GUNS & GUNNER SKILLS Balance Discussion v1.3.1

[Captain McFaceSmashy]

@AWKM

Ah, good to know there's still stuff coming out gunwise, hopefully one of those gun will be the famous junker-sized heavy gun? (I can always hold out hope <3)

I'm not too familiar with firing the heavy flak myself, but from what I've heard my gunner say it feels like both bullets don't go to the same spot, or at least don't originate from the same spot (though this may in fact just be because of slight ship movement in between shots).

Now back to the meta of the guns. While I agree making drastic changes with new guns just on the doorstep isn't the best idea, I do have to point a few things out.
With guns not being so much a rock-paper-scissors as they are a choice of tactics (none of the guns can directly counter each other, it's just not designed that way) adding new guns will open up more tactical options, and possibly invalidate old ones in some of their current roles if some of the new guns are clearly superior in that role to current ones.

However! This will only increase, not decrease the amount of guns competing for a certain firing arc on the ship. All of the guns that are currently being outclassed for a certain role (whether disabler or armour piercer or w/ever) at a certain range, will STILL be outclassed if you add in more guns, they won't suddenly become a viable option.

With all the guns competing for their spots on a ship they MUST have a clear role and function, even if that function is: average at most things. Currently we have 2 guns (artemis and mercury) competing for the role of long range disabler, with the mercury both being better at disabling AND having the additional function of piercing damage (which you want to have because there's plenty of options for explosive damage).

Let's say you add another (long range) armour piercer into the game, which is better at the mercury at piercing armour, but doesn't do a good job at disabling ships (it's full piercing damage, for example). The choice now becomes: do I want the mercury for both piercing and disabling, but a bit less piercing than I could have, or do I want the full damage piercing gun?
Now let's say you add another (long range) disabler into the game, which is better at the mercury at disabling components (yeah, OP, I know, but follow with me here). The choice now becomes: do I want the mercury for piercing armour and disabling, but less disabling than I could have, or do I want the full disabling gun?
If the new gun is better at both then there isn't any choice, you take the new gun, period.

As you may notice, in ALL of those cases there is no reason to pick the artemis. It's only other attribute is it's explosive damage, which you can get alot more of elsewhere, thus it isn't in a viable position for any slot *unless* it's firing arc allows you to shoot from that slot when you otherwise couldn't (and for the vast majority of ships that's not an issue anyway, only the Spire comes to mind) That wide firing arc is just too ship-specific of a feature to be considered a viable role, when every other gun can be part of a build in most positions with a bit of creative tactics.

Let's not even get started on the banshee if you add in another long-range fire-starter that's better at starting fires at long range. What does it's niche become then, it's explosive damage? Most everything with explosive damage has decent range on it(and a ton more damage).

The point is that adding more guns competing for roles (unless all of the guns added are very niche) won't in any way solve the current problems. At best it remains at the status quo with only empty gaps being filled in (like a medium piercing gun) but at worst the new guns are either useless or outclass one or more of the other guns in their role as described above. Guns that are currently useless will remain useless regardless, and as such you can probably get away with fixing those sooner rather than later.


Edit:
I just realized that if you DID add in a medium piercing gun which has the kind of range and accuracy of the mercury then it *might* be viable to replace the usual mercury slots with artemis slots(on a spire/galleon), to have a very long-range damage-disabling build, though I would still argue at most practical ranges (e.g. there's clouds in the way now, alot of them in fact) the light flak or scylla with lesmok rounds would outperform it when it comes to destroying ships, and the mercury would still out perform it for disabling them.

[Captain Smollett]

@Captain McFaceSmashy

Due to the recent changes in the Mercury and Lesmok ammunition, the Mercury doesn't heavily outclass the Artemis as a disabler anymore.  Try out the Artemis with Lesmok at long range and Burst at close range.  It can really wreak havoc on enemy systems.

[Captain McFaceSmashy]

@ Captain Smollet
Yes with burst rounds at close range it can do better than a mercury. At close range however, a carronade does it's job better anyway so if that's your plan, why bring an artemis?
At long range the lack of anywhere near as good of a zoom as the mercury, a slow fire rate, as well the fact it takes 2 direct hits to take out a component compared to the 1 of a mercury AND that if you miss with the mercury you will likely hit the hull and STILL do a crapton of damage.... it's just inferior on the whole.

[Surette]

@ Captain Smollet
Yes with burst rounds at close range it can do better than a mercury. At close range however, a carronade does it's job better anyway so if that's your plan, why bring an artemis?
At long range the lack of anywhere near as good of a zoom as the mercury, a slow fire rate, as well the fact it takes 2 direct hits to take out a component compared to the 1 of a mercury AND that if you miss with the mercury you will likely hit the hull and STILL do a crapton of damage.... it's just inferior on the whole.

You have to consider other variables. What are you using the gun in combination with? What's your style of flying? Depending on the answers to those questions, the small arc of the mercury will make essentially useless. You need a very particular style of play to give the mercury its maximum effectiveness. Also if you're using another piercer, you probably would rather have an artemis for its explosive damage rather than more piercing in the mercury. Two different guns for two different strategies. You can't just claim it's inferior because they don't fulfill the same purpose, you can't compare the two except for the fact that they're both longer range.

[Captain McFaceSmashy]

I hope you've read the entirety of my first post, because if you didn't this does indeed not seem as obvious as it should be. (I'm asuming you didn't so let me re-iterate)

We're not JUST comparing the artemis directly with the mercury. We're comparing it with ALL other guns you could want to have in that slot.
at long range the smaller firing arc of the mercury isn't a problem, you're at long range, they aren't about to speed past you and out of your firing arc. Explosive damage at long range is available in larger quantities from the flak cannon and mortar. While, yes, they aren't AS long range as the artemis, the artemis explosive damage isn't anywhere near as high, and with the damage mattering most when the armour is down, it's slow fire-rate makes it an inferior choice there as well.

Short range the other explosive damage guns outperform it even more, and the carronade is superior for disabling components.

The problem with the artemis is that, yes, you indeed load out a ship with a certain flying style and tactics in mind. Since for any given role the artemis is outperformed by a different gun, the only time you put on the artemis in a slot is if the answer to "Can I fire any other gun with a smaller firing arc from this position" is no. Not only is that too ship specific for a gun's role (imho), it's just a shitty feeling for a gun to have. It should feel good to put a certain gun on a certain position, with the intention to actually use it as part of your tactics as such. Not "Well I can't really put anything better there".

[N-Sunderland]

Don't forget the Artemis's big AoE with burst. Disabling multiple components at once is where a big part of its value comes from.

[Captain McFaceSmashy]

@ N-Sunderland

Yes that's definitely true, I suppose you could define it as the "long range" "AoE" Disabling gun, which would give it a niche, but the AoE really just gets calculated into the "Disabling" part.

I will concede the point though that (with some tweaks to numbers and such) having it be the "Spam for disabling enemy ship at range" gun, while having the sniper be the "take out specific targets like medium guns" gun is a viable niche, perhaps not the best place to be in still, but viable.

I'm not convinced however, that this is currently, effectively, the case.

[Nidh]

The Artemis IS a disabling gun, and one that you can get in a trifecta-bifecta with, making it VERY powerful if used correctly. I think of it as a close-mid range mini-hwacha. It allows you to have disabling capabilities that are harder to use, but are more flexible in a close range situation than the merc. The other disabling weapons are the Flamethrower and Banshee, which are great if you want to pressure the enemies balloon, but are slower in actually disabling guns. The Carronade can disable weapons as well, but good luck hitting anything that's not a heavy gun on the enemy ship. The Artemis's AOE makes it a better disabler imo.

[Captain McFaceSmashy]

Some good feedback there Nidh.

Would you say that the ability to more easily get three guns aimed at the enemy on certain ships warrants it being somewhat weaker overall? If so do you think it should stay that way, possibly restricting the usage of the gun to very specific slots on certain ships as more of a niche weapon, or should it be made more powerful while removing some of it's edge-case uses? (like allowing the top level side gun on the spire to fire directly ahead)

Personally I'm of the opinion that if you only use the gun because it happens to be the only gun with a wide enough angle to let you shoot 1 more gun simultaneously, there's either something fundamentally wrong with the gun, or the ship's design that allows it to be used that way (e.g. either the gun is OP for letting you fire one more gun at an angle you weren't supposed to, or the ship's design is wonky for not letting you fire any other gun in that direction)

[Thaago]

The Artemis is my favorite gun - I think it is perfect as is and needs no changes. Its not the most powerful and certainly not overpowered, but I think many people vastly underestimate its effectiveness. Its AOE lets you take out several components at once (the whole engine cluster on a Pyramidion will go down with 1 clip) and its explosive is a perfect long range complement to the mercury. Yes its biggest weakness is its poor zoom, but I can hit targets with burst at 1km (good conditions, to be fair).

...

Personally I'm of the opinion that if you only use the gun because it happens to be the only gun with a wide enough angle to let you shoot 1 more gun simultaneously, there's either something fundamentally wrong with the gun, or the ship's design that allows it to be used that way (e.g. either the gun is OP for letting you fire one more gun at an angle you weren't supposed to, or the ship's design is wonky for not letting you fire any other gun in that direction)

Ah - your not using it because its the only gun that will do in the slot. You're using it for the specific purpose of coordinated, long range support fire. The side gun slots on a Mobula for example make excellent spots for carronades to pop harassers - however, the carronades can't hit the same target. Artemis' on the other hand can, and you can use them in those slots to great effect with a third gun... but you also lose the close range potential. Its just a design choice and strength of the gun, no more and no less. I think the wide arc is entirely appropriate on the Artemis because it is in essence a support gun.

[Nidh]

The Gatling gun and the Banshee have  turning arcs that can allow a trifecta so the Artemis isn't the only weapon that can add a little extra dps to a ship. Just depends on what you want out of the third gun.

[Captain McFaceSmashy]

@Thaago

Good to hear there's people that are extensively using the artemis in combat, that's useful for feedback to be sure. Indeed part of the weakness of the Artemis is that it's maximum range potential is rarely used, especially with the added cloud coverage on most maps now(which hurts all long-range guns, to be fair), leaving the shorter range guns to out-class it damagewise in more common situations.

The case you present on the mobula's side-most guns is somewhat similar to what I said about the spire's top-side gun, where it's essentially the only gun you can put there to allow you to keep firing in the same direction as the rest of your guns (though to be fair, on the mobula you have 5 possibly guns and only 3 people to shoot them, so some running around or turning is going to be required regardless).

In any case I have to agree with you that the artemis is far from useless as a gun in and of itself, and nowhere near as much in need of some love as the banshee is. Still, it's worth discussing whether or not it performs well enough in it's given role to warrant a slot over other guns. I've heard from multiple people now that, yes, it is, because it's more forgiving with it's high turning angle and range, thus giving it versatility in where and how you engage compared to the more specialized guns. Quite frankly this is a perfectly valid use of a gun-slot, and I rest my case in regards to that.

@ Nidh
Considering you're mentioning some specific guns I'm going to have to asume you're talking about either the junker or the mobula, and yes they do have some choice in that regard, you can even fit a flamer on the junker if you're up for some close-range tri-gunning (though maintaining the right distance AND angle on that can be a bit tricky).

Some other questions for all of you then.
If you have the choice between a heavy mortar and a heavy flak (asuming your gunner is competent with either) for a long-range build, would any of you go for the heavy flak? Personally I quite like the heavy flak, but objectively speaking the heavy mortar seems superior. It takes out the balloon and armour at the same time (possibly damaging quite a few components along the way) and can keep a ship permanently grounded(and eventually dying as a result of damage from the gun and being run into the ground) by itself, where-as the heavy flak only deals damage worth mentioning when the armour is down (granted it's a ton when it is down) thus making it entirely reliant on using mercuries or allies to take down the armour first. (Goldfish with only a heavy flak is pretty bad for this reason tbh).

My first instinct would be that a slight nerf to the mortar, and a slight buff to the flak are in order, but I'd like to hear other people's counter-arguments. Are there situations or load-outs that simply require the heavy flak over the mortar? So far I haven't been able to think of any where you'd be better off (unless your enemy closes in on you, but with a long-range build that somewhat indicates you've allready failed)

[Nidh]

If you're going for a long range build, and intend to fly a Goldfish, then the Heavy Mortar far surpasses the Heavy Flak, simply because the Heavy Mortar is much less reliant on a supporting gun. If however, you are on a Galleon or Spire, which has easier access to supporting weaponry at longer ranges, then the Heavy Flak can be a dangerous finishing weapon, if you can get the timing correct. Do either need a buff or nerf? I think the Heavy Mortar is at a good place right now, it's very powerful, but can be countered. The Heavy Flak however, I'm not as familiar with so I couldn't say if it needs a nerf or buff.

[Nidh]

I think a good question to ask would be, what is the role of a Sniper in terms of GoIO? Or, what is the Developer's vision for sniping? Should you be able to annihilate a ship at extreme ranges? Or should sniping be more of a supporting role, that only aids with disables and counters? Not sure if this is the right place to post these questions, but I suppose it pertains to the role of weapons and balance. If the goal is to make sniping more of a supporting role, then I think the Flak should be changed to a close-mid range weapon since the role of finisher doesn't fit the support style.

[Ccrack]

i think sniping should be more about chipping away at the enemy before they close in, so you have a slight upper hand when the battle starts