Once again we prise open the door to Adle’s Armada’s military secrets vault … this time to discover classified papers concerning the Pulse Disruptor, Felicia Winters' powerplay weapon - being a variant of the medium fixed pulse laser, described in Outfitting as causing ‘malfunctions along with reduced damage.’
Rate of Fire & Damage per Second
The Pulse Disruptor features a reduced rate of fire compared to its standard counterpart, being 1.6 shots/second to 3.4 shots/second respectively. (These are the outfitting r.o.f. figures which are confirmed as accurate.) Put another way, the Pulse Disruptor will provide 47% of the shots of a medium fixed pulse laser.
Although I have not carried out the most structured dps / dpe testing for this weapon, it appears to me to offer precisely the same damage as its standard counterpart but subject to the reduced rate of fire. Weapon capacitor energy use however remains identical. Therefore the Pulse Disruptor offers 47% of the damage per second and 47% of the damage per wep cap use of a c2 fixed pulse laser.
Taking Cmdr StarLightBreaker’s original test figures for the fixed pulse and applying 47%, then adding in the small fixed pulse laser for comparison:
So the Pulse Disruptor does significantly less damage even than a small fixed pulse laser. Note also that the modest figures above are for damage v shields. As a thermic weapon, if fired at the shieldless hull-tanks that are common in ED 1.5, the Pulse Disruptor’s damage is barely even noticeable.
So, how much better than other weapons is it at causing module malfunction?
Structured comparative test: Beta 1.5.3
Following earlier informal tests, I decided to carry out a structured comparison in Beta 1.5.3, with the assistance of Zachary Hudson legend Cmdr Hammer Fall and long-time Adle’s Armada Cmdr Valen Tezolo (thanks both again).
All tests were conducted by firing at either the power plant (from 90 degrees above ship) or drives (from behind ship) of a hull-tank Fer-de-Lance or Corvette, stationary, from 500m except where indicated.
Both target vessels had military bulkheads and HRP’s. The in-game shipyard-confirmed hull strengths were, Corvette: 4,555, Fer-de-Lance 2,028.
Weapons tested were as follows. Except where indicated in the detailed data, all banked weapons were fired simultaneously with checked convergence, meaning all struck the module at the same time:
2 x Pulse Disruptors
2 x medium fixed pulse lasers
4 x fixed medium multi-cannons
single large fixed beam
single large turreted beam
(Yes, we should have tested a gimballed laser, IKR …)
Here are the combined results of multiple test-firings. All times are ‘TTM’ – time to malfunction, rounded to nearest half second. I’ll set out the average TTM for each test first, then the detailed underlying data. '-' means not tested.
Average times to malfunction
Full data for CORVETTE POWER PLANT
Full data for CORVETTE DRIVES
Full data for FdL POWER PLANT
Observations
Damage isn’t noted above but it was obvious that, unlike the other weapons, the single large fixed beam and the quad multis did heavy damage to the subsystem in question. The Pulse Disruptors in particular did next to nothing damage-wise. On the other hand, notwithstanding the Pulse Disruptor’s unremarkable performance on testing, in a real fight the first hit to a module might be an isolated one and perhaps the disruptor could have a better ‘per shot’ chance of causing a one-off initial malfunction (I say, ‘perhaps’). Although our test outcomes were disappointing, Cmdr Hammer Fall did later go on to report some ‘jackpot’ moments in real PvP, when (eg) he managed to disrupt an enemy’s FSD with a single hit.
Something else for further testing might be whether the cumulative benefits of stacking Pulse Disruptors are linear or exponential. Personally, I did once manage to secure what seemed an infinite malfunction loop on a hostile player Cutter’s power plant using triple disruptors, although sadly the experiment had to be aborted when the test subject unaccountably disappeared.
For now, bearing in mind the massive sacrifice in dps, the difficulty targeting modules of a silent runner and the availability of other attractive c2 weapons such as rail guns, it seems likely that the Pulse Disruptor will remain a rare sight on the battlefield.
Further reading
For testing of power plant damage (not disruption) by laser type, see this great thread by Cmdr ‘jgm’:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=202215
See you in the black!
TRUESILVER
Adle’s Armada
www.inara.cz/wing/336
Rate of Fire & Damage per Second
The Pulse Disruptor features a reduced rate of fire compared to its standard counterpart, being 1.6 shots/second to 3.4 shots/second respectively. (These are the outfitting r.o.f. figures which are confirmed as accurate.) Put another way, the Pulse Disruptor will provide 47% of the shots of a medium fixed pulse laser.
Although I have not carried out the most structured dps / dpe testing for this weapon, it appears to me to offer precisely the same damage as its standard counterpart but subject to the reduced rate of fire. Weapon capacitor energy use however remains identical. Therefore the Pulse Disruptor offers 47% of the damage per second and 47% of the damage per wep cap use of a c2 fixed pulse laser.
Taking Cmdr StarLightBreaker’s original test figures for the fixed pulse and applying 47%, then adding in the small fixed pulse laser for comparison:
| WEAPON | DPS | DPE |
| c2 fixed pulse laser | 14.3 | 7.56 |
| Pulse Disruptor | 6.72 | 3.55 |
| c1 fixed pulse laser | 9.35 | 7.56 |
So the Pulse Disruptor does significantly less damage even than a small fixed pulse laser. Note also that the modest figures above are for damage v shields. As a thermic weapon, if fired at the shieldless hull-tanks that are common in ED 1.5, the Pulse Disruptor’s damage is barely even noticeable.
So, how much better than other weapons is it at causing module malfunction?
Structured comparative test: Beta 1.5.3
Following earlier informal tests, I decided to carry out a structured comparison in Beta 1.5.3, with the assistance of Zachary Hudson legend Cmdr Hammer Fall and long-time Adle’s Armada Cmdr Valen Tezolo (thanks both again).
All tests were conducted by firing at either the power plant (from 90 degrees above ship) or drives (from behind ship) of a hull-tank Fer-de-Lance or Corvette, stationary, from 500m except where indicated.
Both target vessels had military bulkheads and HRP’s. The in-game shipyard-confirmed hull strengths were, Corvette: 4,555, Fer-de-Lance 2,028.
Weapons tested were as follows. Except where indicated in the detailed data, all banked weapons were fired simultaneously with checked convergence, meaning all struck the module at the same time:
2 x Pulse Disruptors
2 x medium fixed pulse lasers
4 x fixed medium multi-cannons
single large fixed beam
single large turreted beam
(Yes, we should have tested a gimballed laser, IKR …)
Here are the combined results of multiple test-firings. All times are ‘TTM’ – time to malfunction, rounded to nearest half second. I’ll set out the average TTM for each test first, then the detailed underlying data. '-' means not tested.
Average times to malfunction
| TARGET | 2xP.Disruptors | 2xPulse | 4xMulti | Fix.Beam | Tur.Beam |
| Corvette PP | 5+ | 2.5 | 7 | 2 | yawn |
| Corvette Drives | 4.5 | - | 4 | 4.5 | - |
| FdL PP | 3 | - | - | 4 | - |
Full data for CORVETTE POWER PLANT
TWO PULSE DISRUPTORS v Corvette power plant, TTM:-
a. Never (12.5 seconds, nothing) b. 4.5 secs c. 2.5 secs d. 3 secs e. 10.5 secs
Average (of last four only) approx: 5 secs
TWO MEDIUM FIXED PULSE LASERS v Corvette power plant, TTM:-
a. 2.5 secs b. 4 secs c. 3 secs d. 2 secs e. 2 secs
Average approx: 2.5 secs
FIXED MULTI-CANNONS v Corvette power plant, TTM:-
a. 5 secs (from 500 m, four fired but only two multis converging) b. 5 secs (now from 1000 m, all four converging) c. 12 secs (again 1000 m, all four)
Average approx:- 7 secs
LARGE FIXED BEAM v Corvette power plant, TTM:-
a. 1 sec b. 4 secs c. 2 secs d. 2 secs e. 1 sec
Average approx: 2 secs
TURRETED LARGE BEAM v Corvette power plant, TTM:-
a. absolutely never (40 secs, nothing) b. 14 secs c. 11 secs
Average approx: too long
a. Never (12.5 seconds, nothing) b. 4.5 secs c. 2.5 secs d. 3 secs e. 10.5 secs
Average (of last four only) approx: 5 secs
TWO MEDIUM FIXED PULSE LASERS v Corvette power plant, TTM:-
a. 2.5 secs b. 4 secs c. 3 secs d. 2 secs e. 2 secs
Average approx: 2.5 secs
FIXED MULTI-CANNONS v Corvette power plant, TTM:-
a. 5 secs (from 500 m, four fired but only two multis converging) b. 5 secs (now from 1000 m, all four converging) c. 12 secs (again 1000 m, all four)
Average approx:- 7 secs
LARGE FIXED BEAM v Corvette power plant, TTM:-
a. 1 sec b. 4 secs c. 2 secs d. 2 secs e. 1 sec
Average approx: 2 secs
TURRETED LARGE BEAM v Corvette power plant, TTM:-
a. absolutely never (40 secs, nothing) b. 14 secs c. 11 secs
Average approx: too long
Full data for CORVETTE DRIVES
TWO PULSE DISRUPTORS v Corvette drives, TTM:-
a. 6 secs b. 3 secs
Average approx: 4.5 secs
FIXED MULTI-CANNONS v Corvette drives, TTM:-
(All from 1000 m, all four converging)
a. 2 secs b. 3 secs c. 5 secs d. 7 secs
Average approx:- 4 secs
LARGE FIXED BEAM v Corvette drives, TTM:-
a. Never b. 11 secs c. 3 secs d. 3 secs e. 4 secs f. 2 secs
Average (of last five) approx: 4.5 secs
a. 6 secs b. 3 secs
Average approx: 4.5 secs
FIXED MULTI-CANNONS v Corvette drives, TTM:-
(All from 1000 m, all four converging)
a. 2 secs b. 3 secs c. 5 secs d. 7 secs
Average approx:- 4 secs
LARGE FIXED BEAM v Corvette drives, TTM:-
a. Never b. 11 secs c. 3 secs d. 3 secs e. 4 secs f. 2 secs
Average (of last five) approx: 4.5 secs
Full data for FdL POWER PLANT
TWO PULSE DISRUPTORS v Fer-de-Lance power plant, TTM:-
a. 6 secs b. 4 secs c. 2 secs d. 1 sec
Average approx: 3 secs
LARGE FIXED BEAM v Fer-de-Lance power plant, TTM:-
a. 5 secs b. 0.5 sec c. 2.5 secs d. 0.5 sec
Average approx: 4 secs
a. 6 secs b. 4 secs c. 2 secs d. 1 sec
Average approx: 3 secs
LARGE FIXED BEAM v Fer-de-Lance power plant, TTM:-
a. 5 secs b. 0.5 sec c. 2.5 secs d. 0.5 sec
Average approx: 4 secs
Observations
Damage isn’t noted above but it was obvious that, unlike the other weapons, the single large fixed beam and the quad multis did heavy damage to the subsystem in question. The Pulse Disruptors in particular did next to nothing damage-wise. On the other hand, notwithstanding the Pulse Disruptor’s unremarkable performance on testing, in a real fight the first hit to a module might be an isolated one and perhaps the disruptor could have a better ‘per shot’ chance of causing a one-off initial malfunction (I say, ‘perhaps’). Although our test outcomes were disappointing, Cmdr Hammer Fall did later go on to report some ‘jackpot’ moments in real PvP, when (eg) he managed to disrupt an enemy’s FSD with a single hit.
Something else for further testing might be whether the cumulative benefits of stacking Pulse Disruptors are linear or exponential. Personally, I did once manage to secure what seemed an infinite malfunction loop on a hostile player Cutter’s power plant using triple disruptors, although sadly the experiment had to be aborted when the test subject unaccountably disappeared.
For now, bearing in mind the massive sacrifice in dps, the difficulty targeting modules of a silent runner and the availability of other attractive c2 weapons such as rail guns, it seems likely that the Pulse Disruptor will remain a rare sight on the battlefield.
Further reading
For testing of power plant damage (not disruption) by laser type, see this great thread by Cmdr ‘jgm’:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=202215
See you in the black!
TRUESILVER
Adle’s Armada
www.inara.cz/wing/336
