open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Railguns
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.30 14:47:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Rhathyl
correct me if I'm wrong, but when sniping at 150km+ I didn't think people could warp to you directly. Pilots can only warp to a can/object in space/fleet member.
The new probing mechanics fixed that.
Originally by: Baraka Saibot
I fail to see the logic in that
It's easier to see if you set up a more controlled and idealised example.

Assuming: Arty does just under 1000 damage every 4n seconds; Rail does 250 damage every n seconds. On paper, this means that since the arty does less damage in any given amount of time (since (1000-ε)/4 < 250), the rails have better DPS and thus get the job done sooner. However, if we break it down as a timeline…
Time	Arty	Rail	∆
0 995 250 -745
1 500 -495
2 750 -245
3 1000 +5
4 1990 1250 -740
5 1500 -490
6 1750 -240
7 2000 +10
8 2985 2250 -735
…notice how the rails only ever edge ahead, and only ever so slightly, just before the artillery fires. So how long does it take until the rails actually, consistently, have delivered more damage than the artillery? Well, in this mock scenario, the arty pulls an early 745 HP lead, and every 4n seconds, that lead is reduced by 5 HP. So that lead is completely removed by (745 / 5) × 4 / 60 = 9.93 minutes. If we set as a condition that the rails should do more damage for half or more of the time (rather than all the time), the lead is only 495 HP, which takes 6.6 minutes to eat away.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.08.30 15:32:00 - [32]
 

And adding the superior scan res of artillery boats, relative to railboats, just serves to push the realisation of rails' superior raw EFT DPS even further into the future.

EvilBunny DeathSpore
Posted - 2011.08.30 15:51:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: EvilBunny DeathSpore on 30/08/2011 15:50:51
Originally by: MeBiatch
Edited by: MeBiatch on 30/08/2011 15:39:06
steps to fix railguns:

1. reduce activation cost by 40%
2. inxrease rate of fire by 15%
3. increase base damage multiplier by 15%
4. change the optimal range bonus on Caldari ships to 5% bonus to rate of fire per level

do this and you will end up with a rokh that does 1000 dps at 100 kmYARRRR!!
the guns will still have crap tracking and PG issues and still the lowest alpha compared to beams and arties... but meh it will be worth it to do that kind of damage


this.

Baraka Saibot
Posted - 2011.08.30 16:52:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Baraka Saibot on 30/08/2011 17:47:50
Edited by: Baraka Saibot on 30/08/2011 17:05:01
Tippia, you have very a good point.

However, I now see where you got these 7 minutes that I couldn't figure out.

When in EFT. I'm comparing a all LVL 5 T2 1400mm with a 425mm rail, with short range ammo.

The 1400mm does a 972 Alpha, and a 425mm Rail 250. So that's a 28 damage difference.

Meaning, by your formula it's (722 / 28) x 4 / 60 = 1,72 minutes.

Or, halved damage. (472 / 28) x 4 /60 = 1.23 minutes.

Since the ROF of the guns is 28.9 and 6.88, 28.9/6.88 = 4.2, a 5% increase. that number should also be alittle lower. It would simplest/fastest I guess to just give the rail a 250 bonus damage each 20th "time" row so we are still using somewhat the same numbers.


Time 1400mm 425mm Damage +/-
00 0972 0250 -722
01 0972 0500 -472
02 0972 0750 -222
03 0972 1000 28
04 1944 1250 -694
05 1944 1500 -444
06 1944 1750 -194
07 1944 2000 56
08 2916 2250 -666
09 2916 2500 -416
10 2916 2750 -166
11 2916 3000 84
12 3888 3250 -638
13 3888 3500 -388
14 3888 3750 -138
15 3888 4000 112
16 4860 4250 -610
17 4860 4500 -360
18 4860 4750 -110
19 4860 5250 390
20 5832 5500 -332
21 5832 5750 -82
22 5832 6000 168
23 5832 6250 418
24 6804 6500 -304
25 6804 6750 -54


Aamrr
Posted - 2011.08.30 17:04:00 - [35]
 

The interesting thing is that railguns are experiencing a damage latency compared to artillery. Even though their DPS, tracking, and range are similar, railguns lag behind because their damage isn't frontloaded.

Now consider how the flight time latency affects missile ships...

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2011.08.30 17:40:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Aamrr
Edited by: Aamrr on 29/08/2011 22:29:54
Originally by: Shadowsword
IMHO, railguns need -10% fitting requirments, -40% cap usage, +5% damage and +20% tracking.

I know I'm not supposed to do this, but...
Edit: Missed a zero.

425mm Railgun II, Antimatter L:
16.6 DPS, 158 volley.
28.8km optimal, 24km falloff
0.00963 rad/s
3.14 GJ/s
2625 MW, 77 tf

Mega Beam Laser II, Multifrequency L
19.2 DPS, 173 volley.
24km optimal, 16km falloff
0.0153 rad/s
7.22 GJ/s
3575 MW, 58 tf

Shadowsword's Modified 425mm Railgun II, Antimatter L
17.4 DPS, 165.9 volley.
28.8km optimal, 24km falloff
0.011556 rad/s
1.88 GJ/s
2362.5 MW, 69.3 tf


You can't just compare turrets like that, since they don't operate in a vacuum. You need to do it with the most standard racial ship bonus, the one you'll find in almost every ship. That's 5% damage for railguns, and -50% cap usage for lasers. if you do it, you'll find out that current 425mm rail and mega beam are very similars in terms of dps and cap usage. The main differences are fitting reqs (in relative % of the ship's powergrid and cpu), range and tracking. And with the evolution of warfare, tracking has become much more important relative to optimal than it was a few years ago.

Aamrr
Posted - 2011.08.30 18:02:00 - [37]
 

Hey -- I wasn't trying to make any points or prove any arguments. I was just providing a reference for the changes he proposed.

Don't shoot the messenger.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.08.30 18:07:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: EvilBunny DeathSpore
Edited by: EvilBunny DeathSpore on 30/08/2011 15:50:51
Originally by: MeBiatch
Edited by: MeBiatch on 30/08/2011 15:39:06
steps to fix railguns:

1. reduce activation cost by 40%
2. inxrease rate of fire by 15%
3. increase base damage multiplier by 15%
4. change the optimal range bonus on Caldari ships to 5% bonus to rate of fire per level

do this and you will end up with a rokh that does 1000 dps at 100 kmYARRRR!!
the guns will still have crap tracking and PG issues and still the lowest alpha compared to beams and arties... but meh it will be worth it to do that kind of damage


this.


yes this YARRRR!!

Abrazzar
Posted - 2011.08.30 18:10:00 - [39]
 

I wonder. Would a change to railguns into a long range quick RoF platform give it a valid niche? At least for missions, it may bear advantages when you don't have to waste as much time as with other weapons between popping ships, especially the small stuff.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.30 18:55:00 - [40]
 

I'm leaning more and more towards turrets needing something like the missiles' "damage reduction factor" — the obscure logarithmic multiplier that determines just how poorly the missiles react to speed and signature mismatches.

That kind of stat would for instance allow hybrids have the interesting property of absolute accuracy… unless you were shooting a smaller target. In other words, shoot the right size target, and movement is a complete non-issue — it's 100% DPS at all times while in optimal — but shoot at a smaller target and you'll be lucky to claw your way above 10%.

It would have to be either lower damage or larger mismatch than missiles offer, not to completely obsolete their "always damage" role, but it would let hybrids do something the other turrets do not (assuming this scheme… and even without it, the DRF stat would open up more new and interesting balancing and differentiation options).

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2011.08.30 19:09:00 - [41]
 


Size and speed of the target are already taken into consideration in tracking chances. There's no need to make them reduce hits a second time. It would be like making missiles do 0 damage if the target is within XX km..

Songbird
Gallente
T.I.E. Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.30 19:19:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Shadowsword

You can't just compare turrets like that, since they don't operate in a vacuum. You need to do it with the most standard racial ship bonus, the one you'll find in almost every ship. That's 5% damage for railguns, and -50% cap usage for lasers. if you do it, you'll find out that current 425mm rail and mega beam are very similars in terms of dps and cap usage. The main differences are fitting reqs (in relative % of the ship's powergrid and cpu), range and tracking. And with the evolution of warfare, tracking has become much more important relative to optimal than it was a few years ago.


Look at the BS's that use lazors - nightmare, bhaal, paladin,(navy) apoc, abaddon,(navy) geddon. 4 of these have the 5% per level damage bonus.
Back when the game started there were 2 BS's only apoc and armageddon - it might have made sense to have lazors with 20% more damage , now when a lot of the lazor ships do get the bonus it's overpowered, compared to the other turrets.

Still because of the no cap + alpha artillery is holding it's own - mostly in pvp fleets.

Hybrids otoh have the low dps , the low alpha , the cap usage , the ammo usage , the ammo changing timer , the hard to fit requirements... take any positive and it's on another gun, take any negative and hybrids have it too.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.30 19:35:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Shadowsword
Size and speed of the target are already taken into consideration in tracking chances. There's no need to make them reduce hits a second time. It would be like making missiles do 0 damage if the target is within XX km..
If that was in response to my post, you missed the point: yes, they're already taken into account, but unlike with missiles, there's no variable that determines how much they're taken into account (this is what really makes your rig selection so crucial if you're firing T2 missiles).

Adding that kind of variable would open up for new differentiation and balancing options.

Songbird
Gallente
T.I.E. Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.30 19:44:00 - [44]
 

don't start comparing missiles - just the fact that t2 high damage missiles take away only 10% range while every turret loses 75% range is enough to make me wanna nerf them.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.08.30 19:59:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 30/08/2011 19:59:07
Originally by: Songbird
Look at the BS's that use lazors - nightmare, bhaal, paladin,(navy) apoc, abaddon,(navy) geddon. 4 of these have the 5% per level damage bonus.
Back when the game started there were 2 BS's only apoc and armageddon - it might have made sense to have lazors with 20% more damage , now when a lot of the lazor ships do get the bonus it's overpowered, compared to the other turrets.


The Apocalypse is a real problem for rail BS too. Its range bonus, and the existence of Tachyons, means that it can be fit to have more DPS than a Rokh to almost the 249 km lock cap. The entire point of rails is range, so when the the Rokh, supposedly the premier BS sniper, isn't the highest-DPS turret BS at ~240 km, something is very wrong indeed.

Rhathyl
Posted - 2011.08.30 21:13:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Songbird
don't start comparing missiles - just the fact that t2 high damage missiles take away only 10% range while every turret loses 75% range is enough to make me wanna nerf them.


t2 missiles are already 'nerfed' by maintaining drawbacks. drawbacks which i hear turrets long ago threw off their oppressive yoke.

+5% sig radius per launcher for rage/fury
-5% speed per launcher for precision/javelin

Songbird
Gallente
T.I.E. Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.30 22:57:00 - [47]
 

scourge fury in a tengu 113km range 750 dps . That same tengu with 250mm rails , t2 javelin ammo 18(+15)km range, 390 DPS - hmm and you wanna compare missiles to railguns?

Most used BC - drake, least used - ferox - the big difference - missiles vs rails.

Do not involve missiles in this discussion.

Onictus
Posted - 2011.08.31 06:16:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Rhathyl
Originally by: Songbird
don't start comparing missiles - just the fact that t2 high damage missiles take away only 10% range while every turret loses 75% range is enough to make me wanna nerf them.


t2 missiles are already 'nerfed' by maintaining drawbacks. drawbacks which i hear turrets long ago threw off their oppressive yoke.

+5% sig radius per launcher for rage/fury
-5% speed per launcher for precision/javelin


Yes the .75 "bonus" to tracking on hybrids......definitely works to their advantage.

ilriac
Posted - 2011.08.31 06:45:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: ilriac on 31/08/2011 07:02:56
Edited by: ilriac on 31/08/2011 07:01:02
Edited by: ilriac on 31/08/2011 06:46:06
The missile guy is right, gunnery but be reworked if you want to legitimate up the hybrid platform.

1) Change relationship between weapon sig resolution and sig radius => instead of miss chance, apply dmg reduction (which make also sence... if you are hit by only 10% of the bullet/beam, you shouldn't suffer 100% dmg), that way, small ship have more than nano defense against bigger one

2) Change blaster stat to a proper usage of it... shotgun ! Blaster already nerf the ship to frigate range... blaster shouldn't have any "tracking" stat for that (the first change would balance encounter vs smaller target then... but you're a brawler, so crush everything stupid enough to come near you)

3) Change railgun to his true purpose (remember quake II/III railgun where you would shot pixel far ahead ?), make it so his small sized round (compared to other weapon system bullet/beam size) a good thing, reduce railgun sig resolution ! (rendering railgun platform good at sniping against everything). The "low alpha" would be balanced because otherwise you would be able to oneshot everything smaller than you

4) Change hybrid ammo, amarr chance switch lenz quickly thus rendering range choice a good thing, hybrid is stuck with the 10s chance so no need for so many range. Instead... apply sig resolution bonus for close/middle/long range (allowing the choice between good precision shot or powerfull shot at the 3 range), for example:
Antimater: Full dmg, -25% optimal/falloff range (instead of -50% optimal... hybrid boost both stat so the nerf should occur on both)
Plutonium: 85% AM dmg, -25% sig resolution (railgun only), -25% falloff penalty (blaster), -25% optimal/falloff range
Uranium: 70% AM dmg, -50% sig resolution (railgun only), -50% falloff penalty (blaster), -25% optimal/falloff range
Thorium : 35% AM dmg, -50% sig resolution (railgun only), no cap usage
Lead : 50% AM dmg, no cap usage
Iridum : 50% AM dmg, -25% rof, +60% optimal
Tungsten : 35% AM dmg, -25% sig resolution (railgun only), +60% optimal
Iron : 25% AM dmg, -50% sig resolution (railgun only), +60% optimal

This way... the choice would be more tailored toward the expected encouter. (the no cap usage at mid range would be like the +20% tracking from projectile... a little gift for specific build or low skill player)

Well so many possible idea...

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.31 07:33:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Songbird
don't start comparing missiles - just the fact that t2 high damage missiles take away only 10% range while every turret loses 75% range is enough to make me wanna nerf them.
Again, if this was in response to my post, you are also missing the point. It is not a comparison with missiles — it's a comparison of mechanics.

Turret mechanics are lacking a balancing option that they would be well served by being given.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2011.08.31 08:56:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Tippia
If that was in response to my post, you missed the point: yes, they're already taken into account, but unlike with missiles, there's no variable that determines how much they're taken into account (this is what really makes your rig selection so crucial if you're firing T2 missiles).

Adding that kind of variable would open up for new differentiation and balancing options.


I didn't miss your point, but you still haven't explained why the current situation require such a change, with all the overhaul that would be required for a lot of gunships and inter-class ship balance in general.

You use missile rigs to decrease the damage reduction against small targets. But aren't tracking, falloff and optimal rigs the same? They not only increase the odds of getting a hit, they also increase the damage done to something that is outside optimal, or with a meaningfull transversal.

Wind Rush Norana
Posted - 2011.08.31 10:22:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Tippia

Assuming: Arty does just under 1000 damage every 4n seconds; Rail does 250 damage every n seconds. On paper, this means that since the arty does less damage in any given amount of time (since (1000-ε)/4 < 250), the rails have better DPS and thus get the job done sooner. However, if we break it down as a timeline…
Time	Arty	Rail	∆
0 995 250 -745
1 500 -495
2 750 -245
3 1000 +5
4 1990 1250 -740
5 1500 -490
6 1750 -240
7 2000 +10
8 2985 2250 -735
…notice how the rails only ever edge ahead, and only ever so slightly, just before the artillery fires. So how long does it take until the rails actually, consistently, have delivered more damage than the artillery? Well, in this mock scenario, the arty pulls an early 745 HP lead, and every 4n seconds, that lead is reduced by 5 HP. So that lead is completely removed by (745 / 5) × 4 / 60 = 9.93 minutes. If we set as a condition that the rails should do more damage for half or more of the time (rather than all the time), the lead is only 495 HP, which takes 6.6 minutes to eat away.


This proves conclusively that Arties are overpowered. The fact they do a vast amount of Alpha the moment they fire outdoes any superior DPS of Railguns.

If CCP want to fix Hybrids, they should:
Railguns - increase Aplha by 100%, penalise RoF to give overall DPS increase of roughly 25%.
Blasters - just increase DPS, its not as if tey are that great compared to torps anyway, yet they have absurdly inferior range.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.31 12:28:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Shadowsword
I didn't miss your point
Since you went on about things that were already mentioned and which were fundamental requirements for what I suggested, it rather seem like you did…
Quote:
but you still haven't explained why the current situation require such a change
This entire thread explains it: because hybrids do not have a role of their own and any change will make them encroach on one of the roles of lasers or projectiles.

Again: adding that kind of variable would open up for new differentiation and balancing options. It lets us add new roles. It also lets us boost specific characteristics without undoing other balancing acts such as the whole web/scram change that made sig tanking possible.
Quote:
with all the overhaul that would be required for a lot of gunships and inter-class ship balance in general.
The overhaul would only be one of determining whether tracking bonuses were still really necessary, and the inter-class balance is the entire point why this kind of solution is probably a good way to go. If you simply boost tracking to make hybrids more accurate, then you diminish the value of smaller ship and you counteract the changes done in QR that gave afterburners and dual-propping a purpose.
Quote:
You use missile rigs to decrease the damage reduction against small targets. But aren't tracking, falloff and optimal rigs the same?
Not quite, because the factor I'm talking about is not the sig radius and speed — it's the Damage Reduction Factor. Like I said, it's the DRF that makes those rigs so crucial when using T2 missiles. Yes, they make a difference for normal missiles as well, but when you look at the T2s and notice the higher explosion radius and lower explo velocity, they don't tell the whole story. Missiles also have a third, hidden, factor that determine how much those two variables matter. As a result, depending on this hidden factor, the usefulness of those rigs differ between missile types. For some missiles, you don't need the rigs as much, or you need one rig more than another, because the damage reduction isn't all that fierce. For others, you absolutely, unquestionably need as many rigs and TPs and webs as you could possibly cram onto a ship because the DRF means that any mismatch is immensely amplified.

Observe the missile formula:
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Then look at the turret formula:
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Note that for the most part, it's the same things in different terms: it's a matter of target speed, size and position compared to the weapon's capability of handling speed, size and range. In addition, missiles have the log(drf)/log(5.5) exponent that modifies how much a mismatch between weapon capabilities and target characteristics influences the damage.

It's this hidden variable that I'm talking about. The “does it matter?” variable, which is absent from the turret mechanics. I'm leaning towards adding such a variable because then we can ask the same thing for turrets, which would offer a new way of balancing weapons against ship classes; of differentiating one weapon from another; of modifying ammo; etc. etc. etc. It adds more flexibility to the balancing act, and I think that is a way of solving the conundrum of how to improve hybrids without making them carbon copies of some other weapon system, and without either (once again) obsoleting themselves or make some similar system obsolete.

Onictus
Posted - 2011.08.31 13:14:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Tippia


It's this hidden variable that I'm talking about. The “does it matter?” variable, which is absent from the turret mechanics. I'm leaning towards adding such a variable because then we can ask the same thing for turrets, which would offer a new way of balancing weapons against ship classes; of differentiating one weapon from another; of modifying ammo; etc. etc. etc. It adds more flexibility to the balancing act, and I think that is a way of solving the conundrum of how to improve hybrids without making them carbon copies of some other weapon system, and without either (once again) obsoleting themselves or make some similar system obsolete.


Well so far as raw mechanics?

Rails just don't hit. They have a...as in one....sweet spot for maybe 10km then you are back to plinking for fraction daamage.

I'd purpose
1) Cut out about half of the ammo types, I mean really EIGHT separate range bands with a 10 second reload? Who does that?
2) For rails 15% ROF increase,a reduction in cap consumption 10% raw damage vs a similar reduction in range...leaving the range on null as it stands currently. I understand this is near a 45% damage boost, but after you gimp EVERYTHING else to put 425mm guns on a Gallente ship you should get some return. In addition this would allow the Gallente to scale down the gun and actually USE the native active repping bonuses.
3) Some degree of tracking boost, really, a 400m/s transversal shouldn't cut dps buy 3/4 in when everyone is zipping around 1400m/s....and INSIDE your optimal. its near impossible to use larger bore railguns inside long point range. This is doubly the issue for mediums that have neither signifgant range OR damage advantages.

This makes rails a long range low alpha hi DPS weapon, since the range on blasters means that kiting is totally out of the question, allowing rails to fill this roll would help a LARGE number of the Gallente line up, you make a serious number of fitting compromises to squeeze 425s onto Gallente hulls.....almost all of them.

For Blasters:
I like the up-close and personal methodology.

I'd say with blasters, lower the rate of fire, and increase alpha significantly, after you have burned through 20km of no-shoot zone and waded into short-point and web range, you need to lay down a whooping. As it stands the platform simply doesn't perform, you CAN get sufficient range with long range ammo, but you have cut your DPS by 40% to use it and it takes to long to change out.


For all you pay in fitting, ammo (big ammo, you can't carry nearly as much as a comparable Matar hull) energy use and crazy ranges, there should be some return on the investment.

....and WHY the hell does a Maelstrom have more power grid then a Hyperion? Seriously? It makes no sense.


Valhallas
Gallente
The Executioners
Posted - 2011.08.31 13:20:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Valhallas on 31/08/2011 13:43:03
Edited by: Valhallas on 31/08/2011 13:25:01
Edited by: Valhallas on 31/08/2011 13:22:17
Time Arty Rail ∆
0 995 250 -745
1 500 -495
2 750 -245
3 1000 +5
4 1990 1250 -740
5 1500 -490
6 1750 -240
7 2000 +10
8 2985 2250 -735

This fails to take into account situations where there is more that one enemy ship.

At time = 8 the first enemy may only have 100 HP left. Meaning most of the Arties 995 Damage is wasted. And by the time the Arty can fire again the Rail has already laid on average 500 Damage onto the next target, making the 425 Rail much more attractive.

Ungrouping Arties and then micro managing them would help negate this, but who does that?

Or to put it another way, the arties waste an average of 497.5 damage per kill, the Rail only wastes 125 damage per kill.


Edit: I give up trying to format the table, its at the top of this page anyway

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.08.31 14:12:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Onictus
cool stuff



i like your ideas... i was thinking maybe the "tracking" issue with hybrids could be fixed by changing the ammo to give a tracking bonus? (like they did for projectile ammo)

Valhallas
Gallente
The Executioners
Posted - 2011.08.31 14:18:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Valhallas
Edited by: Valhallas on 31/08/2011 13:43:03
Edited by: Valhallas on 31/08/2011 13:25:01
Edited by: Valhallas on 31/08/2011 13:22:17
Time Arty Rail ∆
0 995 250 -745
1 500 -495
2 750 -245
3 1000 +5
4 1990 1250 -740
5 1500 -490
6 1750 -240
7 2000 +10
8 2985 2250 -735

This fails to take into account situations where there is more that one enemy ship.

At time = 8 the first enemy may only have 100 HP left. Meaning most of the Arties 995 Damage is wasted. And by the time the Arty can fire again the Rail has already laid on average 500 Damage onto the next target, making the 425 Rail much more attractive.

Ungrouping Arties and then micro managing them would help negate this, but who does that?

Or to put it another way, the arties waste an average of 497.5 damage per kill, the Rail only wastes 125 damage per kill.


Edit: I give up trying to format the table, its at the top of this page anyway


In reply to my own post, the best way to minimise wasted DPS on arties would be to have them in maybe 3 groups with 2 or 3 guns in each group.

When engaging a new target, stagger the firing of the groups by a second.

When the target is about to pop, if the first grouping pops the target the 2nd and 3rd groups will fail to fire (target no longer present) and can be instantly reassigned to a new target.

Having said that I bet many people don't do this.

quigibow
Posted - 2011.08.31 14:21:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Valhallas
Originally by: Valhallas
Edited by: Valhallas on 31/08/2011 13:43:03
Edited by: Valhallas on 31/08/2011 13:25:01
Edited by: Valhallas on 31/08/2011 13:22:17
Time Arty Rail ∆
0 995 250 -745
1 500 -495
2 750 -245
3 1000 +5
4 1990 1250 -740
5 1500 -490
6 1750 -240
7 2000 +10
8 2985 2250 -735

This fails to take into account situations where there is more that one enemy ship.

At time = 8 the first enemy may only have 100 HP left. Meaning most of the Arties 995 Damage is wasted. And by the time the Arty can fire again the Rail has already laid on average 500 Damage onto the next target, making the 425 Rail much more attractive.

Ungrouping Arties and then micro managing them would help negate this, but who does that?

Or to put it another way, the arties waste an average of 497.5 damage per kill, the Rail only wastes 125 damage per kill.


Edit: I give up trying to format the table, its at the top of this page anyway


In reply to my own post, the best way to minimise wasted DPS on arties would be to have them in maybe 3 groups with 2 or 3 guns in each group.

When engaging a new target, stagger the firing of the groups by a second.

When the target is about to pop, if the first grouping pops the target the 2nd and 3rd groups will fail to fire (target no longer present) and can be instantly reassigned to a new target.

Having said that I bet many people don't do this.


your logic might seem sound for pve but is not applicable for pvp... you are taking too many variables into account and not focusing on the important ones...

let me put it this way killing a ship but waisting damage in doing it is not a waiste...

chipping paint off a ship and ipso facto applying all your damage but not killing in the end is a waiste...

Jacob Stov
Posted - 2011.08.31 15:00:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Jacob Stov on 31/08/2011 15:03:01


I would like to point to this proposal: The best one in my opinion. Even though it is a very "caldari" solution. At least, that is how I got to the very same result. Ammo switching should modify tracking, not optimal. That means the highest damaging ammo is best used for targets "far away", where tracking isn't that much of an issue.

Linkage

Doc Mexallon
Posted - 2011.08.31 15:20:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Songbird
railguns use the same(t1) ammo that blasters use. If it dissipates so fast for the blasters why do railguns have so much range?



This is explained in the ammo description. The blasters load the ammo charge into the gun and fire it out as raw charge. The railgun shoots the entire shell/canister with the charge inside, which breaks upon impact.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only