Who designed the Shatterforce laser?

[Unforeseen]

Eh, i wasn't really shouting. I may not have provided every bit of detail but i was being prodded by people who mostly were providing no counter information at all and were missing the point entirely. I "still" think your missing the point.

I admit i am not against using the weapon, just not as a primary weapon. I fill in the gaps with it, because i always have left over space. I just strongly believe that it's damage could have been a bit higher for the expense required to make it productive. Or perhaps lowering it a tier or two.

The mod i mentioned is pretty cool and you should check it out. I'm looking forward to the final version

[pycco]

[pycco]

these are t1 SF t2 torps

[Spidey]

Here is an "empty" build, 3O torpedo launchers with nothing else. Price: 4OO1, Maint: 1376, Max Energy use: 31O, firepower: 63O. Higher range, can kite laser boats. Size: 45O

Here is an empty laser boat with 5O lasers: Price: 5418, Maint: 1412, Max Energy: 445, Firepower: 6OO, Lower range, can be kited. Size: 2OO.

As shown, it is clear that in the long run you WILL get more firepower if you keep adding lasers than you will from torpedo launchers as you will have to stop somewhere in order to start adding the other components. You however, end up paying more for you ship and use up more energy which means you need more reactors, and not to mention more hab/life support.

Now you're starting to do it right, Unforeseen. Thank you for that. But we're not quite there yet, I'm afraid.

From your numbers, an Eps torp costs 45.9 credits in maintenance while a Shatter laser costs 28.2 credits in maintenance. With reference to the numbers I posted previously, meaning 14 torps vs 50 lasers, we get a total of 642.6 for the torp boat and 1410 for the laser boat. That's a difference of ~800 credits even with one mroe reactor. That's not too bad, is it? Considering how much more DPS you're actually getting? Considering the costs we're reaching regardless if we're dedicating 200 units of size to weapons?

Another thing to be aware of is that you actually can't kit the laser boat at all with the torp boat unless you're adding a whole lot more engines as well, which is definitely going to offset the maintenance advantage and take the ship size to an entirely different level.

Final thing to take into account is that you're comparing "firepower". That's really not a good metric to use. It's essentially just alpha strike damage without any consideration of refire rate, damage loss, energy consumption, or damage per size. Some weapons have an awesome alpha strike but fairly mediocre DPS and an even worse DPS per unit size. Some weapons have a mediocre alpha strike but a really good DPS.

The final final thing I feel like saying is that this whole weapons discussion is immensely interesting to me, but that it's also immensely complex. You cannot approach it simplistically and expect to end up with a useful answer. The system is just too complex for that. You have to consider numerous factors before getting a remotely detailed picture of the relative balance between the different weapons and even then it's a right headache to make heads and tails of things.

[ldog]

In reality you could cut 2 of those reactors off the torp ship since all that extra energy is going to waste.
I know for sake of argument the ship designs need to be more or less equal but it does illustrate the fact that a particular set of numbers don't show the whole picture.
The atrocious speed ensures that you wouldn't be able to make use of the extended ranges for very long (and yes I know these are just slapped together for the purpose of this discussion, so not by any means critiquing your ship design skills)

[Spidey]

Pycco, those ships are terribly slow, aren't they? Could we up the thrusters to 15? And the laser boat needs more energy if you're planning to sail and shoot at the same time, doesn't it? And the torp boat could do with two less reactors, I think, even with 15 thrusters. Also, you really only need about 50% more lasers to match the torps at DPS.

I know, exact same components, but that's not really a sensible comparison since it means both ships fail to reach their potential. [:)]

[pycco]

there updated

[Raap]

With the upgraded shatter vs first upgraded epsilon, we're looking at:

261 - 1*3*29 = 174
374 - 3*3*22 = 176

The top being the shatterforce, range being 300. This is a single shatterforce, so at 300 range you're getting the same amount of damage for around 1/4 the space used. There's no comparison, shatterforce is much, much, much better.

[pycco]

ORIGINAL: Raap

With the upgraded shatter vs first upgraded epsilon, we're looking at:

261 - 1*3*29 = 174
374 - 3*3*22 = 176

The top being the shatterforce, range being 300. This is a single shatterforce, so at 300 range you're getting the same amount of damage for around 1/4 the space used. There's no comparison, shatterforce is much, much, much better.

better is determined by what is worse
one thing that does not show up is the DPS
SF is 1.5
torp is 2.9
once again this is t2 torps and t1 SF

[DeadlyShoe]

And why would you research multiple weapon branches anyway instead of getting to the ultimates as fast as freaking possible? Why would you bother with Shatter 6 or Eps 3? What purpose is served by researching those instead of the weapons they unlock? I'd take Velo Shard 1 or Shockwave 1 over Eps 3 any day of the week without a second thought and I'd go through Impact Assault Blasters and get Titan Beam 1 before I'd even think about Shatter 6. There's just no point in going into a deadend tech instead of unlocking what is clearly a better weapon that even can be improved later on.

if you're in a war you might be better served by improving existing equipment instead of pulling ships off the line.

though tbh Refitting is probably too cheap.

Special techs like the massive shield projector of corvidian are pretty cool, wish more of em were like that.

[Raap]

ORIGINAL: pycco

ORIGINAL: Raap

With the upgraded shatter vs first upgraded epsilon, we're looking at:

261 - 1*3*29 = 174
374 - 3*3*22 = 176

The top being the shatterforce, range being 300. This is a single shatterforce, so at 300 range you're getting the same amount of damage for around 1/4 the space used. There's no comparison, shatterforce is much, much, much better.

better is determined by what is worse
one thing that does not show up is the DPS

Well, the numbers were taken at 29 shots from shatterforce and 22 shots from the torpedo. That's 63.8 seconds, giving a dps for both(~) of 175/63.8 = 2.7 at 300 range. As you get closer, the dmg will begin to favor the torpedo more, since it has a high dmg falloff with range.

[pycco]

ya each SF fires nearly 2 times per the 1 shot of the torpedoes -.1 for the SF fire rate.

[Aeson]

Unforeseen, look at what pycco has done. This is something along the lines of what it would have been most helpful for you to do, and could have been useful in constructing your arguments.

For example, we can say that pycco's laser boat has a firepower of 140 using Shatterforce Is. This means that the laser boat has a DPS of ~93 at 0 range, whereas the torpedo boat has a DPS of ~53 at 0 range, and that the torpedo boat has about a 50% range advantage. Now we can start evaluating the trade-offs in each design, and decide whether or not we'd rather use one or the other.

Let's compare:
Range - Torpedo Boat wins; 460 range vesus 320 gives a nearly 50% range advantage.
Speed - Laser Boat wins; 25 speed versus 21 probably makes up for the difference in range fairly well, though I could not say for certain.
Turning - Torpedo Boat wins; 16 deg/s versus 14 deg/s probably doesn't matter that much, though.
DPS - Laser Boat wins - ~93 DPS versus ~53 DPS at point blank is no contest, though I cannot say if either loses DPS fast enough with range to really make a big difference here; since Epsilons I believe have a more severe range penalty, I would expect the comparison to favor the Shatterforce more overall until the engagement range exceeds that of the Shatterforce.
Purchase Cost and Maintenance - Torpedo Boat wins - $1400 less up front, and $150 less maintenance. Not a big advantage unless you're really strapped for cash.
Shields - both equal. No advantage either side.

Now we come to something that could be a big deal: maximum (theoretical) combat time and effective operating range. As can be seen, both ships carry 325 units of fuel, and can convert 3.84 units of fuel into 1000 energy. Thus, these two designs can each supply about 85,000 units of energy from a full load of fuel. This translates to a maximum combat time of about 910 seconds on the Torpedo Boat (less 9 seconds per 13 spent warping or 32 spend cruising), or 316 seconds on the Laser Boat (less 3 seconds per 13 spend warping or 28 spent cruising). This can, in theory, be a big deal. In this case, however, it probably isn't, as 300 seconds is still 5 minutes, and that's plenty for most combats. What it does impact in a way that matters is the effective operating range - if you were to strike at a target 4 sectors out, that'd be 4*1322/13.07 seconds spent warping, and the same amount going home, which cuts 560 seconds off the Torpedo Boat's combat time (leaving 350 seconds of combat time) or 187 seconds off the Laser Boat's combat time (leaving 129 seconds of combat time). This indicates that the effective combat radius of the Laser Boat is lower than that of the Torpedo Boat, and gives us a limit to how far out our ships can fly if we want to maintain continual fleet presence at a target location while unable or unwilling to provide a nearby refueling point, and is an excellent place to start an argument for the relative merits of one design versus another; in this case, the Torpedo Boat design is somewhat favored. However, it should be noted that at roughly 1/3 of the maximum straight-line jump range, the Laser Boat can still engage in combat for about 2 minutes before needing to return for fuel, and that this range is a full four sectors. That the Torpedo Boat can engage for roughly 9 minutes continuously at this range is an advantage when trying to maintain constant fleet presence, but not so much of one that I'd be terribly in favor of the Torpedo Boat for it - 2 minutes is a lot of combat time, and if I'm looking to engage four sectors away for anything more than a raid, I'm probably also looking to set up a closer refueling point, by way of gas mines, resupply ships, or conquest of colonies; additionally, two minutes of combat ought to be plenty for a raid.

Is my evaluation of the two designs perfect? Unlikely. Are pycco's designs the best any of us can come up with? Maybe, maybe not, but they're examples and someone can probably come up with situations for which pycco's designs are well-optimized and other situations for which they're poorly optimized; besides that, a lot of designs really come down to personal preference. Are the trade-offs that I've noted above, and any others that someone can think of, enough to make a difference when deciding to go with one design or the other? Perhaps. Having roughly 9 minutes of combat time 4 sectors from base is fairly appealing for full-scale wars or pirate hunts far from home. On the other hand, if I don't need to be fighting 4 sectors away from my nearest refueling point I probably don't want to be, unless it's a raid on something important, like the main base of an annoying group of pirates or a cluster of mines over relatively rare resources, and for that I probably don't need 9 minutes of combat time. It is nevertheless a starting point, and a better one than the empty designs you posted - comparing the cost of the weapons without the ship they're in is, to some degree, useful, but a large part of weapon effectiveness comes from the chassis bearing the guns, and so does a reasonable fraction of the ship cost.

[msnevil]

Downloaded universe, and I'm replying to this? [X(]

With universe, you can mod the weapon, problem solved. (components.txt and research.txt)exp below.

Excluding self modding:

1 Shatterforce laser is yes the weakest of all the level 6 weapons. If compared straight forward point blank range firing.

As a stand off weapon at maximum range, its equal to the titan beam, and losses at the maximum range of the impact assault blaster.

The beauty that is missed though, is the use of fleets using this weapon. At range 480, you have more ships hitting the target, then say range 310. This makes it a good early to possibly mid upper range weapon to use.

I usually switch around the time the ai starts using ablative metal armor to either phasers or titan beams.

Components.txt

1, Shatterforce Laser, 1, 1, laser2.wav, 48, 4, 0, 7, 320, 20, 310, 1, 1500, 0, 0, 3, 6, 5, 15, 5,

Research.txt

PROJECT ;4, Advanced Laser Focussing, 4, 2, 0, 19, 0, 0.0,
COMPONENT IMPROVEMENTS ;1, 4, 9, 390, 20, 370, 1, 2200, 0,
PARENTS ;3, N

PROJECT ;5, High Intensity Lasers, 6, 2, 0, 19, 0, 0.0,
COMPONENT IMPROVEMENTS ;1, 6, 12, 480, 20, 450, 1, 2200, 0,
PARENTS ;4, N

[Unforeseen]

Lol this thread. Ok thank you for finally actually posting a counter comparison, i no longer think your just trolling and concede. The weapon clearly has an advantage in terms of maximum capability, though i truly would never use it as a primary because it is inefficient in my book. I perfer cost effective means, and the kind of firepower the shatterforce brings to the table for that cost is more than would be required in the stage of the game that i would actually utilize the weapon as anything other than a filler. Essentially most of my ships are long range missile/torpedo turrets with a small number of shatterforce lasers. For me, using the shatterforce as a primary would be a massively wasteful, costly endeavour that ultimately would weaken by fleet considerably.