CFL or FAA?

DrDress · Post by **DrDress** » Tue, 17. May 11, 22:25

Which would you prefer for my top and bottom turret, CFL or FAA?

A5PECT · Post by **A5PECT** » Tue, 17. May 11, 22:33

FAA has 0.2km more range. But CFAA has an interesting effect when used with Ion Disruptors. It also looks cooler.

You can't go wrong with either, really.

Gazz · Post by **Gazz** » Tue, 17. May 11, 22:34

CFAA is a lot prettier to watch.

Catra · Post by **Catra** » Tue, 17. May 11, 22:52

FAA:
Shield / shot: 13,860
Energy use: 680
RoF: 56 R/m
Range 2.1km

CFA:
Shield / shot: 11,781
Energy use: 675
RoF 62/m
Range: 2KM

FAA advantage over CFA:
.1 longer range
2079 more shield damage / shot.

CFA advantage over FAA:
5 less energy use
6 more rnd/m

IMO, the .1 range isn't that much, and the 2k more shield / shot is negated by the 6 extra rounds the CFA shoots.

Though really, you can't go wrong with either.

[FFCW]Urizen · Post by **[FFCW]Urizen** » Tue, 17. May 11, 23:40

The FAA will almost always hit, whereas with the CFA a hit is never guaranteed, unless it´s a khaak cluster

Master of the Blade · Post by **Master of the Blade** » Tue, 17. May 11, 23:55

The FAA will almost always hit, whereas with the CFA a hit is never guaranteed,

Extensive combat on my end with the CFA says you're wrong - actually the faster but far smaller shot of normal flak tends to make it miss more often than CFA - but it's safe to say the CFA does not suffer accuracy problems.

[FFCW]Urizen · Post by **[FFCW]Urizen** » Tue, 17. May 11, 23:57

vice versa here, cfa didn´t hit anything smaller than m2 or m1, whereas faa instahitted every damn m5, might be the rng thingy

Master of the Blade · Post by **Master of the Blade** » Wed, 18. May 11, 00:01

You sure you're up to date? The CFA was indeed useless until around v2.1(?), because it actually had no proper bullet body, meaning only the clusters worked. Now that it has a bullet it's got decent accuracy.

Targ Collective · Post by **Targ Collective** » Wed, 18. May 11, 00:37

FAA every time is my vote. Extra range, extra damage. Can't go wrong with that.

MarvinTheMartian · Post by **MarvinTheMartian** » Wed, 18. May 11, 01:09

Gazz wrote:CFAA is a lot prettier to watch.

I don't see any image/video there or is the forum playing up on me?

Do you still hold the same opinion as your analysis in that thread, that CFAA is an epic failure? or have things improved since 2.1?
ATM I have several CFAA fabs but very few FAA fabs in my game so if there's little difference then I'll stockpile both, otherwise I'll be building my own FAAs

Fulgrymm · Post by **Fulgrymm** » Wed, 18. May 11, 01:55

Catra wrote:IMO, the .1 range isn't that much, and the 2k more shield / shot is negated by the 6 extra rounds the CFA shoots.

Just a point of clarification, nothing more, the damage values are in Damage per Second, so the 6 extra rounds are not necessarily negated.

twilight_echoes · Post by **twilight_echoes** » Wed, 18. May 11, 02:18

I prefer the visuals of CFA, and in practical terms see very little difference between the two.

Any marginal difference in dps is overwhelmed by the fact that a single hit is enough to wipe out any M5.

Is there any difference in the speed either weapon retargets a new opponent?
Does CFA have any genuine area of effect worth?

Catra · Post by **Catra** » Wed, 18. May 11, 02:28

Fulgrymm wrote:
Catra wrote:IMO, the .1 range isn't that much, and the 2k more shield / shot is negated by the 6 extra rounds the CFA shoots.
Just a point of clarification, nothing more, the damage values are in Damage per Second, so the 6 extra rounds are not necessarily negated.

Ah, no, the damage values I put up are dmg/shot.

Fulgrymm · Post by **Fulgrymm** » Wed, 18. May 11, 06:07

Yes I see it now. CFA is 12.0k versus the FAA's 12.8. Why does rnd/m matter if the FAA hits more reliably?

Gazz · Post by **Gazz** » Wed, 18. May 11, 06:55

Master of the Blade wrote:You sure you're up to date? The CFA was indeed useless until around v2.1(?), because it actually had no proper bullet body, meaning only the clusters worked. Now that it has a bullet it's got decent accuracy.

It did work before, just not reliably.
The test was done in a state of it working.

Catra · Post by **Catra** » Wed, 18. May 11, 07:31

Fulgrymm wrote:Yes I see it now. CFA is 12.0k versus the FAA's 12.8. Why does rnd/m matter if the FAA hits more reliably?

The CFA has been fixed for quite a long time, so there's no more "reliability" issues, one hits as good as the other. =p

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Wed, 18. May 11, 09:36

Well, maybe not quite--the CFA has a much slower speed of shot than FAA does, which means it can be a bit more chancy hitting small, fast ships with it. Of course, small, fast ships are not usually much of a threat to a warship that can mount flak anyway, so that could be a moot point!

Speaking personally I prefer FAA--the burst fragments of the CFA look pretty but have no effect 99% of the time, so you might as well go for the one with slightly longer range and faster speed of shot; the other stats are so similar as to make no odds, IMHO.

DrDress · Post by **DrDress** » Wed, 18. May 11, 10:16

Maybe this thread should be a poll i stead, that would actually have benn quite interesting.

I suppose it's too late now right?

Fulgrymm · Post by **Fulgrymm** » Wed, 18. May 11, 10:49

pjknibbs' line of thinking is what I had in mind with my response, though I do recall that the burst fragmentation of the CFA now functions as intended, and if so, then the balance might now be more in favour of CFA instead of FAA.

MarvinTheMartian · Post by **MarvinTheMartian** » Wed, 18. May 11, 10:52

ARGGGH! Will somebody please make my mind up?

So, they're just as good as each other then?

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

CFL or FAA?

CFL or FAA?