These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Do auto-cannons have a point?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
KeeganWaffle
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2013-10-07 04:20:47 UTC  |  Edited by: KeeganWaffle
From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore.

They have less DPS then blasters at point blank.

They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch.




I think the whole "blasters track better" thing needs to be moved over to auto-cannons.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#2 - 2013-10-07 04:27:43 UTC
no they don't have a point...

that's an entirely different module!

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#3 - 2013-10-07 04:32:46 UTC
KeeganWaffle wrote:
From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore.

They have less DPS then blasters at point blank.

They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch.




I think the whole "blasters track better" thing needs to be moved over to auto-cannons.


LOL

Lets compare the worst case scenarios for a weapon system then complain that they are crap eh? Good logic there.

Don.'t think about their lack of cap requirement or damage selection or rediculasly low fitting requirements or their looooooong falloffs or anything....

just pick on their couple of weakness and summize they are worthless.....I do hope you don't do company analysis for a living.

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#4 - 2013-10-07 04:35:34 UTC
ACs track much better than pulse lasers, hit consistently farther than blasters, have easy fitting requirements, require no cap to run, can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges.

Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly.
KeeganWaffle
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2013-10-07 04:48:10 UTC
Bertrand Butler wrote:
ACs track much better than pulse lasers,(are you sure about that? because when comparing pular laser and auto cannon fits for diferent fleet comps, the laser ships always seem to squeeze out more tracking) hit consistently farther than blasters (oh wow i can do 10% of my dps at range? how useful in the current meta of pvp), have easy fitting requirements (and are only bonused on ships that racially lower fitting), require no cap to run (but most laser and blaster ships have much strong local capacitors to make up for it), can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges. (not as good projection as lasers)

Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly.
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#6 - 2013-10-07 05:09:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertrand Butler
Quote:
(are you sure about that? because when comparing pular laser and auto cannon fits for diferent fleet comps, the laser ships always seem to squeeze out more tracking)


Yes, I'm sure. A problem with many pulse kiters is that they are more agile than the lasers they use...XD

Quote:
(oh wow i can do 10% of my dps at range? how useful in the current meta of pvp)


As I said previously, many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs.

Quote:
and are only bonused on ships that racially lower fitting


Other modules are not though, and ACs allow for easier fitting. Thats one of the reasons you also encounter them in other racial hull loadouts, even unbonused.

Quote:
but most laser and blaster ships have much strong local capacitors to make up for it


And not make up for cap warfare as well.

Quote:
not as good projection as lasers


Only with OP Scorch, and then you run into cap/fixed damage/tracking issues.

Again, ACs are balanced now. Learn how to use them.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#7 - 2013-10-07 05:51:13 UTC
KeeganWaffle wrote:
Bertrand Butler wrote:
ACs track much better than pulse lasers,(are you sure about that? because when comparing pular laser and auto cannon fits for diferent fleet comps, the laser ships always seem to squeeze out more tracking) hit consistently farther than blasters (oh wow i can do 10% of my dps at range? how useful in the current meta of pvp), have easy fitting requirements (and are only bonused on ships that racially lower fitting), require no cap to run (but most laser and blaster ships have much strong local capacitors to make up for it), can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges. (not as good projection as lasers)

Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly.


Ok a lot of projectile using hulls have tracking bonuses. this coupled with the naturaly good tracking of A/C often puts them at the top or if not pretty damn close to the best tracking.

As for damage projection I suggest you read up on how falloff mechanics actually works. For example in my standard rifter fit I can actually hit out to about 18km range with A/C's! But anything past 8-9km range is pretty anemic damage.

A/C are (in)famous for their low fitting requirements. And as far as I know there is no ship that lowers the fitting requirements of weapon systems?!

The no cap is one of the strongest bonuses that A/C have. Yes the other cap using racial ships have stronger base capacitors but the balances out in the end.

The project v lasers is mainly aroudn the whole issue with scorch. Scorch is very powerful and give the best short range weapons excellent projection with lasers having great optimals. However tie this with the lower tracking of lasers and the tracking penalty of scorch gives the playing field much more variabilty.
Yes in a stand up fight scorch beats barrage hands down for damage projection is they just sat at range and pummeled each other. But guess what? that never happens.


I am not a A/C fanboi or anything as I use all weapon systems with equal skills etc and I really do like my amarr ships and lasers. However A/C are a potent weapons system when utilised to their advantages. Don't rule them out on 1 or 2 points. nothing is that simple in eve.

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Baggo Hammers
#8 - 2013-10-07 06:10:36 UTC
Bertrand Butler wrote:
ACs track much better than pulse lasers, hit consistently farther than blasters, have easy fitting requirements, require no cap to run, can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges.

Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly.



This. I like my ACs.

If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2013-10-07 06:21:53 UTC
Bertrand Butler wrote:
ACs track much better than pulse lasers, hit consistently farther than blasters, have easy fitting requirements, require no cap to run, can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges.

Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly.


You also have the fact that both lasers and blasters will go offline if your cap goes empty. AC's won't.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2013-10-07 06:27:19 UTC
They go on the fastest ships... Enemy has blasters, keep out of blaster range, kill with autos (which have much longer falloff).

Enemy has pulse lasers? close the distance, where your tracking is better than theirs... and of course you can cap out either of your foes, and stop them from firing, but not vice versa.

Don't try to make projectiles as OP as they were again
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2013-10-07 07:12:02 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
They go on the fastest ships... Enemy has blasters, keep out of blaster range, kill with autos (which have much longer falloff).

Enemy has pulse lasers? close the distance, where your tracking is better than theirs... and of course you can cap out either of your foes, and stop them from firing, but not vice versa.

Don't try to make projectiles as OP as they were again


This.

Also a lot of minmatar have spare highs that with a neut makes you able to win a lot of fights and even if you end up caping yourself out, your guns will continue to cycle.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-10-07 07:43:46 UTC
The real question is, do heavy missiles have any point any more Smile
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#13 - 2013-10-07 08:11:42 UTC
KeeganWaffle wrote:
From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore.

They have less DPS then blasters at point blank.

They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch.

I think you are some "the glass is half-empty" type of guy.

They have more range than blasters.

They have more tracking and same dps at close range than pulse.

They don't use cap.

They have selectable damage.

They have very low fitting.

You see ? :-)
Valleria Darkmoon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2013-10-07 10:00:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Valleria Darkmoon
This may sound slightly off topic but there is such a thing as on paper and in practice.

Case in point me and two corp mates got into a 3v4 frigate fight a few days ago, myself in an Arty Rifter with a Punisher and Tristan rounding us out. I had the lowest listed dps of the three of us at ~105, yet I ended up as top damage dealer on ALL FOUR enemy ships, despite being the second target when the Tristan's ancillary rep didn't break. But I fit with AB, scram and web and set to hit at about 8 km. The short range high damage enemy setups did poor to no damage to me at 8 km, making their gang tankable, while my arties would sometimes punch clean through the shields of a Slasher ASB tank and into armor/structure. With the setup I'm using getting the correct range and slowing the target enough to really let my tracking bonus hit home meant that I was able to apply a greater percentage of my listed dps than my counterparts with higher listed damage and as a result I caused more damage overall. It's all about finding a set up that is designed with an engagement range in mind and making it work.

Things like ACs have worse projection than lasers and worse dps/tracking than blasters sounds bad on paper but in reality controlling the range of the engagement can easily allow you to avoid either of the worst case scenarios. Additionally, controlling the range of the engagement is something Minmatar generally does quite well already. The worst case scenarios then are largely a result of poor planning/piloting and not a fault in the weapon.

We all know already that even the best laid plans can go straight down the toilet in this game though and very quickly at that, but that is true for any weapon system and by no mean limited to or a comment on ACs as a whole. So in practice there are many situations where ACs will perform quite well and these are situations that you can set up to create in a realistic scenario, just as I did with my Arty Rifter. I actually like just about everything these days and feel that if you're willing to go through the inevitable failures trying to work out the kinks you can find a ship, weapon and setup to make almost anything work.

Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-10-07 10:35:11 UTC
Bertrand Butler wrote:
ACs track much better than pulse lasers, hit consistently farther than blasters, have easy fitting requirements, require no cap to run, can use selectable damage and excel in projection to web-scram-long point ranges.

Many ppl do not really understand how falloff range works with ACs, and the fact that they are not the "god mode" unbalanced weapon of the past upsets them greatly.



This, ACs are awesome.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#16 - 2013-10-07 12:32:41 UTC
KeeganWaffle wrote:
oh wow i can do 10% of my dps at range? how useful in the current meta of pvp


At Optimal + 50% Falloff (and assuming you're tracking, firing at an appropriately sized target...etc) you will be doing more than 80% of your paper DPS.
To get your damage down as low as 10% of your paper DPS you would need to extend your engagement range to about Optimal + 170% Falloff (IIRC)...
stoicfaux
#17 - 2013-10-07 13:07:47 UTC
http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Accuracy_falloff <-- Pretty falloff graph.
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Turret_Damage#Damage_loss_from_Falloff_and_Tracking <-- Everything.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#18 - 2013-10-07 14:41:29 UTC
They might have a point but t2 ammo rebalance is completely ******.

Ac's basically have the same engagement range as blasters and half the dps + worse tracking.

Selectable damage types can be awesome but missiles have that too and well

Just all in all AC's, as much as i like seeing minmatar being nerfed to hell. Are in a pretty bad spot atm, there are not many AC ships i'd consider using.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#19 - 2013-10-07 17:23:35 UTC
KeeganWaffle wrote:
From a PvP perspective it seams like there's no room for them anymore.

They have less DPS then blasters at point blank.

They have less DPS at medium ranges then scorch.




I think the whole "blasters track better" thing needs to be moved over to auto-cannons.

Gotta say, I really appreciate that he's at least honest and says "Scorch", as opposed to "Lasers".
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#20 - 2013-10-08 00:22:50 UTC
good info stoic
I always forget about the e-uni files

it's a lot of math, but it's not as complicated as it first appears
and it does explain quite nicely how ac's aren't crap
123Next page