Ships & Modules

I keep hearing that I'm not listening or don't want to listen or whatever. If I gave that impression, it was unintentional. I am listening, and everything that has been said has been taken to heart and appreciated. Most of it has been stuff I already basically knew, i.e. "this turret is good at this and bad at that," but it's still all appreciated regardless. The thought is what counts, and people just want to help. Thanks.

I will try to explain the fundamental issue with cap usage bonuses as I understand it, and as I have heard explained by hotshot veterans who have been PvP'ing and FleetVFleet'ing for years (doesn't mean they are right, just means they know enough to actually have an opinion).

This will be somewhat simplified to get the point across - reality has more messy details, more variables, etc.

Tradeoffs with these weapons chiefly revolve around a sliding scale that trades one thing for another. For instance, range vs. damage. It is a scale with range all the way on one side, and damage on the other side. If you slide one way, you are increasing range but decreasing damage. If you slide the other way, the opposite happens. This is "self balancing" in that boosting one thing sacrifices the other, so it's already "balanced" so to speak, and needs no further adjustment.

An example here would be railguns. The slider is adjusted all the way to one side (range). So the damage sacrifice has already been made - it needs no further sacrifice or penalty. Another example would be blasters. The slider is adjusted all the way to the other side (damage). So the range sacrifice has already been made. It needs no further sacrifice or penalty.

Now on to lasers. On the range/damage slider, it is about midway give or take. Fine - the tradeoffs, again - have already occurred, as it gets mid-grade damage but also mid-grade range. So why are there FURTHER tradeoff to be had? Why must there be some additional penalty to fit and actually use the thing? It would make sense if the weapon was 'OP' or better than other weapons but it isn't - it is simply another weapon with pluses and minuses.

That was the point. Now, I'm just a noob, but I've heard other experienced veteran types discussing this. If this point of view is wrong - fine, I accept that. My only point is, this is where I was coming from in this thread.

I wasn't trying to state something controversial - I had no idea anything I said would be. And again, if this point of view is wrong, fine, I accept that. It is really no skin off my nose either way.

You're thinking of it a little too two dimensionally. It's not just range and damage. They all have further tradeoffs, not just lasers.

In a group fight, Blaster boats have to not shoot for considerable time and burn lots of cap running a Microwarp getting from target to target. It's actually cap intensive in a real fight for them to apply damage. The DPS is high, but the DPS TIME is lower. The capacitor cost is also high, it just comes from the Microwarp scrambler and webs, not the guns themselves. As mentioned before they also can't hit a moving target very well at that intended close range without a tracking boost. So while the paper dps is high, the applied damage is often not.

Lasers have longer reach so they don't need to burn from one target to another, at least not nearly as much. They will use up less capacitor on propulsion and more on guns. But they'll have even worse trouble tracking a really close target.

Projectiles cost no capacitor. Their ships also have worse base capacitor. Their optimal might say 1km, but they will not actually hit a moving target 1km away. They shoot into falloff for reduced damage and need hull bonuses for that damage to be respectable. Otherwise everyone would just fit projectiles with their no cap and low power costs. Projectiles can shoot at Scorch range for low damage, or use capacitor on propulsion to get in a more favorable position to do better damage. They use this as well as their damage type selection to put themselves in a relative position where they do better applied damage than their opponent.

As I mentioned before, part of why Lasers are strong is also exactly where on the damage/range scale they fall. The damage is optimized at the edge of range of warp disruptors/scramblers. Part of why excessive cap cost is a fitting draw back, is what is involved in taking advantage of this. Running your MWD and Warp Disruptor on the target while holding 20-22km range. Trying to do armor reps, while attractive since you "range tank" lots of the incoming damage, just adds to the Cap strain. In some ways, lasers would be too good otherwise.

In short, yes.

Since other guns can't match their damage projection out to warp disruptor range, they need a way to catch a kiting laser boat and apply their own damage. There are two ways this happens. One is that most Amarr ships are flying bricks - that you then slap on a 1600mm cinder block to. Other ships, in particular Minmatar, will run them down. The other way is to simply not let the laser boat have enough cap to kill a ship it's own size while running MWD+Warp Disruptor+Guns. At least not without sacrificing something to fit for the cap supply, or using a boat that is bonused for that task instead of something else. Making the guns cost more is a logical choice.

Here's a quick look at the damage you can expect at 20km from one, unbonused, short range, medium sized weapon
Heavy Pulse, Scorch - 33dps @ 23+5km
425mm Auto, Fleet EMP - 5 DPS @ 20km
425mm Auto, Barrage (10sec reload) - 13dps @ 20km
Heavy Neutron Blaster, Null - 5dps @ 20km
Heavy Assault Missile, Javelin - 19dps @ 20km
Heavy Assault Missile, Javelin, target Microwarping away at 2km/s - 0dps @ >19km
Rapid Light Missile Launcher, Fury - 24dps @ 20km (max effective range vs 2km/s target moving away)

Note I used 20km for the other weapons where scorch hits for close to that number to 24.5 km. This is because at 23-24km most of the other weapons drop to near-0 dps (but so does the warp disruptor, letting the target slip away).

Scorch sure looks too strong without extra drawbacks (and usability bonuses to the others) if you can maintain that engagement range, doesn't it?

As Inkarr said you compare Pulse lasers to Blasters and Autos, and Beams to Rails and Artillery. Pulse Lasers are not mid range, mid damage. They are high range, medium-high damage.

You can't bring long range weapons into that mix and say "well fit rails instead of blasters". Then the laser boat, using short range pulse weapons, will (try to) come in too close for the rails to hit and switch to multifrequency. Long range weapons also have different uses. Fighting at a range of more than 25-30 km means you can't stop the target from warping away without another player holding them down. At that point, whether you are 80 or 180 km away doesn't make (as much of) a difference.

what

WHAT

It does. its that simple!

The right tool for the right job. In time, you will probably train them all. Just play to your strengths.

Artillery is awesome, when you have a fleet of 800 Maelstroms focusing fire on one target. Instantly exploding whatever target they lock on to, with the huge front load damage.

Blasters are awesome - if you're fighting in a very small group on top of a wormhole. Where everyone is within 5-10km range and no one has interest in moving away from it, because they want to jump to escape/chase.

There's always the laser hulls themselves. While many of the ships are getting away from the obligatory cap usage bonus, they're still midslot gimped and thus brawling is where you typically don't want to be.

fake edit:

And don't forget about the hidden + holy damage stat.

Vexor or Arbitraitor to be honest.

Let's assume both ships gonna fit MWD.

Omen need a PG rig, maller don't.

Assume you have amarr cruiser V, controlled burst V, and perfect cap supporting skill, and you fit navy multi in your FMPL IIs

Everything on including the MWD:

Omen will cap out in 2m20s
Maller will cap out in 1m20s

MWD off (everything else is on)
Omen will be cap stable at 83%
Maller will cap out in 8m30s


I think most maller fits need a cap booster, that leaves only one mid slot for tackling.
But omen will sure have cap issues in any prolonged fight if you don't fit a cap booster i.e. MWD on for ze 50km rush, and turn around crushing the gate; or break the logi chain... etc.

omen can fit 4 medium drones (or 5 smaller warrior II plus three web/ecm/armor rep small drones), maller can only fit 3 small drones. That's leaves you to decide whether you want to have more (utility) drones, or a better tank.

This is what I was getting at previously, but most seemed to disagree with my point.

At this point I don't know what is correct, but at any rate it is good to get a variety of opinions on the matter.