Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kanjejou on October 22, 2021, 01:36:54 PM
-
on paper heavy blaster look better but if you look into it heavy blaster consume so much more flux/s i dont see much use for it...
strangely my shrike/wolf seem to work better with the mining one than the heavy one...I overload a lot with the heavy one when with the mining i seem to work better...
-
The heavy blaster is better in 99% of cases. While it has higher flux/s, it also has higher efficiency so for a given amount of flux you get more damage out. Firing some, then waiting (or venting), then firing more with a heavy blaster will do more damage in the same time as a mining blaster just fired. Mining Blasters are ok to have early game against armor tanks because they are common weapons to crack heavy armor when other options might not be available, but HB's are just better.
Pretty much the only time a mining blaster is actually better is on a Hyperion or phase ship when you fire a single shot then go invulnerable again.
-
Yeah I've got mine on that mid sized phase ship as phase lances take a moment to prime before firing and I didn't have many HBs at the time (and I think 3 might be too hot for one ship) so they seemed oddly perfect for my little black market beauty!
-
Yeah the efficieny is marginaly better and you can squeeze some extra range but strangely i foudn it easier to deal with the 1200 flux every 2sec compared to the 720flux per seconde of the heavy blaster.
also mining blaster seem gain way more efficiency from energy weapon mastery those 200 extra damages per shot (700vs500 that become 910 vs 650) seem to really shine for the brusty style of play you expect of energy weapons platform like shrike and wolf...
-
... I'd also say not to use either of those weapons on a Shrike or Wolf unless your fleet has no other anti-armor... pretty much my number 1 pet peeve when it comes to Shrikes is people putting on blasters then complaining it doesn't do well vs shields!
-
If you're flying the ship yourself, heavy blaster is much much better. You just don't fire it at max ROF, manually fire it and let your flux dissipate a bit between shots.
For AI, idk which is better, but pulse laser or ion pulser are both probably better for the AI. Medium sabot + HB on shrike can be decent too.
-
Yeah the efficieny is marginaly better and you can squeeze some extra range but strangely i foudn it easier to deal with the 1200 flux every 2sec compared to the 720flux per seconde of the heavy blaster.
also mining blaster seem gain way more efficiency from energy weapon mastery those 200 extra damages per shot (700vs500 that become 910 vs 650) seem to really shine for the brusty style of play you expect of energy weapons platform like shrike and wolf...
That is when you using HB on a platform such as Shrike or Wolf, those little ships don't have what it takes to power HB. But if you look at ships like Aurora or Fury, HB would do much better than MB. Since the flux capacity could tolerate more shots, and HB's ROF is just much much better, thus a lot more damage.
-
Mining Blaster works only for ships which don't care about soft flux, like phase ships or stations, but for everything that gets shot back at, Heavy Blasters are better.
For Wolf and Shrike, I'd probably choose an Ion Pulser instead of either of these, but that's because Ion Pulser is meta now.
-
Mining Blaster had it's only niche on previous iteration of Hyperion. Now there are no ships that would prefer it.
-
Mining Blaster had it's only niche on previous iteration of Hyperion. Now there are no ships that would prefer it.
Speaking of previous iterations, also early Harbinger when it had medium synergies and its system was Entropy Amplifier. (Back then, Afflictor had Quantum Disruptor, and it could counter all of its counters. Hyperion? Dead if Afflictor got the system off first.) Back then, Harbinger was an overpriced joke. (I tried Proximity Launchers as a flux-free replacement on Harbinger, but like Devastator, the bombs detonated too early and splash damage attacks rarely did the full damage.) After it swapped systems with Afflictor and got QD, Harbinger became the overpowered Reaper boat, and its synergies later became energy, becoming the oversized AMB Afflictor substitute.
Before 0.8, with stronger skills, Heavy Blaster was better than Mining Blaster for Hyperion because it had the juice to fire double Heavy Blasters three or four times before it needed to teleport. Then 0.8 gutted skills, and Hyperion could maybe get two HB salvos off. Better to get Mining Blaster then.
Today, Mining Blaster's niche is starter weapon for Apogee. As long as Apogee has Unstable Injector, might as well use the blaster because its shot range with anything will be awful. Mining Blaster has better sustained firepower than Autopulse or any other early-game weapon against heavily armored targets. (Elite weapons like Heavy Blaster or Plasma Cannon are generally unavailable very early in the game.)
-
... I'd also say not to use either of those weapons on a Shrike or Wolf unless your fleet has no other anti-armor... pretty much my number 1 pet peeve when it comes to Shrikes is people putting on blasters then complaining it doesn't do well vs shields!
I'd argue that this is true only for officerless Shrike, without Smods or any additional advantages. HB is the only weapon worth putting on a Shrike (aside from Ion Pulser+Unstable Injector support variant).
I've had a huge success going for 200k+ deserter bounties with a pure Shrike/frigates setup. Works like a charm every time, and they never ever die.
-
Mining Blasters are effective as secondary burst or armor breaker weapons. You generally shouldn't use them as primary weapons compared to Heavy Blasters, but they work well as complementary weapons on Cruisers and similar.
If you can get them, Antimatter Blasters are likely better than Mining Blasters for this purpose, though they have slightly shorter range, have lower output and are generally less flexible in exchange for twice the burst damage.
-
before 0.95 i would have said that the HB generally is superior, as before it was the "general use gun" for a medium energy slot, for when you dont wanna think and just want to hold LMB, use it against shields and armor and hope that your high-tech flux superiority can make up for its inefficiency. but now that ive played 0.95 for a while i really dont see an argument for why the HB would be better over the MB, and thats because of the specific niche these weapons are in now.
energy weapons have been buffed to be more competitive, specifically regarding anti-shield. pulse lasers and ion pulsers are now without a doubt THE medium energy weapon of choice for anti-shield supression/flux building, whereas things like the PL, HB, MB (and amusingly enough even the HBPDL) are your choices for armor-stripping. and when you think about it in their role of anti-armor guns instead of generalists, the MB is superior. even if it has the flux ratio of the gauss cannon, it is 10 instead of 12 OP, and you shouldnt be thinking of 2 OP as "oh thats just 400 caps or 20 vents", but rather as something that can make or break a build, as the OP counts in starsector are so low that leaving weapon mounts open is common practice. these 2 op can be better PD, a reaper, or a hullmod that you can fit in, and as much as i would have preffered a "modular specializations" kind of deal, where hullmods are very cheap but have very strong specific debuffs, with the way it works here, in a game where you have an avg of around 120 or so op on a ship, of which some will be vents, caps, and hullmods, it would take more than just "better but still not good" flux efficiency to justify paying 12 over 10 op.
not to mention its armor cracking advantage is even better with short range EWM as Kanjejou pointed out, which is the playstyle youll be going for anyway with most ships that feature a med energy slot.
of course none of that is even tangentially important compared to the fact that MBs have that brilliant civilian-industrial charm, so i dont see how the heavy blaster was even supposed to compete against that
-
Mining Blasters are effective as secondary burst or armor breaker weapons. You generally shouldn't use them as primary weapons compared to Heavy Blasters, but they work well as complementary weapons on Cruisers and similar.
If you can get them, Antimatter Blasters are likely better than Mining Blasters for this purpose, though they have slightly shorter range, have lower output and are generally less flexible in exchange for twice the burst damage.
I take Antimatter Blasters over both Mining or Heavy, personally. At least on ships like Shrikes and Wolves. The DPS may be lower, but I don't want those ships sitting around inside a capital's arc trading broadsides. I want them to get in, dump as much damage as possible, and get out.
-
IMO Heavy blaster isn't an armor cracking weapon, it's a hull DPS weapon with good anti-armor capability, and the ability apply some decent shield pressure. Mining blaster is too inefficient for shield pressure, and really not much better than heavy blaster for armor/hull plus it has much lower DPS, and anti matter blaster is an efficient anti-armor weapon with very low DPS. They are not even in the same category for me. I also would almost always take AMB over mining blaster.
-
The heavy blaster is better in 99% of cases. While it has higher flux/s, it also has higher efficiency so for a given amount of flux you get more damage out. Firing some, then waiting (or venting), then firing more with a heavy blaster will do more damage in the same time as a mining blaster just fired. Mining Blasters are ok to have early game against armor tanks because they are common weapons to crack heavy armor when other options might not be available, but HB's are just better.
Pretty much the only time a mining blaster is actually better is on a Hyperion or phase ship when you fire a single shot then go invulnerable again.
i honestly do not understand why people dont like the mining blaster so much.... ESPECIALLY on high tech ships...
shrikes, wolves, or auroras are prime candidates for mining blasters, you know, skirmisher that need a heavy punch.
the thing with the mining blaster is that it has a high per shot flux cost, but is overall quite flux efficient, again, with the caveat that the ship using it can acutally take the flux burst, and vent it during the reload. and high tech SO ships are PERFECT for that, high flux cap, quick passive venting...
another thing with the mining blaster is that it is acutally really good in combat... its burst nature allows it to very reliably overload enemy ships, burst down openings from flankers, and "sneak" shots behind enemy shields after they have dropped said shields to vent.
ironically, the mining blaster is alot more flux efficient than the heavy blaster... and costs less op too...
ships that utilize energy slots usually dont play the dps game, since dps energy weapons just do not work in this game... but bursting? ye boy
and ye, like someone else said before already, mining blasters arent mainstay weapons, imagine them like a secondary grenade launcher strapped onto your assault rifle.
i usually use them on shrikes, that have 2 ir lasers, and an ion cannon, with pd and whatever armor missile i have laying around
-
Mining blaster is the least efficient weapon in the game in terms of raw damage/flux, it does .583 damage/flux.... Heavy blaster is by no means efficient, but it still does .694 damage/flux.
Against heavier armor, mining blaster is actually reasonably efficient, but against hull, it's completely outclassed by the heavy blaster.
If you want really efficient alpha strike damage, the anti-matter blaster is much more efficient than either of these weapons and much better suited to small ships like wolves, but it has limited ammo and a super low ROF, meaning it isn't really great for dealing lots of hull damage which is what the heavy blaster excels at.
-
Mining blaster is the least efficient weapon in the game in terms of raw damage/flux, it does .583 damage/flux.... Heavy blaster is by no means efficient, but it still does .694 damage/flux.
Against heavier armor, mining blaster is actually reasonably efficient, but against hull, it's completely outclassed by the heavy blaster.
If you want really efficient alpha strike damage, the anti-matter blaster is much more efficient than either of these weapons and much better suited to small ships like wolves, but it has limited ammo and a super low ROF, meaning it isn't really great for dealing lots of hull damage which is what the heavy blaster excels at.
people put way too much importance on flux-damage efficiency, rather than the overall performance of a weapon, OR more importantly, how the flux is generated
-
Flux damage ratio is the efficiency of the weapon, there's no other metric... You can vent between shots with any weapon, that doesn't change the efficiency of the weapon, the less efficient weapon will vent for longer per unit damage because it built up more flux.
You will do more damage with the heavy blaster in the same scenario and you will also deal that damage faster and build up less flux while doing so.
-
Flux damage ratio is the efficiency of the weapon, there's no other metric... You can vent between shots with any weapon, that doesn't change the efficiency of the weapon, the less efficient weapon will vent for longer per unit damage because it built up more flux.
You will do more damage with the heavy blaster in the same scenario and you will also deal that damage faster and build up less flux while doing so.
there is a diffrence, A BIG diffrence, between a sustained burst, and a burst
-
Mining Blaster might have a big burst, but it's flux cost is too much for the damage it puts out, to the point it very well may hurt you more, than it hurts the enemy. It might be okay if you aren't shot at, but so are all weapons. Winning the flux war is the hurdle you have to overcome and Mining Blaster is miserable at this job.
Anti-matter Blaster is a better alternative thanks to its better efficiency and being a small energy weapon, instead of a medium one.
-
the mining blaster is obviously intended to destroy asteroids, and thus is way better than the heavy blaster, smh
-
Mining Blaster works but it’s awful efficiency means if your opponent takes the hit on shields or you miss entirely, you’re out a ton of flux. If it only hit armor, you could make a case for it but in all other circumstances, HB is better. However, Mining Blaster is way more available and doesn’t cost as much OP so at least fielding them isn’t difficult. They’re supposed to be a poor-man’s HB so it makes sense to me that a true HB outshines them.
I treat the AMB as an energy torpedo so it’s a little apples and oranges to me, but I do love them. A pair of them linked or even a triplicate has both a ton of damage or overload potential. Great on Auroras and the like.
-
I don't like these two guns fighting over the same niche.
Heavy blaster should be the heavy generalist.
Miningblaster could be more armor focused, and cheaper to use, ie HE half dmg half flux and some range in exchange.
And AMB is a high ammo torpedo in unexpected slots, given it's 9 op cost it should be medium and as a medium gun ammo recharge would be ok.
-
Flux damage ratio is the efficiency of the weapon, there's no other metric...
consider a hypothetical energy-type vulcan cannon, delivering 500 DPS in packets of 25 dmg each. against anything that isnt a high-tech frigates residual armor, each of those 20 shots will be cut down to a fraction of said 25 dmg. it could have half the listed flux efficiency of a heavy blaster, yet would still effectively have a higher real dpf value.
its also not just armor, shield combat favors high-damage projectiles too. overload duration is based on the damage that the overload-delivering projectile dealt, which is why weapons like HVD or gauss are S-tier, despite being among the worst flux efficiencies in the game
-
Flux damage ratio is the efficiency of the weapon, there's no other metric...
consider a hypothetical energy-type vulcan cannon, delivering 500 DPS in packets of 25 dmg each. against anything that isnt a high-tech frigates residual armor, each of those 20 shots will be cut down to a fraction of said 25 dmg. it could have half the listed flux efficiency of a heavy blaster, yet would still effectively have a higher real dpf value.
its also not just armor, shield combat favors high-damage projectiles too. overload duration is based on the damage that the overload-delivering projectile dealt, which is why weapons like HVD or gauss are S-tier, despite being among the worst flux efficiencies in the game
Strongly disagree that HVD and Gauss are s-tier. They are B tier at best IMO.
I am aware of armor mechanics and minimum armor. When I talk about armor and hull efficiency, I have calculated the flux/damage values against hull and armor (at varying armor levels) for HB and mining blaster using the armor damage reduction. Heavy blaster requires less flux to deal the same amount of damage to hull for all relevant base armor values (<2500). Against armor, mining blaster is slightly more efficient for value above ~625 armor, but the difference in efficiency is like ~.01 damage/flux so basically they perform the same against armor.
I agree that alpha damage is valuable, but inefficient alpha is the equivalent of taking a big hit on your own shields. Shields reward efficiency super heavily because weapons are effectively doing 'self damage' to your own shields when they fire. With the mining blaster, you're effectively taking a bigger hit on your own shields than you're dealing to the enemy shields, it's really not useful unless you have a massive flux capacity/shield efficiency advantage, in which case you would easily win with pretty much any weapon setup.
-
I am aware of armor mechanics and minimum armor. When I talk about armor and hull efficiency, I have calculated the flux/damage values against hull and armor (at varying armor levels) for HB and mining blaster using the armor damage reduction. Heavy blaster requires less flux to deal the same amount of damage to hull for all relevant base armor values (<2500). Against armor, mining blaster is slightly more efficient for value above ~625 armor, but the difference in efficiency is like ~.01 damage/flux so basically they perform the same against armor.
also worth mentioning that, against armor, damage boosts scale better with higher efficiency weapons, so a 40% damage boost (e.g, 15% from Target Analysis, 5% from 85% CR, 20% from Energy Weapon Mastery) raises the armor required for efficiency parity to closer to 900.
-
Also overload duration only matters if you can actually inflict enough total flux to cause an overload in the first place.
-
Well most fo the medium energy slot ships go quite fast(shrike) or have the improved energy gun module(sunder) so its totaly doable to get in burst get out vent rinc eand repeat.
And for that I find the mining laser is way better as a Flanker or Boom and Zoom ship. but if I have a ship that stay in range for a time I do indeed prefer the Heavy blaster.
-
Well, the mining blaster if better at burst if you are going to be firing one shot only - any more than that the the Heavy Blaster is better in all ways. For ships that do the 1 shot thing (phase ships, Hyperion) it can be a good choice.
-
Hyperion doesn't do the one shot thing anymore. Even against Remnants it can last ~10 seconds against non-Radiant enemies. It isn't a glorified bomber anymore.