Quarks and a bag a chips

[cousLee]

I am not all that profiecient in this game, but noticed during the game i am playing that Quark cannons have 90% shield penetration. This would seem to make them a much more desireable weapon than given credit for. Why would one choose, say fusion weapons, over quarks? Sure, quarks have a smaller damage amount, but what they do hit counts a LOT more. Any input?

The other question I have, is I read a lot of whoopla about auto-fire. This makes the weapon fire more times per volley, but I rarely read any comments about continous fire. It (continous fire) also seems to take up less space, meaning more guns. In my designs, I use continous fire with armor penetrating. auto fire is seems like it would be about as good a choice as scratch off lottery tickets. And I NEVER use both continous fire and auto fire, it seems it would be redundant. Any input?

favorite early weapon?...... Standard mount Quark cannon with continous fire armor piercing improvements with any minatures. It seems to shred the AI, however, it will only scratch a guardian's paint :D

[Shogo Yahagi]

Autofire guns rule.
Three shots for two guns' spaces.
It's like a free gun.

[Demartus]

The shield penetration number you're seeing I *believe* means that it reduces the shields effectiveness by 10% (i.e. Shield Stopping Power is multiplied by 0.9), so it actually has a 10% Shield Penetration, not 90%.

Some other weapons have that - notably the Graviton Beam (10%) around mid-techs, and the LFG (30%)

[Tower]

@Shogo you really must get a grip. (But its funny:haha: )

@Demartus is correct. The effect of shield penetration is that it allows the weapon damage to begin cutting into the armor before shields are fully down. This is useful depending on your opponent's use of shields. i.e. if they don't have effective shields then the Quark's full potential is not realized. When you add to that the fast range drop off and small amount of damage of Quarks, other weapons begin to look better. It does have a long range advantage though (for several turns) and it does perfrom better than lasers. The real advantage might very well be to give your ships better detection.

(Take a look at the Hard Beam thread for more stuff on comparing direct weapons)

Also, by looking at the ship's capability (rather than just the weapon's capability) you'll get a feel for what's worthy of space in your ship designs.;)

[Warprat]

And I NEVER use both continous fire and auto fire, it seems it would be redundant. Any input?


Continuous increases the chance to hit, while auto fire increases the size of the shot. Both decrease the size of the weapon, why not use both?


Warprat ;)

[Tower]

Not sure I know what you mean by "decreases" the size of the weapon?

Continuous multiplies space requirement by 5/4
Autofire multiplies space requirement by 2

Hence, both factors reduce the number of weapons that can fit on a ship. (That suggest an increase in size rather than a decrease)

You would certainly see an advantage on weapons that have a large drop-off for range if you applied the continuous special e.g. Spinal Plasma, Graviton, Fusion, Megabolt.

Multifire benefits almost all weapons, hence a multifire long range weapon would benefit the most from continuous, especially if had some armour piercing capability (e.g. Rail Gun in the early game), or shield piercing (e.g. Quark, but alas Autofire and Shield Piercing seem to be mutually exclusive)

[Warprat]

Oppps,

What I should have said was you get more/better shots for an increase in weapon size.

AF- 3 shots for double the space.
Continuous- fewer weapons, but more shots hit target.


But in my mind (maybe a little cracked, or on crack,) greater/better number of shots equal smaller weapon size. Perhaps only true when your really tired and post stuff on your way too small break at work...


Warprat ;)