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.

Messages - ZnC

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
The Lounge / Re: Prove you're oldfag
« on: February 28, 2017, 11:11:39 am »
the oldflak

which is actually the old newflak.

Well, email this feedback to Muse. And don't forget to share the answer, so we can all have a bitter laugh.

Always love how accurately you point things out Schwalbe.

To reply Nietzsche, the intention of this suggestion is indeed a nerf to Artemis and Hwacha. Both of which are powerful guns which consistently dominate the meta (in pubs and competitive). Needless to say, the extra 50% AoE for both guns is already huge. Removing the extra four/one shot(s) from Hwacha/Artemis is not a huge nerf. It just removes the extra gains that they shouldn't have in the first place.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Upcoming Wild Week Vote.
« on: February 14, 2017, 07:55:12 pm »
Testing will be a lot more effective if we focused on 1 ammo and 1 gun (as compared to 2 ammo, or 2 guns at the same time).

As much as I want to see Burst without clip size increase, or Greased with its shell drop, I want to get Loch over and done with. Harpoon would be much more 'test-worthy' than the Carronade arc changes, which we probably know the result of.

The Pit / Re: Battlecries!
« on: February 07, 2017, 03:46:08 am »

General Discussion / Re: What do you name your ships and why?
« on: January 31, 2017, 03:58:24 am »
I recently renamed my ship to 'ready up' because READY UP.

Scratch my previous post. After spending much time discussing and staring at my spreadsheet...

My conclusion is that the (+20% damage from) buff hammer needs to be nerfed first. Otherwise, my proposal would have been +10% clip size, -25% Damage, +80% Rate of Fire. This lets Greased fit into its niche of high burst DPS and low clip damage. However, increasing Rate of Fire also increases the DPS given from buffs. So buffed Greased Gat would be pretty much broken.

(tl;dr: Zanc's proposal - Remove +20% Clip Size.)

I refrained from posting because I didn't see a need for Greased to be changed. But after hashing it out with Richard (and Daniel kinda?) on Skype, I do think Buff Hammer + Greased is too strong. This is because of how buff's +20% damage work with the increase in clip size.

Greased gives 60% Rate of Fire, but drops damage by 20%; the buff hammer negates this drawback. So you are essentially getting both +60% Rate of Fire and a +20% Clip Size. The only downsides are -20% Projectile Speed and -15% Rotation speed - mere inconveniences.

My suggestion is (as always) a simple one. Remove the 20% increase in Clip Size. This lets it deal higher DPS while firing, but lowers overall clip damage. Greased then becomes important for getting crucial 'armor-down' shots in, instead of just simply making the gun 'stronger'.

If -50% clip is too strong on lumber, then why not keep it at -60%?

Because I'm hoping to make it viable on the Hades, Light Flak and sometimes Light Carronade. -60% clip size kills it for those guns.

For the Lumberjack, I think 3 shots with about -50% RoF is fine. If you miss you need to wait ~2.5s to make the next shot (compared to ~1.2s now). The subsequent shots also won't matter as much if you land the first. Greased and Charged will still have the most optimal DPS (but longer arming range) due to Loch's self-damage.

Richard mentioned in Skype that the Lumberjack gets 3 powerful (balloon OHKO) shots. Considering that, we were discussing whether to up it to -60% RoF. From the numbers perspective, I'm inclined to agree. The DPS does look outrageous on paper (Lumberjack, Hades, L.Flak, L.Carro etc.), even when considering RoF loss from self-damage.

Comparatively, Charged Rounds adds only 30% damage, drops clip size by 20% and reduces RoF by 25%.

I'm generally against nerfing (as opposed to buffing) when it comes to balance; rotation speed at -80% does feel significantly better than -90% in practice. I prefer higher jitter reduction, but am okay with it right now.

My suggestion and Daft's are going towards the same direction. I was going to say that I'd vote for either one... until I pulled the numbers.

Reducing clip size by 40% (as opposed to 50%) gives the Lumberjack, Light Flak and Hades an extra shot. That (along with only -20% RoF) would very definitely break them. I don't think -20% RoF is enough to balance the sheer 125% increase in damage; Loch Gat would still be broken.

Clip Size should stay at 50%. Rate of Fire can be fine-tuned (40-60%). I have no opinions on Rotation Speed and Jitter (as long as no drastic changes).

Gameplay / Re: Purpose of Lochnagar reversion call?
« on: January 23, 2017, 05:23:55 pm »
I've sent this in before but I'm just going to post it here. As someone who considers himself a gunning enthusiast and intimate with the numbers - this is how I look at Loch.

Primarily use: Arming time reduction
Secondary uses: High risk burst damage, jitter reduction
Guns with arming time:
  • Lumberjack
  • H.Flak
  • Hades
  • L.Flak
  • Mine Launcher
  • Flare
Notable mention: H.Carro (used for jitter reduction and burst damage)

  • Clip Size: -50% (previously -60%)
  • Rate of Fire: -50% (added)
  • AoE, Arming Time, Rotation Speed, Recoil, Damage, Self Damage: same as before
  • Clip Size change (50% instead of 60%) allows it to be much more viable on Hades and L.Flak, both of which have Arming Time.
  • Rate of Fire change (50% reduction) allows it to fill its niche as a burst ammo type. This fixes all the broken DPS values.
The end result - you get an ammo type that is viable on all the guns mentioned above, but still fun to play with on other guns.

Gameplay / Re: Purpose of Lochnagar reversion call?
« on: January 21, 2017, 09:03:38 pm »
Fuck that, new Loch has lightning. Don't you take my lightning flame thrower and machine gun away you Devils.

Solidus, even the old Loch had lightning. Just that it was hardly noticable when the gun explodes itself.

Anyway I think lightning machine gun and flamethrower is cool and all. But I much prefer my LIGHTNING FIREBALLS (Hades).

Gameplay / Re: Purpose of Lochnagar reversion call?
« on: January 21, 2017, 08:22:14 pm »
I've said this many times and I will say it again. From a design perspective, the primary role of Lochnagar is to reduce arming time. There are no other ammo types that do this.

The ones with a similar effect reduce projectile speed (up to 30% from incendiary), which incidentally affects arming range. Lochnagar reduces arming time by a whooping 60%, while maintaining your projectile speed/shot trajectory.

Granted, it has an added "cool factor" of being a high-risk ammo that does a burst of damage. But, IMO, that is not its primary function.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: new weapons: thinking outside the box
« on: January 20, 2017, 08:29:21 pm »
This is very interesting. A simpler way to create this kind of gameplay right now is that the gun overheats when fired (without fire stacks). Gunners usually don't carry firefighting tools, so it'll need to be extinguished/chem'd by an engineer. There's also potential for interaction with Heatsink Clip; it doesn't overheat, but you don't maximize your damage either.

As an (ex-)competitive buff engineer I enjoyed supporting my gunner, but only did so through conventional buffs and repairs. The most common case for this is the front engineer on a Goldfish. I liked the fact that you needed to time your buff. Knowing when an enemy is in range and when your gunner is about to take a shot.

Sadly the chance of this idea (or any gun idea for that matter) being explored is very slim.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17