Messages

1

Gameplay / Re: Mobula builds

« on: March 13, 2015, 11:07:24 am »

Thanks for all the tips Pies!

I used to roll with dual banshees on the lower flanks but haven't revisited that build in a while. How do banshees fare with burst?

15 metres eh? Definitely not worth sacrificing the DPS for that! I always forget how incendiary affects fire-based weapons, specifically something like the hades or banshee. Does it just increase ignite chance?

Yes, the buff engie is a little more risky but the rewards are there. I've not dabbled much with chem spray loadouts as they require the engie to be cyclical and disciplined. I certainly don't rule it out though.

Ah, I thought the claw increased acceleration because it's something I pop in a pinch. That's good to know as hydro has helped me countless times get out of trouble. One of my favourite tactics is to ascend fast and appear to go over the enemy only to slam it into reverse and lower myself back into arc to catch the enemy turning. It works well with ramming Pyras. Kero would supplement this.

Tar isn't something I deliberately position myself to use, it's more if an enemy finds itself behind me and I can't afford to turn round. Fire off some tar, perhaps go straight up and back to give some distance.

And yes, hydro works very well with the arty gun arcs.

Anyway, thanks again. Very detailed and informative response!

2

Gameplay / Re: 1.4.0 Pyra. Too much stick?

« on: March 12, 2015, 10:10:29 am »

That was exactly my point Kamoba

3

Gameplay / Re: Mobula builds

« on: March 12, 2015, 06:51:01 am »

BlackenedPies: great tip on the extinguisher! I like my gunner up top to bring heatsink but as captain an extinguisher would be very helpful on the top deck.

So, my preferred build after being on hiatus for the best part of a year:

• Twin arties on the wings
• Gat on lower hull side
• Banshee or flak on lower balloon side
• Hades up top

Engies to tend to their sides of the ship -- no leaving your posts! Lesmok for gat. I'm flexible on the banshee/flak side. Buff engies can be handy.

Gunner stays with Hades looking after their gun and main engine. Brings burst or heatsink, lesmok, and incendiary (for short arm-time) or greased.

I bring phoenix claw for quicker turning (will see how I fare without this!), drogue chutes, and tar barrel for ships that get where they shouldn't get (saved my bacon no end of times). I used to bring hydro but the mob balloon gets a lot of hammer and often popping hydro would kill it so I decided to redirect that damage to the engines in the form of tar. Buffed balloon helps with this though. If I can ditch phoenix claw, I might bring hydro again as it was handy as well.

I prefer the arties to be high because of their poor upward arc (and their horizontal arc is great for the wings). The lesmok gat means that the engie can release a clip at range before tending to repairs with some piercing overlap from the dedicated hades gunner. The banshee can have at it constantly but with the flak a bit more patience and timing is required. The fire from the hades and banshee is a bonus.

I have a lot of success with this build, it's competent close range but works very well medium to long. The other plus is that all crew members get to gun and engineer and have very defined roles and responsibilities.

4

Gameplay / Re: 1.4.0 Pyra. Too much stick?

« on: March 12, 2015, 05:17:02 am »

Been a while since I posted on these forums -- been away from Guns for some time -- but from my understanding of awkm, he's always trying to open up the decision space and stifle dominant strategies. There will always be the meta but the harder that is to find, the better. I can't believe 'meta--yawn... sorry drifted off there-- midion' is still a thing after all this time.

What I've read on this thread is a lot of people saying the Pyra should be this, and the Pyra should be that. I personally don't think any ship should be pinned down to a particular strategy or way of playing. If nerfing the hull health makes a captain think twice before charging in, rather than it being expected, then I think that's a good thing. Charging should be something the entire crew should be notified of and be totally prepared for. That opens up other considerations too: perhaps those two front guns shouldn't be all killing power now? Perhaps they could be disablers to buy you time as you close the gap? Covering fire and even flanking is going to be a lot more important now as well.

I'm not saying that the nerf itself is good, or even needed, but I think the intention of breaking up the vanguard/ram mentality and keeping people engaged with the possibilities of the Pyra rather than the effectiveness of one or two strategies, is a good thing.

5

Q&A / Re: How to handle silent or noncommunicative crews

« on: May 22, 2014, 05:05:12 am »

also another trick is to park your ship in a safe corner of the map where there are no enemies in sight and explain to the crew how the ship is going to work and wait for responses (which at times come in the form of DCs)

Hahaha, wow, that's... that's evil and genius.

6

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Call for Gunner Ammo Ideas

« on: May 20, 2014, 04:09:21 pm »

The first I heard of the vanilla/normal rounds idea was in September last year from Mr. Mouse (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,410.msg42470.html#msg42470) and it just sounded so elegant to me and mechanically consistent. At present gunners sacrifice more because they have to choose a repair item to even have the capacity to fix stuff (and even then they sacrifice rebuild/repair speed and the ability to fight fire depending on what they go for). Engineers on the other hand get standard ammo and an alt with a full complement of engineering tools. Yes, they loose two ammo types being an engineer, but they don't loose the ability to gun like a gunner loses the ability to fix things efficiently.

The biggest problem with the vanilla/normal rounds idea is indeed working out how (p)reloading guns should work. Scavenged Ammo sounds like a good way of sidestepping the whole reloading issue as it means the default ammo isn't desirable and encourages all crew to exercise caution when jumping on, and perhaps more importantly, off a gun. The ammo icon could be a broken bullet or something and the gun have really dull sounds. If gunners suddenly become the loaders or ammo carriers then that pushes them into a really interesting and unique space where they could very well be multi-tasking like engineers do. Engineers alternatively, in the role of gunning, would have to be specialised or roll vanilla like a gunner has to with engineering tools (pipe wrench). It sounds excellent to me.

As for new rounds...

I've always wanted to see something that allows guns to turn beyond their default arcs. Perhaps damaging them in the process when they do. I'm not sure how bullets can influence the mechanics of the turntable the gun is mounted on but... hey, it sounds good to me.

Penetrating/ghost rounds that go through components? Could be handy against Galleons head on and other long ships. I'll leave negative effects to you awkm -- that's a science and I'm no scientist! :-)

7

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Mobula Suggestion

« on: May 16, 2014, 05:31:57 am »

I had a mixed crew also no offense to daft but he is no goose and I had never flown with him competitively before... with that being said you guys would have won with a second pyra...

I suppose Pyras fly themselves to glory eh? We might have won if I hadn't made so many mistakes with my manoeuvring and a couple of guns had been switched out. Those things cost us, and they're piloting/loadout issues irrespective of ship (mostly) -- nothing a bit of time and experience can't sort out.

I am (and was) fully aware of your caveat but my point was that even as a noob pilot (relatively speaking) with a sub-optimal Mobula build, I/we weren't 'easy to kill' and had some success in a competitive best of three. I'm sure we're not the only ones either. And besides, if a stock response is to just 'go Pyra' then is there any wonder we don't see so many Mobs and Spires in the skies? They're ships that require different mentalities and I think that's the real hurdle for most people, hence why they're considered 'Hard' ships to pilot and master, and hence why you don't see much success with them. I don't think that's a reason to go Pyra (or whatever) myself, it's a challenge with its risks and rewards. And I do love the rewards of the Mob.

8

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Mobula Suggestion

« on: May 15, 2014, 02:13:21 pm »

Sunday Rumble 15 says 'Hi!' Cpt Janeway (formerly Mad Maverick, right?) ;-)

http://youtu.be/lGAiA9t6sFk

We gave you Wolves a good run for your money all things considered; we were a mixed team (some of whom I'd never played with before), that was my first (and only) proper Sunday Rumble as a pilot so I was a bag of nerves for those three games (resulting in some awful panicked manoeuvres), and looking back my Mob loadout wasn't exactly ideal. A lot has changed since then but I had to bring this up! :-)

It was a shame AK dissolved and Valiant are more casual, but I'd love to play some more competitive games.

9

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Mobula Suggestion

« on: May 14, 2014, 10:04:24 am »

I've heard that suggestion before Caprontos with regards to the walkway spanning the rear of the ship. I can imagine that working quite well, and yeah, those ladders are a bit sticky at times.

Even though I know about that pilot-jump-gun-mount exploit, I've no desire to use it because it's so ridiculous. (I'm not sure how I feel about the Junker under-hull-repair quirk either for that matter.) I agree though, that glitch should be fixed. To be honest, I thought it already had.

10

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Mobula Suggestion

« on: May 14, 2014, 07:21:19 am »

What about if the tunnel connecting the hull and balloon was added but the ability for the pilot to man the middle gun was taken away?

How would you do that Grey? I rarely use the top gun as a pilot because it takes too long to get up there and usually my gunner is doing a damn fine job himself :-) I tend to grind along the railings on the front and drop to a lower deck gun, or stretch further to a side gun. This is usually when extra firepower is absolutely needed.

11

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Mobula Suggestion

« on: May 14, 2014, 07:17:30 am »

As an almost exclusive Mobula pilot, I'm with Craf, Spud and Omni here.

The problem with the Mobula isn't the ship itself, it's the people crewing it and the playstyles being imposed on it. I personally think it's one of the more satisfying and easier ships to manage if you're playing with it rather than against it. It draws the most criticism because it's highly compartmentalised but, newsflash: that's by design. If you're trying to have one main engie run around like an ultra runner (and failing) when the ship is so utterly non-conducive to that, then... well, sorry, you're doing it wrong.

You've got the central gun all the way up there with a ladder near the back, two side guns some distance away from each other. The balloon and hull on opposite ends of the ship below the deck in isolated chambers, hell, even the pilot has to do some parkour to dismount the helm with any sort of efficiency. The Mobula demands a crew that can engineer and gun individually, just like the positions of all its components. That's why I think it's such a fun ship: everyone gets to -- has to -- do a bit of everything. When I'm playing with newer players or strangers, assuming everyone brings the right equipment, my orders are usually: "stick to your side of the ship, and look after your own components. DON'T leave your station." And that's it. If I let people run around loose, too much time is wasted travelling.

As for the 'fixes'. I'd rather not see a corridor linking the two sides of the ship because the component isolation is what makes the Mobula the Mobula, what forces crews to think differently about how they approach this unusual ship, and arguably what keeps it balanced. I don't object to the hatches though, that's a long way back for anyone wanting to fall below deck, a good emergency trade-off and possibly opens the ship up to some other unusual playstyles. Besides, a bit of sunlight down there might be nice ;-)

If the corridor was implemented, I think it would have to be near the front of the ship, pushing the hull chamber in line with the balloon's towards the back. That way repairs would still involve commitment and the rear ladders would still be necessary. It would also allow crew to relay between the two guns below deck.

In the right hands though, the Mob is devastating as is and as far as I'm concerned that's exactly how it should be. I think it's in a great place personally.

12

Gameplay / Re: Turboclicker.exe - fixing the broken autorepair

« on: March 06, 2014, 08:36:30 am »

Just use X-mouse (http://www.highrez.co.uk/downloads/XMouseButtonControl.htm) or Logitech's Setpoint software if you've got a Logitech mouse. I've assigned middle mouse click (and hold) to 'turboclick' so it doesn't interfere with anything else. As an added bonus, both pieces of software will recognise when GoIO is running so this configuration is activated and deactivated automatically. They're great as set and forget apps.

Personally, I think it's a pain that we're even considering all these workarounds though because autorepair should be as effective as clicking really fast manually anyway.

13

Gameplay / Re: Artemis

« on: December 14, 2013, 12:47:56 pm »

I think geggis' suggestion of slower turning rates is extremely interesting and something worth testing.

Thanks Smollett. I just think it would make gunners and pilots really have to work for those trifectas and vectors without hitting any of the gun's other attributes. A slower turning rate would really make you think twice about hopping off the gun and resetting its position once you'd got a lock on your target as well. That could be a really interesting dilemma on a disabling weapon. I'm really keen to see other ammo types being considered for the Artemis too -- burst by default is a bit dull. With this change heatsink would be very attractive and greased might be a possibility too if it can empty a clip faster while you've got that hard won lock (it would also allow you to hop off the gun sooner to attend other things).

Also never underestimate what a very small damage nerf will do.  Lowering the shatter to 100 from 120 and the explosive ever so slightly down to 60 would still give it 1 hit kills on light weapons but would make it tougher to take out heavy weapons.  This might serve to not only allow a LJ to be a reliable counter but also reduce the armor damage per hit from 45 per shot down to 38 per shot and hull damage from 110 per hit down to 94 per hit.

Yeah, this could make charged more desirable at the expense of burst's AoE too, opening up more options.

14

Gameplay / Re: Artemis

« on: December 12, 2013, 04:09:52 am »

It's not the power of the gun, it's the ease of it's use. You take away it's trifecta (reduce turning arc) and it's still a good disabling weapon, but it becomes more difficult to use in all situations. It's essentially in the same boat as the field gun was.

Yeah, that was one of the reasons I suggested reducing its turning speed further, or (preferably for me) making burst rounds reduce turning speed: it doesn't do away with the ability to gain trifectas but does drastically reduce how easy they are to achieve and maintain. It also has the side effect of making close quarter combat trickier, especially with faster moving ships. This change would make heatsink a very desirable ammo to bring along too. I wouldn't like to change the turning arc limits but I think a turning rate tweak, whether it be to the gun itself or its predominant ammo type (burst), could open more options and create a little more risk with the weapon without diminishing its power. I wouldn't object to a little jitter for super long ranges either, just to open heavy clip up. Edit: Hmm, that might render Lesmok useless though, if that's a problem.

15

Gameplay / Re: Artemis

« on: December 11, 2013, 09:07:11 am »

Byron did you catch the question in my last post?