Main > Gameplay
Some interesting math about the Mercury Field Gun.
Echoez:
--- Quote from: Serenum on July 28, 2013, 06:26:23 am ---Being against a Mercury can be frustrating for sure, expecially when you are flying a ship with medium weapon mounts, like the Galleon, Goldfish and Spire. But, of all this ships, only the Goldfish is rendered completly unable to fire (if you keep facing the same direction that is) and can be reliably pinned down. On a Spire or Galleon you can mount a Mercury too and disable their guns as well.
Plus in certain maps the effectiveness of the Mercury is greatly diminished, like in Canyon or Rumble, where the firing arc of a weapon is much more important and fights are more often at close range.
Finally some clever manouvering can make the life of a Mercury gunner much more difficult, if you approach the enemy while changing altitude with Hydrogen or Chute Vent chances are he won't be able to reliably disable any components.
--- End quote ---
A Spire without its heavy gun loses way too much firepower, you would be better off bringing a second Pyra or something, where your guns are safer and you can have 2 Mercs instead of one.
Goldfish is rendered useless with just a single shot.
Mercury can be used in any map and to very good effect, Canyons have massive open areas and you can still snipe in Rumble.
So it is okay with you that a single light gun should force you to resort to Vertical tools just to save your gun?
Serenum:
Yes.
Just like the Carronade forces you to keep your distance, etc...
There's plenty of weapons that force you to use a specific strategy in order to win against them.
The Mercury has its niche, the only thing that I might concede is that it is pretty easy to use, but making it harder to use would change nothing in high-level play and would make it more frustrating for newbies.
Echoez:
--- Quote from: Serenum on July 28, 2013, 08:54:52 am ---Yes.
Just like the Carronade forces you to keep your distance, etc...
There's plenty of weapons that force you to use a specific strategy in order to win against them.
The Mercury has its niche, the only thing that I might concede is that it is pretty easy to use, but making it harder to use would change nothing in high-level play and would make it more frustrating for newbies.
--- End quote ---
Unlike the carronades, the Mercury has no range restriction, enemies can keep distance, but the carronade user must all think around a lot of things on how to approach without getting decimated at medium range, hence the carronades are balanced. You also fly 'under' the carronades and they are relatively harmless to permahull unless you are talking about the Heavy one, in which case, it's still not as deadly as a light explosive gun like the Flak or Mortar.
You are kinda comparing the 2 polar extremes on the board here, the Mercury is a long range weapon that is still easy to work with even in medium and closer ranges while the carronades are extremely close range guns and work there and ONLY there and it is only the Heavy carronade that has significant brawling prowess by itself and nobody in their right mind would use carronades as their main weapons on the common brawler ships, they will usually be left on the support side of a Pyra or the second side of a Junker cause unless brought in pairs, light carronades can only realy do significant harm to the balloon and are restricted to a meager 350 meters range.
The Mercury isn't a niche, it is a widely used gun cause it can cause significant harm to armor, weapons, engines and permahull ALL IN ONE PACKAGE, I do not understand why is it so hard to understand that such a weapon is broken.
Making it harder to aim isn't the issue, it won't change anything, its massive utility is what needs to be looked at. Snipers should be specialized ranged weapons, not jacks of all trades.
RearAdmiralZill:
How about tweaking the shatter damage multiplier on bare hull? Leave the damage the same, tweak other guns that use shatter to do a tad more if needed (though no gun that I know uses shatter as primary damage) to compensate. You have an armor strip/disable with much less bite on the exposed hull.
Echoez:
--- Quote from: RearAdmiralZill on July 28, 2013, 06:44:31 pm ---How about tweaking the shatter damage multiplier on bare hull? Leave the damage the same, tweak other guns that use shatter to do a tad more if needed (though no gun that I know uses shatter as primary damage) to compensate. You have an armor strip/disable with much less bite on the exposed hull.
--- End quote ---
That is an interesting take on it. But the multiplier on bare hull for Shatter is already like 0.1, it would have to be very low like 0.05 or even 0.
Still doesn't solve the one-shotting guns problem though, but if Shatter does 0 damage to permahull, I believe then if you lowered the Shatter it did to 150, so it doesn't one shot a heavy gun, but still severely cripples it, it could be fine.
I also did some research to look at how much lethality do other guns with shatter damage lose to perma hull if Shatter dealt 0 damage to it.
Hwacha with Heavy clip loses out around ~67 damage from a full barrage on perma.
Heavy Carronade loses 44 damage per clip.
Artemis loses 48 damage per clip.
Light carronade loses out on 64 damage per clip, 51.2 if you are using Heavy clip.
Considering most of these guns aren't real permahull killers though, aside from the Hwacha maybe, they aren't hurt that much from Shatter not doing any damage to permahull, only the Mercury gets realy hurt due how it is used to pierce even perma from range.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version