Guns Of Icarus Online
Info => Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: DJ Logicalia on March 10, 2015, 02:31:28 pm
-
Right, so in my opinion this is the best way to make gunners "better". I'm not convinced that the class is really that underpowered to begin with, as most of the top teams aren't afraid to bring a gunner, but that's besides the point.
The best idea I've heard comes in two parts. Remove the effectiveness of the buff hammer on all guns and add a new gunner tool that buffs guns that gunners could take instead of a third ammo type (and, sure, keep the 90s bug on gun buffs right now for this tool)
Idea came from Tipz if I remember correctly, and it's so simple.
Thoughts?
-
So, basically the buff kit cannot bebused on guns, or does very little on guns, and this new buff item does what buff currently does to guns? Sounds good to me.
-
I think the solution should be as simple as possible. There is already a nice balance between the classes. Gunners are a specialized class for use on specific guns. The gunner is balanced, the argument is that gun buffs might not be.
An idea that has been brought up regarding gun buffs is changing the gun stats (turning speed, reload, arcs). This would effect each gun very differently, and importantly it could break balance. Changing reload for example doesn't impact all guns equally due to time to empty clips/reload speed ratios. And reload speed matters more for some guns than others.
I think the best solution would be to reduce the buffed damage to between 5 and 10%, or find a different way that gun buffs work that would effect all guns exactly equally.
-
Since most of the time that 3rd ammunition is not used I could see the benefit of giving the gunner an off the gun tool to augment their gun. However any such tool could be also be used by an engineer or even a pilot who is not expected to get on a gun. To keep things gunner only I think the user should be required to be on the gun while the tool is in use.
How about a buffer ammo that for each second that ammo is selected while on a reload cycle the gun will receive a % buff? A gunner could swap to that ammo type during reloads and swap back to optimal ammo right before completion. If the gunner fails to swap ammo away from buffer ammo it loads vanilla rounds. This way an engineer can't get the benefit of a buffed gun with optimal ammo but a gunner can.
-
Since most of the time that 3rd ammunition is not used I could see the benefit of giving the gunner an off the gun tool to augment their gun. However any such tool could be also be used by an engineer or even a pilot who is not expected to get on a gun. To keep things gunner only I think the user should be required to be on the gun while the tool is in use.
How about a buffer ammo that for each second that ammo is selected while on a reload cycle the gun will receive a % buff? A gunner could swap to that ammo type during reloads and swap back to optimal ammo right before completion. If the gunner fails to swap ammo away from buffer ammo it loads vanilla rounds. This way an engineer can't get the benefit of a buffed gun with optimal ammo but a gunner can.
An engineer or pilot could use it, but would be useless on pilot most of the time, since pilot is generally on helm, and the engie would sacrifice their ammo, which would be very difficult to handle when you are using guns that need something like heavy clip or burst. I think it would balance out well enough.
-
Hipster Steve likes things as they are now. If you make Muse put anything new into the game, something else will break.
-
Yeah, Logic said in the opening that he thinks it is really fine as it is. It is just that a lot of people do want it changed for some reason.
-
The classes are balanced. Gunners have a specialized roll which there's no reason to change. Some guns benefit from a gunner and others don't. The gunner, like all classes, is for utility.
Saying that gun buffs are somewhat OP in relation to the gunner on most guns is a legitimate complaint. I think reducing gun buffs to +10% would be a simple and fair fix.
-
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.
-
A lot of people complained that the stamina was insane on gunners, and that it basically broke the game. As far as making the gunner usable on all corners, I do not see a reason to. Any class based game you play, medic is gonna be the most important class. You always need a medic/cleric. Sure, shooting needs to be done, but there is no reason to change it so that everyone wants two gunners instead of two engies. The "balance" that most people are looking for is one that allows for one pilot, one engie, one gunner, and the last can be either engie or gunner. Stamina made it too much gunner, and most a lot of people think right now has too much engie. The balance is the problem, and the only solution is to try multiple different ways, test them repeatedly, changing them a little at a time, until everyone is happy. The only issue is that everyone will never be happy. All muse can do is make the most people possible happy.
-
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..
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.
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,4079.msg70568.html#msg70568) 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 (http://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.
-
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.
-
Gunners do need a tweak. Because gunning is about the most static thing in the game.
- A ship will almost always have one gunner.
- That gunner will almost always be told to man the heavy guns.
- If there is no heavy gun, the gunner will almost always be told to man that one gun (that usually faces front).
- The gunner will use heavy on hwacha and carronade
- The gunner will use lesmok on flamethrowers and other range-limited guns.
- The gunner will use one ammo that they like on long-range guns (lesmok/charged/lochnagar) and never find a reason to use a different ammo.
- Greased will work with almost all guns.
- If the gunner is GeoRmr, the gunner will insist on heatsink, and do a really fine job. :P
That's about it. One gun, one ammo for most of the game. And a lot of gunners (including myself) forget about loading the gun and runs with normal ammo.
My belief is that the solution lies in making Gunner more complex. Add more guns, add more ammos, or modify how ammos work. Anything that makes gunning more dynamic would be a good fix, in my humble opinion.
-
Just a crazy thought but lets say nothing about the gunner changes except that, unique from the other two classes, the gun they sit on reloads about... lets say 10-15% faster than any other class does. That could be a game changer in that their ability to keep shooting makes them more important especially for certain guns that suffer long reload times. I don't think that would make them too overly powerful and it incorporates a hint of the stamina system elements in the role yes?
Therefore buffs don't have to be touched and ammo types don't have to be touched. Just a simple characteristic suited for that class; And to be perfectly fair to those arguing against the idea, one can also say that piloting is unique to the other classes as they control the ships movement, as much as an engineer has uniqueness applied to their control over rebuild/repair/fire fighting simultaneously, contrary to what the other classes can do in that area.
-
Each class is unique, but all of them can do the others jobs. None as well as the class meant for that job, but well enough to get by. The only problem is that gunner has such a simple job, and there are so many various guns, that an engie can do almost as well as a gunner in any weapon, and a buff engie can do better than a gunner in some. Also, Muse does not want something that makes each class a "unique butterfly" so gunner getting a bonus 10-15% on reload speed is not too likely.
If the different ammo types were adjusted a bit, making more applicable to multiple situations, a gunner would be more useful. The current issue is that you can get three engies, give them all the separate ammos you want them to have, and they can replace the gunner. Really, you could do the same by giving three gunners separate repair tools, instead of default pipe wrench.
-
And this is why gunners need a bit of attention.
We only have 3 classes, 2 of which are requiered (Pilot and engie) and an optional gunner.
This is not a good balance. What we want is to have the gunner up in the level of pilot and engie. That way, all classes (except pilot) are optional.
Having the gunner be as usefull as maybe wanting to bring 2 gunners should be a thing because then we have options and flexability amongst the classes.
Both engie and gunner need to be deemed optional in the sense of how you want your ship prioritized.
Some captains bring themselves as Engie, why wouldnt we want the same flexability happen with gunner? I mean highly unlikely, and the reasoning to it is pretty shallow :P
But a captain need to want to bring a gunner on all ships. Or more... But because of how static ( see above ) gunners are to the guns, they will always only or mostly be for heavy weapons like the HF, LJ, Mino and Barely hwacha.
The only other light gun which the gunner excells at is the minelauncher just for the sake of playing with its range.
-
Each class is unique, but all of them can do the others jobs. None as well as the class meant for that job, but well enough to get by. The only problem is that gunner has such a simple job, and there are so many various guns, that an engie can do almost as well as a gunner in any weapon, and a buff engie can do better than a gunner in some. Also, Muse does not want something that makes each class a "unique butterfly" so gunner getting a bonus 10-15% on reload speed is not too likely.
If the different ammo types were adjusted a bit, making more applicable to multiple situations, a gunner would be more useful. The current issue is that you can get three engies, give them all the separate ammos you want them to have, and they can replace the gunner. Really, you could do the same by giving three gunners separate repair tools, instead of default pipe wrench.
Yeah, the main problem that exists with gunners from my observations is that each class has at-least 2 ammo types; They can use 'standard' and whatever secondary ammo they wish to bring (sure more ammo types *might* mitigate that but I'm skeptical) - gunners just happen to offer two more slots beyond that. The problem is mainly centered around that - most guns won't need more than one ammo type if you want to benefit from engineering as well.
There are select guns and ship loadouts that require a gunner because their ammo type helps enhance the performance of more than one gun or augment those few guns that stand to benefit (i.e. mine launcher or lumberjack) - beyond that most other guns can be handled by the other two classes because although its nice to have a few different ammo types to choose from, one is generally satisfactory enough to do the job. Observing this disparity, a gunner is further gimped by the fact that they only offer one repair tool and so generally most players see this as the optional third class if it suits their design.
-
I wouldn't argue that gunners are pretty optional on a ship. What I WOULD say is that they are easily capable of maximizing the efficiency and potential of pretty much every gun on the ship, making their ships that much deadlier. As I said in a previous post, in a game like this, we solve our problems with violence, so why not do it right?
I would also assert that gunning is only simple if you're not doing it right. There's a lot of things to think about, like which ship in your arc deserves to die first, what part of the enemy's ship to aim for, how to lead the shot, what ammo to use based on range of visible enemies or predicted range of unseen enemies, when it is safe to change ammo types, and whether or not to hold fire. Having to think about all that as well as whether or not to temporarily abandon the guns to help the engies repair during emergencies or to keep shooting until the thing causing the emergency explodes makes for a highly interesting and deep class in my opinion.
So what is the real issue here? Is it that so many people desire engineers on their ships for improved repair ability? Or is it that buff hammer on guns is so powerful?
-
So what is the real issue here? Is it that so many people desire engineers on their ships for improved repair ability? Or is it that buff hammer on guns is so powerful?
I doubt that in most circumstances a captain would prefer a standard engineer to a gunner. The buff hammer makes gunners obsolete for all but mines and (sometimes) lumberjacks.
-
So, firstly, I don't see a problem with gunners being underused or underpowered. They are a single facet of an extremely complex game.
With that said, to all players that think gunners should be a more attractive option:
There are several changes that wouldn't work. The first is simply making gungineers less attractive. This wouldn't work because all it does is move the choice further into the engineer's court. When a gungineer is selected for a position there are two reasons for it. Repairability and damage. With this kind of change you're basically trying to remove the increased damage from the equation. Well alright then, let's think this idea through. Without the increased damage output the choice becomes one of repairability and general versatility versus versatility on guns. This is probably the most ironic option available because the outcome of the choice is exactly the same as it would be now. On the guns that benefit from having gunners, you'd take a gunner. On guns that don't really benefit from a gunner, you'd take an engineer, but now that gungineers aren't really an option, you'd just take a normal engineer. Your ship is now doing less damage and engagements take longer, you've also not made gunners any more prolific. This is the reason that ideas like BlackenedPies's, and to a lesser extent Caprontos's, wouldn't solve any problem.
The second would be to do anything too big. Anything potentially game breaking goes into this category. For example, things like the stamina system. Or anything asymmetric. Changes that would change the name of the game more than they would fix it. There's a lot I would like to say about changes that fit into this group, but for the sake of brevity and to remain polite to Muse, I'm going to leave it at game breaking.
The only options are to introduce changes that make gunners easier to incorporate into the rest of the ship. Make gunners easier for the rest of the crew to work around. While it's a bug, an example of this is the 90s buff on guns. When buffs last long enough for a buffgineer to keep two guns buffed throughout an engagement, it allows gunners to have both versatility on guns AND benefit from the extra damage of the buff. It makes bringing a gunner a much more attractive option. While 90s is a bit long, if it was increased to around 60s it would be long enough to last throughout most engagements. And because you can keep buffs up on a gun almost indefinitely (by rebuffing between reloads) It doesn't have much of an effect overall. The gun is buffed either way, but now you can bring the gunner and the extra ammos for one of the guns.
-
Hmmm. Just had a curious thought. What if we added another stat to guns. 'Dirt/soot/grime'. The more it was used, the more dirty it would become, causing it to work less efficiently. The only way to remove this would be with ammos that had 'swabbing' properties rather than 'soot' properties.
Perhaps increase gun damage a little as base, and make a fully grimed gun do slightly less damage than current. Perhaps move more slowly. In effect, it would be a buff that the gunner would maintain by keeping his guns clean.
An ammo like Greased would add a lot of grime in a hurry. Heatsink could remove some, Lesmok as well. Most others would add to a varying degree. A new 'Swab' ammo would remove everything. This would fit right in with 'Gunnery' equipment, and would make the gunner more needed around the ship. Even a pilot could take this as the +1 ammo to make a gun cleaning run. One Goldfish engie could take it if you wanted your gunner to have all three regular ammos.
It would not make sense as an engineer tool, as you would have to be on the gun 'cleaning' it.
-
@up
This sounds like an option to 'force' gunners on ship rather than make them more useful.
Personally, I think that Guns of Icarus is fundamentally "broken", badly constructed, in its design as a game in a few ways that cannot be fixed anymore (it would take too much effort to do so). And class balance belongs to that category - it's just the way it is and, mostly, we must just accept it as it is.
Also I think that map balance makes a role too. On the most maps the most popular builds are either very close-range builds or long-ass-range "sniper" builds (artemis, merc mostly, sometimes big flak and lumberjack). Neither of those can fully use gunner's potential most of the time. Gunner shines in mid-range combat, especially when conditions are changing and you need to, say, change hades from lesmok to greased because enemy is rushing at you. The best maps that allow good mid-range combat are Fjords and Hazard.
// off topic - goio being 3-dimentional game where there are several ships with different speeds, turning rates etc. is a pain in the ass to make balanced maps
One suggestion, from top of my head, is changing buffer's place from Engineer Slot to Gunner Slot. Sacrificing (mostly useless) third ammo type for a buffer seems like a reasonable idea. But then again decreasing engineer's options is never a nice thing.
Other suggestion, we need more interesting ammo types, that can be more situational and make up for lacking repair power of an extra engineer. But I guess there's a thread for that.
-
Well what if the gun buff from the buff hammer varied depending on whether or not a gunner was on it? Perhaps the hammer's buff could be just a max HP buff without a gunner, and an additional damage buff as well when a gunner is on it?
I wonder if that would be a pain to implement.
-
Prediction: Nothing will happen
-
Prediction: Nothing will happen
True. We've been suggesting gunner balances for quite some time now. The best muse have come up with seems to be the Stamina.
-
Prediction: Nothing will happen
True. We've been suggesting gunner balances for quite some time now. The best muse have come up with seems to be the Stamina.
The thing is the stamina was intended as a feature, and not solely a gunner buff or classes balance.
I personally feel gunners are pretty well balanced, 1 pilot one gunner and 2 engineers makes for a very handy team.
Third ammo not used enough?
If using a Gatling or Hades Gatling pyramidion with Artemis, its important to have the Artemis shooting, so make the third ammo burst, this way in emergencies (engines down for example) balloon emgi can run down stairs and gunner can disable enemy.and do emergency repairs on the balloon while still shooting effectively.
Heavy guns are most effective with multiple ammo types.
The biggest problem that would occur if gunners were to be buffed: Encouraging people to go gungineer would be impossible, making double gunner ships a much more common problem :\
-
Why do gunners need to be "balanced" or more accurately required.
They have a place in the game. You don't always want a gunner but whenever you want one its because its a gun that absolutely needs a gunner to function.
Want more gunners, add more guns with drops, arm times, recoil, jitter, and/or long ranges.
-
Why do gunners need to be "balanced" or more accurately required.
They have a place in the game. You don't always want a gunner but whenever you want one its because its a gun that absolutely needs a gunner to function.
Want more gunners, add more guns with drops, arm times, recoil, jitter, and/or long ranges.
Salute.
-
Thanks.
I wanted to explain my thought a bit further.
Basic idea; not every gun needs its most optimal ammo.
When shooting a weapon in goio you need to maximize three things
Potential Damage (either DPS or disable)
Potential Accuracy
Potential Range
Most guns in this game without any need for ammo give you at least two of these.
Gatling has great accuracy and increasing its range isn't terribly important so you generally see an increase of DPs using greased.
Artemis shoots has great range and accuracy meaning once again damage increase from burst.
Carronades have great dps and functionaly no way to see good results with longer range (never use lesmok you fools) but it needs accuracy so you will often see heavy.
Often times you can even forgo these optimal ammo. The gatling and the mortar can already do their job amazingly without their optimal ammos.
Other guns though like the Lumberjack, or the Hwatcha do not meet most of these demands alone.
In order to maximize the damage of a hwatcha you need burst rounds however that kills both its range and accuracy. Heavy gives it range and accuracy but conversely kills the damage.
Same story for the Lumberjack. If you want range and accuracy unless you're a god who can see into the future and know where the ships will be by the time the slow shot arrives, you need lesmok. However lesmok kills clip size thus damage so if anything gets closer you want a mid ranged ammo. Furthermore the Lumberjack has an arm time meaning you also need a arm time reducing ammo.
Most ammos in most guns are functionally optional. These are guns where the gungineer shines because their one ammo is simply maximizing the gun. Gunners are needed when the ammos aren't optional and ammos aren't simply maximizing the gun, they are making the gun useable.
If it is insanely important to somehow make the game balanced in a way that requires every ship to need a gunner, then you need to make the guns less self sufficient. Slow down the shots, increase jitters, increase projedctile drops or even add them to some.
Also tertiary increase the clips of some guns. Mercuries and flaks would be great guns potentially for gunners if it wasn't for the fact that lesmok is useless in them as a 1 shot clip just is hardly viable for them.
I wouldn't add these changes but if you really want to see gunners without giving some weird buff to gunners that totally reworks the game, here is how you do it.
-
Why do gunners need to be "balanced" or more accurately required.
They have a place in the game. You don't always want a gunner but whenever you want one its because its a gun that absolutely needs a gunner to function.
Want more gunners, add more guns with drops, arm times, recoil, jitter, and/or long ranges.
I was just having this discussion with my clan the other day. What makes vets take a gunner are guns that are niche, strong but limited or hard to shoot with a strong handicap. Your hades, heavy flaks, lumberjacks and so on. They require multiple ammos to be effective because they are strong enough to take regardless of their limitations. So if Muse wants to make gunners useful that seems like a pretty clear cut example to design all the guns by. Give them bigger handicaps to go along with their rewards. Make taking more ammos for all the various guns necessary for their viability. That is after all the point of the gunner's design, having more ammos. Build on that.
-
Its just that there are 3 classes, 3 classes ONLY. And they are all specilised to what they should do. Gunners are just not as specialised on what they do as the others on what those do.
Engineers run around and repair/optimize the ship, and use a gun when necesary. A gunner can help on repair, but mostly he should be trusted on a gun. Which in the case of any balance thread for gunners, he doesnt do as well as he should.
Why do gunners need to be "balanced" or more accurately required.
Cause gunners arent as good on their job as engineers or pilots are on theirs.
Weve been playing enough games for the last patches where we mostly want engineers, and that is not because engineers being powerfull, rather gunners not being an optimal choice for the ship. Which is the case for most ships.