Author Topic: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots  (Read 7438 times)

Offline Kamoba

  • Member
  • Salutes: 175
    • [♫]
    • 30 
    • 34
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Robin and Magpie Leather
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2016, 08:48:09 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.

Yes but... This would mean Muse would need to admit Stamina was wrong/a bad move in its state..

Stamina as a concept is fun and people in game mostly seem to like Stamina (though usually the ones why like it are the ones who don't know what it's doing... Aka newbie uses stamina while shooting claiming it buffs his gun..)

So the Stamina bad and press shift to initialize can stay... What Stamina does and how it affects those using it, that is what needs to be looked at..

Offline Omniraptor

  • Member
  • Salutes: 51
    • [Duck]
    • 27 
    • 45
    • 38 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2016, 06:54:05 pm »
If the problem is people using stamina to turn, why not give it more angular drag? It's already +15% simply increase that number.

Offline BlackenedPies

  • Member
  • Salutes: 134
    • [Duck]
    • 30 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2016, 07:18:15 pm »
I don't see a problem with engi or pilot stamina. For pilot you only have 4 seconds and it takes 12.3 seconds to regenerate 1 second. It does widen the gap between skilled and less experienced players, but so would any kind of temporary bonus system

Offline The Djinn

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 19
    • [CA]
    • 25 
    • 41
    • 36 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2016, 11:21:59 am »
I'd definitely agree that we need to further define the roles for ships -- specifically the Junker / Mobula / Spire / Galleon, all of which have some variation of "put multiple guns on a target."

Squid is easy: I don't think anyone argues it should be anything OTHER than a vulnerable but extremely mobile skirmishing ship.

The Pyramidion I'd like to see as a bulldog -- super fast to accelerate forward, slower to accelerate backwards, with low turning speed but a high maximum speed. Give it strong armor and a durable hull, and call it a day.

The Goldfish is probably in a good spot as being solid at all forms of movement but exceptional at none, and it's unique swimming pattern for bringing the side guns to bear is very good.

Here's where it gets tricky.

Personally, I'd like to see the Galleon accelerate slowly, but have a decent maximum speed and a moderately decent turning rate instead of the ponderous turning it has now. Make it into a ship that gets into position and dominates the battlefield, but can't reposition itself quickly if something goes wrong.

Contrast this with the Mobula, which I'd make very responsive to acceleration, but I'd give it a very poor turning rate as a penalty for high vertical movement, decent movement, and heavy forward firepower. Perhaps high turn acceleration paired with a low maximum speed, so you can slightly adjust angles quickly, but can't pivot the entire ship around. Maybe adjust it so the pilot can get to the top gun easier to really help sell the fantasy of a gun platform.

Then we have the Spire, which I'd like to see able to turn on a dime, but it should suffer from slow movement AND slow acceleration in all directions. Even more so than the Galleon I see the Spire as an air turret: a rotating gun emplacement that rises into the air and rains down death in an area around itself. I think this is backed up by the ease with which you can get 4 guns on a target -- if anything, I might pivot the lower engineer gun a bit to make 3+ guns on target easier to achieve, as a balancing point for the low mobility and huge vertical profile. The Spire would probably have high armor, but low hull health: it can tank for a while, but once it's hull is breached I think it's okay if it folds, especially as this makes it vulnerable to close-range ramming (which I think benefits a relatively stationary gun platform).

The Junker I'd not sure what to do with -- probably making it more of a middle ground between everything ala the Goldfish is appropriate, only with a higher armor and lower hull (in contrast with the Goldfish's lower armor and higher hull), and with more emphasis on vertical movement and acceleration than speed and turning.

Offline PixelatedVolume

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [PIEπ]
    • 19
    • 17 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2016, 12:47:25 pm »
For Galleon I don't mind giving it fairly high top speed as long as it accelerates poorly.

The Junker I think of as a Galleon-lite:  beefy, not too fast, with strong broadsides.  Just not to the extend of the full Galleon. 

I understand the importance of defining roles for future balance porpoises but IMO the junker is pretty good right now, at least for pubs.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 12:50:49 pm by PixelatedVolume »

Offline The Djinn

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 19
    • [CA]
    • 25 
    • 41
    • 36 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2016, 01:37:49 pm »
For Galleon I don't mind giving it fairly high top speed as long as it accelerates poorly.

That would be my goal. Slow to move, slow to stop, but fast once it gets going. Getting rammed by a Galleon moving at full speed should HURT.

Same with turning. Initial speed should be slow, but once it starts turning it should revolve pretty fast. Gets across the idea of a huge, heavy ship with huge, powerful engines.

Quote
I understand the importance of defining roles for future balance porpoises but IMO the junker is pretty good right now, at least for pubs.

I'd be inclined to agree. The small changes I suggested would be my ideal in theory, but it's fine as is.

Offline Atruejedi

  • Member
  • Salutes: 64
    • [❤❤❤]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2016, 05:53:21 am »
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.

I don't agree, but let me preface my disagreement with this: I only play in pubs and with different crew mates all the time. I don't have a consistent ship, a consistent loadout, a consistent crew, or consistent allies.

Another preface: I am speaking of last week's Mobula, not this week's patch disaster in which the gun arcs have been changed to crap (and I assume that'll be rectified shortly).

So, brawling:

Why does the Mobula kick so much ass? Because it has five guns, two of which are typically long range, two of which are close range, and one of which is capable of any range. Think of the classic merc/hades middle with Artemis on the sides (in either top or bottom slots). I've taken a merc on the top with two Artemis on the far wings with close range guns on my bottom deck. Hitting an enemy with two Artemiseseses and a merc from long range is brutal enough, and after the slow and methodical approach, the Artemis gunners hop down to the lower deck guns (if even necessary) to finish the job. Imagine a gatling or mortar/banshee/flak in those lower slots.

Is that not brawling? I don't care much for the meta, but that sounds brawly enough to me. If you let an enemy get close enough to you to kick your ass WHEN YOU HAVE FIVE WEAPONS and are hard enough to hit already, you shouldn't try to rely on vertical mobility to escape. You don't deserve it :D

Anyway, the good news: the Pyramidion buff has made it very close to the completely subjective numbers present in my graphic table ;D
« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 05:56:29 am by Atruejedi »

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 #22 on: March 20, 2016, 11:37:27 am »
I agree with Jedi. I personally think the Mobula should have the third fastest (averaging between acceleration and speed) vertical.

Spire- Top speed. Good acceleration.

Squid- Second top speed. Best acceleration.

Mobula- Third top speed. Good acceleration.

Mobula and Spire should start out the same, but Spire can eventually outpace it. Squid should start out faster, but again be outpaced.

And all changes to Mobula gun arcs should be reverted. It should still be thought of as a gun platform, not "That ship that can go up and down really fast."

Offline Atruejedi

  • Member
  • Salutes: 64
    • [❤❤❤]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2016, 01:52:01 pm »
Bring #BalanceToTheForce
Put Atruejedi in Charge of Game Balance for One Week

I'm resurrecting this thread to keep my divinely inspired ideas all in one place.

As usual, months and months after I've proposed rational, healthy changes to Skirmish, Muse seems to finally be (ready to start) acting (way too late)... Swiss-army knife Mobula should return shortly and the cries to #BuffSpire have also seemed to summon changes for that vertical coffin. I have no dog in the Squid tweaks fight because I flying and flying on Squids, but I would like Squids to be (even more) lethal and fragile and extreme and impressive in the right hands. Definitely not at the top of my change list, though.

While I still want the changes to ship roles I proposed in the original post, I think other modifications to the game are necessary to fix overall balance and offer more strategic choice and depth. Most of these changes would literally take minutes to make because they're just number alterations and I'm praying Muse gives them a chance for an entire week as an "open beta" to revitalize Skirmish. Namely:

Easy Changes:

#NerfGreased - Decrease Greased ammo range from 80% of Normal ammo's reach to 70%. "Set it and forget it" Greased ammo is extremely common in this game. Many players shove it in all guns and never bother swapping ammunition types for the rest of the game. This is boring and thoughtless. Players should be punished for not switching to Normal ammunition to gain that extra 30% in range. Greased should only be used when players know they're in range for it... they should have to consciously switch from Normal to Greased once they're confident they're in range. This adds depth and rewards thinking players.

#NerfBurst - Burst ammo already provides a large bonus to the "splash" of weapons with Area of Effect damage; the increased clip size makes this ammo a "why use anything else?" choice  in weapons like the Hwacha and Artemis. Like Greased, this "set it and forget it" mentality is boring, thoughtless, and lacks tactical depth and choice. With a nerf to Burst, Greased ammunition would be more common in the Artemis at close range and Heavy Clip would be more attractive as an initial-engagement Hwacha ammo choice. Let's reward smart players.

#RestoreLoch - Restore Lochnager ammo to its former niche glory. One of the greatest feelings in the game was (was  :-[ ) waiting for the enemy's armor to drop and nuking an enemy with a shot from the (old) Heavy Flak. While changes to the Heavy Flak were wise to make it more accessible and newb-friendly, this feeling of absolute power and awe is gone and that is truly a shame. While I'll address the Old and New Heavy Flak in a moment, think of Loch as that special, skillful ammo for heavy guns or weapons with smaller clips.

#ChangeCharged - What's the point of this ammo? Some people occasionally use it in the Heavy Flak, Lumberjack, Mine Launcher, and Heavy Carronade... and that's still not exactly common. The only "yes, use Charged!" gun in the game is the Mercury, and even the Mercury has viable alternatives with Lesmok and Heatsink. Charged needs a complete overhaul. Muse should have left Loch alone and should instead #ChangeCharged ammo to perform and act somewhat like Lochnager currently does. Think of Charged as the Loch for lighter weapons or those with larger clips. Less special, less skillful, but still fun and unique.

#HowAboutAHowitzer - I mentioned I miss the old Heavy Flak, especially when coupled with the old Lochnager ammo. So let's recreate that fabled weapon and call it something new. I've proposed this to Muse many times and they've admitted it would be easy, yet they won't do it because of vanity. I've asked them to add a "new" gun to the game: the old Heavy Flak. Give it the same exact stats of as the Old Heavy Flak, but, to save artistic resources, simply retexture it with modified textures that are tinted an obviously different color from the "real" Heavy Flak. I'm partial to gold or copper or a nice Statue of Liberty green myself. 8) Call it a Howitzer or something and be done with it. Variety is the spice of life, and this would be so easy to implement.

#AdaptTheMaps - This movement has made great strides, securing us 4 vs. 4 Paritan Rumble DM (even with its thoughtless spawn locations) and the upcoming Firnfeld KOTH 3 vs. 3 and 4 vs. 4 (and hopefully 4 vs. 4 Firnfeld DM as well!), but we need more. Some are no brainers, some are battles with the developers. Either way, I've outlined it all eloquently here, so please check out this thread and consider sending them an email yourself: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/goichaos/discussions

There are other changes I'd like that are somewhat more intensive, however. Like these...

Not-as-Easy Changes:

#SkyballOverhaul - I've already bitched about Skyball countless times and essentially been ignored. This game mode, which is completely superfluous, shouldn't have been added into the game and really shouldn't have been added into the game in its broken, tedious state. In a dev app testing session with Eric/Awkm last week, he finally admitted that "maybe its the [defensive] spawns"... you don't say!? Many in the community have been saying that since the mode was in testing before public release... and have been ignored. Unfortunately, that's typical behavior from the devs at this point... #SkirmishSuffers while Muse cries #AllianceOrBust. And I realize acting like I'm always right is a dick move, but, hey... I generally am. Many pieces of feedback can be found in this thread: How to Fix Skyball

#AuditTheSpawns - Paritan 4 vs. 4 DM spawns are a mess, I can confirm. Water Hazard 3 vs. 3 DM and 4 vs. 4 VIP spawns are so fucking close to the enemy that it's a game of who can rotate into arc and fire Mercs and Lumbers faster? This needs addressed, but it goes further than these maps. Even Dunes 2 vs. 2 has the same problem. And don't get me started on Crazy King... well, if you insist!

#LuckOfTheSpawn - Crazy King can be fun, but it really depends on which ship spawns where and what spawn is initially active. On King of the Flayed Hills, I've seen Blue team spawn surrounding D at the beginning of the match, capture it, and move to west to E. Well, good game. Red never stood a chance. The same can happen in the north. If A is the initial spawn and Red spawns around it, it's an insta-cap and a short sail to B. Sorry, Blue. Muse needs to rethink how this gamemode treats spawns and deaths. They've admitted they've never bothered putting any thought into tweaking it, so let's make that our job. Right now it's actually pretty interesting to shoot to disable or kill your opponent, but that choice could be even weightier if you didn't know where the bad dudes would spawn next... hm. I'm definitely interested in hearing suggestions on how to tweak Crazy King.

#BalloonLivesMatter - This is an old idea of mine, but I think it's worth considering. It stemmed from the increased gravity strength in a beta patch a long time ago. I'm all about increased gravity if sitting on the ground doesn't damage you after the initial impact. I think this would be much more dynamic. "Yeah, you sank him, but can you kill him?" Considering all that, consider the following: to quote myself, as I am wont to do...

Quote
But the increased force was much too severe, as the community pointed out. I just got done with VIP in the dev app, where gravity is still a bit strong, but I'm glad it's stronger than it is in normal Skirmish mode. I don't know what the sweet spot should be, but gravity should indeed be a threat to a ship. As it is right now, it's typically only a nuisance which puts guns out of position for a while but doesn't guarantee death. And maybe it shouldn't guarantee destruction, but it should definitely threaten destruction. To balance that, however, perhaps the efficiency of carronades needs to be lowered. Carronades, heavy or light, typical pop a balloon in a single clip or, at most, two. That's too fast with the increased force. So...

I envision the dynamic like this: popping an enemy's balloon should take more time so the crew of the targeted ship has time to react and repair it, but once it DOES go down, it's a serious problem for the pilot and the ship. Make it so the targeted ship KNOWS the enemy is targeting the balloon and make those gunners WORK a bit to pop it. Make taking a balloon-popping ship a strategic choice: "My goal is to pop enemy balloons to help my team, not to simply grind an enemy into the ground with my own ship and hump them to death," which is currently how it works... Make popping the balloon a power maneuver to control the battle's positioning and sequence instead of just letting Carrofish rack up hump-kills.

TLDR;
1. Make gravity stronger (but not too strong...)
2a. Make balloons stronger and carronades stronger OR
2b. Make balloons weaker and carronades weaker.
3. Allow balloons more time to be repaired.
4. Letting the balloon die likely makes you die.
5. Profit.

I should point out I consider this the last step in my proposed changes. I'd definitely want to get overall balance worked out first, then give tweaking gravity and balloons a whirl.

What are your thoughts, Master Jedi?

As usually, I love a good argument. I love hearing thoughts in support of and against my ideas. I love discussion. I love passion. I love activity. I love this game. So say something.

Please. ;D
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 02:05:06 pm by Atruejedi »

Offline Solidusbucket

  • Member
  • Salutes: 93
    • [SkBo]
    • 29 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2016, 12:58:59 am »
Will the grease change affect (effect iono) the arming time of lumberjack? That gun is kinda OP, honestly.

What are you reducing?

I totally agree, btw, with the change it will make for the gatling. I always swap between normal/greased. But, it is detrimental to the power of hades and lumberjack.

Hades and Lumberjack are already overpowerd in the right hands. "High risk high reward" we like to call it. well, you just gave more power to hadush.

also, I know not to start a sentence with "but" I am also educated, dont curect me.

Offline RearAdmiralZill

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 144
    • [MM]
    • 31 
    • 44
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2016, 09:40:07 am »
Hades and Lumberjack OP? Nah.

I haven't gone through this entire thread yet but I did read this updated post so Ill keep my replies to that for now.

#nerfgreased: I mean, I wouldn't really care about that change much. I don't personally throw greased into everything and call it good. Less range = better ammo type for guns with arming, and I'm ok with that. If people worry about that too much, why doesn't greased ammo increase jitter like it should do for what it does. Im surprised no ammo currently does that to control the range in that manner. One or the other though, it doesnt need both these nerfs.

#nerfburst: Same premise as above. More ammo in the gun? Why does it still rotate the same rate?

#restoreloch: No thanks. I like it as is, where I can actually use it in multiple instances and it be useful. Guns is a slower paced game by design. I don't want my hull armor going out and a loch shot ending me in one hit because reasons.

#changecharged: I prefer it over greased in a gatling in some cases. I don't think it needs an overhaul or massive changes. I wont complain if you buff it though. ;)

#howaboutawhat?: No. Old heavy flak is where in belongs. Gone forever. Do I wish the current heavy flak was more useful? Yes. Does it need to change using the mentality of the old heavy flak? No.

#adaptthemaps: I mean sure, thats cool. We need to fix whats here instead of piling on more stuff for them to fix so they can have less time for what really needs work (skyball im looking at you). Ive always liked capture point matches in this game but everyone votes death match (usually). I realize im being vague but, id rather see Muse fixing whats in game, or just giving us new maps entirely, and less (though not entirely neglecting) making the same maps into 3v3/4v4 that frankly we cant even fill consistently right now.

Ill leave the second half alone right now. Stick to the easy stuff. You're not the only one who wants to see a fair bit of change ;)

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 #26 on: October 29, 2016, 11:14:37 am »

#howaboutawhat?: No. Old heavy flak is where in belongs. Gone forever. Do I wish the current heavy flak was more useful? Yes. Does it need to change using the mentality of the old heavy flak? No.


OK, this is the first time someone has posted something that made me mad. Like, reach through the screen and slap someone across the face with my keyboard mad.

I have four friends that quit the game when the Typhoon was made noobie-mode, specifically because of this change. They liked the high skill, high reward aspect of it. They were never replaced, which game player count more than confirms. Are THEY where they belong now? Gone forever? I like the old flak, and never bring the new one because it is boring. It is just a spray and pray bullshit gun like almost everything else. Should I leave as well?

Think before you post.

Not only are you wrong about the old Flak, it should also be joined by an even higher skilled gun, the Atlas Howitzer.

Offline RearAdmiralZill

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 144
    • [MM]
    • 31 
    • 44
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2016, 11:30:23 am »
When I refer to "old heavy flak," Im referring to the two shot wonder that did all the damage you'd ever need on its own, before arming time was even a thing. There was no reason to use anything else because it killed everything so quickly, and it truly never should return. If that makes you mad, im....sorry?

Perhaps before you take my opinions so personally, you should think before you post.

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 #28 on: October 29, 2016, 11:52:06 am »
Nobody is talking about the original flak, which did not need Loch to be effective. "especially when coupled with the old Lochnager ammo" was the big clue. Both were changed at the same time. Most people, myself included, were not even around for the original magic death flak and miracle close range Lumber or instant death ground four years ago. Almost all those people left. Everyone is talking about the nerf this last year.

So, I am sorry for jumping to conclusion about your jumping to conclusions.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 11:54:43 am by Richard LeMoon »

Offline MightyKeb

  • Member
  • Salutes: 78
    • [GwTh]
    • 38 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2016, 08:29:00 pm »
@Zill

From someone who's played, flied with and against the current heavy flak in a high level enviroment, I can tell you that it's far better at what it does at the moment. The changes brought it tons more consistency, though I'd prefer the old version to have some additional presence for the sake of existing.