The damage system is flawed. Suggesting overhaul.

[HamsterIV]

My "DPS squid" setup uses gat front banshee side. I can't use the morter because the arc is not wide enough to overlap the gat. I can't use the artemis because is turn rate is too slow. I can't use the light flack or Hades due to arming time. No other weapon does enough consistent explosive dammage to work as a side mounted finisher on a squid. The current balance allows for a lot of niche rolls. I like it that way.

[Canon Whitecandle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitZRLt2G3w

I feel like this is a very relevant contribution with all the talk of gun balancing that's sprung up in this conversation.

[sparklerfish]

If damage types are evened out, it really takes a large element of the skill of gunning out.  Just shoot at the ship; doesn't matter what you hit, you'll still do significant damage.  Yawn, boring.

[HamsterIV]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitZRLt2G3w

I feel like this is a very relevant contribution with all the talk of gun balancing that's sprung up in this conversation.

With regard to the  Extra Credits video, the Hwachafish and Metamiddion are the FOO (First Order Optimal) Strategies of the game. It is a low skill in to high damage out strategy. The manticore doesn't take that much skill to operate and can earn you kills against inexperienced crews. Once the player gets into games with experienced engineers and captains they graduate to the Metamidion because most people at that level know how to counter manticore. The Metamidion however is not the pinnacle a player can reach in the game, but rather the highest you can get with simple close range point and click game play. The Lumberjack, hadies, field gun, flack, artemis and mines all provide better damage output but at a greatly elevated skill requirement.

We still see a lot of Metamidions in high level play because they are reliable damage dealers, but they often escort/tank for more specialized ships.

Ultimately Guns of Icarus adheres pretty strongly to the principles in the Extra Credits video. The Gat/Morter Meta and Lion Gun OP exist to give the new players a chance to hit pretty hard without having to learn the intricacies of the game. Yet there is still room for all the other guns and ships in more specialized strategies.

[Sammy B. T.]

If an all carousel Junker is ever a viable ship then the game has been too dumbed down. Some weapon combos just shouldn't work.

[Squidslinger Gilder]

My "DPS squid" setup uses gat front banshee side. I can't use the morter because the arc is not wide enough to overlap the gat. I can't use the artemis because is turn rate is too slow. I can't use the light flack or Hades due to arming time. No other weapon does enough consistent explosive dammage to work as a side mounted finisher on a squid. The current balance allows for a lot of niche rolls. I like it that way.

Use kerosene to get mort in range. Its still problematic but the only solution. Bout the only thing it can do to put the mort in play. I shoulda taken Muse up on that "turn the side mount more forward," idea. Muse has been so arming timer crazy that I just hoped they'd see more light with the LF. Oh well. If it eventually leads to them finally overhauling a few ships that have been broken for a long time, I'm suddenly all for arming timers.

Ultimately this thread comes down to one simple aspect...noobs not reading tooltips. The game does not need to be changed or turned on it's head just because some people don't want to take the time to click a single button and see...oh this gun does piercing or this does explosive. If you can't be bothered to click a button, then why should Muse be forced to spend hours tweaking and tuning the game?

[Van-Tuz]

It appears to me that people are capable of reading only first and last posts in the thread.

Here's a recap for your small cache size:
1) I've misunderstood the problem initially.
2) After some more analysis i've dropped my "damage normalising" idea.
3) I've proposed another system that is supposed to make explosive weapons more valuable, add more depth by requiring different approach for different ships and prevent instant Hflak deaths (which are not as fun for both sides as prolonged fight)

Refer to this and this posts please.

And for brass' and steam's sake: do not post anything else about how valuable Banshee is.
===================================

Ultimately this thread comes down to one simple aspect...noobs not reading tooltips.

Show me the screenshot with a tooltip that says "you would do more damage to armor by sneezing on it than with this gun" or "we have designed our guns in this way that if you equip 2 of these your ship will be useless piece of flying junk. Ha-ha"
The real point is: to find out that explosive guns are completely useless against armor you're supposed to dig out additional manuals. All weapon tooltips are just saying that "these guns deal explosive damage". Not a word that heavy flak shells will bounce off the armor like a pea off the wall. If newcomers are misinformed then it's the designers' problem not newcomers'.
And just changing tooltips won't fix other system's flaws.

[Wundsalz]

Your ideas are not going to happen because the goals of the system change you suggest contradict the design goals of GoIOs gameplay. Several posters have pointed out some KO-criteria in this thread already.

Let me re-elaborate them to take some heat off your small processing unit:

1.Explosive weapons would be always valuable.

That's not desirable. All guns are designed in a way that they are more or less specialized at certain tasks. This ensures that the rich gun-diversity GoIO has got to offer is used. Having the influence of damage types leveled so all guns can execute every task would make the gameplay rather dull.

2.Different armor thickness would require different approach to every ship.

With the current system a ships armor already influences how you want to approach it. E.g. in case you face a spire and a junker and you can pick your target, you'll probably want to focus down the spire first as it has got a rather flimsy armor compared to the junker. Armor also influences the players behavior on a more tactical level. If you face a pyramidion with a greased gat-mortar setup, it's usually most efficient to hold the mortar fire until your opponents armor is about to break. Once the gatling gun striped the hull it can usually be reloaded right away to be ready again once the hull is up. However if you face a squid another shooting behavior is more efficient due to the quick hull repairs. The Mortar can start shooting about 2-seconds after the gatling starts firing. On hull breaks the gatling can stop shooting for 1-2 seconds without a reloading to maximize the number of hull strips with a single clip while the mortar can shoot continuously to ensure shots hit while the armor is down. I hope these examples illustrate how significant the influence of the (ship specific) armor already is. The entire gameplay revolves around getting rid of the enemies armor and capitalizing on the strips when they happen.
Regarding the statement itself: I do not see how your suggestion could help  to diversify gameplay based on the ships armor value.

3.Double mortar configs would be reasonable."

This is one of the setups I don't want to be viable due to the reasons stated in point 1.

4.Squids won't be invulnerable just by rebuilding armor between shots.

Squids are anything but invulnerable with the current system. Regarding your elaboration how focused repairs saved you several times: I could share a few stories where I've single handedly sunk entire fleets flying in a bath tub. However I'd have to admit that my opposition was barely worth its name in those matches. Any half-decent ship can kill a squid - especially if the captain leaves the steering wheel, as movement is the only thing that keeps a squid alive.

[Van-Tuz]

My "processing unit" really starts to overheat.
Right after the post where i clearly said that

2) After some more analysis i've dropped my "damage normalising" idea.

yet another person brings it up

1.Explosive weapons would be always valuable.

That's not desirable. All guns are designed in a way that they are more or less specialized at certain tasks. This ensures that the rich gun-diversity GoIO has got to offer is used. Having the influence of damage types leveled so all guns can execute every task would make the gameplay rather dull.

You're not the one to judge my "processing unit" size. Take care of yours first.

I repeat again: FORGET ABOUT MY EARLY SUGGESTION ABOUT LEVELLING OUT DAMAGE MULTIPLIERS.
Refer to this post to read about the second one.

That makes Wundsalz' argument #3 invalid too because it references the invalid argument #1

2.Different armor thickness would require different approach to every ship.

With the current system a ships armor already influences how you want to approach it. E.g. in case you face a spire and a junker and you can pick your target, you'll probably want to focus down the spire first as it has got a rather flimsy armor compared to the junker.
...
Regarding the statement itself: I do not see how your suggestion could help  to diversify gameplay based on the ships armor value.

It's the same. First you strip its armor with armor stripper and then you finish it with the finisher. The only difference is how much gatling rounds you're spending. Gatling mortar setup is effective no matter the target. Universal loadouts are deadly boring for me.

With my SECOND suggestion fights against Junker and Squid would require different approach and different loadouts would be effective against them.
Small DR on Sqid's armor but durable hull would make loadouts with more killing power (double mortar) valuable while Junker's more fragile hull would be more resistant to that approach due to high DR on the armor that would make it withstand much more total damage. Unless you have an armor stripper.

Do you have anything else against double mortars except that it breaks your "pattern" and you just don't want it to happen?

[Milevan Faent]

If you want people to not keep responding to the first post (the only post 90% of the forum goers will ever read btw), ask a mod to edit it to show the changes going on with the discussion. Otherwise, accept people are going to be stupid or ask for the thread to be locked and restart the discussion with a fresh slate in a new topic.

[Wundsalz]

You're not the one to judge my "processing unit" size. Take care of yours first.

I'm not sure if my cache size can handle this.

Do you have anything else against double mortars except that it breaks your "pattern" and you just don't want it to happen?

Yes there are a lot of arguments why double mortars shouldn't be made a viable option in GoIO. Especially the way you suggest here. I can't help the feeling doing so here for you would be a waste of my time though.
I'll leave you with this:
- the existing armor/permahull-system and the implied "invulnerability" as long as the armor is up is one of the most fundamental elements of GoIOs game mechanics. Many other game-mechanics as well as the entire balance we've currently got revolve around it.
- Allowing the user to select from a diverse variety of viable loadouts is one of GoIOs design goals. The current system is quite good at this.
- You've demonstrated a lack of understanding for quite some game elements in the posts you've made here. Hence I'd like you to point you to some sources which can help you to get a better concept of the existing game mechanics (and hence a better foundation to make elaborate suggestions how to alter it): An elaboration of GoIOs weapon system; A discussion on which play styles GoIO has got to offer; Play the game!

[Van-Tuz]

I still don't see any arguments why current system is better than the one suggested by me.
All i hear is: "it always was here so it doesn't need to change" and "i don't like it"

Also, it's easy to accuse the opponent in being a n00b and send him to RTFM.
For your information: I have all (or at least most of it) the knowledge that a manual under the first link contains.
I also read the thread under the second link before. I think the categories there are heavily bent under the system. It does not take into equation a lot of factors. For example in an open space a sniper Spire in most cases would easily outgun a "reactive" Junker. But the same Junker in the tight map would obliterate the same Spire which just won't have space to work.
It's like this article was written by the way ofwishful thinking.

I shall indeed restart this thread.

[Dementio]

I still don't see any arguments why current system is better than the one suggested by me.
All i hear is: "it always was here so it doesn't need to change" and "i don't like it"

The game is based on teamwork and communication, this involves lots of patience that pays off. Shoot the gatling, wait for armor break, kill with mortar. Your suggestion changes rather little in this regard. The main difference between the current one and your suggestion is that your system is more noob friendly, since the pro teams might actually die, just because they get shot so much, while in the current system the pro teams take little to no damage.
The biggest problem I can see here is when we go long range. Atm you can take some damage in long range and then go back to cover, while with your suggestion most would probably be rather scared to move out of cover, because they will get instant perma hull damage. This could be bad since teams would just take forever to kill each other, because they are all hiding or be good since it forces teams to sneak up on one another to not get damage.

Question is: Is it worth changing the system to this? I say not, as well because the current one works so well.

[sparklerfish]

Basically it sounds like you are saying "it's too hard to learn what 'explosive damage' means, so you should make it also do piercing damage so that new players don't have to learn what it is or what weapon types complement each other".

[Hoja Lateralus]

Basically it sounds like you are saying "it's too hard to learn what 'explosive damage' means, so you should make it also do piercing damage so that new players don't have to learn what it is or what weapon types complement each other".

You have a point, although we have no tutorials for ammo and damage types. I suggest better tutorials instead of changing current system.

What caught my attention in this 'reform' is that ships are going to die waaaay faster which I think isn't the good direction