Absolutely not true . <| sep |> I ' m Ron Burgundy ? <| sep |> Dear lord , it ' s not even mine . <| sep |> Yeah nothing wrong with that monitor , depending on what you use it for I would suggest looking for maybe a IPS monitor . They have better colors and viewing angles . <| sep |> Haha ! Hey , I think it was a great story . <| sep |> Well burst refers to the three shot burst . Beam lasers are the opposite of sustain , and for virtually every purpose Pulse is just best . Here ' s what I think . I think beams were balanced for before there were SCBs , Shield Boosters and Hull Reinforcement Packages . It would have been possible to use beam lasers on an evasive ship to get in , dump your DPS into your target as fast as possible , and then evade before it could retaliate . Now that shield and hull strength is so bloated efficient DPS is king and anything that ' s substantially less efficient is basically useless even if it has better burst DPS . So in truth , in addition to narrowing the price gap I believe they should also narrow the efficiency gap . There really isn ' t very much point in using anything with substantially lower efficiency , and a C 3 F pulse is about 137 % as efficient as a C 3 F beam . ~~ The problem is most apparent with huge weapons a huge fixed pulse is about 360 % ! as efficient than a C 4 F beam by my calculation . The least they should do is bring that more in line with the C 3 s . ~~ My calculation was off due to using DPS instead of per shot . It ' s the same efficiency as C 3 , but the issue still remains that because of how bloated ships hitpoints are now , trading a bit of burst damage for 37 % more efficiency is a nobrainer .