Info > Feedback and Suggestions
Design Paradigm, Game balance, and Gunner vs Engineer.
Dementio:
--- Quote from: redria on May 23, 2014, 09:46:47 am ---
--- Quote from: Dementio on May 23, 2014, 09:29:52 am ---Give the gunner a second engineering slot.
--- End quote ---
Second engineering slot? Or do you mean extra default engineering tool for everyone?
(Remove wrenches as a selectable engineering tool, and everyone gets a wrench free, similar to normal ammo in guns)
--- End quote ---
I actually meant an extra slot, but your idea sounds enticing too.
Non-gunners have 2 ammo types, non-engis have 2 engineering tools.
Problem is only that there are so few engineering tools so I don't know how good that actually will be. While a gunner can actually make use of default ammo, I don't know how much use a pipe wrench is for a (e.g.) mallet/spanner engineer.
awkm:
Some interesting ideas here. I want to make everyone aware that these ideas are very difficult to implement without substantial changes to UI, database structures, and general code implementation. We love making games and you know that we always want to make this one better (seriously, we've had so many patches) but we also run a business... we need to look at the path of least resistance and try to test there first. We're a team of 13 people so we need to make sure that we don't waste any effort.
I encourage everyone to focus their energy to help us discuss New Ammo and tweaks to Old Ammo in the following thread:
https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,4079.90.html
Furthermore, if you have access to Dev App then there are 4 new ammo types to be tested. They are quite unbalanced, some even a little broken, but they all give us an idea of what we can do to encourage users to take advantage of the 3 ammo slots that only Gunners have. That's what we can take action on immediately without drastically changing any part of the game. And if you want access to Dev App and to Dev App Forums, email keyvias@musegames.com
This is not saying 'no' to these ideas but rather that we can use your efforts right now somewhere else. When we have tested all solutions that can be tested, in the order of their difficulty of implement, we will move on to the next idea and these are still on the list. While you may not agree with our current tests, we'd love to see your feedback on them and feel like you can still make a big contribution to the game.
Again, thank you for everyone's suggestions. I just want to make it clear what the pipeline looks like and how we approach problems like these.
Dementio:
I actually wonder how much "bad" feedback is needed to make MUSE go for another solution.
awkm:
Well if it's completely unbalanced or ultimately prevents people from playing the game then we'll fix it.
In the case of the Engineer vs. Gunner, it's been around for a very long time. Is it game breaking and prevents people from playing? Not really. It's one of the reasons it took this long to evaluate. At this point it's closer to being polish than fix. We don't mind boats with 4 engineers, we allow you to do it. But the issue is that a lot of people don't see the point of bringing a gunner. It's a finer issue than the server is broken or Field Gun is OP. There are ships that do have gunners, though, and see the advantages of having one due to the ammo types on top of a well-timed buff. I want to expand that decision space further.
Gunner vs. Engineer isn't broken, not by a long shot. It can be improved, though. There are other things that are actually broken and that's where the attention needs to be put.... e.g. servers exploding this week.
GeoRmr:
Just to clarify, adding new ammo is AWESOME!!!
But please DON'T PRETEND that its going to solve your gunner engineer 'problem', at-least accept that the gunner will remain a niche class unless/untill SUBSTANTIAL changes are made.
--- Quote from: awkm on May 23, 2014, 11:12:35 am ---Some interesting ideas here. I want to make everyone aware that these ideas are very difficult to implement without substantial changes to UI, database structures, and general code implementation.
--- End quote ---
I thought your current stance on my solution is that it in fact wouldn't be difficult to implement at all, but that you don't want to implement it based solely on design paradigm.
"...it'll be little to very little coding..." ~ awkm
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version