Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by BlueSkies, Nov 27, 2014.
No, it has the same velocity as the other two ESAV guns.
I'm not aware of such an incident. Some comments may indicate fatigue, but I haven't seen anything like you imply.
Well Mister Higby, in the name of his team, is proposing a change on the PTS and they are open for the players' feedbacks.
I see nothing wrong about that.
However, I am starting to wonder if they will be able to make this game harmonious, one day.
They try to balance a game where every fights are very situational.
Instead of moving forward and implementing new cool features (interesting ones i mean), they keep reshaping the core game again and again, perhaps until most the players get bored...
All that I understand lately, is that they are very unsatisfied with the heavy tanks in this game.
At the end, much changes for no additional fun.
I think people need to go on the PTS VR, play around with the new vulcan, one-clip MBTs etc. and then come back to the live server VR and use the existing vulcan where you can still one-clip MBTs. It's a significant buff but if players didn't like it before they're not going to like it now.
1. Maximum DPS isn't happening outside of point-blank range, the beginning of the damage drop-off is close for infantry but for tanks it's basically melee. Also the vulcan isn't going to do it's full DPS past a certain range, these are rough numbers based off of frontal profiles but past:
65m for a lightning
75m for a magrider
100m for a vanguard
135m for a sunderer
the vulcan is going to start to miss shots and there is nothing that the player can do to mitigate it.
2. The canister instagibs infantry at close range, this is extremely important in a lot of situations. Even if it takes three blasts the canister will still kill an infantry unit before the vulcan has spun up. The vulcan does do 25% more damage per bullet but the canister puts out almost three times as many projectiles per second, the vulcan is not going to be much more effective against infantry than it is now. It will work for hosing down close infantry in a panic.
And will need a significant AI nerf since it should take about 30 bullets to kill a non nano weave infantry.
Yeah, it comes from playing the game and knowing whats going to happen next.
I don't know what you are talking about but I didn't wish for it.
I can't think of one thing done right. It also shouldn't take over 6 months to tweak a few numbers. Play the game for a few hours and you can easly figure out how to fix it.
Not even close.
Comparing Vulcan to canister is like comparing MCG to jackhammer. Maybe they are comparable in DPS but upfront damage after 1-2 shot of jackhammer in appropriate range will maim MCG user before he can even spin up the dakka. The thing that makes jackhammer so darn powerfull is the amount of damage dealt per shot, enough so to insta kill infantry but it have limitation in accuracy/damage drop off and hence range.
If you imply that vulcan and canister is the same thing in terms of damage then canister would have 1500 damage per shot(if all pellets hit) upfront. No spin up time as well. It's like 3 shot's in the rear of an MBT. Thing is different from vulcan, and bulldog as well pack enough damage to one clip an MBT in the rear, what are you trying to prove with damage per mag in this case? And diferance of damage per shots between vulcan and canister is laughable, 167 vs 125x12? Really? Who is more likely to hit a small target - 1 bullet or 12 pellets? Sure, vulcan have 800 rpm after spin-up, but it's DPS severely decline over range and size of a target due to CoF. Player cannot compensate that other then get closer putting himself at more risk. With halberd\enforcer and even saron you can compensate such a thing by aiming appropriately. If anything is shooting from cover against prowler with vulcan(that have fixed CoF like on PTS) - vulcan is useless. And speaking of cover, weapons that deal alot of damage upfront are far more efficient in utilizing them, you cannot really duck out of cover, sit there in the open till Vulcan emptyes his mag and get back into cover. Before he does that there will be little to no point to cover, it's enough time to get yourself killed. Unless you are fighting one on one, ofcource.
Paragraphs are your friend.
For the purpose of anti-infantry work, firing lots of pellets in a single shots (Canister) and having a very high rate of fire (Vulcan) are functionally similar. Both aim to achieve a high bullet density within the cone of fire over a given time period. It doesn't matter if one shot from the Vulcan misses, because there are 13 more behind it.
Similarly, against infantry the Canister pretty much never lands all pellets. The CoF is too large. What it does do is throw out enough pellets that, at most infantry ranges, at least one or two are likely to hit with every volley. Both compensate for low accuracy by throwing out lots of dakka.
Similarly for aircraft, hitting a moving aircraft with a single-shot weapon is hard. But weapons like the Canister, Walker, and Vulcan throw out so many bullets that you can afford to miss a lot.
I can already kill infantry with the current Vulcan more reliably than with the Enforcer. Now I won't have to worry about CoF blooming while I spin it up, allowing me to spray groups of infantry with its full rate of fire. This will likely achieve results similar to spraying an infantry group with the Canister: there's so many bullets and so many targets, something's going to hit.
The Canister and PTS Vulcan are extremely similar in stats. They have similar bullet velocities, similar drop, large fixed cones of fire (1.23 for the Canister, assuming pellet spread is additive with base CoF, 1.1 for the Vulcan), they both drop off two damage tiers (Canister at 46m, Vulcan at 130m).
They have similar damage per magazine, 15000 for the Canister and 15030 for the Vulcan. The Canister does have more bullets and a higher bullet density over time. 12x10=120 pellets, vs 90 bullets for the Vulcan. The Canister can theoretically put out 36 pellets (3 shots) per second while the Vulcan puts out 13.3, but the Vulcan has higher damage per bullet (125-100 Canister, 167-125 Vulcan) and a slightly smaller cone of fire.
Overall the Canister is still a slightly better anti-infantry weapon, but the Canister can't damage heavy armor. The Vulcan will be a close second, while also being able to damage Sunderers, MBTs, Liberators, and Galaxies. That versatility is the problem: you've got a Tankbuster and a Canister Jr. smashed together and put in the same slot.
It's no Kobalt or PPA, but it IS good enough that TR would easily have the most versatile ESAV. It can engage infantry and air with a much higher degree of confidence than the Enforcer or Saron, while also being effective against vehicles.
hey maybe if people learned to get over unbalanced weapons and put their big boy pants on and learned to counter them instead of crying about it threatening to cancel their subs then maybe the developers would actually be able to get some work done.
Didn't they promise turning it into LONG RANGE AV option that would work well on a prowler (quad fracture)? I don't think i'd take a better vulcan over a halberd because i need my gunner to fire from long range. Sure it might be fun for a suicide ride or two... and then it will go back into the trash.
I found this last bit hilarious, considering the current state of the PPA.
Really? Try it, please. I'll ignore your blush when you're back here.
I find it refreshing to see a dev actually stand up to their abusive 'fan' base.
Failing to take into consideration the rampup time, the fact that beyond extreme close ranges it's useless (whereas the Saron can be pulse-fired and the Enforcer has zero problems at longer ranges), and about a dozen other balancing things, like the prowler having to wait 2 seconds to get into deploy before they can open fire (failing that, their shots must wait the full reload despite being in deploy) meaning they're locked in place and cannot move allowing every C4 fairy or person who decides to move behind them easy pickings on their barn door for an **** the Prowler has...
There are reasons the Prowler is not miles ahead in the tank statistics. Trying to math your way out of real world scenarios by comparing things that are objectively different due to intentional asymmetry just looks sad.
Please, tell me more about how the Prowler isn't miles ahead in tank statistics!
Well well well, the problem in this stats are that you can read everything in that. I can read into that, that the Main gunner will take the kill cause he HAS no second gunner since prowlers don´t have , while magriders always have one and the the vanguard most of the time.
So if you want to compaire these stats you need to put the layer of the secondaries on top of that to see how the tanks work as a weapon system atm.
If you put this layer on top of these stats ohh my gosh suddenly the prowler is the weakest weapon system out there
(same goes for every other secondary)
Just for the fun of it the halbert to see how TR trusts in their secondaries. We need something to shine that people start to use the secondaries. So basicly you are compairing a solo system with a 2 seater (the prowler is more or less a one seater atm)
With this stats you could compaire a lighting viper with a vanguard and come to the conclusion the viper is stronger
Good job cherry picking those stats. Yet again missing the blatant, obvious hole in your logic here.
a) We're sitting on a hill miles from battle, our secondary Vulcan is useless out that far, so obviously we get more driver kills.
b) This doesn't take into account how glass cannon we are. At all.
Edit: Just to be clear, if they actually gave us useful secondaries, I'd be fine with taking a hit somewhere on our main guns, but for the love of god, give us useful secondaries first!
Separate names with a comma.