Messages

31

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: ship design thread

« on: July 27, 2013, 08:52:49 pm »

This thread inspired me to chip in with one of my own - I'm terrible at drawing, so I used a quick 3d editor to mock it up. The idea isn't nearly as interesting as the first post, but its what my brain spat out . The balloon repair is marked in blue, hull in red, double barreled guns are medium mount. The pilot station is unmarked (oops!) upper deck forward. There is a ladder in between decks. Rigging, support,  and grating on mid deck missing.

The Fortress (twist on the galleon, but same role):

Pros:
Heavy Firepower
Only rear blindspot
  - Medium and light gun in 3 directions
  - lights have small overlaps with wide angle weapons.
3 distinct duty stations
Good hull and armor


Cons:
Medium max speed, but very slow turning
Poor upwards and downwards visibility
Slow traversing between decks
Large target balloon

32

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: ship design thread

« on: July 27, 2013, 05:56:44 pm »

I like the design a lot! Kind of a mini Galleon, but balloon on bottom. The detailing you put on the hull has really beautiful curves to it, the canopy over the helm especially.


The broadside combined with low turning would make it difficult to pilot, even if its fast. One concern though is that it would be really easy to engineer - very hard to knock enemy engineers off of guns to fix things... and with 3 light guns thats just brutal. What if you made a little under deck near where the engines are, a bottom scaffold like the Junker has? The repair points for the balloon and turning engines could be there.

My other concern is that the 3 fields have so much overlap - mercury sniping with 3 might be possible (and would be terrible). What if the back and front guns are turned just a little bit away from center? It would mitigate the front/rear blindspot a bit, which kinda sucks because its a defining feature of the ship, but it would stop potential triple merc fire.

33

Gameplay / Re: Hydrogen/Chute Vent Damage

« on: July 26, 2013, 03:30:34 pm »

Thanks for the advise! I hadn't played before 1.2 so I don't know how that was, but its interesting to here how it was.

In situations where you want to get distance between you and an attacker I sometimes use the damage on maps like Fjords which have lots of height, a strategic hydrogen balloon pop will give you vertical drop, slower than vent chute but faster than standard dive rate, as long as you warn the crew you're going to do it and have enough height to drop safely in. It works particularly well if an attacker is following you up.

...

Mmm, I'll have to try that!

34

Gameplay / Re: Damage modifier normalization

« on: July 25, 2013, 01:19:36 am »

I had a fantastic time in the triple health test - it was a heck of a lot more fun when the life expectancy without armor is greater then 1 second

35

Gameplay / Hydrogen/Chute Vent Damage

« on: July 25, 2013, 01:17:19 am »

I've been trying to incorporate Hydrogen and Chute Vent into my piloting style recently and I've been having some problems. A lot of this is probably just me using them wrong - but how do people get around the sheer amount of balloon damage they do? It seems like if I tap them once (I know that gives 3 seconds of effect) I lose about a third/half of my balloon. You can get a decent altitude change, but really only once per fight and thats only if the enemy is ignoring your balloon. I wouldn't mind it too terribly much if the balloon weren't so slow to repair - but it is. An engineer can almost completely compensate for kerosene, but a single altitude maneuver can take several mallet strikes to repair.

So how do people currently use them? I use Chute vent to dodge rams or 'slam' an enemy after caronading them (I'm not very good at that yet).   I can fast park a Junker in debris in Paritian and hide under the balloon as well, or use Hydrogen to get above an enemy if I'm getting pounded. But those are kind of special scenarios - I think I'd have a lot more fun if I could use the tools to zip up and down many times in a fight.

This post boils down to:
Any advice for using Hydrogen and Chute Vent better?
How do you feel about the amount of damage they do? I think I'd have much more fun if they did much less damage or no damage at all.

Thanks!

36

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Mobula component layout

« on: July 24, 2013, 03:45:18 pm »

I enjoy flying spires a lot, but in pug's it really depends on the shooting quality of the crew. If you have 2 people that can shoot at long ranges you can tear a new one into any enemy. Unfortunately I'd say only about 35% of random people can hit at long ranges with a mercury or flak.

On topic:
I like that the Mobula has 2 definite engineering zones - its different from other ships. Considering that it can lay out a massive amount of firepower (4 guns at once is not all that hard to pull off), it needs something to balance it out. The rear ladders should give the engineers a bit more engine flexibility at least.

37

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Capture the Flag

« on: July 11, 2013, 10:11:21 pm »

Oooh, I like Seamus's idea a lot! The Squid might be a little too good at it, but then again it would be incredibly vulnerable while "docked".

A football/soccer style where you either ram or shoot the ball would be wonderfully fun! Heavy carronade sends it flying into an enemy Spire and kills it by accident .

38

Feedback and Suggestions / Capture the Flag

« on: July 11, 2013, 02:40:17 pm »

I was reading this topic about towing Mobulas: https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,1637.msg0/

And I got to thinking... we have harpoons, we have floating objective barrels, why not combine them to make a CTF game?

The basic idea is that the teams need to drag the objective to their home 'base'. This could be a classic defend, a single one spawning in the middle, both defending at once... you get the idea. The objective could be heavy to slow the dragging ship, or it could have some physics implemented to have it tug it around during turns etc. It could have its own little engine that makes it slowly drift towards its starting place, or not.

I think this game mode would be interesting because it would alter ship composition: every ship would probably want a harpoon (unless 1 ship was the dedicated grabber, but to me that seems a bit foolish). The flip side to this of course is that if no one brought harpoons then the match couldn't be played... I'm not really sure what would be good for that. Require at least 1 ship per team to have 1?

39

Gameplay / Re: ENGINEER & REPAIR TOOLS v1.3 Balance Issues

« on: July 10, 2013, 11:55:18 am »

I really like this change - it makes fire nice and dangerous, but still manageable. My only issue is that too many new people are spraying 1 stacks with chem sprays while under gat fire - they need to learn to just let it burn and use a mallet.

I do agree about the Chem Spray needing a bit of tweaking - its fine as a preventative when things are going right, but if things go wrong (and they do) then its a little too ineffective. Maybe reduce cooldown to 4 seconds?

40

News and Announcements / Re: Come test the new build!

« on: June 28, 2013, 01:25:26 pm »

I want to be part of this, but will not be available this weekend. Will this still be going on next week?

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198090575691/

41

Guides / Re: Junker Build: Countering the Pyra Gat/Flak

« on: June 27, 2013, 04:42:24 pm »

Thanks for the kind words everyone .

Good post, well explained.  I did some experimenting with the Banshee when it got a buff in a recent patch, but was not sold on it at all.  I've tried Artemis a few times, but never been all that impressed.

I'd like to know what ammo you tend to run in the Artemis.  Lesmok for distance and accuracy? Burst for the disable? Greased for the sheer output? Heavy for precision?

I'm thinking Burst might be the way to go, but I'd like to hear what has been working for you.

Probably give this build or something similar a go soon.  I'll report back.

I'm eager to hear what you find! When I first ran this build I was kind of shocked at how much more effective 2 Artemis' is than 1. I prefer Burst because the Artemis' long range is kind of borked by its zoom already, and the extra shot helps. In a perfect world both, but I don't think its worth losing an engineer over.

Very good explanation of your tactics and strategies. I normally fly a Gat/Flack/Gat Pyra for the same reason :

2) Everyone has fun crewing it. This might sound stupid, but good morale keeps everyone sharp. Everyone will be firing almost all the time.

The trifecta angle is very narrow but getting two gats on target almost negates the need for flack timing. The hull armor just doesn't stay up. Having a wider trifecta angle with the Artemis is nice, but its slow turn rate limits its us fullness as a 2ndary weapon for the main engineer.

I can see how the junker is a superior ship in this regard since a front mounted artemis can be used by a dedicated gunner while the engies can hop on the side guns in between repairs. My main beef with the junker is the distance the hull and balloon are from the closest guns. It is a minor gripe to be sure, but the extra seconds a crew member spends running from the gun to the hull and back is time he could be shooting.

This is a fine guide and a perfectly valid strategy. We should always be experimenting and finding new ways to expand the meta.

I actually didn't know about the Gat/Flak/Gat trifecta on a pyra... I'm not sure if I'm a good enough pilot to pull a really narrow angle off. Yeah the balloon/gun distance is a little large on a Junker - you can manage it in a reload but not the hull-balloon route. When I'm captaining I pretty much handle the balloon myself - but if the turning engines go down then someone has to run up there. I've 'swapped' with the upper engineer before - they ran upstairs to fix the engines while I hopped on the gun. At that point the front engineer has usually hopped off to baby the hull, so you don't need to worry about keeping up a trifecta angle.

42

Guides / Junker Build: Countering the Pyra Gat/Flak

« on: June 27, 2013, 03:23:57 pm »

Alternate title: I love the Artemis

Here is a Junker build that I've been using lately to astounding success:

Bottom Guns: Gatlings - put a gunner down here for dps.
Front Guns and Top Guns: Artemis Rocket Launchers - your engineers had better be good shots.

There are three reasons I think this works so well.
1) It combines explosive and piercing damage. Its not as good a killer as Gat/Flak, but it is good. When all is going well, this build can easily maintain 3 guns firing on the enemy - the 2 Artemis' explosive power gets the job done.
2) Everyone has fun crewing it. This might sound stupid, but good morale keeps everyone sharp. Everyone will be firing almost all the time.
3) With Pyramidion Gat/Flak so present in the meta, the Artemis is excellent. Let me explain why:

Pyra Gat/Flak is a quick killer that inexperienced crews and pilots can use to great effect. However, the ship is what I would call a "1.5" gun ship - at any given time only 1 of its main guns really matters. Flak can take down armor by itself, but any engineer can keep it up. Disabling the Gatling essentially cripples a Gat/Flak Pyra: it can't kill you, and can't disable you. It can turn, but with its sluggish response time this is an inferior option.  The Gatling by itself is more of a threat, because it can and will take down armor and eventually hull. But without the Flak to finish you off you will still be MUCH better off.

But you say "Well duh, if you take out their guns, they can't kill you. So what?". I say: the Artemis is superior over other weapons to take out that Gatling because of its range, burst radius, accuracy, and constant pressure. It can take down the Gatling at long ranges, unlike the Carronade: this means that you can knock it out before it does major damage to you. It has a large burst radius, making it more forgiving of wide shots than the Mercury (it also does explosive so synergizes with gat). It is both more accurate and has more constant pressure than the Hwacha: even though the Hwacha can knock out an entire ship if done perfectly, it will often not knock out what you need. The long firing delay also means that the enemy can recover their guns.

Finally, the two Artemis' firing at once makes for an amazing ambush and support build. If a Pyra ignores you to attack your ally: you can knock out all of their engines very fast, saving your ally. Similarly if you ever get to the side or behind a Pyra in a brawl, you can knock out an engine. Since their main engie is pretty busy fighting off your gat, they have to either lose a top gunner or lose the turning battle. Heck, in a brawl if I'm between enemies I will sometimes jump off the helm to fire an off side Artemis. 1 volley that disables something can turn a fight, and with the gat/art's wide firing arcs you have the time.


There are however major downsides to this build.
1) You give up the forward Mercury. I think this is worth it on all maps, except maybe dunes. But even then I just make one side a double snipe, front and other side art/art/gat. Still, this hurts.
2) You don't kill as fast as flaks on the side. If you are in a situation when you need the quick kill (need to run to an ally for example) then you are out of luck.
3) Does not work with AI crew. One is... allright, but you won't be getting accurate triple fire. You really need a crew that knows how to shoot out components. They also better have mics so they can yell at you if (when) you turn the gat out of arc.
4) Its harder to fly than Gat/Flak because the Artemis has a miserable upwards traverse. Down is not good but ok, but you can't be very far below a target. If they knock our your balloon or are above you? Its going to be a bad day.
5) Its harder to captain. This is both because you must maintain triple fire whenever possible, and also because you are responsible for telling your main engie when to repair. The balloon is also your responsibility. Your engies are too busy firing to do the balloon/hull run unless your maneuvering engines are also down.


This is my first guide, so let me know what you think!