Author Topic: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2  (Read 191584 times)

Offline awkm

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 77
    • [Muse]
    • 16 
    • 45
    • 28 
    • View Profile
    • Notes for Next Century—n4n100
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2013, 03:35:00 pm »
2) Reducing the stacks of fire needed to kick someone off a gun.

Will probably happen, you're right on this one.

Oh and though I know it's already being worked on, have to mention the harpoon.

It's not very high on the priority list, unfortunately.  It'll need several day of Jay's time, which I think is occupied by tutorial related stuff right now.  It's a shame, I know.  I want this to get re-prioritized soon.

Offline Machiavelliest

  • Member
  • Salutes: 35
    • 21 
    • 31
    • 29 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2013, 11:11:08 pm »
True story about the carousel. Maybe make it piercing/explosive?  Before you rabble, keep in mind only one damage type at a time would be effective. The carousel is as accurate as Michael J Fox with a Derringer, which further balances the combo. It's a nice new type of versatility.  Rather than having a secondary damage type that lets you do two things at once, it makes it moderately effective over a wide range for ships that don't have the easy trifectas.

Offline Malarosa Agresti

  • Member
  • Salutes: 9
    • 5
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2013, 11:36:30 pm »
That being said, I have never seen a level 8 fire on a gun since 1.14, so, maybe that much fire stack for a gun ejection is a bit high.

No kidding.  I've only been playing for a bit over a month and I didn't even know that was a thing at all.

Offline Helmic

  • Member
  • Salutes: 35
    • [NCNS]
    • 6
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2013, 12:30:46 am »
2) Reducing the stacks of fire needed to kick someone off a gun.  Yes I remember what fire used to be like, and though I didn't really have a problem with it then I understand peoples concerns regarding its affects on fun factor for new players. That being said, I have never seen a level 8 fire on a gun since 1.14, so, maybe that much fire stack for a gun ejection is a bit high.

Level 8 fires are the norm if you're using a flamethrower.  You don't see level 8 fires because no one uses flamethrowers.  I liked how flamethrowers worked last patch, they weren't primary weapons but their large arc made them excellent defensive and trifecta weapons.  If their damage is increased somewhat on top of the artemis nerf (artemis can do everything the flamethrower does except pop the balloon and faster) then lowering the number of fire stacks required to disable a gun shouldn't be necessary.

Offline HamsterIV

  • Member
  • Salutes: 328
    • 10 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Monkey Dev
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2013, 01:49:22 pm »
Is it possible to AOE damage a hostile with an indirect hit? For example, if I shoot a lumber jack at a wall next to where a squid is flying and it explodes against the wall close enough to envelope part of the squid in AOE radius, will the squid take the damage? I think this has happened a few times in the past, but I am not sure if it was a hit on the squid that looked like a miss or if the wall took the hit and the AOE still reached the target.

Offline Watchmaker

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 55
    • [Muse]
    • 28 
    • 26
    • 17 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2013, 06:23:40 pm »
It is absolutely possible.  The scales involved just make it sort of unlikely.

Offline Machiavelliest

  • Member
  • Salutes: 35
    • 21 
    • 31
    • 29 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2013, 09:05:03 pm »
It is absolutely possible.  The scales involved just make it sort of unlikely.
When my teammate is being a bastard and blocking shots, I Artemis his ship if he's entangled with our opponent.  Pretty easy disables.  Worked like a charm last night.
Level 8 fires are the norm if you're using a flamethrower.  You don't see level 8 fires because no one uses flamethrowers.
I disagree.  I tested this specifically by hanging out in an opponent's flame range to see if I could disable it before he set my stuff on fire.  My gunner had disconnected, and we sat in it for a good two clips from the flamethrower.  The highest I saw was a 9-level on the balloon, and that's after stationary firing for two clips, which means you need about 20s of sustained fire to get a flame-disable.

Offline Helmic

  • Member
  • Salutes: 35
    • [NCNS]
    • 6
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2013, 11:55:13 am »
I disagree.  I tested this specifically by hanging out in an opponent's flame range to see if I could disable it before he set my stuff on fire.  My gunner had disconnected, and we sat in it for a good two clips from the flamethrower.  The highest I saw was a 9-level on the balloon, and that's after stationary firing for two clips, which means you need about 20s of sustained fire to get a flame-disable.

The point of a flamethrower isn't to get quick disables, though.  The idea is that you're hovering somewhere above your enemy or are otherwise parked in their blindspot, which is pretty easy to do against Galleons, Pyramidions, and formerly the Junker, raining down a single gun that disables the entire ship at once while taking out the balloon and seriously threatening the hull, hopefully overwhelming the engineers should they have been unlucky enough to not bring chemspray.  I don't know about you, but last patch it was pretty easy to get at least a full clip of flamethrower into an enemy as the gun has a very arc, it doesn't need a primary slot to function and it doesn't need a very long burst to force the enemy to either start wandering away from the hull or balloon or start sacrificing components.

Now, in my experience those level 8 fires will come up a LOT faster than what you're describing, my guess is someone on your ship had chemspray and you told your crew you were going into their fire.  20 seconds is more than enough time for components to start breaking under a flamethrower, I have no idea how your balloon managed to survive that long with an apparently slowly building level 9 fire when lower level fires will outstrip an engineer's ability to repair.  Was that other ship ONLY firing a single flamethrower at you and not giving you anything else to worry about?  If the ONLY thing you have to worry about is a single light gun (that isn't an Artemis) a ship full of engineers will generally be able to outrepair it.

You don't need a level 8 fire to disable a gun.  A level 4 fire is more than enough to give pretty severe damage and turning penalties even on light guns, a level 1 fire will screw up Hwacha volleys almost to the point of uselessness.  That's damage that happens immediately after a gunner repairs.  Chemspray or heatsink will provide a hard counter certainly, but if all you have is a regular extinguisher you're still going to have to deal with your gun never being at 100% and dealing full damage.  This is without aiming for your gun in particular, the engines and balloon and hull are taking fire too.

I made a LOT of use of the flamethrower last patch and the only reason I don't use it now is because the Artemis sacrifices the balloon killing ability (balloons are extra weak to fire) to be able to disable everything on a ship at long range without the need for another gun to force the ship to let some fires burn.

Offline Ofiach

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [FALC]
    • 5
    • 10 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2013, 12:22:47 pm »
Wait how is the harpoon working properly?

Situation: I'm in a Pyrimidion going full tilt forward. My gunner snags the drive by harpoon then I turn on kerosene, the squid that is harpooned starts turning toward me.... then my pyrimidion loses all forward momentum and is impossible to turn in either direction.... don't seem right to me. I've seen this done by really drunk people and bungee cords. The fat guy wins when they're both running away from eachother, period.

It really seems like the mass and speed isn't working properly.

Offline Mattilald Anguisad

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 12
    • [GwTh]
    • 12 
    • 45
    • 30 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2013, 05:08:09 pm »
What's that I've been hearing about Lumberjack projectile speed change?

Offline Phoebe

  • Member
  • Salutes: 62
    • [SPQR]
    • 6
    • View Profile
    • Facebook
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2013, 06:50:31 pm »
What's that I've been hearing about Lumberjack projectile speed change?

While nothing has been noted officially and I've yet really to see anything official about it;- I can definitely vouch that the lumberjack has seen a change in it's projectile speed - maybe by mistake when altering the Artemis; who knows.

I spent way too many hours to be considered healthy firing the lumberjack and when 1.2 hits I started missing 5+ entire clips in a row on medium ranged ships where normally I'd hit 80% per clip on average; and even half my clips at 1.5-2 grids away on the map.

After spending some time with my boyfriend to fiddle around in sandbox we concluded that I had to completely relearn the sights and adjust everything I knew about the distances to a new angle;- which I peed me off a little bit

It seems the projective is just a lot faster now with a reduced arc;- and I don't really like it at all.  Either way I can 100% garauntee straight up that something has changed; because all my previous documentation on the sight vs distance is now worthless and will make me miss everything.

Aqua did ask Bubbles what exactly was changed and the answer to that was "Nothing, might have had projectile speed changed when redoing artemis" or something along those lines and when he mentioned I'd been missing everything because of it he thought it was humorous more than anything and brushed it off with, "she'll just have to aim a little lower"  which just annoyed me even more -  if something changes in balance about a weapon I kinda want to read it officially in notes and maybe even understand the reason for it;  not be made to be an idiot
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 06:54:34 pm by Phoebe »

Offline Watchmaker

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 55
    • [Muse]
    • 28 
    • 26
    • 17 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2013, 10:08:08 am »
I can confirm that the Lumberjack's configured muzzle speed has not changed.  It's possible you've found a bug, though I'm at a loss as to how it would affect only that gun.

Offline Dev Bubbles

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 55
    • [Muse]
    • 16 
    • 23
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2013, 10:26:48 am »
You might want to get a direct quote from me next time.  For the actual changes to projectile speed if any, I'll have Eric confirm, which is what I stated before.  It's unfortunate to see how self-deprecating humor on what I don't know morphing into this.  I will be more careful in friendly banters so things don't get misconstrued next time.  I did say that if the projectile speed increases, you will have to aim a little lower, and that is the case.  I haven't heard complaints about the lumberjack, or its change being drastic from other players, but then again, despite my efforts, I can't keep up with every forum post in addition to all the other communication channels that I pour over.  But if the ballistics of the lumberjack went through a drastic change, and this fact is not known, we will correct the oversight on our part. 
Thanks,
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 10:28:48 am by Muse-Bubbles »

Offline Captain Magellan

  • Member
  • Salutes: 13
    • [VAL]
    • 22 
    • 22
    • 39 
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2013, 02:14:17 pm »
Due to my laziness I did not read the rest of this thread, but I wanted to put my thoughts on the Artemis on here. I was just looking at the gun chart on the website and was surprised to see that the Explosive damage had been bumped up to 60 (from 20) and that the AOE had been bumped up to 5 (from 3 I believe). The Artemis before this patch was a very good gun, it just didn't have something special that made it amazing. You guys added it this patch, but went overboard with the stats. The new turn radius is amazing, I love it! But honestly, the extra explosive damage and AOE is kinda over doing it. Perhaps giving an extra second to the reload will help as well. I am sure this has been discussed thoroughly but I wanted to add my voice in to make sure the turn radius isn't changed.

Offline NikolaiLev

  • Member
  • Salutes: 4
    • [Fur]
    • 2
    • View Profile
Re: GUNS Balance Questions and Concerns v1.2
« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2013, 02:59:31 pm »
I can confirm that the Lumberjack's configured muzzle speed has not changed.  It's possible you've found a bug, though I'm at a loss as to how it would affect only that gun.

http://gunsoficarus.com/community/blog/1-1-4-balance-hot-fix/

This was the last change to the Lumberjack.

Due to my laziness I did not read the rest of this thread, but I wanted to put my thoughts on the Artemis on here. I was just looking at the gun chart on the website and was surprised to see that the Explosive damage had been bumped up to 60 (from 20) and that the AOE had been bumped up to 5 (from 3 I believe). The Artemis before this patch was a very good gun, it just didn't have something special that made it amazing. You guys added it this patch, but went overboard with the stats. The new turn radius is amazing, I love it! But honestly, the extra explosive damage and AOE is kinda over doing it. Perhaps giving an extra second to the reload will help as well. I am sure this has been discussed thoroughly but I wanted to add my voice in to make sure the turn radius isn't changed.

I'm almost certain the Artemis' Explosive damage was always 60, and never as low as 20.  The AoE has also always been that good; the only recent changes were small, mostly meaningless buffs to its turn speed and arc, as well as a buff to its projectile speed making it easier to land.  Buffs, no matter how slight, will always get people experimenting, and making it easier to use will make more people use it.  Hence, we get the Artemis to be a common weapon.

The biggest thing I want to re-iterate is that the Artemis is a long range disabling weapon.  In order to fill that role, it does not need a good turning arc or speed.  That's why those should be nerfed, because it gives usefulness it doesn't deserve.  This is why the Field Gun's damage output was never nerfed much, and instead got its turning arc nerfed heavily; to push it into the role it should've been in, and to make sure it could still fill that role.  The Artemis does need an AoE reduction, I feel, but other than that its utility should be nerfed before its primary role is.