# A Discussion on Autocannon Balance **URL:** \ **Category:** PvP Ships & Modules\ **Created:** [May 14, 2019, 8:46am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573 "2019-05-14T08:46:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 12:56am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/21 "2019-05-19T00:56:03Z")
No. scorch is a weird outlier like barrage. Instant reload is the overall laser gimmick. Alpha is the artillery gimmick. Rails get range. Blasters get raw dps. This could be where acs fall down that the question comes… what are acs good at ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 1:04am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/22 "2019-05-19T01:04:53Z")
> [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > what are acs good at they are good at being bad ? > [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > . scorch is a weird outlier like barrage. scorch compared to multifreq : +129% range, -25%tracking, -8%DPS. barrage compared to fusion : +51.3% range, -25%tracking, -8% DPS do you affirm that +129% range and +51.3% range are the same thing ? Range is here the 80% DPS distance when standing still vs a non moving target. That is from turret tooltip (opti+falloff)/2, from turret show info opti+(falloff/2) (I previously did it with turret tooltip but then realized it’s truncated) | | T1 opti | T1 Dfalloff | T1 range 80% | T2 opti | T2 Dfalloff | T2 range 80% | gain T1→T2 % | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | hybrid | 4.5 | 12.5 | 10.75 | 12.6 | 17.5 | 21.35 | 98.6046511627907 | | projectile | 3 | 25.8 | 15.9 | 6 | 36.12 | 24.06 | 51.3207547169811 | | energy | 15.75 | 12.5 | 22 | 44.1 | 12.5 | 50.35 | 128.863636363636 | “Hello, I’m barrage and I suck” ---
**Author:** ![Solecist\_Project](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/solecist_project/32/479741_2.png) [@Solecist\_Project](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Solecist_Project)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 1:20am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/23 "2019-05-19T01:20:48Z")
Oh! You’re right! The Myrmidon! The _ONLY_ ship I ever actually used autocannons on! ---
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 1:52am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/24 "2019-05-19T01:52:57Z")
Like. A word used when things share some similar characteristics without being identical. Learning English might be an idea if you want to try and copy Arrendis. So no. I’m not saying they are identical. I am saying that both are an outlier for their respective weapons system. Also because I’m on mobile and therefore your table comes across unreadable does it actually include the falloff increase also. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 2:22am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/25 "2019-05-19T02:22:42Z")
> [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > Learning English might be an idea if you want to try and copy Arrendis. I asked if you affirmed a 128% RANGE BONUS was the same thing as a 51% one, not if the ammos were the same things. Learning to read might be a good idea if you want to participate in a discussion. > [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > does it actually include the falloff increase Please make a correct sentence. My table gives the % gain of the 80% DPS distance by going from T1 DPS to T2 range ammo. if you don’t know what is this distance, learn to read a post before answering it, it’s written in my previous one. ---
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 2:30am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/26 "2019-05-19T02:30:10Z")
I literally said because I’m on mobile I can’t read the table… And you harass me about not reading… just wow. I’m done with trying to actually have a conversation with you… at least until I forget who you are again. ---
**Author:** ![Cypr3ss\_Deteis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypr3ss_deteis/32/392947_2.png) [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypr3ss_Deteis)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 2:41am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/27 "2019-05-19T02:41:36Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > I asked if you affirmed a 128% RANGE BONUS was the same thing as a 51% one What gave you the impression he thought it **was** the same? Do you affirm that a +200% range and +15% range are the same thing? See how dumb that is? Regards, Cypr3ss. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 2:58am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/28 "2019-05-19T02:58:54Z")
> [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](#): > > What gave you the impression he thought it **was** the same? his words > [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > No. scorch is a weird outlier like barrage. When I said that scorch was the gimmick of lasers. * * * > [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > I literally said because I’m on mobile I can’t read the table… And I literally answered that out of the table… > [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > you harass Telling you you are wrong and you give lessons you don’t follow is not harassment. Cry somewhere else your tears are ruining the floor. ---
**Author:** ![Cypr3ss\_Deteis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypr3ss_deteis/32/392947_2.png) [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypr3ss_Deteis)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 3:17am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/29 "2019-05-19T03:17:37Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > his words > > ![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/1/9/19c31043adcacccb072426c6138edeffdd19ea18.jpeg) Nevyn\_Auscent: > > > No. scorch is a weird outlier like barrage. > > When I said that scorch was the gimmick of lasers. > [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > Like. A word used when things share some similar characteristics without being identical. I’m sure you read all this, choosing to ignore it does not somehow make you correct. like != same Especially when you then call out that correction as if you know that already, but if you knew that you would not of asked for the affirmation to begin with. So which is it, you’re intentionally being obtuse just to be a dick, or you didn’t know like != same but didn’t want people thinking you were dumb, so just kept carrying on with your “look at the numbers” anyway? > [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > Learning to read might be a good idea if you want to participate in a discussion. Heh, the above cuts both ways, you do of course realise? Regards, Cypr3ss. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 3:23am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/30 "2019-05-19T03:23:45Z")
> [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](#): > > like != same So what ? The ammo != the range bonus. If something is _like_ another then it must be used the same as another, so having the same characteristics wrt a usage. Of course the usage is subjective, that’s why I _asked_ to confirm an interpretation, to which he answered by aggressive “learn english”. > [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](#): > > Especially when you then call out that correction I don’t call for correction. I just use the same haughty useless tone he used just before. You think it is bad ? Tell that to him. He is the one being a massive idiot and calling people for pointing it. > [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](#): > > So which is it, you’re intentionally being obtuse just to be a dick, or you didn’t know like != same but didn’t want people thinking you were dumb, so just kept carrying on with your “look at the numbers” anyway? reported for calling me a dumb dick. ---
**Author:** ![Cypr3ss\_Deteis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypr3ss_deteis/32/392947_2.png) [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypr3ss_Deteis)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 4:36am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/31 "2019-05-19T04:36:44Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > So what ? The ammo != the range bonus. Are you being serious? The ammo imparts the range bonus, they are both ‘long range’ ammo for ‘short range’ weapons, which was what started this, and is, just by the way, one of the things that makes them similar, but not equal. > [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > If something is _like_ another then it must be used the same as another What? Why would you think that? If it’s like something, that’s it, the two things are similar in some way, it implies nothing more, **especially** not that it _must be used the same_. > [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > Of course the usage is subjective, that’s why I _asked_ to confirm an interpretation Again, no. The usage cannot be subjective, otherwise how are you going to communicate with _anyone_, just like we see here. And you asked for confirmation of _your_ interpretation, which is just digging deeper into the hole you’ve already dug for yourself. > [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > reported for calling me a dumb dick. LOL, firstly I asked a question, I didn’t call you anything, secondly, even if you were to answer said question, you would be one or the other, not a combination of the two. You see, this is what happens when you go using your own subjective interpretation of words (& punctuation), hopefully in time you will learn. Regards, Cypr3ss. ---
**Author:** ![Ember\_Fireheart](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ember_fireheart/32/278556_2.png) [@Ember\_Fireheart](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ember_Fireheart)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 7:03am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/32 "2019-05-19T07:03:31Z")
The biggest problem with auto’s is that they are the only weapon system which works mostly in falloff and the problem is falloff is very weak. If your shooting at more than 50% into falloff your loosing ton’s of dps if your shooting at 100% falloff your doing hardly any dps at all, which to be honest most people using auto’s are doing, not realizing how bad it is. The other part of auto’s is that they are seen as 200% falloff weapon’s when in reality you cant even use most of that range anyway it is just wasted. So if you start looking at it that way the actual usable range on auto’s is absolutely tiny for a low dps weapon. Instead of balancing auto’s itself it might be a better Idea to rework fall off a little have it fall off slower so that at 100% falloff the weapon system is still usable at maybe 70% of the initial dps and then have it falloff to 0 dps at 150% falloff. ![Proposed%20Changes%20to%20Falloff](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/8/2/82dc174272cf6f7a978913d5a3fd8c658df47fd2.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 9:27am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/33 "2019-05-19T09:27:58Z")
> [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](#): > > If it’s like something, that’s it, the two things are similar in some way, it implies nothing more, **especially** not that it _must be used the same_ . No, because then everything in the universe is “like” anything else in the universe, as they both share the same trait “in the universe”, and then your “like” relation is useless. This is just something completely stupid, you are affirming that a fork is like a gun because they are both of metal. That a straw is like a whale because they both have a mass. > [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](#): > > Again, no. The usage cannot be subjective, otherwise how are you going to communicate with _anyone_ , just like we see here. nonsense. If something is "like"another, depends on the point of view. Thus subjective. > [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](#): > > And you asked for confirmation of _your_ interpretation, which is just digging deeper into the hole you’ve already dug for yourself. That’s called discussion. > [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](#): > > I didn’t call you anything, You literally did, the moment you linked those words to me. Because those words were only _used_ to insult me, they did add nothing to you non-existent argument. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 9:44am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/34 "2019-05-19T09:44:27Z")
[![Imgur](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/3/6/36395ff9cffbc8c2228ab5d20465a5c9b5797c50.jpeg "Screenshot at 11:41:52.png") ](https://imgur.com/wu4xOR8) a mach with range 8+100km, base 100 DPS you deal 50% DPS at ±88% falloff ---
**Author:** ![Ember\_Fireheart](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ember_fireheart/32/278556_2.png) [@Ember\_Fireheart](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ember_Fireheart)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 10:17am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/35 "2019-05-19T10:17:02Z")
So you are saying its even worse dps than I have in my graph 😕 looks like about 45% dps at Optimal + 100% falloff, man no wonder auto’s are so bad. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 10:39am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/36 "2019-05-19T10:39:17Z")
if you are X% in the falloff (50% means your distance is optimal+falloff/2) Then your chance to hit is h = 0.5^( (X/100)/^2) (at 50% falloff : h = 0.5^0.25 = 0.84) And then your average damage ratio is d = (h²+h+0.05)/2 ( at 50% falloff : d= 0.8) (only down to 1% chance to hit, otherwise it’s d=3h) so if you use f as the falloff entry (that is, f = X/100), d = 0.5^(2f²+1) + 0.5^(f²+1) + 0.025 | falloff entry | DPS mult | | --- | --- | | 0 | 1.025 | | 0.05 | 1.02240444771263 | | 0.1 | 1.0146625999652 | | 0.15 | 1.00190749513624 | | 0.2 | 0.984356297068941 | | 0.25 | 0.962303661951622 | | 0.3 | 0.936112872752333 | | 0.35 | 0.906205131926159 | | 0.4 | 0.873047474258797 | | 0.45 | 0.837139806604962 | | 0.5 | 0.799001598220131 | | 0.55 | 0.759158734568515 | | 0.6 | 0.718131010929012 | | 0.65 | 0.676420683400681 | | 0.7 | 0.634502418846775 | | 0.75 | 0.592814897535391 | | 0.8 | 0.551754228707619 | | 0.85 | 0.511669245897737 | | 0.9 | 0.472858660897348 | | 0.95 | 0.435569977299905 | | 1 | 0.4 | | 1.05 | 0.366296728051434 | | 1.1 | 0.33456238586665 | | 1.15 | 0.304857331658927 | | 1.2 | 0.277204581069266 | | 1.25 | 0.251594696067403 | | 1.3 | 0.227990811907624 | | 1.35 | 0.206333605298152 | | 1.4 | 0.186546042099551 | | 1.45 | 0.168537780052215 | | 1.5 | 0.152209138818794 | | 1.55 | 0.137454584025326 | | 1.6 | 0.124165702506493 | | 1.65 | 0.112233671631974 | | 1.7 | 0.101551245925811 | | 1.75 | 0.092014299131197 | | 1.8 | 0.08352296971022 | | 1.85 | 0.075982463051645 | | 1.9 | 0.069303565106659 | | 1.95 | 0.063402920581956 | | 2 | 0.058203125 | optimal+75% falloff deal 60%DPS at optimal ±86% falloff you deal 50% DPS at optimal+falloff you deal 40% of your DPS. optimal +1.15\* falloff it’s 30% ---
**Author:** ![Cypr3ss\_Deteis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypr3ss_deteis/32/392947_2.png) [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypr3ss_Deteis)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 10:41am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/37 "2019-05-19T10:41:56Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > literally I don’t think this word means what you think it means. lol Cypr3ss. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 10:44am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/38 "2019-05-19T10:44:30Z")
> [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](#): > > I don’t think this word means what you think it means. lol I don’t give a ■■■■ about what you think I know or not. ---
**Author:** ![Cypr3ss\_Deteis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cypr3ss_deteis/32/392947_2.png) [@Cypr3ss\_Deteis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cypr3ss_Deteis)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 10:45am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/39 "2019-05-19T10:45:23Z")
Sure you do, why else would you keep responding? 🙂 Keep it coming kiddo. Cypr3ss. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 10:50am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573/40 "2019-05-19T10:50:50Z")
No I don’t. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-discussion-on-autocannon-balance/159573.md?page=3)