These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Friendly reminder that autocannons are still terrible

Author
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#61 - 2015-09-03 18:06:16 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
afkalt wrote:
You can't have RLML in the discussion and ignore reload time - it's silly.

What ACs do excel at, and I've not seen much chat around is shooting down sizes - certainly in the medium sizes - the damage difference between 180s vs 425 is not severe and the tracking is to die for, especially when you add a web.

Stabber fleets in particular, mulch frigates like there is no tomorrow. Yes, I know, RLMLs exist but I feel like that aspect has been missed from the debate so shouldn't be ignored.


Blasters do it better while brawling and lasers do it better when kiting.


I prefer my brawlers to not have neutable guns.

Anyway, I don't disagree they need a little something but let's not pretend they're heavy missile bad Blink

It would be easy to go OTT here.

Luckily every gallente ship has 4 mids. Prop, point, web and CB. My hurricane died to 2 thoraxes that i couldnt neut out due to CB. My fleet phoon died to a gang with plated nomens that had CB that i couldnt shut off their scrams/guns with dual heavy neuts. Your cap arguement is invalid when you stick a CB there and eliminate the cap dependency of those guns.



I see your CB and raise you kite within scram range.
Hurricane of course is going to lose to two thoraxes because you can't control both of them.
However, 1v1. Hurricane with AB web and scram can kite a Thorax at 8km, reduce thorax dps by half or more while putting you well within your punishment range.

ACs are the middle ground.
Blasters - high damage
Pulse - long range 2nd highest damage
ACs - moderate range, good tracking, damage selection, no cap usage, more viable across multiple ranges
RLML - moderate damage, consistent across range, good precision, no cap, damage selection

Hams - decent, but unsuitable for a viable cruiser fit
HML - Crap on crap with crap mixed in crap.


Point is, Medium ACs may need a slight touch of love, but they're no where near as bad as this thread is putting them out to be.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#62 - 2015-09-03 18:30:05 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Point is, Medium ACs may need a slight touch of love, but they're no where near as bad as this thread is putting them out to be.



Empirical data suggests otherwise. You just don't see many people flying stabbers or ruptures these days, where everyone and their alt are flying the heck out of Caracals and Cerberus.

It's not a single thing making them bad, i.e.:

A)The ship meta is a toxic mess of caustic goo that absolutely ruins anyone's will to fly in general, but when they do, their choices are limited to about 15 good ships. Abominations like the Orthrus should never have been.

B)Other weapon systems are too good.

C)Autocannons are just plain awful.


40% A, 30% B, and 30% C.

If you do not address speed creep, you are just going to play musical chairs with weapon systems.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#63 - 2015-09-03 18:45:33 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Point is, Medium ACs may need a slight touch of love, but they're no where near as bad as this thread is putting them out to be.



Empirical data suggests otherwise. You just don't see many people flying stabbers or ruptures these days, where everyone and their alt are flying the heck out of Caracals and Cerberus.

It's not a single thing making them bad, i.e.:

A)The ship meta is a toxic mess of caustic goo that absolutely ruins anyone's will to fly in general, but when they do, their choices are limited to about 15 good ships. Abominations like the Orthrus should never have been.

B)Other weapon systems are too good.

C)Autocannons are just plain awful.


40% A, 30% B, and 30% C.

If you do not address speed creep, you are just going to play musical chairs with weapon systems.


The only reason Caracals and Cerbs are so prevalent is rapid lights.
Personally, I think
1) They should not receive range bonus to light missiles.
2) HAMs and HMLs need to have their fitting costs reduced to make them more viable on cruisers.
3) HAMs and HMLs need to be rebalanced to be more viable against cruisers
4) BCs with missiles need to have their fitting abilities rebalanced (reduced) to accommodate reduced fitting costs of heavies.

Now, as far as ACs go, I instead think they need a slight increase in optimal range.
Maybe 2km or so (just a thought).
This would in turn increase falloff range as well.

I was going to say the higher tier medium turrets of all variants need to have reduced fitting costs, but then I released they are intended for BCs, where as the lower tier are intended for cruisers.
However, the power gap needs to be adjusted a bit.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#64 - 2015-09-03 19:07:46 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
3) HAMs and HMLs need to be rebalanced to be more viable against cruisers


3)Cruisers need to be rebalanced so HAMs and HMLs are more viable against them.

FTFY.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#65 - 2015-09-03 19:10:10 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
3) HAMs and HMLs need to be rebalanced to be more viable against cruisers


3)Cruisers need to be rebalanced so HAMs and HMLs are more viable against them.

FTFY.



Bad fix... HAMs and HMLs are almost unusable against frigs, which is the main purpose to why rapid lights are fitted to cruisers..
Well, that and fitting costs.

Rebalance HAMs and HMLs and you now have a steady power increase, to which missile BCs become more viable in a fight as well.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#66 - 2015-09-03 19:31:58 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
afkalt wrote:
You can't have RLML in the discussion and ignore reload time - it's silly.

What ACs do excel at, and I've not seen much chat around is shooting down sizes - certainly in the medium sizes - the damage difference between 180s vs 425 is not severe and the tracking is to die for, especially when you add a web.

Stabber fleets in particular, mulch frigates like there is no tomorrow. Yes, I know, RLMLs exist but I feel like that aspect has been missed from the debate so shouldn't be ignored.


Blasters do it better while brawling and lasers do it better when kiting.


I prefer my brawlers to not have neutable guns.

Anyway, I don't disagree they need a little something but let's not pretend they're heavy missile bad Blink

It would be easy to go OTT here.

Luckily every gallente ship has 4 mids. Prop, point, web and CB. My hurricane died to 2 thoraxes that i couldnt neut out due to CB. My fleet phoon died to a gang with plated nomens that had CB that i couldnt shut off their scrams/guns with dual heavy neuts. Your cap arguement is invalid when you stick a CB there and eliminate the cap dependency of those guns.



I see your CB and raise you kite within scram range.
Hurricane of course is going to lose to two thoraxes because you can't control both of them.
However, 1v1. Hurricane with AB web and scram can kite a Thorax at 8km, reduce thorax dps by half or more while putting you well within your punishment range.

ACs are the middle ground.
Blasters - high damage
Pulse - long range 2nd highest damage
ACs - moderate range, good tracking, damage selection, no cap usage, more viable across multiple ranges
RLML - moderate damage, consistent across range, good precision, no cap, damage selection

Hams - decent, but unsuitable for a viable cruiser fit
HML - Crap on crap with crap mixed in crap.


Point is, Medium ACs may need a slight touch of love, but they're no where near as bad as this thread is putting them out to be.


Scram kiting is done with blasters too. With null. Except maybe electrons. Otherwise acs and blasters project very similarly within scram range. Using 180s, and you are deep in your falloff at the edge of scram range. Acs have lower dps compared to blasters, combined with fighting almost explicitly in falloff makes for projected dps at scram range very comparable. Blasters also track better than acs. I just recently had a nuetron brutix hitting my nado at 23km. So dont give me that crap that blasters cant project out past scram range. Yes, an electron fit using void or faction ammo will struggle. Load null and still hit comparitively as acs in scram range.

My hurricane was an arty cane, not ac. An ac cane if properly fit could handle a couple thorax. My point is, using the no cap usage crutch in a comparison is moot, when you have slots available for a CB. A single medium CB can overcome 2 neuts to keep a blaster, or laser ship shooting and tank running without much issue.

You are also comparing a battlecruiser to a cruiser. How bout a thorax vs a ruppy instead? Of course an AB cane could scram kite a thorax. Hell a cane could sit a 0 to 1v1 a thorax and still win.

Once again, you miss the point. The point we are making is not how well acs fight in scram range, its how poorly their dps applies at point range when you KITE with them. ANTI-SUPPORT role, meaning you arent scraming frigs for your gang, you are shooting incoming tackle in the 20-40km range before they are an issue. Even the falloff bonused ships like stabber and vagabond have pitiful dps at 20-25km. Especially the vaga which costs quadruple what other ships are. Those ships can apply the same (or more) dps at the same ranges.

Why fly a vagabond for 200m when a 30m caracal, 60m scyfi, or 90m nomen can do the SAME ROLE, but better and cheaper?
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#67 - 2015-09-03 21:15:08 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
3) HAMs and HMLs need to be rebalanced to be more viable against cruisers


3)Cruisers need to be rebalanced so HAMs and HMLs are more viable against them.

FTFY.



Bad fix... HAMs and HMLs are almost unusable against frigs, which is the main purpose to why rapid lights are fitted to cruisers..
Well, that and fitting costs.

Rebalance HAMs and HMLs and you now have a steady power increase, to which missile BCs become more viable in a fight as well.



HAMs and HMLs should be almost unusable against frigs, but they should be absolutely devastating to cruisers. Rapid Lights almost always being the better choice is a symptom of speed creep and meta for small things. RLMLs will always apply good damage regardless of what you encounter, whereas HAMs and HMLs will almost never do anything period. There used to be meaningful choices in fitting ships and who brings what to the gang, now there isn't really.

That's the problem with medium ACs - they aren't good at shooting under their hull class, and they aren't good at shooting their own ship class. I

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Arla Sarain
#68 - 2015-09-03 21:54:30 UTC
On small ACs, Neutron Blasters loaded with Null
breaks-even in damage
with 200m ACs loaded with barrage
at half the ACs falloff range.
Makes the falloff trait irrelevant and people who claim ACs operate in the falloff range sound daft.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#69 - 2015-09-03 22:09:52 UTC
Shank Ronuken wrote:
Auto Cannons cannot project damage in any way that makes them viable in the roles they are meant to fulfill.

In this DPS graph we have three anti-tacklers, all performing the same role and using the various weapons systems, IE AC, Pulse and RLML. Mind you these graphs are all at 0km-50km with a 0 speed and transversal

.....

You cancerous autists need to look at graphs and reality instead of pulling arbitrary and imaginative statistics from your asses and instead pull your head from your ass and use logic and facts.

Real scenarios and Graphs don't lie.


Your 'real' scenario graph has a zero speed target with zero transversal and youre bagging others for a reality check on their graphs ?

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#70 - 2015-09-03 22:40:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
deleted

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#71 - 2015-09-03 23:41:54 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
deleted


Ahh... Now I want to know what you said...
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#72 - 2015-09-04 02:56:00 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
deleted


Ahh... Now I want to know what you said...


Realized it was a waste of my time.

Roll

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#73 - 2015-09-04 08:26:23 UTC
Step 1: Reduce Medium Artillery PG-cost. Brings ship's fittings in line, as they're usually balanced in a way where a full rack of 425mm ACs can't be fitted without minor drawbacks - which makes fitting arties almost impossible.

Step 2: Divert current Projectile Ammo into AC ammo, Tracking ammo and Arty Ammo. AC and Arty ammo have both the dmg that PP, EMP and Fusion currently have. AC ammo gets Optimal penalty and Falloff Bonus, Arty ammo gets Optimal bonus and falloff penalty. Tracking Ammo stays as it is.

Step 3: Evaluate effects on gameplay and see if projectiles, especially medium sized, still need further tweaks.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2015-09-04 09:05:40 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
3) HAMs and HMLs need to be rebalanced to be more viable against cruisers


3)Cruisers need to be rebalanced so HAMs and HMLs are more viable against them.

FTFY.



This.

Additionally doing this will shake up the weapon landscape so until we do it, we're just rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic/$Cliché of choice.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2015-09-04 09:22:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
The weapons system could do with a complete revamp IMO. For brawling setups you're almost always better of using missiles as you don't have to worry about neutralizers, tracking, optimal, falloff or tracking disruption.

I think medium blasters and auto-cannons need to have their optimal range increased so that they apply good damage at up to 10km. For balance blaster would probably need to have their falloff reduced so that they do zero damage at 30% past optimal.

Long range medium weapons (rails, atrys & lasers) are a joke unless fitted on a ship with range bonuses.
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
#76 - 2015-09-04 12:37:44 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
The weapons system could do with a complete revamp IMO. For brawling setups you're almost always better of using missiles as you don't have to worry about neutralizers, tracking, optimal, falloff or tracking disruption.

I think medium blasters and auto-cannons need to have their optimal range increased so that they apply good damage at up to 10km. For balance blaster would probably need to have their falloff reduced so that they do zero damage at 30% past optimal.

Long range medium weapons (rails, atrys & lasers) are a joke unless fitted on a ship with range bonuses.



I actually think that the falloff only concept can work, it just cant be that the falloff ENDS where the usual engagement range begins. In theory it adds flexebility to the balance as you can chose to do SOME damage at engagement range and kind of good damage at close range with the same weapon system and without reloading. Its just that in practice (especially on t1 hulls, but not only) even at close range youre operating in deep falloff and at medium range your falloff has long ended.

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#77 - 2015-09-04 12:55:13 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
The weapons system could do with a complete revamp IMO. For brawling setups you're almost always better of using missiles as you don't have to worry about neutralizers, tracking, optimal, falloff or tracking disruption.

I think medium blasters and auto-cannons need to have their optimal range increased so that they apply good damage at up to 10km. For balance blaster would probably need to have their falloff reduced so that they do zero damage at 30% past optimal.

Long range medium weapons (rails, atrys & lasers) are a joke unless fitted on a ship with range bonuses.


Blasters are optimal, acs are falloff. Increasing ac optimal is not the way to go. Otherwise there is little difference between the weapon systems. Also, blasters dont need more range. They are supposed to be strictly close range weapon systems. Im already getting hit by medium neutrons at 20-25km, id say thats plenty far for supposedly close range weapons.

Acs need their dps curve shifted further out. Best way to do this is by increasing their base falloff. Leaves their damage unaffected, but just allows them to apply better. This is mainly to compensate for CCP's heavy handed TE nerfs for large blasters.

In terms of long range guns. 720s can still project to 70km without much effort. Quad beams will tear up most things in brawl range out to point range. Rails are also quite viable as well, rail thorax comes to mind. Main issue with long range weapons is fitting, but thats a whole different topic.
Ben Ishikela
#78 - 2015-09-04 16:45:35 UTC
@OP: Edit Title to be: " Friendly reminder that MEDIUM autocannons are still terrible"

My Suggestion: Have Ammo effect the optimal AND the falloff.
What about: "more optimal -> less falloff" and vice versa? (also on laser and hybrids)

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.

Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
#79 - 2015-09-04 17:04:14 UTC
Edited OP in response

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#80 - 2015-09-04 17:35:37 UTC
Oddly enough, This shows a bit of a different story on what seems to be the best.

Obviously it shows the Caracal to be a powerhouse, but that's not what I'm pointing out here.

In this list, you see 2 medium missile boats, 2 medium hybrid boats (though the Vexor is a drone boat as well), 2 drone boats (also including the vexor) though these aren't specifically medium weapons in particular, 1 medium laser boat (oracle doesn't count as it's large guns), and two medium projectile boats.

Top damage is of course drones (almost everyone has drones, so this makes sense), then light missiles (it's actually odd that these aren't at the top of the list considering the Caracal has almost 1/3 more damage inflicted than any other ship on this list).


The main thing this list points out though, is that 200mm ACs and scourge heavy missiles are the only cruiser class weapons represented on this list.

Now, the heavy missiles being on this are represented by the drake more specifically, while there are some Caracals that were likely fit with heavies, but not nearly as many as there are rapid light fit.
But, we also can't say that all the light missiles are tied only to the Caracal, as the Condor and the Blackbird likely were majority fitted with light missile systems. However, we can likely say that the Caracal is a solid 3/4 to 7/8 of the light missile damage.

We'll say 7/8, so 7/8 of light missiles would bring 9660 down to 8452.5, which is still pretty significant, and leaves navy scourge lights in the same spot.
On the topic of Rapid lights, I think this can be adjusted by removing the range bonus for rapid lights from Crusier class hulls, which falls in line with BS class bonuses. Though, the Mordu's Legion hulls may remain the exemption (though this might get balanced as well).

Now, we're all aware of that, but that then goes to show that after rebalancing rapid lights, 200mm ACs are the leading damage weapon of all cruiser class weapon systems, and 1 of only 3 medium class weapons that are actually present on this list, the second being Heavy scourge and third being rapid light which we already discussed.

Now, I realize this info is limited to Eve University Alliance, but it is the only statistic i can locate that actually shows weapon type as well has hull.

that being said, it shows 200mm ACs to be the preferred medium class weapon (excluding rapid lights due to balance issues), with only one other medium weapon system even being present on this list.


Soo, tell me again, how bad are medium ACs?