Author Topic: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.  (Read 86034 times)

Offline awkm

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 77
    • [Muse]
    • 16 
    • 45
    • 28 
    • View Profile
    • Notes for Next Century—n4n100
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #75 on: June 18, 2014, 07:03:59 pm »
Just want to paint a clear picture of how things will shake down since not everyone has been up to date with this thread since the beginning.

Offline Hoja Lateralus

  • Member
  • Salutes: 135
    • [ψ꒜]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #76 on: June 20, 2014, 08:06:33 am »
So, while pondering something, another something occurred to me that might make gunners a bit more desirable. What if simply being on a gun made it reload faster? Not a class specific passive. Just if anyone is on a gun, it reloads faster. Pilots and engineers have other things to do while guns are loading. Gunners, not so much. Even a buff gungineer gets off the gun to keep it buffed. This would be more of a hotseat buff. If your ship is doing well with no repairs to be made, all guns would load a bit faster just by keeping someone in the seat.
Firstly this.

Secondly - Messing with the slot numbers / equipment will not do unfortunately. Even if we give gunner some buff-item it's always availible for the engineer. As awkm said the deal is to give the gunner better and more situational ammo since it's the easiest to implement and probably the best solution considering ballance of the whole game.

The turret ammo seems like a really good idea - well used in specific situations can be extremely useful. I have two another ideas:

Flash Ammo/Mark Ammo - I don't remember the real name - the ammo that leaves quite visible marks in the air when flying and therefore helping both sides to see where they are. The idea is that on hit this ammo makes both ships marked for each other. Sometimes, especially on Battle of the Dunes we see more or less where the ship is but the dust cloud makes it impossible to mark it. Also very useful when enemy uses tar (meaning they are running away and our ship being marked don't do much of a difference).

Tar Ammo / Smoke Ammo - The ammo that instead of doing damage makes small clouds of tar or tar-alike smoke where they hit, lessening the enemy crew's visibility. This would make the squids more usable for harass and encourage the "default" 1 pilot 2 engineers 1 gunner build on them.

Offline MacBen

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • 7
    • 29 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #77 on: July 03, 2014, 05:28:45 am »
How about removing normal ammo or allow people to have 2 active at the same time ?


There is only one helmet, and its a good thing to bring a dedicated pilot with pilotingtools.
With just one of them you are screwed in many situations where you need one of the others.

There is only one baloon/hull  that is damaged/broken/burning and its a good thing to bring a dedicated engineer.
With just one repair tool you are screwed in many situations where you need one of the others.


There are  3-6 Guns on your ship and a fat chance that the right gun for every range/damagetype is ready to fire.
They do perfectly fine with normal ammo.And the other ammo's purpose is to squeeze out up to 10% more damage or
make them opperate out of their comfort zone (reduced arming distance,reduced weapons spread,less projectile drop )
because the proper gun for that situation was broken (+1 engi) or on fire (+1 engi) or already taken by another player.

With just one ammo type you ..... will have to use the normal ammo for half the guns on the ship? or run between guns to be flexible?  ::)


Add the fakt that chem spray (+1 engi) and the buffhammer (+1 engi) stack with ammo buffs ,
but different ammotypes that fill a similar role don't stack with each other;
and it gets hard to see a justification for a dedicated Gunner.

Half the things his addidional ammo does can be done better by additional engineer tools, and the rest has marginal or very situational impact.

But with 2 ammotypes stacking I can see  them on eye level with the engineer tools and a whole new level of flexibility/more ship loadouts that need an gunner.
It will require some fine tuning , but each ammo already comes with a drawback that works as a adjusting screw to give them the edge without making them overpowered.

« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 05:31:08 am by MacBen »

Offline -Mad Maverick-

  • Member
  • Salutes: 30
    • [WOLF]
    • 12
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #78 on: August 06, 2014, 11:47:41 pm »
I had an idea today and i know its very weird and it may not work coding wise but i think it would make the gunner WAY more valuable.

First, we make the buff hammer a gunner tool (i know i know you dont like it AWKM but hear me out...) making the buff a gunner tool does not remove it from the list of options before an engineer because obviously he can take the buff hammer as his 1 gunner tool

Second, we remove normal ammo as default, i.e. if you select no ammo type at all (taking standard ammo is one of those ammo types to choose from) you can not load a gun.   If a gun is already loaded, fire away but with no ammo on your person you are unable to reload

doing this will allow a gunner to (if he chooses) select two different ammo types, a buff hammer AND a repair tool.  this will make the gunner instantly viable.  this change will also make for a much more interesting "engineer game" for dedicated engineers who does no plan on firing any weapons. because now they have a full repair kit AND components to buff!

with most ships now being able to buff engines they will fly faster and more nimbly creating bit more fun for the pilots,  the gunner class will be viable on many more builds, and you will barely have to do any re-coding (hopefully)!

Offline Milevan Faent

  • Member
  • Salutes: 15
    • [Cake]
    • 8
    • 31 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #79 on: August 07, 2014, 12:12:02 am »
I had an idea today and i know its very weird and it may not work coding wise but i think it would make the gunner WAY more valuable.

First, we make the buff hammer a gunner tool (i know i know you dont like it AWKM but hear me out...) making the buff a gunner tool does not remove it from the list of options before an engineer because obviously he can take the buff hammer as his 1 gunner tool

Second, we remove normal ammo as default, i.e. if you select no ammo type at all (taking standard ammo is one of those ammo types to choose from) you can not load a gun.   If a gun is already loaded, fire away but with no ammo on your person you are unable to reload

doing this will allow a gunner to (if he chooses) select two different ammo types, a buff hammer AND a repair tool.  this will make the gunner instantly viable.  this change will also make for a much more interesting "engineer game" for dedicated engineers who does no plan on firing any weapons. because now they have a full repair kit AND components to buff!

with most ships now being able to buff engines they will fly faster and more nimbly creating bit more fun for the pilots,  the gunner class will be viable on many more builds, and you will barely have to do any re-coding (hopefully)!

All these ideas have been suggested before and rejected for one reason or another.

Offline -Mad Maverick-

  • Member
  • Salutes: 30
    • [WOLF]
    • 12
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #80 on: August 07, 2014, 12:13:40 am »
oh,  I hadn't seen the "not being able to shoot at all" idea before.   I personally have suggested the buff hammer change myself in the past.

and I certainly hadn't seen these ideas combined into one before.

Offline Milevan Faent

  • Member
  • Salutes: 15
    • [Cake]
    • 8
    • 31 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #81 on: August 07, 2014, 12:17:19 am »
Not being able to shoot at all hasn't been specifically suggested, but would be rejected on the basis of that being worse than any other option you could pick. I would rather have someone with lochnagar firing my flamer than someone who can't shoot at all. That kind of suggestion would just make me say "dont take buff ever". But removing normal ammo and giving gunners other tools (including the specific suggestion to move buff to the gunner) have both been suggested multiple times so far, and neither looks likely to happen.

Offline -Mad Maverick-

  • Member
  • Salutes: 30
    • [WOLF]
    • 12
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #82 on: August 07, 2014, 12:29:04 am »
my main engis rarely if ever fire weapons on both my Goldie and pyra.  I would exchange the rare moments that they do shoot for having everything constantly buffed.   

also you are describing a way that having a gunner on board would actually be better than having 3 engis: mission accomplished.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 12:41:01 am by -Mad Maverick- »

Offline Omniraptor

  • Member
  • Salutes: 51
    • [Duck]
    • 27 
    • 45
    • 38 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #83 on: August 07, 2014, 01:21:17 am »
At some point we need a wiki or some other database of dev responses to suggestions, like rempving normal ammo.

Offline Milevan Faent

  • Member
  • Salutes: 15
    • [Cake]
    • 8
    • 31 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #84 on: August 07, 2014, 01:35:23 am »
my main engis rarely if ever fire weapons on both my Goldie and pyra.  I would exchange the rare moments that they do shoot for having everything constantly buffed.   

also you are describing a way that having a gunner on board would actually be better than having 3 engis: mission accomplished.

Yes, mission accomplished, in a very negative way. That way basically punishes engineers rather than encourages gunners, which isn't what the devs (and probably anyone who mains engies) wants. There are better options than doing this that haven't failed just yet (the on-going ammo experiments for example).

Offline -Mad Maverick-

  • Member
  • Salutes: 30
    • [WOLF]
    • 12
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #85 on: August 07, 2014, 05:17:39 am »
maybe, not saying my idea is the best ever just wondering if it might be an effective and simple one.   I'm just not convinced that most main engis would mind not shooting a gun if it meant an overhaul to the "engi game"

Offline Ultimate Pheer

  • Member
  • Salutes: 3
    • 18 
    • 4
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #86 on: August 07, 2014, 10:37:30 am »
The way I see it, the primary problem is that anything a Gunner gets, an Engineer will get as well.

At this point, I don't think it's completely incorrect to say that the Buff Hammer is, perhaps, a bit too good compared to any COMBINATION of ammo types. Especially given how many seem to have downsides that are rendered either irrelevant or completely negated by the buff. And far too many guns are capable of functioning perfectly well with only one type of ammo. Yeah, the Hwacha, and the flamer and Gatling sometimes can function with multiple types... but that's not much.

So, stupid solution: Only gunners get ammo. Every gun has a default ammo that it reloads into but only gunners can bring special kinds of ammo.

Less stupid solution: Every shot also decreases the buff timer in addition to however much it decreases per second. Like, a flamer chews up the buff time as it melts an enemy ship and, say, a mine launcher stays buffed for a significant amount of time.

Or something. I never claim to have good ideas, only interesting ones.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 10:40:10 am by Ultimate Pheer »

Offline Velvet

  • Member
  • Salutes: 45
    • [Gent]
    • 19 
    • 22
    • 41 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #87 on: August 07, 2014, 11:24:34 am »
Yes, mission accomplished, in a very negative way. That way basically punishes engineers rather than encourages gunners, which isn't what the devs (and probably anyone who mains engies) wants. There are better options than doing this that haven't failed just yet (the on-going ammo experiments for example).
but the whole problem stems from the fact that engineers are too versatile. I think some kind of engineer nerf is not only the best but probably the only decisive way of making the gunner more viable; it's also a really easy fix in comparison to the extensive testing required to balance the new ammo types that are Muse's currently favoured solution. that said I think removing free default ammo would be a big enough first step, I don't think it's necessary to make the buff hammer a gunner tool.

Offline -Mad Maverick-

  • Member
  • Salutes: 30
    • [WOLF]
    • 12
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #88 on: August 07, 2014, 11:29:03 am »
making the buff hammer a gunner tool acts as both a buff to gunners and a slight nerf to engis

Offline pandatopia

  • Member
  • Salutes: 15
    • [OVW]
    • 14
    • View Profile
Re: Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
« Reply #89 on: August 07, 2014, 11:40:42 am »
making the buff hammer a gunner tool acts as both a buff to gunners and a slight nerf to engis

Do you mean to replace an ammo?

This will mean

1. No gunner will take it, since they need the ammo.
2. Even if it is a repair slot, no gunner will take it, since they need a wrench.
3. Gunners will cut into engie's role, by buffing engines hull balloon etc.

I think this solution will not work. You just end up with noone having buff hammer.