Messages

46

Gameplay / Re: The buff hammer, and guns.

« on: November 27, 2013, 06:07:15 am »

Looking at your ranks there GeoRrm, and I think your point of view may be a bit biased. Anyhow, yes I did forget about the few guns (essentially anything with an arming time) that require more then one ammo type. So lets looks at a Lumberfish with a buff engineer. Basic set up, of course, is a main engineer, a buff engineer, and a gunner for the main gun. If positioned correctly, the fish can stay out of combat and keep the front gun buffed 24/7, and with a good gunner, taking out balloons with only two shots instead of the normal 3. This makes it harder to not get sunk due to the fact the gunner only needs to land two shots instead three. With a good pilot and gunner, one fish can easily rotate shots between enemy ships, with lesmok rounds, and keep them both disabled for their ally to clean up. (Yes there are tactics to counter this, I know, this is just an example so don't bring them up). And not all players are tactical masters FYI, so keep in mind the battle between the people who know how to use that buff effectively and not. I can see a lot of captains getting frustrated because their guns are just not outputting damage like the enemy is because they don't have a buff engi that is skilled with keeping everything buffed.

Basically, buffed weapons make it harder for other teams to make a comeback after they get hit with a buffed gun. Are gunners useful, absolutely, especially with new ammo and reload systems coming in. However, the fact remains that 20% damage increase is basically the same as adding charged rounds with the current rounds you have on your gun with no drawbacks.

47

Gameplay / Re: The buff hammer, and guns.

« on: November 26, 2013, 07:49:47 pm »

I have not found buffing very useful. If you are buffing your own weapon you may miss the reload, if you are buffing another player's weapon you are not repairing or shooting which might be more useful in the situation. Taking a buff kit is a risk, especially with the PUG crews I fly with most of the time. I acknowledge it might be powerful at higher level play, but I don't get to play there very often.

Next update you will not be missing the reload anymore, will load up the ammo you started to load with.

48

Gameplay / Re: The buff hammer, and guns.

« on: November 26, 2013, 05:09:49 pm »

I think your helping make the point that the damage buff is a bit too useful, "If all I gained was a more resilient gun then I would never let a buff on my ship in most situations." Why would you not have a buff then if you get no damage out of it? You can still get engine buffs, hull buffs, balloon buffs, and not have to worry about guns getting one-shotted. Reading that I feel that you have a belief that all guns should come with a buff to increase damage output. Just buff, get quick kills, pre-buff again and you have the same cycle. Captains telling crews they cannot go gunner because they want an engineer because they do more damage. The only thing that should determine gun damage is ammo types, just take damage away from the buff kit entirely and re-do the buff kit as a purely defensive tool.

This is my opinion on the current state of the buff tool, it should not be used as a sword, but as a shield.

49

The Lounge / Re: The terrible pun topic.

« on: November 26, 2013, 04:55:50 pm »

Are you flakin' kidding? Shink will surely get flamed for this one.

Will you guys stop Carronading on, distracting me from my blending

Im sure your attention will pop back momentarily.

Just like Hade's hair in Hercules. (now I want to watch it again, so much bad mythology)

50

Gameplay / Re: The buff hammer, and guns.

« on: November 26, 2013, 04:32:41 pm »

Don't know about you guys, but anyone else thinking that having the buff hammer reduce damage to guns may also help alleviate the arti problem going on too?

51

Gameplay / Re: Artemis

« on: November 26, 2013, 04:28:59 pm »

Well then something to ask is who here doesn't immediately toss burst ammo into them? Sure there are options but burst seems to be a rather cut and dry choice that could be making the Artemis better with no drawbacks.

So lets look at burst ammo, More shots, more aoe, and a slight reduction in firing speed. I see nothing but perks since lower firing speed is alright because the enemy cannot shoot you anyhow because you blew their guns up.

52

Gameplay / Re: The buff hammer, and guns.

« on: November 26, 2013, 04:23:53 pm »

Before we go about nerfing the buff hammer, shouldn't we first establish that in its current state it has issues. Sure you get the pro of extra damage. However you still have the cons of

Time spent buffing. During this time you are giving up other potential things you should be doing.
Short duration of buff. Requires timing and makes it difficult (though not impossible) to keep up during a fight
Use of a repair tool slot. A buff engineer has to either give up specializing his repair or rebuild or has to sacrifice a fire tool.

I think these make up for the 20% strength.

Time spent buffing, Sammy, you know most guns can be kept constantly buffed during reload cycles, and the fact that before most battles all the guns are pre-buffed to get a quick kill. Point is, it is still more worth while to run buff engi then to go gunner (sorry for bringing up class vs class Zill, but currently the buff hammer is a big selling point to not have gunners on a ship, so it is bound to come up.) Also, I would not call this idea a nerf, but a repurposing of the tool. Changing it from a tool to assist in kills to a tool to assist in defense.

53

Gameplay / Re: Artemis

« on: November 26, 2013, 04:10:49 pm »

Perhaps it is a different reason that makes people point at the artemis and say OP? Does it disable too many things at once?

Yes, yes it does. I personally think the shatter damage needs to be dropped a bit, two shots for large components and one for small components with the large aoe is a bit too much disabling power. With this you should still be able to disable what you want in a clip, but not in a single shot or two.

54

Gameplay / Re: The buff hammer, and guns.

« on: November 26, 2013, 03:58:42 pm »

What if the gun buff reduced incoming damage instead?

Thought I said that.. But yea, this would be very nice, especially for galleons. Actually, now that I think about it, I brought up this idea in my boiler room topic. Adding power to the guns to reduce incoming damage and make it easier to repair them.

55

Gameplay / Re: The buff hammer, and guns.

« on: November 26, 2013, 03:57:23 pm »

Maybe buff the guns other properties but reduce the damage buff. Quicker turning speed or reload speed are good properties to start with. Remember, most guns only use one round, so having buffs that effect different rounds would not achieve anything. For instance, I run greased on gats, so having increased fire rate would be a benefit to me as a guninneer. Buffs need to give assistance, but not in a way making it so you can pass up having different rounds for different scenarios.

Quicker reload speed would count as increased damage output. And the idea of buffs helping a particular ammo type would not solve the issue.

56

Gameplay / Re: The buff hammer, and guns.

« on: November 26, 2013, 03:50:28 pm »

Why bother having a gunner when the engineer does more damage? Most small guns and a few heavy guns can get off using only one ammo type making the use of a gunner useless. I personally say forget about increasing the damage and increase a different value or two. For instance, how about buffed guns taking less damage so they can keep shooting under fire longer, or quicker turn speed. Just having buffs add damage only helps make gunners obsolete.

57

Gameplay / Re: Artemis

« on: November 25, 2013, 09:40:16 pm »

I'd say it's exploiting the art's inability to aim up by bringing a ship with better vertical speed.

 Yea, but the other ship can raise up with you since the usual tactic with the arti is to get above the enemy too. What I see is the same issue that we have been seeing with a lot of guns here and there (IE Merc) where you have one gun and it is perfectly fine, but having two or more, it becomes broken.

58

General Discussion / Re: Question for Pilots

« on: November 10, 2013, 05:26:35 am »

I swap ships around way to much to give a definitive answer. As many people said before me, depends on the crew, what mood I am in, the map type, and who else is playing.

59

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New Game Mode - 2v2v2/1v1v1

« on: November 10, 2013, 05:21:36 am »

Been playing some Chivalry DW, and they have incorporated multiple teams death matches. Usually rounds start up by the teams grouping up and "wolf packing" it, usually trying to be the clean up crew after another two teams engaged. Seen it a lot, two large groups battle it out and the third clears through them. Now, those are larger teams of single individuals, so there is a good chance that it will work very differently with the smaller fleets. Though I will keep to my opinion that the start of the game (at least DM) will be a sitzkrieg to see which team will initiate first. Other then that, would be interesting to see.

60

General Discussion / Re: My god is the hades glorious

« on: October 09, 2013, 03:27:49 pm »

I definitely enjoy having a hades on when dueling small weapon ships, but for those heavy weapons I still prefer a merc to snipe them out.