Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Alliance gun balance idea

<< < (3/4) > >>

Huskarr:
I think they are called mark S in dev app right now. I think that's good enough

Daft Loon:
Un-labeled split balance between PvP and PvE would be fine up to a point, few people would get meaningfully confused if the Hwacha reloaded 2s faster in alliance or the gas mortar cloud was 20m smaller in skirmish. Changing actual damage types or things like projectile speed would be problematic though, I'd want a clear distinction between the guns if that happened.

Naoura:
That's partially why I'm against the concept of the Mk.II program, Daft.

Having the weapons have similar damage is fine. Reusing the assets is okay. My issue is when you reuse the assets and then make it a completely different weapon.

For example, Richard's idea for an Impact Carronade. Historically, it makes sense. I don't fault that. But a noob is going to grab the Mk.II and mean to grab the Mk.I, or else grab the Mk.II thinking it's better than the Mk.I at doing the same job, and be sorely, sorely mistaken.

If the guns do the same thing differently, there's no contest. Mk.II flak really shows this off. Same deal, different execution.

Meanwhile, we have the new Mk.II Aten that they are testing that is simply disappointing they would even try it. A laser shotgun. Who can I skin?

If you're going to make different weapons in the same style, change it to being a family, not a level up change. Flak family, Lens Array family, Carousel family, stuff like that. It may seem like a semantics change, but it's not.

Banshee is the base-line, correct? What does a banshee do? Fast firing, fire and explosive, causes a lot of fire. Keep it that way. Just change how it does it. Perhaps make it fire multiple rockets at once, or else fire fewer rockets at longer range, but keep the base of what the weapon is.This is what it did, this is what it was, this is how it was changed.

With that in regard to the Alliance weaponry, it could quite easily be taken and utilized. How can we do the same job, differently? How can we make this efficient but not too powerful? It's not difficult to think up some variety to do the same deal. For example;

Aten lens array, possible variant change; Delayed fire with a short burst at max charge. Extremely powerful, but long reload.

Ferbruus weaponized coil, possible variant; an automatic firing weapon, sending out a bolt of lightning at a slow but steady rate, like a lightning gatling. Have it arc between the components rather than arc between ships.

Seraph Variant; Single rocket at longer range, but with a significantly increased explosive power, but much slower speed.

Kalakuta gas mortar variant; Small clip, as well as a smaller AoE, but with the damage much more highly concentrated, and a very high chance for fires.

Just keep the spine of the weapon, what it's supposed to do, then let it do it in a different way. That's all needs be done.

SirNotlag:
Agree 100% Naoura!

I'm perfectly fine with a small dev team cutting costs by reusing assets. by all means make a gun using the model of the light flak but with 1 barrel and painted differently or something and reusing the same projectile trajectory and projectile animation. But if that gun does a completely different job like say its damage was changed to piercing and shatter making it more like a long range chain gun than the flak guns, then dont call it a "flak mk2". Call it something else like an auto cannon that way i know it does a different job.

I dont think it would be that hard to also adjust little things like the colour of the projectiles to redish instead of the whitish yellow of light flak, as it could use different propellant or something. Hell green or blue I am fine with as well, as its a steam punk world and I've personally seen fire in all colours of the rainbow. That way people on the receiving end can look at the shots and know the enemy ship has a long ranged piercing weapon and not an explosive one.


As for having stronger but identical versions of weapons in Alliance compared to skirmish I dont see a need to change the name or anything aside from the stats. That way its satisfying to shoot down no name enemy ships easily, but weaker but identical versions are balanced to play against other people. As Daft Loon said no one is going to notice if the gas mortar is 20m smaller and the lens array takes a little longer to burn through the balloon of "Fancypants" the junker compared to no name frigate. Sure we could have the alliance ones labelled as mkX to show that they are super advanced ones but I don't see a need.

Naoura:
That's another problem I have with the concept of Mk. II. It's misleading. You say more powerful, I say variants that do the same job, differently. Mk.II screams 'stronger', 'better', and that's not the case. Flak Mk.I is the same as Flak Mk.II, just with more shots. That's it. They changed the clip and kept the DPS.

As for changing the damage types, it's just confusing. Someone picks up the Carro Mk.II thinking it works just like the Carro Mk.I, and then are sorely mistaken and use it completely wrong. Unnecessary and confusing.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page