Messages

16

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Other than Airships

« on: May 29, 2013, 12:24:34 pm »

I will say this to your idea, I do not want to be forced to play a gametype like this. I don't mind flying against a fortress or city but I do not personally want to be a wall gunner.

I understand where you're coming from on that, but I think that big fortresses or skyships would be a great opportunity to continue exploring team hierarchies. I think that part of what makes the teamwork in GOIO fun is the fact that each crew has a captain, that they answer to.

What if, in larger crew, there was another level of depth added to the hierarchy? A skyship would have multiple gunners and engineers, so what if they were each treated as their own crew, who answered to an Ordinance Officer and Chief Engineer, respectively, who then reported directly to the Captain?

I can already think of a lot of valid objections to that, but one of the things I like most about GOIO is the way that it immerses you into the game by using the rules of the game to enforce a hierarchy within each team. You feel like you're actually crewing an airship because you have a captain, who is a real person, who gives you orders that you have to follow in order for your ship to survive, and the your success depends on your ability to work together with your captain and fellow crew.

What makes wall-gunning boring is the fact that you are forced to shoot at only what the computer puts in front of you. But on a big skyship, you will be shooting at what your captain and crew put in front of you, which I think would be just as rewarding of an experience as gunning for a smaller ship.

17

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Fire! *Suggestion*

« on: May 29, 2013, 12:10:50 pm »

Hold onto these thoughts guys. 

Based on Muse comments I'm expecting to see a fire buff within the first two weeks of June that should make these weapons viable again. 

There's obviously a good amount of tweaking to do with them but I believe the process has already started.

While I don't think that fire is as weak as is implied by others on this thread, I will welcome to the buff to fire damage. More incentives for brawling builds over sniping builds.

18

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Other than Airships

« on: May 27, 2013, 01:39:59 pm »

but that doesn't mean the game's combat shout be restricted to airships alone.

...This is a game about airship combat. Yes, the game's combat is going to be restricted to airships.

Large, boss airships and biplanes are coming with adventure mode. However I don't think that they are going to be available for players to fly. I like the idea of player-driven sky fortresses with large crews, but I hate the idea of players driving biplanes. I don't think it'll be at all possible to allow that without destroying the teamwork aspect of this game that makes it so fun.

One thing I would like to see would be if the heavy guns required 2 crew members to operate. Perhaps one to load the ammo and the other to aim and fire. Or one to spot and one to fire (think sniper team). It would balance the heavy guns by requiring lots of teamwork to make them fire, add variety to crew roles, and inject a cool realism factor that no other game has explored.

Town siege sounds pretty cool. I'm in for that idea. However, creating towns that you can explore with your avatar is pretty far down Muse's checklist for Adventure Mode, so if that idea does happen, it won't be for some times.

Tanks? No. At least I hope not.

19

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Fire! *Suggestion*

« on: May 26, 2013, 12:03:45 am »

I'll say this as my main reasoning for why flames suck. A flamethrower, launching a full canister of flame juice at an enemy ship usually does nothing beyond annoy the engineers and cause some cussing. Crews spray down hull balloon and engines and then just wait for the Flamer to have to reload and make the guy suffer.

ANY light weapon, by itself, is naught but an annoyance, unless the conditions are just right. If you're looking for a weapon that can overwhelm a chief engineer all by itself, you need a heavy weapon, not a light flamethrower.

It's cool that you're throwing your 2 cents out there. Keep doing that. However I'm simply not seeing the suck from the flamthrower at all. I just spent this afternoon crewing a Flamethrower/Carronade squid piloted by an experienced member of my clan (who plays competitively), and we wrecked the enemy over and over and over again.

Flamethrower/Carronade builds on squids are both quite effective and popular. I crewed one piloted by one of the devs. I myself have a flamethrower/artemis build on mine (which I've used to take down Galleons). I've also seen Flamethrower/Gatling utilized effectively. I've seen double flamer Pyras.

I agree that right now the meta is too restricted to Gat/Flak, and I think Muse is already working on that. We're looking at a new ship, and a new weapon coming out with the next patch. Don't worry, more options for your ships will open up as Muse continues to add content.

Keep flying, and keep getting more experience. One thing you'll learn is that you can win with almost any weapon combo if you and your crew communicate, work together, and performs your roles with competence.

20

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Fire! *Suggestion*

« on: May 25, 2013, 02:44:20 pm »

IMO flames right now suck.

No, they do not. They're THE only multipurpose damage type. With fire you can burn down their balloon while also putting decent damage on their armor. And if their armor gets stripped, fire deals extra damage to the permahull. And since the particles pass through ships and damage anything they touch, you can already set multiple components on fire.

The idea of fire-spreading is a good one. I personally like it. However, I think that, priority-wise, it will have to go on the back burner, if Muse decides to implement it at all. The fire mechanics as they are now are pretty solid, and easily tweaked for balance by adjusting ignition rate, particle range and damage, etc.

It's not a bad idea, it's just not worth the time and effort it would take to implement. There's more important things for Muse to be working right now.

21

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Objective based game modes.

« on: May 25, 2013, 01:56:08 pm »

You talked about how making control points move around could be like an escort mode...

But how about an actual escort mode? Where each team has a ship that they must protect from the enemy team. You could vary it by making the VIP ship be either a player-crewed combat ship or an AI controlled defenseless civilian ship.

22

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: EMBLEMS: Feature & Business model proposal.

« on: May 23, 2013, 12:12:24 pm »

But seriously though...I think that the sale of cosmetic customizations for ships would be a great way to raise money!

23

Q&A / Re: Flare Gun: viable?

« on: May 22, 2013, 01:26:21 pm »

Thanks guys!

24

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: EMBLEMS: Feature & Business model proposal.

« on: May 22, 2013, 01:25:15 pm »

I think that they're going to see diminishing returns on those future kickstarters, though.

One thing that I think Muse could do is add cosmetic customization options to ships. Paint jobs, the afore mentioned emblems, or even doo-dads and hull mods to make your ship your own is something that I would DEFINITELY pay for. I don't care too much about my outfit, but I feel lots of love for my ships.

25

Q&A / Flare Gun: viable?

« on: May 22, 2013, 01:19:33 pm »

I'm a new player, and the flare gun came up in a discussion about flame weapons, but the reaction wasn't, "it's a shitty weapon, no reason to use it," which is what I expected from reading the description and looking at the weapon's stats.

What does the flare gun actually do to a ship if you nail one with it?

26

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Variety/Replayability in the Crew Experience

« on: May 19, 2013, 12:12:30 am »

Even on the same ship type engineering for different captains can be a completely different experience. Some captains will try and micromanage you, others will not say a word. Some will ask you for strange ammo choices, and others will run with a standard build every time.

That's true, but I don't think that drastically changes the way you approach your role the way that the huge differences in maneuverability between ships affects the way a pilot approaches his role, or even how gun layouts and choices affect how a gunner or gungineer approaches his.

27

Q&A / Re: The mechanics of the flamethrower/fire damage

« on: May 19, 2013, 12:03:39 am »

And that's damage in addition to the 4 points of fire damage each particle does, right?

And since it passes through, a single particle could damage and potentially add a fire charge to a gun, the hull, and the balloon, yes?

28

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Variety/Replayability in the Crew Experience

« on: May 18, 2013, 11:56:25 am »

(Just to be clear, I respect your suggestions fully, I'm just respectfully disagreeing)

No worries, man. I just wanted throw my thoughts out there and start a discussion. I know I'm still pretty green, so I wouldn't be surprised if this has already been discussed.

I also have to disagree that five people would be a safe amount for the Galleon. Think of how powerful it is now. Now think of it with an extra engineer constantly buffing the side guns, and going up to help the main engi when needed. It's a fun idea in principle, but in reality all of the ships were designed to be suited for four players, and changing the number of crew would simply be unworkable.

I understand that the galleon is already powerful, and that something would likely have to be changed to balance out the buff of an additional crew member. Also keep in mind that team sizes would stay the same, so having a 5 man galleon on your team will restrict your team's choices when it comes to their other ships. So not only will there be more variety crewing different ships, there will be more variety in team compositions, as now there's a choice between having a few big ships or lots of smaller ships. Hard to balance? Absolutely. Worth it for the fun factor? I think so.

Still, it's only one possible suggestion. I also really like the idea of ship sub-systems. Not only would it make engie's roles more exciting and varied, it would give each of the ships a bit more character.

Engineering is pretty much the same on the Squid and the Spire? That couldn't be further from the truth. Each ship requires a whole different set of skills and strategies from the main engineer. The Squid, for example, requires extremely quick decision-making and knowledge of all the shortcuts on it. The Galleon requires the engi to know exactly when to switch between the hull and the left gun, while also working to keep the balloon in shape. The Spire requires a lot of patience. The Pyra requires perfect judgement of when it's safe to leave the hull to fix the engines or fire the guns.

The way I'm seeing it, extremely quick decision-making, knowledge of shortcuts, knowing when to switch between repairing and gunning, patience, and good judgement are all qualities that you have to have to be a good engineer on all of the ships. Some require a bit more in one area than others, but I've only seen trivial differences. It's still fun, but I'm beginning to lose interest in being a main engineer because every game I've played as one has been the same thing. Repair the hull, repair the balloon, repair the engine, put out fires, and if that's all done, man a gun. Every game. Every ship.

29

Q&A / The mechanics of the flamethrower/fire damage

« on: May 18, 2013, 11:27:14 am »

So, can someone explain the detailed mechanics of how the flamethrower/fire damage in general works?

I mean, does a component get a fire charge every time a flamethrower shot hits it? That doesn't sound right. Is there a chance of ignition, and what chance is there?

30

Feedback and Suggestions / Variety/Replayability in the Crew Experience

« on: May 18, 2013, 11:00:22 am »

So, I've been playing for a little while now, and while I'm still pretty green, I have noticed something about being a crew member on a ship.

It's always the same. Fun. REALLY, REALLY FUN...but it's always the same. Piloting has lots of variety, because the variance in the different ship hulls, how big they are, how fast they are, where their guns are mounted, and what those guns are, influences how you fly in a fundamental way.

But on the crew, you have your three roles: Main Engineer, Secondary Engineer/Gunner, Main Gunner, and no matter what ship you're on, those roles stay the same. More over, the experience of performing them stays essentially the same, too. So, while piloting a Squid is a really different experience from piloting a Spire, being an engineer on either of those ships is pretty much the same.

Now, like I said, doing those jobs is FUN. REALLY RUN. But there's no variety like there is for pilots. Every ship has the same set of vital components which need to be repaired in the same order of priority.

Now, as to what causes this, and what could be done to help increase variety among the crew roles, I don't really know. What I do know is that I don't seem to be the only one who's noticed this.

Someone in an earlier thread suggested ship-specific subsystems, which would be one way to add much more variety to crewing. My idea was to add ships that had bigger or smaller crews than the 4-man standard. Or perhaps instead just modify existing hulls. The squid could very much be crewed by 3 ppl and the galleon is more than large enough that a 5 man crew would still have its hands full. What if loading heavy guns with ammo required a bit more micro-management from the crew? That could be really fun, because the engineer and the gunner would have to work together to bring the weapon to bear.

Of course, I understand that implementing something like those ideas and balancing it would be really hard and that Muse already has its hands full with Adventure Mode (WHICH I AM SO LOOKING FORWARD TO), but I think that GOIO would gain a lot of replayability by offering more variety when it comes to playing an engineer or a gunner.