Author Topic: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots  (Read 7439 times)

Offline Atruejedi

  • Member
  • Salutes: 64
    • [❤❤❤]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« on: March 12, 2016, 05:57:59 pm »
After watching the Mobula slugfests of today's Cronus League and reading the lore descriptions of each ship, waxing nostalgic to myself for days long passed, I felt I should put some thought into how each ship should, ideally, function. I am not interested in specific hull or armor numbers, nor specific top speeds, etc. That isn't my strong suit. I couldn't care less if a Pyramidion's armor has 650 or 700 HP, for example; I just care HOW the ship performs, especially compared to other ships. I made this table to compare ships to other ships and how I, personally, think they should perform.



http://i63.tinypic.com/2141b9d.png

Sorry if the image isn't showing up or is showing up multiple times... it was too small, so I attached it, and then I hyperlinked it as well :-\

Each value is between 1 and 5, 1 being the weakest, 5 being the strongest. Comparing the Squid and the Galleon is probably the best way to explain this. The Squid has an acceleration of 5, while the Galleon has an acceleration of 1. The Squid can begin moving very easily, whereas the Galleon struggles. Now compare their firepower numbers. The Galleon has four heavy and two light guns, and the Squid has three light guns, with the ability to have sets of two firing at once. I realize these numbers are subjective, but I hope you understand what I'm going for here. I think if you compare the numbers you can start to see defining roles for each ship, even if those definitions are only slightly different. I would compare the Junker, Goldfish, and Pyramidion. I would compare the Spire and Mobula. The Galleon and the Squid are kind of on the peripheries of roles. I'm interested in hearing the community's thoughts on this. Thanks for checking this out!

Offline Atruejedi

  • Member
  • Salutes: 64
    • [❤❤❤]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2016, 06:30:28 pm »
Oh, I forgot, and it's too late to edit: I was inspired by this post from Nietzsche's Mustache:

https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,7406.msg124962.html#msg124962

Offline Solidusbucket

  • Member
  • Salutes: 93
    • [SkBo]
    • 29 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2016, 06:32:16 pm »
I think this is already the case except for the spire and pyramidion.

thats my opinion though.

Offline BobDoleReigns

  • Member
  • Salutes: 4
    • [HIV-]
    • 15 
    • 44
    • 22 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2016, 06:35:57 pm »
Well, you want things balanced/solved... knock a few degrees/sec off the mob to make it require more forethought piloting, enough to where it's still able to be flown but can't just be a giant turret. The fish also seems abnormally common probably due to its overall decent stats (and horrible boringness to crew) making it good for either 1v1 fights or able to hold its own in larger conflicts... (I know this will be less popular than a legit nerf) perhaps the solution lies in adjusting the angle of the side guns more towards the back by 10-15 degrees making it require much more intense weaving than currently. Alternatively, just make it a 3 person ship since everyone knows being top engy on a fish is the worst job in goi by far; ceteris paribus, its behaves the same on the open map, however, due to the lack of completely neglected and bored senseless upper engy its sustained brawling ability will be reduced thereby both allowing it to maintain its flexibility and carve out a defined role for itself.

Offline SapphireSage

  • Member
  • Salutes: 11
    • [SPQR]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2016, 06:37:47 pm »
I think this is already the case except for the spire and pyramidion.

thats my opinion though.

And mobula, notice that he has mobula vertical listed as a 2, matching the capability of the galleon making it a low maneuverability weapons platform.

Offline Giersdorf

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • [♦]
    • 17 
    • 27
    • 16 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2016, 06:42:04 pm »
I'm digging the fact that this is your personal opinion on the ships provided to us to fly, given your experience I feel like these are fairly accurate and described quite well. I feel like (public) matches are made up of people foregoing combat roles and they just fly what they feel like and that's okay of course. That being said it would be awesome to have some unit cooperation and strategizing more often in said matches.

Offline Solidusbucket

  • Member
  • Salutes: 93
    • [SkBo]
    • 29 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2016, 06:48:48 pm »
I think this is already the case except for the spire and pyramidion.

thats my opinion though.

And mobula, notice that he has mobula vertical listed as a 2, matching the capability of the galleon making it a low maneuverability weapons platform.

ahh, yea. I agree with that. I just read the descriptions. I didn't look at the numbers too thoroughly.

Offline Shas'ui

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [◥H◤]
    • 20 
    • 35
    • 18 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2016, 08:26:59 pm »
I think the reason that the ships have drifted from their specializations is due to two factors: perceived usefulness, and team-play.

    The first issue, perceived usefulness, is due to the skill required to use some tactics rather then others: while most pilots can easily grasp and execute a pyra's headlong charge, the careful maneuvers required by a squid are more difficult to learn, and thus the ship seems weaker, as a larger portion of users have difficulty. This is also seen in several weapons, with the lumberjack and minotaur being prime examples of this perceived weakness: while they are just as deadly as a hwatcha in the right hands, they lack the simplicity of the "OP Liongun".

    The second issue of that of team-play. Some ships' specializations are best used with allies: a squid's harassment will be most useful when distracting/weakening the enemy as a more powerful, yet vulnerable ship (such as a spire) uses it to close and engage: the key idea of specializations is to be better in one area at the expense of another, and in proper team play, that weaker area will be filled by a teammate strong in it. However, this doesn't hold up so well when dropped in a lobby with an unhelpful "Ally". This is also seen in the gun examples: while the minotaur is quite powerful in disrupting the enemy, it cannot get a kill by itself, and as such, is seen to be weaker then guns which do not require coordination; the flak also has/had this issue.

    Combined, these issues make some ships seem much weaker then they actually are, thus leading to buffs/nerfs that lessen the weaknesses that defined their specialization.

Offline Richard LeMoon

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 284
    • [Muse]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2016, 12:05:11 pm »
It seems to me that the berfs are all based purely on numbers. They want all ships to be equally played with equal win/loss ratios.

Personally, I think the Spire should be the tank/turret of the game. Slow moving, average turning, high lift, armored as hell. It is supposed to be a fast response city defense platform with the ability to get into the sky quickly and hold the fort until other ships arrive. I would personally add a few of the Mobula turbofans to the model to support the vertical mobility.

Offline PixelatedVolume

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [PIEπ]
    • 19
    • 17 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2016, 04:28:50 pm »
I'm fine with the mobula's niche being vertical mobility, though it should suffer in turning.  If I was making the game I'd give the mob two closely-placed heavy engines and two vertical engines which can be destroyed in place of the asthetic ones it has now. 

I think what needs to happen is that every ship needs to have its role and then stick to it.  It needs to take the role to its extreme.  There should be little overlap of roles.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 04:31:37 pm by PixelatedVolume »

Offline Hoja Lateralus

  • Member
  • Salutes: 135
    • [ψ꒜]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2016, 08:44:33 pm »
It seems to me that the berfs are all based purely on numbers. They want all ships to be equally played with equal win/loss ratios.

It's very naive, if not stupid, to set such a goal, especially given weird vet:novice proportions in our SMALL community. I mean, can we even say that devs have significant enough and good enough data to back up some of their decisions? I didn't like the pyra nerf, but I was convinced when I saw that 80-90ish percent of ships in Hephaestus Challenge, a competetive tournament, were pyramidions. I don't know if pub numbers, especially without context of level differencies and difference between solo-queue and crew-queue is good enough data. 
Many times when vets play against lower levels they try to limit themselves with non-meta or straight up silly loadout, for instance munker. Does it make munker any more valid if vets happen to win? No!
Also, usage varies on ship difficulty and personal preference. For instance squid is a a very difficult ship to crew, and even though I am fully capable of crewing it, I don't really like it and avoid it if I have a choice. Does it make squid a worse ship? No! I would argue that it should have been better to compensate for difficulty of use.
(Edit: also counter-picking should be considered)
So easier to fly and crew ships should be more common, and the harder ones should be more uncommon but with more possibilities and potential rewards.
Related ExtraCredits video, there should be "foo ships" which are easy to fly and reasonably competetive (pyra,fish,junker?) and ships that are harder to effectively fly and crew but potentially much more threatening (mobula,spire,squid?).
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 08:48:55 pm by Mr.Disaster »

Offline Daft Loon

  • Member
  • Salutes: 47
    • [◕_◕]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2016, 09:41:33 pm »
I suspect that the existence (if not the execution) of the mobula nerf may have been based on feedback rather than stats, I would be surprised if the mobula was statistically above average in public matches.

Offline Atruejedi

  • Member
  • Salutes: 64
    • [❤❤❤]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2016, 02:20:19 am »
I'm fine with the mobula's niche being vertical mobility, though it should suffer in turning.

I believe the opposite, for both aesthetic and practical reasons. The Mobula is already hard enough to hit, especially with parabolic weapons, at the same elevation because of its thin horizontal profile. Any vertical movement really screws with targeting the damn thing (for normal players, not the pro-Hades-tournament players). It doesn't even require tools to move up and down rapidly (I exclusively use stamina, anything else is overkill). The Mobula's niche should be FIVE-freaking weapons slots, THREE of which can ALWAYS be in play. Firepower should be its niche! Its gun angles were FINE, and should NOT be changed... that wasn't the problem! I don't even really enjoy flying Mobulas; they're one of my least-used ships. My opinion of the Mobula, what it is, and what it should be, comes as an "outsider" to the competitive scene and someone who flies with pubnubscrubs very regularly. Sigh. Sigh sigh sigh. Groan.

Quote
I think what needs to happen is that every ship needs to have its role and then stick to it.  It needs to take the role to its extreme.  There should be little overlap of roles.

I'm glad we agree! Do you have any feedback on the comparison numbers I posted above?

So easier to fly and crew ships should be more common, and the harder ones should be more uncommon but with more possibilities and potential rewards.

Um, yes. That's how it once was. But everything's been so dumbed down now. The Squid is about to get even-dumber-downed. with the gun angle change... sigh.

Quote
Related ExtraCredits video, there should be "foo ships" which are easy to fly and reasonably competetive (pyra,fish,junker?) and ships that are harder to effectively fly and crew but potentially much more threatening (mobula,spire,squid?).

Completely agree. Agree so hard. So hard.

Offline Solidusbucket

  • Member
  • Salutes: 93
    • [SkBo]
    • 29 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2016, 06:32:43 am »
After really watching the maneuverability of the mobula i take back my statement.
It turns a tid too fast right now because of stamina use. However i feel reducing its vertical mobility takes away all ability to brawl.

It would be defensless. The mobula would be broken. This comes after watching several matches and noticing that each ship has some sort of brawl capability.

Offline Richard LeMoon

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 284
    • [Muse]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2016, 07:46:52 am »
Stamina broke everything, especially turning due to the faster turn speed AND the extra gunner arcs, so they are nerfing the gun platform ships to compensate.

I think the best 'return to roots' would be a complete revamping or removal of 'stamina' (it is only stamina on engineers). We all know they are having a terribly hard time balancing the base ships. Adding stamina just broke everything they were trying to do with ship, gun, and class balance.