Main > Gameplay

Spire Changes?

<< < (9/11) > >>

Crafeksterty:
Crafeksterty

--- Quote ---Ive seen less squids than spire in competetive, and i use spire almost always competetively.

I do not think it is weakest competetively.
--- End quote ---

Captain Smollet

--- Quote ---I never said the Spire was weak, I just said it's the weakest.
--- End quote ---


I still do not think that is true. Like i said, no one really tries to make it work.

Buffed armor allready leads to 520 armor for the spire. And even that is pretty small.
Buffed armor of 550 armor is 715. Almost double that of the spire we have now, equal to an unbuffed pyra, close to unbffed junker, and the spire we have now allready can do devestation with the current armor. When the armor becomes more accepting its going to make people play the spire more yes, but pyra, galleon, even junker, mobula all have to rely on disabling the spire constantly because the spire will always outgun resorting to Artemis, carronade, flamer etc always versus a spire.

Wundsalz:
What about moving the balloon back to its former position (next to the stairs leading down to the current hull spot from the helm) OR moving the hull somewhere to the lower deck? That way a single engineer could easily maintain the most essential components on the ship.

Crafeksterty:
That would just go backwards in updating when it comes to progress. The pilot can help easier even with the gunner on this current set up. For your second suggestion, it would make the spire more tanky but by design inside of the ship wouldnt make for a fun gameplay or splitt the players how the players should be.

I would move the hull to where the baloon was (Next to the stairs on the upper deck). That way the spire will be tanky in the sense if focused.
But the reason for putting it in the lower ramp is to delay that sudden repair by just a bit. When the baloon was upstairs, it was repaired/rebuilt fairly quick, perhaps quicker than the junkers baloon.
But the focus took its time because the baloon is tough to rebuild/repair. The hull is very easy, and so the delay is balance to the sudden rebuild making it Tanky like a goldfish or squid.
In some aspects kinda enforces 3 engie 1 gunner combo.

There is actualy no problems with the set up we have now, it is actualy more beneficial if the gunner and the pilot take the extra step to run up or down a ramp to repair the hull.


But no really... the spires aspect is very hard to see, it being not so glass cannon like will end up force ships to try and counter it directly.
The only ship that is directly countered with extreme specific choices is the junker. And that is not because of its stats, but rather its Form. The junkers baloon is huge but the hull really small.
So people result to punching the baloon of the junker instead. But it has strengths against it like the baloon being easily accesible by the pilot and an engineer so the baloon can always and will always be repaired quicker than most ships. (Excluding the squid, the squids baloon is pretty quick).

The thing im suggesting for the spire is to Use its form. It is slender, and like i said. People do miss it if it goes side by side. Problem is, it isnt that much and is equal to other ships.
The junker has a hard armor to hit along with tough armor. The Mobula is horisontal and has a baloon underneath, it goes up and down fast. The spire may as well go Horizontaly and turn fast because it is a vertical shape. It is a very simple concept.

Captain Smollett:

--- Quote from: Crafeksterty on July 06, 2014, 07:37:09 pm ---I would move the hull to where the baloon was (Next to the stairs on the upper deck). That way the spire will be tanky in the sense if focused.

--- End quote ---

This would be a significant buff and definitely worth considering if an armor increase is deemed unbalanced. 

My general sense is that the Spire shouldn't necessarily be "tanky" but it needs more durability than it has now so that it can leverage its firepower for a longer duration.  Moving the hull closer to the guns will allow a quick mallet or chem spray in effect extending the armor up period and allowing more shots to go out before rebuild is required and 1-2 guns are no longer shooting.

Crafeksterty:
Huh?!

But didnt you read the second things i said after?
The design fitted with the baloon because it was tough to repair.
But an easy to repair component next to a person at all times will lead to an engineer captain, which isnt a wanted aspect. Along with this leading to an incredibly tanky behaviour.
It is a better option than straight up armor, but the design of the ship will change alot. It wont leverage the firepower longer. Its still the same hull that holds the same numbers.
One mallet swing or wrench swing when the hull armor is damaged is the only thing being more convinient. Other than that, running to rebuild is still going to make the firepower suffer.

Current set up can let the gunner run up to help on the hull with the same distance as to the baloon. (Perhaps 0.3 seconds longer path)
Meaning that current set up is actualy tankier if gunner and pilot are aware of the hull along with an engineer who also should be aware of the hull.

And by that time where everyone is rebuilding, you will be wanting to run away, juke or something.
What is wrong with acceleration buff and turning? D:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page