Remove Acceleration from Halberd/Enforcer

1.) This was supposed to reduce the AI potential of both of these weapons.

Infantry only render up to 300m, and you can still easily lead and hit a slow moving target within these ranges. It just meant we had to relearn the lead.

2.) It ended up reducing the effective AV range for both of these weapons.

For the Prowler, it means that the ranges you excel at are ones where the Halberd (your gunner) is borderline useless.
For the Magrider, it was just a blanket reduction to its long-range AV capabilities since the Halberd has longer range than FPC.
For the Vanguard, it made the Halberd/Enforcer who previously had the same range as the main cannon less synergetic.

3.) It makes the weapons inconsistent at medium range.

When the weapon is accelerating from 200-275m/s or 200-300m/s, the required lead isn't intuitive. Normally you just take into account the distance of the target and how fast they're moving, but now that all changes based on the additional factor of how long the shot is in the air.

This is especially noticeable when trying to hit aircraft, even ones that are flying straight at you.

4.) The Enforcer is not a rocket.

It is a magnetically fired projectile, meaning the highest velocity it has is when it leaves the barrel... why does it accelerate?

-------------

Can we revert the nerfs to both of these weapons? It helps all the vehicles that use these weapons and shouldn't have any negative repercussions on game balance.

I can only say I agree.

Explain point #2 for me. How does this affect the effective range of the weapon? Everything is the same past the acceleration phase, it still flies to render range with the same drop profile.

Also, points 1 & 3 are at odds with each other, if you can 'still easily lead and hit a slow moving target within these ranges,' wouldn't you agree the lead is still relatively intuitive? The only thing that's different is you have to lead slightly more for close range targets.

I'm just asking questions, I still gave you a like, and do agree with the general motion of the thread.

Because the time compensation relative to distance isn't consistent.
That's the main thing, to make it consistent.

While it is accelerating your average velocity is far lower than what it is after the acceleration. This just adds on lead and drop for shots passed it. If you're firing something that goes for 200m/s for 1s, then 1,000,000m/s after that, you still have lead that you get from that 1s of 200m/s.

How so? It's accelerating, you lead a little bit more in the 30-90m range. Point blank doesn't matter, it's still point and shoot. Past the acceleration phase, if you led appropriately for the distance, you're still going to get a hit. The only distance with any change is that aforementioned short-mid range shot, where the rocket is still accelerating at a constant rate, a rate that can be accounted for. The time compensation is the same to a set distance, are you implying that these video game AP rockets are made in some budget rate factory and have differing propellant charges?

I fail to see how it's inconsistent. Make a believer out of me.

Right, I understand that. That's why I said above, point blank shots are still point and click, and things past the acceleration phase are the same as always, with just a tiny bit more lead necessary. Back to my first post, how does this limit the effective range of the weapon? In my eyes, you just have to lead a tiny bit more for long-range shots.

Because when you reach a certain distance, the reliability of your shots is far different than something that didn't accelerate. When I'm looking at something 500m away small increases in lead are significant.

Go use a Titan-150 AP and compare it to a Halberd. If you want I can give you a tank sometime today and let you just drive around in it for a few minutes.

The halberd i can understand. Its a self propelled rocket. Apparently....

The enforcer uses electro magnets. Why it accelerates I do not know. They should just have it keep a good solid velocity.

Yes, I get that. But what I'm arguing is that it is still consistent. At your proposed 500m, the amount you lead, due to the acceleration phase, is the same as if it was 400 or 600m. The amount you lead for the actual distance between you and the target hasn't changed. It's the same, you just have to augment your mental adjustment from the pre-acceleration days slightly.

Do you follow what I'm getting at? Once a projectile has exited the acceleration phase and is in normal flight, the extra amount you lead to compensate for the slower flight during acceleration is exactly the same, at all ranges.

I'm not trying to be a pecker. I also don't think I'm Jah's gift to the Halberd. I agree fully with points 1, 3 and 4, even the possible hypocrisy between 1 and 3. But point 2 is BS, it doesn't affect the range at all. If you could account for the lead and drop before, you should be able to account for the lead and drop now at long range.

I mentioned above there is a wonky range, I agree with that much. But, it doesn't limit the actual range of the weapon, you just have to lead a tiny bit more. The only place I could see any problem with this is on a 2x Zoom Halberd vs Harasser, where you may have to lead the target off the screen at very long range, and the slight bump to lead due to acceleration leaves you in a blind spot where you can't track shots.

I'll draw something up.



The average velocity for the first second (as it accelerates from 200m/s to 275m/s) is 235m/s. After 1s, it has gone the same distance you would expect a projectile flying at 235m/s to go.

After that, depending the the time (or distance) the lead is different for every shot. Even if slightly.

If you apply the leading you expect after 1s of flight time to a shot of 2s of flight time, you will miss by overshooting it. If you apply the leading you expect after 2s of flight time to a shot of 1s of flight time, you will miss by undershooting it.

Do you see why it is inconsistent?

--------------------------

If that isn't good enough think about it this way.

You judge where something is going to go by where is has gone. If I throw a baseball 20ft in one second, your brain and eyes interpret that as if it were going to go 20ft in the next second. If it instead goes 30ft, you will anticipate it incorrectly.

Likewise, if you instead saw that SAME baseball go 50ft in 2s (like it just did in the previous example), you would anticipate it to go 25ft more in the next second. If it goes another 30ft, you will be off again, even if slightly.

While I agree that we should remove the acceleration of the Halberd ... I think that acceleration itself is not such a bad mechanic in general.

The acceleration is consistent and if you know it accelerates you can adapt to it. However, this information is not given to you, you will always "feel" something is wrong at moments if you don't know this small, yet important detail.

But the Halberd right now is the AV secondary, almost everybody uses it, across all 3 factions because the ES versions keep getting gutted. Even the Halberd was nerfed with this acceleration mechanic stolen from the old single shot ML85 Enforcer.

A mechanic that the old ML85 Enforcer had because it was a lock on weapon in early beta. But that was quickly removed ... what remained was a no drop ultra slow, acceleration mechanic ML85 Enforcer, I'm still not sure why I actually got it over the Halberd back than other than its more splash damage ...

In which state it remained until the Velocity patch, were they actually said that it accelerates(data miners were already aware of this) and buffed its starting speed and end speed. The Harasser patch, which also gave us the new Sarons and Enforcers ... turned the Halberd basically into the old ML85 with slower starting speed and end speed.

So ... can we get the Halberd to the old, flat 275m/s standard ... it's not a ATGM lock on ... like the VERY early ML85 was ... where this mechanic originated from. But than again ... they added the acceleration because it was "to good" against Infantry ... because AI Secondaries suck.(except the PPA, which is fine)

I agree completely with all of the above, changes like these are inane, and only add a degree of difficulty to the use of the weapon against it's intended targets, while having no real effect vs targets these nerfs were implemented for.

For clarity's sake... Infantry run slow, less precision is necessary to hit a target running at 10kph then one driving / flying at 80-200+kph.

Because I can't resist adding hypothetical, inane lore based theories...
The propulsion is provided by specially charged nanites, which continue to discharge even after the round leaves the barrel, thereby allowing continued acceleration while decreasing the time needed between trigger depression and a firing cycle.

Because Nanites™

Oh, I understand that. My point is, how is that any different from before? If you lead too much, you over shoot; if you don't lead enough, you undershoot.

The way I see it, the old Halberd (you have way more XP on the Enforcer, I'm going to ignore that, lol) lead was simple: you guess how far away the target is, and you estimate the lead based on the travel time for the projectile to fly that distance. Basically, you picture where the vehicle would be around the time you expect the shell to get there. Simple stuff.

Our discussion stems from the way we calculate using the new mechanics. I do it as a two-step process now:

1) How far away is the target?
This process becomes intuitive with practice, can we agree on that?

2) Is that target far enough away for the shell to pass the acceleration phase?
If the answer is no, you have to lead extra proportionally to the distance from you, out to a certain point, where the shell is now travelling at or near the maximum velocity. I dunno what those values are, perhaps some kind soul can graph it for the discussion. After that tipping point, you continue to lead further, but less and less until you get around the point the shell hits maximum velocity, at which point your lead is a constant rate.

If the answer is yes, just look at your diagram. After that 1 second, the shell will travel 235 237.5 meters. For every second after that, it's going to go an additional 275 meters. Since we know the distance the shell will go during the acceleration phase (237.5m), we can simply subtract that from the estimated distance, and use the remainder and the maximum velocity to calculate lead.

So, my thinking is, you're talking about the inconsistency arising from a "No" on question 2. My argument is that since the shell accelerates at a constant rate during that first second, the inconsistency lies with us, as the users, in predicting the exact range and subsequently, the exact lead. As a result, we miss more shots. Meanwhile, I thought you were referring to a "Yes" response, and I was trying to point out that after the acceleration phase, the timing is exactly the same, provided you are comfortable with what the range covered in 1 second is, and guessing how many more it will take for your shell to reach that rough range.

My point is, with a proper graph of the lead distance, and a range-finder, you could figure out the answers to "No", but the time required would make the process a hindrance, rather than beneficial. Instead, we currently just practice and shoot until it becomes reflexive, something the acceleration phase directly inhibits.

Interestingly, though, the vehicles these weapons are available on may play into our difference of opinions. In a tank, you are shooting from a fixed place, typically; it's harder to use your own route to mitigate the play in that launch phase. In a Harasser, we can simply close distance until it doesn't matter, or engage from long range with simple, consistent distance calculations.

TL|DR: I think we calculate our lead differently. I think about it purely as range, you consider your's as the time to target. That leads to different takes on 'consistency', and we end up having to math. The point is, this change was supposed to reduce AI potential for the weapon. It doesn't seem to do that, it only affects AV. As such, it's a failure and should be reverted. The only real effect, in my opinion, is that it reduces MBT AV potential against mid-range AV threats: Harassers. The real problem is that a plurality of AV Harassers prefer the Halberd, because the strength of Harasser range dictation makes the acceleration phase a non-issue, particularly when fighting MBTs.

That was what I was trying to say.

IMHO, this kind of mechanic is a fine and dandy way to say 'screw you' to all the secondary gunners out there. As a good deal of other senseless nerfs it completely fails at its intended mission - to make Halberd less effective at AI work in this case - and ends up hurting in all other areas. Is it not enough that it has to hit a ESF twice to kill it? It is starting to seem like these folks are out to get the only real Prowler secondary for good.

It makes realistic sense for the Halberd to accelerate, so I'm iffy on changing that. Maybe if the devs kept that feature and gave a compensation in damage that'd be great.

The Enforcer needs that removed however. It doesn't make sense for an electromagnetic cannon to send an accelerating projectile downrange. After the senseless magazine nerf, it needs the velocity consistency to compensate.

So... Wait, They nerfed Enforcer twice?

Twice?

Saron HRB, Enforcer ML and Vulcans (aka ESAV) have been nerfed more than just twice.

Eh, I'm not really a tanker so I wouldn't know.

But Twice recently, right?

i don't see the problem with relying on the main gun as a primary deterrent for mid range harassers, lets be honest here, mid range harassers are already shooting at their falloff. the last harasser patch made their secondaries barely work midrange. hell i can solo repair my sunderer when under fire from a mid range haraser.

also, if you want the speed back, then what follows is "what do we nerf now so that it sucks against infantry?" and if the answer is removing the OHK from halberds, then i have to say no.

Twice in one patch, shorter mag and longer reload, lol.