Guns Of Icarus Online
Main => Gameplay => Topic started by: RearAdmiralZill on November 26, 2013, 03:34:14 pm
-
I feel it's been long enough for this thread to finally get started. I want anyone reading or posting to keep in mind this is not a gunner vs engie thread. With that in mind:
The benefit of a buff hammer + special ammo in a gun really seems to counteract what Muse seems to want which is slightly longer engagements over previous patches.
The Gatling currently comes to mind when I think of this scenario. They changed it to a short range gun that fires tons of bullets to break hull. Toss any ammo in there and you get a nice perk but also a new weakness (like greased ammo lowering damage for more ammo and rof). Buff that same gun currently with ammo, and you break the very weakness the ammo introduced, netting an unbalanced result.
Sure, the buff is short, but I honestly think the % damage gained by buffing guns is too high. Discuss.
-
The problem as I see it, is that buffed guns only have one advantage.
Higher damage per projectile/particle.
So any ammo with a con that lowers damage is going to have that con negated, thereby removing whatever balance the con made.
The simple answer is to remove all cons that reduce damage. Place new cons that reduce a different property.
The other way is to change how the buff hammer works.
Maybe buff the guns other properties but reduce the damage buff. Quicker turning speed or reload speed are good properties to start with.
The most complicated and direct solution is to change buff properties depending on ammo. Give a slight buff to whatever their primary function is.
Examples:
Lesmok + buff = longer range/faster speed.
Greased + buff = quicker firing rate
EDIT: The buff hammer would increase damage on vanilla rounds.
Lemme know what you think Zill.
-
Why bother having a gunner when the engineer does more damage? Most small guns and a few heavy guns can get off using only one ammo type making the use of a gunner useless. I personally say forget about increasing the damage and increase a different value or two. For instance, how about buffed guns taking less damage so they can keep shooting under fire longer, or quicker turn speed. Just having buffs add damage only helps make gunners obsolete.
-
A buff Artimus with charged rounds is going to become the new broken combo i feel, The increase in artimus usage is becoming the new meta i feel so a Nerf is probable incoming,
Also i feel the buff and charged round combo in general is just overpowered, timed right that is an extra 50% damage per shot so it negates the charges 20% clip reduction like mentioned,
The buff Hammer is a very viable tool for the gunner, over a wrench to self repair the gun, Hopefully more people relies so the buff hammer is not an instant no on every ship,
But to balance this perhaps a Nerf for the buff hammer or the rounds them self's possibly?
-
What if the gun buff reduced incoming damage instead?
-
Maybe buff the guns other properties but reduce the damage buff. Quicker turning speed or reload speed are good properties to start with. Remember, most guns only use one round, so having buffs that effect different rounds would not achieve anything. For instance, I run greased on gats, so having increased fire rate would be a benefit to me as a guninneer. Buffs need to give assistance, but not in a way making it so you can pass up having different rounds for different scenarios.
Quicker reload speed would count as increased damage output. And the idea of buffs helping a particular ammo type would not solve the issue.
-
What if the gun buff reduced incoming damage instead?
is their an armour ratings on the guns currently? Because that is a genius idea to stop them being instantly taking out
-
What if the gun buff reduced incoming damage instead?
Thought I said that.. But yea, this would be very nice, especially for galleons. Actually, now that I think about it, I brought up this idea in my boiler room topic. Adding power to the guns to reduce incoming damage and make it easier to repair them.
-
Well you could change the effect a buff hammer has on guns, but if any of those differences also coincide with an ammo type, you'll get the same problem (ie, turn speed buffs with lesmok).
Again, this is not a gunner vs engie thread. Only look at the tool for the sake of keeping this out of the latter territory.
Easiest route for Muse is to lower the damage %. If we want to go all technical, then Shadow and Phil have fair points. Either change the buff on guns that doesn't just negate an ammo's weakness (ie, buffed gun is now harder to disable by adding x health) or changing ammo. I hesitate to change ammo because then a buff hammer might then be a requirement vs a nice thing to have but not required to win.
-
Before we go about nerfing the buff hammer, shouldn't we first establish that in its current state it has issues. Sure you get the pro of extra damage. However you still have the cons of
Time spent buffing. During this time you are giving up other potential things you should be doing.
Short duration of buff. Requires timing and makes it difficult (though not impossible) to keep up during a fight
Use of a repair tool slot. A buff engineer has to either give up specializing his repair or rebuild or has to sacrifice a fire tool.
I think these make up for the 20% strength.
-
Before we go about nerfing the buff hammer, shouldn't we first establish that in its current state it has issues. Sure you get the pro of extra damage. However you still have the cons of
Time spent buffing. During this time you are giving up other potential things you should be doing.
Short duration of buff. Requires timing and makes it difficult (though not impossible) to keep up during a fight
Use of a repair tool slot. A buff engineer has to either give up specializing his repair or rebuild or has to sacrifice a fire tool.
I think these make up for the 20% strength.
Pre buffing negates the first con. Subsequent buffing happens during reloads.
The short duration yes, but I know of no gun that takes longer then a buff cycle to unload a clip of ammo, which could equate to a downed hull armor, full disable of a ship, or a kill.
That's a weak con to me given that I value a buff engie on most of my boats anyway. Sure you sacrifice something but buffs don't only work on guns. They will still be valuable. 20% is a rather large boon to a gun in any aspect.
-
Before we go about nerfing the buff hammer, shouldn't we first establish that in its current state it has issues. Sure you get the pro of extra damage. However you still have the cons of
Time spent buffing. During this time you are giving up other potential things you should be doing.
Short duration of buff. Requires timing and makes it difficult (though not impossible) to keep up during a fight
Use of a repair tool slot. A buff engineer has to either give up specializing his repair or rebuild or has to sacrifice a fire tool.
I think these make up for the 20% strength.
Time spent buffing, Sammy, you know most guns can be kept constantly buffed during reload cycles, and the fact that before most battles all the guns are pre-buffed to get a quick kill. Point is, it is still more worth while to run buff engi then to go gunner (sorry for bringing up class vs class Zill, but currently the buff hammer is a big selling point to not have gunners on a ship, so it is bound to come up.) Also, I would not call this idea a nerf, but a repurposing of the tool. Changing it from a tool to assist in kills to a tool to assist in defense.
-
(sorry for bringing up class vs class Zill, but currently the buff hammer is a big selling point to not have gunners on a ship, so it is bound to come up.)
I know so I can't fault you entirely. I just don't want this spotlighted as an attack on engies but rather as you put it, a look at the buff hammer on its own.
-
Don't know about you guys, but anyone else thinking that having the buff hammer reduce damage to guns may also help alleviate the arti problem going on too?
-
First there would need to be an artemis problem. But honestly I feel like reduction of incoming damage would then make the buff only really useful against disablers and its not exactly like the disabler is the meta.
I am not saying the cons of buffing can't be worked around, otherwise I wouldn't use the double buff. However,t hose work arounds require skill and practice and can still cause issues even among seasoned veterans. It makes ammo trickier, it slows down your fire rate and accuracy as you're not spending the reload time getting your next shot aimed.
If all I gained was a more resilient gun then I would never let a buff on my ship in most situations. Decrease the damage, perhaps, I would need to spend some time crunching numbers.
I know its not supposed to be a class vs class thread, but continuing as they have with weapon and ammo specialization, gunners will be equal to buffengineers in more and more cases.
-
I think your helping make the point that the damage buff is a bit too useful, "If all I gained was a more resilient gun then I would never let a buff on my ship in most situations." Why would you not have a buff then if you get no damage out of it? You can still get engine buffs, hull buffs, balloon buffs, and not have to worry about guns getting one-shotted. Reading that I feel that you have a belief that all guns should come with a buff to increase damage output. Just buff, get quick kills, pre-buff again and you have the same cycle. Captains telling crews they cannot go gunner because they want an engineer because they do more damage. The only thing that should determine gun damage is ammo types, just take damage away from the buff kit entirely and re-do the buff kit as a purely defensive tool.
This is my opinion on the current state of the buff tool, it should not be used as a sword, but as a shield.
-
Actually I would probabyl keep my upstairs buff, however the buffing of guns would be a relatively useless tool. Every component you buff increases the purpose of the compontent. Balloons rise and fall faster, engines move you faster, armor lasts longer, and guns shoot harder. If the buff should be a shield, then would you advocate removing the speed changes and balloon power buffs as well?
Yes, I use buffs to get quick kills. My use of that doesn't make it overpowered, its simply my play style.
-
I have not found buffing very useful. If you are buffing your own weapon you may miss the reload, if you are buffing another player's weapon you are not repairing or shooting which might be more useful in the situation. Taking a buff kit is a risk, especially with the PUG crews I fly with most of the time. I acknowledge it might be powerful at higher level play, but I don't get to play there very often.
-
Actually I would probabyl keep my upstairs buff, however the buffing of guns would be a relatively useless tool. Every component you buff increases the purpose of the compontent. Balloons rise and fall faster, engines move you faster, armor lasts longer, and guns shoot harder. If the buff should be a shield, then would you advocate removing the speed changes and balloon power buffs as well?
Yes, I use buffs to get quick kills. My use of that doesn't make it overpowered, its simply my play style.
Phil's idea is just that, an idea. The thread isn't "Buffing OP." I'm focused purely on buffing guns. No offence but no one would go through your buffing style if they didn't think there was a clear advantage coming out of it, and 20% gun damage is nothing to just ignore.
The biggest thing here is that you get 20% damage plus the ammo you use. If the % was lower, you still get a clear advantage, but don't completely erase an ammo type's weakness that was put there for good reason.
-
I have not found buffing very useful. If you are buffing your own weapon you may miss the reload, if you are buffing another player's weapon you are not repairing or shooting which might be more useful in the situation. Taking a buff kit is a risk, especially with the PUG crews I fly with most of the time. I acknowledge it might be powerful at higher level play, but I don't get to play there very often.
Next update you will not be missing the reload anymore, will load up the ammo you started to load with.
-
That's a debated dev app topic that isn't final yet.
-
Before we go about nerfing the buff hammer, shouldn't we first establish that in its current state it has issues. Sure you get the pro of extra damage. However you still have the cons of
Time spent buffing. During this time you are giving up other potential things you should be doing.
Short duration of buff. Requires timing and makes it difficult (though not impossible) to keep up during a fight
Use of a repair tool slot. A buff engineer has to either give up specializing his repair or rebuild or has to sacrifice a fire tool.
I think these make up for the 20% strength.
Time spent buffing, Sammy, you know most guns can be kept constantly buffed during reload cycles, and the fact that before most battles all the guns are pre-buffed to get a quick kill. Point is, it is still more worth while to run buff engi then to go gunner (sorry for bringing up class vs class Zill, but currently the buff hammer is a big selling point to not have gunners on a ship, so it is bound to come up.) Also, I would not call this idea a nerf, but a repurposing of the tool. Changing it from a tool to assist in kills to a tool to assist in defense.
Sorry, the buff engineer > gunner points being made here are completely non contextual. Yes, on the whirlwind for example, a buff engineer with greased rounds is a better option than a gunner in most scenarios. Well done. There are other guns and other ships and other builds.
Running a buff engineer does not replace the role of a gunner on a ship, a prime example of this would be a flak spire, 2 artemise and a mercury. If the engineers prioritize repairing over shooting the most likely result is a death that lasts slightly longer than if they did nothing, therefore it is perfectly viable to maximise the kill potential by running one engineer with buff kit and charged rounds to drop hull armour with the mercury, while allowing the flexibility of a gunner with 3 ammo types on the main gun to ensure a kill at any range and in any context. lesmok for the longer range, charged rounds for mid range arc finding and killing galleons (lochnagar won't one shot them, or wait, if the buff engineer drops the hull then jumps downstairs to finish a pre-buff it will.) lochnagar for everything else and extreme short range. The pilot should also be shooting, alternatively bring a flare gun.
Fix it when they're dead.
I can also list several examples of ship builds where gunners are essential and better desired than buff engineers with buff engineers being a 'nice to have but not essential' should you so wish: I thought it pertinent to post the spire example to point out that gunners and buff engineers serve different purposes and should not be considered different approaches to the same end.
Oh, I also agree with everything Sammy B.T. said.
The lumberjack speaks for itself.
-
While you seemed to completely ignore that this isn't a gunner vs engie thread.....
It was never said that a buff hammer was the end all be all of gunning. The straight opinion is it gives too large a bonus on any gun on top of any ammo loaded, thus throwing off balance. The gatling was just an example.
-
I think that ammo types should be the only thing that effects a guns damage.
-
All buffs in the game can be multiplied by tools. Is it throwing off balance because I can both buff and kerosene my engines.
-
All buffs in the game can be multiplied by tools. Is it throwing off balance because I can both buff and kerosene my engines.
I think that pilot tools should be the only tools effecting ship movement. But I am in the minority there so don't worry.
-
While you seemed to completely ignore that this isn't a gunner vs engie thread.....
It was never said that a buff hammer was the end all be all of gunning. The straight opinion is it gives too large a bonus on any gun on top of any ammo loaded, thus throwing off balance. The gatling was just an example.
Nevertheless, that is what captain phill said, and yes he did say that buff engineering is causing the gunner class to be obsolete. Don't point the finger of derail at me! =P
-
Looking at your ranks there GeoRrm, and I think your point of view may be a bit biased. Anyhow, yes I did forget about the few guns (essentially anything with an arming time) that require more then one ammo type. So lets looks at a Lumberfish with a buff engineer. Basic set up, of course, is a main engineer, a buff engineer, and a gunner for the main gun. If positioned correctly, the fish can stay out of combat and keep the front gun buffed 24/7, and with a good gunner, taking out balloons with only two shots instead of the normal 3. This makes it harder to not get sunk due to the fact the gunner only needs to land two shots instead three. With a good pilot and gunner, one fish can easily rotate shots between enemy ships, with lesmok rounds, and keep them both disabled for their ally to clean up. (Yes there are tactics to counter this, I know, this is just an example so don't bring them up). And not all players are tactical masters FYI, so keep in mind the battle between the people who know how to use that buff effectively and not. I can see a lot of captains getting frustrated because their guns are just not outputting damage like the enemy is because they don't have a buff engi that is skilled with keeping everything buffed.
Basically, buffed weapons make it harder for other teams to make a comeback after they get hit with a buffed gun. Are gunners useful, absolutely, especially with new ammo and reload systems coming in. However, the fact remains that 20% damage increase is basically the same as adding charged rounds with the current rounds you have on your gun with no drawbacks.
-
All buffs in the game can be multiplied by tools. Is it throwing off balance because I can both buff and kerosene my engines.
My opinion, having more ways to increase ship mobility is more fun and adds a lot more skill to flying then simply increasing the killing power of a gun.
-
A few points I would offer to this discussion:
1) When a pre-buffed or buffed gun is destroyed and rebuilt, the pre-buff or buff disappears. If I am taking sustained fire from multiple component disablers (as is the vogue these days) the probability that I am hitting the target with a buffed gun is very low. This in itself is a huge barrier to getting a fully pre-loaded, pre-buffed gun on target, especially the gatling, which must wait until a very short range is achieved in order to initiate effective fire. In the majority of my competitive matches, I would say my guns (and again, particularly close range guns like gatlings and mortars) are successfully buffed for less than half of my engagements, if even that. Attempting to get another pre-buff or buff on a gun after it is rebuilt in the middle of an engagement frequently comes with the disadvantage of losing armor pop/rebuild awareness, or having your attention drawn away from other components which need rebuilding or repairing.
2) Related to 1, an unbuffed greased gatling has a clip size of 98, the exact number of shots required to pop buffed Pyramidion armor + 1 mallet ((780+250) / 10.6) Therefore, with a good gatling gunner who is trained to focus fire on specified portions of the ship where the chance of component blocking is minimal, the probability of getting a one-clip gatling Pyra armor pop sans buff is still quite high, if damage from ancillary sources is taken into account (e.g. Artemis / Mercury fire on approach to gat-mortar range, or a teammate's focus fire). In this instance the only added benefit of having a buffed gun is a reduction in armor pop time of .96 seconds (4.656 - 3.696).
3) If I am able to close to effective (not maximum) gat-mortar distance (<300m) over the approach of a kilometer or more, while taking fire from multiple long range armor strippers, balloon poppers, disablers, and hull killers, I damn well better be wrecking my target pretty fast. It is the responsibility of the Artemis/Merc/Lumberjack/H. Flak/L. Flak/Hades-dependent team to insure that this doesn't happen. If it does, well, that team should shoot straighter and position better next time.
4) Despite claims to the contrary in several of the above posts, there are definite drawbacks to taking buff kits. In one of the two most common configurations, Wrench-Buff-Chem/Ext, one sacrifices the added rebuild and repair speed of Spanner-Mallet. In the other, Spanner-Mallet-Buff, one sets oneself up for potential vulnerability to fire damage. These are both substantial negatives considering the difficulty of maintaining buffed weapons and components in the current Artemis-heavy meta.
5) As has been noted before, despite its utility in higher level play, the buff hammer is practically worthless with untrained crewmembers in PUGs. In its current form it is a high-skill, high-reward tool that raises the skill ceiling of the game, which in my opinion is very desirable.
-
This is not at all an unbalanced act. Some ammos make the gun below avrage, but when buffed are above avrage. This makes a good cooperation with engies and Gunners. Specialy on a heavy weapon.
But regarding gunengineers, then you are making a stiff build where your engineer has to have a buff hammer to be good on his gun.
The % dmg you are talking about mostly or only affects heatsink or Greased. Build your crew acordingly, then you have a build built for that specific aspect.
Usually, when i play public, i just tell my guys to be on a gattling. But with my main crew i tell them specifications that further enhances our build.
There is nothing wrong with this.
The % dmg also helps with the mercury, the mercury cant do good dps alone, it has to be with another mercury, but slap heatsink or Charged with buff then you get a more viable mercury gun. But you must know this is highly specific. The engineer has to have both the ammo and the buff hammer with the added action of having to buff and or repair. With either a pipe wrench, or a sacrificed extinguisher for the spanner and mallet.
This is a rarity but if you have an Engineer running around with a pipe wrench, extinguisher and a chemical spray, you are pretty much inmune to fire stacks. But you take away a great ability to repair with mallet or spanner. etc etc.
Some ships make a gun engineer very possible while some ships make it difficult.
-
@Frogger
1. Any gun that is destroyed is not doing much of anything, so what I read is "You need a disabler to fight buffed guns." That's an even worse notion to think about, though I disregard it as the point of this is a buffed gun is too good right now. 20% damage is just too large and should be scaled back to a useful yet balanced number. What that % is I'll leave to Awkm to test.
2. You can stop using numbers with me because I never use them. There are too many variables for you to toss gatling statistics at me to prove a point. Sorry and no offence, but I know when something is buffed or not based on the feel of it. It's too high when it's working.
3. This isn't about skill. The guns were put where they are in terms of balance for a reason, as were the current ammo choices. A buff hammer simply gives it 20% damage for very little cost, and in some cases breaks the very balance that was put in place. While sure, buffing needs to have that kind of reward for the added attention and timing, on guns it is too great a reward.
4. Again, the reward is too great on guns when it works. Sure buffing has its drawbacks, and tactics can be used to mitigate it, but so far the only one you've given me is disable. I shouldn't have to use one tactic alone to hope to beat a buffed weapon set.
5. Buffing is not that hard. Sorry but no. I make pugs do it all the time. Focus them on certain parts, they will get used to the timing. I've also never had more than 1 buff hammer on my boat, but I can only imagine two being even easier.
I'm not saying that any buffed gun is too powerful. However over the course of, well ever since the whole buffer vs gunner debate flared up, it was always a thought that maybe buffing was just a little too easy or gave too much reward for little risk. Buffing still needs to work on all things on a boat. Currently, some guns just benefit too much from 20% buff to damage.
Changing the buff mechanic entirely for guns is a big change and one im not fully supportive of. A lesser % damage buff is where i'd like to see it go. Enough to be useful and rewarding, but not damaging to balance for any gun nor borderline requiring buffed guns to win a game.
-
Do people really think buffed guns are required to win better?
Oh boy. If anything, the requiered ammount of hits on a gun to buff it can be increased.
20% is not big, it neglects drawbacks from ammo types regarding damage, and works well with guns of high damage allready... 10 or 15% is still going to wreck. 15% imo wont change anything, 10% may change a little but not enough to not be wrecked by it.
-
Ducks have always been engi heavy and sacrificing gunners makes buffs a bit necessary. However, you don't need to copy the Ducks to win.
-
I never said it was required. I've killed too many all-engie teams to say that was the case at all.
I really do think that slight % change would change enough. Think of the heavy carronade getting 50m extra range. That proved to be a much larger change then anyone expected.
20% is not big, it neglects drawbacks from ammo types regarding damage, and works well with guns of high damage allready... 10 or 15% is still going to wreck. 15% imo wont change anything, 10% may change a little but not enough to not be wrecked by it.
And that's my point. It should never completely negate it or do so to a point that for x seconds (8 is it for gun buffs?) you get an unbalanced gun by hitting it once with a magic hammer.
-
I don't undestand why it going down twenty for greased and being brought back up by twenty with the buffed is the issue. A buffed greased will still be twenty less than a buffed normal shot.
-
My concern is less about how buffs negate drawbacks, and more about how it takes the place of some ammo types (trying my hardest not to turn this into a gunner debate, but I need to put it out there). Charged loses out on a lot of guns because of this, seeing as it's pretty much a bad buff (except with guns like merc, heavy flak...). Seriously, has anybody else noticed how niche charged is right now?
And that's my point. It should never completely negate it or do so to a point that for x seconds (8 is it for gun buffs?)
Gun buffs last 20 seconds
-
Looking at your ranks there GeoRrm, and I think your point of view may be a bit biased. Anyhow, yes I did forget about the few guns (essentially anything with an arming time) that require more then one ammo type. So lets looks at a Lumberfish with a buff engineer. Basic set up, of course, is a main engineer, a buff engineer, and a gunner for the main gun. If positioned correctly, the fish can stay out of combat and keep the front gun buffed 24/7, and with a good gunner, taking out balloons with only two shots instead of the normal 3. This makes it harder to not get sunk due to the fact the gunner only needs to land two shots instead three. With a good pilot and gunner, one fish can easily rotate shots between enemy ships, with lesmok rounds, and keep them both disabled for their ally to clean up. (Yes there are tactics to counter this, I know, this is just an example so don't bring them up). And not all players are tactical masters FYI, so keep in mind the battle between the people who know how to use that buff effectively and not. I can see a lot of captains getting frustrated because their guns are just not outputting damage like the enemy is because they don't have a buff engi that is skilled with keeping everything buffed.
Basically, buffed weapons make it harder for other teams to make a comeback after they get hit with a buffed gun. Are gunners useful, absolutely, especially with new ammo and reload systems coming in. However, the fact remains that 20% damage increase is basically the same as adding charged rounds with the current rounds you have on your gun with no drawbacks.
Nono, there is a huge drawback, your engineer is now terribly inefficent at repairing. In your lumberfish example this is even more damaging as when they get close you can't put back fire power either.
-
My concern is less about how buffs negate drawbacks, and more about how it takes the place of some ammo types (trying my hardest not to turn this into a gunner debate, but I need to put it out there). Charged loses out on a lot of guns because of this, seeing as it's pretty much a bad buff (except with guns like merc, heavy flak...). Seriously, has anybody else noticed how niche charged is right now?
And that's my point. It should never completely negate it or do so to a point that for x seconds (8 is it for gun buffs?)
Gun buffs last 20 seconds
Most of the ammo types are niche, I don't particularly think so for charged rounds. Other than the heavy carronade the only reason I use incendiary rounds is to play arround with arming times, not even the main purpose of this amunition! To add to the list for usefullness of charged rounds give them a try in the heavy carronade, the light flack, and even the gattling (in situations where it's unbuffed like the brawl side of an artemis junker).