Info > Feedback and Suggestions
Preventing Decay / Reviving Interest
The Mann:
You're welcome on my strange ship builds anytime.
No need to ask or PM, just jump on board and try your best to keep us alive and the enemy falling. 8)
Cavalcante:
Another "This game is bad and I'm bored because I'm unhappy" post....
This game has never had nor does it require a massive player-base. I hope MUSE keeps making money from their IP, and if a couple people stick around after the sales to actually enjoy the game and become fun regular players, all the better. The game is fine, it has a regular community, and all of your complaints are non-issues which would only make matters worse (for the most part), or vanity-options which I expect you to pay for if you want other people to spend their time and resources designing for your self-gratification.
1. AI crew are awful. They exist as a substitute for when someone disconnects, or there are insufficient people logged in. Make some friends, play with real people, and stop screaming to "READY UP!" thereby increasing the instances of awful AI. Seriously. Who the hell wants more AI? You are playing a co-operative PVP game which is meant to be played with other people. I repeat: make friends. "Problem" solved.
2. They are coming out with a whack of new ships/weapons for Alliance. Buy that game. You can't expect them to substantially redesign GoI. This is a small independent game studio. Someone has to pay for the lap dances for the Big Guy.
3. a. You want more aesthetic/vanity items to customize ship designs. There is already a whack of vanity items available as levelling rewards/special event gifts/and purchase from the Store. If you really want a decal, or a masthead, or a hat, or goggles, or a parrot to sit on your shoulder (seriously, I will totes pay someone $5 if they can make a puffy white pirate shirt with a steampunk mechanical parrot on its shoulder that I can have my dude wear). These assets have no substantial/mechanical aspect toward the game, and they already exist.
Design some vanity art assets, or pay for some from the store. Nothing is currently stopping you from role-playing your aesthetic options to your little heart's content; but don't make me follow your virtual larping if I want to dress my character in a neon green fat suit with a Santa beard.
3. b. Offering new character skins would be cool. If they can afford the time to put into expanding the character art assets a bit, I think this is the one hair-brained comment which I actually possibly and hypothetically agree with. Maybe.
4. This is absurd. You are asking them to re-code the game, and break the existing ship load outs for some ill-conceived and functionally disastrous solution to a non-existent problem. If you want a fast, nimble ship, learn to fly Squid. If you want a lumbering beast that turns like my drunken Aunt Carol on St. Patrick's Day, learn to fly Mobula.
5. You are also looking to change the hard-coding of ship designs for what is not a real problem. Current ship setups offer a great base template which can be customized through weapon load-outs, but also offer an equitable base whereby matches can (theoretically, unless you get stuck with an awful/trolling captain) be competitive.
TL;DR How much are you willing to pay for these "features"?
The game is fine; it has some technical and game-play issues, which can be constructively addressed, but you have not addressed any of those actual points which could be realistically dealt with in this post.
Captain Larraq:
--- Quote from: Cavalcante on June 02, 2016, 07:59:27 am ---Another "This game is bad and I'm bored because I'm unhappy" post....
--- End quote ---
I never said the game was bad. I'm saying that it could use some fresh blood.
--- Quote from: Cavalcante on June 02, 2016, 07:59:27 am ---1. AI crew are awful. They exist as a substitute for when someone disconnects, or there are insufficient people logged in. Make some friends, play with real people, and stop screaming to "READY UP!" thereby increasing the instances of awful AI. Seriously. Who the hell wants more AI? You are playing a co-operative PVP game which is meant to be played with other people. I repeat: make friends. "Problem" solved.
--- End quote ---
As sure as I am that your winning personality has afforded you an abundance of friends, you're missing the point. Outside of a few rare situations, losing one or two crew members on anything other than the most basic of ships can guarantee a loss for your team. While the goal is not to replace a player, the AI needs to receive a substantial improvement so as to stop punishing players when people leave a game.
--- Quote from: Cavalcante on June 02, 2016, 07:59:27 am ---2. They are coming out with a whack of new ships/weapons for Alliance. Buy that game. You can't expect them to substantially redesign GoI. This is a small independent game studio. Someone has to pay for the lap dances for the Big Guy.
--- End quote ---
I've already bought the game. And while I plan on playing it quite a bit, the PVP game modes require some attention as well.
--- Quote from: Cavalcante on June 02, 2016, 07:59:27 am ---3. a. You want more aesthetic/vanity items to customize ship designs. There is already a whack of vanity items available as levelling rewards/special event gifts/and purchase from the Store. If you really want a decal, or a masthead, or a hat, or goggles, or a parrot to sit on your shoulder (seriously, I will totes pay someone $5 if they can make a puffy white pirate shirt with a steampunk mechanical parrot on its shoulder that I can have my dude wear). These assets have no substantial/mechanical aspect toward the game, and they already exist.
Design some vanity art assets, or pay for some from the store. Nothing is currently stopping you from role-playing your aesthetic options to your little heart's content; but don't make me follow your virtual larping if I want to dress my character in a neon green fat suit with a Santa beard.
3. b. Offering new character skins would be cool. If they can afford the time to put into expanding the character art assets a bit, I think this is the one hair-brained comment which I actually possibly and hypothetically agree with. Maybe.
--- End quote ---
Over the last year or two I've probably invested around $50-$60 in these vanity items. They're fun and add to the uniqueness of your vessel and your character, but they do nothing to alter gameplay mechanics. And that is what is required to make players feel that their unique choices have an impact beyond the aesthetic.
--- Quote from: Cavalcante on June 02, 2016, 07:59:27 am ---4. This is absurd. You are asking them to re-code the game, and break the existing ship load outs for some ill-conceived and functionally disastrous solution to a non-existent problem. If you want a fast, nimble ship, learn to fly Squid. If you want a lumbering beast that turns like my drunken Aunt Carol on St. Patrick's Day, learn to fly Mobula.
--- End quote ---
Some games don't let you customize the weaponry on vehicles or characters. It's not that doing so would be game-breaking, it's that those games rely on unique weapon combinations to serve in lieu of classes or unit function. While I am asking them to consider re-coding the game by allowing engines to be as customization as weapons, doing so would in no way be gamebreaking. Or are you the type of person that finds a ranged weapons that "shove" or "pull" opposing ships to be gamebreaking? Adding more options and a wider range a variety to the game does not break it, but it would require individuals such as yourself to break away from narrow-minded views of existing ship-roles.
--- Quote from: Cavalcante on June 02, 2016, 07:59:27 am ---5. You are also looking to change the hard-coding of ship designs for what is not a real problem. Current ship setups offer a great base template which can be customized through weapon load-outs, but also offer an equitable base whereby matches can (theoretically, unless you get stuck with an awful/trolling captain) be competitive.
--- End quote ---
I understand that some people find change to be intimidating, but I assure you that it is only through change that one ("one" being anything from an individual to a game or a company) can grow and improve. In an ever-evolving business market such as the videogame industry, stagnation is death. Whether you like it or not, the game is going to have to change if the developers want it to continue to exist.
Additionally, I'm not asking them to change the base template. What I'm asking is that they give players a wider range of options with which to alter those templates to fit an individual players tactical and aesthetic interests.
--- Quote from: Cavalcante on June 02, 2016, 07:59:27 am ---TL;DR How much are you willing to pay for these "features"?
The game is fine; it has some technical and game-play issues, which can be constructively addressed, but you have not addressed any of those actual points which could be realistically dealt with in this post.
--- End quote ---
I will agree that the game is fine. Though I'm not sure what issues you are speaking about. Both from a technical and game-play standpoint, the game really is fine. It's simply... stagnant. It needs to grow. Over the next year or two, how many new games are going to be competing with GoI for funding from players?
The game needs to be improved if the company wishes to continue making enough profits from the game to keep itself and its creations running.
I've already invested money in cosmetic options for myself and I've invested in the upcoming DLC. Likewise, I'd invest in the next DLC to come out if it offered some improvements to the PVP gameplay and I'd invest in purchasing or unlocking various tactical and cosmetic options through whatever DLC comes out.
Helios.:
one thing about paying for game play mechanically different options is that there is an intentional and i think laudable attempt to make sure the playing field is as level as possible. in a game where the learning curve is so steep, it doesn't help to ALSO have some people paying for options the new players don't have. that's why everything is available at lvl 1. MUSE doesn't want a game where the newbs get stomped because they are underequipped, they want it to be all about skill. the vets have cool cosmetic stuff they can show off their levels with and cosmetic stuff they can show off, but the SECOND one has a mechanical difference that takes hard cash to unlock, you unbalance the purity of the 'everything unlocked at lvl 1' fairness. you jump in and you can learn how to play as well as a ryder or a roman and BAM you can do it all too, theres no grinding for levels to unlock the chute vent so you can keep up or any of that crap
Richard LeMoon:
I would not be opposed to different engines to use, as long as the change was not extreme. Maybe 10% change at most.
Differences could be increasing health by while lowering thrust. A heavier engine block and crankshaft turns harder.
Increasing thrust while decreasing health. Same but opposite, but would limit tool use as well.
Increasing forward thrust while decreasing reverse. Changing the prop to provide more efficient airfoils in one direction automatically reduces the opposite. This would also effect turning (could not reverse turn as fast).
Perhaps engine and prop could even be changeable independently. Take the second option (light, fast, fragile) engine with forward optimized prop, and you end up with a faster ship with limited turning and reverse.
I don't like the idea of different engine configurations, though.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version