An effective PPA. It's been bad for ages now. Using an AI weapon means you should be better at, you know, killing infantry. Currently this is not the case. No-one wants a return of an effective PPA at range. We get it. However it's painfully obvious that the current implementation just doesn't work. Return it to it's original specs and introduce damage dropoff to nothing at 100m. Or do somthing else - I don't care what. Just do something.
Or just plain delete it as thats how good it is or not. Revert to prenerf CoF and Bloom Normal damage and splash out to 25m going down to 1 damage from 100m
If you want to have an AI weapon for Low Range: Canister Medium Range: Marauder/Canister Long Range: Cobalt (ESFs: Canister)
Yea and we wanted a slight buff to the banshee after it was nerfed into the ground, Daybreak & Sony seem to be real shy about buffing AI weaponry.
All I want for christmas is to remove the ******* piece of **** that does nothing but ruin battle flow The gatekeeper.
Just start doing a slow-motion balance pass: ZOE, PPA, Banshee, Fractures, MAX anchor and other such abilities need buffing. Ravens, Gatekeeper and other such weapons need slow nerfs until they are both fun (to be shot by and shoot someone else with) but still as effective as their counterparts. And with 'slow nerf/buff' I mean that they nerf/buff it with just a few small points every time so that the weapon will not shoot the other way and become UP/OP because they instantly nerf it into the ground/buff it to OPness.
This! This is how changes should be happening... incrementally. Sure, it's slightly more developer time, but with a bit of forethought, they could have a list of changes ready to go, and a list of parameters that need to be met (such as average KPH, KPU etc... ). If they aren't being met, take the next change off the stack and apply it, then watch the metrics for a while.
Honestly this is actually how they have been doing things lately. Did you hear the huge outcry over the removal of .75ADS from vanu LMGs? did you hear the outcry of the compensation making them too OP? because i didnt. They have also shown this way of thinking in buffs ,the Striker can attest to this its not OP but its not completely useless right now its just a weapon that has no real niche but some people still use it where lock ons are unreliable and they need to hit A2G ESF immediately dumb fires can do this but a striker is more reliable another example would be the Burst fire weapon buffs the weapons were neglected so they gave them some buffs and in the right hands thees weapons are better than their original counterparts but they arnt broken powerful either. Some things still need tuning and people are just a little impatient. Things like the gatekeeper are tricky to tackle because its hard to nail down exactly what makes the weapon so powerful to some it may be obvious but then again they could also be wrong.
Very well said - it's almost as if the level of the nerf is directly proportional to the level of the OPness, so things tend to go from best to worst. That's not a good way to balance if you ask me. Tinker - don't bludgeon (or something like that).
look at this AV vs AI: http://ps2oraclestats.com/?stat=kills&weapon1=802875&weapon2=6124&weapon3=6125
Emphasis mine. I was picking at SOE's legacy more than DBG, though you're right, DBG has shown decent restraint.
Would be cool if they could buff/nerf things little by little. Seeing how things perform with small nerfs/buffs over a few weeks before further nerfing/buffing or not. You know, like normal people would do it. Not sure why they are so stubborn about over nerfing/buffing and then leaving it overnerfed/buffed for months and years. Would it hurt to spend a few days of someone's devtime to look into something like the ZoE, and change a few stats and push it onto PTS (or live) to see if people like it? Im sure they must have a very good reason for doing balancing in such weird ways. Seeing as they are willing to do it despite it hurting the game in the long run. But to be fair, they do seem more willing to change/balance things lately (Orion changes for example) I guess its never too late to change.
What's so tricky about the Gatekeeper? It appears to have no damage drop off, can fire from far outside of most people's render ranges, often doesn't show visually when attacks are happening, is extremely powerful against infantry, ground vehicles, turrets, AND aircraft. And, let's face it! It is so OP that people aren't complaining about the Vulcan any more. That's how OP it is. Of course, the Vulcan doesn't seem quite as OP as it once did with the new weapons added for the Vanu and NC, but the DEVs apparently felt that they had to give something to the TR in return for making their Vulcan's less powerful in comparison. (and the Vulcans are no less devastating than they were before) One of the worst parts about the Gatekeeper is how cheap it is. Even if the DEVs can't pin down why it is (obviously) OP, they have to see that the weapon should cost 1000 CERTs and not the low amount of CERTs that it currently is set at.
