Engineering Game 1.3.6

[AbbyTheRat]

RearAdmiralZill - for long range, yes but for brawlers.. it can be very hard to avoid the gun arcs. I have been struggling with my meta build a bit lately against a flamer but with carr+ flamer, wow, an amazing disable.

[Wundsalz]

I never got the point of "chem rounds." Flamethrowers have the shortest range in the game. Maybe its just me not playing the new patch enough (I didn't start till after flamethrowers were scaled back after the first changes) but if you keep getting into situations where chem-spray is required on your whole boat to survive, that's got some pilot error in there to some degree.

For brawly builds your options to evade a flamer are relatively limited. To start with, flamers are often used on ships which can close in quickly (pyras, squids, goldies) so your options to keep your distance are limited from that side. Then flamers aren't really in a different range class than other brawl builds. E.g. greased gat (450m*.8 = 360) vs. lesmok flamer (250m*1.7 = 340m). I think for brawlbuilds  vs. flamer-builds really the same positioning rules as always apply.

[RearAdmiralZill]

Forgive me, but you'll have to be a bit more specific on your meta build. I don't give meta much mind. I'll guess gat mortar?

For your gat range there, just don't use greased? If you're playing a range game, don't go limiting yourself by tossing in ammo that eliminates your advantage.

I'll admit the range changes of old haven't made fighting a flamethrower any easier, but isn't that the point of a flamethrower? To deter you from getting too close?

[Rainer Zu Fall]

I just tested flamer+carronade pyra vs gat+mortar pyra without special ammo, just AI, in the sandbox. From the first shot fired until the destruction occuring (message appearing in top left corner) the flamer+carronade pyra took 28.350 seconds. The gat+mortar pyra however only needed 20.167 seconds to take out the dummy. Thats ~8 seconds difference. With a hades+artemis build the killing only took 18.041 seconds. Which makes ~10 seconds difference. For a weapon that keeps your engineers from firing a gun to run chem cycles and keep things repaired and thus leaving mostly just 1.5 people able to shoot, that is a bit too quick in my opinion.

[Alistair MacBain]

Keep in mind that a perfectly timed gat mortar will be much faster.
If the mortar doesnt shoot as soon as the armor drops you will loose time. The explosive dmg is not worth wasting on armor ...
The shatter from the artemis however will do more gainst the armor.

[RearAdmiralZill]

So you're saying gat/mortar is too slow in killing compared to a flamer carronade?

Also I don't get the relevance of static times like that when games are never two ships sitting in front of each other.

[Rainer Zu Fall]

So you're saying gat/mortar is too slow in killing compared to a flamer carronade?

Also I don't get the relevance of static times like that when games are never two ships sitting in front of each other.

I'm nowhere near saying that.
Static times are relevant because they are static and comparable unlike times in a real match which span (with special ammo) from 15 seconds to 2 minutes for each combination.

[GeoRmr]

Keep in mind that a perfectly timed gat mortar will be much faster.
If the mortar doesnt shoot as soon as the armor drops you will loose time. The explosive dmg is not worth wasting on armor ...
The shatter from the artemis however will do more gainst the armor.

If you have your mortar buffed you will be in excess of shells, it is very much worth using the double explosive damage from these extra shells to add fire stacks to the enemy's hull and guns.

[RearAdmiralZill]

So you're saying gat/mortar is too slow in killing compared to a flamer carronade?

Also I don't get the relevance of static times like that when games are never two ships sitting in front of each other.

I'm nowhere near saying that.
Static times are relevant because they are static and comparable unlike times in a real match which span (with special ammo) from 15 seconds to 2 minutes for each combination.

Forgive my misunderstanding then.

I also still don't understand how comparing times that as you say, will never happen consistently because real matches are so varied, does anything?

[GeoRmr]

"...What really bugs me is the mindless jumping around. You always do the same, boring things. You don't have to think about whether you hit with the spanner or the mallet, in which order to repair the components to have a daring low health but can bring down another enemy - It's all just one huge algorithm that never changes. Which is not challenging but really really boring."

Heh, I always knew this was true.

[Rainer Zu Fall]

Forgive my misunderstanding then.

I also still don't understand how comparing times that as you say, will never happen consistently because real matches are so varied, does anything?

Because of the varied times we need times to compare. Since the games basic mechanics won't change in a real match and the AI is one of those mechanics, we can take their needed time as a static number to compare. It's like taking the average of something (except this isn't the average, it's a number that's been calculated by a computer based on it's programmed algorithms) - you get a number inbetween the set of min. time needed to max. time needed.
So to have something that you can actually compare which can't be affected according to anyones will, we can use those instead.

[RearAdmiralZill]

Forgive my misunderstanding then.

I also still don't understand how comparing times that as you say, will never happen consistently because real matches are so varied, does anything?

Because of the varied times we need times to compare. Since the games basic mechanics won't change in a real match and the AI is one of those mechanics, we can take their needed time as a static number to compare. It's like taking the average of something (except this isn't the average, it's a number that's been calculated by a computer based on it's programmed algorithms) - you get a number inbetween the set of min. time needed to max. time needed.
So to have something that you can actually compare which can't be affected according to anyones will, we can use those instead.

But why bother comparing such numbers, when they will never present themselves in a gameplay situation other than the fixed one you artificially created? Surely using such results as an average still provides a poor result when trying to factor in every other variable the game presents when in a match, which is what we're trying to balance.

Of course this is getting off topic isn't it...

[Rainer Zu Fall]

But why bother comparing such numbers, when they will never present themselves in a gameplay situation other than the fixed one you artificially created? Surely using such results as an average still provides a poor result when trying to factor in every other variable the game presents when in a match, which is what we're trying to balance.

Of course this is getting off topic isn't it...

Well, the topic is "the changes in engineering gameplay due to the new patch". We're talking about the those changes right now and try to put them into some basis we can discuss on. But I'm also good with us agreeing to disagree.

To your answer: Of course you could use a formula that uses variables as placeholders for adjustable skill of players, timing of shots, ammo used etc. but that wouldn't lead to something you can actually compare in this situation.

What I tried to show with those numbers (back to the original original topic): Your usual weapon damages your ship and thus forces your engineers to repair until one of them is able to use the second weapon again. The flamer however now requires both of your engineers to run around and keep the ship up (which isn't that difficult since the hotfix), but more importantly: It also keeps you from helping out if you're needed elsewhere (some loadouts require both guns to be shooting and the way over there [junker's sideguns] is just too long for a gunner to run until the hull armor is repaired).
Sure, the engineer sometimes has to take over the work of some other classes (mainly using a weapon), but the gunner also repairs his guns (which usually is the engineers field of work) and a good captain knows the problems of playing each class. So I don't think just because the engineer sometimes has to do other classes jobs it's a boring gameplay - it gets much more interesting because you're not stuck on mindlessly hammering/spraying all the things.

[NorwegianWolf]

I really do not understand why this has turned into a numbers game. Raw damage output is good for going up against someone else that's going for raw damage, and you got the edge in that damage output. But numbers in practical use is rarely all that useful because there are so many variables such as positioning, player prioritizing, etc.

[RearAdmiralZill]

But I'm also good with us agreeing to disagree.

Certainly.


For me, the engie game has gotten busier ever since fire cooldowns started working. I don't really think this is a failing of anything though. The engie's role, is to keep the ship flying. With flamethrowers, while yes, if you remain under sustained fire from them, then your options become rather limited, staying out of that situation is a key. Given their range, it's certainly avoidable.

While brawling ships need to be more creative in avoiding the flames, they still have the means in one form of another. This lessens (to me) the requirement of the engineers just running chem routes all match vs, looking around or firing a gun.