Info > Feedback and Suggestions
Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots
Giersdorf:
I'm digging the fact that this is your personal opinion on the ships provided to us to fly, given your experience I feel like these are fairly accurate and described quite well. I feel like (public) matches are made up of people foregoing combat roles and they just fly what they feel like and that's okay of course. That being said it would be awesome to have some unit cooperation and strategizing more often in said matches.
Solidusbucket:
--- Quote from: SapphireSage on March 12, 2016, 06:37:47 pm ---
--- Quote from: Solidusbucket on March 12, 2016, 06:32:16 pm ---I think this is already the case except for the spire and pyramidion.
thats my opinion though.
--- End quote ---
And mobula, notice that he has mobula vertical listed as a 2, matching the capability of the galleon making it a low maneuverability weapons platform.
--- End quote ---
ahh, yea. I agree with that. I just read the descriptions. I didn't look at the numbers too thoroughly.
Shas'ui:
I think the reason that the ships have drifted from their specializations is due to two factors: perceived usefulness, and team-play.
The first issue, perceived usefulness, is due to the skill required to use some tactics rather then others: while most pilots can easily grasp and execute a pyra's headlong charge, the careful maneuvers required by a squid are more difficult to learn, and thus the ship seems weaker, as a larger portion of users have difficulty. This is also seen in several weapons, with the lumberjack and minotaur being prime examples of this perceived weakness: while they are just as deadly as a hwatcha in the right hands, they lack the simplicity of the "OP Liongun".
The second issue of that of team-play. Some ships' specializations are best used with allies: a squid's harassment will be most useful when distracting/weakening the enemy as a more powerful, yet vulnerable ship (such as a spire) uses it to close and engage: the key idea of specializations is to be better in one area at the expense of another, and in proper team play, that weaker area will be filled by a teammate strong in it. However, this doesn't hold up so well when dropped in a lobby with an unhelpful "Ally". This is also seen in the gun examples: while the minotaur is quite powerful in disrupting the enemy, it cannot get a kill by itself, and as such, is seen to be weaker then guns which do not require coordination; the flak also has/had this issue.
Combined, these issues make some ships seem much weaker then they actually are, thus leading to buffs/nerfs that lessen the weaknesses that defined their specialization.
Richard LeMoon:
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.
Personally, I think the Spire should be the tank/turret of the game. Slow moving, average turning, high lift, armored as hell. It is supposed to be a fast response city defense platform with the ability to get into the sky quickly and hold the fort until other ships arrive. I would personally add a few of the Mobula turbofans to the model to support the vertical mobility.
PixelatedVolume:
I'm fine with the mobula's niche being vertical mobility, though it should suffer in turning. If I was making the game I'd give the mob two closely-placed heavy engines and two vertical engines which can be destroyed in place of the asthetic ones it has now.
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version