Only Positive Ammo #Adjust the Ammos

[DrTentacles]

Currently, every ammo in the game has a mix of positive and negative effects, making them (designed) at least, to be a “sidegrade” to Normal ammo, rather than a straight upgrade. However, I believe this philosophy adds hard-to-balance unintended uses for ammos, and overall, makes for a confusing new player experience.

With the impending release of Alliance, it’s important that new players aren’t overwhelmed with information. When I first played Guns, I had to use a calculator to judge how Greased works on various weapon types. This results in players either ignoring ammunition, or taking ammo that looks good on paper, and then coming into conflict with more experienced players who know better. (See, Charged on Gattling Guns.)

This also makes the Gunner class less useful, as normal covers the “weaknesses” of many ammo types perfectly on it’s own.

I would imagine this also makes balancing on Muse’s side difficult, as they have to account for incredibly sub-optimal ammo uses from players, in addition to the many other barriers to learning the game.

I, and many veterans would like to propose a test where all non-range related penalties are removed from all ammo except Lochnagar (Which can be considered an “advanced” ammo), and see how it functions in both Alliance and Skirmish.

[BlackenedPies]

I would imagine this also makes balancing on Muse’s side difficult, as they have to account for incredibly sub-optimal ammo uses from players, in addition to the many other barriers to learning the game.

I, and many veterans would like to propose a test where all non-range related penalties are removed from all ammo except Lochnagar (Which can be considered an “advanced” ammo), and see how it functions in both Alliance and Skirmish.

Ammo penalties makes balancing easier as there's more opportunities to make use of. Removing negative effects reduces the number of ammos you can create, and makes them all better than regular ammo, giving them an even more meta role on particular guns. In the end you'd find yourself nerfing physical properties like range, velocity, and gun arcs even more. How do you propose balancing any of the seven ammos in this way?

The problem of confusion for new players isn't that ammos are confusing, it's that they don't know what to use when. It's not the ammos that are confusing, it's the game. Removing negative effects makes other ammos more useful, but there will always be an optimal meta ammo. IMO each gun should tell recommended ammos for different ranges, which would eliminate much of the confusion

[DrTentacles]

This is a first step, pies, aimed at making the game more intuitive. You are correct--there will always be a meta ammo for each gun. What the gunner class provides is the option to switch ammo in a gun more often. I could see this being more desirable if all ammo types were an upgrade to normal.

Secondly, I don't think this limits design space. This would create a solid core of "basic ammos" for new players. Once they're balanced, Muse could create either "hybrid' ammos, which combine a portion of the  effects of the basics, or ammos with a greater risk/reward factor.

For example, they could introduce a "mega greased" that severely reduced range, but increases DPS past basic greased, or vastly increased jitter.

[BlackenedPies]

I like testing changes like this, but not in the same channel as game balance. Otherwise I fear nothing will get done - exactly what I've watched happen in the four weeks since joining the Player Counsel. The problem is that #WildWeek and #CommunityPatch are in the same channel. This is a good Wild Week proposal

[DrTentacles]

Well, ideally, I'd like to see this happen on the Alliance end before beta comes out. The success of Alliance is important for everyone invested in the game. We can debate skirmish balance until the end of days, but we know what the Devs are focused on.

[Richard LeMoon]

The problem is that #WildWeek and #CommunityPatch are in the same channel.

I don't think anybody else sees a difference. This is the first time I have seen anyone even mention that they should be two different things. That may be the largest problem. More people are interested in pushing the limits of theory crafting, not the humdrum of minor ammo balance changes to things that aren't really causing any problems besides being hard for novices to understand. The Mobula changes came from a backlash. The result has been a huge change in the community.

Lots of things have gotten and are getting done because of Wild Week and Player Counsel. Heavy Flak is coming back. Announcements for other MKII guns. Breach as an awesome new map. New maps being ported from Alliance way ahead of time. New considerations for ships. More participation in devapp testing. More test updates from the private test server. Community/Dev atmosphere is at a long-time high. Loch is deemed in a good place. Buff is getting closer. Finally, the devs are willing to test just about anything we come up with (numbers and small code changes).

If there is something that is a huge problem, we can push an issue. Mid to high level Skirmish is just fine where it is. Alliance can use this more than Skirmish right now. Player introduction into Skirmish AND Alliance can use this more right now. AI, votekick, What you want to see in Vet botmatch (with AI pilot training), etc.

Wild week is just us idling, waiting for a big issue to take on. Minor ammo balance is not that issue. Completely redoing ammo to make it more intuitive is.

[BlackenedPies]

"More people are interested in pushing the limits of theory crafting, not the humdrum of minor ammo balance changes to things that aren't really causing any problems besides being hard for novices to understand"
Not my impression! A poll would be nice

"Wild week is just us idling, waiting for a big issue to take on. Minor ammo balance is not that issue. Completely redoing ammo to make it more intuitive is"
Loch a big enough issue? There was a great response on the forums and discussion about ammos including greased, heavy, and the Squid changes, not to mention incendiary, a frequent topic since I started playing years ago. Don't forget about your buff hammer XD
I think it's mostly you, Richard, who doesn't want to balance the game! You'd rather remake it

[Richard LeMoon]

Current meta sucks for new players. No problem with remaking it. Everyone has jumped on board with making interesting suggestions. Well, almost everyone.

[BlackenedPies]

Everyone has jumped on board with making interesting suggestions. Well, almost everyone.

Interesting, not balanced I like the suggestions that are both!

[Richard LeMoon]

I'll be completely honest here. Nothing you have proposed is interesting. You were dead set against testing Tank Spire, and just wanted to test Marginally Better Glass Spire. I don't know if you did anything with Tank Spire at all, while it was an immensely positive experience for everyone that took part, and seems to have had a huge impact on the community. Marginal Spire would not have done that. You did not test anything outside of a short session in practice for the ammos.  You have hammered just about every (if not every) idea that has come out of the Player Counsel as not needed, meta breaking, or whatever. The people actually having these talks VERY much disagree with you. This post, for example, is the result of several hours of talk, charts, and theory crafting, which I was not even a part of. A bunch of the ideas on trello are the result of the same. Do you think they are all just my ideas because I am jotting them down? No, they are not. Offhandedly shooting things down all the time when they have been talked about quite a bit is a massive discredit to the other players, vets every one, that are making the suggestions. You are not the only 'expert' at this game, as others have shown quite a bit more knowledge about lower level play. The comments about fire/overheated guns being balanced for novice play is a joke, and shows you have not played any low level pub games. It also shows you don't know a lot about agency in games. I'll explain that to you elsewhere if you are interested. You really need to learn to put yourself in the mind of people starting this, or any game for the first time before saying how things are just fine as they are. Until then, back off assaulting the ideas and feedback others are giving on things you refuse to even test.

Seriously, chill.

[BlackenedPies]

"I'll be completely honest here. Nothing you have proposed is interesting"
True! But they were balanced, unless someone reminded of facts otherwise. Believe it or not, I'm not always right (like Squid! turning accel = max turning, silly me!)
That's why you guys are here for the interesting ideas but those are harder to balance, which is why I'm here!

"You were dead set against testing Tank Spire, and just wanted to test Marginally Better Glass Spire"
Neither! I wanted to test Tank Spire, and I think doing so is a good link between devs and players (which I told you and Keyvias!), but I didn't like it being in the same channel as balance talks (because it's not!)
I didn't think a new Spire is necessary for balance, but I could be wrong
Sorry for my initial negative remarks, but those stats were wild! XD

"You did not test anything outside of a short session in practice for the ammos"
wasn't necessary numbers are numbers! and in my experience, dev app tests don't reflect real matches physical properties however, like jitter and drop, are more useful for testing (which I did!)
plus I'm busy! usually not available at the testing times

"You have hammered just about every (if not every) idea that has come out of the Player Counsel as not needed, meta breaking, or whatever"
just trying to be realistic, I'm sorry if I hurt any feelings I realize I'm sometimes too harsh, like with Zanc's Greased proposal, which I apologized for, and he agreed with me!
remember when you wanted to increase Charged velocity to give niche range use? not balanced! you proposed increased shell life instead, great idea!! let's test it

"The people actually having these talks VERY much disagree with you"
Not my impression! Sometimes players disagree (initially ), but I think the only one who consistently very much disagrees is you in fact, most of the time they agree with me (and not you) :0 Let me know if I'm wrong guys!

"The comments about fire/overheated guns being balanced for novice play is a joke, and shows you have not played any low level pub games"
haven't played them in a while, but back in the day...ahh all those Flames! Gat Flame Pyra meta! I even had a 43 match winstreak in an AI double Flame Squid I was the king of pubs, grinding through every sale with an army of pro novices! had to earn those 2800 hours
i don't think balancing the game around engies who don't extinguish the gunner is a good idea, but I might be wrong XD so far I've only seen one disagree!

"You really need to learn to put yourself in the mind of people starting this, or any game for the first time before saying how things are just fine as they are"
balancing goes from the top down things aren't fine as they are, and I don't have all the answers! that's why you guys are so great

"Until then, back off assaulting the ideas and feedback others are giving on things you refuse to even test"
I'll try to ask the question why nicer then (my fav question) I only say it's wrong if I think it's wrong! if I'm wrong then explain why, but you better be right