Main Forum
Page
of 7

Non Meta Night

65 replies
Posts:
56
Votes:
+8
SRW Recruit
Could you go into more detail why CP and QC can't be compared? I mean it should be possible to compare them since both are shields and when you can't compare them you cannot decide which shield to use.

If I have time to participate and a char by then I will definetly do that. Though personally I think it should be possible for me to survive in such an event (don't now about kills and assists but the deaths could be rather low). But I guess this stems a little from not flying against good pilots that regularly so maybe I just haven't experienced the high HLC and Pot accuracy in a threatening way. If anyone of you is interested we could also try that sometime else.

I am a bit confused here don't you have PD too if you have CP?
Posted May 19, 17
Posts:
1,002
Votes:
+266
Level 6
LEVEL 6
Fleet Captain
The difference between CP and the other options is that CP was meant to tank non-AP damage, and QCS/shield projector aren't meant to tank damage at all. QCS in particular buff your maneuverability so that you can escape burst damage and regenerate your shields. How would you compare Disto and CP? Disto is RNG based, so at best you can find out the chance of you dying to any amount of shots.

QCS/shield projector can benefit from lightweight armor, while CP cannot. This means that while I can get solid numbers for CP, I can (at best case and under a billion assumptions) get estimates for the chances of dying to any number of shots. I don't think it's worth my time and effort to figure that out. The math I put up on Discord was a novelty, mainly - to prove that CP doesn't compare to directionals even if I make the easiest assumptions (i.e, no evasion and every slug lands).

Though personally I think it should be possible for me to survive in such an event (don't now about kills and assists but the deaths could be rather low).

Case in point. You can hide and not die, sure. You could also do that with QCS though - probably even better, since they buff your engine regen so you can run away more. The question is, do really think your ability to avoid shots is better than that of good pilots to land them? You'll notice in the same discussion where I posted that math Yui said CP works for him because local competition on Harb sucks (paraphrasing slightly). Well? What's the point in gearing up for something like that? I could take directionals on a scout if I knew the only threats were people with RFLC - it would be probably better than disto, even.

I assume, when building my ship, that my competition will be as good as I am at least. This means that I'll min/max assuming they they're accurate and know how to move when being shot at. So basically, you saying that you can reliably avoid HLC/pods makes no sense to me. I know I can reliably land them, and there are better pilots than me out there.

My point regarding PD was that you don't need the engine power shunt with it. It's a very small gain in any case, but even were it substantial what's the point of it? If you have PD, you can counter ions. If you have directionals, you can counter ions too. So why take CP? There are two other counters to ions (before counting QCS, which are a good counter too), and both of them are also really good at negating other things (directionals are great against anything but protorps, PD is great against everything). That 5 engine power regen per hit is overshadowed by other components was my point. Especially if you already have PD, the gain from power shunt is redundant.
Posted May 19, 17
Posts:
1,646
Votes:
+223
Level 6
LEVEL 6
Fleet Admiral
I feel like HLC are still widely underrated. They are basically exactly the same as slug railgun except a little under half the range and under half the deflection penalty. A centered shot is just as accurate as a slug. You get the AP and shield piercing too. I think we don't see HLC being utilized to their full potential very often because the good pilots are usually using BLC or railguns. Or they're flying beacon bombers that can't often afford to take a lot of shooting risks.

If HLC were available on a scout I think they'd potentially be more OP than BLC.
Posted May 19, 17 · OP · Last edited May 19, 17
Like
x 2
x 2
List
Undo
Posts:
191
Votes:
+40
Level 2
LEVEL 2
SRW Recruit
But, but, but, you move (or are supposed to) while you're shooting them...
Posted May 19, 17
Posts:
1,646
Votes:
+223
Level 6
LEVEL 6
Fleet Admiral
Yea they're mobile mini slugs!
Posted May 19, 17 · OP
Posts:
56
Votes:
+8
SRW Recruit
I understand that QCS are too unimportant to make calculations about them. So how about this: I played around with the Dulfy calculator. The highest enginepower regeneration I could get on a T2 strike with QCS was 6/s or 3.3/s. The lowest you can get without QCS is 5/s or 2/s (recently consumed). So what happens if you would add the engine shunt to that (crashing)? you would get 10/s or 7/s. IF you use CP in that way I think it regenerates more engine power than QCS. Of course you could only have this for 2/3 of the match and only if you take period damage. But uit should be possible to achieve that in the moments you need it if you adapt your flight style that way.

To illustrate my point of view (based on my ingame experience):

What has a higher accuracy and can easier hit? a)BLCs b) HLCs

I come up with the answer BLCs out of the experience of being shot at.
If I get attacked by a scout in a bomber I am able to survive for sometime with the help of maneuvering and CP in a bomber.

My line of thought:
maneuverability (CP strike with PD) > Maneuverability (CP bomber)
and
Accuracy (HLCs) < Accuracy (BLCs)

Due to this I think it is easier for a strike to evade HLCs than a bomber can evade BLCs. Since I am able to avoid BLCs for some time I thus thought that I will be able to avoid HLC fire longer (considering an attacker at the same level). As I mentioned in the last post i sadly have no experience with evading heavy HLC fire mostlikely for the reasons Siraka mentioned.

Ofcourse I consider stronger opponents. My thoughtpattern when I try sth out is: "Dose this give me more chances to do enough more damage or to survive better against the opponent that killed me in the last game?"

Yeah I understand the ion counterpart. It is just that CP is a way for the bomber to mitgitate a bit danger away from the ion railgun. I also think that Directionals are more effective for that if you are able to control them. But in anycase it doesn't really matter for this discussion since ion railguns are not part of the environment we are talking about.
Posted May 19, 17
Posts:
1,352
Votes:
+353
Level 7
LEVEL 7
Fleet Administrator
The reason I have shield projector on a bomber is because...in a serious match, if I am ever on a beacon bomber than It is a desperate time indeed...and I am only there to chain an extra beacon in a super waspnest sort of situation (where mines are most likely already 'sploded). In this situation I feel that shield projector would be a good way to keep everyone on the satellite alive a little longer while the next beacon bomber gets back into action. If I'm on the rampart I am basically stalling.
Posted May 19, 17
Like
x 2
x 2
List
Undo
Posts:
1,110
Votes:
+322
Level 7
LEVEL 7
Fleet Architect
wrote:
This would mean you could still use:

T1 GS ion/plasma - to break apart nests and provide team support via various railgun debuffs

T3 Scout - provide heals and decent DPS via Target Telemetry

T3 Bomber - provide interdiction drone to protect T1 GS

T1 Strike and T2 Strike - either CP or directional shield builds. Ion might nullify these ships though.

T3 Strike - tankier version of the other CP strikes. Less DPS.

T3 GS - BLC + dual missiles build would be good for attacking as well as defending

T2 GS - probably wouldn't be used much but it's another option.


Thoughts?

I'm catching up on this thread and it got off topic. Is the above what we are thinking of proposing to SI one night?
Posted May 19, 17
Posts:
1,002
Votes:
+266
Level 6
LEVEL 6
Fleet Captain
The highest possible engine regen with a T2 strike would be 5 engine per second when recently consumed, with power to engines, QCS and regen thrusters. QCS doesn't affect regular regen, so you won't benefit from it in that case.

With CP, you can get 8.6 engine per second, so it has the advantage in this case. However, there are a couple of pretty large assumptions you made to reach this number - that CP is active constantly and that you're using it all the time to boost longer (i.e. you're crashing into a wall once per second). These are pretty serious and unrealistic assumptions...

If we remove the constantly active assumption, we get an average regen with CP of 6.8, not such a large advantage anymore. If we also assume that you can't realistically crash into an object every second, it's even less. A lot less, even.
What has a higher accuracy and can easier hit? a)BLCs b) HLCs

I come up with the answer BLCs out of the experience of being shot at.
If I get attacked by a scout in a bomber I am able to survive for sometime with the help of maneuvering and CP in a bomber.

You (almost) ignored Siraka's points regarding HLC. The only meta ships that have it are bombers, and they don't shoot that often as a rule. So of course you only see BLC... If strikes were meta, you'd see a lot more HLC. Objectively, HLC are more accurate than BLC starting from slightly over 1500m. They are by far the better option for accuracy at 2000m, and at 3000 or higher it's not even a competition. Of course you can reliably bounce to avoid BLC, scouts with BLC need to stick to you in order to reliably hit you. HLC isn't forced to do that. As I've said, if I see you bouncing while I'm 5000m from you I probably won't even miss more than a couple of shots max. That benefit is redundant.
As I mentioned in the last post i sadly have no experience with evading heavy HLC fire mostlikely for the reasons Siraka mentioned.

Well, in that case how can you compare the two and say that BLC are more accurate?

I'll leave this for now, and simply state that in practice numbers won't really benefit this discussion. AP is widely available even in a non-meta environment, so I am certain CP is a bad component to take.
Posted May 19, 17
Posts:
1,646
Votes:
+223
Level 6
LEVEL 6
Fleet Admiral
Yallia wrote:
wrote:
This would mean you could still use:

T1 GS ion/plasma - to break apart nests and provide team support via various railgun debuffs

T3 Scout - provide heals and decent DPS via Target Telemetry

T3 Bomber - provide interdiction drone to protect T1 GS

T1 Strike and T2 Strike - either CP or directional shield builds. Ion might nullify these ships though.

T3 Strike - tankier version of the other CP strikes. Less DPS.

T3 GS - BLC + dual missiles build would be good for attacking as well as defending

T2 GS - probably wouldn't be used much but it's another option.


Thoughts?

I'm catching up on this thread and it got off topic. Is the above what we are thinking of proposing to SI one night?


Yea potentially. The idea was to create a meta that eliminates bunkernests but also prevents lame scout turn warz.
Posted May 20, 17 · OP
Page
of 7
NoticeNotices