It's not bad though technically it's become worse for offensive lasers since AP now accounts for storage which means pump-centric systems with regulators, multiple combiners, and even destabilizers will out-dps this kind of tetris, especially if smoke/shields are involved.
You don't need AP for LAMS unless you're using smoke at the same time + storage can be good for LAMS since CRAMs and Missiles are fairly long reloads... even APS can be in the 10 to 15 second range.
@@no3ironman11100 Worse than what? Pumps are the bottleneck for DPS and you can mostly bypass the need for storage using regulators/destabs/multiple combiners.
@@OhmIsFutile Storage AP scaling is still a lot better than pump's and hardly changed, the first sentence of the comment doesn't matter much. A mostly pure storage laser scales to 550% damage wise to a non-ap storage laser the more AP oriented it is if there is enough smoke. The return with pump being a lot worse is because you don't get full DPS returns on adding more AP, only 62.5% of the cost if your laser was somehow full pump, in reality around 70-75%. Basically if you spend 10x as much in laser you'll only have 7-8x the AP. AP's main use is to get more damage per FIRING cost/making the laser more compact, it doesn't counter smoke at all as much as it needs it to be present to be usefull.
More info, This setup results in about 14.1 second in laser storage. This is just fine for offensive lasers, though too short for anti missile/cram lams typically, better for aps. You should use an output regulator so it can use the full stored charge. Without it, a laser uses a % of current energy. With it, it uses a % of maximum stored energy.
Adding to this @BorderWise at a long enough laser setup you get 4.5% more cost efficiency using single input and 3m pumps. Single input systems are also easier to fit in. Typical 3x3 if the cavity isn't covered in pump gets worse, while single input and 3m pump can achieve many different arrangements if you're smart enough to find them out. Unlike what another commenter said pumping rate/discharge rate ratio doesn't matter so much as you can have multiple barrels or add a destabilizer to your single input as the slight cost advantage compensates and brings them up to even even in a noticeable cost difference scenario. Single input mathematically meets cost wise compared to equal pumping lasers with 11.5-16.5 second storage lasers from it's cost efficiency. Of course I say all this but the point I'm getting at is the cost difference is marginal, the practicality of how you can fit the T shapes of single input 3m pumps is the most important part of the deal.
I remember mentioning this on the old discord a couple years back and commenting about it on a couple of your video's. It's good for Anti-APS lasers and 4Q is achievable by having couplers on each side, sharing two switches each. the single inputs allow inputting laser power without loosing volume effceincy (storage wise) to 4-way cavities and their lower storage density when you want to use it offensively, just shift to using some linear aligned 3m pumps at the start to make space for the frequency doublers. when you want more storage defensively for say missiles, the linear aligned 3m pumps are a better option than transverse 3m It's been my go to tetris for a couple years now as I don't use offensive lasers much and prefer CIWS for anti missile duty.
Darn, your timing is really on the spot Borderwise. My brother commission me to make a dedicated LAMS ship for some RP reasons, was wondering how the heck I was gonna make that. Now I know.
Im quite surprised you only heard about this recently. It's been a thing on the official discord since....at least around when the RPG elements of the game, Rambot leveling up was removed.
This design has pros and cons... pro: Very compact. almost no wasted space. doesn't take much to make it an infinite fire system. takes up less space for the same firepower vs 3x3 storage based laser systems. con: limited too 0Q, 1Q, or 2Q unless you get really creative with placement and/or give up it's compactness. I've been using this design for a while now, or at least trying to, since it takes up so little space for its output. Only thing needed to make it infinite fire is to add a few of the small 4 input cavities following the same layout as the single input ones, with a single large pump on each. a ratio of 5 single input and 3 four input cavities is the ratio, if I remember right. I keep a templet saved since my memory isn't the best.
But lasers work in 2 ways, either you want a pump laser, it needs only minimal storage, or as much any q pulse requires, as everything is pumps for DPS, or you do a charge laser that has no pumps almost and loads and loads of storage. So I'd say there is no perfect ratio, I'm sure this is decent but seems to me it's not the best of any world between DPS lasers and Pump alphastrikers.
The importance of having a good ratio is not overstated, though BW doesn't really explain it properly. Sure there's more than one way to balance things, but if you don't then it's possible to have a laser with more pumps than it needs. Also, storage-based lasers were nerfed by adding storage into the AP equation. It's still good against things without laser defenses, but if they have smoke/shields you might only get one shot at full damage and then a bunch of expensive laser parts with abysmal DPS on your vehicle.
@@OhmIsFutile Yeah I more like the idea of storage based systems, I tried to make a short range laser lams but in practicallity it's prettty bad tbh, I almost build pump lasers for dps only nowdays and have no reason to be sad!
I can see the application for this as a general-purpose system, or as an easy prefab, but as other commenters have pointed out, it may lack storage capacity for use in some LAMS applications, and it lacks pumps for DPS output. The optimal arrangement for a 3x3 DPS laser with no destabilizers and only one combiner is one storage cavity and five or six standard cavities. This will give you a pumping rate equal to 85.3% or 100.17% of the discharge rate. The arrangement shown in this video has a value of 72%. A 3x3 cavity line with one destabilizer and a storage cavity requires 13 standard cavities to get the most out of it and has a pumping rate of 99.14% of the discharge rate. Other configurations are valid as well, the main reason for the popularity of the storage and standard cavities is because they are the most material and volume efficient for their respective purposes. Of course, storage cavities aren't even necessary for a multi-combiner DPS laser, as long as you use enough combiners and maybe a destabilizer or two. I will also agree that the single-input cavities are in kind of an awkward niche where their best uses are in applications such as this one, or where the arrangement is too small for a conventional 3x3 design.
Yes, but if you add some four input cavities too the line of single input cavities, you can get it really close or slightly overkill on input. This is using the 4x4 laser setup Borderwise showed. the ratio is roughly 5 single input too 3 four input cavities. closer to 5 single input too 2.6 four input. This does make it a bit bigger in length, but you can still get the same DPS output in a smaller total package then using the four input and storage cavities setup. Just limits you too having a low Q system. going 3 or 4 Q is still better with the storage cavity build.
@@jakaltha7067 I have to disagree with you on the DPS-per-block, but only on a matter of mathematical principle. The configuration you described has the same pump-to-discharge rate, and I calculated a DPS-per-block of 18, while the 3x3 configuration I described in my previous post has a DPS-per-block of 18.29. A miniscule difference, but it could add up in larger systems. Considering the fact that standard cavities take up the same volume as single-input cavities, and we're presuming that we only have space for one attachment point for pumps, going with the increased storage space would be a better option in 4x4 or any T-shaped cavity-pump configurations. After all, a few seconds of high damage output at the start of a fight can give your craft a lead that the sustained DPS can keep once the system equalizes. One benefit of these T-shaped configurations is reduced vulnerability, as storage cavities are a single 3x3 block and can therefore be destroyed by damage that would otherwise only take out a pump. Depending on where the storage cavities are in the system, that could disconnect a large section of the cavity line. Overall, because storage cavities are equal in storage to 10 single input cavities while only taking up the space of 9, a 3x3 system is optimal from a purely mathematical perspective and is probably easier to work with if you like 3q and 4q systems. 4x4 and other configurations using T-shaped cavity lines are less likely to be debilitated by a single piercing projectile or hitscan attack, since they're likely balanced along the entire cavity line, and the space to hit in order to sever any part of it is 2x2 instead of 3x3. Even then, it's likely that only one or two of the 4x4 cavity line's cavities will be hit, so it would still function at at least half effectiveness. While not likely to be material efficient, a 1x2 or 1x3 configuration could also be promising when properly balanced, and may allow for efficient 3q or 4q tetris. T-shaped configurations could also allow for interesting tetris outside of the 4x4 arrangement.
The frequency doublers have to be on a coupler with the same number of q-switches. So if you have a 4q system, then you need to have the doublers attached to a 4q coupler.
As people in the comments are saying, there are pros and cons to all laser tetrises. More pumps, less storage = consistent output. Less pumps, more storage = better initial burst. 4x4 is pretty balanced storage and pumping plus the downside of it being harder to fit 4 Q switches on each coupler and it not fitting nicely into odd-width spaces.
It's not bad though technically it's become worse for offensive lasers since AP now accounts for storage which means pump-centric systems with regulators, multiple combiners, and even destabilizers will out-dps this kind of tetris, especially if smoke/shields are involved.
but fine for LAMS?
You don't need AP for LAMS unless you're using smoke at the same time + storage can be good for LAMS since CRAMs and Missiles are fairly long reloads... even APS can be in the 10 to 15 second range.
AP returns with pump is still a lot worse.
@@no3ironman11100 Worse than what? Pumps are the bottleneck for DPS and you can mostly bypass the need for storage using regulators/destabs/multiple combiners.
@@OhmIsFutile
Storage AP scaling is still a lot better than pump's and hardly changed, the first sentence of the comment doesn't matter much. A mostly pure storage laser scales to 550% damage wise to a non-ap storage laser the more AP oriented it is if there is enough smoke.
The return with pump being a lot worse is because you don't get full DPS returns on adding more AP, only 62.5% of the cost if your laser was somehow full pump, in reality around 70-75%.
Basically if you spend 10x as much in laser you'll only have 7-8x the AP.
AP's main use is to get more damage per FIRING cost/making the laser more compact, it doesn't counter smoke at all as much as it needs it to be present to be usefull.
More info, This setup results in about 14.1 second in laser storage. This is just fine for offensive lasers, though too short for anti missile/cram lams typically, better for aps.
You should use an output regulator so it can use the full stored charge. Without it, a laser uses a % of current energy. With it, it uses a % of maximum stored energy.
Adding to this @BorderWise at a long enough laser setup you get 4.5% more cost efficiency using single input and 3m pumps. Single input systems are also easier to fit in.
Typical 3x3 if the cavity isn't covered in pump gets worse, while single input and 3m pump can achieve many different arrangements if you're smart enough to find them out.
Unlike what another commenter said pumping rate/discharge rate ratio doesn't matter so much as you can have multiple barrels or add a destabilizer to your single input as the slight cost advantage compensates and brings them up to even even in a noticeable cost difference scenario. Single input mathematically meets cost wise compared to equal pumping lasers with 11.5-16.5 second storage lasers from it's cost efficiency.
Of course I say all this but the point I'm getting at is the cost difference is marginal, the practicality of how you can fit the T shapes of single input 3m pumps is the most important part of the deal.
4q is possible, but you have to put 2 couplers on each end. it also ends up being efficient, because they can share some of the q switches.
Wait, you can have couplers on both ends of the laser stick?!?!
@@justgoodvibes1500 no, you would just be flipping two of the laser sticks around so that you have room for q-switches.
I remember mentioning this on the old discord a couple years back and commenting about it on a couple of your video's.
It's good for Anti-APS lasers and 4Q is achievable by having couplers on each side, sharing two switches each.
the single inputs allow inputting laser power without loosing volume effceincy (storage wise) to 4-way cavities and their lower storage density
when you want to use it offensively, just shift to using some linear aligned 3m pumps at the start to make space for the frequency doublers.
when you want more storage defensively for say missiles, the linear aligned 3m pumps are a better option than transverse 3m
It's been my go to tetris for a couple years now as I don't use offensive lasers much and prefer CIWS for anti missile duty.
Darn, your timing is really on the spot Borderwise. My brother commission me to make a dedicated LAMS ship for some RP reasons, was wondering how the heck I was gonna make that. Now I know.
Im quite surprised you only heard about this recently. It's been a thing on the official discord since....at least around when the RPG elements of the game, Rambot leveling up was removed.
FtD is like that sometimes. Sometimes you're the last to know. XD
This design has pros and cons...
pro: Very compact. almost no wasted space. doesn't take much to make it an infinite fire system. takes up less space for the same firepower vs 3x3 storage based laser systems.
con: limited too 0Q, 1Q, or 2Q unless you get really creative with placement and/or give up it's compactness.
I've been using this design for a while now, or at least trying to, since it takes up so little space for its output. Only thing needed to make it infinite fire is to add a few of the small 4 input cavities following the same layout as the single input ones, with a single large pump on each. a ratio of 5 single input and 3 four input cavities is the ratio, if I remember right. I keep a templet saved since my memory isn't the best.
Just have 2 of the lines go fron the back to the front. This also shares 2 of the 4 q switches between the laser blocks.
your emote game on the tiles is on fire lol
I discovered this by fighting twin guards 'Angelic'.
But lasers work in 2 ways, either you want a pump laser, it needs only minimal storage, or as much any q pulse requires, as everything is pumps for DPS, or you do a charge laser that has no pumps almost and loads and loads of storage. So I'd say there is no perfect ratio, I'm sure this is decent but seems to me it's not the best of any world between DPS lasers and Pump alphastrikers.
The importance of having a good ratio is not overstated, though BW doesn't really explain it properly. Sure there's more than one way to balance things, but if you don't then it's possible to have a laser with more pumps than it needs.
Also, storage-based lasers were nerfed by adding storage into the AP equation. It's still good against things without laser defenses, but if they have smoke/shields you might only get one shot at full damage and then a bunch of expensive laser parts with abysmal DPS on your vehicle.
@@OhmIsFutile Yeah I more like the idea of storage based systems, I tried to make a short range laser lams but in practicallity it's prettty bad tbh, I almost build pump lasers for dps only nowdays and have no reason to be sad!
I can see the application for this as a general-purpose system, or as an easy prefab, but as other commenters have pointed out, it may lack storage capacity for use in some LAMS applications, and it lacks pumps for DPS output. The optimal arrangement for a 3x3 DPS laser with no destabilizers and only one combiner is one storage cavity and five or six standard cavities. This will give you a pumping rate equal to 85.3% or 100.17% of the discharge rate. The arrangement shown in this video has a value of 72%.
A 3x3 cavity line with one destabilizer and a storage cavity requires 13 standard cavities to get the most out of it and has a pumping rate of 99.14% of the discharge rate. Other configurations are valid as well, the main reason for the popularity of the storage and standard cavities is because they are the most material and volume efficient for their respective purposes. Of course, storage cavities aren't even necessary for a multi-combiner DPS laser, as long as you use enough combiners and maybe a destabilizer or two. I will also agree that the single-input cavities are in kind of an awkward niche where their best uses are in applications such as this one, or where the arrangement is too small for a conventional 3x3 design.
I love it when other people do the math so I don't have to.
Cheers! 😁👍
Yes, but if you add some four input cavities too the line of single input cavities, you can get it really close or slightly overkill on input. This is using the 4x4 laser setup Borderwise showed. the ratio is roughly 5 single input too 3 four input cavities. closer to 5 single input too 2.6 four input. This does make it a bit bigger in length, but you can still get the same DPS output in a smaller total package then using the four input and storage cavities setup. Just limits you too having a low Q system. going 3 or 4 Q is still better with the storage cavity build.
@@jakaltha7067 I have to disagree with you on the DPS-per-block, but only on a matter of mathematical principle. The configuration you described has the same pump-to-discharge rate, and I calculated a DPS-per-block of 18, while the 3x3 configuration I described in my previous post has a DPS-per-block of 18.29. A miniscule difference, but it could add up in larger systems.
Considering the fact that standard cavities take up the same volume as single-input cavities, and we're presuming that we only have space for one attachment point for pumps, going with the increased storage space would be a better option in 4x4 or any T-shaped cavity-pump configurations. After all, a few seconds of high damage output at the start of a fight can give your craft a lead that the sustained DPS can keep once the system equalizes.
One benefit of these T-shaped configurations is reduced vulnerability, as storage cavities are a single 3x3 block and can therefore be destroyed by damage that would otherwise only take out a pump. Depending on where the storage cavities are in the system, that could disconnect a large section of the cavity line.
Overall, because storage cavities are equal in storage to 10 single input cavities while only taking up the space of 9, a 3x3 system is optimal from a purely mathematical perspective and is probably easier to work with if you like 3q and 4q systems.
4x4 and other configurations using T-shaped cavity lines are less likely to be debilitated by a single piercing projectile or hitscan attack, since they're likely balanced along the entire cavity line, and the space to hit in order to sever any part of it is 2x2 instead of 3x3. Even then, it's likely that only one or two of the 4x4 cavity line's cavities will be hit, so it would still function at at least half effectiveness.
While not likely to be material efficient, a 1x2 or 1x3 configuration could also be promising when properly balanced, and may allow for efficient 3q or 4q tetris. T-shaped configurations could also allow for interesting tetris outside of the 4x4 arrangement.
Wait, you can attach your freq doublers to different couplers?
Yup! Very handy for filling space (expensively) and getting AP up. 👍
The frequency doublers have to be on a coupler with the same number of q-switches. So if you have a 4q system, then you need to have the doublers attached to a 4q coupler.
Im trying to decipher what the emojis in the title mean but I can't understand it. Please help me Mr B-wise.
Laser = flashlight!
Square = tetris!
! = I'm excited about square laser tetris! 😁
annoying thing: the kill rate for a rail system the same volume.
Hi. how to turn on these 4 arrows that show where the front of the block we want to place is.
They're on by default? Should be in the game settings.
Whats the better tetris? Cram has many combinations to me
As people in the comments are saying, there are pros and cons to all laser tetrises.
More pumps, less storage = consistent output.
Less pumps, more storage = better initial burst.
4x4 is pretty balanced storage and pumping plus the downside of it being harder to fit 4 Q switches on each coupler and it not fitting nicely into odd-width spaces.
@@BorderWise12 testing the high burst for lams against biggo missiles. Whats the diameter of large missiles anyway?