Strange outcome for energy usage in weapons

[-splosives-]

I experimented a little bit with making weapons.
I made a metal projectile cannon and a fusion cannon.
MP has 14 E/s and a fire rate of 432 rpm
FC has 21 E/s and a fire rate of 415 rpm

Regardless wether the "s" in "E/s" mean per shot or per second, the fusion cannon should use more energy per second.

But it doesn't.

The fusion cannon shoots for approx 9 seconds before i run out
The metal particle after 8 seconds

Something strange is going on here

[Vice]

If you have the save game you can send to me via e-mail with one of the cannons in storage and the other installed on the ships, I can check into it further. My guess is the fusion cannon is likely overrated for its energy use and/or firing rate is similarly mismatched, which probably occurred after a weapon rebalancing a long while back that left an older stat line/curve in place for the specs. Further variation can also apply depending on energy cores, frame type, energy settings, and whether fired in conjunction with a beam weapon (which can have a rather significant variable compounding effect). Such conditions might allow a slower firing rate/higher energy use weapon to end up firing for a longer timeframe because of the added recharge time in between cycles. Should be possible to display things more in line with base values/factors though or verify accuracy as may be needed.

[-splosives-]

I think it has something to do with the cycle rate. I made 2 fusion cannons, one with 21 e/s and a faster cycle rate and one with 31 e/s and a slower cycle rate
Guess what, the 31 e/s actually uses less energy per second.
My method of timing is just shooting a full capacitor of a lamprey frame, and timing until it reaches 0.

[Vice]

That actually sounds about right then (e/s being per shot) and yes, it would indeed be related to the impact of cycle rate in conjunction with energy reserves plus energy recharge rate over time. IIRC, a few years ago, the rebalancing of weapons adjusted the cycle rate lines in such a way that an increase in energy consumption wasn't so displacing of rate and yield. That could have meant increasing energy use per shot significantly higher could indeed extend the total firing time before energy was completely exhausted by how the added time in between shots caused by the decreasing cycle rate allowed for more recharge time by the ship's energy system (which could be especially true on military frames)... but at a penalty in firing rate relative to yield (hence target offsets in total damage over time). Further adjustments and adaptations could be employed by ship frame type (and the energy offset provided by military frames), energy cores, energy module selection, and energy settings. I may set some time aside to run the numbers again and review code to refresh my memory on what the goals were and how they were implemented.

[-splosives-]

I remember researching this quite thoroughly years ago and I figured out quite a lot, but it's been a long time and I forgot most of it :p

[Vice]

There are a lot of factors and variables to consider. The key in this example would likely be in what happens in between shots for each cannon. To estimate with some early morning math, the slower firing FP cannon has a roughly 4% added wait time advantage between shots for that much more potential available energy in reserve each cycle.

This does not take into account consumption reductions nor recharge increases provided by energy cores, energy modules, energy setting, crew, cannon relay, and frame type. So if the player reduces consumption 0.8 by increasing capacity 1.25, that can have a significant impact on base energy consumption scores of 14 and 21 (11.2 vs 16.8 respectively, so the margin gets closer from 7 to 5.6). And if they increase the recharge rate, that can further impact how much energy is added back into the pool between shots. Considering such conditions, a player may find that the ship they choose with a particular combination of cores, module, crew, equipment, and energy setting provides an advantage for them with a particular weapon, whether in firing rate, yield, energy consumption, or any combination thereof.

The fusion cannon does often have an advantage in damage over time (base rate/values anyway). But if a player can't yet manage to construct the more advanced cannon, prefers a cannon that is better for short bursts, prefers higher frequency kinetic effects, and/or doesn't have the energy in their ship configuration to better sustain a fusion design, then something like the metal version might be the better option.

By request, cannon weapon performance was brought into a narrower range of parameters for a more even layout between them. But higher end weapons do still have some overall advantages while lower end weapons can still provide good capabilities for different situations, player progress, and ship configurations.