[Suggestion] Strove: Pokes Holes in the PPA

I think the problem is that we're comparing strict AI weapons with weapons of mixed functionality.

I find it funny how the "Light" PPA can damage tanks but the heavier PPA can't.

The PPA is annoying and powerful but I am bit hesitant to call it OP. Every faction seems to have something that shines above what the other factions have and that is okay. If it does need another nerf I would give it a slight CoF nerf over damage so it can still be effective up close but at range it is going to lose some effectiveness.

I find it hard to believe that a great amount of people are leaving because of Nerfs. I'd imagine that far more people leave because of bad balance instead of 'they nerfed me favorite gun! i will never forgive them!'. Game balance takes place before hurting spammer's feelings.

29 kills in 38 minutes? Oh, you could do that with knife

Even if the Canister and the Marauder got buffed, what is that going to do? Since the AI secondaries can't engage each other or the platforms that they are mounted upon, that would accomplish nothing but moving them all into a realm called "equally frustrating" which means no one is going to be happy. Though balanced that may be, it's not going to do anything to improve impressions.

You understand. This is what i was trying to say, its alot better now compared to before and no its not OP just a little out of line in comparison to its faction equals. Effective range is the only thing that needs to be tweaked. CoF or damage drop off or some other distance related factor, it would all serve its purpose.

my 113 ppa killstreak was tottaly skilled and balanced get outta here

yeah a bit of a COF nerf is probibly what it needs to keep it from being a sniping machine.

My 200 killstreak with the Vanguard totally means its balanced.

When you post I get the impression that, regardless of the specifics, nothing should ever be toned down in any way whatsoever. ZOE was perfectly fine? Striker dodging through terrain was a good mechanic? Phoenix OHK on infantry didn't need removed? Is that your opinion?

The OP's post is perfectly reasonable.

Problem: PPA's effective range is significantly larger than other AI weapons because it has a combination of high velocity, no drop, tight CoF, and solid splash damage.

Solution: Introduce splash damage/radius fall-off over range.

Personally I'd be fine with it's range power, it kinda fits the 'odd man out' VS character. But it does need to be toned down in some way. I think that, besides a direct damage reduction (2 shot kill fully auto ranged explosive is nuts amount of damage for it's drawbacks! should probably be closer to 3 or 4 hit kills if we don't change anything else), that a mechanic change like Higby suggested would be nice. He said he'd like to change it to a burst-style weapon, which I'd be fine with. That way it would be less suppression and more of a precision instrument.

Okay Jesus you vs hate charge ups....Can the marauder please have a charge up mechanic to launch 1/3 it's ammunition into one big bulldog sized projectile please?

As a matter of fact, can you give several different weapons a toggle fire option to launch multiple projectiles with a slower refire rate?

i don't care what you do with the PPA. cut its damage by 80%, just give me back my 2 shot infantry kill for the saron.

Its almost artistic. Did you do that on purpose?

Yup, ZOE was fine. I mean *fun*. Jeepers, you really felt like you were up against something when one of those guys would appear.

Yeah, missiles one-hitting infantry is perfectly reasonable.

PPAs are fun too. Very dramatic when one hears pew-pew-pew over the next ridge.

I don't blame forumsiders for wanting so many nerfs. I blame game developers. They acted on the pleas of those who wanted an easy game, and then took their money.

In the end, gamers learn that crying is a more important skill than owning one's experiences, and a viscous circle begins. In-game abilities diminish, until the only solution is a game that is so hollow as to be unre-playable.

No, but thanks for the props.

Tell me. What happened to the players? After 25 years playing online, and having conversations about gaming philosophy with some of the first online players, I can tell you that real players want a challenges, and without challenges, interest in a game falls dramatically. Observationally, I saw the population of this game diminish as the ease of the game increased. These two things make me believe my statement was not a rationalization.

Balance according to whom?

Right now, weapon abilities are fully arbitrary. It is impossible to sensibly argue for or against any weapon feature.

What ever happened to asymmetrical balance? Are they going to nerf Prowlers if they nerf the PPA? That's overperforming. What about buffing the Vanguard? That's underperforming. Lasher needs a buff too because its significantly underperforming compared to the other two HA weapons.

I still never saw any evidence of ZOE being OP. And no, Higby's usage statistics was not proof.

Balance according to Higby and the staff, first off. They have access to performance metrics and information, as well as public opinion (which as unreliable as it may be, is still data of sorts). Higby is an opinionated guy and if he feels a weapon is OP then he is going to change it. The question is whether or not he is going to change it by nerfing it, or by buffing every other gun and feature in the game to match so he can avoid some frustration for a lone PPA spammer.

Personally though, there are many definitions of 'OP' that are pretty reasonable. My own favorite is that any one weapons Pros equal the Cons of the gun. Example being something like the NS Commissioner pistol, the Pros being High Damage, Long range, Cons being Low fire rate and Low clip size. Balanced! (according to me, and evidently, Higby)

Then we have something like the PPA, which has Long range, high fire rate, large clip size, splash damage, reload speed, to the few cons of 'Can't damage tanks' and not much else.