Jump to content


CT 1.6 weapon balance


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
11 replies to this topic

Poll: Weapon balance (24 members have cast votes)

Does the increased rate of fire for machine guns help their efficiency?

  1. Yes, the increased RoF has helped machine gun balance! (6 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  2. The change has made machine guns more balanced, but they could use a higher damage increase. (5 votes [20.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.83%

  3. Keep the damage increase at minor distances, but remove the increased rate of fire. (5 votes [20.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.83%

  4. Machine guns were already balanced and did not need adjustments. (8 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

Is the damage increase for 20-23mm caliber guns at medium and long distances beneficial?

  1. The damage increase is noticeable and welcome! (10 votes [41.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.67%

  2. The damage increase is noticeable, but unnecessary--20-23mm guns were already effective. (8 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  3. Damage at these ranges for 20-23mm guns should be further increased to make it beneficial. (6 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

Do you feel that the damage increase for large-caliber guns was a good change?

  1. Yes, thank you! The guns are now effective against both ground and air targets. (19 votes [79.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 79.17%

  2. The damage increase for ground targets was good, but large-caliber guns should be less effective against aerial targets. (3 votes [12.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.50%

  3. Large-caliber guns did not need a damage increase. (2 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

How do you feel about the increased efficiency of forward-facing primary weapons against ground targets?

  1. This was sorely needed to balance out the ground game. (11 votes [45.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.83%

  2. It hasn't made a noticeable difference. (11 votes [45.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.83%

  3. I dislike it; the forward-oriented weapons do not need to be more efficient against ground targets. (2 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

Vote Hide poll

gunlion #1 Posted 13 October 2014 - 07:29 PM

    Community Manager

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 874
  • Member since:
    11-19-2013

Weapon balance has been revised for machine guns and cannons:

  • Machine guns are intended to be a good weapon for destroying the enemy at short distances with continuous fire; thus we increased their fire duration (before overheating) and gave machine guns a minor damage increase medium distances. 
  • 20-23mm caliber guns are intended to engage the enemy at medium and long distances; we have therefore increased their damage and destruction efficiency at these ranges
  • The main advantage of large-caliber guns--30mm and 37-57mm--is that each shell deals a lot of damage, making it effective against both aircraft and ground targets. To reflect this, we have increased the damage and destruction efficiency for large-caliber weapons at medium and long range.
  • We have also increased the efficiency of the primary, forward-oriented weapons against ground targets, including those of a smaller size.

 

Please give us your feedback on these changes. 

 



ParanoiaXtreme_PRX #2 Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:16 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 204 battles
  • 2,859
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

I've heard that bullets don't prefer targets... (in response specifically to larger guns being less effective on air targets)

 

-Marith29



Carl_the_Cuttlefish #3 Posted 13 October 2014 - 10:23 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 12 battles
  • 1,416
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012
Question, on the Bf 109G notes, it said the Mk 108's were going to be more effective. Does this mean that the Ta 183's 108's will be more effective too, besides just the increase to large caliber guns?

"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm whining in my posts 

And why do we balance???


Ens #4 Posted 14 October 2014 - 04:35 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 70
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
for all of these polls there really should be a "I have not been able to evaluate this" option

Carl_the_Cuttlefish #5 Posted 14 October 2014 - 02:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 12 battles
  • 1,416
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012
It's really kinda hard to say, because we are playing planes we haven't played before and the ping and FPS make it hard to evaluate. I can't give you any definitive feedback till the patch is released.

"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm whining in my posts 

And why do we balance???


BrushWolf #6 Posted 14 October 2014 - 04:53 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 52 battles
  • 5,887
  • [GWG] GWG
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012
The MG's are strong now but the cannons still feel weaker than they should be.

I used to have a handle on life until it broke off.

                             

 

“The church is near but the road is icy, the tavern is far away but I will walk carefully”

Russian Proverb

 


Aurabird #7 Posted 14 October 2014 - 07:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 1,116
  • Member since:
    07-23-2012

MGs feel much nicer and less over powered.
20-23mms feel pretty bad at close range but it sounds like that was intended. Their ranged damage and sniping abilities though are nicer than before.

30mm+ feel like scary cannons again but it seems that they're only good for what they were intended for, ground targets. Using them against planes is still difficult (though the damage increase is noticeable).
Ground targets feel really squishy now, especially in an IL. This sounds like it's made the ground game a hell of a lot easier but it was needed. Red targets were too tough and it was pointless to attack them without rockets or bombs in 1.5, now it feels great to be able to secure points when they're needed. My only issue here is that it makes the thunder medals too easy to achieve. I'd suggest making thunder medals 100/90+ gt points to fix this



Dlasi #8 Posted 15 October 2014 - 12:55 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 37 battles
  • 191
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

You did not give us the ability to say that the damage with large calibor guns against air targets has not been increased enough at range (only for 20-23mm) so I could not vote. I am thinking specifically of the light fighters like the Yak-9U. ...and if you guys say it's because the gun is designed to hit ground targets than I challenge any developer to play a game in that plane and survive for more than 2 minutes in enemy airspace with the ungodly strong and accurate aaa eating you up.

 

It is still next to impossible for any of the slower, more menuverable planes to take now the IL-20s with the large guns. by the time you get close enough, their tail gunner as taken at least 1/4 of your health and then your gun over heats before you've taken away a 1/5 of theirs. Just in case you guys didn't realize, YOU NERFED THE RANGE OF THE CANNONS!! you can't hit ILs from 500m out anymore



ColdBackHAND #9 Posted 15 October 2014 - 01:05 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 160
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postgunlion, on 13 October 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

Weapon balance has been revised for machine guns and cannons:

  • Machine guns are intended to be a good weapon for destroying the enemy at short distances with continuous fire; thus we increased their fire duration (before overheating) and gave machine guns a minor damage increase medium distances. 
  • 20-23mm caliber guns are intended to engage the enemy at medium and long distances; we have therefore increased their damage and destruction efficiency at these ranges
  • The main advantage of large-caliber guns--30mm and 37-57mm--is that each shell deals a lot of damage, making it effective against both aircraft and ground targets. To reflect this, we have increased the damage and destruction efficiency for large-caliber weapons at medium and long range.
  • We have also increased the efficiency of the primary, forward-oriented weapons against ground targets, including those of a smaller size.

 

Please give us your feedback on these changes. 

 

 

20-23mm cannons.  What, 250m optimum and not 200m on the yak line? To many war movie decisions for balance:)  Those encounters last 20 minutes.   I bare no malice Gunlion.  Just a drunk with lack of communication abilities.  Bad enough you need 30degrees minimum 75 max on x, y or z axis to be optimum angle at your target and with reduced weapon ranged it hurts performance.    I'm off to the test server and enjoy more alcoholic libations.

Carl_the_Cuttlefish #10 Posted 15 October 2014 - 10:36 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 12 battles
  • 1,416
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012
No real complaints in the test server, things are better it seems. I'll have to wait for playing in the NA server for a complete review though.

"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm whining in my posts 

And why do we balance???


WanderingGhost #11 Posted 19 October 2014 - 11:39 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 6 battles
  • 1,041
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    01-27-2014

MG's are a hard call for me. As much as their was a noticeable nerf on a lot of planes I was flying at the time with 1.5.1, other planes it seemed less noticeable.

 

Example that was noticeable, the F4F wildcat when I went after a zero. I had my guns on him till they practically were over heated. 

On the opposite side, the spitfire I barely noticed anything. 

 

Now so far, something seems different about the spitfires guns, but I'm not sure what, or if it made them better, worse or no real change. heavier .50/12.7 and up MG's however do feel much better then before, so overall, it feels like the changes to MG's are good without breaking the game.

 

20-23 mm cannons - These are certainly a lot better then in 1.5.1. I can live with these how they are with the lack of module destruction because while they no longer have that edge, they are at the least the right balance of high damage with decent accuracy to really pack a punch. Very noticeable edge vs purely running an MG.

 

large caliber guns - for larger caliber guns I've mainly worried about fighters/multi-role, so my testing was done mainly with the IID and yak-7. Accuracy of course leaves something to be desired. The improved damage does make these feel viable again against air targets, and that the IID can be a legitimate threat, not just a shiny show piece. The question mark for me is does the low accuracy with fairly high damage still a worth while trade off without the module destruction we've had since 1.2 up until 1.5.1. I'm not sure why the changes were made to module destruction or if it's a weird side effect of more accurate guns with convergence rather then just straight dispersion. That ability in lower caliber cannons made for distinct advantages vs an MG because while it had a lower accuracy and overheating could be an issue you up the chance to take a wing off. Why even just adding cannons to the spitfire made it two distinctive planes. With the larger cannons that was still more of a change as you again had the same trade off vs a smaller cannon as you would a small cannon vs a MG. But now your talking very low accuracy and maybe a couple shots before overheat, but that one shot connects it could take a wing off.

 

The trade off is now more worth while then currently in 1.5.1.... but I'm just not sure how good of a trade off it is vs smaller cannons or guns.

 

Guns vs GT's - this in conjunction with changes to GT's as a whole has definitely in my opinion helped the ground game so if I take something like the IL-2 mod out its not like banging my head on a wall. It feels close to 1.4 which to me was fun, albeit with the exception of the fortifications that are a pain and well, the new aa changes are once again malarkey. AA was perfect in 1.5.1, and in 1.4, don't need aa to be as effective as it is in 1.6 particularly with multi roles now *end somewhat off topic detour*


Aces/Destroyer/Ace(post1.9)(#of/#) - A6M1(7/1), P-36(1), BF-109b(3), Ao-192(1), beaufighter(3/1), BF-109z(2), P-12(2), A6M2(3), P-51a(4), Yak-7(2), Bf-110C-6(2), F4F(2/4), Blenheim(2), BSH-2(1), XP-50(1),  BF-109f(1), LA-5(1), Spitfire I(2), P-40 M-105(3), BF-110e(1), F4U-1(1), FW-190 A-5(4), I-16e.(1), XF4F-3(1), A6M5(5), F7F(1), XF4U-1(1), Bf-109E (1), A7M (2), I-16l (1), P-38f (1), P-40 (1), Mig-3 (1)


Arqu #12 Posted 21 October 2014 - 12:47 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 22 battles
  • 60
  • [PARAX] PARAX
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

I gave CT a try for a few hours the other day.  The cannon buff was very noticeable, and does a lot to offset the ridiculousness that was IL-40/40P tailgunners in 1.5.  I don't know how it compares to 1.4.1 levels (I've been on 1.5 long enough that I can't remember accurately), but large-caliber cannons are once-again useful.  It's hard to say for sure because the high ping on the CT really changes the game a lot, but it may be possible that cannons were buffed a touch too much, or that MGs could use a little more.

 

As far as ground-target damage: I think that the unarmored target damage is just fine in 1.5.  The main issue in 1.5 is that armored targets have too much HP for the armor they have, or too much armor for the HP they have.  Reducing one or the other for 1.6 would likely be sufficient.  I haven't tried much 1.6 GA so far, so I can't yet speak to the CT levels.  Though I will say that AA seems too strong (again) in 1.6.

 

I haven't been able to get a good sense for how range affects each caliber, but philosophically I think it should be somewhat small.  There is already a linear decrease in damage at range just from accuracy, so per-hit damage doesn't need to fall off that quickly to still achieve the desired effect.  For per-hit damage, I would think that falling to somewhere in the range of 50-70% per-hit damage at max range would be plenty penalty, since most shots miss past 800m anyway.

 

I'll update this if I get a chance to play some more CT.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users