1
General Discussion / Re: Question about new Ship-Based in-game purchases
« on: May 01, 2014, 04:46:35 pm »
What about decals? Are they unlockables, or do they count as dyes too?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
General Discussion / Question about new Ship-Based in-game purchases
« on: May 01, 2014, 04:08:01 pm »
Just want to preface that I LOVE the new ship customization, just what the game needed to add that personal touch(though I was maybe hoping for a "spiky tidbits" theme too, you know, like warhammer 40k Orkz or such (pretty please?
)).
It seems at least some of the ships recieved a visual pass as well? I never noticed the giant tubes on one side of the galleon before, at any rate. <3
Anyway here's the thing: Since some of the "Theme's" seem to have alot more impact on some ships than others, and I fly a wide variety of ship (pretty much all of them) I was wanting to basically buy all of the Themes. But I paused for a moment thinking: Wait, what if I have to buy each Theme seperately for each ship? That would get pretty expensive, and I wouldn't want some ships with and others without a theme cause I can't afford it, that would feel kinda crappy.
So are theme's "Unlimited use" after you purchase them? Or are they consumed like dyes?
On a similar note what about the Figureheads? And the Dyes and Decals? I'm guessing the dyes/decals are consumed on use, but does a single application cover all ships or would i have to buy 7 dyes & decals just to get all my balloons the same colour and symbol?
Hoping to hear from someone in the know (Dev or otherwise)
-Captain McFaceSmashy
)).It seems at least some of the ships recieved a visual pass as well? I never noticed the giant tubes on one side of the galleon before, at any rate. <3
Anyway here's the thing: Since some of the "Theme's" seem to have alot more impact on some ships than others, and I fly a wide variety of ship (pretty much all of them) I was wanting to basically buy all of the Themes. But I paused for a moment thinking: Wait, what if I have to buy each Theme seperately for each ship? That would get pretty expensive, and I wouldn't want some ships with and others without a theme cause I can't afford it, that would feel kinda crappy.
So are theme's "Unlimited use" after you purchase them? Or are they consumed like dyes?
On a similar note what about the Figureheads? And the Dyes and Decals? I'm guessing the dyes/decals are consumed on use, but does a single application cover all ships or would i have to buy 7 dyes & decals just to get all my balloons the same colour and symbol?
Hoping to hear from someone in the know (Dev or otherwise)
-Captain McFaceSmashy
3
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Ship Idea
« on: November 08, 2013, 08:13:12 am »
How about... if it's firing arcs... were primarily vertical rather than horizontal? like alot of guns are currently fixed at a horizontal angle to the ship (to prevent or cause overlap in firinc arcs), how about fixing them at a vertical angle? like the ship is great with dealing with targets above or below it, but has a harder time targeting ships at the exact same level as it.
Doesn't need to fire in a completely straight arc up or down, can still be at a reasonable angle, but maybe tilted by a 5-10 degrees, and in the top and/or bottom of the ship (kinda like how the junker has those below deck guns facing sideways but with an added tilt).
You could then decide to make it a bomber as you said, with 2 guns on the front and back (maybe a 5th gun on the top as an aft-gun (WW2 bomber style, could be like, in it's own little dome))
Or you could decide to make it an altitude-based fighter, with 2 guns on the top and bottom, either both facing the front, or more spread out, depending on how you want the angles and overlap to be.
It's weaknesses would be ships at it's own level, though it could use it's balloons to shield it'self from them while it tries to shift altitudes, should be good for some interesting gameplay.
Downside of this design would be the fact that there's a height-cap, and, well, the ground. It could be negated very effectively as a bomber just by having everyone fly at maximum altitude, unless it also had at least some top guns. If it had only Top-guns it could be countered in the same way by people flying low to the ground.
Medium guns are... a possibility, but you'd have to consider the heavy carronade bugbear which, with an added downward angle will ruin people's day rather harshly. Not that it doesn't do this currently, once you are balloon locked, but it's still a tad easier to get into your own gun arcs than it would be with such a design. Probably don't want medium guns on this thing just for that reason (not to mention that all other medium guns are rather long range, which would be useless on this kind of design cause the distance between max flight altitude and, well, the ground isn't that high, and with the angles locked you wouldn't be able to fire very far away regardless).
So, light guns then. ignoring the amount of guns and bi/trifectas for the moment, should it primarily be a front or a side-pounder? well tbh, if it allready has to do alot to keep the right altitude in an engagement, it might be too much to also diminish it's ability to keep the right range, on top of it being squishy. on the other hand it would make more sense to fix a vertical angle to the guns if they were forced to fire under/over the balloons though, but... maybe that'd make it too similar to the junker? balloons aside the junker is allready a fast, mobile side-fighting ship with a difficult to hit hull and big balloon as it's weakspot, if the only real difference is having to shoot under/over the balloon i feel it's too similar and will be hard to give it's own niche.
So, possibilities to distinguish it a bit more? Obviously there's the front/rear and top/bottom firing thing, but... it could be made a bit more interesting than that I feel. What if we made a single-sided bomber, kind of like a combination between the squid and the junker. It could have 3 (or hell, 4 for all I care) light guns fixed to the left side of the ship, pointing in (close to) the same direction, but nothing on the right side. Maybe add a single front or rear gun for utility/defense. The 3 main guns should be fairly easily reachable too, since the downward angle and single direction would make for fairly brief/easy to lose engagement angles, which shouldn't be wasted on running to the guns.
Ah, I hear you say, but now you've just made a "bad" version of the mobula, which also has 3 light guns on one side, plus 2 more to choose from! And the mobula allready has better up/down movement than regular ships, so you're encroaching on it's niche as well!
This is true, the mobula doesn't have the "downward angle" clause that this ship would have, and it has a bit more utility too. However! this ship would be more maneuvarable, easier to engineer on (components fairly close together) and have a closer tri-fecta on it's guns, allowing for a wider variety of weaponry to be used simultaneously in the direction it's shooting. In general, it would be more suited to quick close-quarters bombardement, than the long-range/utility (and occasional brawling) brought by the mobula.
It would be quite reliant on it's allies to get angles as well, so in a sense it's a close range version of a combination of squid, junker, and mobula, with a unique firing angle and approach to combat (relying on a combination of mobility/positioning and it's dual balloons shielding it to keep it alive)
Doesn't need to fire in a completely straight arc up or down, can still be at a reasonable angle, but maybe tilted by a 5-10 degrees, and in the top and/or bottom of the ship (kinda like how the junker has those below deck guns facing sideways but with an added tilt).
You could then decide to make it a bomber as you said, with 2 guns on the front and back (maybe a 5th gun on the top as an aft-gun (WW2 bomber style, could be like, in it's own little dome))
Or you could decide to make it an altitude-based fighter, with 2 guns on the top and bottom, either both facing the front, or more spread out, depending on how you want the angles and overlap to be.
It's weaknesses would be ships at it's own level, though it could use it's balloons to shield it'self from them while it tries to shift altitudes, should be good for some interesting gameplay.
Downside of this design would be the fact that there's a height-cap, and, well, the ground. It could be negated very effectively as a bomber just by having everyone fly at maximum altitude, unless it also had at least some top guns. If it had only Top-guns it could be countered in the same way by people flying low to the ground.
Medium guns are... a possibility, but you'd have to consider the heavy carronade bugbear which, with an added downward angle will ruin people's day rather harshly. Not that it doesn't do this currently, once you are balloon locked, but it's still a tad easier to get into your own gun arcs than it would be with such a design. Probably don't want medium guns on this thing just for that reason (not to mention that all other medium guns are rather long range, which would be useless on this kind of design cause the distance between max flight altitude and, well, the ground isn't that high, and with the angles locked you wouldn't be able to fire very far away regardless).
So, light guns then. ignoring the amount of guns and bi/trifectas for the moment, should it primarily be a front or a side-pounder? well tbh, if it allready has to do alot to keep the right altitude in an engagement, it might be too much to also diminish it's ability to keep the right range, on top of it being squishy. on the other hand it would make more sense to fix a vertical angle to the guns if they were forced to fire under/over the balloons though, but... maybe that'd make it too similar to the junker? balloons aside the junker is allready a fast, mobile side-fighting ship with a difficult to hit hull and big balloon as it's weakspot, if the only real difference is having to shoot under/over the balloon i feel it's too similar and will be hard to give it's own niche.
So, possibilities to distinguish it a bit more? Obviously there's the front/rear and top/bottom firing thing, but... it could be made a bit more interesting than that I feel. What if we made a single-sided bomber, kind of like a combination between the squid and the junker. It could have 3 (or hell, 4 for all I care) light guns fixed to the left side of the ship, pointing in (close to) the same direction, but nothing on the right side. Maybe add a single front or rear gun for utility/defense. The 3 main guns should be fairly easily reachable too, since the downward angle and single direction would make for fairly brief/easy to lose engagement angles, which shouldn't be wasted on running to the guns.
Ah, I hear you say, but now you've just made a "bad" version of the mobula, which also has 3 light guns on one side, plus 2 more to choose from! And the mobula allready has better up/down movement than regular ships, so you're encroaching on it's niche as well!
This is true, the mobula doesn't have the "downward angle" clause that this ship would have, and it has a bit more utility too. However! this ship would be more maneuvarable, easier to engineer on (components fairly close together) and have a closer tri-fecta on it's guns, allowing for a wider variety of weaponry to be used simultaneously in the direction it's shooting. In general, it would be more suited to quick close-quarters bombardement, than the long-range/utility (and occasional brawling) brought by the mobula.
It would be quite reliant on it's allies to get angles as well, so in a sense it's a close range version of a combination of squid, junker, and mobula, with a unique firing angle and approach to combat (relying on a combination of mobility/positioning and it's dual balloons shielding it to keep it alive)
4
Gameplay / Re: 1.3.3 ENGINEER AND REPAIR TOOL BALANCE
« on: November 01, 2013, 11:53:40 am »
Hey, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet since I'm in the middle of preparing for exams atm,,
I've seen a couple of things I'd thought of floating around here (and sorry if I missed some I may have skimmed some of the posts) and would like to give my thoughts on them (some of these ideas may not have been posted yet).
The current situation: extinguisher (reactive) chemspray (proactive)
In gameplay I find that the extinguisher does its job well, you see fire, you go over and then spray it, the fire goes away, you go back to something else until the fire gets too high again (possibly waiting the 3s to give a hammer whack as well). You react to the fire.
The chemspray kinda does its job, but it does it in a really awkward manner. If you want to protect your ship (even only the critical components) you're going to be spending most of your time running around like a crazed hobo spraying left and right trying to keep up with the 20 second duration. Not to mention if you want it to be truly preventative (proactive) you have to start doing all this, and keep doing all this, while absolutely nothing is shooting fire at you yet, because if you wait for them to be almost in range of your ship, you won't get to spray the components in time, not to mention you'll have started taking regular damage from other sources and that shit needs fixing(cooldowns), and you have ships to spot and stuff to buff... And oh boy if someone decided to whack the hull with a mallet just before you could chemspray it, and all those firestacks are rising up... it can be kinda infuriating.
What I don't like in theory about the current chemspray is it's nature as a hard-counter to fire damage. The full immunity is, as has been mentioned by others, an all or nothing kind of deal. Either it completely negates the damage and disabling from ships like a double-flamethrower squid, or it just doesn't function (not compared to the extinguisher at least). My biggest problem though is that it lacks any real counterplay if it's good. If the chemspray works properly with full immunity, the opposing team has no way of knowing what you've sprayed (if they even know if you've sprayed it) and thus can't work around it (unless they just have other guns to fire, but that's besides the point).
If full immunity is an adamant requirement however, simply reducing the cooldown on the chemspray and/or increasing it's duration should work fine to make it viable.
Now OTHER options include, but are not limited to:
1. Chemspray lasts WAY longer but gives only a % reduction in chance of firestacks
2. Chemspray lasts WAY longer, and negates firedamage, but doesn't stop stacks from being applied.
3. A combination of the above, where it reduces the % stacks applied and damage done while active (but not fully negate either)
4. Chemspray removes firestacks over time (possibly in combination with any of the above) with the possibility of continuous spraying removing stacks faster (either directly or by increasing the strength of the buff)
The first option is pretty viable, assuming the cooldown on chemspray (or extinguishing power) becomes good enough that you can remove what stacks got through the buff after the fight is over, but for it to be effective without compromising the "proactive" quote you would need such a high percentage of reduction that it might as well be immunity.
The second option I dislike alot, because it essentially requires you to have an extinguisher, or keep the buff up indefinitely (not to mention it once again completely negates firedamage going through, which feels shit to play against)
The third option I'm allright with, it allows your opponent to get some firestacks through and do some damage, but alot less than they otherwise would, and refreshing the buff should remove enough stacks for the total damage reduction to be comparable to the extinguisher. I feel however that it would do better combined with the last option.
The fourth option is my favorite, because it is entirely proactive, doesn't completely negate flamethrowers, and depending on the specific implementation can "if done perfectly" entirely negate firestacks (which is ofcourse impossible in practice). The main reason I like this idea is because it allows the engineers to spend time doing other things (like repairing the buffed stuff or shooting guns while the buff takes care of the fire-stacks as they pop up) because they applied it beforehand. It has a "good job" proactive feel to it. The way the other flame-retardants work is either you don't see any firestacks pop up at all (did your buff even contribute anything?) or you just see less stacks popping up (was the chemspray worth it, or would I have been better off with the extinguisher?) where as this gives direct feedback that it's working (I can see the stacks go up and then get removed by my buff, I saved time extinguishing now by spraying earlier!)
well that was probably longer than I intended but I hope it contributes something, time to get back to learning
I've seen a couple of things I'd thought of floating around here (and sorry if I missed some I may have skimmed some of the posts) and would like to give my thoughts on them (some of these ideas may not have been posted yet).
The current situation: extinguisher (reactive) chemspray (proactive)
In gameplay I find that the extinguisher does its job well, you see fire, you go over and then spray it, the fire goes away, you go back to something else until the fire gets too high again (possibly waiting the 3s to give a hammer whack as well). You react to the fire.
The chemspray kinda does its job, but it does it in a really awkward manner. If you want to protect your ship (even only the critical components) you're going to be spending most of your time running around like a crazed hobo spraying left and right trying to keep up with the 20 second duration. Not to mention if you want it to be truly preventative (proactive) you have to start doing all this, and keep doing all this, while absolutely nothing is shooting fire at you yet, because if you wait for them to be almost in range of your ship, you won't get to spray the components in time, not to mention you'll have started taking regular damage from other sources and that shit needs fixing(cooldowns), and you have ships to spot and stuff to buff... And oh boy if someone decided to whack the hull with a mallet just before you could chemspray it, and all those firestacks are rising up... it can be kinda infuriating.
What I don't like in theory about the current chemspray is it's nature as a hard-counter to fire damage. The full immunity is, as has been mentioned by others, an all or nothing kind of deal. Either it completely negates the damage and disabling from ships like a double-flamethrower squid, or it just doesn't function (not compared to the extinguisher at least). My biggest problem though is that it lacks any real counterplay if it's good. If the chemspray works properly with full immunity, the opposing team has no way of knowing what you've sprayed (if they even know if you've sprayed it) and thus can't work around it (unless they just have other guns to fire, but that's besides the point).
If full immunity is an adamant requirement however, simply reducing the cooldown on the chemspray and/or increasing it's duration should work fine to make it viable.
Now OTHER options include, but are not limited to:
1. Chemspray lasts WAY longer but gives only a % reduction in chance of firestacks
2. Chemspray lasts WAY longer, and negates firedamage, but doesn't stop stacks from being applied.
3. A combination of the above, where it reduces the % stacks applied and damage done while active (but not fully negate either)
4. Chemspray removes firestacks over time (possibly in combination with any of the above) with the possibility of continuous spraying removing stacks faster (either directly or by increasing the strength of the buff)
The first option is pretty viable, assuming the cooldown on chemspray (or extinguishing power) becomes good enough that you can remove what stacks got through the buff after the fight is over, but for it to be effective without compromising the "proactive" quote you would need such a high percentage of reduction that it might as well be immunity.
The second option I dislike alot, because it essentially requires you to have an extinguisher, or keep the buff up indefinitely (not to mention it once again completely negates firedamage going through, which feels shit to play against)
The third option I'm allright with, it allows your opponent to get some firestacks through and do some damage, but alot less than they otherwise would, and refreshing the buff should remove enough stacks for the total damage reduction to be comparable to the extinguisher. I feel however that it would do better combined with the last option.
The fourth option is my favorite, because it is entirely proactive, doesn't completely negate flamethrowers, and depending on the specific implementation can "if done perfectly" entirely negate firestacks (which is ofcourse impossible in practice). The main reason I like this idea is because it allows the engineers to spend time doing other things (like repairing the buffed stuff or shooting guns while the buff takes care of the fire-stacks as they pop up) because they applied it beforehand. It has a "good job" proactive feel to it. The way the other flame-retardants work is either you don't see any firestacks pop up at all (did your buff even contribute anything?) or you just see less stacks popping up (was the chemspray worth it, or would I have been better off with the extinguisher?) where as this gives direct feedback that it's working (I can see the stacks go up and then get removed by my buff, I saved time extinguishing now by spraying earlier!)
well that was probably longer than I intended but I hope it contributes something, time to get back to learning
5
Gameplay / Re: GUNS and GUN SKILLS Balance v1.3.2
« on: September 21, 2013, 03:49:40 pm »
Before I get around to checking out the new balance and performance and just, just gotta say...
This new gun. Is the best gun EVAR! Fucking self-igniting flaming cannonballs of doom. <3
This new gun. Is the best gun EVAR! Fucking self-igniting flaming cannonballs of doom. <3
6
Gameplay / Re: PILOTING and PILOT SKILLS Balance v1.3.2
« on: September 21, 2013, 01:51:50 pm »
Can we still discuss ships in here?
I'm pretty happy with the changes to pyra and spire, will have to see how it plays out in practice but it's a welcome change.
not convinced on the necesitty of the change to chute-vent, when exactly was this ability being problematic?
I'm pretty happy with the changes to pyra and spire, will have to see how it plays out in practice but it's a welcome change.
not convinced on the necesitty of the change to chute-vent, when exactly was this ability being problematic?
7
General Discussion / Re: Just For Fun: Sky Whalers
« on: September 08, 2013, 07:41:49 am »
Sky-Whales are there to be murdered. Slaughtered by the dozens until the day I finally get revenge for my master, by slaying Moby Dilatator who ate him.
I have no interest in eating or cooking them, and must inform you that killing sky-whales is done more effectively with other weapons (such as gat-mortar, or even mercury-flak).
You are also heavily misinformed about the sky-whales lethality. They are very varied in their methods of attack, their shape, size, and toughness, but they are all out to kill you, not throw barnacles or spit at you. These fuckers throw all manner of exploding shit your way from any number of unknown orifices (which also leads me to believe they would in fact taste horribly bad).
Other than that good job in promoting the sky-whale extermination, your face will remain unsmashed for now.
I have no interest in eating or cooking them, and must inform you that killing sky-whales is done more effectively with other weapons (such as gat-mortar, or even mercury-flak).
You are also heavily misinformed about the sky-whales lethality. They are very varied in their methods of attack, their shape, size, and toughness, but they are all out to kill you, not throw barnacles or spit at you. These fuckers throw all manner of exploding shit your way from any number of unknown orifices (which also leads me to believe they would in fact taste horribly bad).
Other than that good job in promoting the sky-whale extermination, your face will remain unsmashed for now.
8
Gameplay / Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« on: August 18, 2013, 07:31:11 am »
@Nidh
Sniping could be changed to be a purely supporting role, but let's not forget that, at current, fighting from Very long range isn't as common as it used to be (them added clouds really hurt in that respect) and in some maps just isn't viable (I'm looking at that derelict city). As such I don't see the problem with using long-range guns to damage/kill enemies so long as they are outclassed by thier short-ranged versions when the distance is closed (and any short range ship can use kerosine to close that distance within approximately a single round of fire)
When it comes to coordinated (competitive) team-based battles though, as in 3v3 or such, having killing power on long ranged ships may just be too good, as they can (potentially, depending on the map or objective) sit in a firing range and just focus down 1 - 2 targets before they can even get in range (by kiting backwards, most likely) thereby making the close-range play-style irrelevant entirely.
This may be in part because of long-range guns not paying enough of a price in damage for their range, or the faster, close ranged ships being too squishy in general. Making all the long-ranged guns "support" would probably be an easy solution for competitive play, but it wouldn't make them any less frustrating to fight against, nor fix the general range-superiority problem.
@Ccrack
that's probably a bad idea, as this guarantees the battle will come to short range where you will still have a large part of your firing arcs going "Plink, Plink" to the opponents "Boom, Boom"
@Captain Smollett
Yes, if the artemis was supposed to be used as a long-range disabler I would agree that a bigger zoom is in order. I think at the moment however that isn't going to happen, out of fear that the mercury will lose it's niche as a pinpoint disabling gun for long range.
@dasfoxx
yes its combination of traveltime and semi-slow firing rate can make it a bit awkward to gauge your next shot from your previous one, but it's still better (imo) than the guns that just fire without any indication of where your shots went unless you hit something (I'm looking at you carronades)
Sniping could be changed to be a purely supporting role, but let's not forget that, at current, fighting from Very long range isn't as common as it used to be (them added clouds really hurt in that respect) and in some maps just isn't viable (I'm looking at that derelict city). As such I don't see the problem with using long-range guns to damage/kill enemies so long as they are outclassed by thier short-ranged versions when the distance is closed (and any short range ship can use kerosine to close that distance within approximately a single round of fire)
When it comes to coordinated (competitive) team-based battles though, as in 3v3 or such, having killing power on long ranged ships may just be too good, as they can (potentially, depending on the map or objective) sit in a firing range and just focus down 1 - 2 targets before they can even get in range (by kiting backwards, most likely) thereby making the close-range play-style irrelevant entirely.
This may be in part because of long-range guns not paying enough of a price in damage for their range, or the faster, close ranged ships being too squishy in general. Making all the long-ranged guns "support" would probably be an easy solution for competitive play, but it wouldn't make them any less frustrating to fight against, nor fix the general range-superiority problem.
@Ccrack
that's probably a bad idea, as this guarantees the battle will come to short range where you will still have a large part of your firing arcs going "Plink, Plink" to the opponents "Boom, Boom"
@Captain Smollett
Yes, if the artemis was supposed to be used as a long-range disabler I would agree that a bigger zoom is in order. I think at the moment however that isn't going to happen, out of fear that the mercury will lose it's niche as a pinpoint disabling gun for long range.
@dasfoxx
yes its combination of traveltime and semi-slow firing rate can make it a bit awkward to gauge your next shot from your previous one, but it's still better (imo) than the guns that just fire without any indication of where your shots went unless you hit something (I'm looking at you carronades)
9
Gameplay / Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« on: August 17, 2013, 08:28:14 pm »
@Thaago
Good to hear there's people that are extensively using the artemis in combat, that's useful for feedback to be sure. Indeed part of the weakness of the Artemis is that it's maximum range potential is rarely used, especially with the added cloud coverage on most maps now(which hurts all long-range guns, to be fair), leaving the shorter range guns to out-class it damagewise in more common situations.
The case you present on the mobula's side-most guns is somewhat similar to what I said about the spire's top-side gun, where it's essentially the only gun you can put there to allow you to keep firing in the same direction as the rest of your guns (though to be fair, on the mobula you have 5 possibly guns and only 3 people to shoot them, so some running around or turning is going to be required regardless).
In any case I have to agree with you that the artemis is far from useless as a gun in and of itself, and nowhere near as much in need of some love as the banshee is. Still, it's worth discussing whether or not it performs well enough in it's given role to warrant a slot over other guns. I've heard from multiple people now that, yes, it is, because it's more forgiving with it's high turning angle and range, thus giving it versatility in where and how you engage compared to the more specialized guns. Quite frankly this is a perfectly valid use of a gun-slot, and I rest my case in regards to that.
@ Nidh
Considering you're mentioning some specific guns I'm going to have to asume you're talking about either the junker or the mobula, and yes they do have some choice in that regard, you can even fit a flamer on the junker if you're up for some close-range tri-gunning (though maintaining the right distance AND angle on that can be a bit tricky).
Some other questions for all of you then.
If you have the choice between a heavy mortar and a heavy flak (asuming your gunner is competent with either) for a long-range build, would any of you go for the heavy flak? Personally I quite like the heavy flak, but objectively speaking the heavy mortar seems superior. It takes out the balloon and armour at the same time (possibly damaging quite a few components along the way) and can keep a ship permanently grounded(and eventually dying as a result of damage from the gun and being run into the ground) by itself, where-as the heavy flak only deals damage worth mentioning when the armour is down (granted it's a ton when it is down) thus making it entirely reliant on using mercuries or allies to take down the armour first. (Goldfish with only a heavy flak is pretty bad for this reason tbh).
My first instinct would be that a slight nerf to the mortar, and a slight buff to the flak are in order, but I'd like to hear other people's counter-arguments. Are there situations or load-outs that simply require the heavy flak over the mortar? So far I haven't been able to think of any where you'd be better off (unless your enemy closes in on you, but with a long-range build that somewhat indicates you've allready failed)
Good to hear there's people that are extensively using the artemis in combat, that's useful for feedback to be sure. Indeed part of the weakness of the Artemis is that it's maximum range potential is rarely used, especially with the added cloud coverage on most maps now(which hurts all long-range guns, to be fair), leaving the shorter range guns to out-class it damagewise in more common situations.
The case you present on the mobula's side-most guns is somewhat similar to what I said about the spire's top-side gun, where it's essentially the only gun you can put there to allow you to keep firing in the same direction as the rest of your guns (though to be fair, on the mobula you have 5 possibly guns and only 3 people to shoot them, so some running around or turning is going to be required regardless).
In any case I have to agree with you that the artemis is far from useless as a gun in and of itself, and nowhere near as much in need of some love as the banshee is. Still, it's worth discussing whether or not it performs well enough in it's given role to warrant a slot over other guns. I've heard from multiple people now that, yes, it is, because it's more forgiving with it's high turning angle and range, thus giving it versatility in where and how you engage compared to the more specialized guns. Quite frankly this is a perfectly valid use of a gun-slot, and I rest my case in regards to that.
@ Nidh
Considering you're mentioning some specific guns I'm going to have to asume you're talking about either the junker or the mobula, and yes they do have some choice in that regard, you can even fit a flamer on the junker if you're up for some close-range tri-gunning (though maintaining the right distance AND angle on that can be a bit tricky).
Some other questions for all of you then.
If you have the choice between a heavy mortar and a heavy flak (asuming your gunner is competent with either) for a long-range build, would any of you go for the heavy flak? Personally I quite like the heavy flak, but objectively speaking the heavy mortar seems superior. It takes out the balloon and armour at the same time (possibly damaging quite a few components along the way) and can keep a ship permanently grounded(and eventually dying as a result of damage from the gun and being run into the ground) by itself, where-as the heavy flak only deals damage worth mentioning when the armour is down (granted it's a ton when it is down) thus making it entirely reliant on using mercuries or allies to take down the armour first. (Goldfish with only a heavy flak is pretty bad for this reason tbh).
My first instinct would be that a slight nerf to the mortar, and a slight buff to the flak are in order, but I'd like to hear other people's counter-arguments. Are there situations or load-outs that simply require the heavy flak over the mortar? So far I haven't been able to think of any where you'd be better off (unless your enemy closes in on you, but with a long-range build that somewhat indicates you've allready failed)
10
Gameplay / Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« on: August 17, 2013, 05:46:25 pm »
Some good feedback there Nidh.
Would you say that the ability to more easily get three guns aimed at the enemy on certain ships warrants it being somewhat weaker overall? If so do you think it should stay that way, possibly restricting the usage of the gun to very specific slots on certain ships as more of a niche weapon, or should it be made more powerful while removing some of it's edge-case uses? (like allowing the top level side gun on the spire to fire directly ahead)
Personally I'm of the opinion that if you only use the gun because it happens to be the only gun with a wide enough angle to let you shoot 1 more gun simultaneously, there's either something fundamentally wrong with the gun, or the ship's design that allows it to be used that way (e.g. either the gun is OP for letting you fire one more gun at an angle you weren't supposed to, or the ship's design is wonky for not letting you fire any other gun in that direction)
Would you say that the ability to more easily get three guns aimed at the enemy on certain ships warrants it being somewhat weaker overall? If so do you think it should stay that way, possibly restricting the usage of the gun to very specific slots on certain ships as more of a niche weapon, or should it be made more powerful while removing some of it's edge-case uses? (like allowing the top level side gun on the spire to fire directly ahead)
Personally I'm of the opinion that if you only use the gun because it happens to be the only gun with a wide enough angle to let you shoot 1 more gun simultaneously, there's either something fundamentally wrong with the gun, or the ship's design that allows it to be used that way (e.g. either the gun is OP for letting you fire one more gun at an angle you weren't supposed to, or the ship's design is wonky for not letting you fire any other gun in that direction)
11
Gameplay / Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« on: August 17, 2013, 02:34:38 pm »
@ N-Sunderland
Yes that's definitely true, I suppose you could define it as the "long range" "AoE" Disabling gun, which would give it a niche, but the AoE really just gets calculated into the "Disabling" part.
I will concede the point though that (with some tweaks to numbers and such) having it be the "Spam for disabling enemy ship at range" gun, while having the sniper be the "take out specific targets like medium guns" gun is a viable niche, perhaps not the best place to be in still, but viable.
I'm not convinced however, that this is currently, effectively, the case.
Yes that's definitely true, I suppose you could define it as the "long range" "AoE" Disabling gun, which would give it a niche, but the AoE really just gets calculated into the "Disabling" part.
I will concede the point though that (with some tweaks to numbers and such) having it be the "Spam for disabling enemy ship at range" gun, while having the sniper be the "take out specific targets like medium guns" gun is a viable niche, perhaps not the best place to be in still, but viable.
I'm not convinced however, that this is currently, effectively, the case.
12
Gameplay / Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« on: August 17, 2013, 01:43:18 pm »
I hope you've read the entirety of my first post, because if you didn't this does indeed not seem as obvious as it should be. (I'm asuming you didn't so let me re-iterate)
We're not JUST comparing the artemis directly with the mercury. We're comparing it with ALL other guns you could want to have in that slot.
at long range the smaller firing arc of the mercury isn't a problem, you're at long range, they aren't about to speed past you and out of your firing arc. Explosive damage at long range is available in larger quantities from the flak cannon and mortar. While, yes, they aren't AS long range as the artemis, the artemis explosive damage isn't anywhere near as high, and with the damage mattering most when the armour is down, it's slow fire-rate makes it an inferior choice there as well.
Short range the other explosive damage guns outperform it even more, and the carronade is superior for disabling components.
The problem with the artemis is that, yes, you indeed load out a ship with a certain flying style and tactics in mind. Since for any given role the artemis is outperformed by a different gun, the only time you put on the artemis in a slot is if the answer to "Can I fire any other gun with a smaller firing arc from this position" is no. Not only is that too ship specific for a gun's role (imho), it's just a shitty feeling for a gun to have. It should feel good to put a certain gun on a certain position, with the intention to actually use it as part of your tactics as such. Not "Well I can't really put anything better there".
We're not JUST comparing the artemis directly with the mercury. We're comparing it with ALL other guns you could want to have in that slot.
at long range the smaller firing arc of the mercury isn't a problem, you're at long range, they aren't about to speed past you and out of your firing arc. Explosive damage at long range is available in larger quantities from the flak cannon and mortar. While, yes, they aren't AS long range as the artemis, the artemis explosive damage isn't anywhere near as high, and with the damage mattering most when the armour is down, it's slow fire-rate makes it an inferior choice there as well.
Short range the other explosive damage guns outperform it even more, and the carronade is superior for disabling components.
The problem with the artemis is that, yes, you indeed load out a ship with a certain flying style and tactics in mind. Since for any given role the artemis is outperformed by a different gun, the only time you put on the artemis in a slot is if the answer to "Can I fire any other gun with a smaller firing arc from this position" is no. Not only is that too ship specific for a gun's role (imho), it's just a shitty feeling for a gun to have. It should feel good to put a certain gun on a certain position, with the intention to actually use it as part of your tactics as such. Not "Well I can't really put anything better there".
13
Gameplay / Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« on: August 17, 2013, 06:34:10 am »
@ Captain Smollet
Yes with burst rounds at close range it can do better than a mercury. At close range however, a carronade does it's job better anyway so if that's your plan, why bring an artemis?
At long range the lack of anywhere near as good of a zoom as the mercury, a slow fire rate, as well the fact it takes 2 direct hits to take out a component compared to the 1 of a mercury AND that if you miss with the mercury you will likely hit the hull and STILL do a crapton of damage.... it's just inferior on the whole.
Yes with burst rounds at close range it can do better than a mercury. At close range however, a carronade does it's job better anyway so if that's your plan, why bring an artemis?
At long range the lack of anywhere near as good of a zoom as the mercury, a slow fire rate, as well the fact it takes 2 direct hits to take out a component compared to the 1 of a mercury AND that if you miss with the mercury you will likely hit the hull and STILL do a crapton of damage.... it's just inferior on the whole.
14
Gameplay / Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« on: August 16, 2013, 04:56:58 pm »
@AWKM
Ah, good to know there's still stuff coming out gunwise, hopefully one of those gun will be the famous junker-sized heavy gun? (I can always hold out hope <3)
I'm not too familiar with firing the heavy flak myself, but from what I've heard my gunner say it feels like both bullets don't go to the same spot, or at least don't originate from the same spot (though this may in fact just be because of slight ship movement in between shots).
Now back to the meta of the guns. While I agree making drastic changes with new guns just on the doorstep isn't the best idea, I do have to point a few things out.
With guns not being so much a rock-paper-scissors as they are a choice of tactics (none of the guns can directly counter each other, it's just not designed that way) adding new guns will open up more tactical options, and possibly invalidate old ones in some of their current roles if some of the new guns are clearly superior in that role to current ones.
However! This will only increase, not decrease the amount of guns competing for a certain firing arc on the ship. All of the guns that are currently being outclassed for a certain role (whether disabler or armour piercer or w/ever) at a certain range, will STILL be outclassed if you add in more guns, they won't suddenly become a viable option.
With all the guns competing for their spots on a ship they MUST have a clear role and function, even if that function is: average at most things. Currently we have 2 guns (artemis and mercury) competing for the role of long range disabler, with the mercury both being better at disabling AND having the additional function of piercing damage (which you want to have because there's plenty of options for explosive damage).
Let's say you add another (long range) armour piercer into the game, which is better at the mercury at piercing armour, but doesn't do a good job at disabling ships (it's full piercing damage, for example). The choice now becomes: do I want the mercury for both piercing and disabling, but a bit less piercing than I could have, or do I want the full damage piercing gun?
Now let's say you add another (long range) disabler into the game, which is better at the mercury at disabling components (yeah, OP, I know, but follow with me here). The choice now becomes: do I want the mercury for piercing armour and disabling, but less disabling than I could have, or do I want the full disabling gun?
If the new gun is better at both then there isn't any choice, you take the new gun, period.
As you may notice, in ALL of those cases there is no reason to pick the artemis. It's only other attribute is it's explosive damage, which you can get alot more of elsewhere, thus it isn't in a viable position for any slot *unless* it's firing arc allows you to shoot from that slot when you otherwise couldn't (and for the vast majority of ships that's not an issue anyway, only the Spire comes to mind) That wide firing arc is just too ship-specific of a feature to be considered a viable role, when every other gun can be part of a build in most positions with a bit of creative tactics.
Let's not even get started on the banshee if you add in another long-range fire-starter that's better at starting fires at long range. What does it's niche become then, it's explosive damage? Most everything with explosive damage has decent range on it(and a ton more damage).
The point is that adding more guns competing for roles (unless all of the guns added are very niche) won't in any way solve the current problems. At best it remains at the status quo with only empty gaps being filled in (like a medium piercing gun) but at worst the new guns are either useless or outclass one or more of the other guns in their role as described above. Guns that are currently useless will remain useless regardless, and as such you can probably get away with fixing those sooner rather than later.
Edit:
I just realized that if you DID add in a medium piercing gun which has the kind of range and accuracy of the mercury then it *might* be viable to replace the usual mercury slots with artemis slots(on a spire/galleon), to have a very long-range damage-disabling build, though I would still argue at most practical ranges (e.g. there's clouds in the way now, alot of them in fact) the light flak or scylla with lesmok rounds would outperform it when it comes to destroying ships, and the mercury would still out perform it for disabling them.
Ah, good to know there's still stuff coming out gunwise, hopefully one of those gun will be the famous junker-sized heavy gun? (I can always hold out hope <3)
I'm not too familiar with firing the heavy flak myself, but from what I've heard my gunner say it feels like both bullets don't go to the same spot, or at least don't originate from the same spot (though this may in fact just be because of slight ship movement in between shots).
Now back to the meta of the guns. While I agree making drastic changes with new guns just on the doorstep isn't the best idea, I do have to point a few things out.
With guns not being so much a rock-paper-scissors as they are a choice of tactics (none of the guns can directly counter each other, it's just not designed that way) adding new guns will open up more tactical options, and possibly invalidate old ones in some of their current roles if some of the new guns are clearly superior in that role to current ones.
However! This will only increase, not decrease the amount of guns competing for a certain firing arc on the ship. All of the guns that are currently being outclassed for a certain role (whether disabler or armour piercer or w/ever) at a certain range, will STILL be outclassed if you add in more guns, they won't suddenly become a viable option.
With all the guns competing for their spots on a ship they MUST have a clear role and function, even if that function is: average at most things. Currently we have 2 guns (artemis and mercury) competing for the role of long range disabler, with the mercury both being better at disabling AND having the additional function of piercing damage (which you want to have because there's plenty of options for explosive damage).
Let's say you add another (long range) armour piercer into the game, which is better at the mercury at piercing armour, but doesn't do a good job at disabling ships (it's full piercing damage, for example). The choice now becomes: do I want the mercury for both piercing and disabling, but a bit less piercing than I could have, or do I want the full damage piercing gun?
Now let's say you add another (long range) disabler into the game, which is better at the mercury at disabling components (yeah, OP, I know, but follow with me here). The choice now becomes: do I want the mercury for piercing armour and disabling, but less disabling than I could have, or do I want the full disabling gun?
If the new gun is better at both then there isn't any choice, you take the new gun, period.
As you may notice, in ALL of those cases there is no reason to pick the artemis. It's only other attribute is it's explosive damage, which you can get alot more of elsewhere, thus it isn't in a viable position for any slot *unless* it's firing arc allows you to shoot from that slot when you otherwise couldn't (and for the vast majority of ships that's not an issue anyway, only the Spire comes to mind) That wide firing arc is just too ship-specific of a feature to be considered a viable role, when every other gun can be part of a build in most positions with a bit of creative tactics.
Let's not even get started on the banshee if you add in another long-range fire-starter that's better at starting fires at long range. What does it's niche become then, it's explosive damage? Most everything with explosive damage has decent range on it(and a ton more damage).
The point is that adding more guns competing for roles (unless all of the guns added are very niche) won't in any way solve the current problems. At best it remains at the status quo with only empty gaps being filled in (like a medium piercing gun) but at worst the new guns are either useless or outclass one or more of the other guns in their role as described above. Guns that are currently useless will remain useless regardless, and as such you can probably get away with fixing those sooner rather than later.
Edit:
I just realized that if you DID add in a medium piercing gun which has the kind of range and accuracy of the mercury then it *might* be viable to replace the usual mercury slots with artemis slots(on a spire/galleon), to have a very long-range damage-disabling build, though I would still argue at most practical ranges (e.g. there's clouds in the way now, alot of them in fact) the light flak or scylla with lesmok rounds would outperform it when it comes to destroying ships, and the mercury would still out perform it for disabling them.
15
Gameplay / Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« on: August 15, 2013, 07:37:00 pm »
There's alot of things that could be changed to ONLY the guns numbers and stats to make things alot more understandable (and fun) for new players, while also (hopefully) increasing the competitive choices available for guns.
Let's start by having a look at the current guns we have, and what roles they fill:
Medium Guns:
Balloon damage:
Heavy Carronade (Short range)
Heavy Mortar (long range)
Armour damage:
Heavy Carronade (short range)
Heavy Mortar (Long range)
Hull damage:
Heavy Hwacha (Short range)
Heavy Flak (Long Range)
Component damage:
Heavy Hwacha (Short range)
Heavy Carronade (Short range)
Other:
And yes, hwacha has (significantly) longer effective range than the carronade, the mortar has longer range than the flak as well, and none of the guns do piercing damage so technically they aren't the best armour killers. There is a bit of generalization for the sake of brevity here, don't worry, the actual range is taking into account in the discussion.
Light Guns:
Balloon Damage:
Carronade (short range)
Flamethrower (short range)
Armour Damage:
Gatling gun(short range)
Mercury gun(long range)
Flamethrower(short range) (not the greatest, but fire has a decent armour damage ratio. and it's easy to get alot of stacks on it)
Hull Damage:
Scylla double mortar(short range)
Light flak (short range)
Artemis rocket launcher(long range)
Banshee (long range) (not a ton of damage but hey, it's all explosive)
Flamethrower (short range)
Component Damage:
Carronade(short range)
Mercury gun (long range)
Artemis (long range)
Gatling gun(short range)
Flamethrower (short range) (not so much damage but still disables them so eh)
Other:
Harpoon Gun(short range)
Mine Launcher (kinda counts as short range I guess?)
Flare Gun (short range (mostly due to inaccuracy))
So let's start making observations. First off there is no medium gun with long range component disabling ability (hwacha is medium effective range at best and even then can be dodged). There is also no medium gun that both does good damage vs. armour AND hull, but there are both long and short range versions for each seperate role. Ignoring for the moment how well each gun does at performing it's given role, these guns seem pretty balanced.
The first thing one may notice with light guns is that flamethrowers *seem* pretty much good against everything. Having used flamethrowers however, besides their range being prohibitive, I also find it questionable how much damage it actually does or does not do, as it does not seem to kill things (besides the balloon) nearly as quickly as it's damage ratio's would indicate. In short the flamethrower is probably not broken despite doing good damage to everything.
The second thing is that all balloon and component damaging skills are short range besides the Artemis, Mercury, and in medium the heavy mortar. Let's take a closer look at those guns.
The heavy mortar disables the balloon and damages the armour, the Mercury disables components and damages the armour, and the artemis damages the hull and disables components.
The mortar, while hard to use for new players, is problematic because it runs the enemy ship into the ground WHILE removing their armour. The Artemis won't do much damage besides disabling components until the armour is down, so that seems balanced. The Mercury on the other hand disables components (such as the engines and guns) AND removes the armour, and is thus also problematic.
The reason why these two guns are problematic is because they don't require as much teamplay (meaning combination with other guns/ships) as other guns do, because they essentially fill the role of two guns at once (a disabling gun and a damaging gun) without paying enough of a penalty at one of the two roles. The artemis is a good counter example of how a double role gun should work. It's nowhere near as good as the specialized guns in it's area, but it has the advantage that, when one of it's roles is no longer required, it's less of a waste of a firing arc compared to the more specialized guns.
Essentially, if a gun fullfills multiple roles with it's damage, it should pay a price for that, either being very ineffective at one of the roles, or being significantly less powerful (though obviously not useless) at both.
The banshee and flamethrower could be put in a seperate category for "firespreaders" short and long range, but the banshee is so ineffective at doing, well, anything at current, that it'd be inaccurate. Changing banshee to do a bit more explosive damage and having a slightly higher fire-starting chance would make it a great hybrid purpose gun for long range engagements, an alternative to the artemis, perhaps.
Speaking of the artemis, it is currently used only for it's very large firing arc (the exact firing arcs of the different guns should be more easily available information, since it's as important as the amount and type of damage being done when fitting a ship) as the mercury does it's job better at disabling and damaging ships at long range, and it's explosive damage doesn't come into play untill the hull armour is down. Add to that that the sniper and heavy mortar are the only guns good at removing armour from a long distance, and most armour damage has at least a "long" short range, getting that sniper on a ship is simply required for a long-range setup.
So how do we change the artemis/mercury to be more used/less frustrating? well quite simply we can look at the roles and what is required. Currently there are 2 light guns fullfilling the long range component disabling role (3 if you count the banshee), and only 1 fullfilling the armour removing role. I'd suggest specializing the mercury to taking out armour, and the artemis a bit more to taking out components at long range. Not only does the artemis have more counterplay as it's a missile and thus easier to see coming and dodge, you will have to make choices when making a long-range build whether or not you're going for more damage, or more disable, rather than just having both (fairly similiar to short range, though short range should always be more damage as it's more dangerous and harder to keep multiple guns on target)
As for the heavy mortar... I'd say just straight up reduce the flechette damage a bit (or the size of the aoe), or reduces the ammo/fire-rate of the gun, it's not as much of an issue that it can damage the armour as well as the balloon, as the speed at which it can do it (and damage both at the same time).
I'd also make a case for the gatling gun to be more focussed on armour damage, as it's the only short ranged gun that's much good at it, and trying to hit specific components with it is just silly(besides we have the carronade for short range component disabling).
Heavy flak just needs to be more accurate, it feels like it's a long-range gun(and the arming time supports this), but it seems to have unnecesarilly high jitter as well as relatively slow missile speed and high drop-off (it's damage is fine, just trying to hit things with it could be less of a bitch with the lesmok being nerfed now)
Anyway I could probably keep going all day but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on what I've had to say.
Let's start by having a look at the current guns we have, and what roles they fill:
Medium Guns:
Balloon damage:
Heavy Carronade (Short range)
Heavy Mortar (long range)
Armour damage:
Heavy Carronade (short range)
Heavy Mortar (Long range)
Hull damage:
Heavy Hwacha (Short range)
Heavy Flak (Long Range)
Component damage:
Heavy Hwacha (Short range)
Heavy Carronade (Short range)
Other:
And yes, hwacha has (significantly) longer effective range than the carronade, the mortar has longer range than the flak as well, and none of the guns do piercing damage so technically they aren't the best armour killers. There is a bit of generalization for the sake of brevity here, don't worry, the actual range is taking into account in the discussion.
Light Guns:
Balloon Damage:
Carronade (short range)
Flamethrower (short range)
Armour Damage:
Gatling gun(short range)
Mercury gun(long range)
Flamethrower(short range) (not the greatest, but fire has a decent armour damage ratio. and it's easy to get alot of stacks on it)
Hull Damage:
Scylla double mortar(short range)
Light flak (short range)
Artemis rocket launcher(long range)
Banshee (long range) (not a ton of damage but hey, it's all explosive)
Flamethrower (short range)
Component Damage:
Carronade(short range)
Mercury gun (long range)
Artemis (long range)
Gatling gun(short range)
Flamethrower (short range) (not so much damage but still disables them so eh)
Other:
Harpoon Gun(short range)
Mine Launcher (kinda counts as short range I guess?)
Flare Gun (short range (mostly due to inaccuracy))
So let's start making observations. First off there is no medium gun with long range component disabling ability (hwacha is medium effective range at best and even then can be dodged). There is also no medium gun that both does good damage vs. armour AND hull, but there are both long and short range versions for each seperate role. Ignoring for the moment how well each gun does at performing it's given role, these guns seem pretty balanced.
The first thing one may notice with light guns is that flamethrowers *seem* pretty much good against everything. Having used flamethrowers however, besides their range being prohibitive, I also find it questionable how much damage it actually does or does not do, as it does not seem to kill things (besides the balloon) nearly as quickly as it's damage ratio's would indicate. In short the flamethrower is probably not broken despite doing good damage to everything.
The second thing is that all balloon and component damaging skills are short range besides the Artemis, Mercury, and in medium the heavy mortar. Let's take a closer look at those guns.
The heavy mortar disables the balloon and damages the armour, the Mercury disables components and damages the armour, and the artemis damages the hull and disables components.
The mortar, while hard to use for new players, is problematic because it runs the enemy ship into the ground WHILE removing their armour. The Artemis won't do much damage besides disabling components until the armour is down, so that seems balanced. The Mercury on the other hand disables components (such as the engines and guns) AND removes the armour, and is thus also problematic.
The reason why these two guns are problematic is because they don't require as much teamplay (meaning combination with other guns/ships) as other guns do, because they essentially fill the role of two guns at once (a disabling gun and a damaging gun) without paying enough of a penalty at one of the two roles. The artemis is a good counter example of how a double role gun should work. It's nowhere near as good as the specialized guns in it's area, but it has the advantage that, when one of it's roles is no longer required, it's less of a waste of a firing arc compared to the more specialized guns.
Essentially, if a gun fullfills multiple roles with it's damage, it should pay a price for that, either being very ineffective at one of the roles, or being significantly less powerful (though obviously not useless) at both.
The banshee and flamethrower could be put in a seperate category for "firespreaders" short and long range, but the banshee is so ineffective at doing, well, anything at current, that it'd be inaccurate. Changing banshee to do a bit more explosive damage and having a slightly higher fire-starting chance would make it a great hybrid purpose gun for long range engagements, an alternative to the artemis, perhaps.
Speaking of the artemis, it is currently used only for it's very large firing arc (the exact firing arcs of the different guns should be more easily available information, since it's as important as the amount and type of damage being done when fitting a ship) as the mercury does it's job better at disabling and damaging ships at long range, and it's explosive damage doesn't come into play untill the hull armour is down. Add to that that the sniper and heavy mortar are the only guns good at removing armour from a long distance, and most armour damage has at least a "long" short range, getting that sniper on a ship is simply required for a long-range setup.
So how do we change the artemis/mercury to be more used/less frustrating? well quite simply we can look at the roles and what is required. Currently there are 2 light guns fullfilling the long range component disabling role (3 if you count the banshee), and only 1 fullfilling the armour removing role. I'd suggest specializing the mercury to taking out armour, and the artemis a bit more to taking out components at long range. Not only does the artemis have more counterplay as it's a missile and thus easier to see coming and dodge, you will have to make choices when making a long-range build whether or not you're going for more damage, or more disable, rather than just having both (fairly similiar to short range, though short range should always be more damage as it's more dangerous and harder to keep multiple guns on target)
As for the heavy mortar... I'd say just straight up reduce the flechette damage a bit (or the size of the aoe), or reduces the ammo/fire-rate of the gun, it's not as much of an issue that it can damage the armour as well as the balloon, as the speed at which it can do it (and damage both at the same time).
I'd also make a case for the gatling gun to be more focussed on armour damage, as it's the only short ranged gun that's much good at it, and trying to hit specific components with it is just silly(besides we have the carronade for short range component disabling).
Heavy flak just needs to be more accurate, it feels like it's a long-range gun(and the arming time supports this), but it seems to have unnecesarilly high jitter as well as relatively slow missile speed and high drop-off (it's damage is fine, just trying to hit things with it could be less of a bitch with the lesmok being nerfed now)
Anyway I could probably keep going all day but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on what I've had to say.
Pages: [1]