[Suggestion] AC-X11 Needs a 25 round magazine

Discussion in 'Light Assault' started by CanadianAttackBeaver, Apr 25, 2013.

  1. Wolfwood82

    Faster reload time, sure.

    Adding 5 to the clip will make it dominate the carbines though. Easily.
    Bloom isn't much faster then any other weapon. You only notice it more because a website reported it as having a .6 instead of a .5. And most weapons start missing on the 3-4th shot mark, except for CQC carbines with advanced laser sights.
    This just proves my point all the more. You are reading the stats and miss interpreting the information there. You also aren't fully aware of the interactions between weapons in the game.

    You do not need a high RoF in order to be effective with the weapon in CQC (Jackhammer in PS1 proved that, literally a refire rate of .5 seconds yet it had one of the fastest TTKs in the game, also reference shotguns in this game). And I have no idea why you think you need a tighter CoF for CQC? People at close ranges tend to be a lot bigger. The CoF does not bloom much faster then any .5 carbine primarily because of it's slower RoF (more time to recover between shots). Again, you read the stats and that .6 glares at you and suddenly the CoF blooms like omg huge.

    What does RoF mean in CQC? It determines the cost of misses. Which is such an abstract thing to take into consideration that most people won't bother. As it stands the DPS of the weapon is obviously slower then the GD-7F, however it's TTK is only .02 seconds slower. I've done the math and crunched the numbers on that, the weapon rivals a CQC carbine for TTK.

    As for your stats, like I said before it does not take much to hold a button down with a cursor over a target and score a kill. I'm not sure where you are getting at by saying it has to be part of your play style in order to get auraxium on it, literally anyone can do it. Nothing stops anyone from scoring kills on it and by this point everyone has had more then enough time to have gotten Auraxium on 3 weapons if they've played for 2 hours a day since launch, even if they only score a kill every 10 minutes.
    Again, my point is that you are making judgment calls on how to balance it without any kind of notion on exactly how to do so. There is a lot more to balancing stuff in games then "meh let's just do this and see what happens". At least there should be, otherwise you get annoying things happening like repeated tweaks and adjustments to weapons months after release.

    I personally don't think it needs anything.
  2. CanadianAttackBeaver

    I factually proved you wrong regarding damage drop-off earlier in the thread, as well as factually you proved you wrong regarding the parallels between the AC-X11 and the Pulsar C. With attention to detail like that, you think you are qualified to respond to my points?

    Again, you are full of sh*t.

    GD-7f assuming max bullet damage has a TTK of 0.497 seconds
    AC-X11 assuming max bullet damage has a TTK of 0.600 seconds.
    Mercenary & Gauss compact burst have a TTK of 0.599 seconds
    Gauss compact s: 0.623 seconds
    Razor: 0.653 seconds
    NS-11C: 0.644 seconds.


    What keeps the AC-X11 from excelling in cqc is the rate of fire, recoil AND magazine size. The rate of fire increases the importance of a miss; this is then compounded by the small magazine size. Increasing the magazine size does not impact the other balancing features of the weapon. For someone who arrogantly belittles other people's ability to analyze the impact all the variable have on balancing a weapon, you sure do conveniently ignore all the variable that don't suit your analysis.

    I'm about to get auraxium with the weapon and I have a MBA in finance and strategy. I'll put my analytical skills to the test against yours anyday, chump.

    DPM, like DPS, is a stat that is solely determined by rate of fire. Adding bullets to the magazine means nothing to this stat. Unless you are looking at damage output over 60 seconds, in which case you have to factor in reload speeds (fast & slow). In that case you are better off analyzing the weapons based off the time a weapon can cycle through two magazines, and use the fastest gun as the baseline time.

    In this case, even though the AC-X11 can cycle through two magazine faster than any other NC carbine its damage output over the 2 magazine cycle time is not the highest. Surprisingly, the highest dps over 6.66 seconds is the Gauss Burst, followed by the Mercenary. The AC-X11 is a clsoe third, with the GD-7F an even closer fourth.

    You're obviously not a dolt, but it's too bad your social skills don't match your analytical skills. Oh wait, maybe they do.
  3. TeknoBug

    AC-X11 and Reaper DMR has both a 0.14 COF bloom, only pistols, shotguns, battle rifles and sniper rifles exceed 0.1 while the rest are 0.05 or 0.06.
    LOL I had to laugh at this.
  4. CanadianAttackBeaver

    Ha! I don't want to get into a swinging d**k contest, but someone claiming to study game development (likely at some backwater community college) as proof of their analytical ability, and as an excuse for his lack of experience with the gun at hand, is pathetic.
  5. Joe_da_cro

    i think the best way to sort this out would be to take one carbine in the game and use it as a control then try to reverse engineer the balancing weighting formula which was used then apply each weapon against the control. only doing that can allow us to only have an educated guess at what each gun is lacking if anything. i for one would rather shoot people in the head in the game then work on formulating an equation for balancing to get an educated guess.
  6. Wolfwood82

    I've no idea what formula you are using to figure out your TTKs but it's factoring in the delay after the killing round into it.

    Your math shows the ACX having a refire rate of about .15, in reality it has a refire rate of .12

    500 divided by 60 = 8.33. 1 divided by 8.33 = .12. .12 x 5 - .12 = .48

    Also Gauss Compact and Merc/Guass Burst have the same TTK of .5, all 3 weapons still fire at roughly .1, the Gauss Compact just moves into the .104 so it's TTK is actually closer to .52 if you want to get super detailed.

    Why the - .12? Because otherwise you are factoring in the delay between shot 5 and shot 6, you don't need shot 6 to kill the target. The target is dead at shot 5.

    And I'll admit I was initially wrong about it being a long range carbine, but it's still a good sniper carbine. The ACX has to match the DPM of other carbines at medium range, not the Pulsar C. At this point you are using the wrong weapon to balance the ACX against.

    The reasoning behind this is that the Pulsar C has to fill the roles of both medium and long range carbine. The ACX is a strait medium and the Razor is a strait long range. The ACX was probably intended to function in short-medium range combat, since the NC don't have a short range carbine like the Jaguar or VX6-7.

    If I were you, I'd be asking for the minimum damage being upped to 167@75m rather then a 5 round clip increase. Better chance of actually getting that buff.
  7. Corezer

    give it a 25 round mag.

    People need to stop getting into long and drawn out debates, although I will humor it once at the end...
    My reasoning is very simple and 2 fold.

    1, the weapon is underused, balanced or not it needs some love to attract players, what is done can always be undone if it proves to be too much that the weapon becomes ubiquitous among the NC.

    2, LA suffer from lack of ability to maintain supply. the lower killing potential of this weapon makes it one which I would not advise a player take out into the field, as you will undoubtedly put less corpses on the floor before you have to transition to your pistol and get your turkey baked if you aren't busy butt ****ing an engineer buddy.

    to humor the balance discussion a little

    ACX-11
    60 (seconds a minute) / 500 (RPM) x 4 (first round fires immediately) = .48 presuming they are within max damage range (10m regardless of ammo)

    GD-7f
    60/845x6=.426 presuming they are within max damage range (10m stock 15m with soft point)

    @11m + the TTK disparity becomes incredibly worse even before considering SPA.
    matter of fact...60/600x6=.6. the default af-16 does just as good once they both add a shot to kill, and better at +2stk, trading .02 ttk between 1 and 10m for 25% more killing potential and about the same level of ranged capability (the ACX has higher bloom and slower bullets that hold its accuracy back, plus more horizontal recoil)
    The ACX-11 has terrible hipfire cones that more than negate the .02 seconds it gains on the af19 between 1 and 10 meters, right now the long reload time of crazy slower than af19's short reload is prevalent in this weapon's use. and even if the mag were increased short reload vs short is still slower.

    Increasing the mag to 25 and the total ammo to 150 would leave the weapon as underwhelming, but the extra mag would at least give it greater kill potential for field use. (the equivalent of the af19 with level one ammo bandolier)
  8. CanadianAttackBeaver

    The formula I used was: 1000 / (max damage*(RPM/60))

    This will effectively give you a player's health divided by the maximum DPS of the weapon. Our methods are different, but given the reliance on DPS to calculate TTK, your calculation is off if you don't see a similar trend between DPS ranking and TTK ranking. This is a test of your TTK method and makes intuitive sense; the weapons that can output damage more quickly will have a lower TTK.

    The ranking is (for both DPS and TTK) using my method.
    1. GD-7F
    2. Mercenary / Gauss Burst
    3. AC-X11
    4. Gauss S
    5. NS-11C
    6. Razor

    EDIT:
    Using Corezer & Wolfwood's calculation: (60 / RPM)*(shots to kill - 1)

    1. GD-7F
    2. AC-X11
    3. Mercenary / Gauss Burst
    4. Gauss S
    5. Razor
    6. NS-11C

    The difference is due to the assumption of the first bullet landing on target. The formula I used averages weapon damage over time. My calcuations will be fair if you switch to targets between shots or the first shot misses; Corezer & Wolfwood's are accurate under ideal situations.

    I never compared the AC-X11 to the Pulsar C; you did. And I proved that comparison wrong. You also stated that the AC-X11 is a long range carbine, which again I proved wrong. You actually insulted anyone who stated that the AC-X11 was anything but a long range gun. It was me that first asserted in this thread that the AC-X11 is a medium range weapon. I clearly illustrated that the recoil, rate of fire, bullet speed, damage drop off and magazine capacity all limit the damage potential of this weapon at range. These balancing features also work to keep the gun from excelling at CQC.

    And no, the AC-X11 is not a good "sniper carbine".

    Just a reminder of your comments so far:

    April 28th
    May 25th
    I like how you flip between your positions so conveniently.

    May 26th
    Oh, so now the AC-X11 is a CQC gun AND a "sniper carbine" ...... riiiggghhhttt.

    May 17th
    The TTK of the AC-X11 nowhere near the TTK of other CQC carbines or SMG's. Fact.

    Honestly Wolfwood, you are nothing but a clamoring clown, arguing against buffing the AC-X11 using whatever position suits your bi-polar mood swing of the day.

    You start by insulting anyone who doesn't see the AC-X11 as a long range "sniper carbine" (despite that being the stupidest assertion yet posted on these boards) and then flip to insulting anyone who doesn't see the AC-X11 as a CQC weapon.

    You stated yesterday that:
    which is complete horse poop. The AC-X11 is NOT effective at long ranges due to (again!) the recoil, bullet speed, magazine capacity and damage drop off. And to iterate (again!), these same features limit the ability of the gun in CQC. Where the AC-X11 does excel is in the medium range.

    Giving the gun a faster reload mitigates some of the impact of a missed shot and small magazine, but it isn't enough to offset the other factors. A 25 round magazine would fix this gun's performance in its niche.

    I would actually support this as it accomplishes the same outcome of increasing the effective kill capacity per magazine of the AC-X11 at range. It accomplishes the exact same thing as a 25 round magazine when using kills per magazine as a metric.
  9. Rarg

    Or at least up the projectile speed slightly. The reason I suggest this is because with the very slow round speed and server latency combined, it's very difficult to hit targets moving in any kind of way, even at it's desired range (30-80m). I'm sure those of you who are more competent at mathematics could find a viable increase. This weapon feels clunky like a club when I feel like it should be more like a scalpel, if you've got good positioning and accuracy, you can put people down quick. The problem is, people don't like to be shot and the current state of the weapon means you'll miss often because of the low rof and high recoil combined with slow projectile speed, combined with them moving upon taking fire. Then you have a very short clip which runs dry fast. This weapon isn't terrible, I think it's good. I just think it's needs a slight tweak to really fit it's niche as someone else said.
  10. Achmed20

    the part that i dont get is, how can they justify the gaus saw having 100 rounds and longer range (if i remember right) while the AC-X11 just has 20?

    explanations welcome!
  11. MykeMichail

    Just used the AC-X11 for a while again tonight.

    Nope, its still terrible.

    Can't justify using this weapon which:

    - severely penalises inaccuracy with a tiny magazine
    - severely penalises inaccuracy with massive CoF bloom
    - doesn't reward accuracy with lower TTK (TTK is equal to or greater than most 167 or 143 damage carbines)
    - is a ***** to control
    - has a ridiculously bad hipfire
    - has super slow rounds
  12. CanadianAttackBeaver

    I almost forgot about this thread; thanks for reviving it Myke!
  13. Jogido

    Sorry dude, for the record you are making some great posts, but your formula is off.

    The first shot doesn't add time to the TTK since it is, in theory, instant with the trigger pull.

    So you have to take your results and minus away the extra time of another round firing. so:

    .60 - .12 = .48 secs TTK

    which matches the other guys math.

    ...and if you really want to get crazy accurate....the above only works for point blank shooting. You can also factoring in bullet travel time which means you have to add the time it takes the first bullet to hit the target at any given range. That actually would be the most accurate TTK measure since the guns do have different bullet velocities.
    • Up x 1
  14. CanadianAttackBeaver

    Yeah, I addressed that here:

    The formula I used was: 1000 / (max damage*(RPM/60))

    This will effectively give you a player's health divided by the maximum DPS of the weapon. Our methods are different, but given the reliance on DPS to calculate TTK, your calculation is off if you don't see a similar trend between DPS ranking and TTK ranking. This is a test of your TTK method and makes intuitive sense; the weapons that can output damage more quickly will have a lower TTK.

    The ranking is (for both DPS and TTK) using my method.
    1. GD-7F
    2. Mercenary / Gauss Burst
    3. AC-X11
    4. Gauss S
    5. NS-11C
    6. Razor

    EDIT:
    Using Corezer & Wolfwood's calculation: (60 / RPM)*(shots to kill - 1)

    1. GD-7F
    2. AC-X11
    3. Mercenary / Gauss Burst
    4. Gauss S
    5. Razor
    6. NS-11C

    The difference is due to the assumption of the first bullet landing on target. The formula I used averages weapon damage over time. My calcuations will be fair if you switch to targets between shots or the first shot misses; Corezer & Wolfwood's are accurate under ideal situations.

    Your math, which is the same as Corezer's and Wolfwood's assumes the first shot hits. I stand by my method as being more reflective of the times you'll see in game due to the dynamics of missed shots and changing targets.

    I considered calculating TTK factoring in bullet speed but with the margins as small as they already are, adding another fraction of a second isn't really material. I would also need to know precisiely how much high velocity ammo increased bullet speed. Maybe I'll get bored and take a look at it.
  15. Reis

    Saying the ACX with 5 more rounds would be a monster in CQC would be like saying the SAW would be at close range with 25 more rounds. Unless you somehow pop those 5 more out faster than 500 RPM, the only thing it will forgive is if you missed 5 rounds in the initial 20. Most NC players will be packing a pistol that deals 200 damage as backup.

    The ACX would become a CQC powerhouse if anything other than velocity or magazine capacity are changed. Such as RPM, hip COF, etc. It's not like the 6-7 is going to perform worse than the Lynx, when they share the same RPM and damage profiles at close range. Likely one less kill before reloading, but considering general player inaccuracy, they both function the same.
  16. Pikachu

    The 200 damage carbine and AR has less DPS and DPM than the default and fast firing equivalents. 5 more rounds would only do good.
  17. Van Dax

    I can't see it helping very much but I can't see it being a huge balance problem either, vandax approved.
  18. Bill Hicks


    Sniper carbine ? just stop talking
  19. Bill Hicks

    The ACX -11 suffers from the developers terrible stat weights. They make the NC suffer too much for slightly more damage.
    on the opposite side of the spectrum; Look at the Serpent. It benefits from undervalued stats.
  20. Zacieas

    As an owner of an AC-X11, I'd appreciate the extra 25 rounds for quality of life if nothing else.

    /signed

Share This Page