Cap vs. Fighter/Bomber weapons.

[Grumblesaur]

I don't know whether or not this is being fixed, if you can call it that, but it's something that bugs me about this.

The Supernova Antimatter Cannon does roughly 32,000 shield and 64,000 hull damage.

The Light Mortar does 24,000 shield and 48,000 hull, if I recall correctly.

The Mini Razors and Battle Razors have a similar situation.

Why is it that a cap weapon does less damage at a higher energy cost?

I understand Bombers have a limit on their energy, but if they only need 40,000-odd energy to do that sort of damage, why do caps have to use roughly 100,000 energy on a less powerful weapon?

I've used both a Dessie with a Mortar and a bomber with an SN, so I know what I'm talking about here.

Does this bug or confuse anyone else?

---

A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

[Tenacity]

The Supernova Antimatter Cannon does roughly 32,000 shield and 64,000 hull damage.

No, the supernova does 66,000 shield and 132,000 hull damage for 38,000 energy.

The Light Mortar does 24,000 shield and 48,000 hull, if I recall correctly.

23,000 shield and 46,000 hull for 500,000 energy.

Why is it that a cap weapon does less damage at a higher energy cost?

I've always hated this too, but I would think it has something to do with the fact that your average fighter/bomber has like 15,000 hull strength and 10,000 shield strength, while your average gunboat (lowest end of the capships) has around 100,000 hull strength and 140,000 shield strength.

What was not taken into account was the fact that fighters/bombers can dodge, capships cant. Ever wonder why our big bad capships get taken down in 30~ seconds when a pvp fight starts, but fighter vs fighter or even fighter vs bomber can last for half an hour?

---

[Grumblesaur]

No, the supernova does 66,000 shield and 132,000 hull damage for 38,000 energy.
23,000 shield and 46,000 hull for 500,000 energy.
I've always hated this too, but I would think it has something to do with the fact that your average fighter/bomber has like 15,000 hull strength and 10,000 shield strength, while your average gunboat (lowest end of the capships) has around 100,000 hull strength and 140,000 shield strength.

What was not taken into account was the fact that fighters/bombers can dodge, capships cant. Ever wonder why our big bad capships get taken down in 30~ seconds when a pvp fight starts, but fighter vs fighter or even fighter vs bomber can last for half an hour?

Okay, my numbers were off. The same logic applies.

Whew. I thought I would get torched.

---

A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

[Dab]

The higher energy cost is because they are being used on capships.. If we made a Capital ship's Battlerazor use the same energy as a Mini-razor, you could put 8 of them on a BS and utterly demolish any ship in existance. By necessity, the capship weapons have to use more energy. If you check the ratio, weapon's energy usage to the ship's energy capacity, the capships are better off. They can fire more often than a bomber can.. Bomber firing a Supernova loses around 80% of their energy.. Battleship firing a Mortar takes what, 20%? Thats around 4.5 more shots.. And lets not compare Supernova to Light Mortar.. If your going to compare at all, compare normal Mortar to Supernova.

You cannot compare fighter and bomber weaponry to capship weaponry in damage-to-energy situations. Know the expression, comparing apples to oranges?

The anti-capship weapons are actually rather balanced at the moment. Capships will be harder to kill next version, which I'm sure will make you happy, but its not very bad at the moment. If it weren't, do you think the Cor GB and BHG GS would be whored so much? Anyway, forgetting about the Supernova, fighters have absolutely crap anti-cap weaponry.. The Inferno and Mini-razor are all, and neither really does that much help.

---

[Tenacity]

When I flew a zoner destroyer on aki (my order pilot), I found that I was -much- more effective in pvp combat using all order cruiser turrets than I was when I had a mix of various weapons like the mortar, cerberus, missiles, or infernos.

Basically, right now, 'special' capship weapons (cerbs, mortars, razors, infernos, etc.) are pure crap in pvp. The damage to energy ratio is absolutely horrid and those weapons are -much- harder to aim with due to generally low travel speeds.

Here, ill crunch some numbers to explain a little further:

Order Cruiser Turret
Hull Damage: 1,790
Shield Damage: 895
Energy Use: 8,000
Refire Rate: 2.0 (two shots per second)

That means that the order cruiser turret on constant fire does 3,580 hull damage per second, and 1,790 shield damage per second, for a cost of 16,000 energy per second. That gives the order cruiser turret a damage-to-energy ratio of 0.22375

Light Mortar (cruiser-grade mortar)
Hull Damage: 46,000
Shield Damage: 23,000
Energy Use: 500,000
Refire Rate: 0.25 (one shot every four seconds if your energy regen is good enough)

That gives the light mortar 11,500 hull damage per second and 5,750 shield damage per second, for a cost of 125,000 energy per second. That gives the light mortar a damage-to-energy ratio of 0.092, which makes the standard order cruiser turret about 243% more efficient than the mortar, easier to aim with, and much more effective against smaller ships than the light mortar is.

now, compare the supernova:

Supernova Antimatter Cannon
Hull Damage: 132,000
Shield Damage: 66,000
Energy Use: 38,000
Refire Rate: 0.17 (one shot every 10.2 seconds if your energy regen is good enough)

Hull damage per second for the SNAC is 12,941, shield damage per second is 6,470 - more DPS than the light mortar is capable of - while it only takes 3,725 energy per second. That gives the SNAC a damage-to-energy ratio of 3.473, higher than any other weapon in the game by more than a hundred percent.

---

[Grumblesaur]

The higher energy cost is because they are being used on capships.. If we made a Capital ship's Battlerazor use the same energy as a Mini-razor, you could put 8 of them on a BS and utterly demolish any ship in existance. By necessity, the capship weapons have to use more energy. If you check the ratio, weapon's energy usage to the ship's energy capacity, the capships are better off. They can fire more often than a bomber can.. Bomber firing a Supernova loses around 80% of their energy.. Battleship firing a Mortar takes what, 20%? Thats around 4.5 more shots.. And lets not compare Supernova to Light Mortar.. If your going to compare at all, compare normal Mortar to Supernova.

You cannot compare fighter and bomber weaponry to capship weaponry in damage-to-energy situations. Know the expression, comparing apples to oranges?

The anti-capship weapons are actually rather balanced at the moment. Capships will be harder to kill next version, which I'm sure will make you happy, but its not very bad at the moment. If it weren't, do you think the Cor GB and BHG GS would be whored so much? Anyway, forgetting about the Supernova, fighters have absolutely crap anti-cap weaponry.. The Inferno and Mini-razor are all, and neither really does that much help.

The mini-razor isn't really anti-cap or anti-fighter. It's more of a hybrid of the SN and Sunslayer. As for the inferno, it's the same idea but with the purpose of downing shields.

Now, back to the main point. Supernovas do more damage at once, is my point, not so much the energy. Let's say you have two light mortars on an Outcast destroyer. You attack a battleship. You see the shield/hull drop about the equivalent of two bars on the battleship's hull. The bomber fires it's SN at the hull, doing more than twice the damage you did, knocking off about 4.5 bars of hull.
If that makes sense to you, puppies might as fall from the sky, in my opinion.

So what of the standard Mortar? What are it's stats?

Edit: While I was bantering with logic, Tenacity beat me with the math. Kudos.

---

A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

[Dab]

Tenacity, did you read my post?

You cannot compare fighter and bomber weaponry to capship weaponry in damage-to-energy situations. Know the expression, comparing apples to oranges?

They aren't comparable. Furthermore, you can fire the Light mortars more often than SNACs because the bomber's regen is slow. Plus you can have multiple Light or normal mortars on a capship. The bomber can only fire one.

Now normal weapons are better than anti-capship weapons right now. I don't honestly see what this has to do with you issue with SNACs compared to Mortars.

There simply is no way to compare these things. And if you really want to get technical, take into account armor and shielding and the rest of the firepower available.. If a bomber fires its guns, its regen doesn't go up, it just stays steady. A cruiser can fire 6 normal guns while recharging its energy to fire more mortar rounds. If you ever actually saw a proper fight, you'd know that a cruiser pumps out as much or more damage as 2 bombers do, and it doesn't die so easily, so it can sit and bash its target. With bombers, they have to dodge a lot to avoid getting raped while trying to fire its SNAC.

Furthermore, a bomber takes so long to charge its SN, that even if its last shot took a capship's shield down, the cap's shield will come back up literially 1 second after the bomber has its energy enough to fire another SN. It takes more than 1 seconds for that SN to reach that capship. So don't try complaining that capships are so hopeless. It takes 2 bombers to kill a destroyer, and they have to be decently piloted. It takes 1 destroyer to kill another destroyer, and it could be piloted like utter crap.

---

[Grumblesaur]

Tenacity, did you read my post?
They aren't comparable. Furthermore, you can fire the Light mortars more often than SNACs because the bomber's regen is slow. Plus you can have multiple Light or normal mortars on a capship. The bomber can only fire one.

Now normal weapons are better than anti-capship weapons right now. I don't honestly see what this has to do with you issue with SNACs compared to Mortars.

There simply is no way to compare these things. And if you really want to get technical, take into account armor and shielding and the rest of the firepower available.. If a bomber fires its guns, its regen doesn't go up, it just stays steady. A cruiser can fire 6 normal guns while recharging its energy to fire more mortar rounds. If you ever actually saw a proper fight, you'd know that a cruiser pumps out as much or more damage as 2 bombers do, and it doesn't die so easily, so it can sit and bash its target. With bombers, they have to dodge a lot to avoid getting raped while trying to fire its SNAC.

Furthermore, a bomber takes so long to charge its SN, that even if its last shot took a capship's shield down, the cap's shield will come back up literially 1 second after the bomber has its energy enough to fire another SN. It takes more than 1 seconds for that SN to reach that capship. So don't try complaining that capships are so hopeless. It takes 2 bombers to kill a destroyer, and they have to be decently piloted. It takes 1 destroyer to kill another destroyer, and it could be piloted like utter crap.

It depends on the type of standard weapons. Outcasts have two for their Destroyers. The Cruiser turrets fire faster and drain more, where as the Destroyer ones fire slower and drain less.

Yes, but the cruisers shield will be very low. A few seconds of Imp. Debilitator fire can down it. Even an inferno if one is on hand. Which will leave enough energy to fire the SN, since even 4 imp. Debs can't drain from a bomber.

Cruisers also have this thing called a 'mediocre refire rate'. 3.03 at best unless they're Solaris turrets. Most bombers can dodge this unless they're flying straight at the cap and not strafing. I'm not complaining, by the way.

Incidentally, what ship class do you use the most?

---

A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

[Tenacity]

Tenacity, did you read my post?

I was typing mine up while you posted =P

Furthermore, you can fire the Light mortars more often than SNACs because the bomber's regen is slow

Cruiser energy regen isnt exactly spectacular either. My praetorian bomber can fire a supernova and only lose about 60-65% of my total energy, and it regens fast enough that i can fire a second shot within about 5 seconds. Of course, theres some downtime afterwards while I wait for energy to recharge again.

My zoner destroyer, on the other hand, lost almost exactly 50% of my power firing a light mortar (i had two of them equipped for a while, and from full energy firing both at once drained me to nothing) and i'd have to wait 15-20 seconds minimum before being able to fire even one mortar again.

Yet, despite using similar amounts of power and having similar regeneration rates comparatively, my zoner dessie's 2 light mortars do less damage than a single supernova.

A bomber also has the advantage of being able to dodge while it recharges energy, while a cruiser has to sit there and take enemy hits while regenerating. Further, 8 or more order cruiser turrets firing at once and the zoner dessie could not regenerate any energy at all.

Oh, and it doesnt take 2 bombers to kill a destroyer, especially with some of the more manuverable bombers like the redcat. I sat and watched a blood dragon in a red catamaran solo a bounty hunter battlecruiser in sigma 13 a few months back -_-

Cruisers also have this thing called a 'mediocre refire rate'. 3.03 at best unless they're Solaris turrets. Most bombers can dodge this unless they're flying straight at the cap and not strafing. I'm not complaining, by the way.

Learn to chainfire your guns, 4-5 chainfiring cruiser turrets is like having a minigun =P

---

[Dab]

It depends on the type of standard weapons. Outcasts have two for their Destroyers. The Cruiser turrets fire faster and drain more, where as the Destroyer ones fire slower and drain less.

Yes, but the cruisers shield will be very low. A few seconds of Imp. Debilitator fire can down it. Even an inferno if one is on hand. Which will leave enough energy to fire the SN, since even 4 imp. Debs can't drain from a bomber.

Cruisers also have this thing called a 'mediocre refire rate'. 3.03 at best unless they're Solaris turrets. Most bombers can dodge this unless they're flying straight at the cap and not strafing. I'm not complaining, by the way.

Incidentally, what ship class do you use the most?

I'd love to see you try that on my cruiser. You see if a few seconds of Imp. Debilitator fire can down my shield. I can guarantee it doesn't.. And Infernos still take awhile to drop a cruiser shield. The cruiser's shield regen is almost enough to nullify the inferno's shield damage when a fighter is using it. Bomber has better luck, yet it still takes awhile to drop that shield, and energy as well.

And about the refire rate, thats not that important, since the cruiser has a good chance of hitting its target. The projectile speed of over 1,000 sees to that. If a bunch of battleships with 2.00 refire manage it, surely you can with 3.03 in a smaller and faster ship.. If not, its not because balance is messed up.

Also, the damage to energy of those two OC destroyer turrets is similar. Of course the faster refire takes a bit more energy, but also gives more damage.

And I use fighters, bombers, and capships all. And since before 4.80.. So I've seen the bombers that were too good, bombers and fighters that were absolutely useless, and ones that were at least proficient at their job. That is what bombers are for, killing capital ships.

If your cruiser has trouble against a bomber, which by all rights it SHOULD, get some fighters to escort you, because they DO help.

And that Redcat that killed the BHG BC in Sig-13. Well he had to have had a full load of Imp Debs along with an SN and the BHG BC had to have been a very bad pilot, because I could beat a RedCat with an Inferno, Imp Debs, and SN all together with little damage..


Now if you want to compare strength of capships to bombers, go ahead.. But don't try to compare bomber weaponry with capship weaponry. It can't be compared and trying to won't get you anywhere. If we balanced it in the way you guys seem to want, either bombers wouldn't be able to fire their anti-capship weaponry, or capships would be able to chainfire mortars every 2 seconds.

---