Author Topic: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation  (Read 14261 times)

Offline Daft Loon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 47
    • [◕_◕]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« on: March 19, 2016, 06:01:18 pm »
Moving the mobula armor component to the middle deck opposite the bottom of the ladder and if its even possible creating a duplicate balloon repair point in its current position.

Purpose:
Re/opening more options for gun loadouts by giving one engineer access to more guns. It would for example become possible to have the hull engineer running the top gun, the balloon engineer running the corridor gun and the gunner on the mid deck among other arrangements. Hopefully it would encourage interesting asymmetric builds to be used more often.

Moving the pyramidion armor component to the gantry opposite the balloon repair point.

Purpose:
-Opening up use of the side guns and changing the role of the main engineer away from 'moonshine slave' by making it more realistic to expect them to shoot for an extended time
-Making a direct charge under fire a choice between 2 of armor repair, engine repair and full shooting, hopefully allowing some acceleration/turning to be restored without bringing back the metamidion.

Offline Lu Lu

  • Member
  • Salutes: 12
    • [zl0t]
    • 23 
    • 40
    • 44 
    • View Profile
Re: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2016, 07:27:17 pm »
This seems like a good idea.

Offline Richard LeMoon

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 284
    • [Muse]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2016, 09:17:45 pm »
I wonder if multiple repair points for the same component is possible.

Offline DJ Logicalia

  • Member
  • Salutes: 191
    • [♫]
    • 35 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2016, 09:37:28 pm »
Sounds good to me, may actually be a decent Mob nerf

Offline MightyKeb

  • Member
  • Salutes: 78
    • [GwTh]
    • 38 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2016, 07:11:54 am »
Though I like the pyra idea, and would find it interesting to run buff main deck main engi top right, I think it would kill almost any utility for gunners on this ship.

Offline Arturo Sanchez

  • Member
  • Salutes: 119
    • [AI]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • My spaghetti channel
Re: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2016, 08:25:08 am »
I wonder if multiple repair points for the same component is possible.

You are a jellycube... but sometimes you say good things.

Armour particularly as for the longest time it has never made sense that armour fixes could be done via 1 single point. How this is executed is food for thought.

One I got in mind is one repair point fixes less than another. e.g. a main hull 100% and a secondary hull 50% (adjust numbers as you see fit). Rebuild rate I say stays the same.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 07:19:50 am by -Muse- Josie »

Offline Chmielewski

  • Member
  • Salutes: 19
    • [Cake]
    • 34
    • View Profile
Re: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2016, 01:27:42 am »
That's an interesting idea indeed.

Offline Daft Loon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 47
    • [◕_◕]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2016, 07:51:11 am »
I wonder if multiple repair points for the same component is possible.

You are a jellycube... but sometimes you say good things.

Armour particularly as for the longest time it has never made sense that armour fixes could be done via 1 single point. How this is executed is food for thought.

One I got in mind is one repair point fixes less than another. e.g. a main hull 100% and a secondary hull 50% (adjust numbers as you see fit). Rebuild rate I say stays the same.

My pipe-dream would be to have the hull hit-box segmented with small repair points everywhere so that you have to repair where the damage is taken and have to land explosive hits in the same place as the armor was broken. Another more realistic option might be to have the secondary point(s) function almost like a buff to the main armor does.

As far as the mobula's balloon goes though it would be more like having the same repair point in two places to prevent it from having to favor one side too much. (uneven balloon damage would be even more of a pipe dream, things like ships tipping over or even bending due to uneven lift when half the balloon breaks)

Offline Arturo Sanchez

  • Member
  • Salutes: 119
    • [AI]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • My spaghetti channel
Re: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2016, 11:03:53 am »
That sounds like a nightmare HUD wise.

That works on space simulators because you aren't on the ship repairing that crap. You are just giving the orders.
But on a game like this? That is going to cause all sorts of chaos.


Interesting idea for a different game I say


HOWEVER, what if we followed the w40k rules for armour where every ship has a front, sides and rear armour value. And people get bonuses on pierce if they shoot the sides or rear (rear being the biggest bonus). I say no on multipliers and % bonuses though. Just set values so its easy to balance and fine tune.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 11:06:37 am by Maximillian Jazzhand »

Offline Kingsania

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [ALTO]
    • 29 
    • 39
    • 14 
    • View Profile
Re: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2016, 05:56:25 pm »
I'm not convinced that moving the Pyramidion's hull armor to top deck would really increase the use of side guns. More so since the new buff to its stats encourages ramming.

Let's think about this:

Ramming under fire with an engineer, gunner on top deck:

What I see happening is the top engineer would work with both components and in dire circumstances, ignore the balloon to concentrate on repairing/rebuilding the hull armor. The gunner would only assist if hull needs to be rebuilt since the engineer is better equipped to repair. So the gunner and pilot deals damage to the enemy ship and breaks their armor... the engineer can't follow through with mortars. So great, meta isn't as op, but the engine engineer doesn't get any action unless the pilot turns right or the enemy dodges. Both of these cases are unlikely to happen. the first, turning to right so side guns can fire is silly. There are two perfectly operational guns on the front with two (as opposed to the one on the main deck) people potentially being able to fire. Even if they can't, the pilot can ram again as often as he'd like. The second case depends on the enemy ship actually dodging into your side arcs. Now ignoring the facts that the enemy ship can move in four directions and experienced pilots would avoid going into side arcs, the engine engineer would still not be able to put out constant fire. After missing, the pilot is going to turn the ship to retry ramming because we know from the first case that having up to two guns firing and being able to ram is better than always having one gun firing. That could mean phoenix claw gets used, then shortly afterwards, more moonshine. The engine engineer still has to fix the engines even if he is able to fire.

Ramming under fire with two engineers on top deck:

With two engineers on top, that means both engineers can focus on only one component and their guns. Also since there are two engineers so close to each other, that means only one fire extinguisher is needed, so both can bring buff hammers (For example, Balloon engie brings Wrench, Buff, Ext while Hull engie brings Mallet, Spanner, Buff). Because both engineers to keep an eye on their component as well as firing, they can't be relied on to consistently firing or ready to fire when hull is down, so I can see captains getting rid of the meta entirely with this crew formation. Instead, going for guns that work well together regardless of whether one or both are being fired at the same time. gatling-banshee, hades-artemis, carronade-flamethrower, as well as doubling up on the same weapon (Keep in mind it doesn't matter how well these combos can kill ships, only if it doesn't matter which gun is firing first.). Now, when ramming the enemy while under fire, both engineers can consistently fire their buffed weapons unless their respective component or gun is broken. After the attempted ram, we see that we have the same two cases shown above, except this time the top guns are buffed, and no component is neglected. So there's even less reason for the side guns to be used. Even if you give the engine engineer a buff hammer, chances are the engie is going to use it to buff the engines so the ship turns or rams faster so the bottom engineer still won't get to constantly fire his gun and is still the 'moonshine slave'.

So I can't see how moving the hull component to the top deck allows the side guns to be used more without pilots deliberately trying not to do as much damage as possible. And if the pilot doesn't want to ram but fire from the sides, why not go with a junker that can do both sides and have a higher hull armor, or a galleon that has nearly the same top speed and acceleration as a pyramidion, but with bigger guns? I understand that you want the engine engineer to fire with the top deck crew members, but I don't see all guns firing at the same ship. Could you give some examples of what you're thinking of with full shooting?

Offline Daft Loon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 47
    • [◕_◕]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2016, 07:47:34 pm »
My main lines of thought:
-Likely crew arrangement, 1 engineer stays in each area, gunner or "gunner" moves between the two depending on the situation

-Using the two gun sets for versatility of ranges, most likely approaching with long range fire for a drive-by with the short range guns on the side

-Using the side guns to compensate for the pyra's poor turning, angling the ship slightly sideways ahead of time makes it a lot harder to flank one side than the other and with an extra 90 degrees or so of gun arc coverage there is less need for the main deck engineer to be repairing phoenix claw

It is indeed largely incompatible with reliance on ramming (though IMO the pyra as a ramming dependent ship will last only until people remember that the minelauncher is a thing) and there is a fair possibility that using the front guns 90% of the time would still be optimal.

Offline Kingsania

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [ALTO]
    • 29 
    • 39
    • 14 
    • View Profile
Re: Mobula and Pyramidion armor component relocation
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2016, 08:48:08 pm »
The pyra as a ramming dependent ship will last only until people remember that the minelauncher is a thing

This is an excellent point, I understand. I can see 'drive-bys' working on open maps like Dunes. Like, Mercury and Artemis on the front with gatling and hades on the side would work rather well.