 sec RoF with dual 650mm on my pest), damage is not that good per hit but it sums up quite nicely. Only bad thing about it is the speed it goes through a stack of ammo.
JIMINY JIMMYSON	Posted - 2007.02.10 05:29:00 - [20] Originally by: Aurael Drakewing ...in fact I do believe that ACs have the highest in-class ROF, hence why they have short optimals and long falloffs, to counter the high ROF This is actually incorrect, since AC ROF was dropped to get ammunition consumption under control Blasters have a higher ROF.
Deious Troeyd Minmatar Kalear Fleet Systems	Posted - 2007.02.10 05:34:00 - [21] Originally by: Aurael Drakewing ...in fact I do believe that ACs have the highest in-class ROF, hence why they have short optimals and long falloffs, to counter the high ROF This is actually incorrect, since AC ROF was dropped to get ammunition consumption under control Blasters have a higher ROF.
Bacarday	Posted - 2007.02.10 06:00:00 - [22] imho projectiles get pure fluff points, hybrids not so much.. its the sound of the machine gun that does it
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.10 06:15:00 - [23] Edited by: Goumindong on 10/02/2007 06:12:13 Originally by: VJ Maverick Why do you use the falloff range for your fighting range? Isn't your chance to hit only 50% at your fall-off? Yes, but since AC's have a long falloff, and blasters a much shorter falloff, if the AC user is sitting at 50% of his falloff, then the blaster user will be even farther out, reducing their damage further. And the name of the game isnt "do as much dps in your ship as possible" its "Do more DPS to the target than he does to me" ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.10 06:32:00 - [24] Originally by: Ishquar Teh'Sainte blasters: pro: great damage potential good tracking con: only kin/therm damage type need cap to fire ultra-short range ACs: pro: different damage types best tracking of all turrets no cap needed allmost no fitting requirements in comparison to other turrets Blaster/AC range is rather similar in final effect actually, outside of low-tier Blasters.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.10 06:33:00 - [25] Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg Originally by: Ishquar Teh'Sainte blasters: pro: great damage potential good tracking con: only kin/therm damage type need cap to fire ultra-short range ACs: pro: different damage types best tracking of all turrets no cap needed allmost no fitting requirements in comparison to other turrets Blaster/AC range is rather similar in final effect actually, outside of low-tier Blasters. Before you fit anti-matter into the guns, yes. After you fit antimatter and fusion/phased plasma into the guns, no its not. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Kua	Posted - 2007.02.12 12:01:00 - [26] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 10/02/2007 06:12:13 Originally by: VJ Maverick Why do you use the falloff range for your fighting range? Isn't your chance to hit only 50% at your fall-off? Yes, but since AC's have a long falloff, and blasters a much shorter falloff, if the AC user is sitting at 50% of his falloff, then the blaster user will be even farther out, reducing their damage further. And the name of the game isnt "do as much dps in your ship as possible" its "Do more DPS to the target than he does to me" This is a nice point. In a one on one situation, where one is using blasters the other autocannons, it is a good tactic for the autocannon user to drop back into his falloff range. This will hurt his opponents DPS much more than it hurts him. Perhaps this is a fairly one-off situation though (I'm not sure).
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.12 12:39:00 - [27] Originally by: Kua Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 10/02/2007 06:12:13 Originally by: VJ Maverick Why do you use the falloff range for your fighting range? Isn't your chance to hit only 50% at your fall-off? Yes, but since AC's have a long falloff, and blasters a much shorter falloff, if the AC user is sitting at 50% of his falloff, then the blaster user will be even farther out, reducing their damage further. And the name of the game isnt "do as much dps in your ship as possible" its "Do more DPS to the target than he does to me" This is a nice point. In a one on one situation, where one is using blasters the other autocannons, it is a good tactic for the autocannon user to drop back into his falloff range. This will hurt his opponents DPS much more than it hurts him. Perhaps this is a fairly one-off situation though (I'm not sure). It is a "one off" situation in that when fighting Amarr and Caldari the opposite is true. Getting closer improves your DPS and worsens his[not for caldari, but it doesnt help either], except possibly when fighting t2 pulse w/scorch as an armor tanker due to the large ratio of EM damage to therm on scorch. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Socrates Nacht Caldari Red Light Enterprises	Posted - 2007.02.13 06:21:00 - [28] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg Originally by: Ishquar Teh'Sainte blasters: pro: great damage potential good tracking con: only kin/therm damage type need cap to fire ultra-short range ACs: pro: different damage types best tracking of all turrets no cap needed allmost no fitting requirements in comparison to other turrets Blaster/AC range is rather similar in final effect actually, outside of low-tier Blasters. Before you fit anti-matter into the guns, yes. After you fit antimatter and fusion/phased plasma into the guns, no its not. The range bonuses on Fusion and PP only affect optimal. The only projectile ammo that negatively impacts your AC's range is Hail, while the only ammo that positively affects your range is Barrage. Generally, ACs will outrange blasters, and since AC boats are faster than blasterboats...
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.13 10:05:00 - [29] Just a point. Alpha strike is nto relevant only at fisrt shot. When engagem,ent start howitzers will have damage advantage, with time this will be surpassed by others. About the 5th shot the ammarian guns have surpassed it and at the 8th shot the rails surpass them. So if you have a group of ships focus firing, if yout howitzer ships can kill an enemy **** like in the thirs or forth volley the howitzers have an advantage, otherwise they are at disadvantage. If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!!
Socrates Nacht Caldari Red Light Enterprises	Posted - 2007.02.13 10:07:00 - [30] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Just a point. Alpha strike is nto relevant only at fisrt shot. When engagem,ent start howitzers will have damage advantage, with time this will be surpassed by others. About the 5th shot the ammarian guns have surpassed it and at the 8th shot the rails surpass them. So if you have a group of ships focus firing, if yout howitzer ships can kill an enemy **** like in the thirs or forth volley the howitzers have an advantage, otherwise they are at disadvantage. In other words, pest and strom are best fleet snipers bar none.
Leandro Salazar Aeon Industries Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2007.02.13 10:26:00 - [31] It is not a flat 50% hit chance in falloff anyway. It is 50% at optimal + falloff. At optimal + 1/2 falloff, it is still roughly 85% of your optimal hit chance. And goes down on a curve. The tracking guide display that nicely. --------- There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Kestrel
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.13 11:20:00 - [32] Edited by: Goumindong on 13/02/2007 11:17:20 Originally by: Socrates Nacht Before you fit anti-matter into the guns, yes. After you fit antimatter and fusion/phased plasma into the guns, no its not. The range bonuses on Fusion and PP only affect optimal. The only projectile ammo that negatively impacts your AC's range is Hail, while the only ammo that positively affects your range is Barrage. Generally, ACs will outrange blasters, and since AC boats are faster than blasterboats... I am not sure what you are saying. Blasters as well as ACs have low optimal. Blasters have higher optimal and lower falloff, ACs have higher optimal and lower falloff. Using standard[no mod] ammo, the ranges on the ships come out similar. Since the optimal penalty on fusion and phased plasma[and emp] is less than that of anti-matter due to the lower optimal of ACs. The optimal+Falloff is no longer equal when using those ammos because the penalty has a larger effect. This is why ACs outrange blasters. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Socrates Nacht Caldari Red Light Enterprises	Posted - 2007.02.14 04:18:00 - [33] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 13/02/2007 12:36:32 Edited by: Goumindong on 13/02/2007 11:17:20 Originally by: Socrates Nacht Quote: Before you fit anti-matter into the guns, yes. After you fit antimatter and fusion/phased plasma into the guns, no its not. The range bonuses on Fusion and PP only affect optimal. The only projectile ammo that negatively impacts your AC's range is Hail, while the only ammo that positively affects your range is Barrage. Generally, ACs will outrange blasters, and since AC boats are faster than blasterboats... I am not sure what you are saying. Blasters as well as ACs have low optimal. Blasters have higher optimal and lower falloff, ACs have higher optimal and lower falloff. Using standard[no mod] ammo, the ranges on the ships come out similar. Since the optimal penalty on fusion and phased plasma[and emp] is less than that of anti-matter due to the lower optimal of ACs. The optimal+Falloff is no longer equal when using those ammos because the penalty has a larger effect. This is why ACs outrange blasters. ACs have lower optimal and higher falloff. The range penalties/bonuses on t1 ammo only affect optimal, and ACs have very small optimal already. Therefore, your range is effectively the same with all t1 projectile ammo.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.14 04:39:00 - [34] i dont think you understand what i am saying. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Socrates Nacht Caldari Red Light Enterprises	Posted - 2007.02.14 04:49:00 - [35] Originally by: Goumindong i dont think you understand what i am saying. 1. You are claiming that ACs and blasters both have high(er) optimal and low falloff. 2. You then say that commonly used AC ammo like EMP and PP have range penalties, but the are not as severe as Antimatter's range penalty. 3. You are then using the above statement (number two) to explain why ACs have longer effective ranges. Number one is false, but I think you may have made a typo. Number two is true, but it's not proof for number three. Even if projectile ammo had more severe range penalties, they would still outrange blasters. We both agree that ACs outrange blasters, and that range penalties are part of the reason, but you seem to be claiming that the range penalties actually affect both ACs and blasters.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.14 05:55:00 - [36] Yup, you dont understand what I am saying. ACs and Blasters have similar Optimal + Falloff when using standard ammo. However, since autocannons have a much lower optimal range, and PP/Fusion have smaller range penalties than antimatter does, after you fit high damage ammo into your guns, they no longer have a similar optimal + falloff. Hence the comment "yes, until they fit Antimatter and phased plasma/fusion" ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Socrates Nacht Caldari Red Light Enterprises	Posted - 2007.02.14 06:16:00 - [37] Edited by: Socrates Nacht on 14/02/2007 06:14:18 Originally by: Goumindong Yup, you dont understand what I am saying. ACs and Blasters have similar Optimal + Falloff when using standard ammo. However, since autocannons have a much lower optimal range, and PP/Fusion have smaller range penalties than antimatter does, after you fit high damage ammo into your guns, they no longer have a similar optimal + falloff. Hence the comment "yes, until they fit Antimatter and phased plasma/fusion" Light Neutron II: Optimal: 1800 Falloff: 2500 200mm AC II: Optimal: 1200 Falloff: 4000 --------------- Heavy Neutron II: Optimal: 3600 Falloff: 5000 425mm AC II Optimal: 2400 Falloff: 8000 --------------- Neutron Blaster Cannon II Optimal: 7200 Falloff: 10000 800mm AC II Optimal: 4800 Falloff: 16000 --------------- Blasters and ACs clearly do not have similar optimal + falloff. I'm being very generous with using the highest tier blasters, Electrons and Ions have even lower optimal + falloff. What I don't understand is why you are so focused over the range penalties from Fusion and PP. You have admitted that ACs have very low optimal, and you are aware by now that range penalties/bonuses only affect optimal. Therefore, Fusion and PP do little to affect AC range. "PP/Fusion have smaller range penalties than antimatter does, after you fit high damage ammo into your guns, they no longer have a similar optimal + falloff." You are using the fact that PP/Fusion have smaller range penalties than antimatter as reason as to why ACs outrange blasters. Aside from the fact that ACs naturally outrange blasters, it would not matter if PP/Fusion had twice the range penalty of antimatter; blasters would STILL not out range ACs.
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.14 06:18:00 - [38] This is an interesting topic and the 1st NON OP post on this is correct assuming that we are not considering that minmataar get double damage bonuses on MANY ships, an autopest tempest out DPSs a megathron at ANY range and tracks better too. IMHO autocannons are overpowered because with DOUBLE dmg bonus the DPS they deal can be rediculous (+50% more dmg then tach 2's or about 20-30% more then Pulse) but this assumes there is DOUBLE dmg bonuses, I dont think that base stats of autocannons are overpowered but when applied to certain ships i disagree, especially since i think the INTENTION of double damage bonus is more of an artillery focus, I always thought why dont they FIX artillery instead of give minnies a bonus that make autocannon so uber. HOWEVER I do think if double minnie dmg bonus was removed and arties got boost to RoF i think autocannons COULD get a slight boost to dmg since the BASE STATS (that which say an autocannon on a maller perhaps) would get DPS wise is fairly average. When we consider that the weapon is cap free, though, and uses so little powergrid and CPU, I REALLY think autocannons need higher fitting requirements... at least compared to the issues for fitting blasters on gallente, OR heaven forbit lasers on amarr. AND dont even get me started on fitting for caldari... thats a sore subject :P
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.14 06:22:00 - [39] Edited by: Goumindong on 14/02/2007 06:19:37 Yea, their optimal + falloff is within about 1km of each other using base ammo... 2km for med guns and 3km for large guns. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Socrates Nacht Caldari Red Light Enterprises	Posted - 2007.02.14 06:58:00 - [40] Originally by: DrEiak This is an interesting topic and the 1st NON OP post on this is correct assuming that we are not considering that minmataar get double damage bonuses on MANY ships, an autopest tempest out DPSs a megathron at ANY range and tracks better too. IMHO autocannons are overpowered because with DOUBLE dmg bonus the DPS they deal can be rediculous (+50% more dmg then tach 2's or about 20-30% more then Pulse) but this assumes there is DOUBLE dmg bonuses, I dont think that base stats of autocannons are overpowered but when applied to certain ships i disagree, especially since i think the INTENTION of double damage bonus is more of an artillery focus, I always thought why dont they FIX artillery instead of give minnies a bonus that make autocannon so uber. HOWEVER I do think if double minnie dmg bonus was removed and arties got boost to RoF i think autocannons COULD get a slight boost to dmg since the BASE STATS (that which say an autocannon on a maller perhaps) would get DPS wise is fairly average. When we consider that the weapon is cap free, though, and uses so little powergrid and CPU, I REALLY think autocannons need higher fitting requirements... at least compared to the issues for fitting blasters on gallente, OR heaven forbit lasers on amarr. AND dont even get me started on fitting for caldari... thats a sore subject :P Wrong and wrong. ACs have poor DPS, it's unlikely for a Tempest to outdamage a thron under 20km (null, anyone?) without tracking disruptors, and many Gallente ships get a bonus to tracking speed, so the "ACs track marginally better" point is moot. Projectiles need damage bonuses just to be considered "inferior" to other weapon systems in terms of DPS. Obviously, projectile weapons have other advantages to counterbalance the low DPS, but nothing that makes them overpowered. Have you ever tried using autocannons on a ship without projectile damage bonuses? Punisher, Maller, etc. I guarantee you'll have an impossibly hard time killing anything with a decent tank. Uber, right. @Goum: I mentioned I was being generous with using Neutrons as comparison, and you are certainly not being generous with your range estimates. 6200 - 4300 = Less than 1000? 20800 - 17200 = 3000? Besides, how many blasterboats can fit a full rack of neutrons without gimping their setup? Perhaps you'd like to see the range diff with the more commonly used Ions. And my other points have yet to be addressed. On the other hand, feel free to drop it right here. We both agree that the end result is the same: ACs outrange blasters.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.14 07:28:00 - [41] Edited by: Goumindong on 14/02/2007 07:30:04 5200 - 4300 = 900 10400 - 8600 = 1800 whatever the big guns are = 3600 ed: You dont have any other points. The claim was made that they have similar ranges and i said that yes, they do have similar ranges until you start sticking high damage ammo in them, at which point, no they dont have similar ranges. ED: ACs dont have weak DPS any way you look at it. Also ACs on punishers, mallers, and prophecies typically do more damage than pulses on the same boats. RAW DPS and acutal DPS. But that is another issue. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Socrates Nacht Caldari Red Light Enterprises	Posted - 2007.02.14 09:48:00 - [42] Originally by: Goumindong i dont think you understand what i am saying.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.14 09:56:00 - [43] Originally by: DrEiak This is an interesting topic and the 1st NON OP post on this is correct assuming that we are not considering that minmataar get double damage bonuses on MANY ships, an autopest tempest out DPSs a megathron at ANY range and tracks better too. IMHO autocannons are overpowered because with DOUBLE dmg bonus the DPS they deal can be rediculous (+50% more dmg then tach 2's or about 20-30% more then Pulse) but this assumes there is DOUBLE dmg bonuses, I dont think that base stats of autocannons are overpowered but when applied to certain ships i disagree, especially since i think the INTENTION of double damage bonus is more of an artillery focus, I always thought why dont they FIX artillery instead of give minnies a bonus that make autocannon so uber. HOWEVER I do think if double minnie dmg bonus was removed and arties got boost to RoF i think autocannons COULD get a slight boost to dmg since the BASE STATS (that which say an autocannon on a maller perhaps) would get DPS wise is fairly average. When we consider that the weapon is cap free, though, and uses so little powergrid and CPU, I REALLY think autocannons need higher fitting requirements... at least compared to the issues for fitting blasters on gallente, OR heaven forbit lasers on amarr. AND dont even get me started on fitting for caldari... thats a sore subject :P are you forgeting on purpose that all minmatar ships that have the double bonus have LESS TURRETS than the gallente conterpart? A tempest will NOT outdps the megathron, and the tempest uses its secodn bonus just to get close to mega dps, while the mega still have a seco0nd very usefull bonus. If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!!
Wrayeth The Black Rabbits Fatal Persuasion	Posted - 2007.02.14 10:51:00 - [44] Edited by: Wrayeth on 14/02/2007 10:48:45 Edited by: Wrayeth on 14/02/2007 10:47:53 Originally by: DrEiak IMHO autocannons are overpowered because with DOUBLE dmg bonus the DPS they deal can be rediculous (+50% more dmg then tach 2's Of course they deal more damage than tachyons - tachyons are long range, low damage weapons; autocannons are short range, high damage weapons. Quote: or about 20-30% more then Pulse) Kagura covered this - the tempest has 1 fewer turret than the 'geddon, and 2 fewer turrets than the apoc and the abaddon. Originally by: Kagura Nikon A tempest will NOT outdps the megathron, and the tempest uses its secodn bonus just to get close to mega dps, while the mega still have a seco0nd very usefull bonus. Quoted for absolute truth. Not only do blasters on a mega kick out several hundred more DPS than ACs on a tempest, but the mega also has a larger drone bay and can field more heavy drones, increasing the DPS difference even further. In fact, if anything, right now large autocannons are somewhat underpowered. The mediums and smalls seem to be fine, but large AC DPS is not enough to deal with many modern battleship tanks, unfortunately. A small damage bonus wouldn't be amiss, but I doubt it will ever happen. -Wrayeth "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" Might As well Train Another Race
The Hanz Caldari Ordo Rosa Crux Templaris	Posted - 2007.02.14 12:11:00 - [45] Originally by: Samirol blasters you go up and kick the *****es in the face ACs you beat them with a bat Well said.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.14 13:36:00 - [46] Originally by: Socrates Nacht Originally by: Goumindong i dont think you understand what i am saying. I understand quite clearly what you are saying. Its just wrong. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Socrates Nacht Caldari Red Light Enterprises	Posted - 2007.02.14 13:53:00 - [47] Talking to yourself. What am I saying?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.14 14:28:00 - [48] Edited by: Goumindong on 14/02/2007 14:26:11 Originally by: Socrates Nacht Talking to yourself. What am I saying? You were saying that I didnt understand what you were talking about. Unless you were actualy triyng to say that you dont understand what you are talking about, in which case, i rescind my statement. Originally by: "Wayreth" Quoted for absolute truth. Not only do blasters on a mega kick out several hundred more DPS than ACs on a tempest, but the mega also has a larger drone bay and can field more heavy drones, increasing the DPS difference even further. In fact, if anything, right now large autocannons are somewhat underpowered. The mediums and smalls seem to be fine, but large AC DPS is not enough to deal with many modern battleship tanks, unfortunately. A small damage bonus wouldn't be amiss, but I doubt it will ever happen. But that estimation large pulse lasers would be severly underpowered. Both assertions are false. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Mogren Freelance Federation Mining and Munitions	Posted - 2007.02.14 16:05:00 - [49] I found this thread interesting because I was just thinking about replacing my blasters with autocannons on my Myrmidon specifically for Angels ratting in 0.0. I figured the explosive ammo and lack of cap usage would help out alot. In this case would the switch be a good idea?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.14 16:07:00 - [50] Originally by: Mogren I found this thread interesting because I was just thinking about replacing my blasters with autocannons on my Myrmidon specifically for Angels ratting in 0.0. I figured the explosive ammo and lack of cap usage would help out alot. In this case would the switch be a good idea? Yes, it will help tons. Easier to fit as well. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Miso Saemi Salvation Sisterhood	Posted - 2007.02.14 18:53:00 - [51] Can I have help with a actual example? Someone earlier said using autocannon on a ship without dmg bonus was weak. Let's take Myrmidon. It have no dmg bonus and 6 turret. If i'm gonna use a close range MWD+Web setup, which fitting would you use ? 6 blasters or 6 autocannons ? The autocannon have less dps, but are easier to fit. But the blasters kill faster...
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.14 19:02:00 - [52] But the autocannons let you dedicate your entire low slots to damage. 425 ACs will run about 12% less damage than Electron Blasters. They will track worse and have a lot better range. If you are having capacitor issues or just want to dedicate your entire cap to tank, run the ACs. If you arent having capacitor issues and want to do a bit more damage, fit Blasters. It should also be noted that ACs, since they fire explosive ammo will give your heavy drone myrm a way to diversify damage a bit. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Socrates Nacht Caldari Red Light Enterprises	Posted - 2007.02.15 02:22:00 - [53] The lowest tier blasters outdamage the highest tier autocannons by a goody amount. Also, wait for the blaster purists to barge in and scream about Electrons not being true blasters. If I had fitting problems on the myrm, I'd probably just fit Light Neutrons in the highs.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.15 03:50:00 - [54] Originally by: Socrates Nacht The lowest tier blasters outdamage the highest tier autocannons by a goody amount. Also, wait for the blaster purists to barge in and scream about Electrons not being true blasters. If I had fitting problems on the myrm, I'd probably just fit Light Neutrons in the highs. Yea, but at least there will be a reason[tracking bonus, damage bonus, no cap use] to fit the autocannons over the blasters in those situations. With amarr there is no reason, once you downfit you gain damage, save fitting and cap use no matter what you do. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.02.15 03:53:00 - [55] Originally by: Goumindong But the autocannons let you dedicate your entire low slots to damage. 425 ACs will run about 12% less damage than Electron Blasters. They will track worse and have a lot better range. If you are having capacitor issues or just want to dedicate your entire cap to tank, run the ACs. If you arent having capacitor issues and want to do a bit more damage, fit Blasters. It should also be noted that ACs, since they fire explosive ammo will give your heavy drone myrm a way to diversify damage a bit. Using a heavy drone myrmidon would suggest to me that you want to do as much dps as possible and kill the target as fast as possible. IMO don't use AC's then, use blasters. Unbonused AC's allways have poor damage. The Rate of fire bonus on practically every minmatar ship larger then a frigate is there for a reason... To make projectile turrets usefull. Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.15 03:57:00 - [56] Originally by: Reatu Krentor Originally by: Goumindong But the autocannons let you dedicate your entire low slots to damage. 425 ACs will run about 12% less damage than Electron Blasters. They will track worse and have a lot better range. If you are having capacitor issues or just want to dedicate your entire cap to tank, run the ACs. If you arent having capacitor issues and want to do a bit more damage, fit Blasters. It should also be noted that ACs, since they fire explosive ammo will give your heavy drone myrm a way to diversify damage a bit. Using a heavy drone myrmidon would suggest to me that you want to do as much dps as possible and kill the target as fast as possible. IMO don't use AC's then, use blasters. Unbonused AC's allways have poor damage. The Rate of fire bonus on practically every minmatar ship larger then a frigate is there for a reason... To make projectile turrets usefull. ACs do not do bad DPS, in fact, its quite good DPS. Especialy when considering that no other guns do explosive damage or are able to change to thermal damage against shiels. If you want a stronger tank and dont want to worry about having to have cap to shoot your guns, you take the ACs. Otherwise you take the blasters. Its that simple. Having heavy drones has nothing to do with it, you will be so close that it wont matter due to scoop and release. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.02.15 04:20:00 - [57] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Reatu Krentor Originally by: Goumindong But the autocannons let you dedicate your entire low slots to damage. 425 ACs will run about 12% less damage than Electron Blasters. They will track worse and have a lot better range. If you are having capacitor issues or just want to dedicate your entire cap to tank, run the ACs. If you arent having capacitor issues and want to do a bit more damage, fit Blasters. It should also be noted that ACs, since they fire explosive ammo will give your heavy drone myrm a way to diversify damage a bit. Using a heavy drone myrmidon would suggest to me that you want to do as much dps as possible and kill the target as fast as possible. IMO don't use AC's then, use blasters. Unbonused AC's allways have poor damage. The Rate of fire bonus on practically every minmatar ship larger then a frigate is there for a reason... To make projectile turrets usefull. ACs do not do bad DPS, in fact, its quite good DPS. Especialy when considering that no other guns do explosive damage or are able to change to thermal damage against shiels. If you want a stronger tank and dont want to worry about having to have cap to shoot your guns, you take the ACs. Otherwise you take the blasters. Its that simple. Having heavy drones has nothing to do with it, you will be so close that it wont matter due to scoop and release. I checked and 425mm AC's on a myrmidon will allways be outdamaged by the blasters(any of them, though I'll admit the difference is marginal when comparing to heavy electrons, but then consider the amount of grid the heavy electrons save) when firing against an armor tank(on a T1 ship with 3 T2 hardeners or 2 eanm+dcu). The only reason I can see to use heavy drones on a myrmidon is to have the most dps possible. And why would you want to have as much dps as possible? To kill your target as fast as possible before backup arrives or before you run out of cap charges. So in that case blasters are superior. That said, the only reason to use AC's on a myrmidon is to have the no cap use. Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Mighty Baz HUSARIA	Posted - 2007.02.15 08:13:00 - [58] last time I used a/c 425 scout in my myrmidon. I tell you one, dont do that. Rof 4,5 dmg modyfier 5,2 ammo fusion nothing special without special moduls (giro) ______________________________________________ Husaria recruits based on legendary XVI century Polish winged cavalry

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.