Cannons need more ammo

[Cmdr. Numa]

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.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I had a sparring session with one of my squadron members who was trying out an all cannon build, but he was dry on ammo before my shields even lost a ring. Lol

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

I'd concur that if one is going to run with nothing but cannons, then one needs to engineer them with the high capacity choice which doubles the number of mags. Utilizing lazer's which are designed for shields an cannons which are designed for hulls; One will utilize far less ammo. With the assistance of my expert crew member in a ship launched fighter with twin beams, I can stay for longer in the area of a NAV Beacon, Low RES, and even a High RES; Then I actually have time for. More often then not, I get bored and head back to the station to have a beer or two with the hottie crew member I hired.

 

[peppi]

more ammo i agree

 

[Aashenfox]

The thing that FD seems to have forgotten is that defense has increased by around 1000% since day 1, while ammo counts....have not.

Cannons need 100% increase in damage or ammo
Railguns need 50% increase in ammo
Frags need a 50% increase in ammo
PAs could use maybe just a 25% increase.

And lastly, I always have to throw in a controversial point...taking damage should not stop synthing either ammo or utilities (eg chaff). There I said it. It makes no sense. Why does my ammo printer not work because a laser is tickling my shield?? Come on FD throw us a bone, and buff canopies while you're at it. Cheers!

 

[dm06]

The thing that FD seems to have forgotten is that defense has increased by around 1000% since day 1, while ammo counts....have not.

Cannons need 100% increase in damage or ammo
Railguns need 50% increase in ammo
Frags need a 50% increase in ammo
PAs could use maybe just a 25% increase.

And these will undo all changes in the defense. This is the same as "let's revert defense to day 1", right? What's the point then?

And lastly, I always have to throw in a controversial point...taking damage should not stop synthing either ammo or utilities (eg chaff). There I said it. It makes no sense. Why does my ammo printer not work because a laser is ticking my shield??

With the non-stop synthesize no need for higher ammo capacity.

Come on FD throw us a bone, and buff canopies while you're at it. Cheers!

And right in this case nothing stops you from telling AFM to repair the canopy during battle, right?

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

And these will undo all changes in the defense. This is the same as "let's revert defense to day 1", right? What's the point then?

If you go with increased damage output, yes. If you go with increased ammo, no. It will still take just as long as it does now to kill a heavily fortified ship, you just won't run dry after a few kills. Synthesis is something I am very much opposed to, since that means perpetual grind. No thanks, the grind just to engineer the ships is enough.

 

[Aashenfox]

And these will undo all changes in the defense. This is the same as "let's revert defense to day 1", right? What's the point then?



With the non-stop synthesize no need for higher ammo capacity.



And right in this case nothing stops you from telling AFM to repair the canopy during battle, right?

1) Undo the changes to defense, I hope so!! Defense increased 1000% for explorers and traders who then don't use it and still complain about getting ganked because engineers are too much grind, mkay? With the result that we pvpers have to have drawn out 15min+ synth battles because there isn't enough ammo in almost any one weapon to take out a tanky medium ship. But yeh, sure, there's no issue. The entire pvp community isn't in agreement about this. Nope. lol.

2) Try synthing against me when I don't want you to.

3) AFMU? In pvp on a medium ship? Surely you jest. On the vette, sure.

I recognise your name as an old hand, but do you pvp at a serious level? Just curious? Cos I'm surprised anybody would be against this change (ammo increase), or are you just playing devil's advocate?

While I'm here, synthing anything except normal ammo was an idiotic decision too.

 

[dm06]

I recognise your name as an old hand, but do you pvp at a serious level? Just curious? Cos I'm surprised anybody would be against this change (ammo increase), or are you just playing devil's advocate?

None of those. The originally post was about PVE. And I'm looking at this from PVE point of view. And from the point I do agree that cannons (class 4 fixed especially, yeah) are good weapons and it seems to me that because of this we have them balanced against capacity.

 

[Morbad]

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

I'm of the opinion that such prolonged engagements, or at least periods of constant fire, should not be typical (both cannon fodder and bullet sponges are absurdities) and that the game should be encouraging a mix of weapons, with ammunition pools being a major balancing factor that forces ammo to be conserved.

Defenses are too potent and combat should not be about grinding through endless streams of hostiles, but I don't have a huge problem with ammo pools, except for railguns which I think now have too many shots.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

I'm of the opinion that such prolonged engagements, or at least periods of constant fire, should not be typical (both cannon fodder and bullet sponges are absurdities) and that the game should be encouraging a mix of weapons, with ammunition pools being a major balancing factor that forces ammo to be conserved.

But this is what standard bounty hunting and standard CZ fighting is. Not everything in CZ are highly engineered spec ops, not every wanted ship is highly engineered assassination target. And it's not really possible to change that, since new players in stock or only lightly engineered ships need to be able to play that content too, with the mentioned highly engineered targets being reserved for more advanced players and ships.

 

[Morbad]

But this is what standard bounty hunting and standard CZ fighting is.

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.

 

[Fake Newts]

Cannons do need more ammo, but it's part and parcel of a wider problem which is TTK and health bloat across the board. It used to be a problem that was unique to PvP but now low-ranked CZ ships (including Cobra IIIs and Asps) are regularly cruising around with 3k+ hull, plus all the changes Fdev made to armour penetration, small weapon damage reduction vs larger hulls, biweave shield buffs, booster stacking, resistance stacking...

Ammo cap for cannons has been relatively low forever, but in light of the new buffed ecosystem it's a joke. They could treble the ammo count of many kinetics and it wouldn't be excessive in the light of current TTK... however ultimately this would be a small bandaid on what is a deeper problem.

 

[Fake Newts]

The thing that FD seems to have forgotten is that defense has increased by around 1000% since day 1, while ammo counts....have not.

In some ships it's possible to increase defence 2500% over stock, while DPS can generally only be increased by around 100% with G5 engineering (with some outliers, but generally it holds steady around the 90 - 100% mark.)

I'm agreeing with you but pointing out it's actually even worse than you say, and that ammo count is only part of the problem.

EDIT (And unfortunately while potential HP is hugely out of whack with potential DPS, flat out buffing guns to keep pace would cause its own problems because, as you mentioned, lots of players are still cruising around with less than 1000hp and leaving their mil slots empty... and would die in a matter of nanoseconds. The power spectrum has stretched beyond all manageable levels and at this point nothing short of a major rework will fix it)

 

[Aashenfox]

I'm of the opinion that such prolonged engagements, or at least periods of constant fire, should not be typical (both cannon fodder and bullet sponges are absurdities) and that the game should be encouraging a mix of weapons, with ammunition pools being a major balancing factor that forces ammo to be conserved.

Defenses are too potent and combat should not be about grinding through endless streams of hostiles, but I don't have a huge problem with ammo pools, except for railguns which I think now have too many shots.

Oh Morbad, if only we could all be as battle efficient as you (seriously). For me railguns don't have enough shots. As you mentioned in more than one of our fights you were almost out of ammo, I'm genuinely surprised that you don't think more ammo is needed to make the game more enjoyable at 'mere mortal' levels.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

If you want to increase damage, also increase the power consumption of weapons (defences are quite power hungry already, but maybe increase that too).

Most non combatants have plenty of potential for unused power, and (dedicated) traders and explorers have no real use for weapons. (Whether they use it or not is another story).

But increased power requirements would put an end to maximum DPS and shields.
It'll either be glass cannon, or tank. Or something in the middle.
Hull tanks already have a huge weakness for external module damage, and often a speed tradeoff too.

Hybrids would probably become the best option because of the lower power requirements for shields. But their shields are steak weak, and then they're exposed to module damage.

Then increase cannon ammo.
And frags.
And rails. Lol

 

[Morbad]

Oh Morbad, if only we could all be as battle efficient as you (seriously). For me railguns don't have enough shots. As you mentioned in more than one of our fights you were almost out of ammo, I'm genuinely surprised that you don't think more ammo is needed to make the game more enjoyable at 'mere mortal' levels.

Honestly, I don't think a pure rail/PA/cannon/frag loadout should be viable outside of wing engagements or ambushes. I mean, I'll use them when they are for as long as they are, but that's now how I feel it should be.

I want ammo conservation and firegroup management to be a significant part of combat. Knowing when to hold fire for that opportune moment should be just as important as keeping up the pressure or one's ability to aim.

Also, the larger underlying issue is the defense inflation (and NPC behavior, in the case of PvE). I'd prefer that was tackled before messing with any stopgaps, less we only get a partial fix, or a bad fix that isn't rolled back when the good fix is finally implemented.

 

[Old Duck]

The realism nut that I am asks, "But where do all these shells get stored?" Cannon shells are not small, after all. So what about this counter-proposal: allow extra ammo of ALL TYPES to be stored in our cargo racks. That allows us to pack more ammo while maintaining realism (ammo has mass and takes up space), and it forces design decisions like - "Do I want more ammo or an extra HRP?"

Otherwise this game devolves into more and more of an arcade shooter.

 

[Aashenfox]

Honestly, I don't think a pure rail/PA/cannon/frag loadout should be viable outside of wing engagements or ambushes. I mean, I'll use them when they are for as long as they are, but that's now how I feel it should be.

I want ammo conservation and firegroup management to be a significant part of combat. Knowing when to hold fire for that opportune moment should be just as important as keeping up the pressure or one's ability to aim.

Also, the larger underlying issue is the defense inflation (and NPC behavior, in the case of PvE). I'd prefer that was tackled before messing with any stopgaps, less we only get a partial fix, or a bad fix that isn't rolled back when the good fix is finally implemented.

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.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

The realism nut that I am asks, "But where do all these shells get stored?" Cannon shells are not small, after all. So what about this counter-proposal: allow extra ammo of ALL TYPES to be stored in our cargo racks. That allows us to pack more ammo while maintaining realism (ammo has mass and takes up space), and it forces design decisions like - "Do I want more ammo or an extra HRP?"

Otherwise this game devolves into more and more of an arcade shooter.

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.