Can someone tell me how they improved the ammo economy on the Glaxion?

[Impulse_Nine]

I was thrilled when I read that the biggest issue of the Glaxion, its intensive ammo consumption, was getting addressed- however post patch and hotfixes I notice its still burning (or perhaps I should say freezing) through 20 rounds a second base, going up if you want that 100% status.

Add in that the beam now needs "wind up" time to reach full length I swear I'm using more ammo than beforehand and, reading the patch notes- they said they reduced its ammo consumption but they didn't say how.

Did I miss something? I tried it out and it doesn't use less ammo when fully "spooled" (in this case extended) like the Khom. Does anyone know what buff they gave it in this regard? They did say it separate to its damage increase...

 

[BiancaRoughfin]

You kidding right?

From all the Beam weapons in the game, the Glaxion was the one that least consumed Ammo and they just made it consume even less.

Use a Carrier or put on Ammo Scavenger Aura.

[Azamagon]

Only changes I saw that actually seem to have taken place is reduced range, increased accuracy and and increased damage. The ammo efficiency thing (through lessened RoF and further increased damage) is nowhere to be found though.

[Monolake]

They didn't. Its still abysmal. side by side tests from wiki admin (identical builds). Glaxion needs a proper buff like Panther got

 

Just now, BiancaRoughfin said:

You kidding right?

From all the Beam weapons in the game, the Glaxion was the one that least consumed Ammo and they just made it consume even less.

Use a Carrier or put on Ammo Scavenger Aura.

you've no idea what you are talking about

Edited March 27, 2017 by Monolake

[Ascarith]

27 minutes ago, BiancaRoughfin said:

You kidding right?

From all the Beam weapons in the game, the Glaxion was the one that least consumed Ammo and they just made it consume even less.

Use a Carrier or put on Ammo Scavenger Aura.

Are you sure you aren't confusing the Glaxion with another weapon? The Glaxion was not ammo efficient before the buff and it's still not ammo efficient after the buff (I didn't notice any difference, but I'm also not a heavy Glaxion user).

Maybe you're thinking of the Quanta family? Those beam weapons are extremely ammo efficient (for their primary fire at least).

[Mousarchy]

49 minutes ago, BiancaRoughfin said:

You kidding right?

From all the Beam weapons in the game, the Glaxion was the one that least consumed Ammo and they just made it consume even less.

Use a Carrier or put on Ammo Scavenger Aura.

Spectra uses 40 shots in about a min
Phage 40 shots last for several minutes
and im not going into the numbers of the others i dont remember.

the only gun that ate ammo almost as fast as glaxion was the synoid gammacore but at least that had damage to back it up.
Glaxion was KNOWN for its ammo consumption. 300 ammo in the matter of several seconds. while primed mutation is strugling just to give you one magazine back.

Eitherway. the biggest hit to me was the range being lowered. i gave up on using glaxion for dmg (because low dmg+ammo econ) i removed serration and made it into a sweeping utility weapon. so im going to have to get used to having a chunk of my range cut off.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Ordosan

[IceColdHawk]

Either a lie or bugged. I assume it's bugged since U20 is pretty much SotR-levels of buggy. It still eats 20 ammo/s like before.

[yles9056]

The improvement is either small or not working at all. I can't tell. I don't even remember when is the last time I brought Glaxion to mission.

I just hope DE could give it innate cold proc.

[DreamsmithJane]

Well, it does more damage with the same amount of ammo. Kills the same number of enemies with less ammo. That's better ammo economy. What else did you want? A lower fire rate?

[Fallen_Echo]

This update has more bugs than the unpatched skyrim .

[Monolake]

3 hours ago, DreamsmithJane said:

Well, it does more damage with the same amount of ammo. Kills the same number of enemies with less ammo. That's better ammo economy. What else did you want? A lower fire rate?

Check patch notes, they actually promised redistribution of rate of fire/damage to lower ammo consumption. Plus 33% dps buff  - which is still not enough, Glaxion was about as bad as Braton. Still bad.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Monolake

[DreamsmithJane]

Just now, Monolake said:

Check patch notes, they actually promised redistribution of rate of fire/damage to lower ammo consumption. Plus 33% dps buff  - which is still not enough, Glaxion was about as bad as Braton

No, they didn't. They said the rate of ammo consumption would decrease. And if you're killing faster, that's true, because you stop shooting sooner on account of your target being dead. I admit it's poor wording, but the ammo economy is unarguably better. If they reduced the rate of fire to equalize the DPS, that wouldn't improve the ammo economy relative to what it is now. It would just undermine the DPS boost. What matters for ammo consumption is ammo per kill, not ammo per second. And ammo per kill is now lower than it was.

[9IR_nullfield]

1 hour ago, DreamsmithJane said:

No, they didn't. They said the rate of ammo consumption would decrease. And if you're killing faster, that's true, because you stop shooting sooner on account of your target being dead. I admit it's poor wording, but the ammo economy is unarguably better. If they reduced the rate of fire to equalize the DPS, that wouldn't improve the ammo economy relative to what it is now. It would just undermine the DPS boost. What matters for ammo consumption is ammo per kill, not ammo per second. And ammo per kill is now lower than it was.

Then why would they list it separately from the DPS increase? This argument seems so bizarre and pedantic - if they said they intended to decrease ammo consumption without modifying any other stats, they probably meant it. If both the notes are the same thing, there's no reason to have the ammo consumption note in the patch notes at all.
 

[Azamagon]

1) They said cold damage (or rather, they meant DPS, I bet) was improved from 250 to 333. This implies increased damage. (16,6 per ammo, from 12,5)

2) Then they said, explicitly, that the rate at which ammo is consumed should've been decreased as well. This implies further increased damage along with reduced rate-of-fire, to keep the new raw 333 DPS intact. For example, damage up from 16,6 to 33,3 and RoF down from 20 to 10. This means the DPS is still 333, but has come along with the ammo consumption going down.

But only the first part has been done. So, just like many other parts of the patch notes, they were a lie (just as omissions have been made, such as punchthrough not working on enemies, but on environment, for the Miter and Panthera. This includes the innate punchthrough on Miter of course)

[DreamsmithJane]

7 hours ago, Omicriel said:

Then why would they list it separately from the DPS increase? This argument seems so bizarre and pedantic - if they said they intended to decrease ammo consumption without modifying any other stats, they probably meant it. If both the notes are the same thing, there's no reason to have the ammo consumption note in the patch notes at all.

I really couldn't tell you. To my memory, U20 is one of the more hectic patches DE has put out. There are quite a few things that didn't turn out to work quite the way they claimed. Whether this is because they were bugged or because there was some miscommunication about which experimental change ended up in the final build, time will tell, as they get all of this sorted. But in the case of Glaxion, at least their notes were technically correct.

[Impulse_Nine]

That's the thing, they did say the damage would be buffed but they also said the ammo consumption would be reduced separately- implying they would do something specific about the rate of fire.

If most others haven't seen a change in efficiency its probably an oversight. I hear you can message DE staff directly, perhaps ill say hi and ask if this is working as intended...