Guns Of Icarus Online

Main => Gameplay => Topic started by: Lieutenant Noir on September 22, 2015, 10:40:16 am

Title: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Lieutenant Noir on September 22, 2015, 10:40:16 am
I wanted to describe some thoughts about changes to the Mobula and the Junker as I believe these two ships are on opposite ends of functionality.
I'm not saying one is better than the other (okay, kinda) but that one ship clearly has more versatility than I think really should.
I wanted to address some issues and lay down suggestions concerning these ships.

The main way I usually describe the versatility of a ship is that I describe the strengths and weaknesses of three aspects of what I think a ship's role serves.
Mobility, Firepower, and Tankability
I'm not going to label every single one of them for each ship or I'll be writing this all day, I'm just going to label the aspects that I believe are most important.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobula

Strengths of the Mobula
-I believe that one of the Mobula's strengths lie in it's ability to have multi-range capabilities in firepower (Due it's multiple front-facing guns as well as decent Max Speed to control distancing).
-I believe another strength of the Mobula is in it's exceptional abilities in controlling Vertical mobility and I believe this gives the ship extra utility in dodging, avoiding arcs, and controlling gun arcs.

My problem
-I think one of the weaknesses given to the Mobula was in it's slow turn acceleration of 3.50 deg/s² . Although I do think that this is a good inclusion for the Mobula to have this weakness, in practice this weakness is negated by the fact that it has a Max turning speed of 14.02 deg/s (a little bit faster than a Goldfish). This aspect even has me being successful in turning without the use of Phoenix Claw.
-I don't particularly like this aspect because I believe it gives the Mobula too much versatility in narrow/cramped environments as well as reaction time in ambushes.

Suggestion and suggested effects
-I would want the Max Turning speed to be similar to that of a Galleon (8.02 deg/s)
-I don't think having a lower Max turning speed would change the popularity of the Mobula too much.
-It would still reign over large open maps with plenty of space to provide covering fire but it would be less successful in cramped environments and be more vulnerable to ambushes where the enemy is behind them.
-I think it would also make captains be more wary about areas where ambushes might occur as well as make crew members jump on close range guns faster.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Junker

-I think one of the aspects that gives the Junker so many weaknesses compared to other ships is in the traits that lead to it being a slow Max speed, tank.
-I say this mainly because I think the way the Junker is designed doesn't make it a very good slow, tank but more a Fast, Glass Cannon.

Game-play reasons
-The Junker has very exposed guns and engines much like a Squid and Goldfish but unlike those two it doesn't have the mobility to avoid many those disables.
-The Junker's Balloon is also on the top of the ship. This means that the upward arcs of the Carronades and the Projectile drop of the Lumberjack are an easy shot for a slow target like the Junker's Balloon. Before you mention that a Galleon is slow with a Balloon on top, a Galleon has the firepower to fend off such attacks and (Although this doesn't really apply in this scenario) has one of the higher top speeds in the game.
-Although you could say the Hull sweet spot makes the Junker easier to engineer on, components on the Junker will stay broken for longer because they're broken (This makes the ship much more vulnerable to continued disables as mobility and firepower are hindered).
-This also means that it will be easier to keep a Junker disabled because it already didn't have the mobility to avoid the disables in the first place  :-\

Functionality Reasons
-I honestly don't think a scrap of junk ship like a Junker should have the second highest armor in the game
-Especially for a ship with a hull surface area of 350 m² (Smallest hull exposure in the game) as well as a weight of 125 t (Lighter than a Goldfish)
-It is described in it's description as not having the sturdiest armor "Though its improvised scrap-metal construction is not the sturdiest" and I doubt that "mercenaries and freelancers who make their living from salvage, trade, and other odd jobs" have access to Highly durable, Light weight alloys from salvage.
-I will defiantly say that the design of the ship does make it look very tanky but I think the closeness of the components in making the ship easier to engineer on fulfills the purpose of the tanky concept design.

Wrap up
-I understand that the Junker sort of has a role in being a Jack-of-all-Trades but we already have a ship (Goldfish) that kinda takes the place of being a noob friendly as well as fairly versatile, so it kinda already fulfills that role.
-I think that being a jack-of-all-trades makes the Junker very much a master-of-none in many many situations.
-Before you say that you have used the Junker and it works, I have used the Junker too (for 2 years) and the only thing I use it for is for Mines and whenever the match is a pubstomp (there just wasn't that many situations where I have succeeded in using it because the enemy always Hard-countered every variation of Junker I had).
-I know that there aren't that many ships that will be able to tank if the Junker became more of a Glass Cannon but I'm sure people would rather have a ship that would be better designed around the purpose of tanking.

Suggestion
-My suggestion is to increase the Max Speed and decrease the Armor to make it more of a Fast, Glass Cannon.
-I wouldn't want the Junker to replace the Squid and so I would want the Junker to have less mobility than the Squid with the trade-off being more firepower.
-Just have a Top speed similar to that of a Galleon (30~) and Armor more in line with a Goldfish or Spire (400~)
-Then I would see the Junker being more of an Ambush ship with Pilots bringing it for High risk (In regards to the Low Health and Armor) for High reward (Good mobility and Firepower)



If you're wondering if I made these suggestions to make the Junker Hard Counter a Mobula...
A Junker vs. Mobula in a cramped map = Junker would stab a Mobula in the Back
A Junker vs. Mobula in an open map = Mobula would destroy a Junker before it could even blink
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Byron Cavendish on September 22, 2015, 02:08:43 pm
I have advocated for a while that the junker and spire need to swap stats (more or less, not number for number). I think for the spire to be brought to the level of competitive (that doesn't mean it is never or can never be used, but competitive means current goldfish meta level, not thralls) it needs to have tankiness in armour. The ship needs to be able to afford 3 crew to fire all weapons at the same time, and the only way for that to happen consistently is if it has the armour to allow a main engineer some time to shoot, like on a galleon. Currently with it's armour so low, you almost always have an engineer repairing the hull, and that means the other one more than not needs to keep a chem cycle and repair the bottom. Your gun turret ship quickly becomes just a heavy weapons platform like a goldfish, without the speed or maneuverability. Finally lore-wise, the spire visually is made of almost completely metal, from its balloon container all the way to it's needle. It is an isolated sentry on guard duty. Of course it would be armoured.

If the junker had the squishiness of the spire, it would certainly change the junker's style and use profoundly. However at this point it too is hardly competitive, and I flew competitive junkers as much as I could. Hell I started the triple artemis junker and double artemis/hades junker trends competitively. I will not touch a junker now, unless for fun or munkering. Now I think a cool thing and strength of the junker will always be its versatility and jack-of-all-trades status. That won't change. However with some buffed speed and reduced armour, (perhaps somewhere between the goldfish and squid in terms of speed and armour values both) it could become a harasser that can flirt in combat instead of turtling at range. I agree with you that lore-wise, the junker doesn't have much armour, or much of anything. It has a tarp for a walk-way, and is barely holding itself together. With that light weight and comparatively large balloon, it should be able to move fast.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Squidslinger Gilder on September 22, 2015, 04:37:05 pm
Yeah I've advocated for awhile that the Junker just seemed like it had stats reversed. Granted when the armor goes down, it folds up like nothing, but it isn't a big ship. Nor is the design one that would have a lot of armor. I think it could potentially be a very modular ship in PVE but the stock version we have in PVP is more or less just junk hacked together and made into a ship. Making it lighter and a little faster  but easier to kill would be a reasonable trade off. In fact for the number of guns and flexibility of it, it is surprising that it can be so tanky.

Suspect Muse is willing to make it tanky because they consider the balloon such a major weakness that if it was weaker it wouldn't be very fun. But consider the Squid, balloons can go out on those and it sorta just floats down. If the Junker is brought lighter and it doesn't fall like a rock when popped, there is the counter blenders. Specially since it can often just turn and broadside a foe. The captain can keep a ship oriented and balloon repaired or under rebuild while the crew can ignore repairs and focus on taking down the blender.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Daft Loon on September 22, 2015, 05:13:32 pm
Please no.

Take away my brawl mobula and i will hunt you for the rest of days. More seriously the problem is that people can take a boring merc/hades + double artemis mobula and then add carro-flamer or gat-mortar as well for defence. Crippling it at close range will only force people more into the boring use of the mobula. Dialing back the hwacha and carronade changes 50% would put the mobula in the right place.

If the junker needs to change trade away some of its absurd turning speed (I mean, its 4 times as long as wide with the engines closer together than any other ship but somehow among the fastest turning) for top speed and vertical speed.

The way i think about armor/hull is that the hull makes sense based on the size and solidity of the ship while the armor is just balance. That way the giant plates of armor hull on the goldfish dont confuse me.

Out of curiosity what do you find counters a junker aside from moving backwards shooting at it and laughing at its slow speed?

"but we already have a ship (Goldfish) that kinda takes the place of being a noob friendly as well as fairly versatile" - more or less 100% due to the current hwacha. Minotaur, Flak, Carronade and Lumberjack fish are not at all noob friendly.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Byron Cavendish on September 22, 2015, 05:15:59 pm
Out of curiosity what do you find counters a junker aside from moving backwards shooting at it and laughing at its slow speed?

Are you asking based on the current junker or the hypothetical one?

I agree with you on mobula, it's fine.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: BlackenedPies on September 22, 2015, 06:26:43 pm
He means current junker, which is vulnerable to disable and resistant to kill. Getting popped is bad because it's mostly balloon, and it has a vulnerable component cluster that's easy to hit with artemis or break everything with hwatcha.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Daft Loon on September 22, 2015, 07:32:37 pm
I've essentially never felt unreasonably countered by anything outside 2 categories
-Moving backwards too fast - Lumberjack, Artemis
-Not the junker that's the problem - Old H.Carronade, Current Hwacha
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: MightyKeb on September 22, 2015, 08:29:19 pm
Please no.

Take away my brawl mobula and i will hunt you for the rest of days. More seriously the problem is that people can take a boring merc/hades + double artemis mobula and then add carro-flamer or gat-mortar as well for defence. Crippling it at close range will only force people more into the boring use of the mobula. Dialing back the hwacha and carronade changes 50% would put the mobula in the right place.


Yes, let's not presumably "take away" the brawl mobula's oh-so-essential turning speed as it clearly doesn't have anything else *cough* verticals *cough* ridicilously fast kills *cough* going for it. At the same time, let's keep the mobula the way it is so the "boring hades art art" is even easier to play.


At the very least the turning speed nerf makes mobula quite counterable by manouverable ships, it is -MEANT- to be laterally weak. What do you think you have the verticals for?


Aside from making mobula actually balanced, the turning speed nerf may encourage the use of Phoenix Claw on mobula, to the point where it may be a necessity unfortunately. However, this works in the favor of game balance, because then you have several options:

Either sacrifice hydro, aka the ability to shoot up into space whenever you're in trouble, or drouge chute, and make the mobula's balloon an actual weakness again. Or just have both but get circled to death by squids.


Though I think the turning speed nerf should be made so to match the claw's benefits. 7.02 deg/s is -100% of 14.02 deg/s. Claw provides +50% engine thrust. You could simply nerf it down to 10.02/10.52 deg/s and it would make a noticable, though not outrageous difference, and if you wanted the old speed you could just use claw and Daniel would never laugh at any aspiring mobula pilot for using it again.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: DrTentacles on September 22, 2015, 08:55:41 pm
This is absolutely ridiculous.

We are at the point of GoI where we're talking about nerfing the mobula. Pack it up. Just...pack it up, guys. We've had a good run. This is where a year of nerfs, clans falling apart, and competitive instability has taken us.

For the record, I'm not angry, and I don't think it's a inherently bad suggestion. Just an unnecessarily one, and hilarious if you look at the ship trends in competitive of the past year.

In seriousness, Mobula is not OP, junker could maybe use a overhaul, but it's problem is more fundamentally tied to it's giant balloon, and this seems like a giant problem of people getting complacent in their strategies and not experimenting. We're at a more diverse point in the meta than I've seen it in a long time. There are some problems. The Mobula isn't really one of them. Most of the problems in the meta tie to the paradigm of weapon roles that we currently have. 

And I don't think you can make the Junker more competitive by playing with it's stats. It's a ship that's viability is more tied to the weapons that dominate the meta than it's own effectiveness. Increasing the speed still leaves it with a giant, exposed balloon. There is nothing that is going to make the balloon less giant, or less exposed, and a speed ship without a balloon is even more dead than a slow ship without a balloon.

(Also, Galleon and Pyramideon are in way, way worse places than Junkers, or Mobulas.)
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Byron Cavendish on September 22, 2015, 09:20:31 pm
I actually love where the galleon is at. It won't win against every ship or build, but it can hold it's own pretty well and I think its way better off than the junker. Like you said, the meta of the guns determines the strength or the weakness. The galleon and junker are very similar in design, crew strategy and fighting style, which is why I switched from junker to galleon. Because heavy guns are slightly stronger right now, the galleon is just better off than the junker.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: DrTentacles on September 22, 2015, 09:33:05 pm
I'm willing to accept the idea that there aren't too many people doing competitive galleon these days, so my perception is skewed. It takes a team willing to revolve around it, and treat it as the "center" rather than it's own entity, which takes specialized team practice. Alone, it dies to most well piloted ships.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: nhbearit on September 22, 2015, 09:41:08 pm
There is one thing about this thread that manages to confuse me. Since when aren't Junkers awesome? They are the quintessential escort ship. Period. They have two sets of weapons that they can basically switch out at a moments notice. They also are highly maneuverable, and very easy to coordinate crew on. Like seriously.. Pair a Junker with any other ship (including another Junker) and it just shines. Assuming that the Junker is IN the fight of course. I've seen a lot of ridiculous comments on this thread so a quick note to everyone here: take a minute and think through what it is you're saying before you post.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Lieutenant Noir on September 22, 2015, 09:49:17 pm
Hey, hey don't hunt me down just yet  :(

With the changes you would still be able to bring brawler loadouts on the Mobula, my problem is that the Mobula is both effective at Sniping and Brawling (while also occupying the firepower of a trifecta).
My changes to the Junker and Mobula are to separate the effectiveness of Brawling and Sniping that the current Mobula has into two ships.
You would still be able to Snipe and Brawl on either of these trifecta ships, but one would be more specialized than the other at the job (You bring either ship depending on if you will be spending more time Brawling or Sniping instead of just bringing a Mobula because it's good for both).



Out of curiosity what do you find counters a junker aside from moving backwards shooting at it and laughing at its slow speed?

I mentioned this before so I'll say it again

The Junker is very slow and has very exposed components and this makes it very counter able by Disable weapons.
Let me label some situations where I've been countered:
Hwatcha: Destroyed every single component in a single barrage (Kinda like a Hwatcha on the engines on a Squid)
Lumberjack: Destroyed the balloon and broke armor in two clips from highly exposed balloon and projectile drop of Lumbershot
Artemis: Destroyed multiple components in one Burst shot due to closeness of the components
Carronade: Destroyed balloon every time because the Balloon was at the top of the ship (Playing into the Upward arcs of the Carronades)

In all of these situations the High armor of the Junker never helped because the damage modifier dug into the Armor.  :-\
-I think if you have a ship with so many exposed components, it shouldn't be a Tank!
-I think I could avoid more of these situations to greater success if the ship had more maneuverability in terms of speed like the Squid or Goldfish to avoid shots
-My suggestion to decrease the Armor was to give it a weakness in terms of the benefits in brawling capabilities (If you have firepower and Brawl, you should be avoiding arcs and so Armor should be less). Not to mention, the Hull has a fairly small hitbox and so the Decreased armor makes sense in a way.
-It's high turn speed plays into the specialized nature of Brawling and avoiding arcs which I believe would play towards the play style of Brawling very well.

Let me give a comparison to describe the traits of the suggested changes of the two ships:
Junker:
Mobility: High turn mobility to out maneuver enemy ships in close range engagements. Good Max speed to get into brawl engagements faster.
Firepower: Trifecta (Cause of front gun that can be used either side) for Brawl and Difecta for Range.
Tankability: Poor armor and easy to engineer on which plays into the nature of Brawling (Avoiding arcs and out maneuvering which means less exposure to enemy fire)

Mobula:
Mobility: High vertical mobility to dodge ambushes and close range engagements. Also decent Max speed to control distancing and provide time for crew mates to jump onto short range guns.
Firepower: Trifecta for Range (Cause of front facing top deck gun) and Difecta for Brawl
Tankability: Good armor and easy to engineer on which plays into the nature of Sniping (You will be staying still and so be more exposed to enemy fire so you need that armor)

Both these ships would be very versatile as they both carry long and short range guns. My suggestion is to make one ship more effective than the other at using either short or long range guns while still having the utility of both guns.

Hense the...
If you're wondering if I made these suggestions to make the Junker Hard Counter a Mobula...
A Junker vs. Mobula in a cramped map = Junker would stab a Mobula in the Back
A Junker vs. Mobula in an open map = Mobula would destroy a Junker before it could even blink



"but we already have a ship (Goldfish) that kinda takes the place of being a noob friendly as well as fairly versatile" - more or less 100% due to the current hwacha. Minotaur, Flak, Carronade and Lumberjack fish are not at all noob friendly.

Yeah, I meant Hwatchafish.
I kinda meant it in the manner that a Pyramidion was noob friendly because of the Gat/Mort combo. I still thought the Hwatchafish was very versatile and noob friendly even before the Buff. I think it occupies the Niche of being an effective Jack-of-all-Trades and I don't think the Junker is a very effective ship for occupying that role.

---------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree that the Mobula is not "that" OP but I still don't think a ship that has Decent forward Mobility and Extremely good vertical mobility should have good Turn speed. I believe the turn speed should be a weakness that the Mobula has in response to Multi-range firepower and High vertical mobility.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Squidslinger Gilder on September 22, 2015, 10:24:50 pm
I wouldn't mind the original Junker back. Everyone hated it but I used to do rather well with it. It turned slower and wasn't ultra armored. With the Pyra in godlike form, it would easily fall prey to Pyras if the pilot wasn't proactive enough. Hence why it was hated. But it moved decent enough to perform good ambushes. When Muse buffed it, the change was great but ultimately it forced it into a ranged fighter more than CQC. Slow down + high turn rate made it into the perfect sniper platform.

So really, we're still suffering from the design changes that brought about the sniper era. Part of the game is still balanced for sniper play when sniper play has been nerfed into oblivion.

Personally, I think we'd be in a better state if Muse would not overhaul ships one by one but do a big picture update. Then stick to it. We've had countless updates to the Pyra yet very few for other ships. Its to the point they could spin off a version of the game with just Pyras. Half the time the Pyra didn't even need work, just work being done to other ships or guns in the game.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Daft Loon on September 22, 2015, 10:34:48 pm
...
Hey, hey don't hunt me down just yet  :(

I may have overreacted/exaggerated slightly, a slight loss of turning wont kill dedicated brawl mobulas entirely. Still can't agree with it though, the multi role mobula is powerful at the moment because multi role is more or less the meta, trying to shove everything into a niche seems counterproductive.

My speculative changes:
Junker
Max turn: 16 --> 14
Turn Acc.:15 --> 13
Vertical Acc.: 3 --> 4
Max Speed: 26 --> 30

Artemis
Down Arc: 35 --> 20

Hwacha
Up/Down Arc: 20 --> 15

The junker would still have good close range turning but wouldn't be able to rely on swapping sides in 3s. The vertical acceleration would make it suffer less from balloon damage and the speed boost would be enough to kill 'fly backwards laughing' as a strategy.

Dropping the artemis arc would force the mobula to chose between safety and attacking and would be an indirect buff to the spire, junker and galleon.

Its to the point they could spin off a version of the game with just Pyras.
'Metamidions on battle on the dunes' the game
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Lieutenant Noir on September 23, 2015, 03:33:06 am
In seriousness, Mobula is not OP, junker could maybe use a overhaul, but it's problem is more fundamentally tied to it's giant balloon, and this seems like a giant problem of people getting complacent in their strategies and not experimenting. We're at a more diverse point in the meta than I've seen it in a long time. There are some problems. The Mobula isn't really one of them. Most of the problems in the meta tie to the paradigm of weapon roles that we currently have. 

And I don't think you can make the Junker more competitive by playing with it's stats. It's a ship that's viability is more tied to the weapons that dominate the meta than it's own effectiveness. Increasing the speed still leaves it with a giant, exposed balloon. There is nothing that is going to make the balloon less giant, or less exposed, and a speed ship without a balloon is even more dead than a slow ship without a balloon.

I think people have experimented for a long time and we have seen Junkers in competitive games none the less. My problem isn’t regarding putting Junkers in competitive (although it might lead to that), my issue is in how the ship design of the Junker doesn’t make it very versatile or effective in many different situations in it’s current state.

I do agree that the nature of disables are what make the Junker as ineffective as it is. I will say though... a combination of slow speed and exposed components make disables much easier to hit and make the ship much more vulnerable to future disables.
This is bad for the Junker because the damage modifier from disable weapons will dig even faster into the hull once a component breaks, making that "Second highest armor in the game" useless.
I’m getting a little sick of having to repeat myself so please just read my previously mentioned problems with the current Junker.

-I really like comparing the Junker to the Squid because I think the way the Squid ship is designed is very similar to the Junker. They both have very close components to make it easier to engineer on, very exposed components, and a big balloon at the top.
-I think we see the success of the Squid because it has the maneuverability to nullify it's weaknesses in balloon, hull, engines, and gun exposure as well as counter many builds. I wanted to make the Junker more like the Squid in that it wouldn’t be as fast but have more firepower. I also wanted to decrease it's armor to encourage the play-style of outmaneuvering enemy ships much like the squid.

You would essentially get a less maneuverable Squid with more firepower, long range potential, and tanking capabilities more reliant on ease of engineering rather than high hull health (keeping in mind the Squid Hull health).

Next Topic

We are at the point of GoI where we're talking about nerfing the mobula. Pack it up. Just...pack it up, guys. We've had a good run. This is where a year of nerfs, clans falling apart, and competitive instability has taken us.

-The suggestion for the Mobula wasn’t really to nerf it because it seemed OP, but I felt that the original intention for the Mobula was to have a weakness in turning capabilities. I got the impression from it having a lower turning acceleration than any other ship. Although having low turning acceleration does play into a noticeable weakness at times, from my continued use of the Mobula, it wasn’t enough to be a significant weakness because the Max turning speed was so high.
-I think this is a bit unfair considering I have the Fastest Vertical speed in the game as well as decent forward mobility to control distancing and I only really use them in emergencies. Personally I would be fine using a Mobula if it had a decrease in Max turning speed. The only difference would be that I wouldn’t just rely on turning to get in gun arcs but I would have to manipulate its vertical mobility and Forward mobility a lot more. Not to mention, it would still be able to ram as well as have really good sniping and tanking capabilities.
It would still be a really great ship... just not be as great in more cramped environments where you won’t have a lot of space to use that vertical mobility.

Next Topic

I may have overreacted/exaggerated slightly, a slight loss of turning wont kill dedicated brawl mobulas entirely. Still can't agree with it though, the multi role mobula is powerful at the moment because multi role is more or less the meta, trying to shove everything into a niche seems counterproductive.

Let me better explain the effects of the suggestion.
Both ships would have capabilities in multi-role engagements because both ships have Long and Short range guns. My point is that One ship would be more effective than the other for short and long range engagements but both would still have the potential for Multi-range capabilities.
I wouldn't be shoving the two ships into niches but vague Niches that overlap between each other~

Next Topic

My speculative changes:
Junker
Max turn: 16 --> 14
Turn Acc.:15 --> 13
Vertical Acc.: 3 --> 4
Max Speed: 26 --> 30

-I thought about it a bit and I think 30 Max speed is still a bit too slow for a ship like the Junker with really exposed components.
-I was thinking around 35~ for the ability of making the Junker harder to hit by disables (Keeping in mind the big Balloon and exposed engines).
Also I was thinking that I wanted the Junker to have an advantage in terms of mobility and in this case, have extremely high Turn speed and acceleration with poor Vertical mobility as a weakness.
-I sort of wanted this to balance out with the Junker having low Armor and Health in my previous suggestion.  :-\

Next Topic

Artemis
Down Arc: 35 --> 20

Hwacha
Up/Down Arc: 20 --> 15

The junker would still have good close range turning but wouldn't be able to rely on swapping sides in 3s. The vertical acceleration would make it suffer less from balloon damage and the speed boost would be enough to kill 'fly backwards laughing' as a strategy.

Dropping the artemis arc would force the mobula to chose between safety and attacking and would be an indirect buff to the spire, junker and galleon.

I think a certain somebody will try to hunt you down for suggesting a change like this to the Artemis  :P
I don't know if I like the idea of decreasing the Arcs because I kinda like how there are good arcs and weak arcs in terms of upward and downward aiming.
However, I might as well add fuel to your fire......
I would want the Artemis to break components only in two shots considering we have a Nerf of the Heavy Clip Light Carronade in disabling as well as the Carronades having to break balloons in two clips. Also make the Artemis only break components in one shot if using charged. I would want to increase component health instead of decrease Shatter damage because there are still achievements where people have to break Armor with Rockets.
--------
I'm not taking this one too seriously because I'm sure many people like the current Artemis and it's ability to literally make any ship effective if you have enough of them.


As for the Lion gun, an increase in Jitter would make me happy. I think it's current arcs are fairly decent and I think what most people agree upon is the fact that there is so little spread on the rockets.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Daft Loon on September 23, 2015, 09:01:17 am
Obligatory math dump:
A mobula turning full speed:
14 deg/s
= 25.7s/rotation
A squid 'orbiting'
25.7 * 47
= 1200m
=192m circle radius (maximum distance for the squid to not get caught by turning)

A mobula turning full speed and reversing:
25.7s/rotation
28*0.7
= 19.6m/s backwards
Effective squid speed
47 - 19.6
= 27.4 (not 100% sure the geometry actually works out like that)
=704m
=112m circle

Its theoretically possible for a squid to keep permanently out of arc but maybe not practical, particularly if losing speed to turn a second gun. Is it something that should be possible?

This is bad for the Junker because the damage modifier from disable weapons will dig even faster into the hull once a component breaks, making that "Second highest armor in the game" useless
I thought that mechanic was gone a while ago.

-I thought about it a bit and I think 30 Max speed is still a bit too slow for a ship like the Junker with really exposed components.
-I was thinking around 35~ for the ability of making the Junker harder to hit by disables (Keeping in mind the big Balloon and exposed engines).
Also I was thinking that I wanted the Junker to have an advantage in terms of mobility and in this case, have extremely high Turn speed and acceleration with poor Vertical mobility as a weakness.
-I sort of wanted this to balance out with the Junker having low Armor and Health in my previous suggestion.
I was thinking of those changes as standalone. Change the armor and 35 would indeed be needed, i like the current obnoxiously high armor though - there's nothing quite like having a carronade fish just flat fail to kill you on the ground (if you hit the ground slow with drogue chute and terrain denies them much in the way of rams its almost inevitable)

I really think the artemis needs something though, in its current form it essentially nullifies the spire and galleon unless you bring a top rate lumberjack gunner. Reducing the downward arc is one of the few things i can think of that isn't dumbing it down or breaking ship builds and happens to be relevant to mobula in particular. Making it need 2 shots goes a bit too far i think and would essentially become 3 shots on any gun manned by an engineer with mallet.

I would want to increase component health instead of decrease Shatter damage because there are still achievements where people have to break Armor with Rockets.
Why on earth (or in the sky as it may be) would anyone use the artemis for this when we have the hwacha and banshee??
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: MightyKeb on September 23, 2015, 09:29:00 am
Obligatory math dump:
A mobula turning full speed:
14 deg/s
= 25.7s/rotation
A squid 'orbiting'
25.7 * 47
= 1200m
=192m circle radius (maximum distance for the squid to not get caught by turning)

A mobula turning full speed and reversing:
25.7s/rotation
28*0.7
= 19.6m/s backwards
Effective squid speed
47 - 19.6
= 27.4 (not 100% sure the geometry actually works out like that)
=704m
=112m circle

Its theoretically possible for a squid to keep permanently out of arc but maybe not practical, particularly if losing speed to turn a second gun. Is it something that should be possible?


Each engine of the squid makes up 25% of it's accel, top speed, and I believe turning speed/accel aswell. This means when one engine is down, the ship functions at 75% of it's speed instead of 100%, whilst 2 engines would bring it down to 50% and so on. In high level, it's pretty easy to shoot a single engine of a squid down and sometimes that's really all it needs to lose the fight.

Divide 47 - 19.6 by 50%, and you get 23.5 - 9.8. Add the +25% and I believe that should make it somewhere around 30 - 13. Even then, it's more than enough for the mobula to keep up. So yes, I think it should be possible, considering Squid is the best suited ship for playing into Mobula's weaknesses. Right now it's possible to gain some speed over a Mobula's turning but once it picks up momentum it matches almost exactly the same speed. This is okay if you start the fight with a good angle on the mobula, not so much when you're making a charge. One could argue that Squid isn't made for charging, but then the Mobula's only true weakness comes from the very niche and advanced practice of flanking. This makes me the mobula one of the most if not the most powerful ship for mid, and sometimes even high level play.




Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Dementio on September 23, 2015, 01:24:58 pm
One could argue that Squid isn't made for charging, but then the Mobula's only true weakness comes from the very niche and advanced practice of flanking. This makes me the mobula one of the most if not the most powerful ship for mid, and sometimes even high level play.

A Junker has guns on all sides except at its back, which it more often than not can easily turn away. This should make the Junker better against flanking enemies than the Mobula for its guns would always be ready and on target, making it more viable in mid/high level play.

A Squid, and many other ships, could try charge the Mobula from below or above it. All it takes for the Squid is getting behind it once.



A Junker can also circle around the Mobula actually. Not in terms of speed, but in terms of making the Mobula burn its engines. This can happen when the Mobula wants to build distance, but gets shot at at the same time, since balloon and armor engineer are responsible for engines and to make sure the Junker stops shooting, the Mobula needs the third guy to shoot back, who is responsible for the main engine. Thus, it is not unlikely that the Mobula loses a huge amount of speed and gets stuck on the horizontal plane. A Mobula with only one working turning engine can never hope to move straight ever again, it is already bad when one of the turning engines is at half health while the other is at full health, that thing turns easily, which causes a reduction in distance traveled in relation to the chasing Junker.

Once the Junker has managed to get onto the Mobula's side one thing happens: Hardcore tanking, by the Mobula. A good Junker that got to this point is very likely in a position where the Mobula cannot achieve victory anymore, since one hydrogen or chute vent may not be enough to save it and instead just delay the inevitable loss.
I know this from experience! When I was the Mobula! Against a basic Metajunker, the one with the Gat/Mortar!

Btw, during a scrim against a team which Sammy was sub-piloting for, we ended up in a 1v1 disable lock on the ground as a Mobula against Sammy's Junker. I went was very close, but we still weren't winning so I tried to back up by using Kerosene again, thinking that normal speed wasn't enough speed, I ended up with damaged engines so I was kind of stuck at a weird distance. If the battle had taking a bit longer, we would have died, but luckily the Junker gave in, in time. Mind you that was him sub-piloting with a crew he maybe never played with before at all, and certainly not at comp level, against a full Rydr ship which was very well practised at what it did. So the Junker may not be so weak as it is made out to be, even against a disable Mobula, and it certainly can trifecta in close range too, even I can do that.



But now to these things

Mobula

Suggestion and suggested effects
-I would want the Max Turning speed to be similar to that of a Galleon (8.02 deg/s)

A problem that the Mobula always had, which still persists, is when people used it like a gunning platform, which is easy to do, but not the winning strategy, since if you don't want to make use of that vertical mobility, a long range Junker would be the better choice, because the Junker has an easier time repairing and buffing and can dodge just as well in long range, except maybe against Lumberjack.
I see where you are going with this idea, but out of the few ways you can actually fly it, you will remove the one that requires skill and is the rewarding one, while leaving the one in the game that people constantly whine about being tired of (Hades/Merc and double Artemis hardcore sniping for 10 minutes straight). I would rather have one of its light guns removed, making it less of a gunning platform and more something that pilots actually have to think about how to fly, and although I am not favouring this idea, I personally don't think it is that bad of a decision to remove one of its light guns.

Junker

Suggestion
-Then I would see the Junker being more of an Ambush ship with Pilots bringing it for High risk (In regards to the Low Health and Armor) for High reward (Good mobility and Firepower)

The Junker does by design not fit into the ambush section. Unlike every other ship except the Galleon, it has to waste its ambush time to get into a position and then shoot the enemy, because its guns are on the side. Pyramidion, Mobula and so on, do better because when they ambush they can go directly forward towards their enemy meaning they already are in position. The forward gun of the Junker can help put some damage on the enemy or even disable them, but generally that alone just won't do the trick for the Junker.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: MightyKeb on September 23, 2015, 02:49:43 pm

Mobula

Suggestion and suggested effects
-I would want the Max Turning speed to be similar to that of a Galleon (8.02 deg/s)

A problem that the Mobula always had, which still persists, is when people used it like a gunning platform, which is easy to do, but not the winning strategy, since if you don't want to make use of that vertical mobility, a long range Junker would be the better choice, because the Junker has an easier time repairing and buffing and can dodge just as well in long range, except maybe against Lumberjack.
I see where you are going with this idea, but out of the few ways you can actually fly it, you will remove the one that requires skill and is the rewarding one, while leaving the one in the game that people constantly whine about being tired of (Hades/Merc and double Artemis hardcore sniping for 10 minutes straight). I would rather have one of its light guns removed, making it less of a gunning platform and more something that pilots actually have to think about how to fly, and although I am not favouring this idea, I personally don't think it is that bad of a decision to remove one of its light guns.



Then why not just tone it down just enough that using Claw on mobula gives you almost exactly the same top speed that it does now, so the "skillful" part of playing mobula isnt exactly gone, except now there's an actual downside to being able to keep up with the enemy?
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: BlackenedPies on September 23, 2015, 04:23:14 pm
Don't forget that with mobula you'll probably only have 1 buff max whereas all other ships are great with 2. An interesting change for junker would be increasing its max vertical speed. All ships have the same vertical speed (16.97 - 17.06 m/s). Increasing its max vertical speed might make sense due to its large balloon which might cause drag but allow a higher top speed.

If the mobula is too OP decrease max speed to that of junker: 26. A bulky wide ship should have plenty of drag and relatively slow speed. Junker is the slowest ship in the game.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Lieutenant Noir on September 23, 2015, 07:59:21 pm
A problem that the Mobula always had, which still persists, is when people used it like a gunning platform, which is easy to do, but not the winning strategy, since if you don't want to make use of that vertical mobility, a long range Junker would be the better choice, because the Junker has an easier time repairing and buffing and can dodge just as well in long range, except maybe against Lumberjack.
I see where you are going with this idea, but out of the few ways you can actually fly it, you will remove the one that requires skill and is the rewarding one, while leaving the one in the game that people constantly whine about being tired of (Hades/Merc and double Artemis hardcore sniping for 10 minutes straight). I would rather have one of its light guns removed, making it less of a gunning platform and more something that pilots actually have to think about how to fly, and although I am not favouring this idea, I personally don't think it is that bad of a decision to remove one of its light guns.

I think that playing the Mobula like a gunning platform is using a ship to it's greatest strengths. This aspect is not something I have a problem with. I think that I have too much of an unfair advantage over other ships when all I have to do is turn to get enemies into arc while having the highest Vertical mobility as well as decent Forward mobility tucked away in emergencies. I think that in brawling engagements, the ship should encourage the use of it's vertical and Forward mobility more in terms of getting guns into arcs. I wouldn't want to remove one of it's light guns because you decrease it's capabilities in short range engagements as well as long range engagements. This would make the Mobula either specialized into short or long range builds and would decrease it's versatility significantly. I want the Mobula to have capabilities in Long and Short range engagements but I want it to have a significant weakness in one aspect of it's mobility. Also, how is the Mobula not a forward facing shooting-gallery/gunning-platform? It is basically a gunning platform and so should have long and short range guns to compensate for the fact that you would want your enemies in front of you at all times.

Also I want to say that I don't like how the Junker is configured towards Long range play. Mainly because it has very exposed components and a big balloon which means a ship like that staying still is a ridiculously easy target. I mentioned some of the problems in disabling in a previous post.

Next Topic

The Junker does by design not fit into the ambush section. Unlike every other ship except the Galleon, it has to waste its ambush time to get into a position and then shoot the enemy, because its guns are on the side. Pyramidion, Mobula and so on, do better because when they ambush they can go directly forward towards their enemy meaning they already are in position. The forward gun of the Junker can help put some damage on the enemy or even disable them, but generally that alone just won't do the trick for the Junker.

I mentioned before in a previous post that I liked comparing the Junker to the Squid because I thought that the two were very similar in design. I think it also applies in terms of Gun placement, which makes it favor outmaneuvering and circling due to it's relatively high acceleration and more firepower on it's broadsides. I worded Ambushing wrong, I wanted it to be more like the Squid by increasing it's mobility to favor Circling and maneuvering outside of enemy arcs. I meant something along the lines of distracting and breaking formations, not ambushing. I would want to make the ship better at this play style because the way the ship is designed, doesn't make it a very good Sniping/Slow/Tank. Mind you with the current change, it would still be relatively good at Long range play but it would need the help of a good distraction considering the change in armor.

Next Topic

Its theoretically possible for a squid to keep permanently out of arc but maybe not practical, particularly if losing speed to turn a second gun. Is it something that should be possible?

A Mobula with it's strengths in Vertical and Forward mobility should be using those strengths to get in arcs/avoid enemy arcs. If all you're doing is circling in a slow turn speed ship, you would be playing towards the weaknesses of the ship. Also, considering we currently have builds that counter specific ships (and we've been fine with that) I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing.

Next Topic

Why on earth (or in the sky as it may be) would anyone use the artemis for this when we have the hwacha and banshee??

I would \o
Those are three good components you can disable in one clip and you would normally want two Artemis'es in the first place on a ship. I do pretty well with a Mercury with only two shots and with heat-sink I can disable three components.
If we change the Hwatcha back to the previous high jitter,
Heavy clip normally broke 1 or 2 components in a clip at long range and burst would break 4 or 5 in one clip at short range. Remember, that reload time is pretty damn long and Hwatcha shots don't hit every time.
--------------------------
But enough about changes to the Artemis.... I don't want to be hunted any more than you do.  :(
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Daft Loon on September 23, 2015, 09:20:14 pm
Some further thoughts:
How often do i actually use the maximum turn speed, I play mobula mainly on duel/paritan/canyons where circling is not even possible in most places. I'll have to bring it out again and pay attention to that next time i get a competent crew who don't mind moonshine rams.
The simplest way to nerf turn speed - increasing angular drag - would help with the 'clip a building even slightly - spin 720' problem the mobula has at the moment. I wouldn't mind that aspect at all.

Why on earth (or in the sky as it may be) would anyone use the artemis for this when we have the hwacha and banshee??

I would \o
Those are three good components you can disable in one clip and you would normally want two Artemis'es in the first place on a ship. I do pretty well with a Mercury with only two shots and with heat-sink I can disable three components.
If we change the Hwatcha back to the previous high jitter,
Heavy clip normally broke 1 or 2 components in a clip at long range and burst would break 4 or 5 in one clip at short range. Remember, that reload time is pretty damn long and Hwatcha shots don't hit every time.

I don't follow. You were talking about breaking armor with the artemis for an achievement as a reason to avoid certain stat changes but that achievement can be gained far easier with the other kinds of rockets.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Lieutenant Noir on September 23, 2015, 09:43:13 pm
Why on earth (or in the sky as it may be) would anyone use the artemis for this when we have the hwacha and banshee??

I would \o
Those are three good components you can disable in one clip and you would normally want two Artemis'es in the first place on a ship. I do pretty well with a Mercury with only two shots and with heat-sink I can disable three components.
If we change the Hwatcha back to the previous high jitter,
Heavy clip normally broke 1 or 2 components in a clip at long range and burst would break 4 or 5 in one clip at short range. Remember, that reload time is pretty damn long and Hwatcha shots don't hit every time.

I don't follow. You were talking about breaking armor with the artemis for an achievement as a reason to avoid certain stat changes but that achievement can be gained far easier with the other kinds of rockets.

Oops I meant this quote not that one

Making it need 2 shots goes a bit too far i think and would essentially become 3 shots on any gun manned by an engineer with mallet.

Next Topic

The simplest way to nerf turn speed - increasing angular drag - would help with the 'clip a building even slightly - spin 720' problem the mobula has at the moment. I wouldn't mind that aspect at all.

Do you mean increasing angular drag for all ships or increasing it on phoenix claw?
Also where do you see it? I've only seen it on helm items.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Daft Loon on September 23, 2015, 09:53:55 pm
That makes more sense.


Increasing angular drag on the mobula alone as a way to reduce its maximum turn speed. Its neater than changing the engine stats which would change acceleration and linear movement as well.

I'm not aware of a way to see the drag stats for ships, i may be wrong about the way things work and turn speed etc are arbitrary but i think the speed, acceleration etc stats that are visible are derived from engine thrust, engine position, drag and mass.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: BlackenedPies on September 23, 2015, 10:29:55 pm
I don't think mobula should be turn nerfed. If ya wanna nerf it give it junker speed. Complicated changes wont be implemented.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: MightyKeb on September 24, 2015, 02:49:18 am
I don't think mobula should be turn nerfed. If ya wanna nerf it give it junker speed. Complicated changes wont be implemented.

A vertical god like the mobula should have weak turning, considering it's meant to be weak to flanks and nothing can follow its' hydro. Nerfing the top speed would actually make brawbula worse- there's a reason why junker metas are all long range.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Mean Machine on September 24, 2015, 06:18:55 am
I don't remember anyone complaining about mobula when pyra was dominating skies. So mobula back then was fine, but suddenly it's op now? This is a same pattern I see in pretty much every online game, people always have something to complain about and they always want nerfs instead of looking for buffs. Why not look at the ships that are not used a lot and why is that and how we can fix that? Even though I don't really think any ship is OP or underpowered at the moment. I just think that people are simply flying certain ships more so they have more experience with it and thus they perform better with it. For example I can't fly galleon or junker well, not because they are not on par with mobula or whatever, it's simply that I don't fly them often in pugs, so I can't really get the hang of it. I don't trust most of the players I get in pugs to shoot long range guns and engineer on galleon/junker, because it's not as easy as on pyramidion or goldfish, so that's why I rarely fly them and don't have much experience with them.

We have seen some successful galleons, junkers and even spire in competitive, which means it is totally doable, but you just need to put an effort into it. You can't expect to master all ships in same amount of time playing. Most pilots will learn how to fly goldfish properly way faster than galleon for example. Same for the crew. They will learn how to crew fish faster than galleon. So, if you don't see as many successful junkers in competitive as mobulas, that doesn't mean mobula is op. (Sorry Daniel :P)

If you engage in the open and start chasing squid while turning your broadside to hades/arty mobula then ofc its op, because you did a fatal mistake.
Same as if you let squid get behind you or in your blind spot. That doesn't mean any of these ships are op. You just have to think what is the strenght and weakness of each ship and how will you exploit that.

Does anyone think Quad hwacha galleons are op? Yes, I know hwacha is pretty effective now, but if any experienced player thinks quad hwacha galleon is op, then they are nuts.
That didn't stop us in last SCS to get absolutely wrecked by that 4-hwacha galleon. But not because it's op, it was because enemy was smart and chose the right tactics. Squid was baiting and retreating to his ally galleon because they knew we don't have much choice with two short range ships.

Honestly I think that junkers and galleons are very strong ships, but they might be the hardest to master. I think all ships that have good or decent mobility like goldfish, squid, mobula and old pyra are fairly easy to pilot and crew on. Ships with good mobility can position, ambush, retreat, dodge, support, follow, get in combat way easier, while galleon for example needs to be more carefull about positioning, because there is a good chance once he's in combat he won't be going anywhere. You either kill them or they kill you. By "not going anywhere" I mean he can't really retreat if he gets in trouble. Same goes for junker.
Goldfish or squid can often just run away. Don't like engagement? Back off and try again, which ultimately allows for some small mistakes.

So, to sum it up, I believe all ships can perform very well if crew is experienced with it, but not all ships are ideal for eaxh map or against each opponent/builds.
A ship can seem extremly powerful if you let it do what it does the best.

Only balancing thing I agree on would be to increase armor on Spire.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Lieutenant Noir on September 24, 2015, 06:59:50 am
Increasing angular drag on the mobula alone as a way to reduce its maximum turn speed. Its neater than changing the engine stats which would change acceleration and linear movement as well.

I'm not aware of a way to see the drag stats for ships, i may be wrong about the way things work and turn speed etc are arbitrary but i think the speed, acceleration etc stats that are visible are derived from engine thrust, engine position, drag and mass.

Okay, I've been looking through the wiki and previous old forum posts from the old forum for stats on Ship specific Drag stats.
I've also been looking at the very first update patches.
Are you making this up?
or are you suggesting adding increased drag specifically for one ship? Cause I would honestly think it would be simpler to change it's Max turn speed if you were going to nerf it.

Next Topic

I don't think mobula should be turn nerfed. If ya wanna nerf it give it junker speed. Complicated changes wont be implemented.

-I did kinda think about decreasing it's top speed originally to make it more like a turret, but I think the Spire should have that kind of turret role.
-I really liked Byron's post about switching the stats of the Spire and Junker because the way the Spire is designed with so much exposed armor and open platforms for increased situational awareness makes it a pretty good turret. It also has the firepower to make up for its weaknesses in exposed components. You would decrease the ability of chasing that Brawl Spires have but make the ship more able to tank as well as encourage more gun shooting/less repairing.
-The Mobula has a big balloon at the bottom that hides components. The Balloon at the bottom also works against the upward arcs of the Carronades as well as projectile drop of Lumberjacks. I don't think a turret should have these kinds of advantages.
-Not to mention, the Mobula features many claustrophobic compartments which decrease situational awareness when firing guns.
-I believe a turret should be vulnerable on all angles while having high armor, firepower, reactivity, and situational awareness to make up for it's lack of top Speed and vulnerability.

-Also a decrease in top speed would decrease its advantages in controlling distances. I think this advantage is what gives the Mobula its greatest strengths in Multi-range engagements because you can better control the types of guns (be it long or short range) you want fired as well as keep them firing because they'll still be in arcs.
-While you could argue a decrease in turn speed would do this even more, only certain ships have capabilities in circling the Mobula (Junker, Squid, Goldfish). The rest mostly rely on more firepower, ambushing and killing the Mobula before it can get arcs with its high turn speed, or hoping that the Mobula is in a position to get surrounded/Flanked.

-I think the forward facing guns, the forward mobility, and tunnel vision design of the ship should play towards the ship's strengths in controlling distances. I think the key to flying a ship like the Mobula should be to always have multiple enemies in front of the ship to avoid being flanked due to slow turn speed. When I used to fly a MinePyra (before the Nerf) and I was being double teamed, I would always fly to have close range capabilities with mines and long range capabilities with an Artemis on both enemies to avoid getting surrounded. I didn't turn once, I just relied on always being in a position to have the guns in arcs by backing up.

-I think the current Mobula is too forgiving in positions where it is being Flanked or surrounded and I think Pilots should be more punished for carelessly being in those scenarios considering you have guns at the Front where you can directly control distance.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Daft Loon on September 24, 2015, 08:04:20 am
Increasing angular drag on the mobula alone as a way to reduce its maximum turn speed. Its neater than changing the engine stats which would change acceleration and linear movement as well.

I'm not aware of a way to see the drag stats for ships, i may be wrong about the way things work and turn speed etc are arbitrary but i think the speed, acceleration etc stats that are visible are derived from engine thrust, engine position, drag and mass.

Okay, I've been looking through the wiki and previous old forum posts from the old forum for stats on Ship specific Drag stats.
I've also been looking at the very first update patches.
Are you making this up?
or are you suggesting adding increased drag specifically for one ship? Cause I would honestly think it would be simpler to change it's Max turn speed if you were going to nerf it.

I'm assuming on the basis of the helm tools that claim to change drag that it exists as a stat in its own right. It makes sense in a way since having maximum turning speed etc set directly still leaves a need for a stat to determine how the ship acts when drifting, hit by a harpoon etc whereas a ship with mass and drag can react to force from engines, minotaurs, rams etc according to the same rules for all of them.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Lieutenant Noir on September 24, 2015, 09:02:38 am
Be it the reign of Double Merc Sniper play to Quick Gat/Mortar kills to Heavy Carros to Multi-range Disable
The nature of this game relies on checks and Balances that work towards the uniqueness of what each ship can bring in a fight
I think this game suffers very big nerfs that don't take into account the severity of changes they entail. Big nerfs like those were good when the Game at the start was very imbalanced but now the game is becoming more balanced due to previous changes.
-Once a build/style/ship gets nerfed, players retreat to the playstyle that is the lesser nerfed and seems to be the next imbalanced factor (something that requires less risk but high reward).
-I don't think Nerfs are in their right, necessarily bad. I just think that we have had balances that went a little too far than it should have.
-If all we do is Buff, then everything becomes overpowered and that makes a fairly boring game. (Unless it is a game that sacrifices Balance for Variety like Hearthstone or Duck game)
-The more balancing patches the game takes, the more the game should become balanced and so people will retreat to the aspects that seem less balanced. The process goes over and over again as more patches continue, making the game more and more balanced along the way.





-When I suggested the change to the Mobula I looked into its ship design, its current stats, its strengths and weaknesses, as well as role it serves in combat. I also look into how each of those play towards Firepower, Mobility, and Tank-ability. I watch a lot of competitive play of the Mobula as well as use it a lot. I notice a lot of mistakes that both me and other pilots make that I think should be punished rather than forgiven considering those four factors.
-I don't just make these suggestions because I think the presence of a certain aspect makes the game imbalanced. If that's all I said then I would be suggesting everything about the ship be nerfed (Kinda like what has happened to the Pyra.... poor pyra).
-I don't want the Mobula to become another Pyra but I do think it shouldn't have that much Turn speed considering those four factors.

-I also took this approach to the Junker. My main problems were more about its ship design and how it plays into its stats and play-style. I think having that much exposure to components and balloon makes it a very bad slow/tanky/Jack-of-all-Trades.

Honestly I think that junkers and galleons are very strong ships, but they might be the hardest to master.

-My suggestions were never about how the Junker was underused. My suggestions were about problems I had with it concerning its ship design and stats that configure it towards a certain style of play that I think doesn't coordinate very well. My suggestions were to make a style of play more centered around its ship design by changing its stats.
-Look below

I think people have experimented for a long time and we have seen Junkers in competitive games none the less. My problem isn’t regarding putting Junkers in competitive (although it might lead to that), my issue is in how the ship design of the Junker doesn’t make it very versatile or effective in many different situations in it’s current state.

I do agree that the nature of disables are what make the Junker as ineffective as it is. I will say though... a combination of slow speed and exposed components make disables much easier to hit and make the ship much more vulnerable to future disables.
This is bad for the Junker because the damage modifier from disable weapons will dig even faster into the hull once a component breaks, making that "Second highest armor in the game" useless.
I’m getting a little sick of having to repeat myself so please just read my previously mentioned problems with the current Junker.

-I really like comparing the Junker to the Squid because I think the way the Squid ship is designed is very similar to the Junker. They both have very close components to make it easier to engineer on, very exposed components, and a big balloon at the top.
-I think we see the success of the Squid because it has the maneuverability to nullify it's weaknesses in balloon, hull, engines, and gun exposure as well as counter many builds. I wanted to make the Junker more like the Squid in that it wouldn’t be as fast but have more firepower. I also wanted to decrease it's armor to encourage the play-style of outmaneuvering enemy ships much like the squid.

And

Also I want to say that I don't like how the Junker is configured towards Long range play. Mainly because it has very exposed components and a big balloon which means a ship like that staying still is a ridiculously easy target. I mentioned some of the problems in disabling in a previous post.

-I do agree that the game is very inconsistent and just because something is considered counter-able by another build, doesn't necessarily mean the result will be as you expect. There are a lot of factors to take into account and not every thing will be ideal.
-A ship that is considered countered will be more likely to be countered. I think the Junker is considered counter-able by many builds for very obvious reasons concerning how it is shaped and how it plays into its style of play.
-You can bring the Junker all you want and play it without regard to the map or enemy ship and you will still win matches regardless.
-Play the Junker enough and you will realize its strengths and weaknesses
-We have all played the Junker for a very very long time and we all seem to know its many weaknesses and strengths
-It can still surprise us... but I really don't think that it should only be surprising us
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Daft Loon on September 25, 2015, 06:48:51 pm
After playing what was possibly the most one sided massacre i have ever participated in flying a well buffed junker I'm developing a suspicion that fast junker would be one of the most OP things ever to be included into the game. More experienced opponents might have been able to keep up but this was only the result of the buffkit, I dread to think of stat buff + buffkit.

As an aside how do people prefer to run buffs on their junker? I'm thinking of running buff engineer 'gunner' for the hull and main engine and pilot buff for the balloon.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: BlackenedPies on September 25, 2015, 08:02:09 pm
The meta buff setup is wrench buff chem up top, spanner mallet chem front, spanner mallet buff bottom. So the gunner is on bottom with spanner mallet buff and they buff the engine, guns, and hull. Main engi is on front and in charge of hull and bottom chems, it's quick to run down and chem everything. The wrench buff is up top and the advent of stamina means it's more viable for the main engi to come up and mallet balloon when not directly in combat. The pilot is in charge of balloon repairs with their wrench.

In some tanking situations the gunner comes up top to work together to repair and buff balloon. Wrench buff never goes to hull and main engi can't leave an unprotected hull. An experienced pilot can help repair engines, guns, and even shoot.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Sammy B. T. on September 25, 2015, 08:51:12 pm
Pilot buff is definitely tempting but fails for two reasons.

1. The pilot should be doing too much to be able to buff.

2. Pipe for the balloon is essential for both repairs and rebuilds. Top deck is just way to much work for just one engineer be they standard or buff.

Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Byron Cavendish on September 26, 2015, 03:57:15 am
I've always done spanner as a  pilot for galleon and junker. I'm not saying it's better, but I prefer to get that balloon repaired as fast as possible while the mallet is on it's way to it. Sammy just out of curiosity (since we both competed in junkers extensively) what do you prefer in the wrench?

After playing what was possibly the most one sided massacre i have ever participated in flying a well buffed junker I'm developing a suspicion that fast junker would be one of the most OP things ever to be included into the game. More experienced opponents might have been able to keep up but this was only the result of the buffkit, I dread to think of stat buff + buffkit.

As an aside how do people prefer to run buffs on their junker? I'm thinking of running buff engineer 'gunner' for the hull and main engine and pilot buff for the balloon.

I've always ran buff/ext/wrench on top deck if I'm left side sniping, main engineer front artemis, with a right side brawl switch of the buffgineer to the mortar and the main engineer running the top deck.

Back in the dizzay I would be a main engineer setup myself to maximize sniping, but it is much harder to pull off engineer pilot these days.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: BlackenedPies on September 26, 2015, 11:45:22 am
Spanner doesn't rebuild that much faster and it's the pilot's job to repair balloon. When the engis are shooting you work on the balloon.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Lieutenant Noir on September 28, 2015, 08:25:18 am
Ugh being sick is horrible, can't get anything done

After playing what was possibly the most one sided massacre i have ever participated in flying a well buffed junker I'm developing a suspicion that fast junker would be one of the most OP things ever to be included into the game. More experienced opponents might have been able to keep up but this was only the result of the buffkit, I dread to think of stat buff + buffkit.

Do keep in mind that I wanted to make the Fast Junker have sh*t armor.
Basically if a pilot didn't outmaneuver enough, it would be eaten alive by a single Gat-Banshee/ Hwatcha/ Artemis/ Lumberjack/ etc
p:

As an aside how do people prefer to run buffs on their junker? I'm thinking of running buff engineer 'gunner' for the hull and main engine and pilot buff for the balloon.

Back when I used to play seriously and have a Mic,
-I used to run double buffs on Bottom and Top Deck w/ Main kit on hull
-As a Pilot I would bring a wrench because I tended to accidentally miss time a rebuild for a repair with a spanner on Junker balloon more often
-Also I kinda liked to be able to repair because I wanted engis on guns being buffed/shooting constantly (that was hard to do with a damaged balloon while enemies were dropping only just below arcs).
-I also tended to find that it wasn't that far of a distance for the Bottom Deck Engi to reach the hull (Would just top up buff on hull -> run down and Top up buff on gun).

-I've seen some guys replace the Main kit on Hull for Main kit Buff but I just like the consistency and safety of a good old Main Kit
-Didn't even want a 24/7 Buffed Trifecta anyway 3_3
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Daft Loon on September 28, 2015, 03:32:44 pm
After playing what was possibly the most one sided massacre i have ever participated in flying a well buffed junker I'm developing a suspicion that fast junker would be one of the most OP things ever to be included into the game. More experienced opponents might have been able to keep up but this was only the result of the buffkit, I dread to think of stat buff + buffkit.

Do keep in mind that I wanted to make the Fast Junker have sh*t armor.
Basically if a pilot didn't outmaneuver enough, it would be eaten alive by a single Gat-Banshee/ Hwatcha/ Artemis/ Lumberjack/ etc
p:

Problem is if it can move fast enough to avoid arcs it can bring a gat-mortar side into arc far too easily and unlike the squid has no need to maneuver between the two gun arcs and can bring another 3 guns worth of options.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Lieutenant Noir on September 29, 2015, 03:19:04 am
After playing what was possibly the most one sided massacre i have ever participated in flying a well buffed junker I'm developing a suspicion that fast junker would be one of the most OP things ever to be included into the game. More experienced opponents might have been able to keep up but this was only the result of the buffkit, I dread to think of stat buff + buffkit.

Do keep in mind that I wanted to make the Fast Junker have sh*t armor.
Basically if a pilot didn't outmaneuver enough, it would be eaten alive by a single Gat-Banshee/ Hwatcha/ Artemis/ Lumberjack/ etc
p:

Problem is if it can move fast enough to avoid arcs it can bring a gat-mortar side into arc far too easily and unlike the squid has no need to maneuver between the two gun arcs and can bring another 3 guns worth of options.

How maneuverability are we talking here?  :-\
-The reason the Squid can outmaneuver/Avoid Arcs so easily is because of the combination of high Turning/Forward/Vertical (Not that much) acceleration
Another aspect is that the Squid has high Top speed and so will be more able to get in close range engagements
-The Squid is like an Acceleration God. With the Junker you would still to an extent be more reliant on firepower rather than maneuverability but it would have that High Top speed to be in situations where you would be able to Brawl quicker.
-If you were to compare maneuverability, it would be similar to a Goldfish and how the Goldfish deals with this is that it depends on the firepower of its heavy gun.
-It would be a goldfish that sacrifices vertical acceleration for more turning and forward acceleration (For more capabilities in circling)
Only this time it has even less survivability with same armor but less health in exchange for the firepower of a Trifecta


I should really elaborate on what I mean by Sh*t armor
-A full greased Banshee clip can pull off 540 damage to Hull health and so you would be able to kill a Junker in one armor break relatively easily considering how hard it is to escape from a Banshee (If you decrease it's armor to around 400 it would break that armor like butter through a Hot knife).
-If we look at a scenario where two enemies are doing nothing but sticking together and covering each other, a Junker would be Skittled because focus fire from basically only one ship would significantly increase its Skittleability.
It would need to be more reliant on its ally considering its low survivability.

-Also in this scenario, you wouldn't be dependent on that High Armor to tank while you're always in Gat/Mortar Arc. Considering the firepower of Gat/Mortar, you don't kill the enemy fast enough to compensate for the risk of breaking such low Armor.... I think...
-You would have to depend on firepower that reduces the damage potential of the enemy ship \o_ Disable _o/
-As a bonus, the Disabling capabilities would also assist in out-maneuverability because it would decrease the Maneuverability of the enemy ship (I need a Thesaurus).
-I'm not saying you wouldn't bring Gat/Mort  :-\, but you would only bring it when you have a really good ally or a really good Pub stomp
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Daft Loon on September 29, 2015, 04:59:40 am
Comparing - junker:squid
Top speed - 26 : 47
Forward Acc. - 4.3 : 6.6  - Same band as spire and mobula
Top Turn - 16 : 19       - Junker is second only to squid as is
Turn Acc. - 15 : 20     - Also second only to squid
Vert. Acc. - 3 : 4     - Behind fish and spire also

In the horizontal plane the junker is already the second most maneuverable ship and the squid is first simply because it needs it to survive. Its vertical acceleration is tolerable but it really suffers the top speed.
The main problem i can see with it is that the mobula and spire can both match it in ranged firepower and back away from any attempt to close range:
Backwards spire/mob speed - 14m/s (19.6m/s if I'm right about thrust etc mechanics)
Junker closing speed - 12m/s but only if you go directly forwards, even if your guns have a range disadvantage of only 120m 10s of 1 gun vs 3 will kill you.
Trying to bring a side banshee into arc as a second gun - 30 deg sideways means 87% effective speed - 9.6m/s (maybe 3m/s)
To get a gatling - 77% - 8m/s (maybe 0.4m/s).

I certainly agree the junker could use a buff to top speed but i don't think the same/buffed turning/acc/vertical acc along with 400/500 armor/hull is the way to go. IMO the spire already takes glass cannon too far with 400/950 and i don't want to see the junker join or exceed it. I'd rather see it gain top speed with a trade off of turning to keep its close maneuverability about the same.

Silly thought experiment:
400/500 junker vs poon squid
Charged poon deals 178 armor damage - 222 left
222 armor deals 500 balloon damage when rammed - 700 squid balloon left
400 hull deals 480 balloon damage when rammed - 220 squid balloon left and junker is dead


Edit:
Did a quick test with a rangefinder in sandbox, with a spire going full throttle backwards a target took 20s to recede from 600m to 1000m. 400m/20s = 20m/s so 50% thrust backwards means 70% speed or so. As from above this is really bad for the junker.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Lieutenant Noir on September 29, 2015, 07:41:46 am
Damn, wish I could change the title to add Spire as well
This makes me advocate Byron's Idea of switching the Stats of the Spire and the Junker even more.

-The Junker would take the role of being a Glass Cannon with armor, while also having a decrease in turning acceleration for increased Vertical and Top speed.
-This way, having the Hull Engineer off the guns wouldn't hurt it's overall firepower as much considering the bulk of the Junkers firepower comes from it's broad sides.
-I would condone having higher Top speed considering you still would have the problem of big hit-boxes on the Balloon as well as gun exposure. Also, the fact that it would have decreased forward mobility while having to turn to get its side guns in arc like you mentioned before.

-The Spire would essentially become a Turret with high Turning acceleration and armor for low Top speed and vertical mobility.
-I would say the decreased Top speed wouldn't hurt the Spire as much considering it has a light and Heavy gun pointing forward.
-The Increased Armor would also make the Hull engineer focus more on shooting than repairs which means that a few more Light guns would be shooting more frequently than usual.
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: Byron Cavendish on October 02, 2015, 08:05:18 am
^
Title: Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker
Post by: BlackenedPies on October 02, 2015, 08:39:44 am
Switching stats would make junker useless and spire invincible. Spire could out dps everything and junker would constantly be forced to balloon block- unless balloon is damaged and then they just die. 2.4 seconds of buffed greased gat to break a junker. Metamidions would kill a junker like nothing.