Regular vs Experimental Electro-Magnetic Plasma Cannons

[MrExcitement]

So I was having a look at these as I am considering filling my recent Shuri "acquisition" with some good Spitfyre M3's. As far as I can see the experimental ones have:

• Less damage (Shield and hull)
  Slower rate of fire
  Cost about 1,100 more
  Same speed and distance
  Slightly less energy per shot (72 vs 80)

So as a experiment they took perfectly working guns and made them slightly more expensive and significantly less powerful just to increase how long you can hold the trigger down? Seems like the scientists should give their collective heads a shake.

Is there an advantage that I'm missing or is the only advantage the fact that they are the only guns the spitfyre can mount up front?

[Technojerk36]

I don't have an answer for you, but if there's one thing about the encyclopedia I've learned, it's that to never trust what it says about weapons. I mean, look at the PBG. It says it does something like 300 hull and shield damage. In the actual game, it is much, much more deadly.

[maphys]

Experimental probably means prototype here (as in the pMAML).

Spoiler

Show

Aldrin got cut off part way through the development of the guns - they never solved all the problems with the prototypes so still have a weaker version as their current best.

M

[maphys]

PBG is deadly as it is an area of effect weapon. Look at the PSG - it is the same. The regular projectile weapons are perfectly well described by the encyclopaedia.

M

[RyuKazuha]

Experimental probably means prototype here (as in the pMAML).

Spoiler

Show

Aldrin got cut off part way through the development of the guns - they never solved all the problems with the prototypes so still have a weaker version as their current best.

M

This.

[MrExcitement]

I took these values from the X3TC Stats Compendium excel sheet, which I assume is as accurate or more than the encyclopedia. My own guess is that they made the experimental ones less powerful to counter-balance the speed and relative superiority of the spitfyre. That would explain why the spitfyre can't mount regular EMPC's in the front, even though it can in the rear turret.

Thanks for the input guys - I appreciate the fast response!

[Master of the Blade]

Actually, the only difference between the EEMPC and the EMPC is that the EEMPC has a marginally slower refire, hence the lower DPS stated by the encyclopeadia. So, each hit from an EEMPC will do precisely the same damage as one from an EMPC, but the gun doesn't fire as often, which also explains the lower energy drain. (which is also a per second stat)

Basically, most of the data in the encyclopeadia is per second, so even a slight change in refire rate will (sometimes drastically- see PSP and PPC) throw off the other stats and make something seem more inferior than it actually is.

[AgamemnonArgon]

I filled my Hoshi with Terran fighters, let them take on Pirates, and liked the Scimitar and Sabre so much, I am putting them on any Capital ships that I can. Ammuntion based weapons though, mean taking time to re-arm the ships. I have around ten thousand rounds of Anti Matter, but not used those weapons yet. I like the EMP weapons on the M3 and M4. They do well enough.