Just how much "ambush burst damage" can a TT/CF Scout do?

[Nemarus]

Let's look at the math... and let's assume that the window for "surprise damage" is approximately one second. Meaning that it takes the average person 1 second to realize they are being shot and take evasive action to prevent further damage.

 

Damage in one second, on average = (DPS)(1) + (DPS)(crit)(surge) = (DPS)(1+ (crit)(surge))

 

Damage and effects of the involved components:

MLC (for T1 Scouts) = 1058 - 984 - 749 (crit 8%)

QLC (for T2 Scouts) = 1177 - 1094 - 886 (crit 8%)

Rocket Pods = 437 - 437 - 437 (shield piercing 28%)

TT = (crit + 15%) (surge + 25%)

CF = primary crit + 36%

 

MLC/RP/TT (no Concentrated Fire)=

(749)(1 + (.23)(.75)) = 749(1.1725) = 878.2 DPS

(984)(1 + (.23)(.75)) = 984(1.1725) = 1153.7 DPS

(1058)(1 + (.23)(.75)) = 1058(1.1725) = 1240.6 DPS

(437)(1 + (.15)(.75)) = 437(1.1125) = 486.2 DPS

Average damage in a second, at mid range, vs. shields = 1639.9

 

MLC/RP/TT/CF=

(749)(1 + (.59)(.75)) = 749(1.4425) = 1080.4 DPS

(984)(1 + (.59)(.75)) = 984(1.4425) = 1419.4 DPS

(1058)(1 + (.59)(.75)) = 1058(1.4425) = 1526.2 DPS

(437)(1 + (.15)(.75)) = 437(1.1125) = 486.2 DPS

Average damage in a second, at mid range, vs. shields = 1905.6

 

QLC/RP/TT=

(886)(1 + (.23)(.75)) = 886(1.1725) = 1038.8 DPS

(1094)(1 + (.23)(.75)) = 1094(1.1725) = 1282.7 DPS

(1177)(1 + (.23)(.75)) = 1177(1.1725) = 1380.0 DPS

(437)(1 + (.15)(.75)) = 437(1.1125) = 486.2 DPS

Average damage in a second, at mid range, vs. shields = 1768.9

 

QLC/RP/TT/CF=

(886)(1 + (.59)(.75)) = 886(1.4425) = 1278.1 DPS

(1094)(1 + (.59)(.75)) = 1094(1.4425) = 1578.1 DPS

(1177)(1 + (.59)(.75)) = 1177(1.4425) = 1697.8 DPS

(437)(1 + (.15)(.75)) = 437(1.1125) = 486.2 DPS

Average damage in a second, at mid range, vs. shields = 2064.3

 

Those are some impressive numbers--that being said, all of them assume mid-range is when you start shooting, which requires you to close to within 3450m (assuming a Range Capacitor).

 

In the interest of evaluating "ambush burst damage", let's take a look at Slug Railgun damage.

 

Slug with crit talent=

(1600)(1 + (.15)(.50)) = 1600(1.075) = 1720 average damage per shot

 

Slug with damage talent

(1760)(1 + (0)(.50)) = 1760 = 1760 average damage per shot

 

Only for the Slug railgun, the window of reaction time is zero. Not half a second. Not a quarter of a second. Zero. you're at full health--and suddenly you take 1700 damage from someone across the map, with no warning unless you happened to be looking their way. 15000m away.

 

1760 damage from a Gunship 15000m away with no warning

 

vs.

 

2064.3 damage from someone 3450m away who spends a full second shooting at you, without you taking any defensive action

 

Personally, I feel that the risk required in closing to mid or short range is worth the extra burst damage, especially when compared with what a railgun can deliver (and keeping in mind that the the railgun's damage is ALL shield-piercing and armor-piercing, as opposed to the Scout, who only has that benefit on his Rocket Pod damage).

 

Am I saying TT/CF is just fine as is? No. But I think it is necessary to include rebalance of Scout cooldowns and rebalance of railgun in the same discussion, since both are tightly inter-related and establish the bounding boxes of the meta. And I think TT alone (without CF) is pretty close to reasonable.

 

Both of these examples of extreme ambush burst damage are terrible for the game. They make playing Strikes impossible, and they make the game inaccessible for newbies. BOTH must be adjusted.

 

As for BO and/or BLC's, I don't think there is any debate there.

 

EDIT: Corrected for my incorrect morning-thought that CF applied to Railguns and adjusted conclusions appropriately.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Nemarus

[Ryuku-sama]

.............

 

You forgot to take in your math the latency where the 1s reaction time becomes around 0.5 sec.

[TrinityLyre]

In the interest of evaluating "ambush burst damage", let's take a look at Slug damage when using Concentrated Fire...

Are you making this extremely horrible comparison out of ignorance? Setting all your math aside, CF doesn't work on secondary weapons like railguns. You've also omitted accuracy, which works differently between the two ship types (and if you included it, gunships would be the ones suffering). Scouts want to fire as close as possible for maximum burst damage (different than sustained or overall damage), that includes quads & pods. If you're going to do a real analysis of TT/CF burst damage to point out that railguns need balancing, do the math. I can record tons of games where I blow up any enemy ship type in what amounts to 1-1.5 seconds using this combination (with a variety of weaponry).

 

A slug railgun crit will only one-shot a scout, and only when it manages to actually crit (16% of shots). Against any other ship, the railgun will need to charge again, most of the time to full. Gunship burst damage is minimal compared to these cooldowns you haven't quite figured out yet.

 

Only for the Slug railgun, the window of reaction time is zero. Not half a second. Not a quarter of a second. Zero.

Actually for a skilled, spatially-aware pilot the reaction time is "once you see the glow" - which can be up to 2.7 seconds-ish. If you're playing anything other than a scout, you will see the glow yet again. You have time to react. Plenty.

 

Am I saying TT/CF is just fine as is? No. But it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that TT/CF is unbalanced

Well, given your comparison is weak and doesn't make sense I don't think this holds weight any longer. As someone who regularly abuses this mechanic on both scouts, I believe the combination is unbalanced.

 

Both of these examples of extreme ambush burst damage are terrible for the game. They make playing Strikes impossible, and they make the game inaccessible for newbies. BOTH must be adjusted, significantly.

I agree with this, though. Instant deaths are terrible for the game. Burst damage should exist, but not the way it does now.

Edited July 7, 2014 by TrinityLyre

[Verain]

As it turns out, "average cases" aren't that amazing at determining burst damage. Burst damage often involves more than the average number of crits.

 

You are also leaving out light laser cannon (the highest theoretical dps) and burst laser cannon (who ignores armor, even though his dps is lower).

 

You also assume mid range, when in fact some of the crazier stuff can happen at close range, and you are masking a detail that I think you know means that a full second of uptime is reasonable under many situations, even one where the defender boosts away with instant response time.

 

Dealing with normalized damage eliminates important things, such as a single burst laser cannon critting for 1400+ with plenty more where that came from. Your situation assumes an average number of crits- literally this can't happen over a one second window, so the whole thing is imaginary.

 

 

You'll either get crits or you won't. If you get crits, you'll way outdo the ~500ish dps of a railgun, whose max crit (with an 18% chance of crit, not a 51% chance, and one die roll at that, not like four) is 2400. The railgun who crits at 100% rate after the full three second charge is very close to your AVERAGE case dps over one second.

 

 

The bigger problem is that math is hardly suited to describe this with so many important variable left out. The reason we have to rail on scout burst is because it can FAR EXCEED the average case, and it can't just be effortlessly LOSed like a railslug can. With a bit of host latency on the scout's machine, you can die 10km away from the scout through server damage replay that you never got to respond to.

 

 

 

 

You can die subsecond to a scout with TT+CF popped. That's a fact. And if you don't, the scout doesn't have to charge up a nice fresh rail slug- he has a few more seconds of TT+CF after that, PLENTY of TT time after CF goes away, is right on your tail, and will trivialize distortion field / directional shield, and, depending on connection, engine components. And TT is up half the time.

 

 

 

Mathematical sophistry with cleverly chosen assumptions and pretending that triple crits don't exist, won't fix the burst problem of scouts. Direct nerfs or redesigns will, and only those things.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Verain

[phoenixjon]

Are you making this extremely horrible comparison out of ignorance? Ignoring all your math, CF doesn't work on secondary weapons like railguns. You've also omitted accuracy, which works differently between the two ship types. Scouts want to fire as close as possible for maximum burst damage, and that includes Quads & pods.

 

 

Actually for a skilled, spatially-aware pilot the reaction time is "once you see the glow" - which can be up to 2.7 seconds-ish.

 

 

Well, given your comparison is weak and doesn't make sense I don't think this holds weight any longer.

 

 

I agree with this, though. Instant deaths are terrible for the game. Burst damage should exist.

 

Gunsheep supports this. Not knowing CF is primary weapon only is pretty lols

[Ryuku-sama]

You are also leaving out light laser cannon (the highest theoretical dps) and burst laser cannon (who ignores armor, even though his dps is lower)..

 

You're wrong here Verain... do the maths... BLC and LLC have the exact same DPS. if you factor in crits BLC has HIGHEST DPS then LLC due to a far less normalized crit rate due to its far lower RoF. It can also has lowest if it never crit tho.

 

EDIT : And this is while ignoring Armor/Shield Pen.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Ryuku-sama

[Verain]

Man that CF thing, I didn't even get to the part where he mangles the math for slugs by pretending that 36% crit can be applied to it instead of 0%, I was way above.

 

While you are mostly correct to ignore accuracy in the quads and pods TT phase, you NEED to consider it for the railslug as well. Your assumptions for the cooldowns are bad, but your assumptions for the railslug are ABYSMAL.

[phoenixjon]

You're wrong here Verain... do the maths... BLC and LLC have the exact same DPS. if you factor in crits BLC has HIGHEST DPS then LLC due to a far less normalized crit rate due to its far lower RoF. It can also has lowest if it never crit tho.

 

EDIT : And this is while ignoring Armor/Shield Pen.

 

Nemrus pulls out numbers from hangar screen and makes false premises. You pull numbers out of thin air and make false premise. Today must be "Pretend I Can Do Logic Day". Nice try though guys.

Edited July 7, 2014 by phoenixjon

[Verain]

You're wrong here Verain... do the maths... BLC and LLC have the exact same DPS. if you factor in crits BLC has HIGHEST DPS then LLC due to a far less normalized crit rate due to its far lower RoF. It can also has lowest if it never crit tho.

 

EDIT : And this is while ignoring Armor/Shield Pen.

 

 

What?

 

This is trivially wrong.

 

> LLC close range at 1148 dps

> BLC close range at 1017 dps

 

1148 is more than 1017.

 

Both can select between a 16% dps boost to hull or an 18% dps boost to shields.

 

LLC has 8% crit, BLC has 5% crit.

 

Whatever you just said about "...if you factor in crits BLC has HIGHEST DPS then LLC due to a far less normalized crit rate due to its far lower RoF..." is so far from making sense that it isn't even wrong, it's just off topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what I said briefly was correct, what you said in more words was wrong, and if you argue with this post you are just wasting everyone's time.

[Nemarus]

Blech, not sure why my brain didn't catch that CF doesn't apply to railguns. Must've been all Verain's posts of yore about how railguns are not really secondary weapons.

 

Anyway, fixed the math accordingly and adjusted my conclusions. Consider this more of an educational thread, rather than a partisan one now

 

I still think you have to address Scout and Gunship burst together. Given the apples to oranges nature of the two, it's hard to say what their relative magnitudes should be. My only concern is that if a Scout cannot quickly kill a Gunship in retaliation, then Gunships will naturally just start getting very high K/D ratios, which will further promote whole groups of them flying in TDM.

 

FYI, I didn't include BLC's because I think they are inherently unbalanced on a Scout, regardless of what cooldowns they are compared with. I think the same is true of BO. My primary concern is ensuring that TT builds are not over nerfed--and I think if you look at the numbers that do not include CF, you can see they are pretty tame.

 

As for Accuracy, the two do play differently between railguns and lasers/pods, but actually comparing weapons, factoring for accuracy, would be very difficult and would only represent narrow situations, since target Evasion and target evasiveness both play a big part. You could view the above model as accurate for shooting at Bombers.

 

As for latency, I doubt anyone with 500ms+ ping is going to be some powerhouse that unbalances game. Sure they might get a lucky lag-burst kill here and there, but most of the time they're going to be useless. I know I have been every time I play on a hotel network

Edited July 7, 2014 by Nemarus

[Kuciwalker]

Scouts don't need subsecond burst to kill gunships. Scout speed and maneuverability advantage mean that they have a pretty easy time getting longer time-on-target. Against exceptional evasive gunship flying the scout may have to spend a while running the gunship down, but properly flown the scout can do this 100% of the time. Edited July 7, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[TrinityLyre]

Anyway, fixed the math accordingly and adjusted my conclusions. Consider this more of an educational thread, rather than a partisan one now

It would have to be educational, scout burst isn't optimal until you're at the closest ranges (I tend to "surprise" people at <1500m). If you're not firing as close as you can you're not trying to maximize your burst capability.

 

if a Scout cannot quickly kill a Gunship in retaliation, then Gunships will naturally just start getting very high K/D ratios

I'm going to use an example I run across in "good player" games - fighting against Renegade-one. When I fly a Sting against him he's (mostly) aware that I'm there and on him. By sticking to him I'm taking him out of the fight, regardless of whether or not I kill him (if I'm persistent it's bound to happen). His only chance of easily taking me out of the fight is critting me with a slug shot while I'm incoming. Once I'm there, he can't fight back and expect to win (unless fighting against inferior players, which I'll admit happens very often); if he stops running he's signing his own death warrant. If he continues running and that peel never comes, he's as good as dead. That's a decent tradeoff when you consider that I can evade enemies attacking me and flee when necessary.

 

Anecdotally, every time we get a matchup like this his K/D is terrible and mine shoots through the roof (unless he brings lots of peels, which changes the situation completely). He's a good player and a great demonstration of what I'm trying to get across here. Skilled gunships will not get excellent K/Ds unless facing inferior pilots or getting solid peels from teammates.

 

My primary concern is ensuring that TT builds are not over nerfed--and I think if you look at the numbers that do not include CF, you can see they are pretty tame.

Wrong, because you avoid accuracy, which TT gives a great deal of. TT benefits both primary and secondary weaponry and drops enemy evasion while also increasing your accuracy. As we've established in the past (my guide has math in the first 1-3 pages, thanks Armond/Verain/Ramalina/etc), accuracy is one of the biggest determinants of damage. You can't just ignore it when making an argument.

Edited July 7, 2014 by TrinityLyre

[SammyGStatus]

My only concern is that if a Scout cannot quickly kill a Gunship in retaliation, then Gunships will naturally just start getting very high K/D ratios, which will further promote whole groups of them flying in TDM.

 

What do you mean "start getting very high K/D ratios" - I thought we already did that

[Ryuku-sama]

Nemrus pulls out numbers from hangar screen and makes false premises. You pull numbers out of thin air and make false premise. Today must be "Pretend I Can Do Logic Day". Nice try though guys.

 

I pull out of thin air... ok... Guess what I'll bother to show you the math.

 

LLC at 500m 975 DPS

BLC at 500m 933 DPS

 

Add to this the talent tree (I don,t factor in the last tier upgrade since it wouldn't matter if you take the same on both components)

 

LLC at 500m 3.24((975*1.05)/3) =1105.65

BLC at 500m (933*1.05)*(0.05)*(1.50) + (933*1.05)*(0.95) = 1004.12125

 

BLC is100 DPS under LLC.

 

Factor in the 5% DR You can find on anything but another scout

 

LLC at 500m 1105.65*0.95=1050.3675

BLC at 500m 1004.12125

 

BLC is about 45 DPS under LLC.

 

I was wrong... BLC is just under LLC once you factor everything but accuracy (I don't know exactly how accuracy is working vs evasion)

[phoenixjon]

I pull out of thin air... ok... Guess what I'll bother to show you the math.

 

LLC at 500m 975 DPS

BLC at 500m 933 DPS

 

Add to this the talent tree (I don,t factor in the last tier upgrade since it wouldn't matter if you take the same on both components)

 

LLC at 500m 3.24((975*1.05)/3) =1105.65

BLC at 500m (933*1.05)*(0.05)*(1.50) + (933*1.05)*(0.95) = 1004.12125

 

BLC is100 DPS under LLC.

 

Factor in the 5% DR You can find on anything but another scout

 

LLC at 500m 1105.65*0.95=1050.3675

BLC at 500m 1004.12125

 

BLC is about 45 DPS under LLC.

 

I was wrong... BLC is just under LLC once you factor everything but accuracy (I don't know exactly how accuracy is working vs evasion)

 

So... basically what you're saying in a long winded post is that I was right? Cool. Thanks for letting me know what I already knew.

[Nemarus]

What do you mean "start getting very high K/D ratios" - I thought we already did that

 

I mean we (because yes, I've been using a railgun of late on my Condor) rack up several kills on occupied targets from range ... then as soon as soon as some Scout bothers to challenge me, he either kills or severely damages me with ambush cooldown burst damage, or if he doesn't have his cooldowns, he doesn't get through my shields at all.

 

Without that extreme surprise burst, then if it's a bad Scout, I'll kill him myself at short range, using BLC's and Clusters.

 

If it's a good Scout, I'll dance around LOS until my ally peels/kills him. Yes, he's taking me out of the fight, but I'm taking him out of the fight too--except that the little dance is far more likely to end with his death than mine (because I can delay and evade for so long).

 

And even if he does kill me, I probably got 2-5 kills from range before I was ever engaged. And as soon as he dies (or even if he does manage to kill me), then I resume racking up kills from 15km as soon as the dance is over. Either way, so long as I can kill 2+ people from 15km out for every 1 time a Scout actually manages to delay/kill me, I'm doing better than most ships would, and it's not requiring a lot of skill for me to do so. The range of the railgun is doing most of the work for me. In fact, it might even be faster for me to just let the Scout kill me quickly, respawn on the other end of the map, and start farming occupied targets from range again.

 

Also, I generally do not close to 1500m before ambushing on my Scout. I'll need to give that a try and see how I feel after.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Nemarus

[Ryuku-sama]

So... basically what you're saying in a long winded post is that I was right? Cool. Thanks for letting me know what I already knew.

 

I'm honnest at least

 

BLC lucky crits are still pissing me off.... and BLC tendancy to get a shot after the pass is altering my logical mind I just wanna depict BLC as the most OP weapon ever :p Even if they are pretty tame math wise... I just hate their tendancy to use server desync at its fullest... as railgun can do

[phoenixjon]

I'm honnest at least

 

BLC lucky crits are still pissing me off.... and BLC tendancy to get a shot after the pass is altering my logical mind I just wanna depict BLC as the most OP weapon ever :p Even if they are pretty tame math wise... I just hate their tendancy to use server desync at its fullest... as railgun can do

 

This is why this thread is Ridiculous with a capital R. Using the math provided for every laser/railgun is theoretically sound. But, in reality things are different. RNG from crits/accuracy/tracking penalty is what makes the game fun. Trying to put something in a theoretical setting is fine if you don't plan on ever playing the game yourself to find what is good and bad.

 

On a side note to OP: Stasie is right, you want to get really close before opening up. This thread is about "Ambush" damage which means they don't see you and to maximize your DPS you go up close and do not use range capacitor. You use frequency or damage.

Edited July 7, 2014 by phoenixjon

[TrinityLyre]

If it's a good Scout, I'll dance around LOS until my ally peels/kills him. Yes, he's taking me out of the fight, but I'm taking him out of the fight too--except that the little dance is far more likely to end with his death than mine (because I can delay and evade for so long).

This section is highly up for debate, I feel like it's the other way around. A distracted gunship is a prime kill for any other player. They're also probably blowing all their missile breaks/defensive options, making them far more vulnerable than the scout chasing them and literally every other pilot in the game.

 

And as soon as he dies (or even if he does manage to kill me), then I resume racking up kills from 15km as soon as the dance is over. Either way, so long as I can kill 2+ people from 15km out for every 1 time a Scout actually manages to delay/kill me, I'm doing better than most ships would, and it's not requiring a lot of skill for me to do so.

I can use this logic as well. I fly up in a scout, hit TT/CF on an unsuspecting ship and blow them away instantly. Then I turn to his friend sitting nearby and do the same thing before TT ends. Maybe a gunship will crit me with a slug and force me to rinse and repeat. Maybe I will fly into multiple seismic mines because I have absolutely no situational awareness at all. Maybe I'll be an intelligent player and target the gunship first because of its ability to threaten at extended range and because it's a stationary and typically very easy kill. Either way, so long as I can kill 2+ people sitting anywhere but a minefield I'm doing better than most ships would, and it's not requiring a lot of skill for me to do so.

 

See what I mean?

 

The range of the railgun is doing most of the work for me.

No, that's your accuracy and part of what constitutes "player skill." If you're playing melee gunship, you're doing it wrong (the same way that playing ranged scout is generally suboptimal, especially when going for burst kills). I've never been called out on TEH for playing a gunship, but Ryuku himself has called me out on playing my TT/CF Sting. If pilots continue perpetuating the idea that gunships & bombers take no skill at all (and what's with players denigrating ship choice so much? Give me a break already), maybe I'll just YouTube a 10 minute compilation of TT/CF burst kills.

 

Also, I generally do not close to 1500m before ambushing on my Scout. I'll need to give that a try and see how I feel after.

Even without trying, do the napkin math to see the difference in damage between those ranges. Either way, I encourage giving it a shot! I've been on the receiving end of the "lolgunshipdestroyer" build far too often to not notice, heh.

Edited July 7, 2014 by TrinityLyre

[Nemarus]

So... basically what you're saying in a long winded post is that I was right? Cool. Thanks for letting me know what I already knew.

 

Generally speaking, if you actually convince someone they made a mistake in a forum post, and they own up to it, wouldn't it be better to be grateful that person is reasonable, intellectually honest, and willing to have their opinion changed, rather than antagonizing them?

 

The forum has enough partisans who are blind to reason and logic and will stick by their position no matter how much conflicting evidence there is. You shouldn't seek to make an enemy of the few who actually are willing to have their minds changed.

 

For example, I did some math this morning. I saw the outcome, drew some conclusions, and made a post about it. Others noted I made some errors (the biggest being Concentrated Fire affecting railguns) . I acknowledged it, fixed it, and adjusted my conclusions based on the new math outcome.

 

Would you prefer I leave my original post as it was and stick by my original conclusions and to attempt to continue to spread incorrect information throughout the GSF community? Would you prefer Ry to continue to disagree on cannon damage, ignoring evidence to the contrary? If so, then by all means, continue to seek every opportunity to be a jerk.

[Nemarus]

 

Even without trying, do the napkin math to see the difference in damage between those ranges. Either way, I encourage giving it a shot! I've been on the receiving end of the "lolgunshipdestroyer" build far too often to not notice, heh.

 

A while back I tried using LLC's with Damage capacitor against Aimbot, and it went very poorly. If I failed to kill him on the initial ambush, then I had a much harder time keeping him in 4000m than I did keeping him within 5750m.

 

Also, back when DO was 300%, I found that I could rack up a lot more kills quickly if I had 5750m range with a DO rather than 4000m.

 

Since then I've just been using MLC's with Range Capacitor.

 

But more recently, I've become much more adept at LLC's on my Bloodmark, so perhaps I'll give them another try on the Blackbolt. I certainly have the requisition to experiment with.

[phoenixjon]

Generally speaking, if you actually convince someone they made a mistake in a forum post, and they own up to it, wouldn't it be better to be grateful that person is reasonable, intellectually honest, and willing to have their opinion changed, rather than antagonizing them?

 

The forum has enough partisans who are blind to reason and logic and will stick by their position no matter how much conflicting evidence there is. You shouldn't seek to make an enemy of the few who actually are willing to have their minds changed.

 

For example, I did some math this morning. I saw the outcome, drew some conclusions, and made a post about it. Others noted I made some errors (the biggest being Concentrated Fire affecting railguns) . I acknowledged it, fixed it, and adjusted my conclusions based on the new math outcome.

 

Would you prefer I leave my original post as it was and stick by my original conclusions and to attempt to continue to spread incorrect information throughout the GSF community? Would you prefer Ry to continue to disagree on cannon damage, ignoring evidence to the contrary? If so, then by all means, continue to seek every opportunity to be a jerk.

 

If people want to believe incorrect information that's their prerogative. Like I said earlier, in your imaginary world where everything hits and there is no evasion/acc/tracking penalty then your information can be useful to people that don't play. But, if someone disagrees with me and they are incorrect that's their own error and I really don't care to be friends with anyone on the forums. I believe everything about your post is incorrect because of your static premise that accuracy/evasion/tracking penalty isn't included in your math. That system algorithm changes YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT. So, as far as I'm concerned your post is still "spreading incorrect information throughout the GSF community". But hey, if you want to read the info and not play the game then it's really helpful.

 

Hugs and kisses

[TrinityLyre]

A while back I tried using LLC's with Damage capacitor against Aimbot, and it went very poorly. If I failed to kill him on the initial ambush, then I had a much harder time keeping him in 4000m than I did keeping him within 5750m.

And that's where range is most important - getting in burst kills. That's why so many players refer to scouts as "knife" fighters.

 

Also, back when DO was 300%, I found that I could rack up a lot more kills quickly if I had 5750m range with a DO rather than 4000m.

Agreed completely, but that's a separate topic - maximizing DO isn't the same thing as maximizing burst damage (or maximizing damage, to some degree). For this discussion you were talking about "ambush burst damage," not maximizing overall damage or using DO to its fullest potential. (As a side note, I typically let Drakolich farm DOs and our stats at the end of each match remain similar. Most of the time I actually come out on top when I'm not farming DO. Interesting thing to note.)

Edited July 7, 2014 by TrinityLyre

[Mathemagica]

I only read the OP, so I don't know if it has been said before: When you look at Battlescouts, you are looking at dps. When you look at Slug Railgun, you look at the damage per shot. But a Slug Railgun doesn't fire once per second, it fire much less. An honest comparison would have to divide your number for Slug Railgun by the time to fully charge and aim a Slugshot.

This will show you that Slug is vastly inferior in terms of dps and - since you are looking at surprise burst damage - is much more forgiving concerning reaction time, even if you didn't notice the gunship before its first Slughit.

 

In short, your numbers show that a Battlescout can destroy many ships within two seconds (assuming few misses after the first hit). The Slug Railgun gives you three seconds to react (assuming no misses after the first hit).

 

Your post doesn't convince me that the two situations are comparable in any way.

[SammyGStatus]

I only read the OP, so I don't know if it has been said before: When you look at Battlescouts, you are looking at dps. When you look at Slug Railgun, you look at the damage per shot. But a Slug Railgun doesn't fire once per second, it fire much less. An honest comparison would have to divide your number for Slug Railgun by the time to fully charge and aim a Slugshot.

This will show you that Slug is vastly inferior in terms of dps and - since you are looking at surprise burst damage - is much more forgiving concerning reaction time, even if you didn't notice the gunship before its first Slughit.

 

PREACH!!!!!

 

We have scout pilots calling Gunships "no skill" and complain that they can die from range... even though our slug DPS is atrocious. Definitely makes ya wonder about the mental competency of some of these pilots. There was one scout pilot I used to play with and to this day he still thinks that scouts are the toughest class to play and that Gunships are OP and blah blah blah. Thanks for pointing that out - we're not going to convince the disillusioned, but at least you've demonstrated another thing that needs to be taken into account. The amount of burst damage a scout can do is absolutely incredible