Cannons need more ammo

[Fake Newts]

Fair comment, I've begun to care less and less about the NPCs since I got more involved in PvP, but I agree, it's an important aspect of the game. I do however, think it's more sensible to ensure that interactions that affect TWO pilots (pvp balance) should be prioritised over issues that affect one at a time (PvE), and that once the pvp part is sorted out, bring the pve AI into line with that. I know there are loads who will say 'how dare you 1%ers dictate the game!" but it's a fundamental truth that this is an MMO and the highest level combat will always be PvP, so that should be perfected first. You've seen me say in the past that I would rather have much harsher diminishing returns on defense. It would achieve the same goal I believe, roughly.

It's mainly semantics but I would argue that it's all part and parcel of the same thing and that forming camps between PvP/PvE on this issue just leads to a pointless enmity: bad combat balance (like we currently have) is bad for everyone, across the board, whether they're aware of it or not. It should be addressed holistically (but probably won't be).

The only real difference is PvE players tend to notice less/later because they're not bumping up against the extremes of the system as often, and when they do their experience of it is more likely to be lopsided, which probably makes it harder to identify the crux of the issue.

 

[Old Duck]

I'd love ammo racks. For some reason, it's not a well supported idea.

As long as things like torpedoes are kept in check, sacrificing internals for extra ammo capacity is self balancing.

I don't understand why people would be opposed to this. It's quite realistic. Heck, it could make for extra PvP fun - make cargo racks a sub-target and allow hatch breakers to cause ammo stores to fall out just like any other cargo.

As for things like torpedoes, add a "transfer delay" similar to synthesis (or longer) to move ammo from the cargo bay to the weapons, and that should prevent torpedo spamming.

 

[Marco Santos]

More ammo to cannons... ah... NO!!!

So u want to have more ammo so u can stay and deal that much damage per shot more...
That wont work and i dont see FD doing that, cause that would be unbalancing stuff, there is a reason cannons have low ammo, its their downside to balance the fact that when they hit it makes insane amount of damage to the target.

Im sorry but when i see in any game a post of asking for the "easy button" im always against it.

Ammoracks to have more ammo, would be fair, if it has a massive drawback, like increases mass, so ship loses turn and speed, takes modules space, etc...

 

[Aashenfox]

It's mainly semantics but I would argue that it's all part and parcel of the same thing and that forming camps between PvP/PvE on this issue just leads to a pointless enmity: bad combat balance (like we currently have) is bad for everyone, across the board, whether they're aware of it or not. It should be addressed holistically (but probably won't be).

The only real difference is PvE players tend to notice less/later because they're not bumping up against the extremes of the system as often, and when they do their experience of it is more likely to be lopsided, which probably makes it harder to identify the crux of the issue.

Well said.

 

[Aashenfox]

More ammo to cannons... ah... NO!!!

So u want to have more ammo so u can stay and deal that much damage per shot more...
That wont work and i dont see FD doing that, cause that would be unbalancing stuff, there is a reason cannons have low ammo, its their downside to balance the fact that when they hit it makes insane amount of damage to the target.

Im sorry but when i see in any game a post of asking for the "easy button" im always against it.

Yeh, all the well reasoned and detailed posts and discussion so far are all just noise, you've got the real truth right here!! lol

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

More ammo to cannons... ah... NO!!!

So u want to have more ammo so u can stay and deal that much damage per shot more...
That wont work and i dont see FD doing that, cause that would be unbalancing stuff, there is a reason cannons have low ammo, its their downside to balance the fact that when they hit it makes insane amount of damage to the target.

Im sorry but when i see in any game a post of asking for the "easy button" im always against it.

Ammoracks to have more ammo, would be fair, if it has a massive drawback, like increases mass, so ship loses turn and speed, takes modules space, etc...

More damage per shot alright. Less DPS than Multicannons though due to low shot frequency, and still depleted far earlier than Multicannons.

 

[Berpol]

In my experience my three large multicannons last me 4 or 5 anacondas (PvE in combat zone), a bit more against pirates. So when I am in a small CZ it barely lasts through the fight, in bigger ones I have to reload (and one cannon after the other).
Thinking about it, if NPCs had limited ammo for their different cannons this would make some long fights...

Personally I would like to see some kind of internal ammo module. This would allow the rearmament of your weapons. After all if it is possible to print ammo and resupply the weapons anyway, why not prepare a storage for it.
Activating the module could be by retracting, so the weapons retract (few soconds), get reloaded (few seconds) and get extended (few seconds) for a total of 10 or so seconds.
The size would be the total amount of ammunition (perhaps not weapon specific but a number of credits) and the class would give faster reload while the time to retract and extend stays the same.

P.S. I have not a lot experience with weapons other than MC so I can't say if they are balanced.

 

[Aashenfox]

In my experience my three large multicannons last me 4 or 5 anacondas (PvE in combat zone), a bit more against pirates. So when I am in a small CZ it barely lasts through the fight, in bigger ones I have to reload (and one cannon after the other).
Thinking about it, if NPCs had limited ammo for their different cannons this would make some long fights...

Personally I would like to see some kind of internal ammo module. This would allow the rearmament of your weapons. After all if it is possible to print ammo and resupply the weapons anyway, why not prepare a storage for it.
Activating the module could be by retracting, so the weapons retract (few soconds), get reloaded (few seconds) and get extended (few seconds) for a total of 10 or so seconds.
The size would be the total amount of ammunition (perhaps not weapon specific but a number of credits) and the class would give faster reload while the time to retract and extend stays the same.

P.S. I have not a lot experience with weapons other than MC so I can't say if they are balanced.

I like the idea of retracting them to charge them, as long as gunfire didn't cancel the rearm. This means that while reloading you can't be effective for a few seconds and it lets your opponent know when you're doing it. The only very minor issue I can think of is that currently in a friendly battle, stowing hardpoints is conceding. Lol, that could be funny the first few times.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Well, I did the maths in Coriolis, turns out the disparity isn't so great between cannon and multicannon, so that doubling cannon ammo would probably be enough, not raising it to 500.

Small cannons have a slightly higher firing rate than the rest, which gives them actually better DPS than small multicannons. There's still the increased miss rate with cannons to be taken into account. The small cannon can deliver 3 minutes of total firing time, the small multicannon a little over 4 minutes.

Medium cannons get 4 minutes of firing time, medium multicannons get 4.5 minutes, but have better DPS, since medium and bigger cannons all have the same 0.4 shot/s firing rate.

No surprise then that large cannons get the same 4 minutes firing time, while the multicannon gets 5 minutes and higher DPS.

The biggest gap is in the huge weapons. Huge cannon still has 4 minutes of firing time, while the multicannon gets 10 minutes and better DPS.

So no wonder that I got that huge disparity in staying power on my Mamba with one huge cannon versus one huge multicannon. The same difference made me swap the quad medium multicannons on the FdL which ran dry pretty quickly for one huge. Also easily explains how the Corvette with dual huges is twice as efficient.

 

[Berpol]

When you are in a friendly battle and need to reload you might think about conceding.

 

[Lestat]

I think they need more engineering for lasers and no buffs for Cannons.

 

[Barlog M.]

I think cannons need something like plasma slug but from hull integrity.

 

[Troopi]

There's another detail - Cannons have more piercing power. Their duty is to blast a ship away after shields go down. You don't need many shots for that. Target a subsystem, get a firing solution, and use precise shots. I think the ammo capacity of them is fine.
But ammo-racks are welcome. Sacrificing one cargo slot for extra ammo is a good trade-off, specially if the mass increase equals a cargo rack filled with its capacity.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

There's another detail - Cannons have more piercing power. Their duty is to blast a ship away after shields go down. You don't need many shots for that. Target a subsystem, get a firing solution, and use precise shots. I think the ammo capacity of them is fine.
But ammo-racks are welcome. Sacrificing one cargo slot for extra ammo is a good trade-off, specially if the mass increase equals a cargo rack filled with its capacity.

That was back in a time when powerplant 0 meant ship dies. Nowadays ships can hold out pretty many more shots before eventually going boom. Now the huge multicannon has a piercing rating of 68, only 4 ships exceed that in hardness, and not by much. The huge multicannon is a far better module killer than the cannon actually.

The huge multicannon is IMO the only properly balanced kinetic weapon in the game.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I think they need more engineering for lasers and no buffs for Cannons.

Lasers can actually be pretty devastating when engineered properly.

 

[Troopi]

That was back in a time when powerplant 0 meant ship dies. Nowadays ships can hold out pretty many more shots before eventually going boom. Now the huge multicannon has a piercing rating of 68, only 4 ships exceed that in hardness, and not by much. The huge multicannon is a far better module killer than the cannon actually.

That powerplant 0 is a bug. Most of the times, my foes go boom after the PP reaches 0.
In what regards the Huge multicannon, I have to agree that the Huge cannon should have more penetration to be an equal choice.

 

[The Replicated Man]

I love cannons, I really do. Long range modded they are really fun, and the range of specials is interesting too.

They just don't have enough ammo ! 100 is way to little for a weapon that has less DPS than a multicannon. I was trying out a Mamba with a huge long range high yield cannon in a CZ today. It killed ships well enough, but ammo was gone after 10 kills. So I'm switching back to huge multicannon.

Cannons need at least 500 ammo to be viable for any kind of prolonged PvE fighting.

They did increase the ammo before. I am fairly sure they doubled it from 50-60. That was a blessing back then.

 

[Tiili]

Ammo resupply limpets that are required to move ammo from cargo racks to weapon ammo pools, go!

The only reason I'm a pirate is this really, there wasn't any real use for a support role(meaning that you're a waste of wing space when people actually know how to play ) so I went to do the next thing that interacts with players using limpet drones

 

[Sylow]

Yes, and that's my complaint. Standard BH and CZ combat is an exercise in protracted absurdity that cheapens the overall combat experience of the game.

I understand where you are coming from. But you are not on the point here, you are arguing for a completely different game. I mean yes, being able to cruise in a HazRES for an hour and just killing criminals which come to you, one after another, seems a bit strange.

Yet i have to admit:

• I at some times like to do that. Forget realism, sometimes I just enjoy this activity.
• It's a great thing to do with sporadically playing friends. You can't really take somebody who plays once every three months into a wing assassination mission and expect him to survive.
• If BH kills would be so rare as you'd want them to be, bounty hunting would be a beggers profession. It already now doesn't pay as well as many other activities. It's a "for fun" activity. Not only would payment have to get increased a lot to make up for it. Even then, a lot of more casual and not as godlike pilots as you would forever be pushed out of it. Not good.

In contrast, i could also use this thread to once again argue against engineers and defense stacking. Which is the actual root cause of this problem. But while i really so very much hope that FD would pull out the axe and drastically cut down on engineering effects, i don't think that it'll ever happen.

And based on knowing that FD would never dare to touch the overpowered parts (means: almost everyting) of engineers and reduce them (while a certain part of the playerbase would just cry and wail at the mere thought of this to happen), i think that adjusting ammo capacity on the cannons is reasonable. I wouldn't increase them as much as the OP suggests. But something like +30% on C1, +75% on C2 and C3 and +100% on C4 cannon ammo actually in my eyes would make sense. This would just allow them to reduce the gap compared to MCs, without even completely closing the gap.

MCs (especially C4) would still be the better choice, but it would allow cannons to get out of the "user must be clueless" category and be seen as tradeoff for "personal preference".