Messages

31

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: CP Neutralisation Mechanics

« on: December 16, 2013, 04:11:33 am »

How do you know that?! With skill and or actual commitment into nabbing the other team away from the point with the concept of a very low timer, how do you know it will still be the same? Even if the timer that i mentioned is as narrow as a spawning ship just wont make it back to blocking...

How do I know that the timer value doesn't matter? Read the match description again. I said several times that the timer is never started due to B's continuous (but inferior) point presence. You could change the mechanics so that the instant B isn't on the point at all it skips neutral and fully switched to R and B would still win 650-0 because they are never not on the point..

x * y = z

Where x is whatever timer value you want and y is the number of times it is started in my hypothetical (0). When z equals 0, B wins 650-0.

Again, you and Thomas are arguing from a position of R and B having a different experience of the match than the one I described in my hypothetical (changing strategy, getting B off the point). It is irrelevant if a different strategy could get B off the point. It is irrelevant if a crew with better skills could get B off the point. The only thing that is relevant is the match happening as I have described.

It's called a corner case and the current mechanics fail at handling it properly.

Out of curiosity, have either of you done any programming? I may only be seeing this as a problem because I have a very "programmer" mindset and strive to make a system handle any possible result properly, whereas you both seem to approach this with a more "very unlikely, so acceptable outcome" view.

32

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: CP Neutralisation Mechanics

« on: December 15, 2013, 01:20:50 pm »

Youve explained it before. Your description of a match does not proove much because you are assuming  R to be really bad.

You don't have to be bad to struggle to get a kill on a ship totally focused on avoiding dying. B doesn't have to return fire, so everyone is focused on repair...

Im sorry Xyem but your example does not work with actual skill going on.

Then explain why most CP matches end 650-0, even with similar skilled crews on both sides. My example works fine because I've been in matches where what I describe actually happens.

But the timer does make a diffrence. Just a slight, slight no ship blocking the point will result in a loss of the point. (asuming 3 seconds to neutral state). But right now the timer is too long, even for being blocked.

I'm not arguing that a shorter timer wouldn't make for more to-and-fro in most matches, I'm arguing that there is an edge case where the timer is rendered irrelevent and the team that should win, doesn't. My suggestion handles this edge case without disrupting the usual case.

Heck if you assume the timer does no difference if it is 1 sec? Then i really urge you to learn how to do some quick kills. I mean, its 2 v 1 were talking about.

I've been 2v1'd an entire match by level 6+ crews and lasted long enough for my ally to get back to me. And I'm hardly a very good pilot. Find 2 experienced squid crews and 2v1 them while they are completely focused on staying alive. You will find that they can stay alive longer than it takes for their ally to return.

Saying I can't kill fast enough to work around the broken mechanics is blaming the wrong person

33

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: CP Neutralisation Mechanics

« on: December 15, 2013, 12:59:12 pm »

It's a bit of a gray area. The goal of the match is to claim and control the 'hill', and if they can manage to survive and get back to the point without having them both off the point at any time, that's pretty impressive. It's about controlling the zone as opposed to kills.

Exactly. In my example, is it not R controlling the zone rather than B?

34

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: CP Neutralisation Mechanics

« on: December 15, 2013, 09:37:58 am »

If there is a situation where there is constantly ships being on the point, then the probably deserve to keep that point.

I will now describe a match where there are constantly 2 R ships on the point and they lose 650-0.

Match starts.
1) B1 and B2 are squids. They rush the point and capture it before R1 and R2 show up. They now 100% own the the point.

2) R1 and R2 arrive and focus fire B1. B1 is destroyed, leaving one B ship on the point and 2 R ships on the point. The timer is not started due to B2's presence. B owns 100% of the point.

3) B2 then uses their pilot tools, 2 engineers camping the hull and the terrain to avoid being destroyed by R. The timer is not started due to B2's presence. There is 1 B ship and 2 R ships on the point. B owns 100% of the point.

4) B1 respawns and rushes to the point. They get to the point while B2 is alive. The timer is not started due to B being present. There are 2 B ships and 2 R ships on the point. B owns 100% of the point.

5) B2 gets destroyed soon after B1 arrives, leaving one B ship on the point and 2 R ships on the point. The timer is not started due to B1's presence. B owns 100% of the point.

6) GOTO 3 unless score is 650-0. Switch B1 and B2 around.

7) B wins 650-0.

R Kills: 22
R Deaths: 0
R Point Presence: 98%
R Point Ship Presence Average: 2

B Kills: 0
B Deaths: 22
B Point Presence: 100%
B Point Ship Presence Average: 1.1

In this match, R has the dominate point position. They are acting defensively, but are actually trying to attack the point. B is acting aggresively, but is actually defending the point. This is completely backwards.

Feel free to plug any timer value you like in, you will see that it makes no difference. The timer is never started, so it doesn't matter how short it is. Make it shorter, it takes B less time to establish their win position. Make it long enough for R to get their before it is captured and the game would end at a time out with no-one fully capturing the point.

Making an argument based on changing the hypothesis (such as B getting totally removed from the point to allow your short timer to come into effect) is moving the goalposts. Explain how my hypothetical situation is a fair outcome without changing B and R's behaviour.

Given my suggestion, R "defending" the point would eventually cause to go neutral. They would still lose if they didn't change their behaviour, but it would only be 70-0. This reflects who captured the point much better. Extending it to also make R kills increase point ownership for R would cause them to win.

At a minimum, the point ownership should move to whichever team has most ships on it. So R would eventually capture the point because they can maintain 2 ships on it while B can only maintain 1. For example, if there is one ship of each team on the point, it doesn't move (50-50 balance). If there are 2 R and 1 B, it moves towards R (66-33 balance). Capturing the point should simply slow down the timer in the owning teams favour by counting as, say, 50% of a ship.

35

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: CP Neutralisation Mechanics

« on: December 15, 2013, 07:50:28 am »

I still feel the easiest adjustment that can be made to get desired results is simply to adjust the timer. By making it easier to convert, you'll have a little more back and forth; since teams will have less time to return and prevent a conversion.

As I mentioned before, this still leads to the possibility that there are 2 ships that are always on the point, never die, destroy the opponent repeatedly, but still lose 650-0, simply because they didn't get there first.

Tell me, Mr Thomas, what good is a short timer, if you are unable to start it?

Bear in mind that in my previous hypothetical, B would eventually lose the point if the timer was ever started, regardless of its length, due to attrition. However, as explained, the timer is never started because B always have a ship on the point, preventing it being captured by R.

If my hypothetical isn't clear by the way, let me know as I'm happy to make an animation to demonstrate it.

The current mechanics allow a situation where the team actually defending the point doesn't own it and can't capture it, even with a 0 second timer! I'm sure everyone agrees that shouldn't be the case

EDIT: By the way, great point about the skill of the crew having more impact than the ship type.

36

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: CP Neutralisation Mechanics

« on: December 14, 2013, 10:06:06 pm »

.. snip ..

Thank you! You've helped me realise an issue with my suggested system.

People purposely leaving the point if they know they will die so them dying doesn't damage the point. Hmm *ponderponder*

The only way around that that I can think of is that it isn't based on distance, but rather each ship has a timer on itself and the damage is also done relative to how much "defending the point" timer they have. So a ship that doesn't go near the point, doesn't affect the point if it dies but a ship leaving the point and killed would still affect it, unless they'd been away from the point for a while.

@Thomas:
The issue with having a set number and a set range causes several issues.
Firstly, some ships are more difficult to remove from the point. Why is the reward the same for much more exerted effort?
With a set range, defenders can "skirt" the edge of the range and leave it when they are about to die to prevent damage to the point when they die.
If you don't have any range at all, ships that are not involved in the point defense dying affect the point when they shouldn't.

EDIT: Just wanted to say thank you for your input It is very appreciated!

37

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: CP Neutralisation Mechanics

« on: December 14, 2013, 06:36:54 pm »

By greatly reducing the timer i mean GREATLY not by a tiny amount. You stay on that point for just 5 seconds and it is allready neutrelised.

The spot to stand and capture a cp is allready a tight also. So it would really be a king of the hill.

What do you regard as greatly reducing it? I think it's already gone from 30 seconds to 15 seconds..?

38

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: CP Neutralisation Mechanics

« on: December 14, 2013, 04:27:36 pm »

Just making the capture time go down quicker sounds more like it than teing %'s and deaths.

If a ship is about to go down then it is better to sacrifice letting them stand on the point, escaping with what could have given them 50% of the timer less to wait.



If the capture time is greatly reduced then you will force people to stay on the point. Not staying at it can be risky and may make youhave to recapture it. Hense "King of the hill"/"crazy king"

Consider this:

R1 and R2 gets to the point first and capture it. B1 and B2 arrive at the point, destroys R1 and is engaged with R2. R1 gets back to the point just before R2 dies. R2 gets back to the point before R1 dies. R1 gets back to the point just before R2 dies. Repeat until 650-0 in R's favour.

This is perfectly possible and happens (it gets worse the more ships that are available to defend the point) reducing the capture time would not affect this at all.

Is this a reasonable gameplay mechanic where one team can sustain 100% of the losses but wins unchallenged?

39

Release Notes / Re: Version 1.3.4 Release Notes

« on: December 14, 2013, 03:29:18 pm »

if this Cake/Gent thing goes on OVW will get jealous D:
MUSE, be more discrete! And stop spreading rumors, gosh...

Why is the the one most vocal about exclusivity ends up being the one flying around?

40

Release Notes / Re: Version 1.3.4 Release Notes

« on: December 14, 2013, 12:23:45 pm »

1.3.4 (401) was just released

This fixes a few client-only bugs:
- Fixed a rare error in equipment loading that could leave you unable to use any equipment or station

I've just seen someone in Global (Loggy Lou) who is still experiencing this issue.

They said it happens when they "join a game", but they aren't responding to me at the moment, so I can't clarify if they mean joining a running game etc.

They are brand new to the game and have left 3 out of the 4 matches they have played.. probably because of this issue, perfectly demonstrating why I oppose the "Leave Count" thing

41

Feedback and Suggestions / CP Neutralisation Mechanics

« on: December 14, 2013, 09:57:12 am »

I've mentioned this in another topic and got some encouraging feedback when I mentioned it in-game last night.

In my experience, capture point biases pretty strongly to "who gets there first". The defending team then have the advantage that as long as they can get back fast enough to block, it is very difficult for the attackers to neutralise/capture the point.

So my original suggestion is this: destroying one of the defending teams ships in proximity of the point, "damages" the point towards being neutral.

The idea is that you get rewarded for successfully removing an enemy from the point, rather than only being rewarded for removing all enemy ships and doing so fast enough that none of them get back to the point to block before you can even neutralise it.

Further things for consideration include:

Basing the amount of damage done to the point on the ship that was destroyed. For example, removing a Squid off the point would only move it bit towards neutral, whereas removing a Galleon would move it quite a lot.

It shouldn't be based on being on the point or set range with a binary "either does or doesn't damage it", but has a fall-off based on the distance. 100% damage within 100 metres, falling off to 0% at 300 metres (liner, cubic whatever).

Doing damage based on the points total "health" or just the remaining ownership. So if the point is captured and at 50% health, destroying a ship that moves it 50% towards neutral would put it at neutral (total health) versus 25% health (remaining ownership).

I think this would make CP a bit more to-and-fro with less matches ending 650-0.

Any obvious problems with this that I've missed? Any thoughts?

42

The Lounge / Re: Introducing the new CAs!

« on: December 12, 2013, 07:26:01 pm »

Hello everyone!

Just to prove that Muse is more crazy than Cake, they allowed me to become a Community Ambassador.

I am at your service, denizens of the sky whale's kingdom!

*kneels before thee*

I, Xyem, before the presence of the Holy Sky Pyramid, do hereby declare my unwavering faith, fealty and service to the community of Icarus.
I pledge to follow the reasonable orders of all Muse staff appointed over me, and field all the questions, great and small, difficult or annoying, addressed to me be they by the person, the mob, or the voices. The voices. They tell me to stop using Moonshine! Nay! Nay, I say!
I will keep myself mentally sane (from my own perspective, of course), completely sober and regularly available as is necessitated by the Community Ambassador agreements and forms to which I have pledged my unconditional adherence.
So say we all.

43

The Docks / Re: CakeWatch: On Patrol.

« on: December 12, 2013, 06:01:43 pm »

I'm not actually sure if this has been posted before, but I'm just going to leave this here.

I wish my Pyramidion would do that on Paritan and Labyrinth

EDIT: He says, and then realises there is a building with that exact damage to it :|

44

Gameplay / Re: Spawn system feedback 1.3.4

« on: December 12, 2013, 05:58:09 pm »

there no way to fix how bad the cp's are at this stage from what i can se they will never be fair

I know this is a quite off topic, but one of the issues with capturing the points is the ability to block is very powerful if you already own the point. As long as you can get someone from your team to the point fast enough, they will never neutralise/capture it.

Perhaps if you die next to the point which you own, it "damages" the point by 30% or something (as in, instantly reduces the capture ring), allowing for a quicker neutralisation and thus, capture. This may allow much more changeover.

45

Gameplay / Re: Paritan Rumble changes

« on: December 11, 2013, 05:19:10 pm »

There are still plenty of buildings for me to moonshine into!