Author Topic: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE  (Read 282669 times)

Offline -Mad Maverick-

  • Member
  • Salutes: 30
    • [WOLF]
    • 12
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #210 on: October 31, 2013, 02:18:24 pm »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug88HO2mg44

ramming was always cool... so long as it doesn't take just a single ram as it did 2 months ago.  Pyramidion was a fatty and had the mass to take most ships armor and good chunk of hull out without firing a single round.

This would have made this patch a disaster but I was also planning to nerf piercing vs. armor to make armor killing a little longer to create those more interesting approaches.  Thank goodness Dev App users strongly suggested otherwise.

glad you picked up on my reference!  nah I think the damage ramming does could see a SMALL buff maybe but mainly what I want to see is ramming do more as far as knocking ships off their spot and arcs... so not a much about damage as about transferring of inertia

Offline The Djinn

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 19
    • [CA]
    • 25 
    • 41
    • 36 
    • View Profile
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #211 on: October 31, 2013, 02:19:21 pm »
ramming was always cool... so long as it doesn't take just a single ram as it did 2 months ago.  Pyramidion was a fatty and had the mass to take most ships armor and good chunk of hull out without firing a single round.

Random thought: what if ramming didn't threaten the hull and the armor in the same strike (which I believe it does now)? You could have high damage rams, but you'd ether need to have armor stripping and make sure you hit when the armor is down, or have hull-killing and hit them early. If having ANY armor at all absorbed the full ram with the armor (with any excess damage being lost), damage ramming would require a lot more coordination and finesse.

Unless I'm forgetting things and it already works this way.

Offline -Mad Maverick-

  • Member
  • Salutes: 30
    • [WOLF]
    • 12
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #212 on: October 31, 2013, 02:25:35 pm »
ramming was always cool... so long as it doesn't take just a single ram as it did 2 months ago.  Pyramidion was a fatty and had the mass to take most ships armor and good chunk of hull out without firing a single round.

Random thought: what if ramming didn't threaten the hull and the armor in the same strike (which I believe it does now)? You could have high damage rams, but you'd ether need to have armor stripping and make sure you hit when the armor is down, or have hull-killing and hit them early. If having ANY armor at all absorbed the full ram with the armor (with any excess damage being lost), damage ramming would require a lot more coordination and finesse.

Unless I'm forgetting things and it already works this way.

it kinda works that way already...

but I heartily disagree that a pyra could do that to "most ships" pre nerf.  it could do it to a spire a mobula and sometimes if the angle was right a squid.  but ALL of those ships are glass ships and are intentionally designed to be squishy...  galleons Junkers Goldies and other pyras were just fine after a ram.

but I digress,  I like my inertia idea I hope you do too!
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 02:30:46 pm by -Mad Maverick- »

Offline awkm

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 77
    • [Muse]
    • 16 
    • 45
    • 28 
    • View Profile
    • Notes for Next Century—n4n100
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #213 on: October 31, 2013, 02:38:14 pm »
Yes, inertia is transferred correctly.  However, since ships have such large masses it doesn't seem like that much from the point of reference of when you're on a ship.

Impact damage modifiers can be tweaked so that less damage can be done to armor... but not sure if I want to play around with that since Mine Launcher uses impact and is also a unique armor killer.

Try rams with long runs with moonshine.  Holy crap.

Offline RearAdmiralZill

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 144
    • [MM]
    • 31 
    • 44
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #214 on: October 31, 2013, 03:06:15 pm »
Ramming doesn't need to be touched. Want to ram gun arcs off? Hit them at an angle. Plowing square into the side of a ship bigger than you (including mass) nets the proper result, which is not much unless hull armor is down.

Offline HamsterIV

  • Member
  • Salutes: 328
    • 10 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Monkey Dev
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #215 on: October 31, 2013, 03:14:40 pm »
On the topic of the pyra's turning speed, I would appreciate an increse there. The pyra used to be my goto ship because its layout was better IMO than the Junker. It is important to me that every one on my crew gets to shoot and the Pyramidion Trifecta was my favorite way of accomplishing this. After the turn rate was reduced maintaining the gat/gat/flack trifecta became too difficult and I swapped to the junker. The turn rate/momenutm was main reason for this swap. I still prefer the pyramididon on the because it gives me more options on the tactical level, but at the execution level it is a bit of a let down.

Offline awkm

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 77
    • [Muse]
    • 16 
    • 45
    • 28 
    • View Profile
    • Notes for Next Century—n4n100
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #216 on: October 31, 2013, 03:15:11 pm »
Yeah not going to touch ramming or impact dmg.

Offline Sprayer

  • Member
  • Salutes: 14
    • [SPQR]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 27 
    • View Profile
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #217 on: October 31, 2013, 03:33:31 pm »
May not fit in here, but the sights on the LJ were screwed. The 2 is above the 1 now, which is just wrong. The numbers on sights of arcing weapons represent the distance a target should have when you put it on that row. (Even small firearms with scopes have those). The smaller number represents a smaller distance, so you dont have to point the gun as high as if the target was further away.

Offline awkm

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 77
    • [Muse]
    • 16 
    • 45
    • 28 
    • View Profile
    • Notes for Next Century—n4n100
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #218 on: October 31, 2013, 03:38:03 pm »
I'll double check with the artists if the LJ was changed.

Offline awkm

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 77
    • [Muse]
    • 16 
    • 45
    • 28 
    • View Profile
    • Notes for Next Century—n4n100
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #219 on: October 31, 2013, 04:22:03 pm »
Regarding LJ sights:

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/67382_350753875025148_1316376340_n.jpg


This was actually a sight sent to us from a player who is part of the US military.  He was kind enough to give us a sight from one of his weapons.

Offline Lord Dick Tim

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 119
    • 7
    • View Profile
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #220 on: October 31, 2013, 04:37:46 pm »
Range finder for a 203, ahh, the memories of how terrible a shot I was with it.

Offline Lochiel

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [GsC]
    • 10 
    • 25
    • View Profile
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #221 on: October 31, 2013, 04:46:25 pm »
I don't think anyone was a good shot with that.

That's the rear half of a sight system for the m203; the front half is the fixed post sight on the rifle. This is relevant because, unlike in a game, the shooters POV doesn't change, they put the front element on the target, and adjust the angle of the weapon so that the rear element matches the (horribly) guessed range.

In game, adjusting the angle of the weapon adjusts the shooters POV, meaning that to line up the shot to the appropriate range the numbers need to be inverted.

I hope that makes sense.

Offline Salous

  • Member
  • Salutes: 21
    • [COx]
    • 12
    • View Profile
    • The Cohort
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #222 on: October 31, 2013, 09:41:15 pm »
Not quite sure if its been stated or not, but why not put in the disable changes/ hitbox changes in before the major changes to the gat/mort? The disable changes alone could have solved some of the "issues" that some people had with those weapons.

As others have stated, disable weapons are now over the top. Try greased rounds or burst out with artemis, it will wreak someone's day. No point even trying to go for a kill right now, just disable and fire away, sooner or later the artemis will finish it off.

Offline -Mad Maverick-

  • Member
  • Salutes: 30
    • [WOLF]
    • 12
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #223 on: November 01, 2013, 01:21:27 am »
Yeah not going to touch ramming or impact dmg.

aw you DID play games with my heart

Offline Kriegson

  • Member
  • Salutes: 3
    • 3
    • View Profile
Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
« Reply #224 on: November 01, 2013, 08:36:24 am »
Imho disable>kill being the easiest thing to accomplish is overall better for gameplay. A disabled ship has a chance to recover, a dead one that was gat/mort+rammed=explode does not. I've had plenty of situations where I was unable to keep someone pinned or likewise was able to escape and came around for revenge.

It can be frustrating, but ultimately it makes for a better competition. A 1hit KO in a boxing match is amusing to watch every now and then, but I doubt you would have satisfied spectators if that was what EVERY match came down to.