Hi pilots!

Component and especially blaster choices have been discussed a lot on this forum.

There are guides and various recommendations on which weapon fits best for which ship and situation.

Many thoughts, facts, etc. have been tossed into the threads.

I want to add some visualization on this topic to make it easier to see the differences of all the blasters depending on ship outfitting and target conditions.

Find here some charts showing damage by range for common choices and situations.

Component and crew choices as well as assumed tracking arc and target evasion can be found in the chart titles.

T4 and T5 choices on guns were made as commonly recommended (crit chance picked over drain reduction, hull damage over shield damage ...).

The prepared chart images focus on scouts. Not all shown guns are available in conjunction with all component choices. The reason all guns are shown on all charts is because of the dynamic Excel sheet that is the source of these chart images.

[EDIT]: Warning for the less experienced pilots: Keep in mind these charts assume you being on target. The less accurate you are yourself with bringing the reticule onto the target the less damage you will do. Especially the realization of the damage shown for BLC and LLC highly depends on your skill set. Where BLC demands the ability to accurately snapshot a target, LLC requires you to be able to closely follow a target.

- Gunship by surprise WM/TT

- Gunship by surprise WM/BO

- Gunship by surprise CF/TT

- Gunship by surprise CF/BO

- Gunship by surprise CF/BO/FC

- Evading scout WM/TT

- Evading scout CF/BO

- Bomber (Deflection Armor) WM/TT

[EDIT]: Step function charts as demanded:

- Gunship by surprise (WM/TT at 500m)

- Gunship by surprise (WM/BO at 500m)

- Gunship by surprise (CF/TT at 500m)

- Gunship by surprise (CF/BO at 500m)

- Evading scout (WM/TT at 500m)

[EDIT]: Time to kill charts:

- GS surprise (WM/TT/DC at 500m)

- GS surprise (WM/BO/DC at 500m)

- GS surprise (CF/TT/DC at 500m)

- GS surprise (CF/BO/DC at 500m)

- GS surprise (CF/BO/FC at 500m)

- GS surprise (CF/BO/DC at 500m, QLC vs BLC)

- GS surprise (CF/BO/FC at 500m, QLC vs BLC)

If there is demand for other situations you would like to have a chart for, don't hesitate to ask for them. I will edit this post and add more charts.

If you would like to play with the Excel sheet yourself, you can find it here:

Excel Workbook (1.6)

Send me a PM if you have any questions on the chart or post your question here.

Remark: The sheets are "protected" without a password, just to avoid accidental changes.

Have fun

- Blizzax

[EDIT]: Added time to kill charts for BLC and QLC.

Cool charts, what I'm gathering from this is that CF is not really worthwhile unless you're opening from super close ranges.

It would be interesting to see these numbers against the increasingly popular directional shield builds.

Out of interest of accuracy, I think a better representation would be either a graph that shows damage potential for each shot. I mean, not a DPS graph, but one where you can see the damage per shot on the first shot, second shot etc.

You'd need to either average for crits or create two functions and show the chance beside each one, of course... But it would show CF in a more favorable light, I think. Also, TTK is a big factor here.

What does "Evasion 28" mean? Is that the gunship's evasion? If so, where did you get that number from?

Hi Greezt, I began something like you proposed some time ago. In the end I was more interested in the data considering long term use.

If you would like to see probabilities for maximum damage per shot and alike: some of this information is calculated on a sheet within that workbook; together with stuff like damage per magazine, time per shot, ...

Evasion of the surprised gunship: Light Armor 9, Disto 9, Crew 5, Chassis 5.

Oh. Well, gunships get 0% evasion from their chassis

I actually made something similar for guildes on TRE, but I ended up scrapping it... My idea was to give them the tips and nuances I know, and this felt a bit useless in improving gameplay.

I'm out of town right now, but I'll take a look at the other numbers you have when I get the chance. In general, though, modelling blaster damage linearly gives potentially false info. For example, BLCs can deal over 850 damage per shot. Before your target's reaction time, before anything, you dealt 850 damage. With LLC you'd need two shots to deal that much damage... Which means another .3 seconds, which is enough for a good player to react.

All this before factoring in accuracy, evasion etc. Obviously capacitors affect this, but this is the main reason I think showing damage increase over time is more useful.

Maybe I misunderstand you. But accuracy, etc. is relevant beginning with the first shot.

Probably you meant the target might move or pop disto after the first hit. Then you could have a look at another scenario and increase tracking arc and evasion (for example the 68 evasion, 12 degrees arc chart image).

Thanks for the hint on the chassis, I'll correct that. It won't have much impact on the overall outcome though.

[EDIT]: Changed the GS evasion on those charts to 23.

Showing damage over time is not that interesting to me as the steps you create by plotting the individual shots cannot be compared very well. The comparison you can do then depends on your individual pick of the time frame. And seeing a gun being best at 2.3 seconds but another better at 2.7 to be only topped again by the first at 2.9 isn't telling you that much. In fact I saw this already in a previous approach on comparing the guns.

The thing is you won't always fire at someone with a burst window of exactly let's say 2.2 seconds. There will be 1.9 as well as 3.0.

Knowing that you can fire 2 shots with a BLC in 1.5 seconds and could get a third, if your target allows you to till 2.25 isn't helping either. At least to me it's more important to know how the guns behave on average considering their use in a thousand attacks.

Accuracy, evasion, tracking etc. are always relevant. What I mean is the usefulness of the blasters can be gauged better by using step functions instead of linear damage/time line.

Correct me if I misunderstood your graphs, but you show DPS as a function of range in them. My problem with DPS is that it assumes long uptime on target. For example, no one would think the Pike is better than a gunship, even if it can deal much higher theoretical DPS to any target.

All this not to take anything from your work, of course

I think that if you do go for linear graphs, DPSh/distance is a much more accurate representation of the efficiency of blasters. It doesn't show accuracy etc, though...

Kinda loving the validation of LLC that I use in a lot of builds. This is some great data!

Do keep in mind that this data assumes that the target is sitting there and doing pretty much nothing to defend itself, and may not represent performance in cases where the target is actually trying to survive.

Or to put it another way, the validation is only likely to be valid when killing turrets, drones, mines, and unskilled pilots.

It's those damn model assumptions and conditions, they get you every time. That's largely what Greetz was going on about.

There is a reason those charts are called "...surprise...". 0 degrees tracking, minimal evasion. And assuming you are on target. That may be true for 1-2 seconds.

The "evadind scout" shows other tracking and evasion but also assumes you are on target with your mouse.

So it depends pretty much on your ability to bring those numbers home.

For LLC you will miss more on an evading target than using BLC. On the other hand a single miss on BLC let's you lose a lot of damage.

It keeps being a question of personal accuracy. If you are good at snapshots, you should go for BLC. And, not to forget AP...

And, Ramalina, Greezt, I'll gladly paint a step function for you.

You will see that the informational value isn't much better than of the dps chart. Just because for the step chart to make any sense you also have to assume you are on target with your mouse.

Furthermore you would reduce the informational value as you would have to fix the range for any given chart.

For any kind of chart on this matter you have to know what you are able to do to make the right conclusion.

And as most of us say: The difference in skill between two pilots is much more important than gear.

To conclude for now: These numbers and charts are not meant to show which gun is the best. It's for showing differences in range, target conditions and component choices.

Found a small accuracy bug in the workbook (while preparing the step function )... Will correct that.

[EDIT]: Fixed and updated the uploaded charts and workbook.

...what I'm gathering from this is that CF is not really worthwhile unless you're opening from super close ranges...

Also important to note for the non-veterans: The uptime of CF is only 6 seconds. For Wingman it's 20. Blaster Overcharge also has a shorter uptime than Targeting Telemetry. This has already been discussed in other threads.

Those of you not having that level of experience as Siraka and other veterans should be careful about choosing BO and CF. You really should know what you are going to use that for.

...Or to put it another way, the validation is only likely to be valid when killing turrets, drones, mines, and unskilled pilots...

This sentence is not true the way you put it. The charts show specific situations with tracking arc and evasion (see the evading scout one calculating 12° arc).

What still is required to produce those numbers in a match is your ability to keep your mouse on target, which will vary vastly by pilot and enemy. But those conditions cannot be brought into a comparing calculation like that. You will still have to bring this data into a personal context regarding your own abilities and the abilities of the target type you want to analyze.

For those looking for a step function.

Here a chart comparing BLC and LLC at 500m (WM, TT, 0°, 23 evasion, 5 damage reduction):

Step Chart

[EDIT]: Updated the link to point to the new chart featuring all guns.

I think this step function shows why BLCs are better than LLCs in practically all all situations. You can see that in order to deal maximal damage with BLCs you only need to be on target once every .75 seconds, while with LLCs you need to be on target every .3 seconds. So for practically all evasive targets BLCs are better.

Since BLCs have armor pen too, they're better against CP bombers too...

Edit: even if you're on target for the whole time with LLCs, BLCs still have the advantage for most of the time shown here.

And any target that allows you 5000 damage uptime on them wouldn't be considered an evasive target.

Greezt, I do not deny that BLC is better than LLC. AP is the most important argument. If there is BLC to choose, take it.

But I do not think, it's that much easier to have your mouse exactly then on target, when the BLC is ready to fire. That would be necessary to get the most out of its potential damage. And you still will have to follow your target closely to fire at the right moment.

But that seems to be a question of personal experience and opinion.

To me these calculations were especially interesting when comparing LC, QLC and LLC. Or for looking at popular component and crew choices.

But I will add more step charts considering all guns with shield and hull damage, maybe even showing the damage buildup from full shields to zero hull.

The good thing about step functions is that you don't have to make any assumptions with them, and that's why I think they're better (regardless of LLC/BLC comparison).

I actually believe that for certain builds LLCs are viable. Not over BLCs, but over lasers they can be.

So, I've added all guns with shield and hull damage to the step function calculations and updated the already posted chart. I've also added more charts to show the component/crew choices also with the step function.

The workbook is uploaded with the new version.

By the way: the workbook has a configuration sheet, where you can put in your desired setup of components, etc. This setup is immediately reflected within the sheets with the resulting data and charts.

I just got to a computer. I have to say I appreciate all the work put into this. This must've taken ages...

About analyzing the graphs: what I can see from them is that in the first 3 seconds, BO+CF is the strongest pair for burst. The surprising thing for me is that TT gains more from CF than BO does. I've never flown it on a scout, but I might try it out next week. It might pair well with burst/clusters, I think.

I found a way to balance RFL in game.

I've added time-to-kill-charts for BLC and LLC with common component choices.

The charts are somewhat harder to read than the others.

The calculation behind these charts is quite complete and takes into account all relevant facts.

The percentage number on each line's description shows the overall probability of that damage path (considering hit and crit chances).

Currently there is one simplification made: Crits are treated as if happening on the first shots. So crits affect the calculation in a way that the chart has to be seen as maximum time to kill for a given shot/crit line. Maximum because critting on the last shots causes - considering popular upgrade choices - slightly more hull damage.

For those looking for the ultra fast kill I've added two charts comparing QLC and BLC with popular component choices for fast killing (see first post for details).

Again a warning for the new pilots: "Concentrated Fire" is up for only a very short time (6s).