Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex]

I really detest the clip based system. It sounded like an ok compromise between having the previous ammo system and no ammo at all, but in reality is worse than both. It doesn't serve any purpose but to break up engagements and interrupt your fights as you wait for ammo to trickle in. It adds an entire extra layer of complexity to ballistics that feels totally unnecessary, a step in the absolute opposite direction of what I understood the purpose of moving away from ammo in the first place was. To free up complexity for other parts of the game.

It feels disjointed and more in-the-way than anything else, and I hope to soon see it go away. An idea that was tested and didn't work out. Changes the entire feel of combat with ballistics, and not in any positive way.

I didn't think I would feel this way before, but after actually spending some time in game and using a variety of setups and weapons to give it a really fair try, I'm sure. If I had to choose between this and no ammo at all, I choose no ammo. I know you try things out all the time Alex, and based on how you think it works out it either makes it into the game or it doesn't, but I'm not sure what your thought process was here. Do you actually like this system? Did you decide to let the playerbase try it and, based on feedback, decide whether or not to keep it? Or did you try it, understand it sucked, and push it on the playerbase as punishment for not receiving the "no ammo for ballistics" change very well?

I'm curious, which weapons specifically have you used that feel that way? And what length of fights are we talking about?

Hmm. It might make sense to go back to infinite ammo for a few ballistics (conceptually, they can just reload as fast as they fire), and only leave the clip-based mechanic on a few weapons where it makes sense as a balancing factor. That'd also meet the original goal of simplifying things somewhat.

IMO Reapers > Harpoons even for AI, although I haven't tested Harpoons all that much. I think I'll go do that, cause why not.

One thing about AI Harpoon usage is that it'll quickly fire off large salvoes vs unshielded ships. Not entirely sure how to address it, since in many circumstances it *does* make sense to alpha-strike any Hounds and Cerberi (?) into oblivion, but in other cases it makes sense to save the Harpoons for other threats, and that's a tough call for the AI to make. Anyway, all that is to say, when you're trying out Harpoons, keep in mind that the AI is going to use them best vs shielded ships.

[Megas]

One thing about AI Harpoon usage is that it'll quickly fire off large salvoes vs unshielded ships. Not entirely sure how to address it, since in many circumstances it *does* make sense to alpha-strike any Hounds and Cerberi (?) into oblivion, but in other cases it makes sense to save the Harpoons for other threats, and that's a tough call for the AI to make. Anyway, all that is to say, when you're trying out Harpoons, keep in mind that the AI is going to use them best vs shielded ships.

I noticed this.  Many of my ships spend their Harpoons early on unshielded ships, and that happens in most fights.  Harpoons are not that deadly when not backed by Missile Specialization.  I have resorted to either Annihilators (burst damage) or Swarmers or Pilums (homing option) for AI ships instead.  Swarmers from 20+ frigates will hurt anything.  Now that Salamanders are unlimited, I plan to replace Swarmers on all of my ships with them.  Salamanders are just as lethal once the armor is gone.

[Wyvern]

Hmm. It might make sense to go back to infinite ammo for a few ballistics (conceptually, they can just reload as fast as they fire), and only leave the clip-based mechanic on a few weapons where it makes sense as a balancing factor. That'd also meet the original goal of simplifying things somewhat.

Mm.  I'll also add that, when I posited "chunk reload" mechanics (essentially the same as current clip reload), I included a suggestion that the expanded magazines hull mod should improve reload rate - most likely by increasing the clip size - and thought that for some weapons (especially small ballistic pd), this ought to bring the reload rate up to match the rate of fire.

That said, I have not actually tested how the current game feels - I've been low on time, and in particular this bug involving ballistic PD reserving ammunition for missiles/fighters has me waiting for the incoming bugfix release before I really dig into the game again.

[Megas]

I forgot to write that I have considered sending a lone Hound or phase ship with the express purpose of forcing enemy ships to launch their Harpoon salvos.  Enemy Dominator or Venture is not so scary once they waste their Harpoons.  (In the end, I decided Hyperion flagship plus Reaper strike was the easiest missile-ship counter.)

[xenoargh]

I am in agreement that there are a number of Ballistics where reload rate should be ammo rate (i.e., drop ammo / clip requirements entirely).  I'd say that this is true of all of the small fast-firing ones unless a clip system is there to give it flavor.  I would not favor a clip for Vulcans and LMGs, personally; for HMGs and Hephag it'd make more sense, though, and it's arguable for stuff like the Assault Cannon.

I'm also inclined to say that, after looking at the CSV, it could have been a little clearer; "clip reload time" and "clip ammo" values that don't tie into a core ammo value would probably be a little cleaner than the current system, where it's a little unclear how everything interacts, in terms of time hacks, without plugging numbers in and seeing the difference.  

There are also some UI issues, in terms of presentation.  For example, the UI for the Arbalest suggests it only has 20 shots and can be read that way, but no, it's really a regenerating-ammo weapon that has clips, and what we're seeing, under the UI, is a slow shot regeneration time when we're out of ammo, rather than a timer to build a new clip once we've burned the ready ammo.

It's pretty confusing to read, and I was expecting it, lol.  I doubt if newbies would make heads or tails of it easily, so I feel like a "rounds per clip / clip reload time / new clip build time" UI hint would be more sensible for weapons where the desired behavior is to fire off a clip and then have to reload is more appropriate, in terms of understanding the mechanics

[Megas]

Light/Heavy Needler should not use clips.  They have such a long delay between bursts that clips seem necessary.  Maybe extend delay a little.

I think Heavy Needler is disappointing now.  The only thing it offers over Heavy Autocannon is better accuracy, which is (usually) not worth +5 OP per gun for me.  At least Light Needler has +100 range over Railgun.

[SafariJohn]

Went and ran Harpoons in the simulator with my whole fleet vs. a similar-sized fleet. The low damage of the Harpoons was really disappointing. I'm going to stick with Reapers. 4000 is way better than 750x3.

[Dri]

Heavy needler is vastly more imperssive than heavy autocannon. You undervalue it's burst and its accuracy.

[Megas]

No, I do not.  It is often not worth +5 OP (over heavy autocannon) and not-so-high capacity when I now need to squeeze in Hardened Subsystems and unlimited Salamanders to most ships that had Needlers.  Some ships, like Enforcer and Dominator, want the extra accuracy, and I might still use them over heavy autocannon.  Some ships, like Eagle, only need to hit shields and do not need accuracy as much.

Previously, Heavy Needler was great because it had the best capacity, 1500 shots (or more with Expanded Magazines).  Now that Heavy Autocannon is unlimited, and has large capacity to fire for a while, Heavy Needler is only useful if I need the accuracy and have the OP to spare.

[Wyvern]

For what it's worth, I agree with Dri here.  Sure, the ammo capacity was nice, but most of the time that wasn't the deciding factor.  The big thing with the needlers is that one burst will put a frigate on the edge of overloading; if you've got anything else to keep up pressure (and you should, because kinetics below gauss don't fare well against armor), that's a huge advantage over the autocannon's plink-plink-plink.  (Alternatively, two heavy needlers in the rear turrets of an Onslaught are really good at keeping frigates out of your tailpipes; sure, they won't kill very well due to lack of anti-armor support, but they'll force near anything to back off... which is all you really need.)

Of course, different players, different playstyles; I've had this discussion with various people before, and it's usually a stalemate.  Some people think the autocannon's slightly better armor penetration and lower ordnance point cost win out.  Others (including me) think that the heavy needler's burst damage, shot speed (and thus ease of hitting targets) and flux efficiency make it superior.

[Delta7]

im not a fan of the beam weapon range standardization, nor the regenerating ammo. even as a missile commander, i liked how missiles had limited ammunition, it forced me to think tactically when engaging a large enemy fleet. i could blaze away all my pilliums with fast missile racks in the beginning, taking out maybe one or two enemy ships at long range, early on in the battle, or i could make efficient use of them and wait till an enemy was high on flux before firing and likely have enough to last most of the battle. another example, it also makes massive and overpowered harpoon spams far too easy. the sheer alpha strike damage of multiple harpoon pods was balanced by the limited ammunition, but now either 1. they become both overpowered AND spammable, or 2. they get nerfed. i dont want to be able to solo half an enemy battlefleet with a single wolf class frigate just because i can use a one two grav beam harpoon combo over and over again.
also, i liked the idea of most frigates having a limited time on the battlefield, with bigger ships having their endurance limited by ammunition. it forced you to think before sending in every one of your frigates at the beginning of a potentially long battle, and it also made it worth investing in a high tech destroyer or cruiser that uses energy weapons. ammo was far more than just a gimmick, it was an important game mechanic that effected my playstyle.
as for the high flux energy weapon damage boost. i didnt like the idea at first, but it gave an interesting set of choices while shooting it out with an enemy. maintain contact and finish a damaged enemy off with a prolonged and boosted burst from your energy weapons at the cost of having to lower your own shields and take some return fire, or break off to vent and go in for another run. now combat in an energy weapon armed ship is far more one dimensional, especially with the range normalization. variety is part of what makes this game fun, and that's why all my mods are designed to augment the game with more ships and weapons while leaving the original game untouched and still relatively balanced. standardization is the last thing this game needs.

[SafariJohn]

Harpoons don't regen.

[Toxcity]

Can people read the patch notes and try the patch before posting feedback? It prevents misinformation and allows us to have better discussions regarding balance / the patch.

[Aeson]

Of course, different players, different playstyles; I've had this discussion with various people before, and it's usually a stalemate.  Some people think the autocannon's slightly better armor penetration and lower ordnance point cost win out.  Others (including me) think that the heavy needler's burst damage, shot speed (and thus ease of hitting targets) and flux efficiency make it superior.

For what it's worth, the flux efficiency of the Heavy Needler is more than a little deceptive. Under the current patch, a Heavy Needler generates 80 flux per second as opposed to a Heavy Autocannon's 100 flux per second, but as long as you can add vents you can get 10 flux per second of dissipation per ordnance point and each Heavy Needler costs 5 more ordnance points than a Heavy Autocannon would. Heavy Needlers also generate ~283 flux per burst as compared to the Heavy Autocannon's ~140 flux per burst, which means they're a little harder to fire at high flux levels than the Heavy Autocannons are.

[Wyvern]

That's interesting - it implies that something's changed significantly either this patch or in a recent one; used to be the difference was around 45 flux per second (sustained) between the two weapons, which meant that heavy autocannon + vents was roughly the same efficiency as a heavy needler.  I'll have to double-check, see when that happened.