EVE Search - Large autocannon

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Large autocannon

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
To mare	Posted - 2008.06.24 14:31:00 - [1] After the 1400mm whine and the tempest/minamtar BS whine here is the autocannons whine. PRO of autocannons: no cap required to fire. best tracking. high falloff. CONS of autocannons: low DPS. low optimal. Fighting in falloff they lose a lot of DPS. Some numbers: LARGE AUTOCANNON 800mm -> 4.8+16 optimal+falloff -- 0.4104 raw DPS w/o bonus -- 4.96% better than tier 2 weapon 650mm -> 4.3+16 optimal+falloff -- 0.3910 raw DPS w/o bonus -- 6.66% better than tier 1 weapon 425mm -> 3.8+16 optimal+falloff -- 0.3666 raw DPS w/o bonus 800mm have 11.95% better DPS than 425mm LARGE BLASTER Neutrons -> 7.2+10 optimal+falloff -- 0.5329 raw DPS w/o bonus -- 6.58% better than tier 2 weapon Ions -> 6.0+8 optimal+falloff --0.5000 raw DPS w/o bonus -- 7.30% better than tier 1 weapon Electron -> 4.8+6 optimal+falloff -- 0.4666 raw DPS w/o bonus neutrons have 14.21% better DPS than electron LARGE PULSE LASER Mega pulse-> 24+8 optimal+falloff -- 0.4568 raw DPS w/o bonus Heavy pulse -> 22+6 optimal+falloff -- 0.3947 raw DPS w/o bonus Mega pulse have 15.73% better DPS than heavy pulse ----------------------------------- with those stats (taken from item database) we see: - autos have a 27-29% less DPS than blaster and less optimal than blaster - autos have a 7-11% less DPS than laser and a lot less optimal - autos have more falloff (read damage reduction in falloff) -while both laser + blaster increase their optimal and falloff with the tier of the weapon autocannos get only 1 mere km and fixed falloff. -laser and blaster get better DPS increase at the increasing of the weapon size. -projectile low range ammo T1/faction have 9% less damage than laser-blaster low range T1/faction ammo. Sum all the stats and we come to the point we all know : Autocannons are subpar to the others weapon systems. Medium and Small autocannos have the same problems but I already did a damn long post with large guns not gonna post medium and small right now Solutions? Ideas? Flame on.
Transmaniacon Strike-Force-Alpha	Posted - 2008.06.24 14:52:00 - [2] Edited by: Transmaniacon on 24/06/2008 14:52:41 I agree that fighting in falloff is a bit detrimental, but no cap use and great tracking more than make up for it.
Ghengis Tia	Posted - 2008.06.24 15:21:00 - [3] I don't know if the great tracking will get Frigates, but at those short ranges does good tracking make any difference with a BS? When I used 800 AC's last I felt I was at point blank range, would great tracking be a measurable advantage over the drawbacks?
eXtas Atomic Battle Penguins	Posted - 2008.06.24 16:40:00 - [4] you just have to accept that large ac's are not that good compared to blasters or lazors good thing is that you can change damage type a litle, hail and barage does exp/kin and emp does em/kin/exp and PP does mostly thermal.. good if you are killing missionrunners... phoon with torps is actualy beter damage and tank for close range then a pest :( but if you are shooting nanohac's you will hit them with large ac's beter then most guns --------
Trojanman190 D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.24 17:18:00 - [5] Originally by: eXtas you just have to accept that large ac's are not that good compared to blasters or lazors good thing is that you can change damage type a litle, hail and barage does exp/kin and emp does em/kin/exp and PP does mostly thermal.. good if you are killing missionrunners... phoon with torps is actualy beter damage and tank for close range then a pest :( but if you are shooting nanohac's you will hit them with large ac's beter then most guns If the amar had accepted their situation the wouldn't have gotten the em nerf (boost?). The changing damage type argument fails because we simply don't have the cargo space with cap boosters for 5 different ammo types. Also, our t2 ammo is pretty much just explosive. My main gripe with large ac is the falloff problem. Our dps is awful without taking falloff into account and is downright unusable when we start fighting in falloff. The tracking is not an issue at all. If you are using turrets on a bs you will not be hitting orbitting cruisers that are not webbed. It just wont happen. If I have to give up multiple damage types, fine, we don't really use them outside of pve anyways. If I have to give up capless weapons, fine (boost my capacitor if you do hose that tho). I want a close range weapon that is useful on an hp buffer that does not hit like a wet towel. Blasters are close range, lasers are long range, why can't we have something in the middle? Extend falloff my 15km - 20km and call it a day.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.06.24 17:20:00 - [6] Hm, the Liang-bot must be acting up. 5 posts into a projectile weapons thread and no post? Might need to reboot it.
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service	Posted - 2008.06.24 17:27:00 - [7] Originally by: To mare stuff Well a very important thing you are forgetting to include is the PG requirements. ACs are also very easy to fit. Also take into account the powergrid increases from the lightest Large weapon to the heaviest. Blasters grid reqs increase 80% from Electrons to Neutrons. Lasers increase 66% from Dual Heavies to Mega Pulses (but have the highest fitting reqs and cap usage). While ACs grid reqs only increase 60% from Dual425s to 800s. Also ACs have flexible damage types rather than just Kin/Therm or EM/Therm. Huge plus. Taxman V: Back in Black
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.24 17:33:00 - [8] Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Originally by: To mare stuff While ACs grid reqs only increase 60% from Dual425s to 800s. Also ACs have flexible damage types rather than just Kin/Therm or EM/Therm. Huge plus. Intresting what you wrote there Vladimir. But There is no reason to fit 800s aslong 425s & 650s do a better job. But yeah, this counts in too About the bolt: Try to read again the reply of Trojanman190 Even Better, I just qoute it. The changing damage type argument fails because we simply don't have the cargo space with cap boosters for 5 different ammo types. Also, our t2 ammo is pretty much just explosive. Something I want to add. In battle we can't change the ammo anyway. We aren't like amarr who instand change their crystals. 10Sec + Reaction = A lot of lost damage & possible death. ********** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Trojanman190 D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.24 17:43:00 - [9] Originally by: Jalif ..stuff jalif sed.. Intresting what you wrote there Vladimir. But There is no reason to fit 800s aslong 425s & 650s do a better job. But yeah, this counts in too About the bolt: Try to read again the reply of Trojanman190 Even Better, I just qoute it. The changing damage type argument fails because we simply don't have the cargo space with cap boosters for 5 different ammo types. Also, our t2 ammo is pretty much just explosive. Something I want to add. In battle we can't change the ammo anyway. We aren't like amarr who instand change their crystals. 10Sec + Reaction = A lot of lost damage & possible death. Not to mention neither race can change a rack all at once [thanks ccp!]
Arvald Aurora Acclivitous Paxton Federation	Posted - 2008.06.24 17:45:00 - [10] cant fight outside of web range at fast speeds and do huge amounts of damage, that would be overpowered Originally by: Xanos Blackpaw Stealthbomber combat (or as i like to call it: Just because you *are* paranoid don't mean there isnt a invisible demon about to eat your face)
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.24 17:52:00 - [11] Originally by: Arvald cant fight outside of web range at fast speeds and do huge amounts of damage, that would be overpowered who said we want that? ********** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service	Posted - 2008.06.24 17:56:00 - [12] Originally by: Jalif Something I want to add. In battle we can't change the ammo anyway. We aren't like amarr who instand change their crystals. 10Sec + Reaction = A lot of lost damage & possible death. You're doing it wrong. You change your ammo before the battle not during it. You should always have a pretty good idea of what you are going up against. If you don't, then you screwed up. Also you only really need to carry three ammo types - EMP, Phased Plasma, and Fusion. Gives a nice broad spectrum. And I find I can skimp on one 800 charge to include a few reloads of each ammo type. Personally, I rarely have to use anything other than EMP. Hits the two critical weak points, and most armortankers don't tank against EM anyways. Taxman V: Back in Black
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.24 18:01:00 - [13] Edited by: Jalif on 24/06/2008 18:01:30 Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Originally by: Jalif Something I want to add. In battle we can't change the ammo anyway. We aren't like amarr who instand change their crystals. 10Sec + Reaction = A lot of lost damage & possible death. You're doing it wrong. You change your ammo before the battle not during it. You should always have a pretty good idea of what you are going up against. If you don't, then you screwed up. Also you only really need to carry three ammo types - EMP, Phased Plasma, and Fusion. Gives a nice broad spectrum. And I find I can skimp on one 800 charge to include a few reloads of each ammo type. Personally, I rarely have to use anything other than EMP. Hits the two critical weak points, and most armortankers don't tank against EM anyways. Well, I setup for any case, & that would be barrage (on my current Rupture). I am not going to change ammo just for "1" target. These days there is no 1 target anymore but atleast 5. If you going to waste time on changing ammo you will loose yourself & as fleet a quite amount of DPS output. ********** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Trojanman190 D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.24 18:08:00 - [14] Edited by: Trojanman190 on 24/06/2008 18:10:51 Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Originally by: Jalif Something I want to add. In battle we can't change the ammo anyway. We aren't like amarr who instand change their crystals. 10Sec + Reaction = A lot of lost damage & possible death. You're doing it wrong. You change your ammo before the battle not during it. You should always have a pretty good idea of what you are going up against. If you don't, then you screwed up. Also you only really need to carry three ammo types - EMP, Phased Plasma, and Fusion. Gives a nice broad spectrum. And I find I can skimp on one 800 charge to include a few reloads of each ammo type. Personally, I rarely have to use anything other than EMP. Hits the two critical weak points, and most armortankers don't tank against EM anyways. I do the secure can trick and i have run out of cap charges before. Also, you don't carry barrage ? I carry EMP and Barrage. I know a few dudes who switch emp for fusion or fusion for plasma. The vast majority of a time you don't pick your ammo for the damage type, you pick it for the range or for the tracking. Also, if you, like the rest of us, only carry two ammo types... does the dammage type really matter? I dun think so. It's like other races, an ammo for long range and an ammo for short range. Originally by: Jaliff Well, I setup for any case, & that would be barrage (on my current Rupture). I am not going to change ammo just for "1" target. These days there is no 1 target anymore but atleast 5. If you going to waste time on changing ammo you will loose yourself & as fleet a quite amount of DPS output. Agreed. Barrage is pretty much the main ammo if you can use t2 because the falloff bonus negates some of the fail you experience when fighting at the edge of your oponnent's optimal, like when you are in a smaller ship trying not to be webbed. I only switch to emp when I need more tracking because unless I'm right on top of the target it won't hit nearly as hard as barrage... I'm only switching ammo so that I can hit at all.
AstroPhobic	Posted - 2008.06.24 18:18:00 - [15] Originally by: Transmaniacon Edited by: Transmaniacon on 24/06/2008 14:52:41 I agree that fighting in falloff is a bit detrimental Giggle me timbers, captain! Our DPS is behind all other short range weapon systems to begin with. Coupled with a high damage ammo that is 9% less than other races, an optimal of about my armspan, and losing 40% of all of THAT to fight in falloff is more than "a bit". Quote: but no cap use And what do you reckon we do with all of our leftover cap? use a 6 slot active tank to get 400 omni DPS and get smashed by a passive tanked thron or geddon? No thanks. I'd gladly have our turrets use more cap than blasters if it means we get autos balanced. Quote: and great tracking Tracking isn't too far ahead of other races. Quote: more than make up for it. Not even close.
Transmaniacon Strike-Force-Alpha	Posted - 2008.06.24 18:30:00 - [16] Edited by: Transmaniacon on 24/06/2008 18:30:09 Quote: Giggle me timbers, captain! Our DPS is behind all other short range weapon systems to begin with. Coupled with a high damage ammo that is 9% less than other races, an optimal of about my armspan, and losing 40% of all of THAT to fight in falloff is more than "a bit". While our damage isnt great, we can hit from ranges blasters cant. Sure, I would love to be able to pull up and unleash 800 DPS with a cruiser, but we have to fight from farther away, and take a little longer to get the job done. Quote: And what do you reckon we do with all of our leftover cap? use a 6 slot active tank to get 400 omni DPS and get smashed by a passive tanked thron or geddon? No thanks. I'd gladly have our turrets use more cap than blasters if it means we get autos balanced. Minmatar are the fastest race out there, speed tanking is our thing, use that cap to permarun your MWD...and your good tracking to still hit at high speeds. Sure, ACs could use a little improvement, but dont make them out to be some horrible device that has no good uses at all...
Trojanman190 D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.24 18:36:00 - [17] Originally by: Transmaniacon Edited by: Transmaniacon on 24/06/2008 18:30:09 Quote: Giggle me timbers, captain! Our DPS is behind all other short range weapon systems to begin with. Coupled with a high damage ammo that is 9% less than other races, an optimal of about my armspan, and losing 40% of all of THAT to fight in falloff is more than "a bit". While our damage isnt great, we can hit from ranges blasters cant. Sure, I would love to be able to pull up and unleash 800 DPS with a cruiser, but we have to fight from farther away, and take a little longer to get the job done. Quote: And what do you reckon we do with all of our leftover cap? use a 6 slot active tank to get 400 omni DPS and get smashed by a passive tanked thron or geddon? No thanks. I'd gladly have our turrets use more cap than blasters if it means we get autos balanced. Minmatar are the fastest race out there, speed tanking is our thing, use that cap to permarun your MWD...and your good tracking to still hit at high speeds. Sure, ACs could use a little improvement, but dont make them out to be some horrible device that has no good uses at all... What foe exactly are you speed tanking in your large AC using ship? Links to killmails would be cool. [is it ok to post links since I asked???? (I'm not expecting any anyways....)] If you are using large AC it means you are using a battleship. The whole concept of a speed tanking battleship is absolutely silly to me. CCP said that they whole heartedly agreed by nerfing the nanophoon.
Maeltstome Suicidal Office Clerks	Posted - 2008.06.24 18:37:00 - [18] Originally by: Trojanman190 Also, you don't carry barrage ? I carry EMP and Barrage. I only carry barrage normally - but then again im limited since i use a t2 large and a med cap booster, so med-can + 6 cap charges = 1200 rounds of ammo space. 600 of each isnt enough. Plus EMP L is bigger than other types of proj ammo, am i right? ------- [12:07] w33Daz: a trained 1 skill fur 24 mins n it took 2 days aff drones lvl 5 [12:07] w33Daz: A WIS LIKE WTF
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.06.24 19:27:00 - [19] Quote: Giggle me timbers, captain! Our DPS is behind all other short range weapon systems to begin with. Coupled with a high damage ammo that is 9% less than other races, an optimal of about my armspan, and losing 40% of all of THAT to fight in falloff is more than "a bit". But Astro, you forgot, they don't use CAP!
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.24 19:33:00 - [20] Originally by: Boz Well Quote: Giggle me timbers, captain! Our DPS is behind all other short range weapon systems to begin with. Coupled with a high damage ammo that is 9% less than other races, an optimal of about my armspan, and losing 40% of all of THAT to fight in falloff is more than "a bit". But Astro, you forgot, they don't use CAP! But what was that matter if we live now in the passive tanked era? Cap doesn't really matter because most ships are passive tanked and that is more effective then active. So Cap shouldn't become your problem in the first place. You also forgot we have the smallest Capacitor store? This just realized me that other races with the bigger cap can use their MWD even longer/easier for their nanoships that use only drones or missiles. While the fastest race (therefore easier to fly with) should be minmatar. ********** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Trojanman190 D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.24 19:36:00 - [21] Originally by: Jalif Originally by: Boz Well Quote: Giggle me timbers, captain! Our DPS is behind all other short range weapon systems to begin with. Coupled with a high damage ammo that is 9% less than other races, an optimal of about my armspan, and losing 40% of all of THAT to fight in falloff is more than "a bit". But Astro, you forgot, they don't use CAP! But what was that matter if we live now in the passive tanked era? Cap doesn't really matter because most ships are passive tanked and that is more effective then active. So Cap shouldn't become your problem in the first place. You also forgot we have the smallest Capacitor store? This just realized me that other races with the bigger cap can use their MWD even longer/easier for their nanoships that use only drones or missiles. While the fastest race (therefore easier to fly with) should be minmatar. It's funny cuz the first thing I remarked on when I jumped into an ishtar was how long I could run the mwd.
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.24 19:39:00 - [22] Originally by: Trojanman190 Originally by: Jalif Originally by: Boz Well Quote: Giggle me timbers, captain! Our DPS is behind all other short range weapon systems to begin with. Coupled with a high damage ammo that is 9% less than other races, an optimal of about my armspan, and losing 40% of all of THAT to fight in falloff is more than "a bit". But Astro, you forgot, they don't use CAP! But what was that matter if we live now in the passive tanked era? Cap doesn't really matter because most ships are passive tanked and that is more effective then active. So Cap shouldn't become your problem in the first place. You also forgot we have the smallest Capacitor store? This just realized me that other races with the bigger cap can use their MWD even longer/easier for their nanoships that use only drones or missiles. While the fastest race (therefore easier to fly with) should be minmatar. It's funny cuz the first thing I remarked on when I jumped into an ishtar was how long I could run the mwd. Funny how we discover that minmatar is becoming day by day the underdog. ********** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Trojanman190 D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.24 19:43:00 - [23] Duznt it mean 'underdog' or something in icelandic? I remember reading that somewhere.
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.24 19:45:00 - [24] Originally by: Trojanman190 Duznt it mean 'underdog' or something in icelandic? I remember reading that somewhere. we going oftopic now, but yeah... I posted this flaw also in the current minmatar topic ********** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.06.24 20:03:00 - [25] Quote: Giggle me timbers, captain! Our DPS is behind all other short range weapon systems to begin with. Coupled with a high damage ammo that is 9% less than other races, an optimal of about my armspan, and losing 40% of all of THAT to fight in falloff is more than "a bit". But Astro, they're so easy to fit grid/cpu wise!
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.24 20:18:00 - [26] Originally by: Boz Well Quote: Giggle me timbers, captain! Our DPS is behind all other short range weapon systems to begin with. Coupled with a high damage ammo that is 9% less than other races, an optimal of about my armspan, and losing 40% of all of THAT to fight in falloff is more than "a bit". But Astro, they're so easy to fit grid/cpu wise! What does it matter if we only use the 220mm (Medium) or the 650mm (Large) & not the bigger versions of it? But isn't that because for our versatality? I have to give you this one. But what does fitting matter for the actual combat? ********** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
DubanFP Four Rings Souls of Vengeance	Posted - 2008.06.24 20:43:00 - [27] You guys say "ACs lose even more damage when fighting in falloff". I say "Blasters lose ALL damage when fighting in the AC's falloff". Really you can't compare faloff simply because ACs are the only close range weapons that really can fight at 20km without dropping to a weaker amo type like lasers. Also don't forget the rediculously low PG usage and the fact that Minmitar ships have a damage bonus built into their ships. Just about every minmitar ship gets a free Damage bonus. Even the non-damage ships like the stabber get free damage, and the damage ships get two bonuses. It does require more skills to make usage of it, but that seems to be the way minmitar is supposed to be. More skills, but in the end it pays off. The RoF bonus V alone gives a 33%+ damage which easily brings it up on par with the blasters, and the damage bonus matches it. A high-SP well fit Hurricane is ungodly in the right hands. The main problem with projectile weaponry is the artillery. Mainly that it relies on falloff and the nerfed alpha. The faloff doesn't even get affected by amo changes or tracking modules. So that just nerfs it's range. I'll make a new post on that in a bit. _______________ ReiAyanami> We bring you tidings of AARRRRRRRRR
Blind Jhon	Posted - 2008.06.24 21:07:00 - [28] Edited by: Blind Jhon on 24/06/2008 21:07:44 @ DubanFP sorry m8 complete fail. do you understand Ac are closest range than blaster? do you understand a null equipped mega in falloff outdamage a barrage tempest? and for the lol tempest has dual damage bonus. the problem here is nof if minmatar ship does have damage bonus or not, the proble is that oh god this ship has double damage bonus, but Ac are so suky that an abaddon outdamage me! everybody says you can change damage dealing ok let's point out once for all -p.plasma most termal -emp both em and explosive -fusion explosive. all whit terrible range, the long range ones are all explosive. if we switc to t2, we have only kin explo damage. as you say we change damage we can say every EVERY gallente change range: there are hybrid weapon for all range to -50% up to 60% so i must expect every mega pilot carry some antimatter for close range, uranium (or plutonium?) for a bit far and some iron for more far... oh i forgot, some null too, to shot at smal target, and if there is room any void too for the toughest tank. going this way we are all flying bat hauler in order to have the right ammo...(then we will whine the have no dronebay) so if we compare 2 bs: a blsterboat whit let's say thorium, and and an acboat whit fusion. both 5km outside optimal, do you realize blaster outdamage ac?? second every gallente ship has 5%damage bonus on blaster (even the celestis?), and somo of them have a second bonus on drone, drone do not use cap, can change damage, have no optimal or fallof issues... bla bla bla edit: please syddy made a grat post about 1400mm, if you want to speack about artillery answer there ....
AstroPhobic	Posted - 2008.06.24 21:10:00 - [29] Originally by: Boz Well Quote: Giggle me timbers, captain! Our DPS is behind all other short range weapon systems to begin with. Coupled with a high damage ammo that is 9% less than other races, an optimal of about my armspan, and losing 40% of all of THAT to fight in falloff is more than "a bit". But Astro, they're so easy to fit grid/cpu wise! I love this argument too. 1600mm plates aren't exactly hard to fit, and since buffer tanking is the new dual LAR, it doesn't matter. Minnie gets balls for powergrid on lots of ships - the only ships with less fitting (PG) are caldari, which don't need them.
AstroPhobic	Posted - 2008.06.24 21:14:00 - [30] Edited by: AstroPhobic on 24/06/2008 21:14:17 Quote: While our damage isnt great, we can hit from ranges blasters cant. Sure, I would love to be able to pull up and unleash 800 DPS with a cruiser, but we have to fight from farther away, and take a little longer to get the job done. Try twice to 3x the time. You're doing about 400 DPS at optimal + falloff, compared to 1200-1300 of a mega at optimal. With overheating, the mega can easily overheat his MWD and get in nice and close. Since you can't overheat mid cycle, there's no real way to defend against this. Quote: Minmatar are the fastest race out there, speed tanking is our thing, use that cap to permarun your MWD...and your good tracking to still hit at high speeds. Do realize that you're talking about battleship ACs. You're not going to use any such cap to permarun a MWD... this would take handfuls of cap mods. Quote: Sure, ACs could use a little improvement, but dont make them out to be some horrible device that has no good uses at all... You must not have seen the laser maelstrom that is better than the auto maelstrom in every possible way.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.