Author Topic: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS  (Read 3845 times)

Offline Naoura

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [Sass]
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 32 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2016, 11:46:40 am »
A good argument, I will give you that. I can agree on an extended shatter weapon, decidedly more suppressive than a Hwatcha, but I sideways disagree on the Fish. I'm sick of seeing Hwatchafish, utterly sick of it. It's so overdone that it's just pointless to think of anything else. It's a go-to for any new captain or a vet captain who doesn't really know what to take (or is drunk).

However, I will agree. Something like this might be better off as a suppression weapon, rather than the pseudo-torpedo that the Hwatcha is (Slow moving, easily seen, semi-easy to avoid unless at point blank range). On a Fish, it would work perfectly as a flank harrass, if you extended the range adequately to make it moderately dangerous, and very defensive on a Spire or Gally. From the (fuzzy) math that I did earlier, I'd say increase the ammunition amount and the reload speed, but I'd give it a somewhat small AoE for each round. That way it would reward hits and not firing randomly into an area.

However, that doesn't solve the idea of any kind of actual heavy piercer. Yes, I know, "paired with the Typhon, too OP", but isn't that what the Galleon is there for? It's built to be a major weapons platform with an extremely deadly broadside, but dirt turning. A double Hwacha broadside with a gatling topdeck is more than enough to cause death if it's a 1v1, and even in a 2v1 with a full hwacha gally if the gunner and the engie are in good sync. Not changing an awful lot WITH a heavy piercer, and how often do you even see the Typhon anymore? I only see it on noob ships, joke ships, or Jedi's ship, simply because he pairs it with the Mino and it still takes forever to kill.

Hwo about this for a heavy piercer: An actual Flak weapon. A weapon that you can change the ranging on to change it's arming time, say, from 1000 meters down to 250 meters. Once it hits arming time, it projectile-casts in an orb around it, dealing a pitiful amount of damage per projectile sent out from the burst. You'd only have the ability to hit them with half of the payload of said round, making the damage, overall, pathetic, but harrassing enough to be dangerous. It'd basically be a long range, even less accurate gatling at that point, where every second shot is missing the target. Interesting dynamic, low damage but easy to hit with, sub-range to the Flak while still being acceptable close range.

Any better, in this event? Note, I'm talking about a new weapon here, not what the Bofors should be. I cede the field to you on that, it's a better mechanic than simply double-shotting with a little bit of piercing. I don't know if it should be double shatter, but I can agree with it.

Offline Unarmed Civilian

  • Member
  • Salutes: 12
    • [◥ɸ◤]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2016, 03:01:30 pm »
Typhon sees play on some long range Galleons and the rare flak Spire. It's really good at what it does, the issues with has more to do with its platform than the actual gun.

As for the actual flak/airburst weapon, I like the idea. I've been hoping for a gun like that to be added for a while.

It might actually make for a more interesting, mid-range goldfish with side flaks to be possible if the damage can be applied reliably enough. Just have to be mindful of it not being too good a close range armor shredder that the devs seem to be really hesitant to put on a heavy gun.

Offline Naoura

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [Sass]
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 32 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2016, 09:08:46 am »
Onlt the AoE would be Piercing, I think the direct would have to be something silly. I'm playing around with the idea of fire (Charges inside the round that detonate it into the shrapnel go off unpredictably when hitting a barrier), due to not wanting an explosive/piercer.

And the damage was going to be pretty much tiny, maybe 2-5 damage per projectile, with a smallish clip but quick reload. Diferent ammunition types would change the amount of projectiles cast, where normally it would be 14 (Omnidirectional projectile cast), while loading up Loch or such would drastically increase the projectile amount, depending on the damage percentage. So loading in Loch would jump the projectile count up to 31 and charged would increase it to 18.

My thoughts on the half-life for the projectiles is basically just the burst range. Once the projectiles would be cast, they'd have a half-life until they reach the end of burst range. Burst amunition, and AoE altering ammunition, of course, extends or reduces the half-lives of the projectiles. Arming time would be reversed on it, so that the range is determinal on the arming time, which is also determinal. I think something with an optional arming time, somthing changable in a way different than just loading in a different ammunition, would be pretty neat, and I've talked about it in two seperate weapon concepts I've worked on. I just think it's a mechanic Muse happened to overlook.

Offline Ace of Hawks

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [⏅]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2016, 10:48:10 am »
Okay Okay. Enough you two. Howard and I had a discussion about this weapon last night on the Devapp. Players wanted a heavy Gatling gun, but also wanted the original Heavy flak back. I brought up this topic for discussion. First things first,we agreed that this weapon if it was  added would be added to Alliance. It doesn't really fit skirmish. Second the weapon would primarily be used for aircraft and to take down hull armor of enemy AI ships. Third and final point, that it would have a high DPS rate so it could take the roll of a heavy Gatling/flak and we could eliminate the word light Gatling and just call it a Gatling gun. 

Offline BlackenedPies

  • Member
  • Salutes: 134
    • [Duck]
    • 30 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2016, 12:28:27 pm »
Ah the folly of a piercing heavy weapon... Well as long as it's fun and stays out of PvP that's all that matters

It's a shame that effort isn't put into content for Skirmish mode, one reason being that it's much easier to 'balance' for Alliance

In essence, it is time to stop worrying about making guns and ships that are unique, and start looking at more variety. It is far easier to look at something that is working, and say, "This is working. How can we make another a little differently?"
« Last Edit: November 05, 2016, 12:33:28 pm by BlackenedPies »

Offline Naoura

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [Sass]
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 32 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2016, 11:03:25 am »
We were just discussing the potentiality of a new-ish weapon, and a potential edit to the Bofors.

Also, I have to talk to you about that burst-projectile-piercer. Trying to think of damage levels and such for it. Think it could really find a place in both Alliance and maaaaaybe Skirmish? With a lot of tweaking, but not letting it become the Mino.

Offline BlackenedPies

  • Member
  • Salutes: 134
    • [Duck]
    • 30 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2016, 01:40:19 pm »
Also, I have to talk to you about that burst-projectile-piercer. Trying to think of damage levels and such for it. Think it could really find a place in both Alliance and maaaaaybe Skirmish? With a lot of tweaking, but not letting it become the Mino.

Piercing heavy weapons aren't balanced and don't belong in skirmish. The taur is an exception because it's for disruption and is very slow. Its 18.1 second cycle is exceeded only by the flare, with 3.03 seconds between shots and a 9 second reload. Alliance is different because you choose the difficulty, and fun, not balance, is the goal

Offline Naoura

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [Sass]
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 32 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2016, 03:13:51 pm »
Hence why I kept saying after heavy, heavy tweaking. I know how the Mino was nerfed, even if I asn't there for it. But hear me out.

We all know how the mine launcher has a reverse arming time, correct? Flies out to a certain distance, and then it's a pure neutral, utterly dveastating weapon. Inside of that arming distance, it's a pretty powerful piercer, to be sure, but nowhere near as effective. Outside of that arming distance, you have the mine deployed, and it makes a great shield for defense, but you're not going to be able to do the same thing.

That's basically what I am proposing. A weapon that, inside of arming distance, is negligible, and outside is not even threatening. It is not a direct weapon at all, and using it as such is simply wasting it that way. That's also why I state that it's a projectile cast weapon once it hits arming, instead of a burst weapon. The idea behind it is to hit with the projectiles that are cast out from when it bursts, which are going to be sent in every direction around the burst area. You'll only hit with, say, maybe 40% of the projectiles from the burst. Each of the projectiles from the burst are supposed to be pitiful damage on their own, around 2-3 piercing or so, giving you swarm damage. The swarm damage is what the weapon I propose would be based on, not AoE. That would be much too powerful, period.

I'm not trying to attack, just to clarify if it came across as, and I fully admit, you are much more experienced than I am, and I do know your argument. Pairing any kind of heavy piercer with the Typhon, or even the Hwacha, is insanely powerful. But the theory behind this is a highly skill-based, defensive weapon. Inside of it's arming distance, it's ineffective. Outside it's arming distance, it's useless. Right at it's arming distance is when it's supposed to be effective, similar to the mine launcher.

I'll drop the subject, however. The Bofors is the one getting consideration, and mine would be superfluous against it, especially in Alliance. Skirmish, like you said, it would get too much outcry against, despite offering something new. Perhaps there's a place for it in the Shatter department.

Offline Ace of Hawks

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [⏅]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2016, 03:34:42 pm »
Please make a new thread for your discussion^

Offline Naoura

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [Sass]
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 32 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2016, 03:36:36 pm »
Apologies Ace. Didn't mean to derail it like that. I'll work on my proposition and make a new post on it. I need to actually get down to actually writing it down is the only issue.

Offline BlackenedPies

  • Member
  • Salutes: 134
    • [Duck]
    • 30 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2016, 05:45:33 pm »
I'm not specifically addressing either of your gun proposals, I'm explaining why I dislike a new piercing heavy weapon for Alliance. If people want one that's fine, but ideally it would be in both games - which is very difficult to balance with piercing. There's a heavy piercing thread every 6 months or so and it never goes anywhere, so I'd recommend rethinking damage types if you'd like it to evolve from the hypothetical

Making a gun isn't simple. It costs money. Hiring graphic designers is one of the larger costs for an indie studio like Muse. They need to pick and choose their projects, and guns made for Skirmish are ideal because they can be used in both games. Skirmish is dying partially due to lack of content, and I believe focusing on Skirmish will help retain the player base and bolster the 2017 release of Alliance

Offline Unarmed Civilian

  • Member
  • Salutes: 12
    • [◥ɸ◤]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2016, 12:57:38 am »
Going back to the shatter idea for the bofors, I was thinking about the heavy carronade shatter nerf and how it has affected the Galleon and Spire. The heavy carronade was viable for both of them in the past due to being able to disable guns as well as pop balloons, I recall seeing some very old galleon loadout guides with hwacha-carronade mixes.  However,  because the goldfish was overpowered with it, it had its shatter removed. This means both the Spire and Galleon are forced to take the Hwacha if they want a heavy shatter gun, since the heavy carronade cannot even reliably take out light guns in one shot thanks to heavy nerf (unless very close so most pellets hit), making it effectively a light carronade with only two shots in that role. A new heavy shatter could fill the void on the other end of the spectrum, returning a tool to the Galleon and Spire.

If you really don't  like double shatter, how about a weak flechette, low enough that you would have to dump 2 or three clips into a balloon to pop it without any repairs. This keeps the anti-air theme and gives something else to sink the rounds into if there are no components in arc. As for which would be the AoE, shatter is obviously the stronger as flechette cannot damage components. However, there appears to be some grumbling about Burst overuse, so flechette as AoE might be more interesting. It puts a limit on the effective range to disable guns since hits must be direct (giving a higher skill cap and encouraging heavy clip use). If the AoE is large enough to be significant, incendiary might also be usable to harness that burst radius to start more fires.

I should formalize this and think out stats.

Offline Ace of Hawks

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [⏅]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2017, 02:45:23 pm »
Here have an awesome video on this awesome swedish weapon! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqM1PS1YTo0

Offline Naoura

  • Member
  • Salutes: 25
    • [Sass]
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 32 
    • View Profile
Re: STEAMPUNK QUAD BOFORS
« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2017, 11:26:40 am »
Ace, did you take a look at the convo on this from, god, ages ago?

What were your thoughts on it?