Author Topic: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1  (Read 95429 times)

Offline awkm

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 77
    • [Muse]
    • 16 
    • 45
    • 28 
    • View Profile
    • Notes for Next Century—n4n100
GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« on: August 12, 2013, 02:16:12 pm »
For Field Gun flame wars, please put it in the other thread.


https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,2006.new.html#new

FYI.  Lesmok changes ARE in.  Text has not been updated yet.  Will happen soon.

For Lesmok specific complaints go here (thanks zill)

https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,2012.0.html
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 02:36:01 pm by awkm »

Offline RearAdmiralZill

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 144
    • [MM]
    • 31 
    • 44
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2013, 02:29:07 pm »
Quote
Lesmok changes ARE in.

Already saved you some headache.

https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,2012.0.html

Offline Elendu

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [CsM]
    • 25 
    • 31
    • 32 
    • View Profile
    • MeinKraft Online
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2013, 07:04:07 pm »
What about the gunner role itself, and the balance between roles?  For someone who wants to play as a gunner, sometimes you have to "prove" to the crew you know what you are doing or that you are accurate enough a shot.  Lots of captains would rather have all engineers than even one gunner that isn't very accurate because it "isn't worth it".

It seems that the general consensus for anyone playing this game longer than a week is to have no more than one gunner max on a ship.  My thought is there are 3 roles in the game and 4 positions on a ship to man, so at least one role will be chosen by twice.  But does it always have to be the engineer?

There is a good reason behind this; gunners only have more ammo types (and you can only load one ammo type at a time anyways), but if you pick engineer there is more equipment you can put to use for ship survival, fire management or buffing guns for damage.

I mostly play captain/pilot, and most of the time I do want two engineers for their tools.  But other ship builds leave me wanting two gunners, and I have to constantly argue with others why two gunners could work.  In particular, I enjoy piloting a long range galleon with flak on the port side and carronade on starboard.  If I can get two skilled gunners below with explosive for the short-range side and lesmok for the flak, switching out either for incendiary now and then, we can take out the enemy before stopping for repairs (also the pilot can help mid-battle with balloon and hull).  Having extra ammo types for my gunners to choose depending on the situation can be exciting, but is it enough to justify loosing ship-maintenance tools?

My point is there should be room for more mix-and-matching of crew roles.  There will only ever be a need for one pilot, but pilots affect the entire ship, after all.  So sacrificing tools for pilot skills can be justified.  It just seems to me that engineers are a bit too commonplace (I've seen plenty of all 4 engineers!).  There could be more reason to choose gunner than settle for 2-3 engineers because its "a safe bet".

---------------------------------------

Now how could this be achieved?  A couple of thoughts come to mind.  My first idea would be to redistribute gunner skills among the roles.  Maybe pilots and engineers cannot use other ammo types?  Or maybe gunners can choose up to four?  This would certainly change things up, although I am not too sure how I feel about such a big leap (I am usually one in favor of small, incremental changes over time).  One thing is for sure this would make players rethink the role of gunners on a ship.

Perhaps a more subtle way would be for gunners to naturally have better accuracy.  Heavy rounds could be an ammo choice for others, but gunners have it by default (maybe as their "normal" ammo type, maybe it stacks with other skills?). Maybe even Add accuracy without the smaller clip penalty.  Or if that is too much, just add 50% more accuracy to shots.

It doesn't need to be a large change, just enough to make gunners feel more special.  And that's what it comes down to, currently gunners feel like engineers without the tools.  Just my opinion.


Any thoughts/ideas?  I would love to hear what other have to say about this!

Offline Captain Smollett

  • Member
  • Salutes: 122
    • [Duck]
    • 11
    • 14 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2013, 08:27:44 pm »
Someone proposed giving gunners the ability to preload ammunition types for other crewmen.  I'm not sure how much that would change things but it definitely seems like something a gunner "could" do and would go into the teamplay aspect of the game. 


Offline awkm

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 77
    • [Muse]
    • 16 
    • 45
    • 28 
    • View Profile
    • Notes for Next Century—n4n100
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2013, 10:18:06 pm »
@Elendu @Smollett

We have a variety of designs waiting to be implemented in the coming months.  Stuff is coming down the pipe for sure.

Offline Captain Smollett

  • Member
  • Salutes: 122
    • [Duck]
    • 11
    • 14 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2013, 01:24:44 am »
Awesome, looking forward to what you guys come up with.

Offline Ccrack

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [duck]
    • 8
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2013, 05:17:51 am »
loading a gun with an ammo type then getting off and letting it reload, then comming back and having that ammo in the gun ready to use was something i really liked before it got taken away.

giving gunners the ability to do that would be a way to make them slightly more desireable since they can help out with repairs or something instead of having to wait on the gun for it to reload, or being abel to quickly run along a ship and set the guns up with different ammo types quickly.

either that or give an option to drop the 3rd ammo slot for a second tool slot, though that would probbly be unbalanced as hell

Offline Alistair MacBain

  • Member
  • Salutes: 23
    • [GwTh]
    • 22 
    • 45
    • 19 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2013, 05:32:40 am »
Thats a great idea imo. Giiving that feature back for gunners only would make them pretty useful again.

Offline Calico Jack

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [2620]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2013, 06:54:29 am »
tbh most of the arguments I've heard against gunners vs buffgineer, which is what I feel is the subtext of this thread to be, seem to revolve around accepting the ammo limitation of the engineer for the chance of using the buff hammer to boost all the ship's components including the gun.

In other words reducing the ability of the buff hammer on guns, so that the DPS shows on a spread sheet as negligable would probably be enough.

Offline Elendu

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [CsM]
    • 25 
    • 31
    • 32 
    • View Profile
    • MeinKraft Online
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2013, 08:11:43 am »
Someone proposed giving gunners the ability to preload ammunition types for other crewmen.  I'm not sure how much that would change things but it definitely seems like something a gunner "could" do and would go into the teamplay aspect of the game.
I like the way you think-- with teamwork!  After all, isn't that what this game is about?

loading a gun with an ammo type then getting off and letting it reload, then comming back and having that ammo in the gun ready to use was something i really liked before it got taken away.
I started playing more recently so I wouldn't know, but it does sound useful, especially for guns that take a long time to reload (Hwacha, why you gotta be so slow, bro?)

Offline Plasmarobo

  • Member
  • Salutes: 41
    • [MM]
    • 24
    • 32 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2013, 09:02:58 am »
I think it'd be cool to give the gunners back the ability to preload guns, or something tangental to actually doing damage.
The problem being, even with two engineers I can barely keep up with both the component damage and hull damage at the same time. On a Galleon, I could see having two gunners some day.

Thing is, I don't think the classes need to be that important. The only distinction right now is the tools they carry. I love that. It means to play to your skill and the class is a title more than anything else. There is no reason why I can't gun primarily as an engineer (other than the fact that I'd be limited by ammo selection). I'd hate to see the classes get any more or less specialized then they already are. I think this a good example of something that works and should be kept incredibly simple.

I don't think the classes need to be balanced, cause really, there isn't much to balance (and I like that). The preloading thing is an excellent idea though.

But this is my opinion, obviously, and I never gun.

Offline Zenark

  • Member
  • Salutes: 41
    • [Cake]
    • 5
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2013, 10:40:30 am »
I'll often reload guns at the same time, especially on a Galleon. Jump on and start the reload for two Hwachas, reload the lumberjack, and by the time is done, hop into one hwacha and load in your ammo right as the reload animation finishes, then do the same with the other. With practice, you can reload all four guns about 30 seconds.

Being a gunner allows you to focus primarily on gunning, therefore giving you a superior advantage over engineers through experience alone.

Offline Captain McFaceSmashy

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • 6
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2013, 07:37:00 pm »
There's alot of things that could be changed to ONLY the guns numbers and stats to make things alot more understandable (and fun) for new players, while also (hopefully) increasing the competitive choices available for guns.

Let's start by having a look at the current guns we have, and what roles they fill:

Medium Guns:

Balloon damage:
Heavy Carronade (Short range)
Heavy Mortar (long range)

Armour damage:
Heavy Carronade (short range)
Heavy Mortar (Long range)

Hull damage:
Heavy Hwacha (Short range)
Heavy Flak (Long Range)

Component damage:
Heavy Hwacha (Short range)
Heavy Carronade (Short range)

Other:

And yes, hwacha has (significantly) longer effective range than the carronade, the mortar has longer range than the flak as well, and none of the guns do piercing damage so technically they aren't the best armour killers. There is a bit of generalization for the sake of brevity here, don't worry, the actual range is taking into account in the discussion.

Light Guns:

Balloon Damage:
Carronade (short range)
Flamethrower (short range)

Armour Damage:
Gatling gun(short range)
Mercury gun(long range)
Flamethrower(short range) (not the greatest, but fire has a decent armour damage ratio. and it's easy to get alot of stacks on it)

Hull Damage:
Scylla double mortar(short range)
Light flak (short range)
Artemis rocket launcher(long range)
Banshee (long range) (not a ton of damage but hey, it's all explosive)
Flamethrower (short range)

Component Damage:
Carronade(short range)
Mercury gun (long range)
Artemis (long range)
Gatling gun(short range)
Flamethrower (short range) (not so much damage but still disables them so eh)

Other:
Harpoon Gun(short range)
Mine Launcher (kinda counts as short range I guess?)
Flare Gun (short range (mostly due to inaccuracy))

So let's start making observations. First off there is no medium gun with long range component disabling ability (hwacha is medium effective range at best and even then can be dodged).  There is also no medium gun that both does good damage vs. armour AND hull, but there are both long and short range versions for each seperate role. Ignoring for the moment how well each gun does at performing it's given role, these guns seem pretty balanced.

The first thing one may notice with light guns is that flamethrowers *seem* pretty much good against everything. Having used flamethrowers however, besides their range being prohibitive, I also find it questionable how much damage it actually does or does not do, as it does not seem to kill things (besides the balloon) nearly as quickly as it's damage ratio's would indicate. In short the flamethrower is probably not broken despite doing good damage to everything.

The second thing is that all balloon and component damaging skills are short range besides the Artemis, Mercury, and in medium the heavy mortar. Let's take a closer look at those guns.

The heavy mortar disables the balloon and damages the armour, the Mercury disables components and damages the armour, and the artemis damages the hull and disables components.
The mortar, while hard to use for new players, is problematic because it runs the enemy ship into the ground WHILE removing their armour. The Artemis won't do much damage besides disabling components until the armour is down, so that seems balanced. The Mercury on the other hand disables components (such as the engines and guns) AND removes the armour, and is thus also problematic.

The reason why these two guns are problematic is because they don't require as much teamplay (meaning combination with other guns/ships) as other guns do, because they essentially fill the role of two guns at once (a disabling gun and a damaging gun) without paying enough of a penalty at one of the two roles. The artemis is a good counter example of how a double role gun should work. It's nowhere near as good as the specialized guns in it's area, but it has the advantage that, when one of it's roles is no longer required, it's less of a waste of a firing arc compared to the more specialized guns.

 Essentially, if a gun fullfills multiple roles with it's damage, it should pay a price for that, either being very ineffective at one of the roles, or being significantly less powerful (though obviously not useless) at both.

The banshee and flamethrower could be put in a seperate category for "firespreaders" short and long range, but the banshee is so ineffective at doing, well, anything at current, that it'd be inaccurate. Changing banshee to do a bit more explosive damage and having a slightly higher fire-starting chance would make it a great hybrid purpose gun for long range engagements, an alternative to the artemis, perhaps.

Speaking of the artemis, it is currently used only for it's very large firing arc (the exact firing arcs of the different guns should be more easily available information, since it's as important as the amount and type of damage being done when fitting a ship) as the mercury does it's job better at disabling and damaging ships at long range, and it's explosive damage doesn't come into play untill the hull armour is down. Add to that that the sniper and heavy mortar are the only guns good at removing armour from a long distance, and most armour damage has at least a "long" short range, getting that sniper on a ship is simply required for a long-range setup.

So how do we change the artemis/mercury to be more used/less frustrating? well quite simply we can look at the roles and what is required. Currently there are 2 light guns fullfilling the long range component disabling role (3 if you count the banshee), and only 1 fullfilling the armour removing role. I'd suggest specializing the mercury to taking out armour, and the artemis a bit more to taking out components at long range. Not only does the artemis have more counterplay as it's a missile and thus easier to see coming and dodge, you will have to make choices when making a long-range build whether or not you're going for more damage, or more disable, rather than just having both (fairly similiar to short range, though short range should always be more damage as it's more dangerous and harder to keep multiple guns on target)

As for the heavy mortar... I'd say just straight up reduce the flechette damage a bit (or the size of the aoe), or reduces the ammo/fire-rate of the gun, it's not as much of an issue that it can damage the armour as well as the balloon, as the speed at which it can do it (and damage both at the same time).

I'd also make a case for the gatling gun to be more focussed on armour damage, as it's the only short ranged gun that's much good at it, and trying to hit specific components with it is just silly(besides we have the carronade for short range component disabling).

Heavy flak just needs to be more accurate, it feels like it's a long-range gun(and the arming time supports this), but it seems to have unnecesarilly high jitter as well as relatively slow missile speed and high drop-off (it's damage is fine, just trying to hit things with it could be less of a bitch with the lesmok being nerfed now)

Anyway I could probably keep going all day but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on what I've had to say.

Offline Captain Smollett

  • Member
  • Salutes: 122
    • [Duck]
    • 11
    • 14 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2013, 11:09:58 pm »
Very well thought out post.

The one thing I agree with strongly is that the banshee needs a buff. Increasing the fire rate and damage would likely be welcome changes.

Offline awkm

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 77
    • [Muse]
    • 16 
    • 45
    • 28 
    • View Profile
    • Notes for Next Century—n4n100
Re: GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2013, 01:25:49 pm »
@Captain McFaceSmashy

yes, very well through out post.  I'd make those changes right now but the fact of the matter is that there are more guns coming that will change the situation.  There's a tension between what players are accustomed to now and how much that can change, and what is on the horizon.  Although many players would say that my changes are drastic, my thought is that they aren't as drastic as when new guns come into play.  Mine Launcher is not a good example because it is niche, but what about another piercer?  Another disabler?  I can't rebalance everything against itself now, as you suggest, when I know everything will have to change again in a month.

So for now... there are definitely some flaws and some gaps.  However, there are things in the pipe that will slowly rectify the situation while still making the game feel familiar.

Heavy Flak also has no jitter.  Just drop.