I think that was the -70% damage penalty, rather than the AOE radius.
That’s actually a very good idea!
a question about cannons....
- Thread starter CMDR MAmadeo
- Start date
Two large SRB, oversized cannons in my Chief work really well for taking out powerplants. The convergence is so good they're basically coaxial. The downside is rate of fire and it's kind if hard to hit Sideys and Eagles.
In practice, Pacis are surprisingly good at taking out power plants of Anacondas, and a little easier to use against small targets.
As for the OP-s original question, I'd say that you're not too worried about cannons if your shield is up and/or you fly a maneuverable ship. When your shield is down and you fly a ship that's not very fast and nimble, a competent enemy will target your modules and it doesn't matter if it's two small or one big cannon that shoots at you—it's very bad news either way and not a recommended situation to be in.
For a comparison, I don't care if I'm being shot at with a 9mm pistol, 5.56mm or 7.62mm rifle or .50 cal machine gun. I'm being shot at and any one of those calibers hitting me is a really unwanted situation
In practice, Pacis are surprisingly good at taking out power plants of Anacondas, and a little easier to use against small targets.
As for the OP-s original question, I'd say that you're not too worried about cannons if your shield is up and/or you fly a maneuverable ship. When your shield is down and you fly a ship that's not very fast and nimble, a competent enemy will target your modules and it doesn't matter if it's two small or one big cannon that shoots at you—it's very bad news either way and not a recommended situation to be in.
For a comparison, I don't care if I'm being shot at with a 9mm pistol, 5.56mm or 7.62mm rifle or .50 cal machine gun. I'm being shot at and any one of those calibers hitting me is a really unwanted situation
Agreed.
Problem is I just don’t like frags ;-)
Agreed, the difference is minimal anyway.
For module damage in general, I’ve always thought that one big boom is better than several small ones. This is due to the nature of probability and to the fact that each and every impact requires its own breach chance roll.
For example, if you had to choose between one large cannon that does 30 breach damage or three small cannons that do 10 breach damage each, which would you pick? On the first shot the enemy hull will have full integrity and therefore your breach chance will be lowest, 60%.
For the large cannon, on that first shot I have a 60% chance of doing 30 damage to the module and 40% chance of doing nothing. Straightforward. Bigger hits take larger bites out of Module Reinforcement Packages integrity pools which eliminates them faster. Also, if the module target has 30 or less integrity then it’s destroyed on the first hit. There’s nothing more satisfying than destroying a ship with a single power plant hit. Try it sometime.
For the small cannons, I have a (.6 * .6 * .6*) 21.6% chance of doing 30 damage on that first volley. Granted, I only have a 6.4% chance of doing no damage at all, so it’s more likely that I do at least some module damage. But it will take me longer/more shots to chew through the integrity pool of any MRPs present, so subsequent shots are more likely to be reduced by the MRPs percentage reduction.
For example, if you had to choose between one large cannon that does 30 breach damage or three small cannons that do 10 breach damage each, which would you pick? On the first shot the enemy hull will have full integrity and therefore your breach chance will be lowest, 60%.
For the large cannon, on that first shot I have a 60% chance of doing 30 damage to the module and 40% chance of doing nothing. Straightforward. Bigger hits take larger bites out of Module Reinforcement Packages integrity pools which eliminates them faster. Also, if the module target has 30 or less integrity then it’s destroyed on the first hit. There’s nothing more satisfying than destroying a ship with a single power plant hit. Try it sometime.
For the small cannons, I have a (.6 * .6 * .6*) 21.6% chance of doing 30 damage on that first volley. Granted, I only have a 6.4% chance of doing no damage at all, so it’s more likely that I do at least some module damage. But it will take me longer/more shots to chew through the integrity pool of any MRPs present, so subsequent shots are more likely to be reduced by the MRPs percentage reduction.
i have been using shock cannons pretty effected in the right place,fire every time you hit the button but get through ammo quick.
Try a SRB PA in the center large and an advanced missile launcher with penetrator munitions in the center small. Due to the ship’s design they launch from almost the same point in space. From typical Chieftain ranges the inherent inaccuracy of the missile doesn’t matter. You get guaranteed 20 (or 25 with corrosive) module damage with every hit, and if you hit and breach with the PA (with corrosive is recommended) then you do one heck of a lot more. It can one shot Res level ships once you get their shields down if the breach roll and malfunction chance roll are in your favor.
Edit: I’ve also done a OC large cannon and a variable number of advanced penetrator munitions missiles in the various smalls. Same principle with more guaranteed module damage from the missiles.
Last edited:
I do it often in my Python mkii
At least with plasma accelerators you can see where the shots go, having a centre mounted cannon helps as often the slippery suckers fly straight between your shots when head on, and for eagles, they go between the raked wings and the hull; You can adjust for this though, but it is a fiddle for sure.Two large SRB, oversized cannons in my Chief work really well for taking out powerplants. The convergence is so good they're basically coaxial. The downside is rate of fire and it's kind if hard to hit Sideys and Eagles.
In practice, Pacis are surprisingly good at taking out power plants of Anacondas, and a little easier to use against small targets.
As for the OP-s original question, I'd say that you're not too worried about cannons if your shield is up and/or you fly a maneuverable ship. When your shield is down and you fly a ship that's not very fast and nimble, a competent enemy will target your modules and it doesn't matter if it's two small or one big cannon that shoots at you—it's very bad news either way and not a recommended situation to be in.
For a comparison, I don't care if I'm being shot at with a 9mm pistol, 5.56mm or 7.62mm rifle or .50 cal machine gun. I'm being shot at and any one of those calibers hitting me is a really unwanted situation
I tend to have two medium beams on my krait and then whichever hard points remain, cannons. With this setup the beams often take out the offending small fry, before I get a chance to line up a broad side on them, which is what is really required for cannons.
In a curious way, plasma is good training for cannons; Cannons are awesome!
I feel like there's a storytelling question that keeps getting asked here but that nobody is quite addressing. Which is: outside of mechanics, in the worldbuilding how do these things feel and what mental/emotional impact does getting shot at with them likely produce in a character within this world? That is, not the numbers in our computers, but the feeling in the story? Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting.
I'm going to say the story-side impact is likely directly proportional to the mechanics-side penetration value of a human weapon, with a bit of adjustment for weapons that are distinctive and rare to encounter (the, "oh crap, what is that thing?" factor). Think about other dark and crunchy sci-fi: weapons that go through-and-through, in one side of your ship and out the other, are always the most terrifying. They make humans feel small.
Look at any intense battle scene in The Expanse, for example. While tactically the characters are desperately working to avoid or shoot down high explosives and nukes with exciting PD fire, the weapons that always produce maximum emotional impact are the railguns. The exclamation mark in the first pinch point of many battle scenes in that franchise is a character looking over to say something to another character, only to see their comrade is now missing most of their body, reduced to an expanding pink cloud and with a clean, still-glowing hole in the plating behind where they were—and an exactly equal sized hole opposite them. A stray shot just deleted them from the world.
Narratively this is because those kinds of penetrating weapons play up the cosmic horror element that tends to incubate within modern hard sci-fi. Once you exit the warm embrace of Earth (and perhaps also Sol in Elite, as a broader and more operatic universe), the rest of the universe is a cold, dark, uncaring place and it becomes immediately obvious that humans are very, very insignificant. We build starships around ourselves as a futile, thin armor against that universe—like tiny hermit crabs hiding in little shells. Anything that reminds us of this narratively, whether in the universe as a character or outside of it as an audience member, is going to be intrinsically terrifying. Weapons that will punch all the way through a spaceship, only incidentally destroying human flesh or venting precious atmosphere as a side effect, are therefore the scariest. They show how insignificant we are, in visceral terms.
So for that reason I'd personally suspect an in-universe character would be a lot more scared of a single larger cannon over multiple smaller ones. But those would pale in comparison to a railgun opening up on them, and (remembering my adjustment for things you encounter less often) the most terrifying hull-contact sounds of all human weapons is likely to be that of the distinctive and exotic Imperial Hammer.
Narratively: if you hear a volley of Imperial Hammers rapidly punching holes in your hull, with only radio silence following it—silence that makes the shouted demands of pirates or bounty hunters sound friendly by comparison—you know you've done something to personally offend Herself. And now Her agents will pursue you even to the edge of the galaxy and do whatever it takes to turn you into a frozen, asphyxiated, forgotten moonlet of some distant and godsforsaken star. You were always nothing in the face of the Powers, let alone the broader galaxy. All they're doing is proving that fact to you.
In game-engine terms none of that reflects the player experience. But I think that's how a story in any other medium would go.
Last edited:
Yeah, the rail gun episode of expanse was great!
I agree with you that they should be scary, and I think they should be the de-facto long range weapon except for guided missiles and torpedoes. Where does that leave cannons? I would really like them to be THE scariest weapon in the hands of a pilot that can find one of the few weak spots of the hull, where breach damage is possible. The explosive munition was heavily nerfed a while back as it was too effective, but the better nerf I think would have been to reduce breach chance except for very limited areas of the hull, which would have to be struck at the right angle of attack, however a good hit with an explosive round would wreck most internal modules. I have no idea how difficult it would be for frontier to implement of course.
I agree with you that they should be scary, and I think they should be the de-facto long range weapon except for guided missiles and torpedoes. Where does that leave cannons? I would really like them to be THE scariest weapon in the hands of a pilot that can find one of the few weak spots of the hull, where breach damage is possible. The explosive munition was heavily nerfed a while back as it was too effective, but the better nerf I think would have been to reduce breach chance except for very limited areas of the hull, which would have to be struck at the right angle of attack, however a good hit with an explosive round would wreck most internal modules. I have no idea how difficult it would be for frontier to implement of course.
Last edited:
The old cannon from pre-Beta 2 were more intimidating:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I36LEVDFYho
Then again, everything was more intimidating in the early game, when TTKs were an order of magnitude shorter, shields less of one's total defensive pool, and hitting thruster ports still counted as hits to thrusters. Railguns were scary because one lucking shot to the front of one's Viper could cause a malfunction that could get one shot down with the next hit.
Anyway, the game has always had issues with engagement ranges negating a lot of potential suspense. Things like weapons and sensors having roughly the same ranges or the SC/normal space segregation really limit the scenarios where there can be any real build up. Perfect safety until shields fail, with safety just a high-wake away is also rather anti-climactic.
This is one area where Jumpgate really did things better. The only way in or out of a system was at a choke point, sensors had ten times the range of weapons, and there was much more opportunity for protracted pursuit and evasion. Ah well.
I don't think this is at all practical. Currently penetration depth is a fraction of the narrowest box-dimension of the ship, and there is a uniform penetration chance based on weapon. Making high-yield shells have the sort of effect you describe would require each and every ship to be given a new set of penetration depths/hitboxes for just one experimental on one weapon type.
It would also confuse people greatly, which is one of the reasons hits to thruster ports no longer damages thrusters. Compound that with the game being functionally asynchronous--latency compensation means the attacker's perspective takes precedent and that perspective can differ considerably from the defender's, seriously compromising one's ability to use positioning defensively--and I can see there being a lot of complaints and misunderstanding.
Then again, everything was more intimidating in the early game, when TTKs were an order of magnitude shorter, shields less of one's total defensive pool, and hitting thruster ports still counted as hits to thrusters. Railguns were scary because one lucking shot to the front of one's Viper could cause a malfunction that could get one shot down with the next hit.
Anyway, the game has always had issues with engagement ranges negating a lot of potential suspense. Things like weapons and sensors having roughly the same ranges or the SC/normal space segregation really limit the scenarios where there can be any real build up. Perfect safety until shields fail, with safety just a high-wake away is also rather anti-climactic.
This is one area where Jumpgate really did things better. The only way in or out of a system was at a choke point, sensors had ten times the range of weapons, and there was much more opportunity for protracted pursuit and evasion. Ah well.
I don't think this is at all practical. Currently penetration depth is a fraction of the narrowest box-dimension of the ship, and there is a uniform penetration chance based on weapon. Making high-yield shells have the sort of effect you describe would require each and every ship to be given a new set of penetration depths/hitboxes for just one experimental on one weapon type.
It would also confuse people greatly, which is one of the reasons hits to thruster ports no longer damages thrusters. Compound that with the game being functionally asynchronous--latency compensation means the attacker's perspective takes precedent and that perspective can differ considerably from the defender's, seriously compromising one's ability to use positioning defensively--and I can see there being a lot of complaints and misunderstanding.
I agree it would be expensive to implement, not so much that it would be confusing, never underestimate the Elite player base
I agree it would be expensive to implement, not so much that it would be confusing, never underestimate the Elite player base
I think it's a relatively small portion of the player base that has any real understanding of the game's mechanisms, especially the less well documented stuff.
What’s not to understand about air vents, hatches, canopies or similar being soft targets? Anyway it’s an academic discussion, as I doubt frontier will ever allocate different hardness values according to the different hit boxes (which themselves would have to be adapted).
This is a perfect example of largely undocumented mechanisms resulting in confusion.
Breach chance has nothing to do with hull hardness (hardness just reduces damage, it doesn't prevent it) values and a successful breach chance isn't required to damage most external modules. External modules are already soft targets that are exceedingly vulnerable to explosive damage because of this. There is also a lot of inconsistencies from balance cludges that have piled up over the years. For example, canopy and thrusters are still external modules for splash damage and penetration depth (zero), but are internal modules for MRP damage resistance, and the canopy in particular is considered internal for breach chances...which makes no sense from anything other than a balance perspective (Frontier seemingly wanted to reduce the instances of canopy blowouts, so they flipped a few switches). They also change or break things frequently enough that it's a good idea to retest everything one thinks one knows semi-regularly.
Regardless, stuff that is (or should be) highly intuitive in the real-world, or even a fantasy world governed by rules with strong internal consistency, would not be so in Elite: Dangerous. This is a game of handwavium, where exceptions are the rule and the surrealistic is expected.
Last edited:
No, just me writing on the phone, distracted by kids and wife, and therefore nor being precise enough. You are correct that breach chance isn’t affected by hardness, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Making a heat vent or hatch a softer target for cannon shells is far more intuitive in comparison.