Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Oh boy, another gunner balance thread

<< < (3/7) > >>

Caprontos:
I think the gun buff should be changed from damage to anti-snipe (via more health or a damage reduction mechanic).. As anti-snipe would be useful and it makes ammo the only source to change gun damage which is what I think it should be..

That said I don't know how much it would effect the class balance as.. The spot the gunner isn't used now - is the spots he still wouldn't be useful... as buff balloon or engines or hull is more valuable then useless ammo you won't be using.. right? It may buff him in some spots though. But depending on the new gun buff it may not change if that buff is to useful..


--- Quote from: Crafeksterty on March 10, 2015, 05:15:26 pm ---I feel like The thing that makes the gunner the least usefull class is because of how having multiple ammo is not like having multiple engie tools.

A pilot only has one position, and that is on the helm. You dont need anyone else on there.
Then you have engineers who can repair and shoot guns.
And gunners who can shoot guns and repair.

How gunners have more ammoe does not make them more effective across all guns versus how engineers are effective across all ships.
This is the braking point where gunners are weak compared to the other two classes.

The stamina thingy magig on the dev app made me want to bring 2 gunners in sacrificing repair.
Cant this be a thing? Because right now, we have less uses of the gunner, i mean there are uses of the gunner. Its not like hes useless, hes just not as effective to be used on all corners like the engie or the pilot.

--- End quote ---

Even pilot is exchanged for engi at times.. When you don't needing to move around to much.. Just not as often..

The current issue with ammo is that - as I say elsewhere.. is pretty much range advantage.. Multiple ammo types are more useful the more a gun needs to use multiple ranges effectively..

So all they need to do is figure out some way to make ammo effect gun efficiency in a way beside range but is still useful through out an engagement..

Issue is .. what would actually work..

They did start to try to make ammo specific and less mix bag.. - and that may of helped if it was finished..

Sarabelle Marlowe:
The trouble seems to about the buffs on guns rather then the class itself. I think it's all a matter of optimizing builds/ships as in relations to roles as far is if the role itself needs a buff or not. There are some builds on ships where having a gunner isn't really needed, and others where it's almost a must. Perhaps new types of ammo would make the importance of having multiple choices on hand help out the gunner role a little more?

My biggest worry is this stamina thing. Right now, there seems to be a decent enough balance with the roles. Sure, a little tweaking could be implemented to help, but it's within the realm of possibility. Stamina? Oh gods, that feels like a headache and a half to even think about trying to balance.

BlackenedPies:
If we want there to be any realistic chance for Muse to balance gunner vs buff engi then we need a simple solution that changes as little as possible. Simpler is better.

Let's all be clear that this discussion is solely based on how buff engineers outperform gunners on most (but not all) guns. A gunner can often outperform regular engineers but not buff engineers. The issue isn't the gunner or engineer, it's gun buffs. There's no reason to make a major change with how the classes function when the simplest option is changing gun buffs.

There are two options: increase effectiveness of gunner or reduce effectiveness gun buffs (or some combo of the two). Buffing the gunner would require increasing its effectiveness to near, at, or above the equivalent of a 20% damage bonus. This would have to involve changing the class. Reducing gun buffs could be as simple as changing +20% to 10%.

My proposal is decrease damage to +10% and decrease gun buff duration to 10.

Richard LeMoon:
Thay have already tested changing the buff to increase reload speed rather than flat DPS increase. That is where the 90 second buff comes from. They keep forgetting to revert it.

I emailed a few weeks ago asking when a change to the buff would happen, and if it could combine hull effect with balloon/engine effect and just give the guns faster turning and more health. The answer was they would look into it.

Buff ammo was suggested in the ammo thread a while back. There are a lot of utility ammo types suggested in that thread that would be perfect addons to a gunner, but mostly useless to an engineer.  Oh.... hmmm. I forgot about the Ares clip. Would love to see that tested with lower damage. Maybe 500% damage.

I really think changing the behavior of the hammer to more like an constant use ammo crank would help the balance. All the guns buffs (and more), but not usable by the engineer carrying the tool. No more buff gunners. Extra power to the guns.

Zirilfer:
Personally, I think the balance is fine, I personally use gunners very little, and the easiest and most balanced way to make gunners more viable is to just add more ammo types (To turn optimally 1 ammo guns into optimally 2 ammo guns) and to add more guns that make gunners more useful. Perhaps a better range increasing ammo than lesmok (with suitable debuffs, to keep lesmok desired) , perhaps another point blank ammo for arming guns, perhaps one that does better permahull damage for when armor goes down. The setup of equipment is fine, it's just that gunner equipment is lacking.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page