Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots

<< < (3/9) > >>

Hoja Lateralus:

--- Quote from: Richard LeMoon on March 13, 2016, 12:05:11 pm ---It seems to me that the berfs are all based purely on numbers. They want all ships to be equally played with equal win/loss ratios.

--- End quote ---

It's very naive, if not stupid, to set such a goal, especially given weird vet:novice proportions in our SMALL community. I mean, can we even say that devs have significant enough and good enough data to back up some of their decisions? I didn't like the pyra nerf, but I was convinced when I saw that 80-90ish percent of ships in Hephaestus Challenge, a competetive tournament, were pyramidions. I don't know if pub numbers, especially without context of level differencies and difference between solo-queue and crew-queue is good enough data. 
Many times when vets play against lower levels they try to limit themselves with non-meta or straight up silly loadout, for instance munker. Does it make munker any more valid if vets happen to win? No!
Also, usage varies on ship difficulty and personal preference. For instance squid is a a very difficult ship to crew, and even though I am fully capable of crewing it, I don't really like it and avoid it if I have a choice. Does it make squid a worse ship? No! I would argue that it should have been better to compensate for difficulty of use.
(Edit: also counter-picking should be considered)
So easier to fly and crew ships should be more common, and the harder ones should be more uncommon but with more possibilities and potential rewards.
Related ExtraCredits video, there should be "foo ships" which are easy to fly and reasonably competetive (pyra,fish,junker?) and ships that are harder to effectively fly and crew but potentially much more threatening (mobula,spire,squid?).

Daft Loon:
I suspect that the existence (if not the execution) of the mobula nerf may have been based on feedback rather than stats, I would be surprised if the mobula was statistically above average in public matches.

Atruejedi:

--- Quote from: PixelatedVolume on March 13, 2016, 04:28:50 pm ---I'm fine with the mobula's niche being vertical mobility, though it should suffer in turning.
--- End quote ---

I believe the opposite, for both aesthetic and practical reasons. The Mobula is already hard enough to hit, especially with parabolic weapons, at the same elevation because of its thin horizontal profile. Any vertical movement really screws with targeting the damn thing (for normal players, not the pro-Hades-tournament players). It doesn't even require tools to move up and down rapidly (I exclusively use stamina, anything else is overkill). The Mobula's niche should be FIVE-freaking weapons slots, THREE of which can ALWAYS be in play. Firepower should be its niche! Its gun angles were FINE, and should NOT be changed... that wasn't the problem! I don't even really enjoy flying Mobulas; they're one of my least-used ships. My opinion of the Mobula, what it is, and what it should be, comes as an "outsider" to the competitive scene and someone who flies with pubnubscrubs very regularly. Sigh. Sigh sigh sigh. Groan.


--- Quote ---I think what needs to happen is that every ship needs to have its role and then stick to it.  It needs to take the role to its extreme.  There should be little overlap of roles.
--- End quote ---

I'm glad we agree! Do you have any feedback on the comparison numbers I posted above?


--- Quote from: Mr.Disaster on March 13, 2016, 08:44:33 pm ---So easier to fly and crew ships should be more common, and the harder ones should be more uncommon but with more possibilities and potential rewards.
--- End quote ---

Um, yes. That's how it once was. But everything's been so dumbed down now. The Squid is about to get even-dumber-downed. with the gun angle change... sigh.


--- Quote ---Related ExtraCredits video, there should be "foo ships" which are easy to fly and reasonably competetive (pyra,fish,junker?) and ships that are harder to effectively fly and crew but potentially much more threatening (mobula,spire,squid?).

--- End quote ---

Completely agree. Agree so hard. So hard.

Solidusbucket:
After really watching the maneuverability of the mobula i take back my statement.
It turns a tid too fast right now because of stamina use. However i feel reducing its vertical mobility takes away all ability to brawl.

It would be defensless. The mobula would be broken. This comes after watching several matches and noticing that each ship has some sort of brawl capability.

Richard LeMoon:
Stamina broke everything, especially turning due to the faster turn speed AND the extra gunner arcs, so they are nerfing the gun platform ships to compensate.

I think the best 'return to roots' would be a complete revamping or removal of 'stamina' (it is only stamina on engineers). We all know they are having a terribly hard time balancing the base ships. Adding stamina just broke everything they were trying to do with ship, gun, and class balance.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page