I think cannons are not for fighter type ships. Fighters need to manoeuvre sharply because they do not have the bulk to take heavy fire for more than a few seconds. The chances of hitting anything with a cannon (especially fixed cannons) mounted on a fighter are low. Cannons should be mounted on big stable ships to shoot at other big stable ships. Like how the big battleships of WW 1 and 2 fought their battles.
Cannons need ammo Badly.
- Thread starter madmann135
- Start date
It shows what exactly? I didn't say no one uses them, I said virtually no one. Rails may get used some but I really don't think many people uses cannons or plasma accelerators over the much cheaper and more efficient multi-cannon. Weapon balance in this game is in a really bad place.
It demonstrates what is going to happen if the ammunition of the rail guns is increased. Most of the players will switch exclusively to the rail guns.
I am using rail guns as support weapons. Much more useful for me than MCs.
Last edited:
Why are you making it just about rails? You might be right about them, but this thread is about all "cannon" type weapons. Personally I think there are other issues involved other than just ammo capacity, but all the same the question of whether these weapons are balanced in legitimate. Plasma accelerators are terrible. Cannons are sub-optimal. Rails are pretty much pvp only. Seeker missiles don't hit very hard and have pathetic ammo, and dumbfires have been nerfed down to a similar level. For the most part there just isn't much reason to use anything but MCs and lasers in this game, and that's not good.
I think some people are confusing balance with annoyance.
If a weapon has enough ammo for an engagement, ammo can no longer be considered a balance point, because while the weapon might only be OP for one fight, it's still OP. If you reduce ammo below the necessary threshold for an engagement, the weapon becomes inviable; this highlights that using ammo as a balancing point is a horrible idea, as a weapon can swing from OP to inviable on such an account.
Right now, our low ammo components (chaff was unfortunately added to this list) operate on an annoyance scale; how annoying is it to continuously reload? The only time this becomes a concern rather than an annoyance is when considering credits per hour in a combat zone (lol). It's the unfortunate state that many objects in this game find themselves in; rather than being changed to provide a uniquely useful addition to your combat capability, they're "balanced" by making them annoying enough that most players don't bother with them. This is probably the worst approach to balance possible, because it doesn't actually balance anything.
If a weapon has enough ammo for an engagement, ammo can no longer be considered a balance point, because while the weapon might only be OP for one fight, it's still OP. If you reduce ammo below the necessary threshold for an engagement, the weapon becomes inviable; this highlights that using ammo as a balancing point is a horrible idea, as a weapon can swing from OP to inviable on such an account.
Right now, our low ammo components (chaff was unfortunately added to this list) operate on an annoyance scale; how annoying is it to continuously reload? The only time this becomes a concern rather than an annoyance is when considering credits per hour in a combat zone (lol). It's the unfortunate state that many objects in this game find themselves in; rather than being changed to provide a uniquely useful addition to your combat capability, they're "balanced" by making them annoying enough that most players don't bother with them. This is probably the worst approach to balance possible, because it doesn't actually balance anything.
In all games there needs to be a balance of game play elements and fun.
ED is taking away all of the fun with their "Balances" to the point the only good thing about ED is that it is good at showing how vast space is.
The weapons are "Balanced" to the point of being useless for what they are intended to do.
I have already covered the ammunition for cannons in several of my previous posts. I was asked about the video, I have replied to that question.
Missiles deal little damage vs shields. You need to take down shields first and launch missiles only then.
Very well put. The two main issues with ammo weapons aside from MCs is low ammo capacity and high resupply costs. What this means is that they have been made into pure PVP weapons, where ammo capacity and resupply costs are not seen as that important compared to PVE. Compounding that is that outside of rails none of them offer a particular reason to use them instead of lasers and MCs when engaging in PVP. It's bad design, pure and simple.
Last edited:
Lestat
Banned
You know I have not issue hitting someone with a cannon or Railgun. But it comes down to sure shot. The ammo Limitation make me think can I hit this target or not. Which requires me to get close and dirty. I think some people are complaining about it. What they need to do is to learn that skill. If you can't make the shot then DON'T SHOOT.
When I was in Alpha and Beta builds. What people would do is Wait outside the No fire zone and just pluck 1 player after another. It funny now but back then. People complain about it.
The other thing people need to do is mix and match their weapons. So your not just using cannons.
When I was in Alpha and Beta builds. What people would do is Wait outside the No fire zone and just pluck 1 player after another. It funny now but back then. People complain about it.
The other thing people need to do is mix and match their weapons. So your not just using cannons.
no, they are FAR from perfect.
while OP proposal might be too much, there is currently few player using canon / rails, because the ammo load SUCK big time. it's that simple.
i'd say if you want them to be usefull (i.e. on par) with multi's, their magazine should be 50% bigger, and the totall ammo carried should be bumped by roughly 50% or 100%
I'm not sure they are perfect. I'd like to see the amount of ammo reserves matched to the total damage able to be done.
Using the example above:
MC = 1D/shot * 2100 rds. = 2100 damage
C = 5D/shot * 420 rds. = 2100 damage
RG = 10D/shot * 210 rds. = 2100 damage.
Note that numbers are for argument's sake only and don't reflect in-game values.
Then to balance the weapon, you change the costs, reload speed, flight time, magazine capacity, etc. to alter the DPS and modulate the skill ceiling.
As noted, Cannons are good close in against large ships targeting subsystems. The downside is that they suck against small/fast ships, and are always reloading. But they are still instant fire to allow for "perfect" timing. They come in both gimballed and fixed varieties and are available for most sizes of hard points.
Railguns have great range and accuracy, but have the charge up time and long reload.
So I already feel that they are "balanced" for what they should be used for. The problem that I have, really, is when you're in extended fights/areas. With the higher powered weapons that are already "balanced" for certain needs, you really only get into a limited amount of combat before you need to go and reload. Even when you'll likely be missing more often.
Using the example above:
MC = 1D/shot * 2100 rds. = 2100 damage
C = 5D/shot * 420 rds. = 2100 damage
RG = 10D/shot * 210 rds. = 2100 damage.
Note that numbers are for argument's sake only and don't reflect in-game values.
Then to balance the weapon, you change the costs, reload speed, flight time, magazine capacity, etc. to alter the DPS and modulate the skill ceiling.
As noted, Cannons are good close in against large ships targeting subsystems. The downside is that they suck against small/fast ships, and are always reloading. But they are still instant fire to allow for "perfect" timing. They come in both gimballed and fixed varieties and are available for most sizes of hard points.
Railguns have great range and accuracy, but have the charge up time and long reload.
So I already feel that they are "balanced" for what they should be used for. The problem that I have, really, is when you're in extended fights/areas. With the higher powered weapons that are already "balanced" for certain needs, you really only get into a limited amount of combat before you need to go and reload. Even when you'll likely be missing more often.
That doesn't mean the numbers now are "perfect", it could well mean that the numbers used to be way to far in one direction and are now slightly too far in the other direction.
And that could well be one of the outliers. He's also flying with flight assist off. Shall I present that as evidence that most commanders are flying with FA off?
And the only options are either the current ammo count, or infinite ammo? How it is now or how it was in Beta? No smaller adjustments can possibly be made? You say how it would be unbalanced 'even' if you only increased the ammo to 100. OK. Well then how about 50? There's all sorts of other numbers out there.
That is a cool idea. I love that.
50% in rail gun ammunition increase is all that I need to switch to 100% rail gun load out. 4 weapons will give you 244 rounds, 5 - 305, 8 - 488. That's enough for long autonomous flights.
It looks like you have missed that not only the author of the video was using the rail guns. Rail guns are good for PvP, increasing ammunition will decrease the necessity to visit station significantly, especially if we are talking about ~50-100%% increase.
Here is a nice video of an Anaconda with all rail gun load out, increasing ammunition there will be a lot more ships with such load outs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SndArkhYn2c#t=11m35
Last edited:
It looks like you missed that this still doesn't mean the current numbers are perfect, and the fact that only extremely hardcore pilots are using railguns for a very narrow function would suggest that they are not rather than that they are.
Increasing the ammo a lot would mean a lot more ships with such load outs. Increasing the ammo a little would mean a few more ships with such loadouts. Considering the vast majority of pilots are currently reporting all using the same laser/multicannon combo, I would put it to you that a few more ships with railgun loadouts would be a good thing, and a step towards a 'perfect' balance.
You pointing out rare edge cases using railguns now does not reduce the likelihood of this being true, any more than you pointing to times when the other extreme of the balance was tried and caused it to tip in the other direction. It was balanced way too far towards railguns before, and now it's a bit too far away from them. They have become the sole preserve of hardcore 'FA off' and Anaconda pilots. That's your perfect balance? Nonsense.
What's your definitions of a little and a lot?
I am not flying FA OFF nor Anaconda but I enjoy rail guns, which are currently nice support weapons.
Well, a little would be one extra round of ammo, and a lot would be a hundred extra rounds of ammo. The perfect balance could be anywhere in between.
I enjoy railguns. They are skill based, and fun to use because of it. But I find myself swapping them out again when I get tired of having to RTB to reload, or I find I've spent my whole earnings on ammo. It seems I'm not alone so at the moment I think the balance isn't quite right and I'm penalised too much for using them. When the pros and cons of multicannons vs railguns are balanced, you should find an equal number of people choosing each. Right now they're considered more hassle than they are worth by more people than value them. That isn't a perfect balance.
I waded into this thread a while ago as a former cannon user. I haven't changed my opinion on cannons needing more ammo, but having played a decent amount with railguns for the last few weeks (first time doing so at any length), I agree with Aleksej that the ammo totals for the railguns are fine as they are.
As I've said previously I don't think the cannons need double or triple the ammo, more like 20% more.
As I've said previously I don't think the cannons need double or triple the ammo, more like 20% more.
Shouldn't things be balanced so weapons do the same overall amount of damage?
I don't want to have to return to station far more often with one type of weapon than another.
Or is there an assumption that needs to be built in about what percentage of shots will hit the target?
The difference with FPS is that you can find ammo on your way round or from people you shoot.
No, because shields are constantly recharging, so the faster you do damage the less total damage you need to inflict.