Author Topic: The Gunner "Problem" - Range  (Read 15662 times)

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 136
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« on: July 11, 2014, 09:36:53 am »
Incoming wall of text.
TL;DR: Add an "arming time" to all guns - unarmed shots deal ~80% of current damage, armed shots deal ~120% of current damage - and make ammo types focus more on modifying the armed range of the gun. This would fix gunners but possibly be too big of a change.



A lot of attention is being given to gunners and the lack of desire for gunners on some ships. Proposed buffs to the gunner class include new ammo types (supported by devs as the easy temporary fix), new gunner tools (supported by several players as a "real" solution), and altering the classes to carry different quantities of items (not heavily discussed yet).

I propose that these will not, and cannot, make the gunner any more desirable than it currently is.

Consider the pilot and his tools. He has tools that alter his movement speed. He has tools that alter his turning. He has tools that alter his vertical mobility. He even has a tool he can use to damage an enemy. A gunner or engineer trying to replace a pilot is insufficient in most cases because they don't have the variety of tools needed to do the job well enough - they can only carry one type of all these types of pilot tools.

Consider the engineer and his tools. He has tools that rebuild faster. He has tools that repair faster. He has tools that handle fire. He even has a tool that he can use to increase the damage of guns. A pilot or gunner trying to replace an engineer is insufficient in most cases because they don't have the variety of tools needed to do the job well enough - they can only carry one of all these types of engineer tools.

Now consider the gunner and his tools. He has tools that alter the way his gun deals damage.

That's it.

No matter what, the gunner tools in the current state of the game focus around the idea of optimizing the way you are dealing damage to the enemy. Greased ammo lets you deal damage faster in a single clip. Burst lets you deal damage in a greater area. Charged lets you deal lots of damage with a single shot.

When a captain designs his ship, he can select a certain way to deal damage for each weapon, and whatever crew member will be on that gun takes the ammo that best fits that damage style. No other ammo types are needed simply because they deal damage in a way that the captain doesn't need - it doesn't fit the style of his ship. A pilot or an engineer on a gun works just as well as a gunner in most cases because they can deal damage in the way desired with just their one ammo type.

Going into why the proposed changes won't solve this:

New Ammos
In theory, adding new niche ammo types will make a captain want to have those ammo types on his ship. However, we are still left in the situation where captains will design their ship in a certain way and one ammo type will deal damage in a way that is ideal for their style. Captains will still only need the one ammo type for each gun, making gunners no more desirable than before.

New ammos that alter the health of the gun have more potential. A captain might want that extra protection and not be willing to sacrifice the shiny ammo type that fits their style. However, normal ammo is still remarkably good, and the health boost ammo would undoubtedly have downsides to damage output requiring the crew to reload to be able to win a fight. The concept is interesting and has potential, but is still limited.

New Gunner Tools
The player proposed solution of adding new gunner tools similar to the buff hammer would, in theory, make gunners more desirable. A gunner could increase their damage output while also using one of the fancy ammo types that benefit their captain's style. However, this is defeated by both the utility of normal ammo and the ingenuity of captains. Why would a gat-mortar pyramidion take a gunner for a gunning buff tool when they could take 2 engineers - one with the tool and one with greased? Crews have already shown that they can handle taking care of each others guns in terms of buffs. Now you just have a buffgineer and a gun loading engineer.

Even in situations where crew couldn't assist each other like that, normal ammo in a gun is never a bad thing. It deals greater DPS than a few ammo types and has no drawbacks. An engineer taking a gunner tool and just using normal ammo wouldn't see significant drawbacks by not having more specialized ammo.

New Class Loadouts
Altering the number of tools taken by each class would maybe do the trick. It would be closer than the other 2 options. But it would be a big change and need a lot of coding. Discussions seem to touch on it then shy away from it, so maybe I will just leave it alone for the time being.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a common theme in the problems with most solutions proposed. And the problem isn't that engineers are too good. It's that normal ammo is too good, or rather, that the guns themselves are too good.

Take for instance the gatling gun. You can shoot to the limit of brawling range and only get better as your enemy gets closer. You shred armor absurdly fast and allow for the 1-2 punch of the metamidion to be a thing. Greased ammo lets you shoot even faster and can often be used as the only ammo on the gatling gun. Even without greased, normal ammo does an excellent job of stripping armor. Why take anything but an engineer?

Now let's add a new mechanic, or maybe alter an old one.

Every gun gets an arming time.
An "unarmed" shot deals -20% damage of current production.
An "armed" shot deals +20% damage of current production.
Arming times and gun ranges are altered to allow each projectile for each weapon an armed range that naturally extends, depending on the weapon, anywhere from 50 meters to several hundred meters.
Current production damages on guns with an arming time would need extra attention and revision to determine a satisfactory resting point.

Yes, this sounds crazy. Yes, this is crazy.

Consider - a crew with no knowledge of what is going on will still deal close to current damage and will still be able to kill, albeit somewhat slower. A crew with knowledge of how the arming works will deal extra damage, but not exceedingly so. Between the two, the ship dealing armed damage should win, but the difference may not be enough to make up for a surprise attack or focus fire from the unarmed ships. Maybe the percentages would be looked at and adjusted, but the concept is there.

Now consider that all ammos are revised around the concept of range control. Lesmok gets a larger armed range, but much further out. Greased may get a smaller armed range much closer in. Charged can have a smaller armed range at standard distance with no clip or fire rate reduction. New ammos could be added that play with the range in different ways.

Looking again at the gatling gun. Normal ammo could have an armed range of 200-350 meters (arms at 200 meters, max range is 350). Lesmok ammo might then have an armed range of 400-600. Greased ammo could have an armed range of 50-150. Charged ammo could have an armed range of 250-300. A new ammo might give an armed range of 10-90.

Now consider this new gatling gun with an engineer. If your engineer takes greased ammo they can fight effectively at ranges of 50-150 and 200-350. That's not bad, but an enemy could get inside your range gaps with a better ammo and easily out-damage you. Your extra engineering capabilities wouldn't be sufficient to handle the damage gap.

Now instead take a gunner with the new ammo, greased, and lesmok. Your effective ranges are now 10-90, 50-150, 200-350, and 400-600. Suddenly your job as a pilot becomes much easier and more interesting. You can stay effective at nearly any range a comparable ship will be fighting at, and now you can coordinate reloads with your gunner to try to move into your gunner's effective range as he finishes reloading and simultaneously move out of your opponent's effective range.

This is a crazy solution, yes. It turns a lot of things upside down, and throws a lot of things out the window. It also makes gunner a much more interesting role since since they now can deal damage in different ways and at different ranges. A pilot or engineer can't match their utility on a gun because they can't maintain damage output over as wide of a range. It would take a gutsy, confident pilot to not take a gunner. You really think you can keep the enemy in a such a small window of damage?

A good gunner also becomes immensely valuable. The ability to judge ranges and communicate plans with the pilot to load the appropriate ammo would be prized, as their ships would out-perform others.

Is this the right solution? Is such a large change even viable with a game nearly 2 years old? Would it be too difficult for new players to grasp?
I don't have the answers to these questions. But I do know that I don't foresee any other changes really making the gunner as interesting as this would.

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 136
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2014, 10:44:55 am »
I should add that I don't really mind the current state of gunners. They are less useful in most cases, but in some places I really want to have one. I like the idea of having new ammos, and gunner tools would be cool to have as well. This is mostly just looking at why I don't think any of those will really make the change people are looking for. :)

Offline GeoRmr

  • Member
  • Salutes: 178
    • [Rydr]
    • 45 
    • 1
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Storm Ryders
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2014, 11:07:58 am »
Awesome Redria, I'm glad another person agrees with me!

Anyone interested in my wall of text post about this can read it here: https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,4125.0.html

Offline Omniraptor

  • Member
  • Salutes: 51
    • [Duck]
    • 27 
    • 45
    • 38 
    • View Profile
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2014, 11:10:44 am »
One thing to add is jitter as an effective means of range control, requiring heavy clip to shoot at long range.

Was especially prominent with old gatling.

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 136
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2014, 12:26:47 pm »
Awesome Redria, I'm glad another person agrees with me!
I do go a bit further here though. ;)
Like I long-windedly explained, I'm not really so confident that gunner tools would actually help the scenario. Most everyone could design around a certain style that negated the need for some tools (like increased arcs) and could balance the remaining tools between their gungineers. Whether people took this route or not would determine whether the fix actually helped the gunner class or whether players just balanced it among their engineers.

Making range a more key component of damage output would make ammo selection more important, encouraging a variety of ammos. You could still design a certain style that allowed you to do fine without a wide mix of range altering ammos, but I feel people would be more likely to embrace the gunner for range benefits than for gunner tools, at least in competitive play.

Some of the most interesting play I've had was spent piloting with a hades or pretending I could shoot a hades, trying to find the sweet spot where we had the perfect ammo and perfect range, then trying to hold that position.

One thing to add is jitter as an effective means of range control, requiring heavy clip to shoot at long range.

Was especially prominent with old gatling.
Take the mercury for example. You should only ever use charged on a Mercury. There's really not much point to anything else, because it maximizes damage, and works across the full length of the range of a mercury shot. The problem isn't that weapons are too effective from too far away. It's that there is no drop-off when the range decreases. This means that several long range weapons can be used close range, which is cool, but it doesn't require any sort of specialized gunning equipment to make it work, which sort of sucks.

Jitter is a thing though, and I think lesmok should have some inherent jitter reduction. This would make it more viable on carronades and gatlings.

Offline GeoRmr

  • Member
  • Salutes: 178
    • [Rydr]
    • 45 
    • 1
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Storm Ryders
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2014, 02:37:08 pm »
My personal point of view is:

The class is fine as it is.

Please awkm, please, don't break everything in this reasonably well balanced game for no reason.

P.S. heatsink is also great in the mercury for the extra shot without reduced fire rate,  it has better disable potential for locking down ships. lesmok can also be used to ensure you get a needed disable in an urgent situation.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2014, 02:47:29 pm by GeoRmr »

Offline obliviondoll

  • Member
  • Salutes: 26
    • [BSky]
    • 7
    • View Profile
    • obliviondoll's blog (barely-maintained)
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2014, 04:30:31 pm »
When a captain designs his ship, he can select a certain way to deal damage for each weapon, and whatever crew member will be on that gun takes the ammo that best fits that damage style. No other ammo types are needed simply because they deal damage in a way that the captain doesn't need - it doesn't fit the style of his ship. A pilot or an engineer on a gun works just as well as a gunner in most cases because they can deal damage in the way desired with just their one ammo type.

Gatling Gun: At longer ranges, Lesmok ammo so you can hit targets outside the normal range of the weapon, then in close, Greased Rounds for higher DPS. Or you could go for Incendiaries to set fires. Or if the enemy has flamers or other fire-based weapons, Heatsink rounds to counter that threat, and it also gives the weapon faster turning and more ammo, both beneficial in close quarters against the kind of fast ship that's suited to flamethrower use.

Hwacha: Heavy Clip for accurate long range fire. Then when the enemy gets close, use Burst rounds for the extra area of effect. Or Charged for heavier hitting shots. Maybe even Incendiary here too.

Flak: At long range, burst rounds let you spread damage all over an enemy ship, making Flak a good diversionary weapon, keeping engineers busy all over the enemy ship. Incendiaries can be used to increase fire chance, making the threat a bit more real against targets without a good chemspray cycle. In close encounters, you need to be reducing that arming range, so Greased or Heatsink rounds are an advantage, among other options.

Carronades: Heavy Clip in Carronades is amazing for pinpoint balloon popping past the normal effective range of a Carronade. Not beyond max range, of course, but the scatter effect usually makes them less effective at a distance, and Heavy Clip solves that problem. But when you're a bit closer, using Incendiaries can make for chaos on deck and Charged shots can shred the balloon even easier than the usual.

Artemis: Lesmok for improved firing range. Almost anything else at closer range to boost whatever you want from the weapon. Burst to make it a better AoE disable weapon, Charged to make it hit harder, Greased to up that fire rate if you prefer to fire fast and reload often.

Mines: Yep, even mines benefit from different ammo types. You can use Lesmok to deploy mines in the path of approaching or retreating enemies at longer range. Incendiary mines can be hilarious. And has anyone here seen a Lochnagar mine before? If not... TRY IT. Be careful with that one though, and make sure your teammates also know where the mine is. Friendly fire... isn't friendly.

Pretty sure I can see plenty of reasons for plenty of weapons to take advantage of multiple ammo types. When I'm crewing on board a Goldfish with Heavy Hwacha, and we have a ram-happy Captain, I like Heavy Clip for long range, Burst for mid-range and Heatsink for ramming distance because that's when the Flamers usually come our way. As a Gunner, I'm using ALL my ammo types to keep the gun working efficiently in combat, and nobody but a Gunner can do that.

Offline Argus Finkle-McGraw

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • [Cthu]
    • 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2014, 02:33:12 am »
I should add that I don't really mind the current state of gunners. They are less useful in most cases, but in some places I really want to have one.

It seems like this quote is similar to most of the threads I've read where gunner balance/new ammo/tool changes/etc all are trying to make adjustments so that one gunner is justified on a ship.

Is 'one gunner viable' what we should be aiming for?  Should there be discussions about how to make two/three/four gunner builds viable (quite situational of course) just like we see two/three/four engineer builds?

Offline RomanKar

  • Member
  • Salutes: 14
    • [SAC]
    • 18 
    • 34
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2014, 05:37:45 am »
I'm not really a fan of making things suck more so a role can be more effective.  I think making the gunner better would be better.

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 136
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2014, 09:59:13 am »
In order...

Please awkm, please, don't break everything in this reasonably well balanced game for no reason.
I would agree. I mean, I wouldn't call it no reason, but I also don't really think this is the best solution. Just putting my ideas in an "organized" post to see if it kicks off ideas in someone else's head.

in most cases
There are certainly weapons that benefit from multiple ammo types, though gatling gun reaps no benefit from lesmok due to spread. Most light weapons can get around that by selecting an ammo that matches your intent in battle. Most of your break-down was pretty good though.

I should add that I don't really mind the current state of gunners. They are less useful in most cases, but in some places I really want to have one.
Is 'one gunner viable' what we should be aiming for?  Should there be discussions about how to make two/three/four gunner builds viable (quite situational of course) just like we see two/three/four engineer builds?
I would argue that this is one of the few solutions that would actually possibly make multi-gunner ships viable. The benefits of being capable of fighting optimally at any range is pretty huge in this system.

I'm not really a fan of making things suck more so a role can be more effective.  I think making the gunner better would be better.
I'm not sure that this would make things suck so much as it would change things drastically. I'm actually surprised a certain someone hasn't shown up interested. This would benefit fast moving ships that could control the engagement distance completely, like the squid. It would more trend the game away from point-and-shoot and even more towards the tactical positional game. Maybe it would be awful, but it would be extremely interesting to me to try. But making the gunner better is also a solution if you can find a way to do so within the bounds of what we have currently.


In all, I don't expect this to be pursued, tested, implemented, or even entirely taken seriously. It would be a radical change that might be no fun. I would love to play it just to see, but it probably isn't worth the effort and is too radical for what we are looking at.
I think the main point I was going for was for a cease to the call for gunner buffs in favor of a call for new content. A new gun, ship, map. Even new ammo types are fun. The gunner question is a dead horse we keep beating, and without going full Frankenstein to change the whole game it isn't going to be fixed.

Offline Sanji the Chef

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [SAC]
    • 25 
    • 13
    • View Profile
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2014, 02:44:04 pm »
As someone who mainly guns, what about a new tool to replace the spyglass that only gunners can have? This can show range, and even have a circle area to everyone on the ship "roughly" where to fire to hit the enemy ship? By roughly, I mean it's not guaranteed, just a better chance than fire-for-range/fire-for-speed/fire-for-real-hope-you-hit.

Offline Hoja Lateralus

  • Member
  • Salutes: 135
    • [ψ꒜]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2014, 03:32:46 pm »
Quote
new tool to replace the spyglass that only gunners can have
Not going to happen.

Muse strictly says that stays at "everyone can everything, we only limit number of slots" policy.
Maybe, just maybe, this is the way GOIO will have to be, because many times safety is more important than firepower. There are ongoing new ammo tests on DevApp and this is the solution we have to look for in first place because it's the least problematic one.

Offline obliviondoll

  • Member
  • Salutes: 26
    • [BSky]
    • 7
    • View Profile
    • obliviondoll's blog (barely-maintained)
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2014, 11:20:24 pm »
On top of what Mr.Disaster said, it sounds like you're basically describing what the Range Finder is meant to be doing anyway.

Offline Dutch Vanya

  • Member
  • Salutes: 107
    • [Clan]
    • 38 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2014, 01:05:05 am »
On top of what Mr.Disaster said, it sounds like you're basically describing what the Range Finder is meant to be doing anyway.
I thought it was a joke about the range finder being useless.

Offline Canon Whitecandle

  • Member
  • Salutes: 8
    • [DAGZ]
    • 10 
    • 24
    • 14 
    • View Profile
Re: The Gunner "Problem" - Range
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2014, 01:42:36 am »
Gonna throw my two cents in here if you don't mind.

Firstly, I agree that new baubles and foibles aren't likely to help the gunner's viability as it currently stands.

Secondly, I believe gunners the way they are and the amount they get played are perfectly fine as is. As GoIO behaves, at least to my recollection, I see no reason why a gunner should be mandatory or even recommended to the extent Redria prescribes (pro pilots only). If you feel you can get away with losing the two extra ammo types in favor of the engineer tools then go for it. I for one find the extra ammo to be invaluable, especially Lesmok, seeing as it's universally applicable to all guns as an initiator at the very least. I seriously hurt without the utility of lesmok.

Thirdly, if a drastic change needs to occur it should /not/ be with range. Please, please, please for the love of Arashi don't touch range. Guns in GoI can take a long while to learn, especially the long ranged ones like Heavy Flak and Lumberjack, and applying little range tweaks with every ammo type requires you to learn not only every gun, but every gun and every ammo type that will f!@# up your aim. Beyond 600-800 meters long range gunning is a very precise and difficult task, with some of your most carefully aimed shots raking the stern of the ship despite leading the target so far you can barely see it on your screen anymore. In summary, messing with the range is messing with the fine tuning of every gun is rendering long range combat, and long range guns, inaccessible to the average player.

Finally, my suggestion for a radical change if one needs to occur:
Tweak every ammo type to be useful in every gun. This will require a lot of coding, but it's worth it. Let's start with an easy, obvious, 'duh', example:
Q: What do you /never/ pack into a Flamethrower?
A: Lochnagar.
And why not? One shot, roughly 8-10 damage or so, will break the flamethrower. Utter shite, amiright? So let's tweak Lochnagar! The new lochnagar will behave as it always has with guns it was previously applicable with, but now on weapons where it was previously utter rubbish it will deal a larger damage per bullet and spread the damage across a smaller clip. Gatling, mortar, flamer, all will get essentially a ramped up Charged round.
Another, possibly less obvious example:
Q: What do you usually never pack into a mortar or field gun?
A: Heavy Clip.
There's no point, the fire rate and recoil are so minor as to be negligible, and there's no spread anyways so it doesn't matter. Let's make a new Heavy Clip, shall we? New Heavy Clip behaves just as it should in the guns it was useful for, but heavy clip in, say, mortars and field guns, will now increase the arc, travel distance, and armed distance before the projectile explodes in midair, almost like the difference between playing dodgeball with foam balls versus red rubber balls. Easier shots at short range with the light mortar, longer shots with the heavy mortar.
I believe this will solve the problem of ammo, and guns by proxy, filling an extremely specific niche and giving greater utility to guns and ammo types, giving the gunner a more versatile role, like the engineer we know and love (and seem to want to nerf?).

Also, first post ever on the forums and it's already a text wall. Yay me.