Messages

31

Gameplay / Re: Jace's new patch notes.

« on: July 04, 2013, 09:56:20 am »

Now now, stuff can fixes before the patch is released. I think it'll become rather clear in the next few days that something is horribly wrong with a lot of the changes.

Exactly. I'm in the hopes that making our voices heard will expedite this process.

32

Gameplay / Re: Jace's new patch notes.

« on: July 04, 2013, 09:50:30 am »

Exactly my current concerns, Jace. On top of reducing a brawlers ability to engage on a snipe camp, lochnagar is now allowing weapons to turn when loaded albeit slowly. While the brawling changes are for the better of the game - I'm at a loss as to why the merc received such loving treatment given it's popularity in the competitive field. It's already so rewarding that it's the default long range forgoing explosives to bear a 2nd merc if capable.

The merc and loch changes together make the long game nauseatingly powerful. Every merc change I completely disagree with. The turning on loch has to be revoked immediately - the numbers are far too rewarding on a galleons heavy weapons (lochnagar carronade/heavy flak weak side anyone? I hear you like insta-gibs.)

33

The Pit / Achievement Woes

« on: July 02, 2013, 09:59:08 pm »

34

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

« on: June 28, 2013, 10:11:08 am »

Absolutely would love to participate in this.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/sakeriel/

35

General Discussion / Re: I played with X

« on: June 26, 2013, 10:35:07 am »

To everyone involved in the all-squids match of this evening: thank you. THANK YOU!
It was beautiful. It really moved me.

Haha that was indeed a lovely match! Well played everyone involved. I've never seen such team organization in a squid match come from both sides.

36

Gameplay / Re: orignal flamethrower

« on: June 24, 2013, 10:32:30 am »

Following up on Cullen's post...

Incendiary Flamethrower
45% ignite chance
30% reduced fire rate.. 13*0.7=9.1 rounded 9/sec (According to the wiki, 800/min=13.3 rounded 13)
FireRate*Ignite=4.05 stacks/sec on average

-30% clip size.. 300*0.7=210
ClipSize/FireRate=23.3 rounded 23 seconds

23 seconds of fire @ 4.05 stacks per second gives you 93 stacks of fire on average per clip


Greased Flamethrower
20% ignite chance
60% increased fire rate.. 13*1.6=20.8 rounded 21/sec
FireRate*Ignite=4.2 stacks/sec on average

+20% Clip Size.. 300*1.2=360
ClipSize/FireRate=17.14 rounded 17 seconds

17 seconds of fire @ 4.2 stacks per second gives you 71 stacks of fire on average per clip

Conclusion: They're both very close. This battle really will come down to how long you can keep the gun on target where greased would start to creep up since it has that tiny 0.15/sec stack edge to overcome incendiary's stacks by a very short sum.

37

Gameplay / Re: orignal flamethrower

« on: June 21, 2013, 09:42:59 am »

The weapon certainly needs some help. Not enough payoff for getting so close to your opponent, though the recent change was in the right direction. Reducing the stacks to overheat a gun would most likely give this weapon a use in play besides being annoying.

38

Gameplay / Re: Engagement length

« on: June 17, 2013, 01:25:46 pm »

+1 for reduced clip size on heavy. A good compromise that makes the penalty work out well while not causing a severe domino effect.

39

Gameplay / Re: Engagement length

« on: June 17, 2013, 09:43:42 am »

I'm not so sure a change in heavy ammo would necessarily harm the other guns it's popular on besides the gat/flak. At least after some consideration of adding say a 20% damage decrease instead of (or in addition to) the 25% reduced muzzle velocity.

The manticore and carronades both benefit far beyond the gatling and flak from the 80% recoil reduction, which for those weapons makes up for that damage loss. The point of this change being to extend the engage time for the gatling to peel armor at max distance because of the damage reduction. It would also make it take an extra reload of flak for most ships to down by using it. This turns these medium-long range engagements to a battle of positioning, precision, and time on attack. Something I feel there isn't a lot of outside ranked matches.

Besides increasing engage time and offering risk/reward for firing non heavy flak, this also promotes the use of gunners. Gunners who can bring damage enhancing ammunition for these weapons to switch to once their opponent is close enough to engage with full effect. Also, I could see higher use of buff engineers to offset the damage reduction rather than make it all the more deadly (which I admit, I'm a huge fan of doing... 30-50 round armor peel is devastating at max range with a good flak gunner waiting).

Anyhow, just thought I'd share the idea.

While merc does give another option, people seldom use it for, I guess the arc?

That arc is the main reason I see it not used much. However it also takes longer to achieve a strip compared to a good shot on the gat due to the need to reload. Also a single miss is devastating to it's efficiency.

40

Guides / Re: "You didn't bring Heavy clip?!?!" - A weaponry guide for begginers.

« on: June 16, 2013, 07:53:41 pm »

Want to add this as well: The Banshee does well with greased rounds; dumping the magazine in less than half the time. It keeps pressure up and gets 10 shots. I've overheated goldfish main guns with greased before they could fire it with greased banshee shots, and it's not that difficult to do either.

41

Gameplay / Re: Engagement length

« on: June 16, 2013, 09:52:52 am »

I would prefer it if it was just like the Heavy's minigun from TF2, DPS machine up close, but severely loses effectiveness over at its max range.

I'd just like to take a moment to appreciate how awesome this concept is. Depending on the degree, the gatling having damage falloff would mean more payoff with a mortar combo and limit heavy clip's effectiveness to being used almost solely as a component laser since up close, there are better ammo types to drop armor. I'd expect something similar to Rainer's statement showing up. Merc/Flak and Gat/Mortar being prominent with the change.. ideally.

42

Gameplay / Re: Spire Discussion.

« on: June 14, 2013, 05:40:17 pm »

A small note for this discussion. I believe this was mentioned in its parent thread as well, but Qwerty also has mentioned it in one of his streams.. I somewhat agree with the idea as well.

A large part of the spire's weakness is how many strikes are needed to repair the hull armor. We could tune that down and make it able to rebuild in say 2/3's of the time. Like the heavy ship equivalent of the squid... easy to strip armor, but easy to rebuild as well (within reason, of course). It'd be able to tank somewhat with constant hull supervision at the cost of her light guns basically.

Anyhow just a reiteration, carry on folks.

43

Gameplay / Re: The Rocket Carousel in 1.2.1

« on: June 14, 2013, 10:02:28 am »

This weapon is all about removing an engineer from his post, plain and simple. Running burst, this weapon can set every component of a ship on fire in one clip if your gunner can aim it (dragonmere's already explained the use with greased and incendiary). While it's a small stack, that's still damage to the component. With enough pressure by the weapon something's bound to fall through the cracks. Be it an engine fails, gun falls, gungineer leaves his post to deal with them, or better yet the hull engineer leaves his post to handle the ever increasing fires. The truth is, at some point the fires delivered have to be dealt with.

Despite a powerful weapon to apply pressure to the opposing team, the gat/flak is just too simple to use and effective to see the banshee take on more than a supporting role, and most players don't bring an airship to support, just kill.

44

General Discussion / Re: Fellow Ex-Gunners Of Icarus Lend Me Your Ears!

« on: June 12, 2013, 10:49:35 am »

I believe that passive boosts are not the way to go to help this class out. The classes are defined simply by the tool slots, and it should be kept that way. Perhaps mechanics are the issue here? I know the ammo system currently requires far too much coddling and wasted time.

There's no logic I can find as to why we need to babysit a weapon to put new ammo in. You should be able to load whatever ammo you want into the gun, let the reload begin, and walk off (the ammo IS technically in the hopper at this point, right?) to be useful somewhere else. Just like when you begin a reload state, you should be able to help do other things or fire other weapons. A small change like this will add great utility to a gunner (able to carry the ammo of multiple weapons at once) without even needing new tools, passive boosts, or anything else that breaks the pattern of class differentiation we have. Will it be enough? I'm not sure, but it's a step.

Also correct me if I'm wrong here, I remember the 'load em and run' actually being in the early game. If so, why was it removed?

45

Gameplay / Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2

« on: June 11, 2013, 10:22:06 am »

Hey awkm; could we possibly have the carronades aim a bit farther down again?  I feel they add a lot of depth to the game due to how different their mechanics and play style are from other weapons in the game.

How far down do you feel they should be able to aim? From my observation, the arc change was designed to give the guy they're camping a chance to get out of a helpless situation and/or evade the situation in the first place through maneuver.