Messages

16

Gameplay / Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker

« on: September 23, 2015, 07:59:21 pm »

A problem that the Mobula always had, which still persists, is when people used it like a gunning platform, which is easy to do, but not the winning strategy, since if you don't want to make use of that vertical mobility, a long range Junker would be the better choice, because the Junker has an easier time repairing and buffing and can dodge just as well in long range, except maybe against Lumberjack.
I see where you are going with this idea, but out of the few ways you can actually fly it, you will remove the one that requires skill and is the rewarding one, while leaving the one in the game that people constantly whine about being tired of (Hades/Merc and double Artemis hardcore sniping for 10 minutes straight). I would rather have one of its light guns removed, making it less of a gunning platform and more something that pilots actually have to think about how to fly, and although I am not favouring this idea, I personally don't think it is that bad of a decision to remove one of its light guns.

I think that playing the Mobula like a gunning platform is using a ship to it's greatest strengths. This aspect is not something I have a problem with. I think that I have too much of an unfair advantage over other ships when all I have to do is turn to get enemies into arc while having the highest Vertical mobility as well as decent Forward mobility tucked away in emergencies. I think that in brawling engagements, the ship should encourage the use of it's vertical and Forward mobility more in terms of getting guns into arcs. I wouldn't want to remove one of it's light guns because you decrease it's capabilities in short range engagements as well as long range engagements. This would make the Mobula either specialized into short or long range builds and would decrease it's versatility significantly. I want the Mobula to have capabilities in Long and Short range engagements but I want it to have a significant weakness in one aspect of it's mobility. Also, how is the Mobula not a forward facing shooting-gallery/gunning-platform? It is basically a gunning platform and so should have long and short range guns to compensate for the fact that you would want your enemies in front of you at all times.

Also I want to say that I don't like how the Junker is configured towards Long range play. Mainly because it has very exposed components and a big balloon which means a ship like that staying still is a ridiculously easy target. I mentioned some of the problems in disabling in a previous post.

Next Topic

The Junker does by design not fit into the ambush section. Unlike every other ship except the Galleon, it has to waste its ambush time to get into a position and then shoot the enemy, because its guns are on the side. Pyramidion, Mobula and so on, do better because when they ambush they can go directly forward towards their enemy meaning they already are in position. The forward gun of the Junker can help put some damage on the enemy or even disable them, but generally that alone just won't do the trick for the Junker.

I mentioned before in a previous post that I liked comparing the Junker to the Squid because I thought that the two were very similar in design. I think it also applies in terms of Gun placement, which makes it favor outmaneuvering and circling due to it's relatively high acceleration and more firepower on it's broadsides. I worded Ambushing wrong, I wanted it to be more like the Squid by increasing it's mobility to favor Circling and maneuvering outside of enemy arcs. I meant something along the lines of distracting and breaking formations, not ambushing. I would want to make the ship better at this play style because the way the ship is designed, doesn't make it a very good Sniping/Slow/Tank. Mind you with the current change, it would still be relatively good at Long range play but it would need the help of a good distraction considering the change in armor.

Next Topic

Its theoretically possible for a squid to keep permanently out of arc but maybe not practical, particularly if losing speed to turn a second gun. Is it something that should be possible?

A Mobula with it's strengths in Vertical and Forward mobility should be using those strengths to get in arcs/avoid enemy arcs. If all you're doing is circling in a slow turn speed ship, you would be playing towards the weaknesses of the ship. Also, considering we currently have builds that counter specific ships (and we've been fine with that) I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing.

Next Topic

Why on earth (or in the sky as it may be) would anyone use the artemis for this when we have the hwacha and banshee??

I would \o
Those are three good components you can disable in one clip and you would normally want two Artemis'es in the first place on a ship. I do pretty well with a Mercury with only two shots and with heat-sink I can disable three components.
If we change the Hwatcha back to the previous high jitter,
Heavy clip normally broke 1 or 2 components in a clip at long range and burst would break 4 or 5 in one clip at short range. Remember, that reload time is pretty damn long and Hwatcha shots don't hit every time.
--------------------------
But enough about changes to the Artemis.... I don't want to be hunted any more than you do. 

17

Gameplay / Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker

« on: September 23, 2015, 03:33:06 am »

In seriousness, Mobula is not OP, junker could maybe use a overhaul, but it's problem is more fundamentally tied to it's giant balloon, and this seems like a giant problem of people getting complacent in their strategies and not experimenting. We're at a more diverse point in the meta than I've seen it in a long time. There are some problems. The Mobula isn't really one of them. Most of the problems in the meta tie to the paradigm of weapon roles that we currently have. 

And I don't think you can make the Junker more competitive by playing with it's stats. It's a ship that's viability is more tied to the weapons that dominate the meta than it's own effectiveness. Increasing the speed still leaves it with a giant, exposed balloon. There is nothing that is going to make the balloon less giant, or less exposed, and a speed ship without a balloon is even more dead than a slow ship without a balloon.

I think people have experimented for a long time and we have seen Junkers in competitive games none the less. My problem isn’t regarding putting Junkers in competitive (although it might lead to that), my issue is in how the ship design of the Junker doesn’t make it very versatile or effective in many different situations in it’s current state.

I do agree that the nature of disables are what make the Junker as ineffective as it is. I will say though... a combination of slow speed and exposed components make disables much easier to hit and make the ship much more vulnerable to future disables.
This is bad for the Junker because the damage modifier from disable weapons will dig even faster into the hull once a component breaks, making that "Second highest armor in the game" useless.
I’m getting a little sick of having to repeat myself so please just read my previously mentioned problems with the current Junker.

-I really like comparing the Junker to the Squid because I think the way the Squid ship is designed is very similar to the Junker. They both have very close components to make it easier to engineer on, very exposed components, and a big balloon at the top.
-I think we see the success of the Squid because it has the maneuverability to nullify it's weaknesses in balloon, hull, engines, and gun exposure as well as counter many builds. I wanted to make the Junker more like the Squid in that it wouldn’t be as fast but have more firepower. I also wanted to decrease it's armor to encourage the play-style of outmaneuvering enemy ships much like the squid.

You would essentially get a less maneuverable Squid with more firepower, long range potential, and tanking capabilities more reliant on ease of engineering rather than high hull health (keeping in mind the Squid Hull health).

Next Topic

We are at the point of GoI where we're talking about nerfing the mobula. Pack it up. Just...pack it up, guys. We've had a good run. This is where a year of nerfs, clans falling apart, and competitive instability has taken us.

-The suggestion for the Mobula wasn’t really to nerf it because it seemed OP, but I felt that the original intention for the Mobula was to have a weakness in turning capabilities. I got the impression from it having a lower turning acceleration than any other ship. Although having low turning acceleration does play into a noticeable weakness at times, from my continued use of the Mobula, it wasn’t enough to be a significant weakness because the Max turning speed was so high.
-I think this is a bit unfair considering I have the Fastest Vertical speed in the game as well as decent forward mobility to control distancing and I only really use them in emergencies. Personally I would be fine using a Mobula if it had a decrease in Max turning speed. The only difference would be that I wouldn’t just rely on turning to get in gun arcs but I would have to manipulate its vertical mobility and Forward mobility a lot more. Not to mention, it would still be able to ram as well as have really good sniping and tanking capabilities.
It would still be a really great ship... just not be as great in more cramped environments where you won’t have a lot of space to use that vertical mobility.

Next Topic

I may have overreacted/exaggerated slightly, a slight loss of turning wont kill dedicated brawl mobulas entirely. Still can't agree with it though, the multi role mobula is powerful at the moment because multi role is more or less the meta, trying to shove everything into a niche seems counterproductive.

Let me better explain the effects of the suggestion.
Both ships would have capabilities in multi-role engagements because both ships have Long and Short range guns. My point is that One ship would be more effective than the other for short and long range engagements but both would still have the potential for Multi-range capabilities.
I wouldn't be shoving the two ships into niches but vague Niches that overlap between each other~

Next Topic

My speculative changes:
Junker
Max turn: 16 --> 14
Turn Acc.:15 --> 13
Vertical Acc.: 3 --> 4
Max Speed: 26 --> 30

-I thought about it a bit and I think 30 Max speed is still a bit too slow for a ship like the Junker with really exposed components.
-I was thinking around 35~ for the ability of making the Junker harder to hit by disables (Keeping in mind the big Balloon and exposed engines).
Also I was thinking that I wanted the Junker to have an advantage in terms of mobility and in this case, have extremely high Turn speed and acceleration with poor Vertical mobility as a weakness.
-I sort of wanted this to balance out with the Junker having low Armor and Health in my previous suggestion. 

Next Topic

Artemis
Down Arc: 35 --> 20

Hwacha
Up/Down Arc: 20 --> 15

The junker would still have good close range turning but wouldn't be able to rely on swapping sides in 3s. The vertical acceleration would make it suffer less from balloon damage and the speed boost would be enough to kill 'fly backwards laughing' as a strategy.

Dropping the artemis arc would force the mobula to chose between safety and attacking and would be an indirect buff to the spire, junker and galleon.

I think a certain somebody will try to hunt you down for suggesting a change like this to the Artemis 
I don't know if I like the idea of decreasing the Arcs because I kinda like how there are good arcs and weak arcs in terms of upward and downward aiming.
However, I might as well add fuel to your fire......
I would want the Artemis to break components only in two shots considering we have a Nerf of the Heavy Clip Light Carronade in disabling as well as the Carronades having to break balloons in two clips. Also make the Artemis only break components in one shot if using charged. I would want to increase component health instead of decrease Shatter damage because there are still achievements where people have to break Armor with Rockets.
--------
I'm not taking this one too seriously because I'm sure many people like the current Artemis and it's ability to literally make any ship effective if you have enough of them.


As for the Lion gun, an increase in Jitter would make me happy. I think it's current arcs are fairly decent and I think what most people agree upon is the fact that there is so little spread on the rockets.

18

Gameplay / Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker

« on: September 22, 2015, 09:49:17 pm »

Hey, hey don't hunt me down just yet 

With the changes you would still be able to bring brawler loadouts on the Mobula, my problem is that the Mobula is both effective at Sniping and Brawling (while also occupying the firepower of a trifecta).
My changes to the Junker and Mobula are to separate the effectiveness of Brawling and Sniping that the current Mobula has into two ships.
You would still be able to Snipe and Brawl on either of these trifecta ships, but one would be more specialized than the other at the job (You bring either ship depending on if you will be spending more time Brawling or Sniping instead of just bringing a Mobula because it's good for both).

Out of curiosity what do you find counters a junker aside from moving backwards shooting at it and laughing at its slow speed?

I mentioned this before so I'll say it again

The Junker is very slow and has very exposed components and this makes it very counter able by Disable weapons.
Let me label some situations where I've been countered:
Hwatcha: Destroyed every single component in a single barrage (Kinda like a Hwatcha on the engines on a Squid)
Lumberjack: Destroyed the balloon and broke armor in two clips from highly exposed balloon and projectile drop of Lumbershot
Artemis: Destroyed multiple components in one Burst shot due to closeness of the components
Carronade: Destroyed balloon every time because the Balloon was at the top of the ship (Playing into the Upward arcs of the Carronades)

In all of these situations the High armor of the Junker never helped because the damage modifier dug into the Armor. 
-I think if you have a ship with so many exposed components, it shouldn't be a Tank!
-I think I could avoid more of these situations to greater success if the ship had more maneuverability in terms of speed like the Squid or Goldfish to avoid shots
-My suggestion to decrease the Armor was to give it a weakness in terms of the benefits in brawling capabilities (If you have firepower and Brawl, you should be avoiding arcs and so Armor should be less). Not to mention, the Hull has a fairly small hitbox and so the Decreased armor makes sense in a way.
-It's high turn speed plays into the specialized nature of Brawling and avoiding arcs which I believe would play towards the play style of Brawling very well.

Let me give a comparison to describe the traits of the suggested changes of the two ships:
Junker:
Mobility: High turn mobility to out maneuver enemy ships in close range engagements. Good Max speed to get into brawl engagements faster.
Firepower: Trifecta (Cause of front gun that can be used either side) for Brawl and Difecta for Range.
Tankability: Poor armor and easy to engineer on which plays into the nature of Brawling (Avoiding arcs and out maneuvering which means less exposure to enemy fire)

Mobula:
Mobility: High vertical mobility to dodge ambushes and close range engagements. Also decent Max speed to control distancing and provide time for crew mates to jump onto short range guns.
Firepower: Trifecta for Range (Cause of front facing top deck gun) and Difecta for Brawl
Tankability: Good armor and easy to engineer on which plays into the nature of Sniping (You will be staying still and so be more exposed to enemy fire so you need that armor)

Both these ships would be very versatile as they both carry long and short range guns. My suggestion is to make one ship more effective than the other at using either short or long range guns while still having the utility of both guns.

Hense the...

If you're wondering if I made these suggestions to make the Junker Hard Counter a Mobula...
A Junker vs. Mobula in a cramped map = Junker would stab a Mobula in the Back
A Junker vs. Mobula in an open map = Mobula would destroy a Junker before it could even blink

"but we already have a ship (Goldfish) that kinda takes the place of being a noob friendly as well as fairly versatile" - more or less 100% due to the current hwacha. Minotaur, Flak, Carronade and Lumberjack fish are not at all noob friendly.

Yeah, I meant Hwatchafish.
I kinda meant it in the manner that a Pyramidion was noob friendly because of the Gat/Mort combo. I still thought the Hwatchafish was very versatile and noob friendly even before the Buff. I think it occupies the Niche of being an effective Jack-of-all-Trades and I don't think the Junker is a very effective ship for occupying that role.

---------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree that the Mobula is not "that" OP but I still don't think a ship that has Decent forward Mobility and Extremely good vertical mobility should have good Turn speed. I believe the turn speed should be a weakness that the Mobula has in response to Multi-range firepower and High vertical mobility.

19

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Dumb idea to make range finder a must

« on: September 22, 2015, 10:57:52 am »

This is in the case that the Rangefinder becomes less buggy

I would want the Rangefinder to spot but not show the Square Outline of the Ship
Instead, have a dot saying the range next to the targeted enemy.

You could spot a ship with a crew member using a Spyglass to show the Outline of the Ship (If the Hitbox is big because you're seeing the ship from the side), and have a crew member use a Rangefinder to show the Range on the Spotted ship (Show specific distance).

This way you would have to have two people (one with Spyglass and other one with RangeFinder) spotting to get the full effect or just one person (with either a Range finder or a Spyglass) spot to get either the Square Outline or Range.

Probably never happen but would be nice

20

Gameplay / Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker

« on: September 22, 2015, 10:40:16 am »

I wanted to describe some thoughts about changes to the Mobula and the Junker as I believe these two ships are on opposite ends of functionality.
I'm not saying one is better than the other (okay, kinda) but that one ship clearly has more versatility than I think really should.
I wanted to address some issues and lay down suggestions concerning these ships.

The main way I usually describe the versatility of a ship is that I describe the strengths and weaknesses of three aspects of what I think a ship's role serves.
Mobility, Firepower, and Tankability
I'm not going to label every single one of them for each ship or I'll be writing this all day, I'm just going to label the aspects that I believe are most important.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobula

Strengths of the Mobula
-I believe that one of the Mobula's strengths lie in it's ability to have multi-range capabilities in firepower (Due it's multiple front-facing guns as well as decent Max Speed to control distancing).
-I believe another strength of the Mobula is in it's exceptional abilities in controlling Vertical mobility and I believe this gives the ship extra utility in dodging, avoiding arcs, and controlling gun arcs.

My problem
-I think one of the weaknesses given to the Mobula was in it's slow turn acceleration of 3.50 deg/s² . Although I do think that this is a good inclusion for the Mobula to have this weakness, in practice this weakness is negated by the fact that it has a Max turning speed of 14.02 deg/s (a little bit faster than a Goldfish). This aspect even has me being successful in turning without the use of Phoenix Claw.
-I don't particularly like this aspect because I believe it gives the Mobula too much versatility in narrow/cramped environments as well as reaction time in ambushes.

Suggestion and suggested effects
-I would want the Max Turning speed to be similar to that of a Galleon (8.02 deg/s)
-I don't think having a lower Max turning speed would change the popularity of the Mobula too much.
-It would still reign over large open maps with plenty of space to provide covering fire but it would be less successful in cramped environments and be more vulnerable to ambushes where the enemy is behind them.
-I think it would also make captains be more wary about areas where ambushes might occur as well as make crew members jump on close range guns faster.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Junker

-I think one of the aspects that gives the Junker so many weaknesses compared to other ships is in the traits that lead to it being a slow Max speed, tank.
-I say this mainly because I think the way the Junker is designed doesn't make it a very good slow, tank but more a Fast, Glass Cannon.

Game-play reasons
-The Junker has very exposed guns and engines much like a Squid and Goldfish but unlike those two it doesn't have the mobility to avoid many those disables.
-The Junker's Balloon is also on the top of the ship. This means that the upward arcs of the Carronades and the Projectile drop of the Lumberjack are an easy shot for a slow target like the Junker's Balloon. Before you mention that a Galleon is slow with a Balloon on top, a Galleon has the firepower to fend off such attacks and (Although this doesn't really apply in this scenario) has one of the higher top speeds in the game.
-Although you could say the Hull sweet spot makes the Junker easier to engineer on, components on the Junker will stay broken for longer because they're broken (This makes the ship much more vulnerable to continued disables as mobility and firepower are hindered).
-This also means that it will be easier to keep a Junker disabled because it already didn't have the mobility to avoid the disables in the first place 

Functionality Reasons
-I honestly don't think a scrap of junk ship like a Junker should have the second highest armor in the game
-Especially for a ship with a hull surface area of 350 m² (Smallest hull exposure in the game) as well as a weight of 125 t (Lighter than a Goldfish)
-It is described in it's description as not having the sturdiest armor "Though its improvised scrap-metal construction is not the sturdiest" and I doubt that "mercenaries and freelancers who make their living from salvage, trade, and other odd jobs" have access to Highly durable, Light weight alloys from salvage.
-I will defiantly say that the design of the ship does make it look very tanky but I think the closeness of the components in making the ship easier to engineer on fulfills the purpose of the tanky concept design.

Wrap up
-I understand that the Junker sort of has a role in being a Jack-of-all-Trades but we already have a ship (Goldfish) that kinda takes the place of being a noob friendly as well as fairly versatile, so it kinda already fulfills that role.
-I think that being a jack-of-all-trades makes the Junker very much a master-of-none in many many situations.
-Before you say that you have used the Junker and it works, I have used the Junker too (for 2 years) and the only thing I use it for is for Mines and whenever the match is a pubstomp (there just wasn't that many situations where I have succeeded in using it because the enemy always Hard-countered every variation of Junker I had).
-I know that there aren't that many ships that will be able to tank if the Junker became more of a Glass Cannon but I'm sure people would rather have a ship that would be better designed around the purpose of tanking.

Suggestion
-My suggestion is to increase the Max Speed and decrease the Armor to make it more of a Fast, Glass Cannon.
-I wouldn't want the Junker to replace the Squid and so I would want the Junker to have less mobility than the Squid with the trade-off being more firepower.
-Just have a Top speed similar to that of a Galleon (30~) and Armor more in line with a Goldfish or Spire (400~)
-Then I would see the Junker being more of an Ambush ship with Pilots bringing it for High risk (In regards to the Low Health and Armor) for High reward (Good mobility and Firepower)



If you're wondering if I made these suggestions to make the Junker Hard Counter a Mobula...
A Junker vs. Mobula in a cramped map = Junker would stab a Mobula in the Back
A Junker vs. Mobula in an open map = Mobula would destroy a Junker before it could even blink

21

Gameplay / Re: A Suggestion for the Echidna Light Flak Cannon

« on: September 20, 2015, 10:45:16 pm »

Okay, as much as I don’t like the idea that the Flak needs to kill in two clips (Mainly because the time between armor breaks was the moment where engagements went brawl or disables start hitting for me).
I think I’ll go with it because the enemy hitbox is relatively big at mid range and most of you agree that the Flak is pretty easy to shoot.

So… onto the calculations!!!


Galleon Health (1400) / Explosive modifier (1.4) = 1000 Explosive damage

Damage for two full clips 1000 / 2 = 500 Explosive damage per clip

If taken into account that 2 full clips would kill a galleon
Each clip would need to do Greater than or equal to 500 explosive damage
This would mean that you would be bringing back the Current Flak’s ability to one clip a Mobula (Considering 500 x 1.4 = 700 hull damage)............      use that suggestion as you will   
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New suggested Flak stats!!

Total explosive damage for a Normal (4 shot) clip = 520 explosive
with each shot being 130 explosive damage

Bear in mind that 1 clip means 1 armor break (since it's an explosive explosive weapon keeping in mind the reload time)

Greased rounds:
(Total clip damage: 520)  w/ Explosive modifier of 1.4 = 728 hull damage
Increase clip size to 5
Decrease Arming Time
Increase rate of fire

Charged Rounds:
(Total clip damage: 507) w/ Explosive modifier of 1.4 = 709.8 hull damage
Decrease clip size to 3
No decrease in Arming Time
Decrease rate of fire but load next clip quicker

Heatsink rounds:
(Total clip damage: 539.5)  w/ Explosive modifier of 1.4 = 755.3 hull damage
Increase clip size to 5
Decrease Arming Time
No change in rate of fire

Normal Rounds:
(Total clip damage: 520) w/ Explosive modifier of 1.4 = 728 hull damage
Clip size 4
No decrease in Arming Time
No change in rate of fire


In terms of keeping the 5/3 ratio of Direct to Aoe damage,
130 / 8 = 16.25
16.25 x 5 = 81.25
16.25 x 3 = 48.75

------------
Honestly it would be easier to go
Direct damage = 80
Aoe damage = 50
and you kinda keep the ratio~

22

Gameplay / Re: A Suggestion for the Echidna Light Flak Cannon

« on: September 19, 2015, 06:39:37 pm »

Would a decent enough buff for the light flak be a nerf to the double barreled mortar

If you were to buff the Flak in the previous suggestion I made before,
The Flak would be an explosive explosive weapon that would need to kill in two armor breaks and would be unable to brawl.

The mortar would be an explosive explosive weapon that would need to kill in one armor break and would be able to brawl at the sacrifice of range.

My previous suggestion would only increase the chances of killing within two armor breaks by decreasing the amount of shots
I think that would be reason enough to bring either of those weapons

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the being only able to kill a Galleon in three armor breaks...
If we compare the Heavy Flak and Mortar to the suggested Light Flak
Heavy Flak:
Charged
-Difficulty of use
-Long-mid range
-slow projectile speed
-Kill galleon in 3 shots (two clips) (Two armor breaks)

Mortar:
Greased
-Ease of use
-Short range
-Slow projectile speed
-Kill galleon in 14 shots (1 clip) (1 armor break)

Suggested Light Flak:
-Ease of use
-mid-Longish mid range
-Fast projectile speed
-Kill galleon in
---Charged: 9 shots (Three armor breaks) (Three clips)
---Greased: 15 shots (Three armor breaks) (Three clips)

My problem that I came up with for the suggested Flak was that three armor breaks is still a lot of time for something to creep up because you're dealing with a weapon with Arming Time. Remember also, in both those two ammo types, you would have to land exactly every single shot of those three clips (although you do get the added benefit of having to land less shots). Personally I think having to kill a galleon in three Armor breaks is a bit much considering you would be bringing something to have kill potential without disable in a weapon slot. I might come up with something later.

23

Gameplay / Re: A Suggestion for the Echidna Light Flak Cannon

« on: September 16, 2015, 10:27:09 am »

The miniflak takes up a light weapon slot. Should it be expected to take out ships easily when armor drops? Considering the lower risk/reward balance of attacking enemies from range as opposed to getting in close to the enemy and using short ranged weapons I still like where the miniflak is at the moment. I bring up the concept of risk/reward to explain how being able to survive closing the distance to your opponents should be rewarded with potent short ranged weapon attacks of high damage and disable power. That's why mortars can take out most ships with just one magazine.

I understand that the weapons like the Mortar and Heavy Flak should have higher rewards based on the range, ease of use and this is shown in the ability to kill ships in one clip.
Currently the Flak has the ability to kill in two clips because it has relatively decent damage potential per clip.
My issue is that the Flak isn't that easy to shoot and I don't care how good at shooting you are, you are not gonna be able to land 8 of those shots consistently at range and while predicting the armor break.
You're gonna miss some shots and every shot counts on a big clip that needs to do it's job within two armor breaks.


I never stated that I would be increasing the damage per clip, in fact compared to the previous Flak damage per clip you would do less.
Previous Heat-sink Flak does a total clip damage of 531.2 Explosive and 743.68 damage to hull health.
My point is that you would have to land less shots to pull it off.


This doesn't mean much of a change to the current Flak when you think about it (You would still have to wait for a second Armor break to pull off enough damage to kill). All this means is that you would be increasing the consistency of damage output.
That first shot or first two shots you missed wouldn't mean as much as it would have because:
-Each of your shots would do more damage
-That second clip will reload faster in time for the second Armor break

The time it takes to unload a clip shouldn't be more than the time it takes to rebuild armor, especially if your gun is a kill-only weapon that only kills in two armor breaks.

Next Point

Back on the miniflak tho. You might make it more user friendly for newer players to get in the damage with less hits, it will be a lot more devastating when used by experienced players. You may end up seeing more boring shooting contest in competitive games that is based only on who shoots more accurately than ships trying to outmaneuver each other with flankings, turning or height battles.

I don't think this change would affect the Competitive meta much at all. In fact you still keep the limitations of the Flak's killing ability in turn with ease of use. We are still in the era of the (Super Quotation Marks)Multi-range Disable meta(Super Quotation Marks), which means a gun that can only kill (in two armor breaks) and can't brawl will have limited use much like it does now.
I only want to increase the efficiency of being able to kill in two armor breaks.

It has ease of use and if that is the case, it should have reliable damage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a side note, I found a flaw with my suggested change:
I just want to label some information
So with a Charged Heavy Flak clip you would do 1202.2 hull health damage
With a Greased Mortar clip you would do 1411.2 hull health damage

With the change to the suggested Light Flak
In two Greased clips (Each doing a total of 672 hull health damage) you would do a total of 1344 hull health damage
In two Charged clips (Each doing a total of 655.2 hull health damage) you would do a total 1310.4 hull health damage
Do you think it should be more damage considering you can't kill a Galleon in two clips?
I think that considering you have to land a full two clips, it should do more damage

24

Gameplay / Re: A Suggestion for the Echidna Light Flak Cannon

« on: September 16, 2015, 03:53:12 am »

Alright, Let me clean up the previous calculations just to make it more clear

So currently the Light Flak does a total of 480 explosive damage per clip with 6 shots
My suggestion was to decrease that clip to 4 shots but keep the same Normal explosive damage

That would mean each shot from the New Flak would hit 120 total Explosive damage
In this case, I suggested it having 75 Direct damage and 45 Aoe Damage.



By this statistic, the most used ammo types would be Greased, Charged, and normal

Greased rounds:
(Total clip damage: 480)  w/ Explosive modifier of 1.4 = 672
Increase clip size to 5
Decrease Arming Time
Increase rate of fire

Charged Rounds:
(Total clip damage: 468) w/ Explosive modifier of 1.4 = 655.2
Decrease clip size to 3
No decrease in Arming Time
Decrease rate of fire but load next clip quicker

Normal Rounds:
(Total clip damage: 480) w/ Explosive modifier of 1.4 = 672
Clip size 4
No decrease in Arming Time
No change in rate of fire


My idea is that it would make it easier to pull off the damage potential for the first clip in order to make the second clip more effective.
My problem with previous Flak:
-land 8 Heat-sink shots
-At Relatively far distance
-Also predict when armor would break
-Shots that land don't even do enough damage since you would never land enough before the armor comes back up

New Flak:
-Still predict shots
-Still relatively far distance
-Less shots to make
-Less overall Clip Damage potential
-Would increase chances of unloading full clip in Armor Break (Increase consistency of Clip damage potential)

Let me know what you think about this suggestion

25

The Lounge / Re: Recommended Movies, Series, Shows and Anime

« on: September 16, 2015, 03:35:24 am »

Ohh, gonna drop these here

Movies:

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) Mystery, Thriller, Drama - In the depths of cold war Britain, the conspiracy of a Mole within British Intelligence causes a retired spy to conduct a secret investigation.
(Probably the best Book adaptation I've ever experienced. Its subtle tone as well as sketchy characters practically make this film drip with atmosphere. I'm always re-watching this film and I always learn something new every time. It gets kinda confusing but this film has like every good actor and they do a stellar job.)

Chinatown (1974) Mystery, Thriller, Drama - In Los Angeles, a private investigator tries to uncover the mysteries behind the death of the Chief Engineer of the construction of a new Water reservoir.
(This is a film that just grabs my attention every time with its scary, uncomfortable atmosphere. This is another film that I'm always re-watching and I just can't take my eyes off it. This is probably largely due to the performance of Jack Nicholson who steals the show in every moment he's in as well as the beautiful, almost fairy-tale like soundtrack.)

Sin City (2005) Action, Thriller - Three separate story-lines containing larger-than-life characters that all describe the exciting/ dangerous world of Sin City.
(I watch this film to have a good time and it ticks all of my boxes. Stylized atmosphere, exaggerated comic-booky performances, exciting/quirky tone, and fast/snappy pacing. Everything I'm looking for in an action movie.)

Anime:

Spice and Wolf (2006) Drama, Romance - A traveling Peddler one day meets a pagan wolf god, together they go on a journey to find the North.
(I don't know if all anime is like this but I thought that this was a wonderfully simple show. The melo/ muted tone of this Medieval world makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The romance has enough quirk on both sides to make the characters lovable. I would say that I didn't like the moments it fell into economical banter mainly because it reminded me of how much I hate how Economics seems to over-complicate things.)

26

Gameplay / Re: A Suggestion for the Echidna Light Flak Cannon

« on: September 15, 2015, 02:07:06 pm »

Ugh, scratch the previous post due to wrong calculations

Heat-sink clip would actually have a damage potential of 498 Explosive so a little higher but not quite enough to one-clip a mobula

I think the only really ammo would be greased with the same damage potential as normal rounds (480 Explosive)
Since you have the same damage as normal rounds, a pilot could tell the shooter to switch to normal if the enemy is farther away. That way you could hit farther and need only 4 shots to do the job.

If you use greased then you would have the same damage potential but higher rate of fire and an Arming Time Decrease for 5 shots.
A plus plus when you're dealing with needing to empty that second clip as fast as possible within a short time frame.

27

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: AI spots

« on: September 15, 2015, 11:21:59 am »

Sorry, I wasn't being clear again. 
Let me restate the idea

AI would have an indicator above their heads when they detected an enemy around a 500m radius


That way, if you wanted to be sneaky in a cloud you could just press F3 and they would be walking around the ship in "Repair mode". If they detected an enemy and you didn't want to ambush yet, you would remain in F3 mode but they would still have the indicator above their heads.


If you just want to go for that ambush strategy, you would press F2. If they detected an enemy they would start firing like normal but would have the indicator above their heads. Basically the same as it is now

I hope that's clear

28

Gameplay / Re: A Suggestion for the Echidna Light Flak Cannon

« on: September 15, 2015, 11:08:02 am »

I would say I would be happy with a 4 shot clip for the Flak

In terms of damage output for the Flak if we were to keep the normal round total explosive output the same
meaning 480 explosive damage into 4 shots.
So maybe 75 direct damage and 45 Aoe damage

This would mean ammo types would only be either Heat-sink or Charged as recommended
Heat-sink would do a total of 5 shots with a clip potential of 480 so same as normal but you get a decrease in Arming time

Charged would do a total of 3 shots with a clip potential of 468 so it's less but you have a smaller clip so less shots to make (I have yet to factor in the 25% decrease in rate of fire)

With this you would still be able to one clip a Pyra and Junker for both Ammunition
This would be overall less damage than the previous heat-sink Flak damage potential of 512 but would have a higher rate of fire due to less shots and not having to land as many shots to be effective.
You would be able to get that second clip ready in time for the next armor break.

Yeah, I would say it would be better than having to land all 8 heat-sink shots at a distance while predicting the armor break to pull off the total damage potential.

The light carronade can 1 clip balloons, you just need perfect burst or buff shots (if they get the mallet hit in perfect buff-burst shots)

Shhhhhhhhhh, no more

29

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: AI spots

« on: September 15, 2015, 09:50:06 am »

I think this has already been mentioned before but I'll say it anyway

What if you could choose when the AI would fire when they detect enemies within a 500m radius?
If AI showed a symbol above their heads Kinda like that Exclamation mark in Metal Gear whenever a ship was indicated.

That way, if you were already on the ball for an ambush (Already in F2 mode) there would be no change from what it is now except for a symbol above the AI heads indicating an enemy.

If you weren't ready, AI would be in F3 mode wandering around the ship for repairs. If you looked at them and suddenly saw a symbol above their heads, you would "Turn off the Headlights" and bide your time.

Keep in mind that it would still be within a 500m radius so it wouldn't be that OP (I hope).

30

Gameplay / Re: A Suggestion for the Echidna Light Flak Cannon

« on: September 15, 2015, 09:14:59 am »

I apologize, I miss calculated. I thought it was 512 not 743.68 all this time (Forgot the Explosive multiplier). Oops
Silly me

Now that I realize that the Light Flak does have the damage potential to back it up, I think I would like a clip size reduction while keeping it's overall damage per clip.
Yes, I'm still leaning towards the Flak being able to kill within a shorter period of time.

Yes, an Artemis could then easily snipe that Light Flak and if they Light Flak could one clip all ships it would at have a higher chance to win in the above mentioned scenario. But at the same time, I hope at least, the Artemis was sniping the Hades so it wouldn't even come to an armor break in the first place, which would result in the Light Flak, and all other explosive/explosive guns in that scenario, to be "completely uselss" during the fight, but luckily the Light Flak has already more dps against the armor than the Banshee, so when chem spray is perfectly up and running, the Light Flak may actually have some use.

I think from this post the point was that in a scenario where the light Flak was used, it wouldn't be effective because it would be disabled or Armour stripper being disabled. Do tell me if I'm wrong because I'm having a hard time understanding (This is nothing personal but I do have trouble sometimes understanding people).

I'm going to mention the list of Builds that incorporate Explosive Explosive weapons again

Brawler Spires and Mobulas, the Meta Galleon, and the infamous Loch Spire all incorporate these weapons.

I want to mention that all these ships usually contain a disable weapon of their own whether it be a Hwatcha, Artemis, Merc, or Lumberjack. I also want to mention that not all of these ships are seen in competitive and they shouldn't.
The reason I bring these ships up is the fact that they are used, not all the time but see regular use.

These ships often incorporate a combination of guns that disable as well as stand well on their own. Some examples being Double Gat/Hwatcha, Merc/Art, Hades/Lumber, etc. They are incorporated in order to make the ship stand up in the Age of the (Super Quotation Marks)Multi-Range Disable Meta(Super Quotation Marks)
I also want to mention that the Explosive Explosive weapons are effective within a short period of time, whether it be the fact that the Mortar can one clip or Flak can two clip at a fairly faster rate.
These are the types of ships I want the Light Flak used more on and I think being effective within a shorter period of time would mean more opportunities to use the Flak.

Next Point

If I want to kill all ships in medium/long range with only one clip, I would use the Heavy Flak (or still the Light Flak). Why buff one gun, a gun that is in my opinion just fine as it is, when you can use another gun to achieve what you want to achieve? I suppose it is not the same if you are forced to use a heavy gun which only 3 ships in the game allow you to do (or just 2, because the Goldfish doesn't support Heavy Flaks), but that is where pilot skill comes in: Make a ship loadout that does exactly what you want it to do and then make it do that in-game.

-I want the Light Flak to be effective within a shorter period of time because it is an Explosive Explosive weapon that incorporates Arming Time (The inability to Brawl). I believe that if you make the Flak more effective within a shorter period of time there would still be reasons to use the Heavy Flak. The Heavy Flak would have more range as well as the quick time it takes to unload a clip. You wouldn't kill as fast and you wouldn't have the range, I believe this would make the two guns able to stand on their own.

-I believe there are not that many opportunities to use the Light Flak and I want to see it used by more people

-When you stick an Explosive Explosive weapon on a ship and your build is effective, it sort of defines your build load-out. The kill potential is impressive and most ships that incorporate Explosive Explosive weapons are build around the fact that you want the Kill Potential (and you want it fast against the potential of disable). Unless your ship is going full troll, there's not a lot of flexibility a weapon like the Light Flak can have (Especially when you have Arming Time to factor into the equation).

Next Point

It takes two clip for the Light Carronade to destroy a balloon and that is effective too, isn't it? I do throw that Carronade into these arguments a lot, but when you think about it, a ship without a balloon is out of combat, which is similar to a ship that is already dead, as it leaves the other one in a 2v1.
And if the Hades is so effective at destroying armors, shouldn't it mean that a skilled gunner can drop armors left and right? So many and quick armor destructions should make it very easy for the Light Flak to kill a ship, even when it requires at least two clips.

Okay, I know that I said that I didn't want to compare Disable weapons to Kill-only weapons because of how effective disables are in comparison to Killing potential. I think I might as well compare them since it's going to keep popping up anyway.
You already compared the Flak to the Artemis and so that fight is lost
-I will now compare the Light Flak to the Light Carronade
-Now you mentioned in the quote above that a disabled Balloon means dead ship right?
so Popped Balloon = Killed Ship
-Bear in mind that one of these guns is only effective when the Armour is down, where as the other gun can be used immediately
-That means the Light Carronade can effectively kill a ship faster than a Light Flak can.
-There that's it... Comparison over. Kill-only weapons suck and that's why we have a Disable Meta, why am I even talking about a Kill-only weapon?


Next Point

You want a Light Flak that can do around the same damage as the Heavy Flak while also being as hard to shoot with as the Heavy Flak. I don't want that, because I believe it would make the gun, and the gameplay of killing, more dull, whereas you could keep it as it is, as I believe it is fine as it is, even in comp, and even newer players have a gun that they can actually hit and kill with.

-Here is where our points differ because I don't think the Flak is very easy to hit with
I don't think that it is because of the points that I mentioned

(The spread at range, the projectile speed in terms of predicting Armour break, Determining effective range, Flying at mid-range etc).

This is the only point that I fully believe we have reached a Stalemate on because I see this gun as one of the harder guns to operate and especially for new players.

-In terms of changing the game play of killing, I believe with the inclusion of this change it will not have any effect on the Disable Meta.
What we would see would be an increase in use of the Flak in "Disable" builds or currently existing Kill Builds. My point was never to change the Meta but to get the Flak into the current meta or more than it is currently.



I do sort of enjoy these discussions as it helps me with my inability to be clear with my points. Do let me know if you don't know where I'm going with a point. The feedback helps.