1
The Pit / NERF TEMPEST
« on: April 28, 2017, 02:35:17 pm »
NERF TEMPEST
Right, just wanted to be the first. Time for serious discussion to pour in.
Right, just wanted to be the first. Time for serious discussion to pour in.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Q&A / What is this poster about?
« on: April 13, 2016, 05:07:06 pm »
I've noticed this on my galleon first - it was on one of the back-right pillars from the front and it wouldn't go away no matter what theme I was running. A teaser?
3
Community Events / 20 second round start timer
« on: April 10, 2016, 06:26:06 pm »
This thing used to be great back in blood and brass. With the meta being so aggressive today in comparison to 2 years ago, the casters need some way to be able to announce loadouts with little downtime. The early movements of a team play a huge factor in how an engagement turns out and this feature would make it easier to manage both, in turn making SCS a better and more educational spectator sport. The only real downside is the 60 second timer + 20 seconds when the round starts.
It also lets teams take the time to see where they've spawned to plan their movements before the action and not lose much time agains't a team already picking pace.
It also lets teams take the time to see where they've spawned to plan their movements before the action and not lose much time agains't a team already picking pace.
4
General Discussion / Pyramidion Nerf Anniversary.
« on: February 22, 2016, 04:38:20 pm »
On February 23rd 2015, around 11 AM UTC, there came a patch that changed GOIO forever.
https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,5732.0.html ("Black Tuesday" - Urzy Hurzy)
On February 23rd 2016, there may come a patch that will change GOIO forever.
(**** Tuesday (Yet to be named))
I'd like to write something inspirational here but I am A) Lazy and thereby unmotivated B) Not the most artsy person out there. I'll leave it to the forum. Enjoy the patch, whether it's good or not, I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that pyra is about to be out of the meta for exactly 365 days.
https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,5732.0.html ("Black Tuesday" - Urzy Hurzy)
On February 23rd 2016, there may come a patch that will change GOIO forever.
(**** Tuesday (Yet to be named))
I'd like to write something inspirational here but I am A) Lazy and thereby unmotivated B) Not the most artsy person out there. I'll leave it to the forum. Enjoy the patch, whether it's good or not, I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that pyra is about to be out of the meta for exactly 365 days.
5
Feedback and Suggestions / Lobby AFK Feature
« on: December 05, 2015, 02:22:03 pm »
For when you're alt tabbing to do something else or chill on the main menu afk for a while and want to make sure you don't get invites from people or know who can join you if you're the one inviting. Nothing fancy, just something to indicate that you're away. Simple and useful.
6
Community Events / A not-SCS idea.
« on: November 12, 2015, 11:26:32 am »
I figured this deserved it's own thread.
Make a tournament specifically designed to try out quirky features for use in tournaments ie. random ship pairings, blindpicks
Put it in a vacant time where it doest coincide with any important events or life stuff for teams.
Only organize it when there are ideas worth testing, ie in the course of 6 weeks, you organize it for the 2nd and 5th week because you have a lump of tournament ideas by then. Or continously test the same ideas week-by-week and add in new ones as you go along.
And afterwards, make sure SCS is purified of any of this. There never was a set direction for SCS, during competitive events, it was an experimental tournament, between competitive events it was the closest you could get to competitive. The one trait it had was that it was there every week and you didnt have to commit to it for a long time like the bigger tournaments. It's time we started making a spin off of SCS that defines it's purpose better and lets players know what they're going into.
Ideally, it should be encouraged to have a limited amount of teams going in rather than it being public- if not forcing a quota of max 4 teams. This is to make sure it doesnt last too long and doesnt drain teams from playing more competitive events.
Make a tournament specifically designed to try out quirky features for use in tournaments ie. random ship pairings, blindpicks
Put it in a vacant time where it doest coincide with any important events or life stuff for teams.
Only organize it when there are ideas worth testing, ie in the course of 6 weeks, you organize it for the 2nd and 5th week because you have a lump of tournament ideas by then. Or continously test the same ideas week-by-week and add in new ones as you go along.
And afterwards, make sure SCS is purified of any of this. There never was a set direction for SCS, during competitive events, it was an experimental tournament, between competitive events it was the closest you could get to competitive. The one trait it had was that it was there every week and you didnt have to commit to it for a long time like the bigger tournaments. It's time we started making a spin off of SCS that defines it's purpose better and lets players know what they're going into.
Ideally, it should be encouraged to have a limited amount of teams going in rather than it being public- if not forcing a quota of max 4 teams. This is to make sure it doesnt last too long and doesnt drain teams from playing more competitive events.
7
The Pit / the PITiful thread
« on: September 21, 2015, 05:26:28 pm »
if you PITy someone, post here
also for making terriPLE puns
oh jeez, those were so bad I wanna jump out the window..
..into a PIT
and then PIT myself against Coiler inside a very scary small PIT
and then hopefully beat him and PII on his corpse
have you guys heard of PITCoin?
you know mines have a PITTING time aye?
I am MightyKeb and I fly gatling banshee SPITs in competitive
okay, its time I PIT a stop to this.
also for making terriPLE puns
oh jeez, those were so bad I wanna jump out the window..
..into a PIT
and then PIT myself against Coiler inside a very scary small PIT
and then hopefully beat him and PII on his corpse
have you guys heard of PITCoin?
you know mines have a PITTING time aye?
I am MightyKeb and I fly gatling banshee SPITs in competitive
okay, its time I PIT a stop to this.
8
Gameplay / 3v3 Paritan Rumble
« on: September 16, 2015, 02:59:18 pm »
Seeing as the new map was overlooked by most of the features in this patch, I'd like to gather feedback into a single organized thread. Discuss.
I've played it a few times after the patch, and personally I'm not sure what I feel about it. Please inform me if there are any changes from the 2v2 version but it seems to be that there isn't, the matches were incredibly chaotic as fights generally would start before the teams could organize very well and there was -very little- room that one could call a "No man's land". Although my feedback may deliver results only relative to specific ships and tactics, currently It reminds me of Duel at Dawn in 3v3 form.
Personally, I'd like to see the map enlargened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOrECP0byxY The first map in this video is Paritan Rumble, although it seems from the map that previously it had a much larger and open exterior. I don't know why it was shrunk to what it is now but I assume it was meant to make it less canyon-ambushy. I think the 3v3 paritan might need this. Otherwise, perhaps putting the Labyrinth globe in the middle would make it hell of a lot better as it'd create a larger neutral territory, and sort of a no-go zone for teams if a sniper ship or two was involved so as to encourage teams to reconsider their options when charging into the fight, and make it a little bit long enough to be more interesting.
I've played it a few times after the patch, and personally I'm not sure what I feel about it. Please inform me if there are any changes from the 2v2 version but it seems to be that there isn't, the matches were incredibly chaotic as fights generally would start before the teams could organize very well and there was -very little- room that one could call a "No man's land". Although my feedback may deliver results only relative to specific ships and tactics, currently It reminds me of Duel at Dawn in 3v3 form.
Personally, I'd like to see the map enlargened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOrECP0byxY The first map in this video is Paritan Rumble, although it seems from the map that previously it had a much larger and open exterior. I don't know why it was shrunk to what it is now but I assume it was meant to make it less canyon-ambushy. I think the 3v3 paritan might need this. Otherwise, perhaps putting the Labyrinth globe in the middle would make it hell of a lot better as it'd create a larger neutral territory, and sort of a no-go zone for teams if a sniper ship or two was involved so as to encourage teams to reconsider their options when charging into the fight, and make it a little bit long enough to be more interesting.
9
Gameplay / The Current Meta.
« on: September 07, 2015, 07:26:14 am »
Ever since gat mortar pyra was dethroned in February I've had some difficulty nailing down the current meta for competitive. Is there a solid opinion on this as of yet?
So far I've seen a big influx in mobulas as of late. It seems that the versatility of artemis' disable and mediocre kill power and the playstyle freedom hades offers has become the new, reliable go-to kill ship, formerly this was the well rounded gat mortar pyra. Junker meta, just like the junker itself, seems to have survived with little harm and thrives around mobula's level partially thanks to carronade nerfs. Galleon, Spire and Fish have also stepped up as not only can they fight carronades more effectively with their vulnerable balloons, but they are also able to utilize the new hwacha very well. But this is balanced out by the excessive usage of Artemis namely on junkers and mobulas. Hwachafish also seems to have taken blenderfish's place in the meta, being much more reliable than before.
I appreciate any efforts to add to this observation or correct me on anything posted above.
So far I've seen a big influx in mobulas as of late. It seems that the versatility of artemis' disable and mediocre kill power and the playstyle freedom hades offers has become the new, reliable go-to kill ship, formerly this was the well rounded gat mortar pyra. Junker meta, just like the junker itself, seems to have survived with little harm and thrives around mobula's level partially thanks to carronade nerfs. Galleon, Spire and Fish have also stepped up as not only can they fight carronades more effectively with their vulnerable balloons, but they are also able to utilize the new hwacha very well. But this is balanced out by the excessive usage of Artemis namely on junkers and mobulas. Hwachafish also seems to have taken blenderfish's place in the meta, being much more reliable than before.
I appreciate any efforts to add to this observation or correct me on anything posted above.
10
Gameplay / Hwacha and Pyramidion Balance?
« on: July 29, 2015, 08:58:39 am »
I think it's about time that we've discussed the current Hwacha. I personally think it was a damn fine gun that was overshadowed a little bit by heavy clip heavy carro up until this buff, which not only solved that problem but created another- that being guaranteed 2-3 component snipes with burst rounds every 12 seconds and the occassional midrange complete disables of ships like pyras and junkers. It's easily the best heavy weapon in the game at the moment.
Regarding pyramidion, I stand by the idea that it would be in a good place if atleast one of the nerfs were reverted, but I'm conflicted as to which. 700 hull would definitely fit with the theme of the ship, but at the same time, there are only 3 "Dogfightey" ships in the game: Squid, Goldfish and Pyramidion in comparison to Spire, Mobula, Junker and Galleon, which all promote firepower and battlefield presence (Exceptions can be made for Junker). Pyramidion fits much less so in this classification after the acceleration nerf and I think it would be beneficial for the game to return it instead.
Regarding pyramidion, I stand by the idea that it would be in a good place if atleast one of the nerfs were reverted, but I'm conflicted as to which. 700 hull would definitely fit with the theme of the ship, but at the same time, there are only 3 "Dogfightey" ships in the game: Squid, Goldfish and Pyramidion in comparison to Spire, Mobula, Junker and Galleon, which all promote firepower and battlefield presence (Exceptions can be made for Junker). Pyramidion fits much less so in this classification after the acceleration nerf and I think it would be beneficial for the game to return it instead.
11
Gameplay / Airship RPG Archetypes?
« on: July 22, 2015, 08:05:33 pm »
Someone's made a comparison of my piloting style in accordance with class based RPG archetypes so I started wondering about the comparisons. Here's some food for thought to start off of:
Warriors - Pyramidion, Galleon, Junker
Rogues - Squid, Goldfish
Wizards - Mobula, Spire (Crafek was right, spire IS a wizard.)
Unfortunately I wasnt able to provide more elaborate classification of the ships accordingly to the subclasses of these professions (Paladin, Cleric, Templar etc) because I'm not very well informed on it and it seems to take some digging to, which I wont be able to do now. Feel free to add up on this theory and elaborate on it if you can.
Warriors - Pyramidion, Galleon, Junker
Rogues - Squid, Goldfish
Wizards - Mobula, Spire (Crafek was right, spire IS a wizard.)
Unfortunately I wasnt able to provide more elaborate classification of the ships accordingly to the subclasses of these professions (Paladin, Cleric, Templar etc) because I'm not very well informed on it and it seems to take some digging to, which I wont be able to do now. Feel free to add up on this theory and elaborate on it if you can.
12
Gameplay / Problem with gunner/Two engineering slots on gunners?
« on: July 01, 2015, 05:17:53 pm »
I've seen this thrown around by Pies alot for a while, and I'd just like to bring it up again.
First of all, Why?
Let's look at the comparison between Gunner and Pilot. Both of these classes lack heavily in two areas, their common ground being the lack of engineering tools.
Captain/Pilot:
Captain's tools tend to be irrelevant most of the time and only comes into play when a component/components of value are damaged and it becomes ultimately pointless to keep piloting for a short amount of time. Even so, some ships' layouts don't permit this style to an extent at all (Squid, Goldfish, Mobula). Couple that with pilot's array of tools that benefit their ship in some way or other, I'd say pilot meta wouldnt really change even if you took their engineering slot away completely.
Gunner:
This is where the problem starts. What happens when a class that is effective as long as it's functioning as intended in a specific position, (Think pilot on the helm), gets forced out of that position in some way or another? I'm looking at you, Artemis and Flamethrower. While I don't have many problems with these two weapons and anything of similiar nature, I feel that gunner can easily become redundant as soon as they, and other disabler weapons come into play. What if there was an item or a function in the game that forced the pilot out of his helm? Fire stacks maybe? Engineer would end up reigning supreme. Gunner's effectiveness relies completely on a specific, interactable and destroyable component type that the engineer's playstyle encompasses in both maintaining and in some cases, using aswell. Unlike the pilot, who helps the ship function from a specific, undestroyable position that he can go as far as to force his crew out of should they take it from him. Furthermore, no matter where you look at it, gunner is considered "crew" and therefore has much more freedom to move about and interact with the ship than the pilot. And in some cases, he HAS to do this. This is part of the reason why competitive teams run triple engineers incredibly often. They simply lack the reactive power of a mallet-spanner or even pipewrench-chemspray. Ultimately, Pilot is countered by disabling 4-5 components (Engines and balloon), while gunner is, in most cases, countered by disabling 1 component due to the nature of how crew positions have evolved throughout the game. This is also another strong point of the engineer - It has no hard counters. The rest of the classes are countered by disabling components that allow them to function effectively- Engineer's literal job is to deal with those disables. If anything, they -counter- disables. Fire, Shatter, you name it.
So what would happen if gunner was given two engineer slots?
Two gunner builds would be viable. Period. Scary, isn't it? Well no. Let's imagine your typical metamidion being maximized to it's effectiveness with 2 gunners:
Top Right Gatling: Lesmok, Greased, Heatsink. Kit: Pipe wrench, Buff hammer. For once, gunner is almost exactly equal to, if not superior to, a buff engineer on something that isnt mines or lumberjack. This guy can do anything a buff engineer can do, with the added bonus of having an ammo handy for any range. The only thing it falls short at is dealing with fire, which it can do anyway but at the slight cost of a decrease in range/damage due to how Heatsink works. But they can literally get around the damage part completely simply by having the buff hammer around. They would also be responsible for all buffs aboard the ship as the most optimal two gunner build I can think of would involve only this crewmember carrying it. Though that would mean the gatling would fire much later if they don't predict combat or spend too much time on the lower deck, which is less of a hassle when you're on the mortar, which needs to standby for some time before it starts becoming amazingly effective. Come to think of it, this build could be better with Mortar-right and Gat Left, but let's continue anyway.
Top Mortar: Same build Lesmok, Greased, Heatsink/Charged?/Incendiary?/SomeOtherAmmotype. Kit: Pipe Wrench, Chem/Ext. Suddenly, the mortar has become much, much more versatile. Not only will you able to unload on enemies with greased as usual, but you'll also be able to greatly extend your effective range and have an easier time chasing faster ships as if you were using the old Light Flak. And ontop of this versatility, you're also able to maintain your gun, the balloon, and potentially the entire ship against fires if the need arises.
Other situations include:
Galleon lower deck, Mallet-Spanner. In the regular 2-engi-1-gunner format, this would be nothing but a great buff to the lovely, situational and easily countered bulky mass that is the galleon.
Mobula: Top gun, Pipe Wrench-Buff. Since it's apparent that the Captain can help the gunner extinguish his gun, this would basically be a buff engineer that can control his range. A bit OP? I do agree that it's superior to buff engi top in almost every way, but gunner ammo types arent as powerful as the current buff engineer's fire control ability + damage boost on guns to begin with. Furthermore, this build would also fall short on assisting your engineers against fire damage, something you cant actually deal with without the pilot's support, thus further contributing to Mobula's vulnerability against this specific damage type.
Goldfish: front gun, Pipe-Buff/Mallet-Spanner: This would be a fair buff to the Goldfish aswell, and would also extend the meta, allowing the choice between damage/ship performance boost versus disable protection.
Spire: Lower deck heavy gun, Pipe Wrench/Chem: This in particular would work VERY well with spire builds that encourage double engineer top and leave the gunner alone downstairs, as not only will he be able to take ammo types for two different guns to maximize his effectiveness in regards to gun versatility, but you'll also be able to perform chem cycles on the lower deck without one of the engineers having to jump down and decrease top deck's survivability. I could see this working very well with the hwacha's reload time, but it could still be a bit cumbersome to perform in combat.
So would gunners be OP now? Well, perhaps it might seem a bit powerful in comparison to Double engis-one gunner format, but for instance, our first example of a metamidion completely fails to exceed past the power of a triple engineer metamidion, which would basically have on top, a mallet-spanner gunner with the added bonus of a buff hammer + a buff engi near balloon, which makes it much easier to get the damage boost on both of your guns at the expense of controlling range.
Would the gunner meta that follows after end up outclassing Double-Engi-One-Gunner setups? I dont know, maybe. But I'd rather have double gunners stand up as a fair sidegrade to Triple Engis than for muse to discriminate gunner gameplay wise any further.
I think I'm a bit done for now. Discuss, if I haven't covered literally everything already.
First of all, Why?
Let's look at the comparison between Gunner and Pilot. Both of these classes lack heavily in two areas, their common ground being the lack of engineering tools.
Captain/Pilot:
Captain's tools tend to be irrelevant most of the time and only comes into play when a component/components of value are damaged and it becomes ultimately pointless to keep piloting for a short amount of time. Even so, some ships' layouts don't permit this style to an extent at all (Squid, Goldfish, Mobula). Couple that with pilot's array of tools that benefit their ship in some way or other, I'd say pilot meta wouldnt really change even if you took their engineering slot away completely.
Gunner:
This is where the problem starts. What happens when a class that is effective as long as it's functioning as intended in a specific position, (Think pilot on the helm), gets forced out of that position in some way or another? I'm looking at you, Artemis and Flamethrower. While I don't have many problems with these two weapons and anything of similiar nature, I feel that gunner can easily become redundant as soon as they, and other disabler weapons come into play. What if there was an item or a function in the game that forced the pilot out of his helm? Fire stacks maybe? Engineer would end up reigning supreme. Gunner's effectiveness relies completely on a specific, interactable and destroyable component type that the engineer's playstyle encompasses in both maintaining and in some cases, using aswell. Unlike the pilot, who helps the ship function from a specific, undestroyable position that he can go as far as to force his crew out of should they take it from him. Furthermore, no matter where you look at it, gunner is considered "crew" and therefore has much more freedom to move about and interact with the ship than the pilot. And in some cases, he HAS to do this. This is part of the reason why competitive teams run triple engineers incredibly often. They simply lack the reactive power of a mallet-spanner or even pipewrench-chemspray. Ultimately, Pilot is countered by disabling 4-5 components (Engines and balloon), while gunner is, in most cases, countered by disabling 1 component due to the nature of how crew positions have evolved throughout the game. This is also another strong point of the engineer - It has no hard counters. The rest of the classes are countered by disabling components that allow them to function effectively- Engineer's literal job is to deal with those disables. If anything, they -counter- disables. Fire, Shatter, you name it.
So what would happen if gunner was given two engineer slots?
Two gunner builds would be viable. Period. Scary, isn't it? Well no. Let's imagine your typical metamidion being maximized to it's effectiveness with 2 gunners:
Top Right Gatling: Lesmok, Greased, Heatsink. Kit: Pipe wrench, Buff hammer. For once, gunner is almost exactly equal to, if not superior to, a buff engineer on something that isnt mines or lumberjack. This guy can do anything a buff engineer can do, with the added bonus of having an ammo handy for any range. The only thing it falls short at is dealing with fire, which it can do anyway but at the slight cost of a decrease in range/damage due to how Heatsink works. But they can literally get around the damage part completely simply by having the buff hammer around. They would also be responsible for all buffs aboard the ship as the most optimal two gunner build I can think of would involve only this crewmember carrying it. Though that would mean the gatling would fire much later if they don't predict combat or spend too much time on the lower deck, which is less of a hassle when you're on the mortar, which needs to standby for some time before it starts becoming amazingly effective. Come to think of it, this build could be better with Mortar-right and Gat Left, but let's continue anyway.
Top Mortar: Same build Lesmok, Greased, Heatsink/Charged?/Incendiary?/SomeOtherAmmotype. Kit: Pipe Wrench, Chem/Ext. Suddenly, the mortar has become much, much more versatile. Not only will you able to unload on enemies with greased as usual, but you'll also be able to greatly extend your effective range and have an easier time chasing faster ships as if you were using the old Light Flak. And ontop of this versatility, you're also able to maintain your gun, the balloon, and potentially the entire ship against fires if the need arises.
Other situations include:
Galleon lower deck, Mallet-Spanner. In the regular 2-engi-1-gunner format, this would be nothing but a great buff to the lovely, situational and easily countered bulky mass that is the galleon.
Mobula: Top gun, Pipe Wrench-Buff. Since it's apparent that the Captain can help the gunner extinguish his gun, this would basically be a buff engineer that can control his range. A bit OP? I do agree that it's superior to buff engi top in almost every way, but gunner ammo types arent as powerful as the current buff engineer's fire control ability + damage boost on guns to begin with. Furthermore, this build would also fall short on assisting your engineers against fire damage, something you cant actually deal with without the pilot's support, thus further contributing to Mobula's vulnerability against this specific damage type.
Goldfish: front gun, Pipe-Buff/Mallet-Spanner: This would be a fair buff to the Goldfish aswell, and would also extend the meta, allowing the choice between damage/ship performance boost versus disable protection.
Spire: Lower deck heavy gun, Pipe Wrench/Chem: This in particular would work VERY well with spire builds that encourage double engineer top and leave the gunner alone downstairs, as not only will he be able to take ammo types for two different guns to maximize his effectiveness in regards to gun versatility, but you'll also be able to perform chem cycles on the lower deck without one of the engineers having to jump down and decrease top deck's survivability. I could see this working very well with the hwacha's reload time, but it could still be a bit cumbersome to perform in combat.
So would gunners be OP now? Well, perhaps it might seem a bit powerful in comparison to Double engis-one gunner format, but for instance, our first example of a metamidion completely fails to exceed past the power of a triple engineer metamidion, which would basically have on top, a mallet-spanner gunner with the added bonus of a buff hammer + a buff engi near balloon, which makes it much easier to get the damage boost on both of your guns at the expense of controlling range.
Would the gunner meta that follows after end up outclassing Double-Engi-One-Gunner setups? I dont know, maybe. But I'd rather have double gunners stand up as a fair sidegrade to Triple Engis than for muse to discriminate gunner gameplay wise any further.
I think I'm a bit done for now. Discuss, if I haven't covered literally everything already.
13
Q&A / Best and Worst Hwacha Angles for every ship?
« on: June 13, 2015, 06:07:28 pm »
Just bringing out an absent thought since the hwacha buff. Probably wouldn't take that long to uncover them all but I havent had enough experience with the ins and outs of a hwacha so I leave this to the more experienced veteran playerbase. Ie, I think the top of a pyra's front is almost horrible for really disabling anything or a Junker's front where you have to make up your mind on which side to focus and the main engine is sitting at the opposite side safely.
So what are they?
So what are they?
14
Feedback and Suggestions / Light Harpoon
« on: April 12, 2015, 03:24:22 am »
I think we all agree that Harpoon doesnt have a particular place nor a demand for a place in the list of viable weapons. It gains you speed alright, but it should also be a fairly good tool for chasing. Tested that out yesterday and found that even something with such a small mass as squid could fly away the harpoon until it detached. I think the main problem with harpoon is how inconsistent it is. It's shot spread is affected by ship movement as if you're Indiana Jones running from a collapsing cave and thus is hard to aim, and very unforgiving when you miss thanks to the reload time. While guns with much shorter reloads can be muuuch more effective than harpoon.
Overall, it's both hard to pick up and master, compared to something like Minotaur, which also revolves around controlling airships' movement but does a much better job and is easier to use. The current harpoon definitely needs some kind of buff or else it'll be best at what it does now: An achievement grinding tool.
Overall, it's both hard to pick up and master, compared to something like Minotaur, which also revolves around controlling airships' movement but does a much better job and is easier to use. The current harpoon definitely needs some kind of buff or else it'll be best at what it does now: An achievement grinding tool.
15
Q&A / Light Harpoon
« on: April 12, 2015, 02:32:30 am »
I think we all agree that Harpoon doesnt have a particular place nor a demand for a place in the list of viable weapons. It gains you speed alright, but it should also be a fairly good tool for chasing. Tested that out yesterday and found that even something with such a small mass as squid could fly away the harpoon until it detached. I think the main problem with harpoon is how inconsistent it is. It's shot spread is affected by ship movement as if you're Indiana Jones running from a collapsing cave and thus is hard to aim, and very unforgiving when you miss thanks to the reload time. While guns with much shorter reloads can be muuuch more effective than harpoon.
Overall, it's both hard to pick up and master, compared to something like Minotaur, which also revolves around controlling airships' movement but does a much better job and is easier to use. The current harpoon definitely needs some kind of buff or else it'll be best at what it does now: An achievement grinding tool.
Overall, it's both hard to pick up and master, compared to something like Minotaur, which also revolves around controlling airships' movement but does a much better job and is easier to use. The current harpoon definitely needs some kind of buff or else it'll be best at what it does now: An achievement grinding tool.
Pages: [1] 2