Info > Feedback and Suggestions
Call for Gunner Ammo Ideas
AceHangman:
--- Quote from: Milevan Faent on May 26, 2014, 10:53:59 pm ---Okay, so I don't have the time to read and reply to all of this, but I didn't notice when you mentioned it only has a 25% chance to go off.
--- End quote ---
Really, so you didn't take time to even read the suggestion before declaring it bad. It's the very first sentence of the description. You quoted it in your reply. Instead of just letting the suggestion sit, you got all negative and started going off on a rant which makes other people believe your misleading remarks. Now Sammy B.T. thinks the ammo works with flamers, which the description clearly states it does not. All you did was force someone to take time to correct your misleading statements because they gave you the benefit of the doubt that you actually had the basic, common courtesy to read a post, and actually think before quoting and bashing on it.
--- Quote from: Sammy B. T. on May 27, 2014, 12:06:48 am ---The flamer would be ridiculous.
--- End quote ---
Yes, that would be powerful, but as stated, flamers use particles, not projectiles. They don't impact they pass through and as such, would be hugely overpowered which is why the ammo doesn't work with flamers.
As for implementation, that's not the point. It was a suggestion, and even if not viable as presented, it could at least spark some ideas or creativity elsewhere. Who's going to want to put forth what might be a reasonable idea if they're just going to get ragged on by people not even taking the time to give them the common courtesy of being thankful they took an interest in trying to help and improve the game when requested.
Milevan Faent:
--- Quote from: AceHangman on May 27, 2014, 05:10:52 am ---
--- Quote from: Milevan Faent on May 26, 2014, 10:53:59 pm ---Okay, so I don't have the time to read and reply to all of this, but I didn't notice when you mentioned it only has a 25% chance to go off.
--- End quote ---
Really, so you didn't take time to even read the suggestion before declaring it bad. It's the very first sentence of the description. You quoted it in your reply. Instead of just letting the suggestion sit, you got all negative and started going off on a rant which makes other people believe your misleading remarks. Now Sammy B.T. thinks the ammo works with flamers, which the description clearly states it does not. All you did was force someone to take time to correct your misleading statements because they gave you the benefit of the doubt that you actually had the basic, common courtesy to read a post, and actually think before quoting and bashing on it.
--- Quote from: Sammy B. T. on May 27, 2014, 12:06:48 am ---The flamer would be ridiculous.
--- End quote ---
Yes, that would be powerful, but as stated, flamers use particles, not projectiles. They don't impact they pass through and as such, would be hugely overpowered which is why the ammo doesn't work with flamers.
As for implementation, that's not the point. It was a suggestion, and even if not viable as presented, it could at least spark some ideas or creativity elsewhere. Who's going to want to put forth what might be a reasonable idea if they're just going to get ragged on by people not even taking the time to give them the common courtesy of being thankful they took an interest in trying to help and improve the game when requested.
--- End quote ---
The current implementation of ammo probably can't make it so the ammo doesn't work on flamers. I also don't think Muse would like a concept that excluded a specific gun. At no point did I make them miss that statement in your post, nor did I even comment on it, so don't go blaming me. They clearly missed that part of your post. But the post I was referring to not having the time to read was the specific one I WAS REPLYING TO, not the original post. I READ the original post, but obviously I missed that 1/4 chance thing, just like they missed the flamer thing.
Crafeksterty:
--- Quote from: Sammy B. T. on May 27, 2014, 12:06:48 am ---The flamer would be ridiculous.
Balance aside, this would probably be amazingly hard to implement on Muse's side and would honestly be found by most to be more annoying than game enhancing.
--- End quote ---
^ Point ^
The ship is the only thing aaffected by outside things, engineers fix that outside intereaction. Gunners shoot to intereact with stuff outside. The ship can flip upside down and you still wont fall over. Imagine yourself as parasites controling a flying skkywhale battling other skywhales. When your skywhale dies, you die. And you good parasite try to be the medecine, and the brains and muscl of your own skywhale.
So, just saying that nothing really affects your character, just the ship you fly.
awkm:
Let's try to keep the arguments down to a minimum. We can argue their potentially balance when and if they reach the testing phase.
In general, if there's no good way to counter something then it's generally bad design and can potentially aggravate the player. It's like games where you can get constantly stun-locked. Harpoon edges dangerously close to this kind of harassment. Ultimately, if there are cases like the harpoon the person on the receiving end must know that this can happen to them. Usually, you will know what kinds of guns other ships are using by both being in the match as well as looking at another's ship loadout. The concern about having these kinds of effects on ammo is that the information is more opaque. There are many more players to dig through while in match lobby to see what ammo they have, and the effects of the ammo may not exhibit itself clearly during gameplay. All these things combined create the feeling of being harassed and not having fun on the receiving end. This is a very important consideration when designing all aspects of the game.
The player needs to understand what is happening to them and why otherwise it will feel random
redria:
--- Quote from: awkm on May 27, 2014, 12:11:35 pm ---The player needs to understand what is happening to them and why otherwise it will feel random
--- End quote ---
Ah. Impact ammo is a pretty hard no then.
Homing ammo has been mentioned several times, but mostly for added accuracy. What about a homing ammo that (maybe) reduces range and severely reduces damage?
The intent is not damage, but is instead intended to give you an idea of the location of the nearest enemy.
Fire your gatling at a wall, see that it curves up and to the left. Pilot turns left and goes up a bit. Try again. Ammo goes straight. You now know the (general) location of your enemy, but you sacrificed an ammo type to do it.
Bring 2 ships with gunners and you can triangulate positions (assuming that you don't pick up different ships).
Tactical ammo types! :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version