Buff Storm Needler. Buff Heph Assault. Buff Gauss Cannon. Don't let the Invictus prevent Mjolnir Cannon from getting buffs either.
When was the last time you seriously and regularly mounted Gauss Cannons and Storm Needlers? They really do need some help.
Storm Needler, yeah i can't remember the last time i used it, i guess the (best) use case for it is a close range ship with multiple large ballistics, and few smaller ballistic mounts
(to stuff kinetics into) but there's not really a vanilla ship that fits that niche. I'm not 100% sure if it's a case of there just not being a ship that can use it to its strengths, or it actually needs a buff.
Hephaestus, i don't use much either, largely because if i want large to deal HE damage then the hellbore is right there
(with more per-shot and lower flux/OP), a small buff might be worth it, but from how some people get it working for them as-is i don't think a big buff would be a great idea.
Mjolnir, is a great gun on ships that can handle it, i use it occasionally
even on stuff other than invictus and i feel that buffs would make it
too good.
Gauss is my go-to when building a conquest, it's a very good weapon albeit specialised in role, but definitely doesn't need buffs. The combo of 1200 range, high velocity, perfect accuracy and high per-hit damage can not be underestimated.
----
And going to BRF:
IMO the core thing that makes it feel problematic is the LDAC, the flux efficiency buff it got in 0.96 is... too much, the fact that it makes it compete favourably with medium weapons, purely because it's more flux efficient? not a good thing imo.
Railgun competing with mediums is fine, as it is really a sidegrade to the arbalest when you really look at it.
Some comparisons for the Arbalest vs Railgun:
+ Arbalest is 1 OP more, for 25 less flux/sec so if you were spending that OP on vents then this is a net gain (and you get a slightly better OrdEx bonus if you're using it)
+ Arbalest has higher hitstrength, so can perform better against armour
- Arbalest has lower velocity, turn rate and has notable spread, this makes it worse against lighter/faster targets, but this is not really an issue when dealing with larger/slower targets.
- Arbalest is a medium, so loses 100 range if you're running BRF (this could either be a massive issue, or a relatively minor drawback, depending on the specific ship you are mounting it on, and early game if you lack BRF it would be a non-issue)
~ Arbalest is a medium, so more weapon HP, but slower repairs (a swings/roundabouts consideration)
Then again if you're proposing BRF'd LDACs on an enforcer, then just 5x arbalest is an interesting counter-proposal:
+ Arbalests have higher DPS
+ Arbalest is more accurate than LDAC
+ Arbalest has more hitstrength than LDAC
- LDACs turn faster than Arbalest
- LDACs have better flux efficiency
~ 5xArbalest costs 15 OP more than 5x LDAC, but you no longer need BRF that saves you either 10 OP, or an s-mod slot, and you get +30flux/sec from Ordnance Expertise.
----
Typing this out
(re: the arbalest losing out to the railgun when BRF enters the equation) and i'm almost thinking that BRF could be reworked to something like:
Depending on the largest ballistic slot on the ship:
- Gives small and medium ballistic weapons up to +100/100/200 base range up to a maximum of 800/800/900
This would change how it works on arbalest/heavy mortar/thumper/heavy needler (making them match whatever range your smalls can go to)
And though it would make ACG get something out of it if you don't have a large.. Which
might sound OP at first, but then you have to consider the OP/flux costs combined, and i don't think many (if any) ships could make good use of it if you take that into consideration.
(you might think SO + ACG + BRF would be the "best" situation for this change but then you'd realise that it'd be a mere 25 range gain as the BRF bonus would be eaten into by SO)But i guess the core issue with this change is that this would make BRF more of a no-brainer pick.
