Author Topic: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.  (Read 86169 times)

Offline WafflesToo

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • 3
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2014, 02:01:03 pm »
I think you pretty well nailed it Crafeksterty.

I can think of two changes that could be made to give Gunners more utility on a ship:
#1) drop / limit the Engineer's ammo slot
#2) when a gun is loaded with an ammo type it should stay loaded with that type until changed by someone else.

Thoughts?

Offline Mattilald Anguisad

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 12
    • [GwTh]
    • 12 
    • 45
    • 30 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #46 on: May 25, 2014, 07:04:39 pm »
Every class needs to have a choice of ammo type - gunner just needs to have more. - Just add default ammo as a choice. And ONLY if this is done the ammo could stay with the ammo type it had last.

Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #47 on: May 26, 2014, 02:48:54 am »
I dont know, when jumping on a thing, you have a default option to not mess up with you.

How the helm has a helm option, and how the guns have a default option.
Making Default an option can be for confusing new players to how the gun actually works.

Default as an option does fix it so that the gunner is more usefull, but thats because you make engineers and pilots less usefull on it.
This is a viable option but not a fun or healthy one.

Doing an overhaul to the ammo type where ammo will be wanted for different situation will force a captain to always get atleast 1 gunner. And people will feel equaly useless/usefull amongst gunners/engineers/pilots.

Offline macmacnick

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 121
    • [Clan]
    • 16 
    • 35
    • 19 
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile: Macmacnick
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #48 on: May 26, 2014, 03:37:58 am »
Crafek, I use Normal ammo as an ammunition type in of itself, when gunning. This gives me the option of four ammunitions, which is especially useful when using mines, as then I have 4 different ranges.


Lesmok: If an enemy is high above, or out of normal ranges of the mine launcher.
Normal: Self-explanitory.
Incendiary (Heatsink does a similar job): when an enemy is far below, and closer than lesmok.
Lochnagar: Enemy is so damned close you could metaphorically be close enough to touch, or is used as a last-ditch getaway diversion.


This allows the greater variety of mine ranges, albeit with a bit less damage than If you replaced lochnagar with charged.
You handicap practically every mine build if you forgo the normal ammo. Especially engineers who need to mine things.
This can also be seen on a hades. If you bring greased as an engineer, and the enemy is out of range, you cannot use the gun to its full potential that it would be able to if you had normal ammunition alongside the brought ammunition. Don't forgo the normal ammo as a second type, as if we get three gunner tools, then a gunner could bring them and suffer no detrimental effects, but gain no bonuses from the ammo itself, but would be still more able to deal with a situation than an engineer would, as the engineer would have the possibility to only bring one gunner tool, and thus would also not be able to shoot a gun without someone with actual ammo to load it in for them. Therefore, Crafeksterty, your regular ammunition as a selected ammunition type would be incompatible when you add in gunner tools into the equation, thus rendering it impractical.




Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #49 on: May 26, 2014, 03:59:05 am »
Crafek, I use Normal ammo as an ammunition type in of itself, when gunning. This gives me the option of four ammunitions, which is especially useful when using mines, as then I have 4 different ranges.


Lesmok: If an enemy is high above, or out of normal ranges of the mine launcher.
Normal: Self-explanitory.
Incendiary (Heatsink does a similar job): when an enemy is far below, and closer than lesmok.
Lochnagar: Enemy is so damned close you could metaphorically be close enough to touch, or is used as a last-ditch getaway diversion.


This allows the greater variety of mine ranges, albeit with a bit less damage than If you replaced lochnagar with charged.
You handicap practically every mine build if you forgo the normal ammo. Especially engineers who need to mine things.
This can also be seen on a hades. If you bring greased as an engineer, and the enemy is out of range, you cannot use the gun to its full potential that it would be able to if you had normal ammunition alongside the brought ammunition. Don't forgo the normal ammo as a second type, as if we get three gunner tools, then a gunner could bring them and suffer no detrimental effects, but gain no bonuses from the ammo itself, but would be still more able to deal with a situation than an engineer would, as the engineer would have the possibility to only bring one gunner tool, and thus would also not be able to shoot a gun without someone with actual ammo to load it in for them. Therefore, Crafeksterty, your regular ammunition as a selected ammunition type would be incompatible when you add in gunner tools into the equation, thus rendering it impractical.

I didnt say anything about forgoing Normal Ammo for the better. Nor did i clearly suggest here that it is the answer.
My suggestion is more torwards having ammo that are different enough for gunners to be wanted.

Quote
Ammo like charged, greased, heatsink, incindiary, burst are way too mundane, in a good or bad way. The only ammo that really kicks things up differently are the heavy clip, Lesmok, Lochnagar.

And

Quote
You will want more of THOSE types of ammo. The mundane ammo are close to being default. And that is the issue, how these default like ammunition can be easily used without wanting to switch out. Instead of removing Default ammo, you will want to enhance the use of default because the ammo choice is way too situational. Right now it isnt. Only few hit it spot on.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2014, 04:01:49 am by Crafeksterty »

Offline macmacnick

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 121
    • [Clan]
    • 16 
    • 35
    • 19 
    • View Profile
    • Steam Profile: Macmacnick
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #50 on: May 26, 2014, 04:02:31 am »
Meh, you hinted towards that earlier discussion you made a few months back regarding forgoing normal ammo as a default.

Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #51 on: May 26, 2014, 04:12:17 am »
I did, but since i saw what muse can do with the ammo i changed my mind.

That has been a thing lately i feel.
When the Spire was getting a Buff i was against turning the side guns forward. Because i saw so many potential builds that break ships to smitherines.
Well... I break ships to smitherines but i still see people having trouble with the ship. And my suggestion was something very Mild in comparison.
The spire buff was very fun and changes the Spires intended playstyle for the better (Im Admiting). While my suggestion was something that wasnt fun but could make the spire healthier. In comparison im happy with the gun arc changes more than my suggestion.

For this, things kinda happen the same way. Taking away the default ammo i realised is a very boring choice. An EASY choice but boring. It doesnt change the gunner but simply nerfs the engineer and pilot. So why not have the ammo be interresting? Make gunners be powerfull. Not because of one ammo type, but how several limit the gun for specific situations so one MUST change ammo. That way engineers will only have one choice and must revert to default while gunners can in every situation make the gun usefull.

On the Call for Ammo discussion, im really liking the more utility type ammo that increases the gun health, or makes its shots invisible, or blind the enemy ship. These are types of ammo you dont really want to use ALL the time because they have detrimental effects also. As a gunner its no biggie cus you can change to something more fitting.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2014, 04:18:11 am by Crafeksterty »

Offline Caprontos

  • Member
  • Salutes: 17
    • [Rydr]
    • 37 
    • 45
    • 13 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #52 on: May 26, 2014, 11:35:01 am »
I honestly think people are greatly over valuing normal ammo..

All ships have 4 spots.. a pilot spot - two engineer spots - a gunner spot.. That's the basic "should be default" crew..

Some people use engineer for pilot, and many use third engineer for gunner. Which should be fine and workable. (the more crew combinations that can work, the more play styles they can let exist in the game..)

In the current game, third engineer is by far used more then gunner, not because normal ammo exists.. but because gunners do not have any advantage over engineer on many light guns.. and engineer with buff hammer is out right stronger.. Its all benefit to bring a engineer over a gunner..

Normal ammo isn't used on many of these guns regularly, where you would want the gunner.. (gat, mortar, light caro, flamer, etc)... because it has no value over the guns "best ammo"..

The only places normal ammo removal effects are... Artemis lesmok combo - which is an engi gun most of the time (mobula/junker/spire).. and second medium gunner on galleons, where sometimes the engi will opt for lesmok/normal to use the longer range guns at lest a little effectively.. From what I see, most people still prefer gunner on medium guns over third engineer so no need to nerf it really... because multiple ammo has value their, so there is some trade off on which to pick..

So I think normal ammo removal is just a lesmok nerf.. and a specific tactic nerf.. not a gunner buff really.

Gunners already have a combat advantage over engineer on medium guns and on hades/mine launcher.. If they change the buff hammer, then even more so.


Also its kinda silly to compare everyone having a pipe wrench vs everyone having normal ammo.. Pipe-wrench is useful on any ship with any load out .. Normal ammo as said above is only useful to engineers in certain situations.


Removing the buff hammers dmg bonus, balances gunner and engineer raw dmg.. But doesn't remove the lack of situational value on the light guns we need him to be valuable on.. So is likewise not necessarily the only answer..


There have been some pretty nice ammo suggestions that make you want to have a gunner. Instead of balance, they straight up buff the gunners  slots.

Basically, the engineers slot for ammo should be a bad thing. The current selection of ammo does not do it. The gunner choosing this selection of ammo has more freedom but nothing that makes those extra slots worth while to have.

The pilots tools dont count as no one else can jump on the helm.
While every one can jump out and do a bit of repairing.
And everyone can shoot a gun.

The problem that, we obviously see is that we can do enough and in a desirable ammount with just one ammo type.
What if there are some vastly different ammo that make up for gunners? Some vast diffrences that make you want atleast 1 gunner.
1 Gunner on each ship is enough to be necessary for the fix.


Nerfing pilots and engineers, is actualy not the answer. Sure it helps the gunner but it doesnt make the gunner more of what he is.
And thats the reliefe of having more options for the situation, or more options to better control what is happening.

Ammo like charged, greased, heatsink, incindiary, burst are way too mundane, in a good or bad way. The only ammo that really kicks things up differently are the heavy clip, Lesmok, Lochnagar.

You will want more of THOSE types of ammo. The mundane ammo are close to being default. And that is the issue, how these default like ammunition can be easily used without wanting to switch out. Instead of removing Default ammo, you will want to enhance the use of default because the ammo choice is way too situational. Right now it isnt. Only few hit it spot on.


This is a far more logical idea, remove the ammo that currently are the "normal ammo++" for the light guns, and replace them with not one (as suggested) but several ammo that are useful on a gun - if possible - in several different situations that can all happen in any given match..

Basically buff the "situational" value of ammos, and debuff the I'm the best normal ammo++ for the gun..  Since based on ammo alone (if they don't add tools and such), gunner strength is his situational value.. vs engineer who is only useful if he has an ammo that can do everything needed in one ammo.




Offline Milevan Faent

  • Member
  • Salutes: 15
    • [Cake]
    • 8
    • 31 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #53 on: May 26, 2014, 11:55:45 am »
I honestly think people are greatly over valuing normal ammo..

All ships have 4 spots.. a pilot spot - two engineer spots - a gunner spot.. That's the basic "should be default" crew..

Some people use engineer for pilot, and many use third engineer for gunner. Which should be fine and workable. (the more crew combinations that can work, the more play styles they can let exist in the game..)

In the current game, third engineer is by far used more then gunner, not because normal ammo exists.. but because gunners do not have any advantage over engineer on many light guns.. and engineer with buff hammer is out right stronger.. Its all benefit to bring a engineer over a gunner..

Normal ammo isn't used on many of these guns regularly, where you would want the gunner.. (gat, mortar, light caro, flamer, etc)... because it has no value over the guns "best ammo"..

The only places normal ammo removal effects are... Artemis lesmok combo - which is an engi gun most of the time (mobula/junker/spire).. and second medium gunner on galleons, where sometimes the engi will opt for lesmok/normal to use the longer range guns at lest a little effectively.. From what I see, most people still prefer gunner on medium guns over third engineer so no need to nerf it really... because multiple ammo has value their, so there is some trade off on which to pick..

So I think normal ammo removal is just a lesmok nerf.. and a specific tactic nerf.. not a gunner buff really.

Gunners already have a combat advantage over engineer on medium guns and on hades/mine launcher.. If they change the buff hammer, then even more so.


Also its kinda silly to compare everyone having a pipe wrench vs everyone having normal ammo.. Pipe-wrench is useful on any ship with any load out .. Normal ammo as said above is only useful to engineers in certain situations.


Removing the buff hammers dmg bonus, balances gunner and engineer raw dmg.. But doesn't remove the lack of situational value on the light guns we need him to be valuable on.. So is likewise not necessarily the only answer..


There have been some pretty nice ammo suggestions that make you want to have a gunner. Instead of balance, they straight up buff the gunners  slots.

Basically, the engineers slot for ammo should be a bad thing. The current selection of ammo does not do it. The gunner choosing this selection of ammo has more freedom but nothing that makes those extra slots worth while to have.

The pilots tools dont count as no one else can jump on the helm.
While every one can jump out and do a bit of repairing.
And everyone can shoot a gun.

The problem that, we obviously see is that we can do enough and in a desirable ammount with just one ammo type.
What if there are some vastly different ammo that make up for gunners? Some vast diffrences that make you want atleast 1 gunner.
1 Gunner on each ship is enough to be necessary for the fix.


Nerfing pilots and engineers, is actualy not the answer. Sure it helps the gunner but it doesnt make the gunner more of what he is.
And thats the reliefe of having more options for the situation, or more options to better control what is happening.

Ammo like charged, greased, heatsink, incindiary, burst are way too mundane, in a good or bad way. The only ammo that really kicks things up differently are the heavy clip, Lesmok, Lochnagar.

You will want more of THOSE types of ammo. The mundane ammo are close to being default. And that is the issue, how these default like ammunition can be easily used without wanting to switch out. Instead of removing Default ammo, you will want to enhance the use of default because the ammo choice is way too situational. Right now it isnt. Only few hit it spot on.


This is a far more logical idea, remove the ammo that currently are the "normal ammo++" for the light guns, and replace them with not one (as suggested) but several ammo that are useful on a gun - if possible - in several different situations that can all happen in any given match..

Basically buff the "situational" value of ammos, and debuff the I'm the best normal ammo++ for the gun..  Since based on ammo alone (if they don't add tools and such), gunner strength is his situational value.. vs engineer who is only useful if he has an ammo that can do everything needed in one ammo.

Thank you for stating exactly what is already being done on the dev app. You're all so behind on the times XD

Offline Richard LeMoon

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 284
    • [Muse]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #54 on: May 26, 2014, 01:37:25 pm »
What about making more powerful/specialized ammo take up two gunner slots? Give everyone two ammo slots, but normal is unchangeable. The other slot can be used for the more 'mundane' ammo choices. So, as we have now, Pilot and Engineer can take take a normal and special ammo. Choosing a more powerful, specialized ammo would take up two slots. If a Pilot or Engie took one of these, it would take up both slots, giving them only one choice in combat. Since a Gunner has four slots, they could take either Normal and three special ammos, OR two special ammo and one Specialized ammos, or two Specialized ammos. I would consider Lochnagar a Specialized ammo type, along with some of the new ones.




Offline Dementio

  • Member
  • Salutes: 135
    • [Rydr]
    • 43 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #55 on: May 26, 2014, 03:28:04 pm »
What about making more powerful/specialized ammo take up two gunner slots? Give everyone two ammo slots, but normal is unchangeable. The other slot can be used for the more 'mundane' ammo choices. So, as we have now, Pilot and Engineer can take take a normal and special ammo. Choosing a more powerful, specialized ammo would take up two slots. If a Pilot or Engie took one of these, it would take up both slots, giving them only one choice in combat. Since a Gunner has four slots, they could take either Normal and three special ammos, OR two special ammo and one Specialized ammos, or two Specialized ammos. I would consider Lochnagar a Specialized ammo type, along with some of the new ones.



I wouldn't want Lochnagar to take up 2 slots, but the idea sounds interesting enough.

A major problem would be the balance though. How much worth is the more powerful lesmok round? What makes it so powerful? Would specialized greased shoot too fast (e.g. greased gatling on armor)?
If balanced though, it sure can give the gunner pure damage (or whatever) superiority compared to engineers/pilots, if said two classes want to keep their default ammo.
A major disadvantage would be to sacrifice more versatility when it comes to using the gun in different situations or using more guns with different "optimal" ammo, which might be good if the "specialized" thing works.

A more UI related problem would be how to visually bring the default ammo in there and which one of the two ammo types in gunner option 2 (related to picture in quote) would be replaced? Do you have a choice wheter to sacrifice a whole slot or just default ammo?


BUT I doubt that this alone can make gunners more popular, even though I want this.

Offline Omniraptor

  • Member
  • Salutes: 51
    • [Duck]
    • 27 
    • 45
    • 38 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #56 on: May 27, 2014, 12:25:22 am »
Richard, that's a really cool idea that could easily be applied to other tools (I want the spyglass to take up two slots)

However, I'm worried people would still use mostly buff gungineers because on a lot of popular guns (like gat/mortar) you only want one ammo type.

Offline AceHangman

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • 2
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #57 on: May 27, 2014, 05:56:02 am »
I know passive skills aren't the desired idea, and this may have been suggested elsewhere, but what if gunners repaired weapons automatically when using them.  I'm not suggesting that it works continually, but only when the gun is being reloaded.  Obviously some weapons have higher hit points than others and finding a good balance on the amount repaired would require testing.

Just for example purpose, say gunner autoheals... 20 hp per .5 seconds while the gun is reloading.  This means on Gatlin guns, you would heal very little, but on say, the Hwachi Rockey launcher (about 8 seconds reload) you could heal a respectable amount (and those things take a long time to fix because of their high hit points when you have to hop off.)

As I said, the numbers would need tweaking and it would  have to be determined if it's on ongoing effect, meaning it occurs each time unit you are on the gun while it's reloading or if you could actually start reloading and jump off to boost the repair with tools as long as you can hop back on before the reload is complete (similar to how loading special ammo works now, just as long as you're in place before that last click).  With this method, the game would just determine the total reload time and if the gunner was in place just assign the repair points.

The second methods a bit abusable since an engineer or anyone could just set a gun to reload and as long as a gunner hopped in the seat in time it would be a free boost of repair.  Better in my opinion to have it cycle during the reload process only when a gunner is manning it.

I think this would be a fair buff without stepping on engineers' toes or overshadowing their talents.  Certainly if flying around without enemies nearby you could start reloading and thus repair the weapon but unlike a constant auto repair, there are actually times when you get caught with your pants down while reloading when an enemy comes out of nowhere and your pilot is yelling, 'Take the shot!' and you just have to sit and wait out the 6 seconds.

Also, it won't stop the need for helpful engineers since it has no effect on fixing destroyed weapons or being knocked off a gun with more than 8 fire charges.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2014, 06:00:30 am by AceHangman »

Offline UmmonTL

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • [XSH]
    • 4
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #58 on: May 27, 2014, 06:49:15 am »
I didn't manage to read the whole thread but as a fairly new player I wanted to comment. My suggestion would be two improvements to the way a gunner reloads:
  • If he reloads, whatever ammo he has selected is loaded even if he jumps off the gun unless someone else jumps on it.
  • If he's on a gun with a full clip he can very quickly switch the ammo type instead of waiting for the full reload time
My intention is for a gunner to actually make use of the different ammo types effectively and with new ammo types being introduced it should help to make the gunners versatility better than the gungineers narrow focus. More passive ammo effects would also make it interesting to have a gunner run around the ship reloading all guns when there is no immediate target to shoot at. The big problem then would only be the carrying capacity, more ammo types means to utilize them a gunner should probably get more gunner slots as well.
There would still need to be other changes, I liked the idea of the buffhammer increasing non-damage stats on the gun. Having better ammo that takes up more slots could be good as well but again, the gunner would need more slots.

Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #59 on: May 27, 2014, 08:35:45 am »
For the idea of a tool taking 2 spots away, i want that applied on Pheonix claw, buff hammer and Greased. :P