Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex]

Yeah, fair! But if the LAG had +100 range, like the Railgun/LN have extra range... I think it'd be *way* more competitive as far as the "2 LAG + 1 HAC" combo goes.

(FWIW, I've halved the recoil stats of the LAG, btw. Not going to factor in too much here but will hopefully give it more of a niche.)

[Thaago]

I think halved recoil will significantly improve its anti-fighter and IPDAI performance, which I welcome.

[Goumindong]

Yeah, fair! But if the LAG had +100 range, like the Railgun/LN have extra range... I think it'd be *way* more competitive as far as the "2 LAG + 1 HAC" combo goes.

(FWIW, I've halved the recoil stats of the LAG, btw. Not going to factor in too much here but will hopefully give it more of a niche.)

Sure, but probably not enough. Saying that there is a theoretical point we can buff LAG to such that it makes sense to do that doesn't mean that the area around that point that we might be satisfied with the balance is particularly large. Can you make the LAG strong enough that it makes sense to fit it over the HM while not making the LAG obviously the best weapon in the class? Can you do it such that it doesn't start to significantly effect the balance of ships that have small ballistic relative to small energy? That is not so easy.

To get back to the original point. The issue isn't that this is a problem in the game that needs to be fixed. Its that the storm needler exists on the other side of this conundrum. Trying to make it good enough to fit on the current roster of ships is a mistake because the current roster of ships isn't a

LAG is fine not because its good to fit on ships that have medium and small ballistic but because there exist ships with only small ballistic and its good to fit on ships that only have small ballistic. The Storm Needler doesn't get fit often not because its not good to fit on ships that have large ballistic and no medium ballistic but because there do not exist ships that have only large ballistic and no medium ballistic.

Rather than trying to make it good enough to fit on ships that probably aren't going to be fitting them regardless ships must exist for them to be fit on (if the weapon is really to be kept in the game). The Mark IX has similar issues. But when compared in real fits against a HN (a weapon almost universally described as "good") the Mark IX outperforms it. Yet HN are everywhere and Mark IX are not

[Thaago]

The new Mk IX probably outperforms a heavy needler, but the current one does not. Poor accuracy and poor efficiency (which is made worse by the accuracy because many rounds will not hit) makes it waste far too much flux. I suspect that even with the buffs the HN will be a better anti-shield weapon, but the Mk IX a better overall weapon because of its longer range and value against bare hull.

[Histidine]

I checked the list of changes and I didn't see anything about this. Maybe include some contingency for AI fleets to path to a planet that is close enough to its star that it's in the corona a lot of the time. I don't think this is an issue most of the time, but I sat around and started to get a traffic jam of fleets flowing to this planet in the spoiler.

Spoiler

[close]

Fleets being too afraid of coronas has been fixed, according to this bug report thread.
(edit: link to a more directly relevant report)

[Goumindong]

The new Mk IX probably outperforms a heavy needler, but the current one does not. Poor accuracy and poor efficiency (which is made worse by the accuracy because many rounds will not hit) makes it waste far too much flux. I suspect that even with the buffs the HN will be a better anti-shield weapon, but the Mk IX a better overall weapon because of its longer range and value against bare hull.

I think you're overestimating the effect of flux efficiency on value. What matters more is that the Mark IX has 19.3 DPS/OP and the HN has 16.6 in the same number of slots. Though if you were slot unlimited(and didn't need the range) you would probably choose the HAC at 21.4 over either.

If you could fit the mark IX in a medium slot you would fit it in a LOT of medium slots. If you had to fit the HN in a large you wouldn't fit it in any.

[Thaago]

I would consider efficiency a far more meaningful statistic than damage/OP because nearly every ship is flux limited rather than slot or OP limited when it comes to damage output. Accuracy also plays a large role: its difficult to make real predictions without data, but in my experience a HN is a fairly accurate weapon with most of a burst hitting, while a Mk IX is an innacurate weapon that will miss many shots even against cruisers, so I do not think your quotes DPS/OP values are accurate. I would even expect a HN to be doing more damage/OP with accuracy factored in, but I have no hard data to support that.

[Retry]

I second Thaago's claim.  Few of my weapon choices are directly affected by their damage/OP ratio.  Many of my weapon choices are influenced by the opportunity cost of mounting it instead of another weapon. (while OP does matter here, slot size, type and quality are even more important.)  Nearly every weapon choice I make involves flux efficiency comparisons in some way.  Even when not the biggest factor of a particular build, flux management is just too important to not be a big parameter in weapon placement.  The primary limiting factor impacting the performance of my combat ships is almost always flux dissipation, not ordnance point costs, and I build accordingly.

[Goumindong]

I would consider efficiency a far more meaningful statistic than damage/OP because nearly every ship is flux limited rather than slot or OP limited when it comes to damage output. Accuracy also plays a large role: its difficult to make real predictions without data, but in my experience a HN is a fairly accurate weapon with most of a burst hitting, while a Mk IX is an innacurate weapon that will miss many shots even against cruisers, so I do not think your quotes DPS/OP values are accurate. I would even expect a HN to be doing more damage/OP with accuracy factored in, but I have no hard data to support that.

I thought the same as you once. But then I fit Mark IX’s** and found them very effective. Especially because they hit hard enough (200 per shot! 100 hit strength Vs armor! That is better hit strength than a LAG*) that they often force shields up in and of themselves.

And the theory of optimal capacitor fit bears this out. Overfluxing to dump more damage out faster (if that damage is kinetic into shields) is efficient it must also be the case that accepting more kinetic dps for less efficiency also has a breakpoint for which the less efficiency is better.

*this is something very few other kinetic weapons can do surprisingly. Only the Mark IX, HVD, and Gauss get that much kinetic hit strength. And they have significant efficiency disadvantages compared to the Mark IX.

**well when I had ships that a HAG wasn’t better suited on. But ye old Mark IX/HAG combo or even double Mark IX isn’t bad on the conquest.

Few of my weapon choices are directly affected by their damage/OP ratio.  Many of my weapon choices are influenced by the opportunity cost of mounting it instead of another weapon. (while OP does matter here, slot size, type and quality are even more important.)

I would guess that since slot size and type are pretty fixed that “quality” encompasses dps/OP and DPS/slot almost exclusively and you don’t realize it.

[sector_terror]

There si a breaking point for flux ratio, and that's on ships with either high speed or knife edge killing power. If your not set to retreat at all, but to plow THROUGH the enemy(or kill them before flux becomes an issue) then effeciency is less important alpha Strike power. The way I built my Aurora was routinely killing even [Redacted] class capitals and paragons. Against just about anyone else I could rush in, cut their hull by a third, and get out without any threat of a chase of any kind. My latest onslaught design didnt care much about flux either since, once I was in, I either died or killed the enemy before burn driving behind the enemy to pincer them.

But in normal combat where my ship isn't playing that kind of game, I do choose flux efficiency. I'm saying there is a limit in which other features like alpha damage and range best strong efficiency.

[Hiruma Kai]

I tend to think closer to Thaago and Retry.  If your total flux usage exceeds your flux dissipation significantly, you don't get the full DPS since the weapon has to not fire for long periods of time, despite being in arc and range.  A heavy blaster has 500 DPS for 12 OP (41.6 DPS/OP).  However, slap that on a Wolf with only 250 flux dissipation, and ignoring everything else, the heavy blaster at best can only fire 34% of the time the ship is deployed.  Dropping that 41.6 DPS/OP down to 14.1 DPS/OP for sustained engagements, or less depending on other flux usage constraints. 

Which isn't to say it hit-and-fade tactics can't be effective, but in fleet fights, there are often situations where you don't need to fade, since another ship is the focus or you're using EMP effects to limit return fire.  I sometimes think of the total flux available to a ship in an end game fleet fight (i.e. capital grind) equal to its vent rate times it operational time (plus a factor for how often I manually vent).  Since it is very easy to simply be continuously engaged in such fights.  So at what point in the game, or what your expected opposition is, can influence this evaluation.

For weapon comparisons, I generally think in terms of an equivalent OP cost.  Namely the weapon's OP cost plus flux vents to make the weapon flux neutral.  Plus any hull mods that need to be added split between all weapons on the ship to make said weapon effective (applies more to missiles, but some game mods change this). So in that view, a Heavy Blaster effectively has an OP cost of 12 + 72 = 84, for about 6 DPS/OP.

This view does has the limitation that as you eventually hit the point when the ship's vents are maxed out and you can't really get any more flux for OP, but I think it gives a better feel for the tradeoffs.  Both OP cost and flux efficiency matter.   We're also completely ignoring effectiveness against armor in these numbers.  Against ships with cruiser tier armor (1000 armor), a heavy needler is going to be doing 33% of its listed DPS to hull after the armor is gone (because of the minimum 5% armor reduction).  Mark IX Autocannon is going to be doing 66% of its listed damage.  Heavy autocannon will be doing 50%.

So for this particular comparison, I'd rate the Mark IX Autocannon as 348/(18+40)=6 DPS/OP, while the Heavy Needler is 250/(15+20) =7.14 DPS/OP, and the Heavy Autocannon is 214/(10+21.4) = 6.8 DPS/OP.  Again ignoring things like range, accuracy, and armor penetration.

[RustyCabbage]

While on the whole, I lean towards Heavy Needler > Mk.IX, I believe when deciding which one to fit it's much more due to the aforementioned Large HE >> Medium HE while Large Kinetic ~= Medium Kinetic effect.

So for this particular comparison, I'd rate the Mark IX Autocannon as 348/(18+40)=6 DPS/OP, while the Heavy Needler is 250/(15+20) =7.14 DPS/OP, and the Heavy Autocannon is 214/(10+21.4) = 6.8 DPS/OP.  Again ignoring things like range, accuracy, and armor penetration.

However, consider that the Railgun is 167/(7+15) = 7.59 DPS/OP yet people don't downsize their HACs for Railguns (personally, the one time I tested it, it performed poorly).

Efficiency is indeed still the most important stat, imo. But it's not an open shut case if it also has to trade-off against raw DPS and (probably more importantly) range.

(edit: wording)

[Hiruma Kai]

While on the whole, I lean towards Heavy Needler > Mk.IX, I believe when deciding which one to fit where it's much more due to the aforementioned Large HE >> Medium HE while Large Kinetic ~= Medium Kinetic effect.

So for this particular comparison, I'd rate the Mark IX Autocannon as 348/(18+40)=6 DPS/OP, while the Heavy Needler is 250/(15+20) =7.14 DPS/OP, and the Heavy Autocannon is 214/(10+21.4) = 6.8 DPS/OP.  Again ignoring things like range, accuracy, and armor penetration.

However, consider that the Railgun is 167/(7+15) = 7.59 DPS/OP yet people don't downsize their HACs for Railguns (personally, the one time I tested it, it performed poorly).

Efficiency is indeed still the most important stat, imo. But it's not an open shut case if it also has to trade-off against raw DPS and (probably more importantly) range.

We're in furious agreement I believe.  I did note I was ignoring range, accuracy and armor penetration.  The problem with reducing weapons to a single number is, well, they're not defined by a single number. 

They're fine for a first pass gross categorization, but there are subtleties that need to be teased out with testing.  In multiple types of situations and builds.

I will note, if Railguns had the same range as HACs (they already have identical penetration and superior accuracy), and a given ship buld I was considering had more flux generation than dissipation and had the option to add more flux dissipation via OP, then yeah, I'd likely downgrade the mount.  However, HAC's do have 14% more range than a Railgun.  Even in the most naive assumption that 14% more range is 14% better, 6.8*1.14 = 7.75 > 7.59.  However, for many fast and maneuverable ships, 14% range is worth significantly more than 14% more DPS in terms of trading damage with another ship (given it potentially reduces incoming hard flux/hull damage).

[Thaago]

I'll also argue a bit against myself here and second what Hiruma Kai was saying about the relative damage to hull of the HN  and Mk IX, because it presents an enemy ship with stripped armor no good options in dealing with the damage. Either it takes the Mk IX on the shield and loses the flux war (though heavy shield tank ships with skills/hardened still take less flux than the cost to fire, but its hard instead of soft), or they take significant hull damage thanks to that 100 penetration. HN's low penetration gives the AI in the same situation a better way to mitigate the incoming DPS.

(We'll have to see what the various defensive skills are in the next version, as with defensive skills both guns get their DPS vs hull stripped down to near the minimum and kinetic is just a bad choice vs hull.)

[SCC]

(We'll have to see what the various defensive skills are in the next version, as with defensive skills both guns get their DPS vs hull stripped down to near the minimum and kinetic is just a bad choice vs hull.)

I didn't really think about this before, but this adds additional weight to my suggestion to make AI more aware of damage types in weapon groups and more careful with their use. Thanks!