Wintersdark, on 27 August 2016 - 11:15 PM, said:
Well, 10 class autocannons carry 200 damage worth of ammo, 20-class autocannons carry 140, everything else is 150. The reason why 20-class autocannons are at 140 instead of 150 should be immediately apparent.
10's got boosted because they were the least used autocannon, but PGI was reluctant to buff them. LBX10, AC10, cLBX10, cUAC10. Of course, then cUAC10 popularity exploded with the shell count and burst duration reductions, but yeah.
That was a balancing factor, because IS side: Why take an AC10, when an AC20 doubles the damage for 2 more tons? Nor was it a bad move.
With that said, I'd like to see all ammo counts increased, but we're already transitioning to a dakka based meta anyways, so maybe not. *shrugs*
Idealsuspect, on 28 August 2016 - 04:31 AM, said:
You mean weapons with large spread AND small range ??... it's totally logical.
More risky weapons allow you to get higher damage at end of game .. also yours guys have the choice now.
In fact only AC10 and UAC10 don't deserve to get 200 damage per tonn of ammo but LBX deserve it.
while I agree with more risk = reward. I was not correct in telling that 200 damage per ton was the highest.
the highest is actualy IS SRM AMMO at 430 damage per ton.
while yes the ac20 and the gauss rifle which are high damage pinpoint weapons (not cuac/cac versions tho) generaly need less ammo to be more effective than say ac 10 or cuac10 which trade of nothing are currently the best of all choices since for all other weapons the negatives outwheight the gain as long as you have the ammount of harpoints and free tons to compare em 1 by 1 like you do on the kodiak and direfloof (so totaly viable choice of comparsion)
I am also not saying that a weapon like lrms whith a hitrate of less than 25% and just 180 damage per ton of ammo is great either.
while yes the choice to run an ac20 vs an ac 10... well it might seem that the ac 20 is straight up superior at first. but the ac 10 has more long term damage, more dps per ton, needs less tons for ammo, is more heat efficient, will have less energy draw per damage and more range/accuracy, less drop off, more synergy when used with other weapons and less dependent about being right in the face of the enemy or even actually hitting at max damage due to surplus ammo.
so yes I do not think that 140 vs 430 damage per ton is in any way, shape or form fair to weapons balance especially when you can effectively mount way more of the highest damage per ton ammo weapons than you could even imagine to bring on the low ammo end, and this will be even more noticeable once energy draw hits.
I am sure that we actualy will be going out of the dakka based meta we currently have once more people realise how far srm based builds will be able to push it
I mean why fire 1 ac20 and take 4 heat penalty when you could fire 4 asrm6 for way more damage? or 40 in lrm 5's (80 in lrm 20's before noticeable difference between current and pts ghostheat but who uses lrm 20's anyway... runs cold with just 12 dhs btw despite aplha strikingat more than 40 points over heat threshold)
Missile meta is incomming. soon™. Lurmageddon™
I should also add that no. I am not going to the Con due to havign other plans at that point in time allready.
Edited by Kangarad, 28 August 2016 - 09:00 AM.
6
)
