Star Sonata
http://www.starsonata.com/forum/

Gunner Vulnerability Change
http://www.starsonata.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=51755
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Nuromishi [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

If an aura on the target and an aura on the player are conflicting, then something seems off with the code.

Author:  Griffin [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

It's been like this since C1, when the class was introduced.

Even if it did stack, it would still be underpowered. It's only on 1 target and 1 damage type. An Engi can lay an AC&C, or a Fleet commander could just use his/her damage aura, and let everyone get the damage boost.

This is why I want Gunner to apply -20% shield and shield recharge. This way it will be dramatically more useful.

Author:  s_m_w [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

Zekk and Nuromishi are right. The gunner tweak does decrease resistance. -shield or -shield charge would be far worse in group enviroments than gunner's current debuff.

Author:  Griffin [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

Was the code suddenly changed before I had come back? Are you sure this is correct? I remember MANY knowledgeable people, I remember a conversation with Lord Nibbler in particular, that it does not decrease resistances. So could you please double check?

I see your point with the shield debuff, as the damage aura would be less useful if there are multiple people doing DPS.

Edit: also note that I cannot kill Hermes, Forge, or a Juxta AI (with anything other than mining) as a Gunner.

Author:  s_m_w [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

The gunner tweak does not just subtract resists, rather it multiplies with the resistance damage multiplier. An AI with 100% resists to something basically multiplies every damage by 0. 0 * 20% will remain 0. An AI with, for example, 50% resists mutliplies all damage with 0.5, or 0.5 * 20% if a gunner is shooting it, resulting in a reduction of its resists from 50% to 40% (0.5 * 1.2 = 0.6). An AI with 0% resists (1.0 resistance multiplier) will get -20% vulnerability from a gunner shooting at it.

While the reduction of the target's resists is NOT always 20%, the resulting damage boost IS always 20%.

Author:  Griffin [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

Ahh. So then I would suppose the problem is that the debuff is simply too low. Fleet commander gets the strongest damage aura in the game that affects everything while also having the versatility of switching auras. Is this being looked at?

Oh, and I'm sorry for making you guys waste your time arguing with me. :oops:

Author:  Max235 [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

Destruction affects the damage output from your team's bases.

FC Auras do not.

Author:  Swift.Kill [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

OP in some ways? -20% bank and -20% regen, the regen would be shitloads on regen bosses, bank on bank bosses

Author:  Griffin [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

Max235 wrote:
Destruction affects the damage output from your team's bases.

FC Auras do not.


Perhaps make it so that it affects bases less if it is hanged?

Author:  Max235 [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

I say the Gunner Destruction is fine because it multiplies with the FC aura to produce a bigger damage buff than either alone.

What about Overloaders that apply a weapon effect to whatever weapon you're using, replacing destruction when activated?

I would like someone else other than AEM's words saying it can't be coded, specifically a code dev and not a content dev.

Author:  s_m_w [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

Max235 wrote:
I say the Gunner Destruction is fine because it multiplies with the FC aura to produce a bigger damage buff than either alone.

It sure is more powerful than most people seem to think. At least in bigger squad enviroments.

Max235 wrote:
I would like someone else other than AEM's words saying it can't be coded, specifically a code dev and not a content dev.

Everything can be coded. Even if you want a weapon that shoots pink elephants that turn everything they touch into rainbows, it would be possible. The question is just how much work it takes and if it makes sense to invest work into it. Some seemingly trivial features would require a massive amount of work to implement.

Author:  syberian [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

s_m_w wrote:
Max235 wrote:
I say the Gunner Destruction is fine because it multiplies with the FC aura to produce a bigger damage buff than either alone.

It sure is more powerful than most people seem to think. At least in bigger squad enviroments.

Max235 wrote:
I would like someone else other than AEM's words saying it can't be coded, specifically a code dev and not a content dev.

Everything can be coded. Even if you want a weapon that shoots pink elephants that turn everything they touch into rainbows, it would be possible. The question is just how much work it takes and if it makes sense to invest work into it. Some seemingly trivial features would require a massive amount of work to implement.

Image

Author:  playerboy345 [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gunner Vulnerability Change

syberian wrote:
s_m_w wrote:
Max235 wrote:
I say the Gunner Destruction is fine because it multiplies with the FC aura to produce a bigger damage buff than either alone.

It sure is more powerful than most people seem to think. At least in bigger squad enviroments.

Max235 wrote:
I would like someone else other than AEM's words saying it can't be coded, specifically a code dev and not a content dev.

Everything can be coded. Even if you want a weapon that shoots pink elephants that turn everything they touch into rainbows, it would be possible. The question is just how much work it takes and if it makes sense to invest work into it. Some seemingly trivial features would require a massive amount of work to implement.

Image

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/