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
they are good at being bad ?
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”
4 Likes
Oh! You’re right!
The Myrmidon!
The ONLY ship I ever actually used autocannons on!
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.
1 Like
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.
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.
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.
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.
his words
When I said that scorch was the gimmick of lasers.
And I literally answered that out of the table…
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.
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?
Heh, the above cuts both ways, you do of course realise?
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
2 Likes
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”.
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.
reported for calling me a dumb dick.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 Like
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.
nonsense. If something is "like"another, depends on the point of view. Thus subjective.
That’s called discussion.
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.
a mach with range 8+100km, base 100 DPS
you deal 50% DPS at ±88% falloff
1 Like
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.
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%
1 Like
I don’t think this word means what you think it means. lol
Cypr3ss.
1 Like
I don’t give a ■■■■ about what you think I know or not.
Sure you do, why else would you keep responding? 
Keep it coming kiddo.
Cypr3ss.
No I don’t.