Guns Of Icarus Online

Info => Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: Atruejedi on March 12, 2016, 05:57:59 pm

Title: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Atruejedi on March 12, 2016, 05:57:59 pm
After watching the Mobula slugfests of today's Cronus League and reading the lore descriptions of each ship, waxing nostalgic to myself for days long passed, I felt I should put some thought into how each ship should, ideally, function. I am not interested in specific hull or armor numbers, nor specific top speeds, etc. That isn't my strong suit. I couldn't care less if a Pyramidion's armor has 650 or 700 HP, for example; I just care HOW the ship performs, especially compared to other ships. I made this table to compare ships to other ships and how I, personally, think they should perform.

(http://i63.tinypic.com/2141b9d.png)

http://i63.tinypic.com/2141b9d.png (http://i63.tinypic.com/2141b9d.png)

Sorry if the image isn't showing up or is showing up multiple times... it was too small, so I attached it, and then I hyperlinked it as well :-\

Each value is between 1 and 5, 1 being the weakest, 5 being the strongest. Comparing the Squid and the Galleon is probably the best way to explain this. The Squid has an acceleration of 5, while the Galleon has an acceleration of 1. The Squid can begin moving very easily, whereas the Galleon struggles. Now compare their firepower numbers. The Galleon has four heavy and two light guns, and the Squid has three light guns, with the ability to have sets of two firing at once. I realize these numbers are subjective, but I hope you understand what I'm going for here. I think if you compare the numbers you can start to see defining roles for each ship, even if those definitions are only slightly different. I would compare the Junker, Goldfish, and Pyramidion. I would compare the Spire and Mobula. The Galleon and the Squid are kind of on the peripheries of roles. I'm interested in hearing the community's thoughts on this. Thanks for checking this out!
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Atruejedi on March 12, 2016, 06:30:28 pm
Oh, I forgot, and it's too late to edit: I was inspired by this post from Nietzsche's Mustache:

https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,7406.msg124962.html#msg124962
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Solidusbucket on March 12, 2016, 06:32:16 pm
I think this is already the case except for the spire and pyramidion.

thats my opinion though.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: BobDoleReigns on March 12, 2016, 06:35:57 pm
Well, you want things balanced/solved... knock a few degrees/sec off the mob to make it require more forethought piloting, enough to where it's still able to be flown but can't just be a giant turret. The fish also seems abnormally common probably due to its overall decent stats (and horrible boringness to crew) making it good for either 1v1 fights or able to hold its own in larger conflicts... (I know this will be less popular than a legit nerf) perhaps the solution lies in adjusting the angle of the side guns more towards the back by 10-15 degrees making it require much more intense weaving than currently. Alternatively, just make it a 3 person ship since everyone knows being top engy on a fish is the worst job in goi by far; ceteris paribus, its behaves the same on the open map, however, due to the lack of completely neglected and bored senseless upper engy its sustained brawling ability will be reduced thereby both allowing it to maintain its flexibility and carve out a defined role for itself.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: SapphireSage on March 12, 2016, 06:37:47 pm
I think this is already the case except for the spire and pyramidion.

thats my opinion though.

And mobula, notice that he has mobula vertical listed as a 2, matching the capability of the galleon making it a low maneuverability weapons platform.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Giersdorf on March 12, 2016, 06:42:04 pm
I'm digging the fact that this is your personal opinion on the ships provided to us to fly, given your experience I feel like these are fairly accurate and described quite well. I feel like (public) matches are made up of people foregoing combat roles and they just fly what they feel like and that's okay of course. That being said it would be awesome to have some unit cooperation and strategizing more often in said matches.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Solidusbucket on March 12, 2016, 06:48:48 pm
I think this is already the case except for the spire and pyramidion.

thats my opinion though.

And mobula, notice that he has mobula vertical listed as a 2, matching the capability of the galleon making it a low maneuverability weapons platform.

ahh, yea. I agree with that. I just read the descriptions. I didn't look at the numbers too thoroughly.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Shas'ui on March 12, 2016, 08:26:59 pm
I think the reason that the ships have drifted from their specializations is due to two factors: perceived usefulness, and team-play.

    The first issue, perceived usefulness, is due to the skill required to use some tactics rather then others: while most pilots can easily grasp and execute a pyra's headlong charge, the careful maneuvers required by a squid are more difficult to learn, and thus the ship seems weaker, as a larger portion of users have difficulty. This is also seen in several weapons, with the lumberjack and minotaur being prime examples of this perceived weakness: while they are just as deadly as a hwatcha in the right hands, they lack the simplicity of the "OP Liongun".

    The second issue of that of team-play. Some ships' specializations are best used with allies: a squid's harassment will be most useful when distracting/weakening the enemy as a more powerful, yet vulnerable ship (such as a spire) uses it to close and engage: the key idea of specializations is to be better in one area at the expense of another, and in proper team play, that weaker area will be filled by a teammate strong in it. However, this doesn't hold up so well when dropped in a lobby with an unhelpful "Ally". This is also seen in the gun examples: while the minotaur is quite powerful in disrupting the enemy, it cannot get a kill by itself, and as such, is seen to be weaker then guns which do not require coordination; the flak also has/had this issue.

    Combined, these issues make some ships seem much weaker then they actually are, thus leading to buffs/nerfs that lessen the weaknesses that defined their specialization.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Richard LeMoon on March 13, 2016, 12:05:11 pm
It seems to me that the berfs are all based purely on numbers. They want all ships to be equally played with equal win/loss ratios.

Personally, I think the Spire should be the tank/turret of the game. Slow moving, average turning, high lift, armored as hell. It is supposed to be a fast response city defense platform with the ability to get into the sky quickly and hold the fort until other ships arrive. I would personally add a few of the Mobula turbofans to the model to support the vertical mobility.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: PixelatedVolume on March 13, 2016, 04:28:50 pm
I'm fine with the mobula's niche being vertical mobility, though it should suffer in turning.  If I was making the game I'd give the mob two closely-placed heavy engines and two vertical engines which can be destroyed in place of the asthetic ones it has now. 

I think what needs to happen is that every ship needs to have its role and then stick to it.  It needs to take the role to its extreme.  There should be little overlap of roles.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Hoja Lateralus on March 13, 2016, 08:44:33 pm
It seems to me that the berfs are all based purely on numbers. They want all ships to be equally played with equal win/loss ratios.

It's very naive, if not stupid, to set such a goal, especially given weird vet:novice proportions in our SMALL community. I mean, can we even say that devs have significant enough and good enough data to back up some of their decisions? I didn't like the pyra nerf, but I was convinced when I saw that 80-90ish percent of ships in Hephaestus Challenge, a competetive tournament, were pyramidions. I don't know if pub numbers, especially without context of level differencies and difference between solo-queue and crew-queue is good enough data. 
Many times when vets play against lower levels they try to limit themselves with non-meta or straight up silly loadout, for instance munker. Does it make munker any more valid if vets happen to win? No!
Also, usage varies on ship difficulty and personal preference. For instance squid is a a very difficult ship to crew, and even though I am fully capable of crewing it, I don't really like it and avoid it if I have a choice. Does it make squid a worse ship? No! I would argue that it should have been better to compensate for difficulty of use.
(Edit: also counter-picking should be considered)
So easier to fly and crew ships should be more common, and the harder ones should be more uncommon but with more possibilities and potential rewards.
Related ExtraCredits video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitZRLt2G3w), there should be "foo ships" which are easy to fly and reasonably competetive (pyra,fish,junker?) and ships that are harder to effectively fly and crew but potentially much more threatening (mobula,spire,squid?).
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Daft Loon on March 13, 2016, 09:41:33 pm
I suspect that the existence (if not the execution) of the mobula nerf may have been based on feedback rather than stats, I would be surprised if the mobula was statistically above average in public matches.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Atruejedi on March 14, 2016, 02:20:19 am
I'm fine with the mobula's niche being vertical mobility, though it should suffer in turning.

I believe the opposite, for both aesthetic and practical reasons. The Mobula is already hard enough to hit, especially with parabolic weapons, at the same elevation because of its thin horizontal profile. Any vertical movement really screws with targeting the damn thing (for normal players, not the pro-Hades-tournament players). It doesn't even require tools to move up and down rapidly (I exclusively use stamina, anything else is overkill). The Mobula's niche should be FIVE-freaking weapons slots, THREE of which can ALWAYS be in play. Firepower should be its niche! Its gun angles were FINE, and should NOT be changed... that wasn't the problem! I don't even really enjoy flying Mobulas; they're one of my least-used ships. My opinion of the Mobula, what it is, and what it should be, comes as an "outsider" to the competitive scene and someone who flies with pubnubscrubs very regularly. Sigh. Sigh sigh sigh. Groan.

Quote
I think what needs to happen is that every ship needs to have its role and then stick to it.  It needs to take the role to its extreme.  There should be little overlap of roles.

I'm glad we agree! Do you have any feedback on the comparison numbers I posted above?

So easier to fly and crew ships should be more common, and the harder ones should be more uncommon but with more possibilities and potential rewards.

Um, yes. That's how it once was. But everything's been so dumbed down now. The Squid is about to get even-dumber-downed. with the gun angle change... sigh.

Quote
Related ExtraCredits video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitZRLt2G3w), there should be "foo ships" which are easy to fly and reasonably competetive (pyra,fish,junker?) and ships that are harder to effectively fly and crew but potentially much more threatening (mobula,spire,squid?).

Completely agree. Agree so hard. So hard.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Solidusbucket on March 14, 2016, 06:32:43 am
After really watching the maneuverability of the mobula i take back my statement.
It turns a tid too fast right now because of stamina use. However i feel reducing its vertical mobility takes away all ability to brawl.

It would be defensless. The mobula would be broken. This comes after watching several matches and noticing that each ship has some sort of brawl capability.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Richard LeMoon on March 14, 2016, 07:46:52 am
Stamina broke everything, especially turning due to the faster turn speed AND the extra gunner arcs, so they are nerfing the gun platform ships to compensate.

I think the best 'return to roots' would be a complete revamping or removal of 'stamina' (it is only stamina on engineers). We all know they are having a terribly hard time balancing the base ships. Adding stamina just broke everything they were trying to do with ship, gun, and class balance.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Kamoba on March 14, 2016, 08:48:09 am
Stamina broke everything, especially turning due to the faster turn speed AND the extra gunner arcs, so they are nerfing the gun platform ships to compensate.

I think the best 'return to roots' would be a complete revamping or removal of 'stamina' (it is only stamina on engineers). We all know they are having a terribly hard time balancing the base ships. Adding stamina just broke everything they were trying to do with ship, gun, and class balance.

Yes but... This would mean Muse would need to admit Stamina was wrong/a bad move in its state..

Stamina as a concept is fun and people in game mostly seem to like Stamina (though usually the ones why like it are the ones who don't know what it's doing... Aka newbie uses stamina while shooting claiming it buffs his gun..)

So the Stamina bad and press shift to initialize can stay... What Stamina does and how it affects those using it, that is what needs to be looked at..
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Omniraptor on March 14, 2016, 06:54:05 pm
If the problem is people using stamina to turn, why not give it more angular drag? It's already +15% simply increase that number.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: BlackenedPies on March 14, 2016, 07:18:15 pm
I don't see a problem with engi or pilot stamina. For pilot you only have 4 seconds and it takes 12.3 seconds to regenerate 1 second. It does widen the gap between skilled and less experienced players, but so would any kind of temporary bonus system
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: The Djinn on March 15, 2016, 11:21:59 am
I'd definitely agree that we need to further define the roles for ships -- specifically the Junker / Mobula / Spire / Galleon, all of which have some variation of "put multiple guns on a target."

Squid is easy: I don't think anyone argues it should be anything OTHER than a vulnerable but extremely mobile skirmishing ship.

The Pyramidion I'd like to see as a bulldog -- super fast to accelerate forward, slower to accelerate backwards, with low turning speed but a high maximum speed. Give it strong armor and a durable hull, and call it a day.

The Goldfish is probably in a good spot as being solid at all forms of movement but exceptional at none, and it's unique swimming pattern for bringing the side guns to bear is very good.

Here's where it gets tricky.

Personally, I'd like to see the Galleon accelerate slowly, but have a decent maximum speed and a moderately decent turning rate instead of the ponderous turning it has now. Make it into a ship that gets into position and dominates the battlefield, but can't reposition itself quickly if something goes wrong.

Contrast this with the Mobula, which I'd make very responsive to acceleration, but I'd give it a very poor turning rate as a penalty for high vertical movement, decent movement, and heavy forward firepower. Perhaps high turn acceleration paired with a low maximum speed, so you can slightly adjust angles quickly, but can't pivot the entire ship around. Maybe adjust it so the pilot can get to the top gun easier to really help sell the fantasy of a gun platform.

Then we have the Spire, which I'd like to see able to turn on a dime, but it should suffer from slow movement AND slow acceleration in all directions. Even more so than the Galleon I see the Spire as an air turret: a rotating gun emplacement that rises into the air and rains down death in an area around itself. I think this is backed up by the ease with which you can get 4 guns on a target -- if anything, I might pivot the lower engineer gun a bit to make 3+ guns on target easier to achieve, as a balancing point for the low mobility and huge vertical profile. The Spire would probably have high armor, but low hull health: it can tank for a while, but once it's hull is breached I think it's okay if it folds, especially as this makes it vulnerable to close-range ramming (which I think benefits a relatively stationary gun platform).

The Junker I'd not sure what to do with -- probably making it more of a middle ground between everything ala the Goldfish is appropriate, only with a higher armor and lower hull (in contrast with the Goldfish's lower armor and higher hull), and with more emphasis on vertical movement and acceleration than speed and turning.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: PixelatedVolume on March 15, 2016, 12:47:25 pm
For Galleon I don't mind giving it fairly high top speed as long as it accelerates poorly.

The Junker I think of as a Galleon-lite:  beefy, not too fast, with strong broadsides.  Just not to the extend of the full Galleon. 

I understand the importance of defining roles for future balance porpoises but IMO the junker is pretty good right now, at least for pubs.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: The Djinn on March 15, 2016, 01:37:49 pm
For Galleon I don't mind giving it fairly high top speed as long as it accelerates poorly.

That would be my goal. Slow to move, slow to stop, but fast once it gets going. Getting rammed by a Galleon moving at full speed should HURT.

Same with turning. Initial speed should be slow, but once it starts turning it should revolve pretty fast. Gets across the idea of a huge, heavy ship with huge, powerful engines.

Quote
I understand the importance of defining roles for future balance porpoises but IMO the junker is pretty good right now, at least for pubs.

I'd be inclined to agree. The small changes I suggested would be my ideal in theory, but it's fine as is.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Atruejedi on March 20, 2016, 05:53:21 am
However i feel reducing its vertical mobility takes away all ability to brawl.

It would be defensless. The mobula would be broken. This comes after watching several matches and noticing that each ship has some sort of brawl capability.

I don't agree, but let me preface my disagreement with this: I only play in pubs and with different crew mates all the time. I don't have a consistent ship, a consistent loadout, a consistent crew, or consistent allies.

Another preface: I am speaking of last week's Mobula, not this week's patch disaster in which the gun arcs have been changed to crap (and I assume that'll be rectified shortly).

So, brawling:

Why does the Mobula kick so much ass? Because it has five guns, two of which are typically long range, two of which are close range, and one of which is capable of any range. Think of the classic merc/hades middle with Artemis on the sides (in either top or bottom slots). I've taken a merc on the top with two Artemis on the far wings with close range guns on my bottom deck. Hitting an enemy with two Artemiseseses and a merc from long range is brutal enough, and after the slow and methodical approach, the Artemis gunners hop down to the lower deck guns (if even necessary) to finish the job. Imagine a gatling or mortar/banshee/flak in those lower slots.

Is that not brawling? I don't care much for the meta, but that sounds brawly enough to me. If you let an enemy get close enough to you to kick your ass WHEN YOU HAVE FIVE WEAPONS and are hard enough to hit already, you shouldn't try to rely on vertical mobility to escape. You don't deserve it :D

Anyway, the good news: the Pyramidion buff has made it very close to the completely subjective numbers present in my graphic table ;D
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Richard LeMoon on March 20, 2016, 11:37:27 am
I agree with Jedi. I personally think the Mobula should have the third fastest (averaging between acceleration and speed) vertical.

Spire- Top speed. Good acceleration.

Squid- Second top speed. Best acceleration.

Mobula- Third top speed. Good acceleration.

Mobula and Spire should start out the same, but Spire can eventually outpace it. Squid should start out faster, but again be outpaced.

And all changes to Mobula gun arcs should be reverted. It should still be thought of as a gun platform, not "That ship that can go up and down really fast."
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Atruejedi on October 28, 2016, 01:52:01 pm
Bring #BalanceToTheForce
Put Atruejedi in Charge of Game Balance for One Week

I'm resurrecting this thread to keep my divinely inspired ideas all in one place.

As usual, months and months after I've proposed rational, healthy changes to Skirmish, Muse seems to finally be (ready to start) acting (way too late)... Swiss-army knife Mobula should return shortly and the cries to #BuffSpire have also seemed to summon changes for that vertical coffin. I have no dog in the Squid tweaks fight because I flying and flying on Squids, but I would like Squids to be (even more) lethal and fragile and extreme and impressive in the right hands. Definitely not at the top of my change list, though.

While I still want the changes to ship roles I proposed in the original post, I think other modifications to the game are necessary to fix overall balance and offer more strategic choice and depth. Most of these changes would literally take minutes to make because they're just number alterations and I'm praying Muse gives them a chance for an entire week as an "open beta" to revitalize Skirmish. Namely:

Easy Changes:

#NerfGreased - Decrease Greased ammo range from 80% of Normal ammo's reach to 70%. "Set it and forget it" Greased ammo is extremely common in this game. Many players shove it in all guns and never bother swapping ammunition types for the rest of the game. This is boring and thoughtless. Players should be punished for not switching to Normal ammunition to gain that extra 30% in range. Greased should only be used when players know they're in range for it... they should have to consciously switch from Normal to Greased once they're confident they're in range. This adds depth and rewards thinking players.

#NerfBurst - Burst ammo already provides a large bonus to the "splash" of weapons with Area of Effect damage; the increased clip size makes this ammo a "why use anything else?" choice  in weapons like the Hwacha and Artemis. Like Greased, this "set it and forget it" mentality is boring, thoughtless, and lacks tactical depth and choice. With a nerf to Burst, Greased ammunition would be more common in the Artemis at close range and Heavy Clip would be more attractive as an initial-engagement Hwacha ammo choice. Let's reward smart players.

#RestoreLoch - Restore Lochnager ammo to its former niche glory. One of the greatest feelings in the game was (was  :-[ ) waiting for the enemy's armor to drop and nuking an enemy with a shot from the (old) Heavy Flak. While changes to the Heavy Flak were wise to make it more accessible and newb-friendly, this feeling of absolute power and awe is gone and that is truly a shame. While I'll address the Old and New Heavy Flak in a moment, think of Loch as that special, skillful ammo for heavy guns or weapons with smaller clips.

#ChangeCharged - What's the point of this ammo? Some people occasionally use it in the Heavy Flak, Lumberjack, Mine Launcher, and Heavy Carronade... and that's still not exactly common. The only "yes, use Charged!" gun in the game is the Mercury, and even the Mercury has viable alternatives with Lesmok and Heatsink. Charged needs a complete overhaul. Muse should have left Loch alone and should instead #ChangeCharged ammo to perform and act somewhat like Lochnager currently does. Think of Charged as the Loch for lighter weapons or those with larger clips. Less special, less skillful, but still fun and unique.

#HowAboutAHowitzer - I mentioned I miss the old Heavy Flak, especially when coupled with the old Lochnager ammo. So let's recreate that fabled weapon and call it something new. I've proposed this to Muse many times and they've admitted it would be easy, yet they won't do it because of vanity. I've asked them to add a "new" gun to the game: the old Heavy Flak. Give it the same exact stats of as the Old Heavy Flak, but, to save artistic resources, simply retexture it with modified textures that are tinted an obviously different color from the "real" Heavy Flak. I'm partial to gold or copper or a nice Statue of Liberty green myself. 8) Call it a Howitzer or something and be done with it. Variety is the spice of life, and this would be so easy to implement.

#AdaptTheMaps - This movement has made great strides, securing us 4 vs. 4 Paritan Rumble DM (even with its thoughtless spawn locations) and the upcoming Firnfeld KOTH 3 vs. 3 and 4 vs. 4 (and hopefully 4 vs. 4 Firnfeld DM as well!), but we need more. Some are no brainers, some are battles with the developers. Either way, I've outlined it all eloquently here, so please check out this thread and consider sending them an email yourself: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/goichaos/discussions (http://steamcommunity.com/groups/goichaos/discussions)

There are other changes I'd like that are somewhat more intensive, however. Like these...

Not-as-Easy Changes:

#SkyballOverhaul - I've already bitched about Skyball countless times and essentially been ignored. This game mode, which is completely superfluous, shouldn't have been added into the game and really shouldn't have been added into the game in its broken, tedious state. In a dev app testing session with Eric/Awkm last week, he finally admitted that "maybe its the [defensive] spawns"... you don't say!? Many in the community have been saying that since the mode was in testing before public release... and have been ignored. Unfortunately, that's typical behavior from the devs at this point... #SkirmishSuffers while Muse cries #AllianceOrBust. And I realize acting like I'm always right is a dick move, but, hey... I generally am. Many pieces of feedback can be found in this thread: How to Fix Skyball (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,7958.0.html)

#AuditTheSpawns - Paritan 4 vs. 4 DM spawns are a mess, I can confirm. Water Hazard 3 vs. 3 DM and 4 vs. 4 VIP spawns are so fucking close to the enemy that it's a game of who can rotate into arc and fire Mercs and Lumbers faster? This needs addressed, but it goes further than these maps. Even Dunes 2 vs. 2 has the same problem. And don't get me started on Crazy King... well, if you insist!

#LuckOfTheSpawn - Crazy King can be fun, but it really depends on which ship spawns where and what spawn is initially active. On King of the Flayed Hills, I've seen Blue team spawn surrounding D at the beginning of the match, capture it, and move to west to E. Well, good game. Red never stood a chance. The same can happen in the north. If A is the initial spawn and Red spawns around it, it's an insta-cap and a short sail to B. Sorry, Blue. Muse needs to rethink how this gamemode treats spawns and deaths. They've admitted they've never bothered putting any thought into tweaking it, so let's make that our job. Right now it's actually pretty interesting to shoot to disable or kill your opponent, but that choice could be even weightier if you didn't know where the bad dudes would spawn next... hm. I'm definitely interested in hearing suggestions on how to tweak Crazy King.

#BalloonLivesMatter - This is an old idea of mine, but I think it's worth considering. It stemmed from the increased gravity strength in a beta patch a long time ago. I'm all about increased gravity if sitting on the ground doesn't damage you after the initial impact. I think this would be much more dynamic. "Yeah, you sank him, but can you kill him?" Considering all that, consider the following: to quote myself, as I am wont to do...

Quote
But the increased force was much too severe, as the community pointed out. I just got done with VIP in the dev app, where gravity is still a bit strong, but I'm glad it's stronger than it is in normal Skirmish mode. I don't know what the sweet spot should be, but gravity should indeed be a threat to a ship. As it is right now, it's typically only a nuisance which puts guns out of position for a while but doesn't guarantee death. And maybe it shouldn't guarantee destruction, but it should definitely threaten destruction. To balance that, however, perhaps the efficiency of carronades needs to be lowered. Carronades, heavy or light, typical pop a balloon in a single clip or, at most, two. That's too fast with the increased force. So...

I envision the dynamic like this: popping an enemy's balloon should take more time so the crew of the targeted ship has time to react and repair it, but once it DOES go down, it's a serious problem for the pilot and the ship. Make it so the targeted ship KNOWS the enemy is targeting the balloon and make those gunners WORK a bit to pop it. Make taking a balloon-popping ship a strategic choice: "My goal is to pop enemy balloons to help my team, not to simply grind an enemy into the ground with my own ship and hump them to death," which is currently how it works... Make popping the balloon a power maneuver to control the battle's positioning and sequence instead of just letting Carrofish rack up hump-kills.

TLDR;
1. Make gravity stronger (but not too strong...)
2a. Make balloons stronger and carronades stronger OR
2b. Make balloons weaker and carronades weaker.
3. Allow balloons more time to be repaired.
4. Letting the balloon die likely makes you die.
5. Profit.

I should point out I consider this the last step in my proposed changes. I'd definitely want to get overall balance worked out first, then give tweaking gravity and balloons a whirl.

What are your thoughts, Master Jedi?

As usually, I love a good argument. I love hearing thoughts in support of and against my ideas. I love discussion. I love passion. I love activity. I love this game. So say something.

Please. ;D
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Solidusbucket on October 29, 2016, 12:58:59 am
Will the grease change affect (effect iono) the arming time of lumberjack? That gun is kinda OP, honestly.

What are you reducing?

I totally agree, btw, with the change it will make for the gatling. I always swap between normal/greased. But, it is detrimental to the power of hades and lumberjack.

Hades and Lumberjack are already overpowerd in the right hands. "High risk high reward" we like to call it. well, you just gave more power to hadush.

also, I know not to start a sentence with "but" I am also educated, dont curect me.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: RearAdmiralZill on October 29, 2016, 09:40:07 am
Hades and Lumberjack OP? Nah.

I haven't gone through this entire thread yet but I did read this updated post so Ill keep my replies to that for now.

#nerfgreased: I mean, I wouldn't really care about that change much. I don't personally throw greased into everything and call it good. Less range = better ammo type for guns with arming, and I'm ok with that. If people worry about that too much, why doesn't greased ammo increase jitter like it should do for what it does. Im surprised no ammo currently does that to control the range in that manner. One or the other though, it doesnt need both these nerfs.

#nerfburst: Same premise as above. More ammo in the gun? Why does it still rotate the same rate?

#restoreloch: No thanks. I like it as is, where I can actually use it in multiple instances and it be useful. Guns is a slower paced game by design. I don't want my hull armor going out and a loch shot ending me in one hit because reasons.

#changecharged: I prefer it over greased in a gatling in some cases. I don't think it needs an overhaul or massive changes. I wont complain if you buff it though. ;)

#howaboutawhat?: No. Old heavy flak is where in belongs. Gone forever. Do I wish the current heavy flak was more useful? Yes. Does it need to change using the mentality of the old heavy flak? No.

#adaptthemaps: I mean sure, thats cool. We need to fix whats here instead of piling on more stuff for them to fix so they can have less time for what really needs work (skyball im looking at you). Ive always liked capture point matches in this game but everyone votes death match (usually). I realize im being vague but, id rather see Muse fixing whats in game, or just giving us new maps entirely, and less (though not entirely neglecting) making the same maps into 3v3/4v4 that frankly we cant even fill consistently right now.

Ill leave the second half alone right now. Stick to the easy stuff. You're not the only one who wants to see a fair bit of change ;)
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Richard LeMoon on October 29, 2016, 11:14:37 am

#howaboutawhat?: No. Old heavy flak is where in belongs. Gone forever. Do I wish the current heavy flak was more useful? Yes. Does it need to change using the mentality of the old heavy flak? No.


OK, this is the first time someone has posted something that made me mad. Like, reach through the screen and slap someone across the face with my keyboard mad.

I have four friends that quit the game when the Typhoon was made noobie-mode, specifically because of this change. They liked the high skill, high reward aspect of it. They were never replaced, which game player count more than confirms. Are THEY where they belong now? Gone forever? I like the old flak, and never bring the new one because it is boring. It is just a spray and pray bullshit gun like almost everything else. Should I leave as well?

Think before you post.

Not only are you wrong about the old Flak, it should also be joined by an even higher skilled gun, the Atlas Howitzer (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,7654.0.html).
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: RearAdmiralZill on October 29, 2016, 11:30:23 am
When I refer to "old heavy flak," Im referring to the two shot wonder that did all the damage you'd ever need on its own, before arming time was even a thing. There was no reason to use anything else because it killed everything so quickly, and it truly never should return. If that makes you mad, im....sorry?

Perhaps before you take my opinions so personally, you should think before you post.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Richard LeMoon on October 29, 2016, 11:52:06 am
Nobody is talking about the original flak, which did not need Loch to be effective. "especially when coupled with the old Lochnager ammo" was the big clue. Both were changed at the same time. Most people, myself included, were not even around for the original magic death flak and miracle close range Lumber or instant death ground four years ago. Almost all those people left. Everyone is talking about the nerf this last year.

So, I am sorry for jumping to conclusion about your jumping to conclusions.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: MightyKeb on October 29, 2016, 08:29:00 pm
@Zill

From someone who's played, flied with and against the current heavy flak in a high level enviroment, I can tell you that it's far better at what it does at the moment. The changes brought it tons more consistency, though I'd prefer the old version to have some additional presence for the sake of existing.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Arturo Sanchez on October 30, 2016, 03:44:41 pm
Bring #BalanceToTheForce
Put Atruejedi in Charge of Game Balance for One Week

Dear god no. As one of the "vets" who's most likely to lose against a novice while having a vet crew. I...no... just no...
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Solidusbucket on October 30, 2016, 07:49:09 pm
double left side merc top artemis mob bro. get with the meta.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Richard LeMoon on October 30, 2016, 08:13:10 pm
I lose against novices all the time with vet crews. Mostly because we are just screwing around and taking oddball builds simply out of boredom, while encouraging the novices to take meta. Jedi does the same thing. Chaos is the manifestation of that desire to do something, anything different.

I also used to run a double Merc Art Mobula on occasion, and likely will again once the changes are in. In fact, many vets continuous told me they don't even cross arcs until they tried it themselves before the arc nerf. It never did well, but it was fun trying to make it work.

Those caught up in the meta have a hard time thinking out of the box. While I am not sure Jedi would be the best choice for a 'balance week', he would do far better than most people grinding the meta.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Solidusbucket on October 31, 2016, 12:42:07 am
Real pros put triple artemis with merc on top. captain shoots merc. What I liked to do before the arc fuck up was put an artemis on top and have gunner use a merc or hades on the side with double artemis down low so I could shoot an artemis.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Arturo Sanchez on October 31, 2016, 11:47:56 am
I lose against novices all the time with vet crews. Mostly because we are just screwing around and taking oddball builds simply out of boredom, while encouraging the novices to take meta. Jedi does the same thing. Chaos is the manifestation of that desire to do something, anything different.

I also used to run a double Merc Art Mobula on occasion, and likely will again once the changes are in. In fact, many vets continuous told me they don't even cross arcs until they tried it themselves before the arc nerf. It never did well, but it was fun trying to make it work.

Those caught up in the meta have a hard time thinking out of the box. While I am not sure Jedi would be the best choice for a 'balance week', he would do far better than most people grinding the meta.

and yet this is all about basics and roots where the meta lies in the middle of it all.

A bit inappropriate to be led by an oddball who intentionally deviates from the meta to such a point that he'd grow entirely out of touch of it.

You got your wires crossed backwards moon. Even the most meta-pleb is closer to the roots than jedi, who's entire contrary philosophy is the antithesis of going back to basics.

I'd even say Binary would be better, despite his blatant cowardice for a fair fight. (though saying that makes the bile in me rise)
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Richard LeMoon on October 31, 2016, 05:01:09 pm
Oh, its you. I would have been ignoring you completely if I knew you changed your name yet again.  As always, everything you say is wrong. I won't bother explaining why this time.

Real pros put triple artemis with merc on top. captain shoots merc. What I liked to do before the arc fuck up was put an artemis on top and have gunner use a merc or hades on the side with double artemis down low so I could shoot an artemis.

I have done that one once in a while as well, with a flak or two in the mix. It should work again with the new changes.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Arturo Sanchez on October 31, 2016, 07:21:20 pm
Oh, its you. I would have been ignoring you completely if I knew you changed your name yet again.  As always, everything you say is wrong. I won't bother explaining why this time.

Real pros put triple artemis with merc on top. captain shoots merc. What I liked to do before the arc fuck up was put an artemis on top and have gunner use a merc or hades on the side with double artemis down low so I could shoot an artemis.

I have done that one once in a while as well, with a flak or two in the mix. It should work again with the new changes.

Not my fault you're not informed to know anything.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: RearAdmiralZill on October 31, 2016, 09:31:30 pm
@Zill

From someone who's played, flied with and against the current heavy flak in a high level environment, I can tell you that it's far better at what it does at the moment. The changes brought it tons more consistency, though I'd prefer the old version to have some additional presence for the sake of existing.

I definitely admit that it's more useful now then it has ever been since it did get it's massive ban hammer long ago. My biggest point is that back then, it could do all that mattered. Broke armor alright, killed way too fast. Even with Richard's Howitzer, I feel the same way. Impact for armor, explosive for hull, and force to just make it annoyingly OP.

This all being said, let's not go too off topic here. Jedi gave a lot of ideas that need feedback, not just Flak, or Mobula builds.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Daft Loon on October 31, 2016, 11:21:57 pm
#NerfGreased,#NerfBurst,#ChangeCharged

These three ammo types all have the same problem, their main purpose is to increase dps but rather than having any meaningful theme to how they do so it just comes down to plugging them into a spreadsheet to see which will always be best for which gun, or for most players just being told which is better.

What I want to see instead is the dps effects removed from Burst rounds and Greased and Charged changed to be universal dps ammo types with situational strengths and weaknesses requiring a decision on which to bring or when to use it.

How this can work:

1- Remove clip size modifications, they screw things up by rounding differently or having no effect at all on different guns. Look at the mine launcher for proof - no clip size effects and it has 5 fully useful ammo types + heatsink not ruining it if you really want to avoid fires.

2- Add a new effect that increases or reduces the time taken to reload the next clip, Greased oils up the gun making it reload faster while charged and maybe burst have excess propellant and complicated shell casings/magazines that take longer to clear out of the gun.

Possible stats

Burst
+50% AOE
+1m AOE (applied after the % change or set at 0.666 to get the same effect)
Now has a small effect on all guns and a more worthwhile effect on small AOE weapons like Banshee, Hades etc without getting too silly when used on Lumberjack or Mines.
No longer competes as a dps ammo so Hwacha and Artemis gunners have to choose between saturation/ease of hitting and raw damage output.

Greased
-20% damage
-20% projectile speed
-15% shell life (further reduces range without changing arming time)
+50% rate of fire
+50% reload speed
Increases dps overall by providing a consistently high rate of fire.

Charged
+35% damage
-20% rate of fire
-40% reload speed
Deals a lot of damage in one clip and then leaves you with a gun taking almost twice as long to reload, timing is critical.


The exact numbers might need changing based on how the math works out for each gun. The Artemis, Hwacha and Mercury (and maybe others) would need small tweaks due to no longer being balanced based on dependency to a single ammo type.

Each gun then has minimum 4 ammo choices to consider, 2 genuinely different dps options, Lesmok/Heavy for range and at least 1 novelty option (Burst,Incendiary,Loch or Heatsink).
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Richard LeMoon on November 02, 2016, 12:05:03 am

#NerfGreased - Decrease Greased ammo range from 80% of Normal ammo's reach to 70%.

I have been saying the same for a while, along with increasing the recoil a bit. This would put the Gat's max range at 315m, with a max spread of 20m or so (from 18). Normal or charged would be the choice ammo for head on attacks, with greased being better for flanks and surprise attacks. Barking Dog would suffer some.


As for reload speed changes, that would have to be explored further. I think we tested that a while back for a few ammo types. Sequential ammo effects could be interesting, though.


Quote
#NerfBurst - Burst ammo already provides a large bonus to the "splash" of weapons with Area of Effect damage; the increased clip size makes this ammo a "why use anything else?" choice  in weapons like the Hwacha and Artemis.

The first nerf I would give Burst would be an increase in recoil, with maybe a reduction in ammo, but only if the rate of fire was brought to normal.

Quote
#RestoreLoch - Lochnager/Heavy Flak

Agreed. Spray and pray is boring.

Quote
#ChangeCharged - Think of Charged as the Loch for lighter weapons or those with larger clips. Less special, less skillful, but still fun and unique.

I wish someone, anyone would have thought of that and nagged Muse about it for the weeks of new Loch testing. If only someone would have mentioned it like 100 times. Or maybe at least 20 someones. Perhaps a few emails...

(http://i.imgur.com/cR01PQI.gif)



Quote
#HowAboutAHowitzer -I've asked them to add a "new" gun to the game: the old Heavy Flak. Give it the same exact stats of as the Old Heavy Flak, but, to save artistic resources, simply retexture it with modified textures that are tinted an obviously different color from the "real" Heavy Flak. Call it a Howitzer or something and be done with it.

Yes on everything but calling it a howitzer. I reserve that for the Atlas Howitzer (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,7654.msg128521.html#msg128521).

My not so easy changes are #PerShipImpact (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,8053.msg132623.html#msg132623) and #Falloff (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,7038.msg120845.html#msg120845). These two things would solve so many balance issues.

(http://i.imgur.com/0bswTBB.jpg)

Oh, and:

#TrainTheAI (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,8052.0.html): This is the one thing that is killing the game more than anything else. Make the AI actually good at the game. Better than most players, even.
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Unarmed Civilian on November 04, 2016, 12:06:04 am
I ended up coming up with an idea for a change to charged in the incendiary thread, but it's very vague so I'll refine it here.

Make Charged Rounds the ammo type that trades damage per second (DPS) for damage per clip (DPC).

+30% damage
-30% rate of fire (from -25%)
No clip size penalty (from -20%)

This makes Charged Rounds the dedicated damage per clip ammo at the severe cost of damage per second.

On paper, this takes DPS down to 91% of normal rounds ((1-.30)*(1+.30)), so it's almost a whole 10% DPS loss. However, it is a guaranteed 30% DPC gain on every gun in the game, since there are no funny clip size changes to worry about. It also makes it very clear that there is going to be a LOT more damage per clip, but it is going to fire VERY slowly.

As an example, a normal gatling has 1086.5 DPC, while this charged gatling would have 1412.45 DPC. That is enough to break a galleon's hull in one clip, despite two whole mallets in between, but it'll take nearly 14 seconds of constant, uninterrupted fire to do that.

On guns that use Burst for a 5th shot (+20% DPC on H Flak and Artemis), Burst would still be a middle ground offering a balance between DPC and DPS, but Charged would be king of DPC without question.

This change would also cause a marginal nerf to the Mercury Field Gun and Charged H Carro. However, it is slight enough that a small tweak can be made to the field gun to balance it without making its other munitions drastically more powerful. H Carro is strong enough without it, and can eat another nerf after Loch Carro was buffed so hard.

Personally, I doubt this would make Charged overpowered, as people strongly favor DPS in the current setting for fast kills, but it will make it a more interesting ammunition to experiment with and open up new uses for it. See Hwacha. (vs hull: Burst DPC 948; Charged DPC 1027)
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Atruejedi on November 04, 2016, 07:14:46 am
[nerdy numbers]

I love this idea. And I'd still use it in Mercs, because I'd have another gun with explosive damage waiting for that pretty-much-guaranteed-armor-strip to fire and do real damage. This rewards smart players, and I'm all about it!
Title: Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Post by: Kestril on January 04, 2017, 09:59:31 pm

#NerfGreased - Decrease Greased ammo range from 80% of Normal ammo's reach to 70%. "Set it and forget it" Greased ammo is extremely common in this game. Many players shove it in all guns and never bother swapping ammunition types for the rest of the game. This is boring and thoughtless. Players should be punished for not switching to Normal ammunition to gain that extra 30% in range. Greased should only be used when players know they're in range for it... they should have to consciously switch from Normal to Greased once they're confident they're in range. This adds depth and rewards thinking players.

Dear god yes. Greased is way too prominent on nearly all guns. Hades: Greased, Flak: Greased, Gatling: greased. The ammo is too prominent and has become catch-all in it's role. Furthermore the gatling gun changes made buffed accuracy to the gatling gun removed heavy ammo from the meaningful choice.  I'd also go so far to say to increase the jitter and spread when greased is loaded to above the old gatling levels, while increasing the fire rate further. Make it the ammo you'd load eye-to-eye with the opponent, and nowhere else.

Quote
#NerfBurst - Burst ammo already provides a large bonus to the "splash" of weapons with Area of Effect damage; the increased clip size makes this ammo a "why use anything else?" choice  in weapons like the Hwacha and Artemis. Like Greased, this "set it and forget it" mentality is boring, thoughtless, and lacks tactical depth and choice. With a nerf to Burst, Greased ammunition would be more common in the Artemis at close range and Heavy Clip would be more attractive as an initial-engagement Hwacha ammo choice. Let's reward smart players.
What nerfs? I'm trying to think of how to nerf burst ammo without crippling the hwacha and artimis. However, the argument could be made that those guns are too prominent as it is.  I think reducing the increased clip size would be a start. 

Quote
#RestoreLoch - Restore Lochnager ammo to its former niche glory. One of the greatest feelings in the game was (was  :-[ ) waiting for the enemy's armor to drop and nuking an enemy with a shot from the (old) Heavy Flak. While changes to the Heavy Flak were wise to make it more accessible and newb-friendly, this feeling of absolute power and awe is gone and that is truly a shame. While I'll address the Old and New Heavy Flak in a moment, think of Loch as that special, skillful ammo for heavy guns or weapons with smaller clips.

Yes please. There were few things more rewarding than pulling off a loched-n'-loaded heavy flak. This was the high-risk heavy gun ammo. It's niche was secure and it was rewarding and required teamwork to use. Why muse changed it is a real head-scratcher for me.


Quote
#ChangeCharged - What's the point of this ammo? Some people occasionally use it in the Heavy Flak, Lumberjack, Mine Launcher, and Heavy Carronade... and that's still not exactly common. The only "yes, use Charged!" gun in the game is the Mercury, and even the Mercury has viable alternatives with Lesmok and Heatsink. Charged needs a complete overhaul. Muse should have left Loch alone and should instead #ChangeCharged ammo to perform and act somewhat like Lochnager currently does. Think of Charged as the Loch for lighter weapons or those with larger clips. Less special, less skillful, but still fun and unique.
Again, I agree. Charge needs a distinct role. Turning charged into the current low-damage loch would provide some more loadout choice and give charged a niche role. Furthermore, combined it with the suggested changes I mentioned above to greased ammo and you've got a real nice tactical choice on your hands.

Quote
#HowAboutAHowitzer - I mentioned I miss the old Heavy Flak, especially when coupled with the old Lochnager ammo. So let's recreate that fabled weapon and call it something new. I've proposed this to Muse many times and they've admitted it would be easy, yet they won't do it because of vanity. I've asked them to add a "new" gun to the game: the old Heavy Flak. Give it the same exact stats of as the Old Heavy Flak, but, to save artistic resources, simply retexture it with modified textures that are tinted an obviously different color from the "real" Heavy Flak. I'm partial to gold or copper or a nice Statue of Liberty green myself. 8) Call it a Howitzer or something and be done with it. Variety is the spice of life, and this would be so easy to implement.

I miss a potential 1hit K-O heavy gun as well. Still, unlike the other changes proposed, I think there is good reason muse made this change. Both to lower the skill floor needed for heavy flak, and to increase killtimes to give crews a chance to react.

Still, a very immobile, 1-shot nearly "fixed" heavy weapon could have a place in game. New heavy guns are sorely needed to skirmish as it is. I'd recommend this be a "heavy mercury" and deal piercing damage. 1 shot with a fairly long reload that does ~475 armor damage with no projectile expansion.


An ammo update for skirmish is sorely needed at this point, as ammo roles overlap and there is very little tactical choice in ammo selection.


I'd like to add that adding ammunition types that reduce the damage overall, but change the secondary or primary damage type would be a way to make the gunner class almost as useful as engineers. (I.E. High explosive rounds change the secondary damage type to explosive, but reduce the main damage type by 75%), but I'll probably write that up in another suggestion post.