Author Topic: Spire Changes?  (Read 24620 times)

Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #30 on: July 04, 2014, 07:23:52 pm »
Increasing the armor won't stop the spire from being a glass cannon. It won't nerf it's survivability either, Spire doesn't rely on quick hull rebuilds to overcome the enemy like the Goldfish or to an extend the Pyra do.

Instead, giving it more armor will give crew a slightly longer time window during which they can continue shooting. It will also stop the ship from dying when being rammed by anything.

I know increasing the armor wont make it less glass cannony...

But the "Give crew a slightly longer time window"  is what im afraid off. The spires survivability that im refering to is quick hull rebuilds that come up just in time. I noticed in one of my gameplay, our hull cameup before the heavy flak hit us. Or a barrage of light flaks. If the armor gives enough time window to continue to shoot, the ship will always win in 1v1 situations. Or most of the times. Right now, the spire works even with its low armor because of its guns. The previous spire did infact work because it had armor that of a pyra, but it didnt have the guns of todays spire.

Combine the forces of new spire and old spire is a very very strong ship that in most cases has to be 2v1'nd


But to ask, how much more armor are we really thinking.

400 is not that far from 650.
500 is 100 more than the original and prolongs the rebuild time by 2 extra spanners. Which sounds more diminishing.
600 is way to close to pyra armor which results to always winning fights versus similar armored ships because stats, and etc.

And why isnt Acceleration or a turning buff a good one?

Offline Dementio

  • Member
  • Salutes: 134
    • [Rydr]
    • 43 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #31 on: July 04, 2014, 08:59:29 pm »
And why isnt Acceleration or a turning buff a good one?

I am not saying it's bad, I just believe it guess against the very design of the ship, but that shouldn't hinder an atttempt to balance it, if it isn't balanced.


I do fly Spire, I can fly Spire, but everytime I do, I get the feeling my engineers are busier than on any other ship...
Probably the acceleration works here to get out of fire.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2014, 09:03:33 pm by Dementio »

Offline Captain Smollett

  • Member
  • Salutes: 122
    • [Duck]
    • 11
    • 14 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #32 on: July 05, 2014, 12:53:28 am »
Ask any experienced player to rate the ships from strongest to weakest and almost all of them will place the Spire on the bottom of the list.

It's not weak, as it's a very capable ship, but it is the weakest.

550 armor sounds good. Let's ask awkm to Dev App it.

Offline Dutch Vanya

  • Member
  • Salutes: 107
    • [Clan]
    • 38 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #33 on: July 05, 2014, 01:57:16 am »
Don't forget that while the spire may be the weakest, it also has the strongest potential for offense, with one heavy gun, and three light guns that can get on the same target. Even when taking one light gun out of the question it still has lot's of firepower.

Offline Captain Smollett

  • Member
  • Salutes: 122
    • [Duck]
    • 11
    • 14 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #34 on: July 05, 2014, 03:07:50 am »
When I'm speaking of weakest I'm referring to a ship with the least competitive potential.

The Spire has an incredible amount of offensive firepower, but being weak against disable and all out killing as well as being unmaneuverable and a giant target isn't offset by the strength.

Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2014, 01:48:34 pm »
Ive seen less squids than spire in competetive, and i use spire almost always competetively.

I do not think it is weakest competetively.

Offline Dutch Vanya

  • Member
  • Salutes: 107
    • [Clan]
    • 38 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2014, 02:27:54 pm »
I still don't believe the spire is as bad in competitive goi as some say. Remember the goldfish was considered too weak, and now without changing anything it has become a lot more common.

Offline Captain Smollett

  • Member
  • Salutes: 122
    • [Duck]
    • 11
    • 14 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2014, 03:09:19 pm »
I never said the Spire was weak, I just said it's the weakest.

And for the record I was never one of those who stated the goldfish was weak.  There was never anything wrong with the Goldfish other than it is hard countered by some ships and team compositions and those builds happened to have been at one point the meta of the moment.  Now that the meta has shifted the Goldfish is being recognized as valuable again.

The squid is often not taken into competition because it represents so much risk.  Positioning, flight, gunner accuracy and engineering need to be near perfect for a squid to be competitive and for most teams that's just too difficult to rely on doing consistently or even at all and so they prefer to run ships that have greater margins of error.

If the Spire were to receive more armor, that balance would shift and further open up the range of ships being used.

Offline Dutch Vanya

  • Member
  • Salutes: 107
    • [Clan]
    • 38 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2014, 04:18:53 pm »
I never said the Spire was weak, I just said it's the weakest.

And for the record I was never one of those who stated the goldfish was weak.  There was never anything wrong with the Goldfish other than it is hard countered by some ships and team compositions and those builds happened to have been at one point the meta of the moment.  Now that the meta has shifted the Goldfish is being recognized as valuable again.

The squid is often not taken into competition because it represents so much risk.  Positioning, flight, gunner accuracy and engineering need to be near perfect for a squid to be competitive and for most teams that's just too difficult to rely on doing consistently or even at all and so they prefer to run ships that have greater margins of error.

If the Spire were to receive more armor, that balance would shift and further open up the range of ships being used.



What has shifted in the meta that made the goldfish more common? Less artemis spam? Or was it just something people were scared to try but could have worked all along. And shouldn't we expect near perfect engineering from competitive? They always say this is "the highest level of play."

Offline DMaximus

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 28
    • [MM]
    • 45 
    • 25
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2014, 04:26:01 pm »

What has shifted in the meta that made the goldfish more common? Less artemis spam? Or was it just something people were scared to try but could have worked all along. And shouldn't we expect near perfect engineering from competitive? They always say this is "the highest level of play."

Less artemis spam for sure. The triple-art junker was a death sentence for anything with a heavy gun due to the long rebuild time. Even with perfect engineering there's nothing you can do about the constant time it takes to rebuild a heavy, especially when it's very likely to immediately be shot out again.

Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2014, 05:04:40 pm »
Crafeksterty
Quote
Ive seen less squids than spire in competetive, and i use spire almost always competetively.

I do not think it is weakest competetively.

Captain Smollet
Quote
I never said the Spire was weak, I just said it's the weakest.


I still do not think that is true. Like i said, no one really tries to make it work.

Buffed armor allready leads to 520 armor for the spire. And even that is pretty small.
Buffed armor of 550 armor is 715. Almost double that of the spire we have now, equal to an unbuffed pyra, close to unbffed junker, and the spire we have now allready can do devestation with the current armor. When the armor becomes more accepting its going to make people play the spire more yes, but pyra, galleon, even junker, mobula all have to rely on disabling the spire constantly because the spire will always outgun resorting to Artemis, carronade, flamer etc always versus a spire.

Offline Wundsalz

  • Member
  • Salutes: 72
    • [Rydr]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2014, 06:52:18 pm »
What about moving the balloon back to its former position (next to the stairs leading down to the current hull spot from the helm) OR moving the hull somewhere to the lower deck? That way a single engineer could easily maintain the most essential components on the ship.

Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2014, 07:37:09 pm »
That would just go backwards in updating when it comes to progress. The pilot can help easier even with the gunner on this current set up. For your second suggestion, it would make the spire more tanky but by design inside of the ship wouldnt make for a fun gameplay or splitt the players how the players should be.

I would move the hull to where the baloon was (Next to the stairs on the upper deck). That way the spire will be tanky in the sense if focused.
But the reason for putting it in the lower ramp is to delay that sudden repair by just a bit. When the baloon was upstairs, it was repaired/rebuilt fairly quick, perhaps quicker than the junkers baloon.
But the focus took its time because the baloon is tough to rebuild/repair. The hull is very easy, and so the delay is balance to the sudden rebuild making it Tanky like a goldfish or squid.
In some aspects kinda enforces 3 engie 1 gunner combo.

There is actualy no problems with the set up we have now, it is actualy more beneficial if the gunner and the pilot take the extra step to run up or down a ramp to repair the hull.


But no really... the spires aspect is very hard to see, it being not so glass cannon like will end up force ships to try and counter it directly.
The only ship that is directly countered with extreme specific choices is the junker. And that is not because of its stats, but rather its Form. The junkers baloon is huge but the hull really small.
So people result to punching the baloon of the junker instead. But it has strengths against it like the baloon being easily accesible by the pilot and an engineer so the baloon can always and will always be repaired quicker than most ships. (Excluding the squid, the squids baloon is pretty quick).

The thing im suggesting for the spire is to Use its form. It is slender, and like i said. People do miss it if it goes side by side. Problem is, it isnt that much and is equal to other ships.
The junker has a hard armor to hit along with tough armor. The Mobula is horisontal and has a baloon underneath, it goes up and down fast. The spire may as well go Horizontaly and turn fast because it is a vertical shape. It is a very simple concept.

Offline Captain Smollett

  • Member
  • Salutes: 122
    • [Duck]
    • 11
    • 14 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2014, 09:57:32 pm »
I would move the hull to where the baloon was (Next to the stairs on the upper deck). That way the spire will be tanky in the sense if focused.

This would be a significant buff and definitely worth considering if an armor increase is deemed unbalanced. 

My general sense is that the Spire shouldn't necessarily be "tanky" but it needs more durability than it has now so that it can leverage its firepower for a longer duration.  Moving the hull closer to the guns will allow a quick mallet or chem spray in effect extending the armor up period and allowing more shots to go out before rebuild is required and 1-2 guns are no longer shooting.

Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Spire Changes?
« Reply #44 on: July 06, 2014, 10:29:17 pm »
Huh?!

But didnt you read the second things i said after?
The design fitted with the baloon because it was tough to repair.
But an easy to repair component next to a person at all times will lead to an engineer captain, which isnt a wanted aspect. Along with this leading to an incredibly tanky behaviour.
It is a better option than straight up armor, but the design of the ship will change alot. It wont leverage the firepower longer. Its still the same hull that holds the same numbers.
One mallet swing or wrench swing when the hull armor is damaged is the only thing being more convinient. Other than that, running to rebuild is still going to make the firepower suffer.

Current set up can let the gunner run up to help on the hull with the same distance as to the baloon. (Perhaps 0.3 seconds longer path)
Meaning that current set up is actualy tankier if gunner and pilot are aware of the hull along with an engineer who also should be aware of the hull.

And by that time where everyone is rebuilding, you will be wanting to run away, juke or something.
What is wrong with acceleration buff and turning? D: