Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6

Author Topic: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields  (Read 4179 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #60 on: December 28, 2022, 01:04:55 PM »

I count ePD+IPDAI because it is a huge upgrade for IR PL or any other small energy or ballistic non-PD weapon in any mount that accepts them.  (PD weapons only need ePD.)  It is not just good for upgrading energy weapons for high-tech ships, but ballistics too on non-SO anything where Ballistic Rangefinder does not apply (frigates, ships with hybrid or universal mounts).

Elite on Point Defense is a huge change compared to elite on most other skills.  If my officer has Point Defense, it is likely the no-brainer choice or one of the top choices to upgrade to elite.

Quote
So I don't think it's a fair comparison to apply elite Point Defense + IPDAI to IR Pulse Lasers and give nothing to the Pulse Lasers.
That is because there is nothing Pulse Lasers can have that IR PLs cannot have too (aside from IR PLs not fitting in a medium synergy mount).  Energy Mastery applies to all energy weapons, not just Pulse Laser.  Unless you refer to ships that cannot take Point Defense (like unofficered ships).

For my fleet commander, Energy Mastery has stiff competition from Gunnery Implants and other higher Tech skills (if I want more than Gunnery Implants).  I will not get Energy Mastery unless I need it for a specific ship build (like max damage Afflictor or four plasma cannon Paragon) and stick with that specialized flagship for a long time.

Also, for Energy Mastery, that absolute 600 range breakpoint for full damage is a real killer for non-SO ships with range boosts, which is nearly always thanks to ITU and maybe Gunnery Implants.

Quote
Pulse Lasers does fall into the hard flux energy mount that you can actually put on a Wolf or non-SO Shrike niche.
Yes, but Wolf is bad at it thanks to terrible dissipation.  So bad that if I have ePD+IPDAI on Wolf, I actually put IR PL in the medium mount and a second one on the center turret... unless I want Ion Pulser in the hardpoint, two IR PLs in the side turrets.
Logged

Pablovansnogger

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #61 on: December 28, 2022, 04:23:33 PM »

TBH I never even use the pulse laser much, but I don’t think it needs a big buff or even a buff at all. The only things that come to mind is to slightly reduce OP cost or maybe give it an extra 50 range. Anything with improving flux efficiency or or shield damage would make it overlap with the new Kinetic blaster that’s coming in the new update.

From the sounds of it the kinetic blaster isn’t going to be efficient, so slight improvement in efficiency of the pulse laser would just make it straight up better than the kinetic blaster. Won’t really see how it pans out until the Soon TM new update.
Logged

Lortus

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #62 on: December 30, 2022, 09:49:06 AM »

Why is 1:1 flux a death sentence?

Other guns offer something else, like energy weapons giving armor crack, or EMP or such. Kinetic or HE weapons give you doubled eff in certain cases. A Pulse Laser is always going to either be a net neutral for you or worse. You're doing the same amount of damage to yourself as you are dishing out. Hence why every other energy weapon that has low hit str also has <1.0 efficiency.

Also as others have said, if you want a punch down weapon you are usually gonna want to run something that actually punches down better.

I think the simplest way to make it better is to just reduce the flux. Give it a niche that isn't "HB but worse", and let it be mounted on some of the single medium energy ships that don't have the flux for any big guns (looking at you wolf)
Logged

Oni

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #63 on: December 30, 2022, 11:57:05 AM »

TBH I never even use the pulse laser much, but I don’t think it needs a big buff or even a buff at all. The only things that come to mind is to slightly reduce OP cost or maybe give it an extra 50 range. Anything with improving flux efficiency or or shield damage would make it overlap with the new Kinetic blaster that’s coming in the new update...

I agree with the OP cost reduction, bump off a few points and make it by far the cheapest energy weapon in the medium category. That'll be it's niche, sure you can have other things that'll do the job better but they'll cost you.
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #64 on: December 31, 2022, 03:56:53 PM »

Why is 1:1 flux a death sentence?

Other guns offer something else, like energy weapons giving armor crack, or EMP or such. Kinetic or HE weapons give you doubled eff in certain cases. A Pulse Laser is always going to either be a net neutral for you or worse. You're doing the same amount of damage to yourself as you are dishing out. Hence why every other energy weapon that has low hit str also has <1.0 efficiency. 

While the Pulser Laser may need some improvements, I would argue there is nothing special about the 1.0 efficiency line itself, at least for hard flux weapons.  Simply because weapons don't exist alone in space and have to be fitted to ships which have flux dissipation and shield efficiency values.

Firing a 0.8 efficient IR pulse laser into a shield with 0.6 efficiency (say a Medusa) is having "you doing more damage to yourself then you are dishing out".  For each 1.0 hard flux you cause to the enemy ship, you've raised your own soft flux by 1.33.  That's even true of something like a Heavy Autocannon (0.5 efficient against shields) firing into a Medusa's shields with Hardened Shields and a Field Modulation officer (0.43 efficiency shield).

The nature of soft flux being removable while shields are up and baseline ship dissipation of course renders that analysis inapplicable in game.  So for the same reason that you put might put IR Pulse on a ship and still fire them at Medusa, you might put a 1.0 efficient energy weapon on as well.

I find the arguments comparing to the other low damage per hit energy weapons to be more persuasive.  Or the fact that Wolves are over fluxed with the Pulse + Ion cannon combination, unless s-modded, in a fleet with Flux Reguation, and piloted by an officer with Ordinance Expertise or elite Energy Weapon Mastery (or both).  Assuming something like 30 OP on weapons (Pulse Laser, Ion cannon, 2x Double Atropos, 2x PD Laser), a pair of s-mods, you can get flux neutral with shields up and firing the Pulse Laser and Ion cannon on a Wolf (150 base + 15 Flux Regulation + 150 vents + 30 s-mod flux distributor + 60 Ordinance Expertise - 30 s-mod stabilized shields = 375 vs 360).  If you include the PD, then it's still slightly over even with elite Energy Weapon Mastery (375 vs 396).  But that's basically throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it just to be not overly fluxed out.

On the other hand, 300 DPS is on the higher end of raw weapon DPS for medium ballistic/energy mounts (6 have more raw DPS, 12 less), and there typically is a cost to pay for that in some way.  It just that DPS doesn't actually happen against armor on larger enemies (cruisers and up, and the occasional Enforcer), although against hull it is pretty respectable.  Unlike say, Plasma Cannons, which are terrifying because they have amazing anti-armor performance that has decent shield performance.  Dropping shields won't save you.  A cruiser dropping shields against Pulse Lasers will save it.

Overall, I think dropping efficiency to 0.66 (i.e. the 200 flux/second) while maintaining 300 DPS would be too extreme, as that's pushing very close to kinetic efficiency territory while still having better than autocannon/needler anti-armor and reasonable anti-hull DPS.

I look at it this way, 2 Pulse Lasers is 600 DPS for 600 flux/second right now (1.0 efficiency).
A Heavy Autocannon and a Heavy Mortar is 538 shield DPS, 547 armor DPS (although really depends on how much armor), and 434 Hull DPS (again depends on residual armor) for 394 flux/second (0.73, 0.72, 0.9).

Dropping to 200 flux/second is 0.66 flux/damage to shields, better than the mixed ballistics case.  Even comparing to a Heavy Needler + Heavy Mortar is 380/610 = 0.62, which isn't that far off, with nearly identical shield through put, and better armor/hull through put.

I could see 240 flux/second (0.8 efficiency), as that matches IR Pulse and Autopulse, and doesn't come across as just being plain better than the mixed ballistics case.  It's also the ratio I'd expect to balance against a kinetic + HE mixture.  Assuming 1.0 efficiency for kinetic and HE, 50% + 200% / 2 = 125% damage per flux, while and 1.0/0.8 = 125% damage per flux if using energy.

Overall ability to fit improves by 10 OP and 300 flux (so ~40 OP worth of stats), to 10 OP and 240 Flux (so ~34 OP worth of fitting stats), so approximately 15% easier to fit and use.  It gains baseline range and armor penetration over the IR Pulse Laser in that case.  It's also in region of barely flux neutral on Wolf without skills/fleet buffs (i.e. 150 + 100 + 30 (flux distributor) - 30 (stabilized shield) = 250 flux vs 240).  Flux Regulation then lets you also throw on an Ion cannon even for unofficered Wolves.

Another alternative to throw out there which hasn't been mentioned is to reduce the overall damage as well as an efficiency improvement.  Essentially give it the 0.9a Plasma Cannon treatment, to make it more affordable for the ships that might want to mount them in braces (i.e. Eagle, Apex, etc).  Drop damage to 250 and flux to 200/second (fire 2.5 seconds, 100 damage per shot, 80 flux per shot), which would make it quite comfortable on a Wolf, and perhaps result in an Apex that can actually afford to fire its primary armament.  Keeping in mind, most medium mounts are not usually twice the damage of a small mount for twice the OP cost.  So in going from IR Pulse Laser at 5 OP and ~150 DPS, it a bit unusual for the medium equivalent to cost exactly twice as much at 10 OP and deal twice as much damage.

Dual Light Autocannon->Heavy Autocannon: 5 OP -> 10 OP, 143 DPS -> 214 DPS (+50% DPS), 0.8->1.0 efficiency (-25%), 600 range->800 range (+33%)
Light Needler->Heavy Needler: 8 OP->15 OP, 150 DPS -> 250 DPS (+66% DPS), 0.8->0.8, 700 range->700 range

Right now:
IR Pulse Laser->Pulse Laser: 5 OP -> 10 OP, 152 DPS -> 300 DPS (+100% DPS), 0.8->1.0 efficiency (-25%), 500 range->600 range (+20%)

So if I make the assumption autocannons are in a good place right now, then compared to the autocannon track it looks like the efficiency loss of the Pulse Laser is half paying for the range (+100) and half paying for the DPS increase (an extra 50%).  Problem is the DPS increase with poorer efficiency just makes it hard to fit on frigates.  Like the old Plasma cannon was on cruisers and capitals.  Not it is the way to go, but though it should at least be mentioned.
Logged

prav

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #65 on: January 01, 2023, 09:40:54 AM »

To bring the kinetics accuracy up, you often need to include armored weapon mounts and turret gyros, along with Gunnery Implants.  Elite Ballistics Mastery also helps with the projectile speed.

One thing... distorting?... the topic is that we have much better options for boosting ballistic weapons than we do energy weapons.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #66 on: January 01, 2023, 12:39:52 PM »

So the thing is the pulse laser probably should be better than the mixed ballistics case. At least in a vacuum. This is because there are fewer medium energy slots and fewer ships that can utilize them and because energy weapons rely much more on raw efficiency because they do not have multiplicative scaling on their armor cracking. So like. If you have a single weapon in that case it needs to be better than the mixed case or the mixed case is just plain superior since you can mix or specialize.

The “problem” as it were is that the weapon that actually does do that thing currently is the HB. Its extra DPS negates the efficiency disadvantage for the ships that tend to want to shoot it. And its extra armor cracking power makes it more efficient Vs armor and often hull in addition to being faster to kill a target. This relegates the pulse laser to a secondary role or a “weapon downgrade”. I suppose part of the issue is that it’s a pretty heavy downgrade given what these ships are designed to do (punch down) where other downgrades are not usually so pronounced.

I am not sure this is “actually” a problem. There need to be weapons for the AI to use inefficiently after all. But what is a problem is that the weapon as sold as a quality generalist weapon and it’s very different in character from the heavy blaster that it often feels like it should have a different role.

A text upgrade on the pulse laser, saying it’s a less used and older weapon might help some of the thoughts regarding its lack of use. Simply by clarifying that players should probably be upgrading out of it.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #67 on: January 01, 2023, 02:12:26 PM »

I'm unconvinced that the heavy blaster's dps actually mitigates its poor efficiency when it comes to anti-shield. The factors that make that true are niche: when I'm actually fielding the weapon I find it to be a poor shield breaker because the ships mounting it flux themselves out before breaking the shield unless they have very high flux stats (SO ships use it well for example).

Its a great weapon, but not very good vs shields.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #68 on: January 01, 2023, 02:28:04 PM »

Yeah, Heavy Blaster is a scary weapon but only when you're already winning the battle. Not sure how its existence makes Pulse Laser look worse. It's just in general that better energy weapons tend to be bursty (large weapons being an exception with HIL and Plasma Cannon).

EDIT: Following this logic, sustained energy weapons ought to be efficient, double down on that road, before we nerf something actually viable. Then midline ships might actually use a non beam energy weapon once in a blue moon.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #69 on: January 02, 2023, 10:27:11 PM »

I'm unconvinced that the heavy blaster's dps actually mitigates its poor efficiency when it comes to anti-shield. The factors that make that true are niche: when I'm actually fielding the weapon I find it to be a poor shield breaker because the ships mounting it flux themselves out before breaking the shield unless they have very high flux stats (SO ships use it well for example).

Its a great weapon, but not very good vs shields.

Run that same situation with pulses and you will find the same thing. You will tend to flux out before breaking shields unless you have very high relative flux stats. 

Its true that the HB is good when you're "already winning". But by that estimation the pulse laser is then bad when you're "already winning" and bad when you're "trying to trade reasonably" because its neither efficient nor damaging enough. Like. Would you put pulse lasers on an aurora and go chasing destroyers with it? Why not use HB, kill them faster, and then vent and then go kill another destroyer/frigate? Would you use pulse lasers on an Aurora to shoot cruisers? You would lose to a badly fit sim eagle. At least with HB aurora you can dump sabots then vent while they're overloaded then kill them. The pulse Aurora can't even do that.

This may not be an issue if the pulse laser is meant to be a "downgrade" weapon. But it is an issue if the pulse laser is not meant to be a "downgrade" weapon.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #70 on: January 03, 2023, 05:40:43 AM »

I am not sure this is “actually” a problem. There need to be weapons for the AI to use inefficiently after all. But what is a problem is that the weapon as sold as a quality generalist weapon and it’s very different in character from the heavy blaster that it often feels like it should have a different role.
I get the feeling mining blaster is the inefficient weapon, or at least the low-tier Open Market weapon.

Pulse Laser feels like it was designed as the mid-tier military weapon, like HAC for ballistics.  Whether it is good enough for that, perhaps it was in some previous releases, but it does not seem like it now.

In my experience, in cases when Pulse Laser can win flux wars that Heavy Blaster cannot, it is a narrow win and does not give enough time for Pulse Laser to do much damage before my ship gets too high on flux too and needs to break off and vent.  Winning like that is a slow grind.  I guess it is better than not winning flux wars at all with Heavy Blasters, but at that point, either use Sabots plus blasters, or get a ship that can use kinetics or heavy energy weapons instead.

If ship needs to win flux wars with energy weapons only, and cannot use heavy weapons, two or more IR PLs is the only good option, and for non-SO ships, ePD+IPDAI feels nearly mandatory for the extra range.

Plasma cannon can get away with 1.1 efficiency because its sustained DPS is higher than everything else, and hit strength combined with high DPS is good enough to break heavy armor.  Pulse Laser does not have any of that for its size class.  (If it did, it probably would need to cost 16 OP like the cryoblaster.)
Logged

ForestFighters

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #71 on: January 03, 2023, 10:50:37 AM »

At least the mining blaster does the "budget low-tier option" in an interesting way.
Having the pulse laser just be an underwhelming and bad generalist just means it will never be seen on anything but AI ships. Why even bother?

The heavy blaster and plasma cannon get away with bad efficiency and high cost because they just kill things quickly, no questions asked.
If you have the flux capacitors and speed to make them work, they will tear through things
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #72 on: January 03, 2023, 05:51:23 PM »

I'm unconvinced that the heavy blaster's dps actually mitigates its poor efficiency when it comes to anti-shield. The factors that make that true are niche: when I'm actually fielding the weapon I find it to be a poor shield breaker because the ships mounting it flux themselves out before breaking the shield unless they have very high flux stats (SO ships use it well for example).

Its a great weapon, but not very good vs shields.

It is, when player piloted.

You slowly build up shield flux on target (possible in multiple passes, venting close to enemy - AI almost never  counter-vents), then time it so that you have full flux capacity to dump when enemy is about to overload. This is what a HB Wolf has to do vs Enforcer, for example. Though in a better scenario, you build up flux mostly with other weapons, and use HB only for flux regen overflow, like 2 Railgun + 2 HB Medusa.

On the other hand there is nothing you could smartly exploit about Pulse Laser - it's lackluster through and through.
Logged

Lortus

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #73 on: January 04, 2023, 10:16:31 AM »

I'm unconvinced that the heavy blaster's dps actually mitigates its poor efficiency when it comes to anti-shield. The factors that make that true are niche: when I'm actually fielding the weapon I find it to be a poor shield breaker because the ships mounting it flux themselves out before breaking the shield unless they have very high flux stats (SO ships use it well for example).

Its a great weapon, but not very good vs shields.

Pulse Laser is in a weird spot of being one of the lower flux options with better efficiency than some other weapons and lower dps but also somehow being pretty damn expensive in flux. 300 is far above the average for a medium slot It's closer to the flux of a large weapon. The ships that can't mount it just don't mount it, and the ships that can tend to be better off just using a Heavy Blaster.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields
« Reply #74 on: January 04, 2023, 01:13:48 PM »

I personally would vote for reduced flux cost to make PL both more efficient and easier to fit flux budget-wise. Matching IR pulse laser at .8 efficiency (300 DPS, 240 flux/sec), or matching auto pulse laser efficiency at .75 efficiency (300 DPS, 225 flux/sec) seem like some obvious candidate values to me. Those three guns already have range and damage/shot differentiating them for mount size and they are all trying to fill the energy slot shield damage role so I feel like it makes sense.

I'm unconvinced that the heavy blaster's dps actually mitigates its poor efficiency when it comes to anti-shield. The factors that make that true are niche: when I'm actually fielding the weapon I find it to be a poor shield breaker because the ships mounting it flux themselves out before breaking the shield unless they have very high flux stats (SO ships use it well for example).

Its a great weapon, but not very good vs shields.

It is, when player piloted.

You slowly build up shield flux on target (possible in multiple passes, venting close to enemy - AI almost never  counter-vents), then time it so that you have full flux capacity to dump when enemy is about to overload. This is what a HB Wolf has to do vs Enforcer, for example. Though in a better scenario, you build up flux mostly with other weapons, and use HB only for flux regen overflow, like 2 Railgun + 2 HB Medusa.

On the other hand there is nothing you could smartly exploit about Pulse Laser - it's lackluster through and through.
IMO that's not really exploiting the the actual weapon, but rather just a property of those specific ships. I would say wolf/medusa (under player control) can exploit their mobility systems to mitigate flux war inferiority by venting safely on demand, so they can choose the higher damage output weapon and not worry about the flux stats too much (under player control). But you can just as easily use teleport+venting shenanigans with pulse laser to overcome flux inferiority too, it's just less often necessary because you have better efficiency to begin with. Maybe you could argue HBs lower rate of fire makes it a bit more bursty, but I don't think that's a huge factor.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6