Look right down there at the bottom. C2 Plasma. Why is it so much worse than C3 or C4 (or indeed, any other thermal weapon in the game)?
Last edited:
Why the heck are C2 plasma accelerators so awful?
- Thread starter Alexander the Grape
- Start date
Look right down there at the bottom. C2 Plasma. Why is it so much worse than C3 or C4 (or indeed, any other thermal weapon in the game)?
What exactly am I looking at here?
Damage done per unit weapons capacitor. This is extremely important on ships that might want to run a C2 plasma accelerator (IE small-medium ships)
Er, you've been a bit selective by putting up just that chart. That chart is for damage per energy, and only considers damage vs shields (which to be fair is the only thing the excellent people who did those tests could properly measure) - i.e. how energy efficient the weapon is, not really how damaging. It doesn't really tell you anything about how much damage it'll put out, just how quickly it drains your WEP capacitor when you fire it.
The Plasma Accelerator is for single-shot alpha-strike damage. Even DPS isn't a very good way of measuring its capability. That's before you even go into how good it is at melting subsystems to slag.
But let's take DPS:
And then damage per shot:
Doesn't really look that awful, hm. In fact, it looks the opposite.
In actuality of course, you have to be able to aim a PA, because they only come on fixed mounts, so it's more complicated than a simple graph.
But uh, since I assume you'd seen the rest of that thread that analysed weapon capability vs shields, and that's where you got your picture from, you already knew all this?
Are you just trolling? Or is this an Eve-style meta-gaming in the forum thing, trying to drum up outrage so the devs buff a weapon for your benefit and at the expense of the game?
For those who are interested, the original thread:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=140240
The Plasma Accelerator is for single-shot alpha-strike damage. Even DPS isn't a very good way of measuring its capability. That's before you even go into how good it is at melting subsystems to slag.
But let's take DPS:
And then damage per shot:
Doesn't really look that awful, hm. In fact, it looks the opposite.
In actuality of course, you have to be able to aim a PA, because they only come on fixed mounts, so it's more complicated than a simple graph.
But uh, since I assume you'd seen the rest of that thread that analysed weapon capability vs shields, and that's where you got your picture from, you already knew all this?
Are you just trolling? Or is this an Eve-style meta-gaming in the forum thing, trying to drum up outrage so the devs buff a weapon for your benefit and at the expense of the game?
For those who are interested, the original thread:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=140240
C2 PA's are Thermal-only though.
The graph says it's measuring damage per energy. So C2 Plasma shots use a lot of energy (and so generate a lot of heat) for the amount of damage they do.
Which doesn't tell you how much damage per second they inflict before you have to stop firing due to heat issues, or various other factors. But the point of them is that they a lot of damage in a small number of shots. Don't bother with the small ones.
(edit - i.e. what Jynessa said while I was typing)
Which doesn't tell you how much damage per second they inflict before you have to stop firing due to heat issues, or various other factors. But the point of them is that they a lot of damage in a small number of shots. Don't bother with the small ones.
(edit - i.e. what Jynessa said while I was typing)
Last edited:
Yes, extremely important. I agree there. That's a leetle different to blanket condemning the C2 Plasma Accelerator as 'awful'. Especially when all you put up as your only evidence is a graph where it's at the bottom and just invite us to think 'at the bottom... must be bad!' without seeing the context.
Last edited:
Not really, they're just for different things. If you've only got a 2 mount available and absolutely must do the maximum amount of damage with your one shot, then they're impressive. It's just that if your target survives that hit, you better have some cannons to back up.
In the C2 mount the Railgun is a much better weapon for punching above your weight than the PA. It has a terrible ammo supply though.
The fact is that damage per energy among the most important factors in any weapon's viability. I'm not saying that every aspect of it is awful just that compared to it's C3 and C4 brethren (and other options) it is quite frankly one of the worst options.
When was the last time you saw a player with a C2 plasma?
I use one on my Courier, I like it.
I suppose the real problem is that the one situation where the plasma and railgun is worth consideration is when you've got something big and slow to take down. And most people planning on doing that have got a size 3 mount to do it with. If you haven't, then a combination of lasers, cannons, and staying the hell away from battle Anacondas is usually the sensible thing.
Sorry, had to go out.
And actually, I use them a lot.
In the end, it comes down to a combination of flying as well as aiming. If you spend a lot of time manouevring for evasion or to stay on an enemy's tail, you might actually adopt weapons that are all about causing as much damage as possible in quick bursts, hoping to take down their shields and then drill their subsystems (FSD and shield generator) while those shields are down. Some weapons are fine for those high damage opportunistic strikes, rather than keeping your nose on target for as long as possible until the WEP capacitor runs out.
On a Cobra Mk III, with paired gimballed lasers in the small (badly placed) hardpoints, I'd rather have a fixed C2 plasma accelerator and a gimballed C2 cannon rather than two cannons. I know the WEP capacitor allows me two shots before they need a break to recharge. I aim with the slightly offset accelerator and try to steady the shot so the gimballed cannon keeps up. I much prefer this because if I'm having trouble with shields, the accelerator is much better than a cannon for that, but at the same time, if the accelerator needs WEP power, I can keep the pressure on with the cannon. The added benefit is that with the fixed accelerator, if a target chaffs, I don't have to deselect target to shoot straight with at least one (and my hardest hitting weapon), which would mean I have to reselect the targeted subsystem when I retarget them once the chaff is gone.
Now the WEP capacitor on a Cobra, even with an A-rated distributor, is not big enough to manage two plasma accelerators. You fire once with both, and then you're only firing one at a time until your WEP capacitor is back nearly to full. This doesn't work. But using one plasma accelerator with a gimballed cannon does actually work very well for me, better than when I've tried twin cannons. The lack of centreline hardpoint on a Cobra means I picked one side for a fixed weapon and kept the other gimballed. It helps that an accelerator seems to ignore the theory that thermal does less damage to hull and subsystems - my plasma accelerator hits on a subsystem do colossal damage compared to my cannon ones. This is speculative though, with only personal experience to back it up. But an accelerator with gimballed cannon is also a better mix of thermal and kinetic damage overall. That's what I've found, and I flew for months just using cannons in the medium hardpoints and dissatisfied with my weakness with bringing down shields. The accelerator was dramatically better once I could aim with it. It helps that the projectile is faster than a cannon's and so easier to aim.
But the most dramatic performance I saw was in an Imperial Courier, and later in an Imperial Eagle. With two lasers on the outboard hardpoints and a C2 plasma accelerator on the beautiful centreline hardpoint, combined with the manouevrability of both ships, it was a pleasure to use it. You cannot realistically use the lasers at the same time as the accelerator, but the accelerator was all I really needed once the shields were down. The subsystem damage was extreme, and well aimed shots could destroy hull very fast. I was initially worried by the 'Thermal only' damage, but as I said, it really looks like the plasma accelerator ignores that and simply does huge damage to both shields and hull. Subsystem damage is sometimes absurd, with a single hit to an Anaconda shield generator (post 1.4 patch) taking out half its health.
In the end, it comes down to what happens in combat. And even a C2 plasma accelerator seems to be great, as long as its used within its limits. Its heat and power draw have to be managed. I would say that the C3 and C4 plasma accelerators are grotesquely good - aim well with those and they can do monumental damage. But if you commit to flying in a way that compliments the acclerator, even the C2 is pretty damn good. Given the choice on a ship that can't take a C3 or C4, and I'd happily take a C2.
Looking at the other charts makes the class 2 PA look even WORSE, not better. You might notice that with almost EVERY OTHER WEAPON, two class [x] weapons do more damage than one class [x + 1] of the same weapon. Two small beams do more than one medium. Two medium cannons do more than one large. Two large PAs do more than one huge. A weapon always does MORE THAN HALF as much damage as one the next size up.
Now look at the medium PA. It does LESS THAN A THIRD as much damage as a large PA. In addition to that, it uses TWICE as much wep capacitor per damage done. The disparity is so extreme that I honestly wonder if it was an accident- like, one of the devs mis-typed a number or something.
I really like plasma accelerators. They're probably my favorite weapon, and I'm pretty handy at using then. The medium ones are so screwed up though that they're just not practical to use. They draw a horrifying amount of energy considering the damage they do, and I find the smaller ships that could make the best use of them just don't have the capacitor to deal with their unreasonable needs.
EDIT: Did some quick math. If you adjust the medium PA to do as much damage per wep energy as the large PA, the medium PA does a respectable 57.2 damage per shot. This would put it in line with where it should be- slightly more than half the damage of the next class up. If you're curious how I calculated this: Divide the single shot damage by the damage-per-energy. This gives you energy cost per shot. Multiply this by the damage-per-energy of the large PA.
Last edited:
Whoa, honestly not sure what to make of this.
Are you seriously trying to convince everyone that the C2 plasma accelerator is awful based on a comparison with a larger version of itself?
I mean, I'll start with the obvious. This isn't a comparison that makes any sense. It's like you're attempting to smuggle through a bunch of assumptions and then throwing around maths to baffle analysis.
I'm not saying that's what you're doing, just that that's what it looks like. The very first assumption is that the quality of the weapon is the same thing as where it lies on an arbitrary line of performance you've drawn compared with larger classes of itself.
This is weird, because it's pointless comparing that. When you're deciding what to put into a medium hardpoint, you don't compare the performance of the prospective weapon with larger versions of itself. You compare it against other things you could put in the medium hardpoint. Wishing you could put a class 3 PA in there doesn't accomplish anything.
But that's all you've brought up, other than pointing out it has massive WEP capacitor draw, which is just going back to the DPE graph alone again.
This is all besides the fact that you're only looking at a graph of numbers that refers only to different weapons damage vs shields. There's no data on damage vs hull, or penetration to transfer damage to subsystems. So judging the weapon based on incomplete data (which is the only thing you've referred to so far) is probably a mistake? It's also a graph of numbers that assumes perfect shots on target delivered as fast as the weapon can fire. If you're trying to keep the nose of an Eagle on an Anaconda, then that's probably fair. But the reality of using most weapons is that you're not firing it all the time. Often, you're manouevring for position and trying to make as hard a target of yourself as possible (unless you're in a tank of a ship), and when the opportunity for a shot comes, you take it, do as much damage as possible before the opportunity disappears. In those circumstances, DPS and DPE can become very misleading as a way of judging the performance of a weapon. If a weapon can deliver huge point damage in two shots spaced 3 seconds apart, and your target is in view for 3 seconds, the weapon is going to perform better in those specific circumstances than something that delivers many fast low-damage shots in the same period. If you then fly with that in mind, deliberately looking for those opportunity windows to shoot hard and then evading hard between them, then the graph isn't going to do a very good job of putting value on that performance. I'm not saying the plasma accelerator is godly, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that looking at graphs of numbers about weapon damage which are from the start incomplete data, and then using them to come to a broad sweeping conclusion about the weapon being awful seems like a very big stretch.
It also flies in the face of all my experience of using the plasma accelerator. It's also one of my favorite weapons, but the idea that the class 2's are terrible is completely out of whack with what I've seen. I like them, but I also don't want them to turn into a god weapon. If the devs want to make it more effective, then I wouldn't complain... it just seems like a great weapon right now.
Oh my.
Let me start off by saying my opinion on medium plasma accelerators is not simply based off these charts. As I mentioned, I really like plasma accelerators. When I was flying a cobra (back in gamma), I tried using them several times. Kept coming back to them because I really enjoyed their projectile speed, and the fact that they are good against shield and hull. However, every time, after using them for a while, I'd find that the damage they did just didn't justify their energy use, and capacitor drain.
When I got my asp, I again tried then out. I thought the bigger weapon capacitor would make the medium PAs a bit more practical, but even though I was having a slightly easier time managing the weapons capacitor, the damage output still didn't feel worth the resources being used by the gun (power, wep capacitor, one of two medium hardpoints).
Fast forward quite a bit. The adder is released. I try a variety of different combat setups, several of which include a medium PA. Again, I keep running into the situation where though I'm enjoying the weapon's behavior and characteristics, the damage output just isn't enough considering the relatively enormous amount of wep I'm using for each shot. Fitting even the notoriously inefficient beam laser felt like a considerably more efficient use of my wep energy.
Fast forward even more. The courier is released. Again, any hardpoint fit with a pa just didn't feel like it's pulling its weight. I've got the cap to use the weapon, but it just feels underwhelming compared to the variety of other choices.
My point in saying all this is to show that I do have a good bit of experience with the medium plasma accelerator, and my opinion that it is a weak choice is largely based off that experience. I cite those charts, their numbers, and my associated math because those are fact. Anecdotal evidence can be nice, but when it comes to trying to back up my opinion, I prefer to primarily use facts, hard evidence, etc.
Now, as far as comparing the medium to the large PA, I agree it would be ridiculous- if I were just talking about damage dealt. If course the large is better. I'm taking about efficiency, though. With almost every other weapon, the efficiency of the weapon stays consistent across all sizes. The smaller ones do less damage, but they also consume a proportionally smaller amount of energy. In addition, the damage of most other weapons scale at a similar rate as you move up in class.
The bigger weapons all do around 1.6 x the damage of the next smallest version. This is important because it leads to an interesting balance situation. Two small [pretty much any gun other than PA] do more raw damage than one large of that weapon, but suffer a damage penalty against large ships. This leads to two smaller weapons being better against shields and smaller ships, but one larger weapon being better against larger ships (due to not suffering as much damage penalty).
Take pulse lasers, for example. A single shot from a large fixed pulse laser does about 7 damage, and uses about .9 MJ of wep (~7.5 damage per MJ). A single shot from two medium fixed pulse lasers does about 8.4 damage; ~20% more than the single large. The pair of lasers also use ~20% more wep capacitor though, since the mediums have the same damage per energy as the large. In addition, that 8.4 damage will be reduced when attacking large targets hulls by about 33%, that making the single large the more compelling choice in that scenario.
Plasma accelerators do not follow this trend. I believe most people would agree that the large PA is a well balanced weapon. Does a large but fair amount of spike damage, at the cost of using a lot of wep. A single large PA shot does about 93 damage, at the cost of about 13 wep. Again, most people would agree that all things considered (slow-ish projectile, low rate of fire, high fitting requirements, etc.), that's fair. Now let's look at two medium PAs: About 56 damage (About 60% less than a single large), at the cost of 16 wep (~20% more energy than a single large). Let me repeat that: two medium PAs working together well do 60% LESS damage than a single large PA, use 20% more wep capacitor, and will be penalized when attacking large ships.
See the problem here? The large PA is fair weapon with it's current damage output and energy usage, and a compelling choice when considering what weapon to put in a large hardpoint. The medium PA does HALF as much damage per unit of capacitor used as the large. If the large is fair and compelling compared to other weapons in its class, then the medium is about half as strong as it should be, and dramatically outclassed by every other weapon in its size range. It is objectively a weaker choice.
Now, if the medium PA had the same, or at least a similar efficiency to the other sized plasma accelerators (like most all the other weapons), it would either do a significantly more dangerous 56 damage per shot (at the cost of 8MJ of wep), or still do the current 28 damage, but only cost a far more reasonable 4MJ to fire. The former would be more in keeping with the trend all the other weapons follow (and more in keeping to the spirit of the weapon), but either change would at least being the weapon in line with the rest of the medium weapons, and make the medium PA an actually compelling option.
Yes, C2 plasma accelerator seems useless with its current stats...
It has way worse DPS, DPE and single shot damage than C2 railgun, and lower single shot damage somewhat compensates its higher ammo reserves.
It has lower DPE, and WAY lower DPS (more than 3 times lower, actually) than C2 fixed beam. And what is really funny, almost 2 times lower DPS than C1 fixed beam, and ~1.5x lower DPS than C1 fixed pulse (yes, those default laser from free sidewinder
).
Practically i tried it recently on iEagle, and as expected it resulted in worse results than either beam or rail.
It has way worse DPS, DPE and single shot damage than C2 railgun, and lower single shot damage somewhat compensates its higher ammo reserves.
It has lower DPE, and WAY lower DPS (more than 3 times lower, actually) than C2 fixed beam. And what is really funny, almost 2 times lower DPS than C1 fixed beam, and ~1.5x lower DPS than C1 fixed pulse (yes, those default laser from free sidewinder
). Practically i tried it recently on iEagle, and as expected it resulted in worse results than either beam or rail.
Last edited: