These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Pulse Lasers and Blasters should be balanced around Autocannons?

First post
Author
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#1 - 2012-07-25 19:52:41 UTC
Autocannons are ridiculously easy to fit compared to blasters or pulse lasers.

Minmatar ships have lots of powergrid because of the high PG cost of artillery, but when fitting low cost autocannons, it leaves open an abundant amount of fittings to optimize on tank, propulsion, utility, neuts, etc.

Amarr and Gallente do not have this capability.

The strongest autocannon has lower fitting that middle range pulse lasers and blasters.

Autocannons may do less dps than both, but minmatar ships tend to have double weapon bonuses to compensate for that weakness (double rof and damage bonus).

Autocannons make up for the weaker damage for damage selection. Lasers and Hybrids cannot change their damage types.

For example we have a sleipnir going against and absolution.

The sleipnir has high EM/therm resist while the Absolution has high Exp/Kin resists.

The absolution is stuck with Em/therm and will always be shooting at the sleipnir's highest resists.

The sleipnir can use Phased Plasma or EMP and hit the weakest resists of the Absolution. Doing much more effective dps(the sleipnir already outdpses the Absolution by eft damage alone).

Autocannons gain a massive range bonus from tracking enhancers with 30% falloff bonus.

Pulse lasers have scorch resulting in a long optimal, but very short falloff. The short falloff is a downfall in that pulse will do virtually no damage beyond their optimal.

Autocannons will hit with lesser damage, but regardless hit their target beyond the range of pulse lasers. Barrage 50% falloff bonus on top of 30% tracking enhancer bonus is a big bonus.

So the range difference between Pulses and Autocannons are balanced.

Autocannons have tracking close to blasters, while having many times the range. Pulse lasers suffer from low tracking compared to other short range weapons. Blasters have very short range while only having a small amount more tracking that Autocannons.

Autocannons use no capacitor to fire. Blaster boats and Pulse boats are helpless when neuted.

Last but not least Projectile ammo has a bonus to tracking which is infinitely better than the cap use reduction of hybrid charges and frequency crystals.

TLDR:

Autocannons are superior to other short range guns due to:
-Low fitting costs on minmatar ships with high fitting
-Lower damage weakness negated by minmatar ships with dual weapon dps bonuses
-Selectable Damage Type to do more effective dps than lasers or blasters
-Use no capacitor to fire
-Benefits greatly from tracking enhancers of 30%+ to falloff with 50% bonus with barrage to be able to reach very far
-Very good tracking with good range
-Has ammo has boosts tracking rather than cap usage.

I believe that autocannons should be a model for short range weapons to be balanced around.

Lasers definitely needs a look at after the projectile and hybrid changes.

Blasters could also be given something as well.
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
#2 - 2012-07-25 19:56:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tom Gerard
Nobody uses auto-cannons, cept for rifters, hurricanes, Ruptures, stabers, Cyclones , tempests, maelstroms, typhoons and their T2 and faction variants.

Also Myrmidons, Prophecies, and a few other odd-ball fits.

Now with 100% less Troll.

Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#3 - 2012-07-25 19:59:42 UTC
When you realize that ACs nearly always engage in their falloff, you'll start understanding the balance.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#4 - 2012-07-25 20:01:37 UTC
I can think of three other forum headings where this tired old horse carcass can be bludgeoned some more. GD isn't one of them.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Lilliana Stelles
#5 - 2012-07-25 20:02:20 UTC
>double rof

Wait, what?
Show me this ship, please.

Not a forum alt. 

Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-07-25 20:02:23 UTC
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, devs hated Gallente and Ammar. The end.
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#7 - 2012-07-25 20:03:39 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
When you realize that ACs nearly always engage in their falloff, you'll start understanding the balance.


Consider that AC can hit (lesser damage, but still damage) targets at ranges that blasters and even pulse cannot.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-07-25 20:04:36 UTC
Read all your post and you bring some good points that have already been largely discussed in many other threads.

However I don't think any sort of nerf is needed simply because Minmatar hulls and gunnery are quite well designed generally, some have fitting issues too, the best thing to do imho is to bring other weapon systems to the same efficiency level without making them the same.
Hybrids and specially T2 blaster long range ammo is an excellent step on the good direction, however we still need to wee what CCP Ybert(sry can never spell the rest) will bring to the table about cruiser/battle cruiser sized hulls revamp, weapons and T1/T2/T3 hulls.

At this point seems that specially the hulls are the biggest problem with old bonus/stats etc, once this is done I think some gunnery adjustments will be made but right now it's probably a bit too soon to speculate.

All I can hope is that he will do the same awesome job he did with frigates. *fingers crossed*

brb

Lilliana Stelles
#9 - 2012-07-25 20:06:15 UTC
Parsee789 wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
When you realize that ACs nearly always engage in their falloff, you'll start understanding the balance.


Consider that AC can hit (lesser damage, but still damage) targets at ranges that blasters and even pulse cannot.


... with multifreq, maybe. Pulse lasers can hit extreme ranges with other ammo types, whereas ammo barely helps ACs as it benefits optimal instead of falloff.

Not a forum alt. 

Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#10 - 2012-07-25 20:07:15 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Read all your post and you bring some good points that have already been largely discussed in many other threads.

However I don't think any sort of nerf is needed simply because Minmatar hulls and gunnery are quite well designed generally, some have fitting issues too, the best thing to do imho is to bring other weapon systems to the same efficiency level without making them the same.
Hybrids and specially T2 blaster long range ammo is an excellent step on the good direction, however we still need to wee what CCP Ybert(sry can never spell the rest) will bring to the table about cruiser/battle cruiser sized hulls revamp, weapons and T1/T2/T3 hulls.

At this point seems that specially the hulls are the biggest problem with old bonus/stats etc, once this is done I think some gunnery adjustments will be made but right now it's probably a bit too soon to speculate.

All I can hope is that he will do the same awesome job he did with frigates. *fingers crossed*


I am not advocating for any nerfs to autocannons, I am saying that autocannons is a model that the other short range weapons should be balanced around.

For starters Pulse lasers need to have their powergrid need reduced for medium and small class ships.
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#11 - 2012-07-25 20:10:42 UTC
AC optimal is very close and ships that fit AC are close range brawlers.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)

ISD Stensson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-07-25 20:17:24 UTC
Thread moved from EVE General Discussion to Features & Ideas Discussion forum.

[b]ISD Stensson Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#13 - 2012-07-25 20:23:46 UTC
Lilliana Stelles wrote:
Parsee789 wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
When you realize that ACs nearly always engage in their falloff, you'll start understanding the balance.


Consider that AC can hit (lesser damage, but still damage) targets at ranges that blasters and even pulse cannot.


... with multifreq, maybe. Pulse lasers can hit extreme ranges with other ammo types, whereas ammo barely helps ACs as it benefits optimal instead of falloff.


If you know the mechanics off falloff, you know this isn't true.

Lets do a comparison.

425mm autocannon II:

2.4km optimal

9.6km falloff


Heavy Pulse Laser II

12km optimal

4km falloff

Max range (range up to where guns start doing no damage)= Optimal + 2x falloff

425mm:

2.4 + 2X(9.6)

2.4+ 19.2 = 21.6

HPL:

12 + 2x(4)

12+8 = 20

425mm will do damage further out than HPL at a small difference, but lets add in some other factors:

Now consider long range short gun ammo and tracking enhancer:

425mm+barrage+TE
2.4(1.15) + 19.2x(1.5x1.3) = 2.76 + 37.44 = 40.2km

HPL+scorch+TE
12(1.15x1.5) + 8x(1.3) = 20.7 + 10.4 =31.1km

As you can see 425mm autocannon will continue to hit and damage the target further out than heavy Pulse laser, heavy pulse laser will do more damage within its range, but 425mm will continue to inflict damage beyond HPL range.

Now consider short range high damage ammo, it becomes interesting:

425mm+emp+TE

2.4(1.15x.5) + 19.2x(1.3)=1.38 + 24.95 = 26.34 km

HPL + Multifreq + TE

12(1.15 x .5) + 8x(1.3) = 6.9 + 10.4 = 17.3 km

Autocannons only receive a very small penalty to using short range ammo compared to Heavy Pulse Laser.

Autocannons using short range ammo will greatly outrange Pulse lasers using short range.


Range is balanced in a sense.
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#14 - 2012-07-25 20:26:44 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
AC optimal is very close and ships that fit AC are close range brawlers.


What do you call the vagabond then?
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2012-07-25 20:48:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
That Tracking Enhancers give +30% falloff is the main reason why autocannons are so effective. With a couple, they are encroaching on Scorch territory in terms of mid range dps. A Tracking Enhancer will boost Barrage dps more than a Gyrostabilizer across most of falloff range. It's just wrong. Lasers have so many downsides to compensate for their good damage projection, and then autocannons get to be almost as good while having every imaginable advantage too! The Tracking Enhancer should be reduced to +15% falloff.

The other thing which in my opinion isn't right is ease of fitting. This is what allows things like Sleipnirs with XL-ASBs, Hurricanes with 2x medium neuts on top of a standard fit, 1600mm Ruptures with MWD that needs no fitting mods, etc. Autocannons aren't that bad anymore to deserve such low fitting requirements.

PS: the Heavy Pulse Laser is not the right turret to compare to a 425mm Autocannon, the Focused Medium Pulse Laser is the closest equivalent.
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#16 - 2012-07-25 21:07:13 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
That Tracking Enhancers give +30% falloff is the main reason why autocannons are so effective. With a couple, they are encroaching on Scorch territory in terms of mid range dps. A Tracking Enhancer will boost Barrage dps more than a Gyrostabilizer across most of falloff range. It's just wrong. Lasers have so many downsides to compensate for their good damage projection, and then autocannons get to be almost as good while having every imaginable advantage too! The Tracking Enhancer should be reduced to +15% falloff.

The other thing which in my opinion isn't right is ease of fitting. This is what allows things like Sleipnirs with XL-ASBs, Hurricanes with 2x medium neuts on top of a standard fit, 1600mm Ruptures with MWD that needs no fitting mods, etc. Autocannons aren't that bad anymore to deserve such low fitting requirements.

PS: the Heavy Pulse Laser is not the right turret to compare to a 425mm Autocannon, the Focused Medium Pulse Laser is the closest equivalent.


An issue that arises is that Artillery uses lots of powergrid, but autocannons use fairly little.

The same does not apply to Hybrids or lasers where both short range and long range use a lot of fitting.

Hybrids recently got a fitting reduction that mitigated this issue.

Lasers however remained unadjusted. It is a problem for small and medium size. Battleships have plenty of grid, but below BS, the ships run out of powergrid quickly due to the relatively high fitting cost of even short range lasers.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#17 - 2012-07-25 22:31:22 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:


PS: the Heavy Pulse Laser is not the right turret to compare to a 425mm Autocannon, the Focused Medium Pulse Laser is the closest equivalent.


How do you figure that? What metric are you using to compare the two? Not all races have three of every turret.
Serithin
Rage Against Machine
#18 - 2012-07-26 02:34:49 UTC
yea as a minmatar pilot i will say yes with ACs i have great range and tracking but with even 800mmIIs on a Tempest full long range fit an AC will still have an optimal of about 6k and any minmatar pilot knows if you outside your optimal...... well nuff said your doing atleast half damage im sorry but amarr and gallente (i also fly gallente) have far superior fittings compared to minmatar.

All we have is speed and powergrid OVERALL of course I.E. not all ships having tanking bonuses and only the loki has resist bonuses.

We might be able to hit you and have an EFT of over 9000 DPS but unless we can get face to face with you were pretty screwed.

Again nuff said fly minmatar and youll realize were all about getting to a target ASAP or we die pretty fast.

As far as the calculations that were posted AF has nothing to do with optimal and since we already have a 0km optimal (atleast sometimes it feels like it) even 50% bonus to optimal on 3km is only 1.5km added.

This totals to 4.5km with modules like i said around 6km 8km max ( as far as ive seen even on my 425 IIs on my vagabond) and that the only range we can actually do any real damage and btw 50% negative range bonus applies to our falloff and optimal so quit whining you amarr guy easily got 30km to have long range ammo and pick us off and as far as gallente.

Its called a webb we use them you can too and ive seen blaster do full damage at 20km so yea stop it please unless your going to brawl face to face like we ARE FORCED TO.Pirate
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#19 - 2012-07-26 02:38:39 UTC
I have a question.

Why would an Amarr ship use a TE over a TC?

Generally, if I want range, I would fit a TC with an optimal script. I think that makes the gap much closer.



Also, the damage output at that range for autos would be pitiful.
Serithin
Rage Against Machine
#20 - 2012-07-26 02:43:22 UTC
^^^^ agreed liek i said right outside of optimal is half at around 20km its hit or miss for 100damage if im lucky and also agree minmatar have high tracking so a couple of TE's work TC works better when even flying gallente not sure about amarr though
12Next page