Info > Feedback and Suggestions
Call for Gunner Ammo Ideas
Milevan Faent:
--- Quote from: AceHangman on May 26, 2014, 04:59:37 pm ---
--- Quote ---That said, I don't think it's a good idea. I can't imagine it would feel fun to be on the receiving end of it.
--- End quote ---
Oh... gosh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that in the entire history of the world in warfare and weapons design this is the criteria we established for weaponry; whether the target enjoys it.
Obviously the numbers are workable, but since it's only based off burst radius (of which each weapon has a different one and they can't be boosted with burst rounds since you'd be using these rounds) then you'd need a sizable round, that burst next to a character ( a hard target to hit since most weapons with appreciable burst have garbage accuracy for human-sized targets) and then there's only a 25% chance it pushes them to the edge, of the burst (and most places on a ship your can't fall off even if you tried jumping.)
I sure don't enjoy being on the receiving end of a flamethrower barrage, but it's there, serving it's purpose. When I think of starting multiple fires on a ship and making engineers sweat and run around trying to time their extinguishers with the repair swings of other engineers their discomfort makes me smile.
I didn't realize this thread was for 'comforting' suggestions on ammo. Perhaps you prefer the Barrel of Monkeys round? If it strikes the hull, dozens of tiny monkey avatars cover the ship, racing back and forth and covering the eyes of any gunners. Hilarity ensues.
Or you prefer to use the Two-ply rounds, so not only can those pirates trying to rob your ship, rape your female crew members, and plunder your wreckage enjoy the decorative streamers coming off their ship they can be soothed by the light scent of aloe?
--- End quote ---
... it's not a matter of it being enjoyable to the target. It's a matter of if it's so annoying people will just up and quit because of it. Things that take away control of your character are ALWAYS going to be annoying as hell. You aren't looking at the full effects your ammo would have. Say I take your ammo and apply it to Hades. As it stands, using the numbers you've given, you've created a weapon that 1) deals a decent (not great, but decent) amount of damage, 2) has 10 shots, and 3) will quite likely hit enough times against the hull that even if it doesn't knock the people off, quite likely prevented them from saving the ship ANYWAY. And with the Artemis it's even worse, as the Artemis is more accurate, while still having a decent AoE.
You would HAVE to include a counter to this, as it's that powerful, and that counter would then become NECESSARY on everyone but the pilot. This means no more spotting. A gunner still has to move around enough that they'll be knocked around occasionally, and any time that happens, they're being prevented from getting on a gun, which means they'll be stopped from doing anything. Flamers are a pain but they're something that can be dealt with in a variety of ways (the easiest of which is to stay away from said flamer and it's short-as-heck range). This has no easy counter without sacrificing something important. I can't see it adding anything positive to the game, and a lot of negative things to it.
Richard LeMoon:
Mines and Lumberjack using that effect on players... No. End of discussion.
AceHangman:
Other than the potential of it being unbalanced, which everything has the potential to be, I'm not seeing the Armageddon you're describing. This is a thread for ideas, if the numbers don't work, they can be tweaked, if the burst radius on weapons turns out too large, the rounds can reduce burst size.
--- Quote ---Say I take your ammo and apply it to Hades.
--- End quote ---
As for your Hades example, you've taken one of the heaviest weapons with a large burst radius (which is obviously what this ammo would work well with, not a Mercury Field Gun), which just so happens to fall in an arc which, except at close range will almost always drop on the balloon (where no one will ever be.) Even if you did hit the hull, you would have to catch a character in the effect range, and they would have to be unattached to a gun or helm (which even engineers can man). Furthermore, there is never a guarantee that it does anything at all. Even if you were say that 1 out 4 shots definitely moves a person (and that would be untrue) there's no guarantee that they they're blown off the ship or even that it had no effect on their performance because they were in a 6 to 9 second round time from just hitting a component with wrench or mallet and thus able to realign with no effect of their performance. Also, if your gunner is dropping 4 mortar rounds dead on where it would catch the same area, then they're a crack shot or you're right against the enemy and you should be going for damage.
As for hindering a gunner; against this ammo, a gunner is actually less likely to ever be unattached from their weapon since these rounds would cause reduced damage to the gun they're on, meaning they're less likely to get thrown off when it's destroyed or spend more time unattached repairing the damage, since it would take half as many swings to fix any damage, and that's just using a -50% damage example. And that's before even factoring in a 3 in 4 chance that the round does not even affect them.
--- Quote from: Richard LeMoon on May 26, 2014, 07:33:02 pm ---Mines and Lumberjack using that effect on players... No. End of discussion.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, no. Assuming that it takes 4 hits to 'proc' the 25% chance of Concussion, then your ship just flew into 4 mines. You've got a lot more to complain about and it has nothing to do with this ammo type. Even then, you've only taken the damage of hitting two mines. Also, this ammo has no affect on the mine launcher's clip size since it fires one mine at a time. I don't even think you could try and hit 4 mores on purpose to make your example even valid. If your assertion is that your opponent is able to pinpoint 4 mines into your flight path through sheer skill then they would be using normal rounds for a kill, not these, which are a delaying/attrition tactic.
As for the Lumberjack, that's a primarily balloon disabling weapon. Since it's highly unlikely anyone's standing on the balloon, only a hit on the underside of the balloon might affect someone (depending on ship configuration) Since mortars arc down they're more likely to land atop or along the side of the balloon. There's a chance you might claim you could cruise under and fire upwards to catch the target as the mortar rises but then you're likely getting within the range where the mortar has no AoE. But taking it to the extreme, that you're an expert marksman and do land a mortar on the hull and it has a burst radius... Great! That's what this ammo is for. Except you just did 50% of the already low direct damage of the weapon to hulls and components (and cut it's phenomenal damage against balloons to half) and have a 1 in 4 chance that maybe an enemy crewman get skipped a meter or two over assuming they weren't manning a gun. Sure, the potential is there but the weapons you're using as an example wouldn't be better off than normal rounds.
In fact, in almost all cases, it's better to use normal rounds than these, which are way less efficient except in a few cases where they might work well. But since those cases are quite rare or unlikely, that means classes other than Gunners can't risk taking this ammo as their one option. Which means, this ammo type is exactly the kind of example of something only a Gunner might be able to bring to table in a crew. And if it turns out it's not useful, they still have their other two ammo types or normal as always.
That's the point of the thread. There's obviously testing going on and things can get tweaked. I don't know why you would assume that any idea is just going to be tossed into the game slipshod. Other than a claim that 'It takes away character choice!' (Like your choice not wear a safety harness on a flying brick tethered to a gas-filled balloon.) Everything else is able to be tested and tweaked. As for, '...taking spotters away.' There really isn't any reason not to take the Spyglass (rangefinder being the only option.) This actually adds another choice for anyone other than the pilot (which is everyone else.)
Milevan Faent:
--- Quote from: AceHangman on May 26, 2014, 09:20:42 pm ---Other than the potential of it being unbalanced, which everything has the potential to be, I'm not seeing the Armageddon you're describing. This is a thread for ideas, if the numbers don't work, they can be tweaked, if the burst radius on weapons turns out too large, the rounds can reduce burst size.
--- Quote ---Say I take your ammo and apply it to Hades.
--- End quote ---
As for your Hades example, you've taken one of the heaviest weapons with a large burst radius (which is obviously what this ammo would work well with, not a Mercury Field Gun), which just so happens to fall in an arc which, except at close range will almost always drop on the balloon (where no one will ever be.) Even if you did hit the hull, you would have to catch a character in the effect range, and they would have to be unattached to a gun or helm (which even engineers can man). Furthermore, there is never a guarantee that it does anything at all. Even if you were say that 1 out 4 shots definitely moves a person (and that would be untrue) there's no guarantee that they they're blown off the ship or even that it had no effect on their performance because they were in a 6 to 9 second round time from just hitting a component with wrench or mallet and thus able to realign with no effect of their performance. Also, if your gunner is dropping 4 mortar rounds dead on where it would catch the same area, then they're a crack shot or you're right against the enemy and you should be going for damage.
As for hindering a gunner; against this ammo, a gunner is actually less likely to ever be unattached from their weapon since these rounds would cause reduced damage to the gun they're on, meaning they're less likely to get thrown off when it's destroyed or spend more time unattached repairing the damage, since it would take half as many swings to fix any damage, and that's just using a -50% damage example. And that's before even factoring in a 3 in 4 chance that the round does not even affect them.
--- Quote from: Richard LeMoon on May 26, 2014, 07:33:02 pm ---Mines and Lumberjack using that effect on players... No. End of discussion.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, no. Assuming that it takes 4 hits to 'proc' the 25% chance of Concussion, then your ship just flew into 4 mines. You've got a lot more to complain about and it has nothing to do with this ammo type. Even then, you've only taken the damage of hitting two mines. Also, this ammo has no affect on the mine launcher's clip size since it fires one mine at a time. I don't even think you could try and hit 4 mores on purpose to make your example even valid. If your assertion is that your opponent is able to pinpoint 4 mines into your flight path through sheer skill then they would be using normal rounds for a kill, not these, which are a delaying/attrition tactic.
As for the Lumberjack, that's a primarily balloon disabling weapon. Since it's highly unlikely anyone's standing on the balloon, only a hit on the underside of the balloon might affect someone (depending on ship configuration) Since mortars arc down they're more likely to land atop or along the side of the balloon. There's a chance you might claim you could cruise under and fire upwards to catch the target as the mortar rises but then you're likely getting within the range where the mortar has no AoE. But taking it to the extreme, that you're an expert marksman and do land a mortar on the hull and it has a burst radius... Great! That's what this ammo is for. Except you just did 50% of the already low direct damage of the weapon to hulls and components (and cut it's phenomenal damage against balloons to half) and have a 1 in 4 chance that maybe an enemy crewman get skipped a meter or two over assuming they weren't manning a gun. Sure, the potential is there but the weapons you're using as an example wouldn't be better off than normal rounds.
In fact, in almost all cases, it's better to use normal rounds than these, which are way less efficient except in a few cases where they might work well. But since those cases are quite rare or unlikely, that means classes other than Gunners can't risk taking this ammo as their one option. Which means, this ammo type is exactly the kind of example of something only a Gunner might be able to bring to table in a crew. And if it turns out it's not useful, they still have their other two ammo types or normal as always.
That's the point of the thread. There's obviously testing going on and things can get tweaked. I don't know why you would assume that any idea is just going to be tossed into the game slipshod. Other than a claim that 'It takes away character choice!' (Like your choice not wear a safety harness on a flying brick tethered to a gas-filled balloon.) Everything else is able to be tested and tweaked. As for, '...taking spotters away.' There really isn't any reason not to take the Spyglass (rangefinder being the only option.) This actually adds another choice for anyone other than the pilot (which is everyone else.)
--- End quote ---
Okay, so I don't have the time to read and reply to all of this, but I didn't notice when you mentioned it only has a 25% chance to go off. That partially removes the problem, but creates another one that I personally don't like. RNG is annoying. I've never really liked my fate being decided by RNG. Flame stacks use RNG, but most of the time it's very predictable anyway (flamers proc so many times per second it's going to get multiple stacks easy, Banshee has a high enough proc chance that you're going to get a decent number of fires going, and so on).
Also, in the case of the Hades, I've seen Hades hit the hull more often than the balloon actually. Just my personal experience in the game. Is it accurate? No, but you only need 1 or 2 lucky shots to pretty much ensure that an enemy ship dies. I can't say I'd ever view this concept as balanced or good. I simply don't like it.
Sammy B. T.:
The flamer would be ridiculous.
Balance aside, this would probably be amazingly hard to implement on Muse's side and would honestly be found by most to be more annoying than game enhancing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version