Guns Of Icarus Online
Info => Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: Kira Wa Nai on January 16, 2017, 04:48:11 pm
-
Before I begin, I want to apologize if this post comes off as somewhat rude - I tried my best to make it polite and level headed, but the russian definition of “polite and level headed” differs a lot from the american one and I am not really good at producing texts that fit the latter.
This post is a compilation of opinions of Polaris Company members written after the latest Spire playtest.
Short summary:
We are dissatisfied with the development and balance process of Skirmish mode.
In our opinion, the game has a lot of potential which isn’t harnessed by the dev team due to either lack of experience or conscious decision to ignore it.
We would like to ask for at least a promise of post-Alliance-release change in said process.
And now to the actual post.
Old players might remember who Polaris Company is - an old russian clan that played competitive and had mostly been incative for the past two and a half years. We love this game and, despite it becoming pretty stale and boring for us, still come back occasionally. We also love the Spire, and the news of it being changed managed to get many of our members to reset their two-year long offline timers. Having participated in the two “Tank Spire” playtests, we have become desperate enough to overcome our dislike of community interaction and write this plea.
This post is about the Skirmish mode (deathmatch in particular), its development and balance process and its future.
Skirmish mode is a competitive, cooperative PVP game with very high skill ceiling.
It also has a very steep learning curve, forcing new players into interaction with the older ones.
Therefore, it needs a few vital components to exist - a community, a competitive scene and a player-developer feedback loop to keep the game interesting.
Due to either inexperience or excessive focus on Alliance, only the community part has been somewhat nurtured by the dev team. The competitive scene was largely powered by the efforts of a few community contributors with occasional blessing by Keyvias and the player-developer feedback loop is nonexistent.
The last part is, in our opinion, the biggest problem.
GoIO is hard to balance, it is hard to introduce new things into it and it’s hard to change whatever is already in the game. Balancing such a game requires a complete, coherent vision regarding the following questions:
- How is the game meant to be played?
- By whom is the game meant to be played?
- How long of a future do we see for this game?
Such vision is necessary to produce coherent, sensible changes to game mechanics, balance and content. It needs to be constantly discussed, criticized, and iterated upon - all as transparently as possible, to give the target audience whatever it desires.
This hasn’t been happening for the past four years and it isn’t happening now.
In our opinion, if it doesn’t start very soon, the game will die shortly after the initial Alliance euphoria is over.
What is happening right now feels, frankly, like a complete neglect of the game by its developers.
Such a vision doesn't seem to exist at all.
The key figure here is the person responsible for game balance.
To produce changes that actually make sense to be introduced into the game, this person has to closely interract with both casual and competitive communities, collect their feedback, openly propose and discuss changes, conduct playtests and only then make any decisions.
Right now, exactly none of this is happening.
Instead, this is:
(https://i.gyazo.com/d1b90245f301903d31eb4cc193911b25.png)
Please, don’t take this personally, I’m just trying to showcase how far from the optimal design process the game currently is.
The Spire playtest is another illustration of disconnect between the dev team and the community.
A group of players has been pushing for a playtest of “Tank Spire”, giving the dev team exact changes that they wanted to see.
Instead, the test server had something insane. The changes on it just didn’t make sense. They accomplished exactly nothing to fix whatever problem Spire has, they weren’t even a direct implementation of community’s proposal. They looked absurd to anyone who actually plays the game and knows the ship.
Its primary defense mechanism was taken away with nothing of use given in return. Its firepower was taken away with nothing of use given in return. Its maneuverability was taken away with nothing of use given in return. Why would anyone who actually plays the game do that?
And the person responsible for the game balance wasn’t present at the playtest to hear the dissatisfaction. Instead, community managers were. They are great people and we love them, but it’s not a CM’s job to do the game balance! They aren’t nearly good enough at intricacies of game mechanics to do a good job of translating player’s post-test ramblings into coherent feedback!
Said person has given up on reading forums too, so the only way to reach him is to PM him on the rare occasion when he is in game.
This shouldn’t be happening. Nothing will be accomplished this way. The feedback is distorted, the decision process is nontransparent, and there appears to be no actual vision of the game’s future.
The only thing used to do the balancing right now is numbers. Arc angles. Damage numbers. HP and armor points. Speeds.
Map design is not being used. It is as powerful of a balancing tool as the numbers are. Map changes can influence the meta tremendously, promoting or discouraging certain playstyles, making certain mechanics and ships more viable, and doing everything you want from a balance tool. Instead, the maps are almost exactly the same as they have been four years ago.
New content is not being used. Introducing a mechanic or a ship is an extremely powerful tool to do balance. Alliance has an enormous amount of content, sitting ready to be ported into Skirmish. It’s potential to affect gameplay is not harnessed. Since release, the following content had been added:
- Lumberjack
- Hades
- Mine Launcher
- Minotaur
- Canyon Ambush
- Labyrinth
- Refinery
Most of these were added in the first year and a half of game’s existence.
For the past two and a half years, the game has had very little new content to shake up the meta.
Please, Muse, do something. You have a passionate community that refuses to let the game die and gives you almost a carte blanche for changes.
Please, discuss how you see the Skirmish mode’s future. How you want it to be played. Whom you want to play it.
Post it for community to discuss and criticize. Listen to this feedback and make changes to it to make it match the community’s desires closer. Make this as transparent as possible.
Redo the balance process. Create a much closer interaction between the community representatives and the balance team. Turn the Hand of Balance into the Head of Balance and let the community hear his thoughts and plans. Conduct proper playtests with balance team present to hear and discuss the feedback. Utilize the currently unused map design and content addition.
We understand that the team is currently very busy with Alliance. We aren’t asking for you to start running like you are on fire and to immediately implement the changes described here.
But please, at least give us a promise that you will do this after Alliance is released. We love this game and really don’t want to see it die before we are done having fun in it.
P.S. If it wasn't obvious, the expected outcome of this post is a reply from Eric. Come out and play, we won’t bite you!
-
This is a well-worded, reasonable post. Let's not drag it through salt and dirt if we can. Don't give into the anger. That way lies the dark side.
-
I do agree with this article. I believe it shows the communities frustration in a non-hostile way.
-
To be fair, we did get two new game modes you didn't mention: VIP and Skyball, which I personally find very bad because they are basically only Squid and Goldfish modes. Skyball actually getting it's set of maps, although they are just re-used objects form the original maps, it proves that if Muse wants to, they can build stuff. All that stuff in Alliance mode is also proof that Muse can do everything that the players actually requested for the last two years. But then again, the seemingly lack of interest in skirmish mode seems proof to me that Muse doesn't want to implement any of those requests, else they would have done it by now, right?
-
as told by mr. Atruejedi about game balances, i believe that the devs should listen to the community instead of ignoring the people who know the game best. As for devs not playing the game, i think they should. ignoring the requests of the player base is not cool. NOT COOL.
-
What with all I can say and have experienced in my one year of playing this game is just how little it's changed. I don't expect this game to own up to something like Overwatch where new content gets pushed every month. But as I write this, only two real things have happened since I started: Lochnagar change and Skyball.
I can understand that the team is VERY determined to make Alliance perfect for everyone who plays, will play, and has ever played. But there's one problem. 4 months into the game and I could see how flawed it was. It had flaws in a mode they had presumably deemed as good as it's ever gonna be, marked by their complete move to Alliance. Reason it's flawed?
The Hand of Balance doesn't play.
What with the numbers hardly changing to bring other guns into play; some ships being entirely useless on certain maps and only one ship could be used on others. It's not adding up.
-
#InTheTrenches #BalanceToTheForce #NerfGreased #NerfBurst #RestoreLoch #ChangeCharged #HowAboutAHowitzer #AdaptTheMaps #SupersizeSpectate #SkyballOverhaul #AuditTheSpawns #LuckOfTheSpawn #BalloonLivesMatter #TankSpire
Even if you disagree with any of the ideas posted above... you do agree Skirmish needs love or Skirmish will die. A shot has already breezed across our bow: Blackwake is on the horizon and our beloved Skirmish might soon be sent to the murky depths. The fact that #AdaptTheMaps has been begging for simple adaptations and has been (largely) ignored for almost a year is incredible to me. We have 4 vs. 4 Water Hazard VIP... yet Muse makes us wait months and months and months for a 4 vs. 4 Water Hazard Death Match version? Muse has completely mis-prioritized what's important to their actual success, and our game, which we actually play, suffers daily for it. Honestly, at this point, I wish Muse would outsource development of Skirmish to another company. My vote goes for Coffee Stain. They could make GOI great... and not again, because Muse never allowed GOI to become great. And that's what's so frustrating. The community knows this game could be an astounding, popular, critical success if only it was given the attention it deserves...
-
Just here to leave my +1
Were all pretty upset with the results of the tank spire testing...
-
I'm just going to throw my thoughts on this out there... the bells are tolling and the Rydr approaches; as all of us know Blackwake (if you live under a rock http://store.steampowered.com/app/420290/) is essentially a month away and call me prophetic but I see a large majority of players leaving if for no other reason than because that game offers hope. I'm not saying now is the time for change for I fear it is too late, however Muse really needs to do something positive NOW (within the next week) or else they wont have a game to improve. You've screwed around for weeks, months, years riding on the games initial success and it has caught up with you. People have tried to help, people have offered suggestions (besides Jedi's email spams) but they've fallen of deaf ears. You have been focusing so completely on alliance (which is imo a complete turd, you'd have to pay me to play it) at the expense of skirmish I honestly don't know if you've become blind to your own folly.
Tldr; you made your bed get ready to sleep in it. I don't care about being constructive, you can shit in one and and shit in the other but at the end of the day all you've got is shitty hands.
-
Many, most of you do not know who I am. I have no salutes. I've posted but a handful of times here. But I started playing Guns of Icarus Online in 2013.
I was absent from Guns of Icarus Online for three years. I bought it back in the sands of time, I backed the Kickstarter which has emerged as Alliance, and after a few months of regular play, I vanished. I did not return until late this past year, and I was shocked by what I saw. In the interim, there had been few substantive changes to the game, thus I had almost no learning curve and a very short adjustment period upon return. The primary differences were a lower hourly player count, general uncertainty about the survival of the game, and a weaker Muse presence. If one - precisely one - of the sixty people I knew in my first period with the game didn't notice me upon my reappearance, I would not be here today, but one did, and I rejoined the skirmish community.
We want Skirmish to succeed. We want Alliance to succeed. This is a niche where there is no real competition beyond the spectre of Blackwake, and Muse is fortunate to have one of the most dedicated, lasting core player communities I've ever seen, even in this metaphorical drought. Make use of us, reward our faith in you and our love of the game. Good development depends upon good engagement and good use of core players. From my own hobbyist experience, if you're going to make a game, you have to play it, and you have to listen to the people who play it.
-
So here's the thing. I love this post. A lot of things you wrote and feel have also been said by myself and many, many others of the community over the years. I'm glad you posted it, because it validates the community's frustrations the more that people come forward.
However, it doesn't matter. It won't change a god dam thing. Trust me. Look at all the clans and personalities that have disappeared. They're gone because they gave up caring. Many I've talked to say they won't come back until Eric is gone. Muse, don't believe me? Go hit up captain roy, zuka, mad maverick, salous, members of cake, members of any of the old clans and ask them.
But you see, Muse has built up this defense, this lie in their heads, that population has gone down because of every human's natural desire to eventually move on, this boredom that they aren't responsible for. Listen to a few firesides, and you'll hear them say these dives are natural, that people just come and go. They have their heads completely buried in the sand, because they intentionally do not want to face the truth. And no one shows that better than Eric, leading by example, if you will. Quitting the forum, a balance director who refuses to read feedback or show up to tests to hear feedback. He is everything wrong with this company.
Unfortunately, your cry for help is pointless. Accept what Eric gives you, and be quiet, or quit the game. I'm not saying that to be rude, I'm saying it because they are the only two real options. Eric does not give a crap about your opinion or anyone's besides his own, he never will, and he answers to no one.
-
#BringChungToJusitice
-
i think that i have a simple and really somewhat knitpick-y critique of neddie's post, and it is about a single word: AND in his final remark, as follows:
From my own hobbyist experience, if you're going to make a game, you have to play it, and you have to listen to the people who play it
i'm not sure you have to play it AND listen to the people who play it. theoretically there's an OR option to be considered. but i do think there isn't a third direction to go , and there's really few other options for making good solutions. you are going to either play the hell out of the game, and most of the passionate salty vets have, or listen to them.
i am going to suggest option two for the simple reason that there are a hell of a lot OF us still here. just look at the person-hours even a single of the competitive clans have put in. a single person simply cant compete with that. I'm not saying you don't care about your game, muse, i'm saying you mathematically cannot keep up.
the other thing ive suggested in teh past is that you seem to have forgotten that "perfect is the enemy of good" and that you are tryign too much to get it right ONCE after spending all thd time doing it (see ambush comes to shove update)
a awesome adage i heard from teh extra credit guys: fail faster, fail better. you need to take this to heart, and you cant spend another year doing it
-
I agree with all of the things that were said in this thread so far.
BTW Geek nothing wrong with any of what you said in your original post.
But I strongly feel that Muse should show a bigger presence in game. Muse should try and join vet lobbies and newer players alike. I feel that most of them have lost their touch with the game right now. And they have to regain it. Be it through feedback or through playing themselves.
-
Please, give us fully automatic flareguns. It would cure my cancer and give it to everyone else.
In all seriousness though, this game is fun, and would be absolutely astounding if its developers would show it a little more love. Please Muse, we're begging you.
-
The OP clearly comes from a place of care. I have only been playing since February last year, but already I have come to know a fantastic portion of the community wholeheartedly keeping the spirit alive by driving forward demands for improvements even as many give up. Good developers could only dream for such eager feedback, and to their credit Muse has taken some of that onboard with certain additions like 4v4 maps.
But if there is one thing that can be said at this point, it's that map variations are not enough. The idea that a developer responsible for balancing the game may not have played it at all for two years? That is icing on a poor excuse for a cake. It's a distressing realization to know that an active core of well meaning players is so helpless to do anything meaningful to keep the game they love alive. You can see it even in this thread - the despair, the concern and the recognition that no matter how much people cry any hope of getting through to the Devs is slim to none.
Population drift is natural, but that is no excuse for such a prominent attitude of disinterest that only helps to drive players further away. Alliance has its unique place, but Skirmish is the very core of what makes GOI such an innovative multiplayer title among a sea of endless codshmups and Mobas. So much potential is being squandered and it shouldn't be.
At this point, something needs to change on a meta level to reinvigorate interest. A new map might do it, or a new game mode, a new ship or a new gun … but for god sake LISTEN TO THE PLAYERS. Heck, give them the tools and they'd probably fix it for you out of pity. They clearly know the game better than some of your own staff, Muse !
P.S. I have already sent an email about it, but at least consider a FREE FOR ALL mode. A four team skirmish (1v1v1v1 or 2v2v2v2) would be such a simple but fundamentally fresh change to the normal ebb and flow of a match. It would be like a whole new game, and all it takes is some adjusted spawn points and adding two extra team colors.
-
I think it's safe to say I'm not the only one who thought Alliance would either be a make or break for GOIO; either a time of revival or ignorance.
Over the past three years since I first began playing Guns, there has not been a single content update to skirmish. This is absurd, especially for this genre of game. Even then skirmish hung in Alliance's shadow, and that is nearly unfathomable. Alliance finally entered the public eye (for real and after many, many delays) and I personally did not enjoy it. That's not to speak of it's quality, for that's an entirely different topic. The point is this: Alliance split this already small community in half in terms of lobby population, and I think this is another example of Muse misjudging their game and the community as a whole.
Listen, Muse! So many people here want your success! We need to work together! You need us just like we need you!
WAKE UP!
You know what needs to be done.
I want to take this chance to thank the greater GOIO community for working so hard towards GOIO's success. It's truly been an amazing experience to watch and be involved in.
-
I have 1700 hours in this game. I paid 5 dollars for it.
-
I have played this game for just over a year now. I have competed in the BBR, SCS, and the Sprocket league tournament. I am a fairly new player, yet I still remember when I could get online and thereally would be 600 people online. Yet as a patron of this game, I feel thathat I have been cheated. I was forced to move to other games. Warframe is a prime example of how a dev team should interact with thier players. When problems are brought up in thier live chats, the problem is A:fixed within weeks or B: a detailed letter is sent out to the players telling them why it hasn't been fixed and what thier plan is to adress any further grievances.
Sadly here we have begged for years that new content needs too be added to scirmish mode. PLEASE MUSE. WE ARE BEGGING YOU. WE DON'T WANT THIS GAME TO DIE. HEAD OUR PLEAS. please...
-
I'm rather glad this post exists. I'm rather glad a lot of people have shown that they agree with this post because I and most of the people I know have been saying precisely this for years. Two years ago, this game seemed to have the monopoly on team-based, multi-role, ship-centric combat. Now games like Pulsar, World's Adrift, Black Wake, among others stand to out-rite replace GoIO for many of us. Hell, when you look at World's Adrift, you see Adventure mode as it was laid out by muse 4 years ago taking shape. Except better.
When discussing this thread with some friends who used to play GoIO, someone suggested 'nitty gritty things like hours spent carfefully rebalancing and testing keep the old guard happy but they don't keep the lights on'. This indicates to me that a lot of the issues we're running into as a community with muse has to do with it's business model. They've got micro-transactions, yes, but primarily they rely on sales of the game. That puts them in a place where developing new content and continuously balancing it doesn't bring in revenue. Creating a new game and selling it does. This is why I don't say what I'm about to say lightly or with malice and I want to be as helpful as possible when I make this suggestion:
Muse is going to go bankrupt if they can't give people a reason to stick around and play Skirmish. Alliance isn't going to keep people interested, it's not going to bring enough new people into the game to keep muse afloat. I promise. Introduce new REAL content for skirmish, introduce a tech tree with micro-transactions to help fund the muse team while creating new content for a game people have already paid for, and maybe. MAYBE then muse stands a chance. But I'm afraid muse has already shot themselves in the foot and let it become gangrenous. My projection, Muse shuts its doors by May 2018. But that's not a bad thing. Then the team can take their new(ish)found collective experiences and go on to do bigger and better things.
-
I used to care about the future of this game. I used to submit feedback and test Alliance and be excited and optimistic. I hoped.
The future never came. The devs never listened. Excitement turned to disappointment and hope turned to apathy.
Now I play Overwatch.
-
I'm rather glad this post exists. I'm rather glad a lot of people have shown that they agree with this post because I and most of the people I know have been saying precisely this for years. Two years ago, this game seemed to have the monopoly on team-based, multi-role, ship-centric combat. Now games like Pulsar, World's Adrift, Black Wake, among others stand to out-rite replace GoIO for many of us. Hell, when you look at World's Adrift, you see Adventure mode as it was laid out by muse 4 years ago taking shape. Except better.
When discussing this thread with some friends who used to play GoIO, someone suggested 'nitty gritty things like hours spent carfefully rebalancing and testing keep the old guard happy but they don't keep the lights on'. This indicates to me that a lot of the issues we're running into as a community with muse has to do with it's business model. They've got micro-transactions, yes, but primarily they rely on sales of the game. That puts them in a place where developing new content and continuously balancing it doesn't bring in revenue. Creating a new game and selling it does. This is why I don't say what I'm about to say lightly or with malice and I want to be as helpful as possible when I make this suggestion:
Muse is going to go bankrupt if they can't give people a reason to stick around and play Skirmish. Alliance isn't going to keep people interested, it's not going to bring enough new people into the game to keep muse afloat. I promise. Introduce new REAL content for skirmish, introduce a tech tree with micro-transactions to help fund the muse team while creating new content for a game people have already paid for, and maybe. MAYBE then muse stands a chance. But I'm afraid muse has already shot themselves in the foot and let it become gangrenous. My projection, Muse shuts its doors by May 2018. But that's not a bad thing. Then the team can take their new(ish)found collective experiences and go on to do bigger and better things.
It's crazy how much fun world's adrift is, and how much it is like adventure mode should have been. Thats what we call it in TB, the real adventure mode.
-
I used to care about the future of this game. I used to submit feedback and test Alliance and be excited and optimistic. I hoped.
The future never came. The devs never listened. Excitement turned to disappointment and hope turned to apathy.
Now I play Overwatch.
+1
ps fight me, TBbyron#1253
-
(https://i.memecaptain.com/gend_images/6ZdtAg.jpg)
-
This is one of the best communities I have been a part of. I really enjoy all the good times I've had with many different people here. It would be in the best interest of Muse to take into account for what the people that allow their product to continue to exist with success in mind if there is any sort of hope for it to continue to thrive. Listen to those that allow your community to continue to exist and thrive.
PS. Nightmap!
-
+1 I left the game for this reason.
-
A well thought out post by the OP that summarizes the communities feelings on the matter in a non-hostile way.
+1
I've backed since the Kickstarter and launch. I do not mean this as a threat or anything of the sort, but I've had my eye on blackwake now for a while if the blackwake devs seem more responsive and in touch with their community I may gravitate to that game for my teamwork MOBA fix. Muse may have held that crown when guns of icarus released, but their laser-focus on alliance mode at the cost of interaction with their steady, hardcore playerbase really did make it seem like they were not listening or out of touch with the feedback of both the casual and the competitive skirmish community.
As far as what you can do now to get on-course: Try to get #tankspire changed and tested again this week, try to add the heavy mine grenade launcher to skirmish the next; and for goodness sake, stay in the lobby to listen to feedback after rather than leave immediately. Listen and act upon the feedback that the few left that wants this game to survive offer. It's all we've got left to offer. Be more responsive. Spend time with the community on fight the devs event rather than silencing all microphones for the sake of a youtuber-style stream. Engage your community and they will stay and grow in spite of the competition.
Muse, it's time to rise to the challenge and keep your throne! You are the veterans to take on the up-and-coming competition. Please let our insightful and passionate feedback guide you to greatness through the storm ahead. Ignore it at your peril and be lost in the black wake of similar games to come.
-
When I got the Tankspire's proposed stats, I knew there was an issue; now I understand why. Numbers and statistics are critical to good balance, but are not the entire picture: the sum of the parts is not always equal to the whole. Perception is almost as important as the actual stats: look at how many people declare the Minotaur "pointless", while a few have looked past its apparent weakness and found a powerful tool. The way people think about something changes how it is used, which can make a sub-par gun a mainstay, while more powerful ones are not used to their full potential. And the only way to find out how people feel about something, is to ask, or to experience it yourself, and reflect on that experience.
On the other hand, you are trying to change things; too much focus on how it is now can make it harder to see what it could be. Conversely, if you try to change something without knowing how it works, it's easy to accidentally change what makes it work in the first place. Imagine trying to upgrade a computer without knowing how it works. It's easy enough to get the case open, but if you plug something in backwards, it's not going to end well.
Thus, when the proposed changes include altering the gun arcs, we can assume that not enough is known about the current function. As almost anyone who has flown on a spire knows, it's only attraction is the ability to have all three, or even four guns, one of them heavy, on target at once. It's weak health is an incentive to kill the enemy before they can shoot at you. And while this was an experiment to see if changing that fundamental weakness would be practical, that core ability to keep all guns on target is so central to the design that changing it would result in a completely different ship. In this case, a goldfish.
There are fundamental features that define each ship; while they can be changed, extreme care must be taken while doing so. To extend the computer analogy above, these features are not the graphics cards, the RAM, or even the CPU: they are the power supply; the bit that, if you mess with too much, makes every other adjustment pointless. However, once you understand how and why it works, it can be adjusted safely.
There is nothing fundamental wrong with a tank spire. I've personally heard several interesting ideas as to how it could be done. But the proposed changes reveal not only a lack of understanding as to what makes a spire work, it reveals a lack of understanding as to the different ways things can be balanced. Adjusting the turning rate on the spire affects it hugely. Component health, and the tools it rewards, is why popping the balloon on a squid is more valuable than popping a junker. Crew placement and routes are why a mobula armor break is more problematic then a goldfish's, or even a pyra's. Forwards speed is why a galleon is a great teammate for king of the hill, and a regrettable one for crazy king. Each of these factors affects the usage in different ways, and it is important to see what changes one creates before layering on others.
TL;DR:
For changes to be effectively made, you must understand how the item currently works.
This understanding is based not only on stats & numbers, but on perception and use, which can change, and are only measurable via interaction with the system.
-
I agree that the management process of this game needs to be addressed. I was told via email back in April last year that they were working on creating a mail system in-game so you didn't have to wait until someone randomly came online. That of course, never happened. Many things need an update, and Muse needs to get on that, once the online players in the week fall back to a low of 50 and lows of 5 sometimes late at night, then it's too late.
It sounds like there is a problem with communication in-between the developers, that should be the first thing to address so people give reliable updates and perform their tasks efficiently.
-
Do devs even look at these forums? You have not received a response. Sorry everyone but Games dead lol. Move on, go support devs that actually care about their game. Oh yeah games dead lol.
-
Thus, when the proposed changes include altering the gun arcs, we can assume that not enough is known about the current function. As almost anyone who has flown on a spire knows, it's only attraction is the ability to have all three, or even four guns, one of them heavy, on target at once.
Well, sir, you are looking at the one that made all of the original stat change suggestions (not the botched ones that were put in), and I assure you that I am more than familiar with every build possible on the Spire, their uses, weaknesses, and even pioneered some of the current metas. I personally helped shape what the Spire is today through dedicated testing in devapp. You are welcome.
Now, you are under the impression that Tank Spire test was meant to adjust how it is currently used. That is wrong. It is meant to completely shatter the mold and remake it as originally intended and craft it into a heavy support ship WITHOUT all the forward facing firepower. The Spire as it is now, though fun, is a wrong turn that was taken the day it was released as a glass cannon with only two forward facing guns. Look at the description in the books. It is a heavy duty city defense platform, not a weak mobile artillery piece. Removing one gun and replacing it with an engine would have zero effect on that. The gun arcs should never have changed. The armor and hull should have been put where they belonged, making the Spire the heavyweight Queen of the skies it was meant to be.
I personally don't care what its current use is (which I know better than most players). This test was not about that. It was supposed to be a big "What if the Spire played to its actual original design instead of pretending to be made out of gray-painted balsa wood?" This is why people are upset. The stats that were put in kept it right square in the glass cannon class.
To go with your computer analogy, the change to the Spire is not to upgrade a PC. It is to tell your grandma to stop using it as a toaster.
Finally, I do think your understanding of ships may be skewed if you think the Galleon's speed is 'regrettable' on CK, since it is equal to a Pyramidian. Only Squid and Goldfish are faster. It is only regrettable if you don't have a good strategy. On CK, its balloon is much more of a weak point than its speed. I have seen all ships used very successfully by good pilots on CK, and have done so myself (with the exception of Squid).
Do devs even look at these forums? You have not received a response. Sorry everyone but Games dead lol. Move on, go support devs that actually care about their game. Oh yeah games dead lol.
It is US holiday right now. They are not in the offices.
-
Yeah. The frustration is we asked for tankspire and we got junkerspire (spunker). Just to be clear. I don't think Shas'ui was arguing with you Richard, I just thing they wanted to point out that the arc changes reflected a misunderstanding about what makes the spire unique from other ships. I know you're looking to break the mold, but the way muse tiptoed into the changes does reflect some trepidation at best or some misunderstanding at worst.
But overlooking the arc changes, the changes made in the playtest pointed out that the devs had some misunderstandings about the spire's effectiveness at long range and about how engagements work in GOIO skirmish. They increased armor and left the permahull still rather lacking. That, combined with the massive hitbox, made the spire still a glass cannon. In-game during the playtest they theorized that the armor would allow it to hold up better at long range, but they did not consider the easy-to-disable locations of the guns and the easy-to-hit vertical profile. These are deathknells to attacking at long range and such a change to armor would never be enough for the spire to participate in a long-range duel due to the emphasis on the disable weaponry at such range. Simply adding armor does not increase a ship's effectiveness at long range.
So Sash'ui has a point there, the devs misunderstood how the spire worked at long range. This is sort of the root of the frustration that I have (and maybe the community has). The lack of understanding between feedback and the devs. The devs can get really caught up in how ships *should* work, that it seems, to me at least, it's hard to demonstrate how they *actually* work with our feedback. (Until I picked metagally in the playtest and gave them an inspireing lesson:P)
Furthermore, it shows a misunderstanding about long-range engagements in GOIO. The long-range engagements are primarily disable-focused, to disable guns or balloon and allow an ally room to approach or to soften a ship up before moving in with the close-range killguns. The exception is the galleon, but even metagalleon doesn't give up disable capability as it sports a lumberjack.
Still, a heavy, forward-facing, quadfecta needs to stay on the (hopefully) incoming tankspire. Otherwise, as Shas'ui pointed out, it will not be a spire anymore, but a rather worse goldfish and it's niche will still be overlooked for the more manuverable counterpart. It's gotta keep the 2light+1heavy trifecta that no other ship offers at least. How it uses that trifecta will change drastically based on how tanky it becomes. Hopefully tanky enough to be a front-facing area denial ship or charger and not a glass cannon "ganker" that is, as you say Richard, contrary to its design.
Going something like ~950armor ~1400perma may seem powerful, but as shas'ui also pointed out, it's not all in the numbers. The spire is the easiest target ram and disable. The numbers may look high, sure, but it's profile and placement of easy-to-disable guns are it's most glaring weakness that cannot be represented on a spreadsheet. It's these weaknesses that make it resignated to a trolly ambush ship or a weak artillery platform since forever, really.
Still, all this feedback about "what a ship should be" and "what it's niche can be" is why we are here, and we wouldn't be going in circles as much if there was some clear direction and back-and-fourth between the devs and the community.
-
The devs have read and considered this thread, I messaged them myself. Due to the nature of the thread, they want to produce worthy response and to assess some inner workings
I for one do agree change needs to be made, and communication is very poor. However progress cannot possibly come as fast as we might like. MUSE is a small dev team and alliance has deadlines they need to meet to be able to produce the game. A lot of time, effort and money have gone into it and returns need to be made. While vets might like skirmish mode more, the general community and new players prefer the PVE mode over skirmish. It has already shown to be more popular as it is more fun and less competitive, and the devs obviously want to try to spread the game to more people. In addition development of the game takes time. Adding features, altering maps, implementing functions all take time to make and with a small dev team already tasked with making what is basically a brand new game, progress is slow.
What I think might help is this: an open to the public, and regularly updated list of "things to do" made by Muse that contains deadlines and regular progress updates. A simple trello page containing ideas they want to implement, or some calendar showing what they want to do in the future would be a big help to the community so we know what is going on and what to expect. It might help us feel like our feedback is being noticed and that we can expect change in the future. Change is needed, communication needs to be clearer, and players need to feel like their input is being heard.
-
I for one do agree change needs to be made, and communication is very poor. However progress cannot possibly come as fast as we might like. MUSE is a small dev team and alliance has deadlines they need to meet to be able to produce the game. A lot of time, effort and money have gone into it and returns need to be made. While vets might like skirmish mode more, the general community and new players prefer the PVE mode over skirmish. It has already shown to be more popular as it is more fun and less competitive, and the devs obviously want to try to spread the game to more people. In addition development of the game takes time. Adding features, altering maps, implementing functions all take time to make and with a small dev team already tasked with making what is basically a brand new game, progress is slow.
I applaud their vision for alliance. It does have some genuinely fun moments, expecially against the boss ships and the defensive encounters. It is shaping up to be a good PvE experience that I think will differentiate it substantially from the competition and offer a nice game for players that love teamwork but are offput by PvP. It's a good idea and I want to see it implemented well. But making a good on Alliance isn't mutually exclusive with engaging and listening to feedback from the community. That's all.
I just want to reiterate that the I, at least, am not looking so much for Progress with a capital "P" (although that may help) as much as a better back-and-fourth communication with the community. I feel like my feedback was ignored on the fireside chats when it came to feedback for retrive mode, and, I may as well be perfectly honest here as this thread seems to be the time and place for it: on a few occasions I felt like I was talked down to when offering feedback on retrieve mode. Upon offering up the feedback that retrieve seems to not be as clear and not as straightforward as other modes. I offered that the many moving parts in this mode could lead to decision paralysis and overwhelm players when played the first five-or-so times. I elaborated further when asked to clarify and then, puzzlingly, they replied in the stream and It felt like I was talked-down to when one of the devs talked about the optimal strategy for the mode and how to play it. Yeah, I got that, I speed-broke it with lysanya on the stormbreaker a while back. So, consequently, I sort of felt ignored, like they really didn't get the message, and it made me feel reluctant to give feedback in the future.
That's just one example but I think it illustrates a part of the disconnect between the devs and the community. Another hash-tag for jedi: #ConnectTheCommunity.
What I think might help is this: an open to the public, and regularly updated list of "things to do" made by Muse that contains deadlines and regular progress updates. A simple trello page containing ideas they want to implement, or some calendar showing what they want to do in the future would be a big help to the community so we know what is going on and what to expect. It might help us feel like our feedback is being noticed and that we can expect change in the future. Change is needed, communication needs to be clearer, and players need to feel like their input is being heard.
Yeah. You said it.
Anyways, apologies if my replies seem spammy. I'm trying to add to the conversation and provide some greater context so I hope muse can act on it. It is also not my intention to be mean or malicious or spiteful with this post. I just want to see Guns of Icarus Online and its community stick around more, for a little while longer at least, and this feedback is the best way I can do it. Anyways, I've said my peace and am going to retract periscopes and lurk around this thread for a bit.
o7
-
Richard Lemoon:
I would like to apologize for the overly harsh undertone of my earlier post; when written, I did not have the ability to fully investigate all aspects of the event in question, nor the ability to easily review as I was writing; most of my points could have been better phrased. (on phone at work).
My experience with the stat changes, proposed and in game were that of the botched, and they were, as has been noted elsewhere, "less then perfect", and I did not come across the context of attempting to match the lore. Given that, as well as a certain softness for the ship itself, and an amount of frustration at the similar changes to the mobula, I assumed, incorrectly, that the intent was to change the ship "because it's not being used enough in competitive". This assumption yields much smaller adjustments then those needed to match the spire's lore.
I attempted to address the idea of a large change, but instead became entangled in my explanation/analogy. Again, this was due to incorrect assumptions as to the reason behind the change.
Thank you for clarifying the situation in which these changes were proposed: in the case of trying to match the lore, you are correct in that significant changes are needed.
As for the galleon example, it is a case of perception rather then reality: while the galleon is indeed capable of keeping up, in the crazy king matches I have played, when a galleon appears, it is usually piloted by someone who brought rangefinder, spyglass, tar who sets off, alone, towards the enemy team, ignoring the capture points and any attempts at communication. Properly equipped and communicative galleon pilots would indeed be useful allies in crazy king, but the number I have flown with is quite low, and the victories with them are less memorable then the spectacular failures.
I would maintain that my point of the spire becoming a different ship remains, but given that the objective was to create a new ship via "completely shatter[ing] the mold and remaking it", it is not relevant to the current efforts. However, if you are successful in remaking the spire, I would be interested to see what, if anything, would fill the mold. So many loadouts, some of which I am told you pioneered (good for you!), rely on the current setup, and it would be a shame to see those go, as we saw with the mobula adjustment. On the other hand, we would have a new ship to work with, to experiment with, and that could easly offset the loss in terms of enjoyment.
To conclude, I am sorry that my post was so harsh; it was written under assumptions that you have proven false. I look forwards to what you come up with, and hope that you are not inconvenienced by botched/incorrect changes in future.
Wishing you clear skies and smooth sailing,
Shas'ui
-
I spent over $20 on name changes since May, 2015.
-
If the guy in charge of balance can't even be bothered to play the damn game and have firsthand knowledge of how everything is working in practice, fire his ass and hire someone who will. Seriously. There are so many passionate, knowledgeable players who would jump at the chance to work on this game.
#FireEric
-
... While vets might like skirmish mode more, the general community and new players prefer the PVE mode over skirmish. It has already shown to be more popular as it is more fun and less competitive, and the devs obviously want to try to spread the game to more people. ...
I realized something reading that - between the dev-app and the past open alpha/beta periods I played maybe 40-50 hours of alliance before getting bored enough to pretty much skip the most recent one in spite of the new guns, which sounds bad compared to well over 1500 hours of skirmish mode GOIO (or over 800 hours of actually playing matches) but for many people and myself when looking at several other games on my steam library that's a perfectly good game, fun while it lasted, probably come back to it a few more times.
As far as reinvigorating skrimish I've still got some hope for at least a few maps derived from the alliance assets maybe Q4 this year. Good balance changes maybe not so much.
-
If the guy in charge of balance can't even be bothered to play the damn game and have firsthand knowledge of how everything is working in practice, fire his ass and hire someone who will. Seriously. There are so many passionate, knowledgeable players who would jump at the chance to work on this game.
#FireEric
This is not a witch hunt. This is the community coming together in a heartfelt plea. While frustrating, firing anyone will not lead to meaningful change. Furthermore, making this a witch-hunt flies in the face of both the work the devs put in and the love the community has for this game. I ask not as a mod but as a player: please refrain from such witch-hunting behavior.
-
I want more hats.
-
I paid £1 for this game from an old friend. I cant really complain with 2300 hours of my life devoted to it compared to about 300 in Rocket League (Next highest hour count).
I agree the game has changed very little since my registration in 2014 but I have to say this.
I don't care about new weapons, new ships, new maps, new clothes, new titles and so on. (Although I will take a title if its on offer)
I play this game for the good times, the fun and pleasure of interaction and in general, having a blast with like minded people.
I wholeheartedly agree that this game has not changed and thus it should be addressed after Alliance. Muse has to understand this.
But at the same time, I have so much fun just chilling with people and getting to know everyone that the game has become part of my life. I would happily play Guns of Icarus Online for as long as it functions - just for the community.
I have met quite a few players of Guns in real life including 2 devs and I would say I have made better friendships with the GoIO community than with my research colleagues or other friends. People such as Josie, Admiral Obvious, James T Kirk, Sir Steffen, Crusty Skunk, B'ellana, Hypnopotamus Rex and many, many more.
Despite my comments above. I still agree that they need to work on those ship / weapon / ammo statistics before any new content is added after the release of Alliance.
-
If the guy in charge of balance can't even be bothered to play the damn game and have firsthand knowledge of how everything is working in practice, fire his ass and hire someone who will. Seriously. There are so many passionate, knowledgeable players who would jump at the chance to work on this game.
#FireEric
This is not a witch hunt. This is the community coming together in a heartfelt plea. While frustrating, firing anyone will not lead to meaningful change. Furthermore, making this a witch-hunt flies in the face of both the work the devs put in and the love the community has for this game. I ask not as a mod but as a player: please refrain from such witch-hunting behavior.
I agree, let us keep this thread constructive :D
-
Thank you very much for this post. I agree with you here, transparency and community involvement is so important in this current age of continuously evolving games. I know you cannot appease everyone, but there is a good medium that can always be achieved, and should be endeavored for.
As far as the Spire-Tank, perhaps keeping the original spire as well as implementing the variation of it with the tank spire, an up-armored Spire if you will.
Also, I am sorry that you feel attacked Sir Richard to respond as you have. However, I feel the original poster was quite cordial and tactful in posting, as have most of the replies to this post. Still, no matter how much one may know, or feel they know, about a given subject, different perspectives are, I feel, important to truly understand any subject as well as to bring fresh insight and other possibilities that one perspective rarely ever brings. I thus implore that you at least listen to and read with an open mind the suggestions and concerns of the cordial and insightful people in this wonderful community.
Guns of Icarus Online fills a niche in the gaming industry in such a wonderful way. I so want to see this game flourish and do well. And though many are a little adverse to focus on Alliance, however I feel it is a step in a wonderful direction despite the risks involved. The addition of a co-op vs. AI is wonderful, especially for when the population low or for when you want to train friends new to the game.
Anyway, thank you to those that took the time to read my post. Also, thank you Muse for this wonderful software. I would also like to thank this wonderful group of people that make up the GOI community. Fair skies to ye~!
-
Hi Guys. I think this is my fisrt post. I've been watching this pehnomena for a time now. But now i venture to try giving my perspective. So, first of all I apologize for my gramma and spelling proper of a kid that neglected english at school.
So, first of all Im Rodrigo, (Rho, for short and you know, The Lord of Sealand and the anoying voice that its always talking in the lobby.) I had this game for pretty much a year and a month. Got it on sale at the price of 2700 pesos, wich is more or less depending on the exchange rate 5-ish US dollars. Pretty good for a one year of nonstop gameplay. And like you guys Im hooked up to this game "like cocaine".
This i think is going to be my little opinion, perspective;
-Stop being melodramatic. the game is not dying, Everytime we get a new steam sales a new imput of players. Some stay some don't. Yes, the game is ful with alt acouts and people that will never join us in the skies again because they didn¿t like the commmunity or the gameplay, or they never got that beautifull feeling of earning a victory after a hard match. And the simpler: for some poeple the game is not apealing.
- Maybe we lack big events like the Polaris Civil War (the one with Jesse Cox). Thats a budget problem and PR.
- But here is the thing: in a year i experience changes. A lot for a game that i bought for 5 USD. nerfs for balancing, tests, open beta, new map adaptations, VIP and the less popular Skyball. I will love more maps btw, that my petiton, maybe adap some of the Alliance ones?
Muse is always lissening to us. The have the twich stream, they reply mails (even if they still owe me a Fight the Debs price and my plea for the Ñ got little to no support from you users), devapp, and every time Jedi has a great idea, like the one of adapting existing maps... there is muse giving it to us.
You want new players? Then stop stacking, using mines, and be nice. It's true. We want more maps and content but because of that i don't thing is proper to say the game is dying. People come and go. You are still playing, Muse is still giving new material, some of the you may don't like, but they are here reading us complain, even the childish posts. I think that shows comitment. For 2700 chilean pesos...
i
-
Hi Guys. I think this is my fisrt post. I've been watching this pehnomena for a time now. But now i venture to try giving my perspective. So, first of all I apologize for my gramma and spelling proper of a kid that neglected english at school.
So, first of all Im Rodrigo, (Rho, for short and you know, The Lord of Sealand and the anoying voice that its always talking in the lobby.) I had this game for pretty much a year and a month. Got it on sale at the price of 2700 pesos, wich is more or less depending on the exchange rate 5-ish US dollars. Pretty good for a one year of nonstop gameplay. And like you guys Im hooked up to this game "like cocaine".
This i think is going to be my little opinion, perspective;
-Stop being melodramatic. the game is not dying, Everytime we get a new steam sales a new imput of players. Some stay some don't. Yes, the game is ful with alt acouts and people that will never join us in the skies again because they didn¿t like the commmunity or the gameplay, or they never got that beautifull feeling of earning a victory after a hard match. And the simpler: for some poeple the game is not apealing.
- Maybe we lack big events like the Polaris Civil War (the one with Jesse Cox). Thats a budget problem and PR.
- But here is the thing: in a year i experience changes. A lot for a game that i bought for 5 USD. nerfs for balancing, tests, open beta, new map adaptations, VIP and the less popular Skyball. I will love more maps btw, that my petiton, maybe adap some of the Alliance ones?
Muse is always lissening to us. The have the twich stream, they reply mails (even if they still owe me a Fight the Debs price and my plea for the Ñ got little to no support from you users), devapp, and every time Jedi has a great idea, like the one of adapting existing maps... there is muse giving it to us.
You want new players? Then stop stacking, using mines, and be nice. It's true. We want more maps and content but because of that i don't thing is proper to say the game is dying. People come and go. You are still playing, Muse is still giving new material, some of the you may don't like, but they are here reading us complain, even the childish posts. I think that shows comitment. For 2700 chilean pesos...
i
Oh sweet summer child...
-
The innocence of it all is kind of redeeming.
-
Oh sweet summer child...
Was that post part of your CA responsability?
-
By game dying we all mean something called retention - basically: new players mostly not staying, and old players slowly fading away.
How many of the already few that stay will become future veterans to uphold the life of this game?
How many currentt veterans will stay?
I've recently met some nice new players.
I can already see them appearing in game more and more rarely.
Sales bring less and less people everytime it occurs.
Rho, this entire topic was fused from the fact, that AWKM ignored (I wish not to discuss my choice of words here) feedback and suggestions countless times.
The same AWKM, that has never been present during Fireside Chat (at least since I am watching it)
The same AWKM, that was really arrogant back in the day of him being around on forums, acting like he always know better no matter the evidence shoved in front of his eyes.
The same AWKM that has been last online around the middle of 2015 I believe?
The same AWKM that wasn't seen playing for a LONG time.
The same AWKM that is in charge of all balance changes.
This, contrary to opinion of some, is a cold-hearted statement - not an opinion. Statement, because I've just described you what is bottled down in these 3 pages on forum Rho.
-
Keep this thread constructive.
That does not includes taunting and mocking one another.
Keep the chat clean and constructive.
-
Thanks for your feedback and opinions, everyone. I sincerely hope that this thread results in actions being taken to move the game in the right direction.
I understand a lot of rage and frustration expressed in this thread - I myself feel desperate and frustrated and believe that I should have written this post three years ago.
However, I have to ask everyone in this thread to keep the discussion relevant to the topic of player-developer relations, constructive, civil, and free of personal insults and witch hunts. This is the only way that we can accomplish anything here.
-
Hilo, Miki here. ^^
I also support this thread.
I have in fact completely quit GOIO in the past. Broke all ties with the community and uninstalled the game.
It took Spud Nick, offering me a gunner's spot on his ship (<3 spud) to bring me back, and I only play competetively now.
Watching all my favorite things get nerfed into oblivion was a big part of why I left.
For instance, I spend a long long time practicing and perfecting my heavy carronade snipes, and I can honestly say I mastered it. It was my favorite thing to do, fully disabling those pesky metamidions with nothing but a carronade, even more fun than mines, and I was unrivalled at it (arts/mercs still beat it, so did a heavy clip hwacha + some good piloting, so don't give me that "it was unbalanced" stuff, arts are the meta even NOW), and then they just destroyed it. Making the heavy carronade pretty much a short range, less effective and less powerful version of the LJ.., which we don't need as we already have the LJ. (even at close range, loch LJ outperforms heavy carro for raw damage)
Not to mention that the heavy clip nerf ALSO hit the hwacha, light carro and gat, even the banshee to some extend. The artemis is the ONLY reliable mid to long range disabler left to us, with the hwacha being the only short ranged one.
This is just one example, but one that hit me, personally, quite hard. But it does illustrate how Muse appears to conflate "balancing" with "nerfing".
P.S. Spire is my favorite ship ever, please make it viable without turning it into a weaker version of the galleon!
I remember when the spire got a buff to it's perma, speed and maneuvrability, and it was great fun! But then it got nerfed again. :(
P.P.S. I just realised that, seeing as muse doesn't play it's own game, they get their information from statistics. But these statistics don't include variables such as; "Oh hey, they changed this thing! Come on, other veteran players, let's play with this new thing and have some fun!" Which results in an insanely high win/loss ration for the new thing, as all the strongest and best players, with their own favorite crew, flock to the game together to try out the update. From a statistics perspective, this would LOOK like the update is overpowered, while in reality it isn't, it is just in the hands of all the people who would win the matches anyways. You can't include things, such as full competetive teams stomping new players in your statistics when desciding if something is balanced or not, those matches (which are MOST matches, to be frank) are inherently unbalanced because of it's participants, so they provide skewed results, the ships/weapons/ammo used is a negligible parameter.
-
This is the largest and most diverse response we've had on the forum in a long time. As a reminder, please email feedback@musegames.com. Regarding balances changes, specifically patch 1.4.5 and the new spire, they are based on player feedback - the wrong kind. For whatever reason, Muse doesn't filter or prioritize feedback well
Someone thought it would be a good idea to make loch periodically cause damage to make it useful on more guns. It doesn't work and now loch is broken - something most players could've figured out beforehand. Eric didn't propose this, a player did, and I bet the same thing happened with Mobula. The spire changes are word for word Richard's suggestion. Regardless of "how it's meant to be", the community doesn't want a slow, tanky spire with two front guns and insane vertical accel
It comes down to common sense for both Muse and players: don't make an ammo with higher dps than greased on some guns and useless on others while breaking it's previous use, Mobula is resistant to both kill and disable so one obvious answer is to increase vulnerability to kill (reducing armor/hull) - not disabling its ability to use non-meta guns and nerfing maneuverability (which make it less 'fun'), and if the spire needs a buff to survivability, buff it 20% or so max, not 200+%, and don't disable certain guns while adding an absurd vertical accel value
-
Lets throw in the first game Muse has made that was based on airships; Flight of the Icarus, which I believe used to be called Guns of Icarus.
In the 9 minutes that I have played their first game, I could tell it looked sort of like alliance, but worse.
I think that muse still holds on to this old dream that never came true, Instead they made skirmish version of it; Guns of Icarus Online, and truth be told, its better than the old game. Now that they have a community even though its a small one, they want to give their old dream another go, Alliance. But it left a sour taste by the overlords community. I can agree, I would love to see new content in Skirmish mode, actual new maps, Not maps that are recycled, Fix loch etc. etc.
In my opinion, I find Alliance enjoyable, to a certain point, I feel like it could be boring in the long run and a grind, unlike Skirmish.
dunno how to quote, this is from OP
"Skirmish mode is a competitive, cooperative PVP game with very high skill ceiling.
It also has a very steep learning curve, forcing new players into interaction with the older ones."
This is also a reason why the playerbase is small, and this is not because of Muse, Either the novice is not listening, or being a troll OR the high-level-whatever either telling them to fu-k off or refuse to teach them and have patience. I completely understand the latter, I think most people who play this game is to relax, not to teach, Muse understands this, that's why we have teachers, mods, C.A.'s, though the latter two is quite underwhelming. Oh well, that is for another discussion.
-
This post is excellent and has clearly repeated what many of us have said for a while now, all be it in the context of yet another questionable set of balance changes. As another old player who doesn't play much anymore I'll add mine to the list of player who emphasize that the reason we don't play much anymore is the lack of new content, and the really bizarre way balance changes are handled.
-
January 2017
still the same topic and problem as January 2014 ;)
it's always been like this, no content, lack of communication and hopes that adventure mode wouldn't be bad.
I get the passion that comes out of this topic, but isn't it too late?
the game is 5 years old, and you can't expect muse to start adding content now.
it's all unfortunate and this topic is the exact reason why a lot of us forgotten players stopped playing the game.
The thing I find interesting here is that community ambassadors are voicing depressing opinions, that might be the real talk here. - That the game has lost it's run.
anyway just wanted to pop in and say hi.
p.s.
Goio is worth the 5 euros on sale, always was ;)
-
The spire changes are word for word Richard's suggestion. Regardless of "how it's meant to be", the community doesn't want a slow, tanky spire with two front guns and insane vertical accel
Not word for word. There was 800 HP left off that broke the test, which, if you noticed, is the trigger for this entire thread. 800 missing HP started this avalanche. With the 800 more HP, it actually was something a lot of people were interested in TESTING, if not seeing in the actual game. Without that hull, it was a test of something no one wanted, but presented in a way that people thought A. it was Muse's idea. B. it was a player's idea.
It was a mutant mix of both, which is why it failed.
The Mobula gun fanning was not a player suggestion as far as I know. It was an attempt to bring the Mob back in line with win/loss stats in direct response to players complaining that the Mobula was a Spire hardcounter along with the Squid. So, the Squid and Mob both get bizarre nerfs instead of buffing the common element. Putting the guns further in than original and nerfing vert was player driven, and I think most people are OK with the Mob now. It requires more skill to fly now, and better strategies than "push W to win".
Changing Loch (never heard it was player suggested) was based directly on changing the Typhoon which was (even I will admit, though I hate it) needed for most players. However, changing Loch based on that one gun change was not needed, since no one even uses newLoch on the flak. So we ended up in a bizarre situation of changes that make no sense that went counter to what every tester I know was saying. Between the Mob gun fanning (all testers said it was awful) and the Lock changes that went into that 'balance' patch, testers felt betrayed. If you think the population has dropped here, you should see testing sessions in devapp. We can't even get a full 2v2 lobby during official dev tests. People have given up on testing because they don't feel like they are being listened to. Sure, little adjustments are made, but overall response was ignored. The overall response to Mob/Loch was a resounding "NONE OF IT!" "This won't work." "Players will ragequit." "it does not address the problems." In it went.
I am not trying to be insulting here, Blackenpies, but most people think clans are almost as out of touch as some devs with the general playerbase. You almost never see some clans playing with the general playerbase. The majority of the community does not consist of well-oiled crews buffing and cheming with unrivaled precision. I don't claim to represent what the community wants, so neither should you. As evident in this thread, parts of the community did want to see the results of an actual Spire Tank test. If you polled the entire playerbase, the result would likely be a resounding "Yes, let's test this even if it does not go in the game.". I wanted to test Tank Spire. Other people wanted to test Tank Spire. We are part of the community. So please, no assertions about what the community wants, when the community itself just proved the contrary.
-
Hello everyone,
I am stunned. This has been the most well constructed negative post I have ever read. As everyone here has spent time on the internet, we all know what a feat that is to talk about things everyone is passionate about while still conveying their idea effectively. While I may disagree with some conclusions, I only hope I can mirror the amount of respect you've all shown with your carefully crafted words. There are 4 pages on this thread as of writing, so if I miss anything, it's not a personal attack and please remind me of any point that I missed and I'll do my best to reply to it.
Eric's changes to the testing numbers that were proposed is not meant as an insult, but as a compliment. The reason he tweaked the numbers is he liked the idea, but felt like the changes to hull health would make it even better.
He was wrong.
This happens in testing and why we test. Even Richard's original idea had the side guns fanned out a little more, an idea disliked in play later.
- Why send in the Community Managers to testing?
Players can be passionate about ideas and often times not as constructive as they are here. Organizing testing, taking feedback, and trying to explaining reasoning is time consuming, it's also something that (hopefully) we're better at handling than Eric himself. It is also easier for us since these are not our ideas so we can come back to Eric and say objectively, this idea failed in a way that he listens better to. Which is why the #Spank testing will happen again without the gun fanning and the with the higher hull health to build a true Tanky Spire.
I completely understand why you want to have Eric be the one in the testing room or responding to the emails, but if that was the style. A lot of communication would be lost in translation and a lot of your great feedback wouldn't even get a response email confirming it's been received (since there are many feedback emails.)
Let me start by listing what to expect from the Muse Offices:
-Alliance is released in Q1 of this year
-Alliance contains at least 3 game modes (probably 4,) 4 whole factions including 4 faction player ships and weapons
-Skirmish and Alliance are combined into one product the day of release (no one will be able to buy just skirmish or just alliance)
-On Alliance release day, some Alliance maps are made for Skirmish play.
-Continued #WildWeek testing with ideas from the community
-Continued #AdaptTheMaps
One month out from Alliance Release
-Alliance receives 4 more game modes
-Alliance receives 2 more factions with weapons and ships
-We investigate weapons and ships that have the opportunity to come back to PvP. Some weapons like Gas Mortar, just won't ever make it back due to super unfun to get hit by.
That is our next upcoming months. As a 4 year old product, content updates to skirmish don't earn us much attention or sales. When skirmish combines with Alliance, we get to call skirmish updates as alliance updates and then we get more featuring from Steam. With the last open session we were able to get featuring from Steam which earned us a bit of money to help us keep the doors open. If you say this isn't skirmish focused, you're right. We have to get a new product out, it's taken longer than we've expected and that is honestly our fault, but it's the reality we have to work with to get Alliance out to have a new product to promote and sell which still lets us work on Guns of Icarus. If the way this panned out is too much, you can definitely switch us off.
I want to do the best I can to explain the situation from our side. Tension is high on our side as well, Alliance has been a larger undertaking than we originally imagined, but it was something that has allowed us to continue to work and care about Guns of Icarus since it's an expansion. People are right and some games can release and continue to release content and get attention well after release. Team Fortress 2 and others are pulling this off amazingly, but that is not us and that's not our reality. Guns of Icarus Skirmish without Alliance gets no attention from Steam (who controls our featuring) and from Press (including youtubers.) Those two nozzles are the major power points that have driven any spikes and sales we've earned.
- Where do we go from here?
We have tried to be more attentive with things like the player council and #wildweek, but I have some questions that would really help me focus in what we need to do better.
-How often and what do you expect in a content update for skirmish?
-How often and what do you expect for balance updates?
-If you could change one single thing tomorrow, what would that be?
This isn't me saying I will promise anything or that we're going to be able to change into something you fall in love with all over again.
Maybe we can improve our style into something that brings you back, but sometimes we're going to lose people to games that more fit their style.
Byron pointed out that he feels World's Adrift is the Open World Adventure he always wanted. We won't be making an open world game, so if Byron has found a game he finds fits his taste and likes the development style more. I wish him the best and I am humbled by the thousand hours he put into Icarus and the discussions we've had throughout the years.
---------------------------------
Again, I want to thank everyone for the discussion, it's a super intense topic and as people have mentioned "game is dead" is something we've fought for a long time. Our struggle is one of survival, but since we came out in 2012 and we get to have this talk again in 2017, at least we made it here.
I do want to do better though and I hope this discussion and my response is a step on that path. I will try to do my best to keep up with this thread as it evolves.
-
Goio is worth the 5 euros on sale, always was ;)
More like 3,74 euros as of at least last 2 years.
OPtodaywasacoolguy.jpg
I salute to the OP because he repeats what most of vet community thinks in a calm manner. +1
-
Well, thank you for your response Keyvias. I'm glad to know that at least some maps from Alliance will find its way into Skirmish, but some questions still remain:
- Will you be porting Alliance ships and guns into Skirmish and if not then what stops you form reusing your own content?
- Why did Eric left the forum and the game in the first place while he remains "the hand of balance"(and though he is still active outside of the game)?
-
Hello everyone,
please remind me of any point that I missed and I'll do my best to reply to it.
-How often and what do you expect in a content update for skirmish?
-How often and what do you expect for balance updates?
-If you could change one single thing tomorrow, what would that be?
I feel like I should chime in here since I'm pretty awesome.
You didn't mention anything about more hats.
Now, to answer your questions:
I expect more maps. New ones, altered ones (different spawn points, drastic changes to clouds / dust storms, different time of day, other ideas), and ported ones from Alliance. (Also adapting them all for 2v2,3v3,and 4v4). I'd like alterations monthly and new or ported ones every quarter.
I don't have an opinion on balance.
My underwear.
-
-How often and what do you expect in a content update for skirmish?
Once a month for major but existing skirmish additions, whether it be porting an alliance gun, porting an alliance map, or re-balancing a ship for an entirely new role. If there are several minor changes or a rather elusive aspect of balancing, it's understandable for it not to make it in so long as the testing process is continued in good faith and communication is kept up between developers and community. An example of this sort of change would be reconfiguring the spire to tankspire or adding the heavy mine launcher to skirmish.
A two-week timeframe is reasonable for re-balancing existing guns, tuning ammunition, or tweaking ships to better perform their role, Examples of this change would be tweaking the squid's maneuverability versus health, tweaking the mobula gun arcs, or changing the explosion radius of burst ammunition.
Adding a new ship to skirmish mode should be within two months of the initial testing of that new ship for skirmish. Assuming one test per week, that gives eight official testing sessions with tweaks in-between to balance the ship to be added for skirmish.
I think the above timeframes are reasonable to both the dev team and the community. I feel the clear deadlines and direct nature of the testing will encourage people to go into the dev app to try the changes. Right now with a sort of nebulous testing-to-implementation schedule, it's hard to go into the dev app as there is no idea when if ever the changes will be looked at or implemented.
-How often and what do you expect for balance updates?
I expect community feedback to be attempted and tested in its entirety and not "spun" in a way that demonstrates the disconnect from the devs and community. As the OP and many others pointed out, the changes made in the dev app, while well-intentioned, made little sense. If it doesn't work, fine, but it should be tested as the community suggests to find both the flaws and strengths in testing. I expect (small) balance updates at least once a month, see the first part of the post for timeframes about the different sorts of balance changes.
-If you could change one single thing tomorrow, what would that be?
I would create an update thread or newsletter that tracks the incoming balance changes, when they will occur, and the target deadline of when they will be implemented. I would to it in a format similar to a mini-newsletter. That way it gives a clear roadmap and sense of progress when it comes to testing balance changes, and players can see how their feedback helps the project along.
For example:
Title:[THIS MONTH'S TESTING: TANKSPIRE]
Goal: The goal is to implement the tankspire by [DATE]
Changes tested LAST WEEK
Armor: 900
Hull: 700
-Gun arcs widened to limit quadfecta
-Vertical acceleration increased
Feedback: Upon feedback, hull will be increased to make the spire more tanky. The gun arcs will be pushed back in to allow for a quadfecta again. The vertical acceleration changes were well-received, so that will stay.
Changes TO BE TESTED ON (DATE2)
Armor: 900
Hull: 1400
-Gun arcs narrowed to allow quadfecta.
This sort of thread should be updated the day after the testing results.
- Will you be porting Alliance ships and guns into Skirmish and if not then what stops you form reusing your own content?
- Why did Eric left the forum and the game in the first place while he remains "the hand of balance"(and though he is still active outside of the game)?
^^^^
Moreso the second one, I can see the balance considerations with alliance ships. However, I'd love to see them make it in game in some form regardless.
-
Here Here!
We know Steam will murder the whole game if alliance deadlines aren't met. We, the players, simply need to be told: " we hear you, and are listening"
-
-How often and what do you expect in a content update for skirmish?
-How often and what do you expect for balance updates?
-If you could change one single thing tomorrow, what would that be?
I'd probably expect an update every quarter - Monthly and Bi-Monthly too short of a time span for any major developments.
I have a few ideas.
First and foremost, make the most of the nerds in the community! :D (No offence nerds)
- Lots of players in the community dedicating time for dev all statistic collections on Ships, Ammo, weapons and so on!
- Workshop: There are a tonne of user made decals, items and voice packs just waiting to be reviewed by you Muse.
- Map Skyboxes: Changing the Skybox on maps to give them different times (Day / Night) would be an awesome addition to test. It would be simpler than making new maps and could create some interesting combat changes. (Adding more cloud at night for example will make visibility even harder allowing for more awesome ambushes)
If I could change a single thing, It would probably have to be More rewards. Giving players more for progression would be a neat way to increase interest. Getting rewards every 3 levels is good but new players want lots of cool things. An Idea would be to make a reward per level / achievement until level 20. Or perhaps a different method. Alternatively. Having 42 titles is not enough for me. Mann needs lots of titles.
-
Based off of similar sized indie studios and games, I would say at minimum a year (I mean, Damned is beating you out on content updates...Damned...), but to be seriously competitive every quarter, with cosmetics more frequently. And I think they should all be cash shop, like Depth.
-
@Fisherex
Porting of guns and ships will require a lot of balancing, they are not all cut out, but some (like gas mortar are straight no's due to weapon type, being chased by tar clouds are unfun.) Weapons and ships will be vetted to be brought back on a case by case basis. Things like the tempest are currently highest on the list for candidates. I can't speak to the timing though, but we would love to reuse the assets for skirmish since we've already put in the work.
Eric left the forum for a lot of reasons. The biggest of which is it's not an effective use of his time. There's a lot of conflicting opinions and he doesn't thrive on answering everyone. If he did, I wouldn't need a job. Often times for games the lead developer doesn't directly communicate with the community. All feedback does make its way to him, though I do my best to disregard things that would waste his time like all the add boarding emails or something we've already tried or discussed.
-
@Byron,
Damned isn't making a second game's size worth of content at the same time. This is the reason I would say we rate pretty low for content.
As for quarterly content updates
Like one full gun every quarter or what size of content would be your expectation? I want to zero in on it so I can talk to the team and see, after we get through getting alliance out if we can make a new roadmap and what player expectations vs our reality is and how they can mesh.
-
-How often and what do you expect in a content update for skirmish?
Something new each month would be lovely, if a bit optimistic given the current timesink of alliance. The amount of content doesn't need to be huge; a new map isn't as game-changing as a new ship or weapon, but still helps keep the game feeling fresh and new, rather then flying in the same few places again and again. Another plus to doing it monthly: it gives you a great headline for the monthly newsletter!
-How often and what do you expect for balance updates?
Balance updates are, in my mind, something that is done as needed rather then on a set timeline. If everything is running smoothly, then no balance updates are needed. On the other hand, if something becomes an issue, or a recently enacted change goes bad, a fix is needed as soon as possible. For example, the recent map additions which had badly placed spawns: as soon as the issue is mentioned, an investigation should be started, and, within a reasonable timeframe, either take action to correct the issue, or explain why no action was taken.
-If you could change one single thing tomorrow, what would that be?
The way that the devapp tests are run: allow for more frequent changes, over the course of the test; rapid prototyping. If the numbers initially proposed are not working, the ability to have someone who can adjust to newly proposed numbers, such that multiple sets of numbers can be tested in succession, rather then spending the entire session on one set, even after a conclusion has been reached.
-
@Keyvias
Players feel that feedback is ignored. For example, in the testing for 1.4.5, from my eyes the overwhelming feedback was that lochnagar and mobula were broken and that these changes wouldn't work. Testing continued for another two weeks on the exact same changes, with the same feedback. Players became disheartened and stopped sending emails because it felt pointless. When 1.4.5 was released it caused a unanimous negative response from the community. Many players quit as a direct result. How will this be addressed in the future?
Players would like a hand in balance, and ideally IMO a direct vote on what (spire, loch etc.) and how (hull, dmg etc.) things are changed. Right now it feels like we have little or no say in either. For example, many feel the recent squid nerf went too far and needs toned down a bit - maybe +100 hull or at least extra turning accel. That seems far more pressing than testing an imaginary spire which might take months to tone out, if at all. If these spire changes take priority, and if squid doesn't need tweaked, we want to know why
-
@Keyvias
First of all, thanks a lot for your reply. Seeing that the dev team takes this matter seriously is a great relief for me.
However, I think that your replies don't address the main point regarding the balance process: it takes two to tango.
Right now, the community sends a lot of feedback and only gets back occasional changes. The decision making process that leads to those changes in completely opaque. The community therefore has to try and figure out how a black box works, and so far it doesn't seem to had succeeded.
The community needs to get some communication back. What lead to the modifications to the "Tank Spire" proposal?
I'm sure that there is certain logic behind them, but I can't figure it out by myself. Eric probably doesn't make those decisions on a whim and gut feeling - I'm sure that he knows better than doing that to a competitive game's balance. Please, give those reasons back to us. We want to know how our feedback is processed and how the balance decisions are made.
While I appreciate the job that the CM team does, my personal opinion is that it is not enough. The community needs to hear back from Eric - be it through his own forum posts or community managers.
P.S. Not entirely related to the thread's topic: in my opinion, Corsair would fit the role of "Tank Spire" pretty well. Hence we want a healthy and constructive discussion between the devs and the community on matters like this.
-
Tank-Spire was a player made suggestion for #Wildweek, where players got to send in numbers and things they wanted to try. Due to Eric taking an interesting in the numbers, the players numbers were then adjusted by Eric at the last moment and we didn't communicate that well.
This isn't a like serious suggestion where it'll be in the game next week, but we wanted to do as you said and listen to the community better, which one of the ways we did was opening up #wildweek.
We started with a trifecta squid, which failed (horribly balanced) but was super fun just to try.
-
@Keyvias
So Eric is the lead developer... I thought it was Howard. Anyways, I feel that he was full of himself and his withdrawing from forum discussions looked like disrespect that leads to neglecting his own game's community interests. Skirmish was always the key part of the game which made me buy it and it kept me playing for almost 2000 hours. But we got bored, we waited for your announcements. Not much changed since the release, frankly speaking. But upcoming Adventure mode kept us hyped(though we were never sure what it will be and you guys never told us the truth behind the title). Adventure became the Alliance and open world multi-crew airship became generic zombie shooting PvE mode.
Double checking the kickstarter page for Adventure mode(me, nedsvart and Ataris backed it) makes some things clear (and now I find stretch goals illogical) but hype was high and we hoped for our(and Howard's) game of dreams, there were nobody around to return us back to earth, not even you. After some time things have started to become clear, there were posts about impossibility of open world, but I have to admit that it was always an imaginary thing that only existed in our excited brains. Then Eric bailed out with his precious time and we had an informational vacuum.
Yes, I feel that our feedback is ignored, it always was. We've seen potential in this game, this is why we are still here. We were always supportive (I bought the game at least twice with a lot of cosmetics as well just to support you), but now I feel like it was for nothing. Three years is a significant time for a team of developers to deliver a DLC(a whole games were made in less time).
So yeah, sorry for being salty and such, but I need to express my disillusionment. You have a unique game here, alone in the niche with with no competitors. I hope it will survive somehow and somebody will make something similar one day.
-
Tank-Spire was a player made suggestion for #Wildweek, where players got to send in numbers and things they wanted to try. Due to Eric taking an interesting in the numbers, the players numbers were then adjusted by Eric at the last moment and we didn't communicate that well.
This is the proof in the pudding. This is the disconnect. Right here. It's not the lack of communication or mixed-signals. It's the last-moment seemingly arbitrary changes to the feedback we've given for no apparent reason. That's it. That's the issue. Right there. That's the one note that has repeated over that we are pleaing about in this thread when it comes to the process Muse uses to make balance choices within the skirmish mode. I do not intend to witch-hunt Eric, but I do want to point out that the last-minute change seemed arbitrary and unnecessary. By making that change, the community felt ignored, unappriciated, and put-down. This is the thing, that feeling that we get when changes are made in that opaque box, is the thing muse must address going forward.
I mean, it felt like we showed up to the wrong movie or party. We came to test tankspire and got a splunker. Eric was wrong and that is fine. But it doesn't change the fact that we showed up to test one thing mentioned in the thread and got another thing to test instead. It felt like a bait-and-switch.
This isn't a like serious suggestion where it'll be in the game next week, but we wanted to do as you said and listen to the community better, which one of the ways we did was opening up #wildweek.
Then the error is in the execution, not the intent. That's understandable, but this is not a one-case scenario. The #tankspire test was the metaphorical last floating straw that played a hand in prompting this thread, as Pies mentioned:
Players feel that feedback is ignored. For example, in the testing for 1.4.5, from my eyes the overwhelming feedback was that lochnagar and mobula were broken and that these changes wouldn't work. Testing continued for another two weeks on the exact same changes, with the same feedback. Players became disheartened and stopped sending emails because it felt pointless. When 1.4.5 was released it caused a unanimous negative response from the community. Many players quit as a direct result. How will this be addressed in the future?
All this has happened before and will happen again. How will you address this core issue Muse?
Anyways, said my piece and will leave before I get sent of to the salt mines in red sepulcher.
o7
-
Due to Eric taking an interesting in the numbers, the players numbers were then adjusted by Eric at the last moment and we didn't communicate that well.
Did Keyvias just suggested that AWKM is laying a massive cock not only on the playerbase but also the team he works with?
Or is it a stretch.
No, seriously I'm not sure how to understand that statement - for me it sounded like Eric didn't think it was necessary to communicate with his own colleagues.
Which is pretty retarded.
-
Raging Geek made me delete this, sorry.
-
How do8es one become lead game designer in a company with zero previous experience?
-
In this thread, there was a post written by a very close friend and a long-time teammate of mine.
It went way too far in how much rage it contained and how far away from constructive discussion it took the thread.
I managed to get him to remove it.
I apologize for the fact that it even existed in the first place. I'm disappointed by myself for allowing it to crop up here.
I beg you all to keep your heads cold and be mature. Please. I beg you.
-
Wow, it's been forever since I've posted here. I left after the Loch nerf--it killed my favorite playstyle, but I've kept with Alliance, and fully expect to put time into it, but more casually.
Since this thread is racing, I'll add my two cents--I liked the bit about expectations. My confidence has been severely shaken, and frankly, I don't expect to play Skirmish until heavy changes are made, but I will definitely give what I'd like out of this.
When it comes to new content, I'd expect maybe 3 major content "events" per year. Each content update should include at least two features (New Ship + New Gun, New Faction + New Gun, Ship Ported to Skirmish + New Ammo Type). These can be announced and hyped, and should probably have a sale located around them. This also gives months of time for testing. I understand your graphics designers are strained, however, so I'd be willing to accept two per year. New ship cosmetics would also be very welcome.
Balance where exceptions seem to be most strained between Muse and players. Frankly, balance communicating has always been poor. I am not trying to insult you--I'm simply stating a fact. Reasons behind nerfs and buffs are either unintuitive, muddled, or not communicated at all, player response is often ignored, and you attempt to do blind testing with a far too limited fragment of the guns community. Overwatch, a game with a far larger budget and community also seems to have similar problems with constructive PTR results, so I suspect this has little to do with community size, and mostly relates to the fact that most people who play PTR already have heavy involvement with the game.
That's fine.
What I'd like is non-blind PTR tests to try to catch game-breakingly OP things, then bi-weekly balance patches that adjust numbers very sparingly, rather than wild swings. I'd like the desired effects and concerns that lead to this directly stated, and perhaps "meta breakdown" reports. I would like you guys to be unafraid to revert previous changes if they're poorly received, and not leave guns in "gimmick" territory because they came out unsatisfying (Minotaur). It was overnerfed, and rather than adjusting it's function/numbers, it's been left to stagnate. (One of my favorite things from Overwatch is the ability to analyze that sort of thing.) Internal reporting of deadlines would be nice--I'd say you're not actually accountable to the community, but I feel like there's been persistent tension since I've been a player.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On Balance Philosophy Below:
Overwatch also tends to balance both around a competitive level, and a newbie level. I'm not sure what Guns balances around, partially because the game has a very odd sets of required skills. There's teamwork, aim, and ease of use, communication between captains and crew, and we have very few "middle experience" players. I believe many of the game's balance problems come from it's biggest strength--Teamwork. There is a heavy limit to how much one player can impact a match positively, as very few guns have a high, aim-based individual impact, and engineering is time management. The closest to a "carry" roll in the game is the Captain. This results in players losing without knowing *why* they lost, as there's little (mechanically) they can do to impact it.
I feel like many balance patches are "band aids" to cover that problem--nerfing flame weapons, increasing gun ease of use, and so forth. Some defy logic, however, such as the loch patch. This also creates the problem where Time to Kill feels very high to inexperienced players, and low to skilled players, as broken builds (on a new player's side) make matches grind forever, and turn engineering into a chore.
The solution to this is not "get gud." The game needs low-skill weapons that also fall off in effectiveness as you get better, and high-skill weapons that require some sort of mechanical skill or teamwork to execute. Ammo can also fulfill this purpose--altering the fundamentals of a weapon to create a different risk/reward. I feel like Lochnagar was a good example of that sort of effect.
As bad for the "teamwork" focus of the game as it initially seems, GOI needs a noob tube, as well. The Hwatcha fits that department--or used to, but it's also fundamentally unfun, as it only involves one gunner, works only on specific ships, and is heavily disable focused. One one hand, part of the engineer tax is learning to prioritize components, but mass ship disable is *far* too easy, and it's counterplay is under-powered. This, like fire, leads to an unfun new player experience.
The number of semi-hard counters in this game needs to be toned down. A match should not be decided by the ship chosen in the lobby. I suggest allowing players to change loadouts mid-match, and lowering the number of hard counters in the game.
I would start incrementally adjusting weapons to push them harder into specific niches, and encourage actual mastery. This gives a reason to continue playing competitively, and gives skills other than "teamwork" to build.
The game should be relatively easy to enter, and dick around with, but have a mastery requirement that takes practice. The Hades and the Lumberjack are the only two guns that I feel are "worth" mastering, and they've risen and fallen in meta.
When I played competitively, I probably wouldn't have liked many of these suggested balance changes, as they diminish the "teamwork" aspect, but I feel like Gun's problems require a hard look at the philosophy of the game's design.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
With that, I leave one final question:
What are the stages of improvement and mastery for each role in the game? How does a player "get better?"
This isn't rhetorical--I am honestly curious. How do you envision a player's introduction to the world of Guns of Icarus going, and how do you see them getting better? (Especially knowing many will not have the time or desire to improve, or find a stable team?)
-
SM and I echo many sentiments laid out here in this thread and I don't want to add anymore redundancy to it.
I will add there was a time when I felt a personal responsibility to try and help the community and developers best I could based on what type of game they made and what it required of it's players, make excuses for the issues with the game to new players on behalf of muse, support through the market (still regret some purchases), and just overall promote a game I felt was in every way a breathe of fresh air and nice change in my gaming ways.
Then I look at the forum history, this thread, my feedback replies from muse and just wonder to myself...............why on earth do I care more then the devs?
Now I concentrate on my friends and clanmates and look forward to BlackWake.
-
Fix this. MMBF clan stands with the change.
o7 Del, Dio, Jedi, Ansro.... MMBF stands with you
-
guns of icarus is a fun game
-
I said it once, I'll say it again.
Muse is the Pilot, but we're the crew. They can't keep burning 'shine through the engines and expect to keep going. They can't expect us to land shots if they keep twisting us out of arc. And they're going to have us crash and burn if they keep the hydro up.
Muse needs a schedule. A definite, clockwork, rigorous schedule for releases. At least a whole release, meaning Map, Weapon, and Ship, every year, as that would certainly FORCE them to watch the meta, see what chinks they can fill, or at least see what hasn't been useful and what's been too effective. If they have to keep to schedule like this, disconnect would, hopefully, go down, as Muse would have to at least look at Skirmish.
Muse won't, however. Not until they finish the second game they are working on, Alliance, because you don't take 3 years to make a DLC. They've burned too hard for that, and that's what has been their downfall.
-
Well In May it will have been four years. Four years. It's not even a new game! It has a lot of content for sure, but it's still relying on Skirmish for a lot of existing content.
Most companies could (and have) made entirely new games in that time!
-
@Byron,
Damned isn't making a second game's size worth of content at the same time. This is the reason I would say we rate pretty low for content.
As for quarterly content updates
Like one full gun every quarter or what size of content would be your expectation? I want to zero in on it so I can talk to the team and see, after we get through getting alliance out if we can make a new roadmap and what player expectations vs our reality is and how they can mesh.
So I wrote this back in September and posted it a few times since then:
From my calculations, MUSE has created 7 new ships, 7 new guns, and 7 new maps since the release of skirmish (factoring in both skirmish and alliance content). That is 1.75, or 2 (rounding up) new ships, 2 new guns, and 2 new maps a year that they have produced.
Unfortunately, that is my minimum expectation of content that should be produced and available for skirmish at this point. This is even factoring in Alliance content, which should double that. Basically, MUSE is 4 years behind in expected content, and this is a problem that others, and myself, have tried communicating to them for these past 4 years.
That is a huge problem with the game, and a reason why not only veteran players, but entire clans, and casual players from sales are not returning, and why advertising will have diminishing returns (to the point of being completely ineffective).
I've factored in Alliance to give you a bone. It's still not good enough. I'm telling you this as a customer. It's not my job to figure out how you should manage your time better. All I'm saying is, that is not good enough.
-
That's why I'm saying this isn't a DLC anymore.
Alliance is a completely new game, and Muse didn't define or appropriately distribute resources for it. Four years to build a DLC? No. Just... no. I don't care how small the company is, I don't care how indie, a DLC does not take four years.
Guns of Icarus: Alliance is a completely new game that's being tacked onto Guns of Icarus. I refuse to see it as a DLC anymore, with the amount of resources, time and power that they've dedicated to it.
Hell, the Kickstarter for Adventure would have been it's own game. That wouldn't have been a DLC, and it shouldn't have been defined as one. Look at popular MMO's. They built the adventuring side first, then the PvP. Not the other way around, like Muse has done with Guns. If they wanted to make Adventure mode, that would have been it's own bleeding game, same as with Alliance, and it would be released alongside Guns of Icarus, either independently or with a price increase to the base game. They're shoring up what made guns great, not just making a small addition.
An addition is a DLC. Making a complete other half to the game is an entirely new game. One takes a few months to maaaybe two years, if you're small. The other takes 2-3 years.
-
So, in the interest of rebuilding this bridge between the GOIO devs and the GOIO community, lets flip this around:
What can we do to better provide feedback to muse in a more clear, concise way? We do really enjoy and love this game to still be around 4 years for some, and this thread is a great example of the passion this community has for Guns of Icarus and for each other. So what are some ways we can make our knowledge and understanding of the game more clear to the devs?
Jedi has asked this question and started #hashtag campaigns and copypasta emails, with some success with #adaptthemaps.
I'm curious, what other methods do we have?
The forum feedback is very scattered nowadays. Maybe after a test we could all make an effort to show our knowledge and understanding of the game--and how to make it better--to muse by posting in the thread. Maybe we can email muse with only a link to the thread where we give feedback. That way, they get the feedback but also in the context of the wider discussion of the community and not a question/answer format that threads become when the devs directly participate in them.
We could also organize and host a dev-app event. A weekly thing that can become regular like SCS or Chaos. Hashtag #testingtuesdays. With some cordination from the devs, we could maybe get fast, weekly, iterative changes and provide feedback while not using muse's organizational resources. While the competitive community does this to try and set competitive rulesets, I think an organized, regular, weekly push directly linked to the dev app will encourage all parts of the community and the devs to get involved and engaged.
Those are some ideas. Do we have any other ideas?
-
Do we have any other ideas?
A public Trello board would be nice to have.
-
So, in the interest of rebuilding this bridge between the GOIO devs and the GOIO community, lets flip this around:
What can we do to better provide feedback to muse in a more clear, concise way? We do really enjoy and love this game to still be around 4 years for some, and this thread is a great example of the passion this community has for Guns of Icarus and for each other. So what are some ways we can make our knowledge and understanding of the game more clear to the devs?
A vote system - a feature that's already built into the forum
-
Do we have any other ideas?
A public Trello board would be nice to have.
I believe there is one. Let me get back to you on that
-
Do we have any other ideas?
A public Trello board would be nice to have.
I believe there is one. Let me get back to you on that
You mean this?
https://trello.com/b/LFv9xZNF/community-q-a
Ha. Lip service.
-
If I saw anyone in my team writing an entire fucking essay in a trello tab TITLE, I'd slap the everliving shit out of him. Or her on that matter.
-
Those cards (other than the introduction one) are all player made Schwalbe, that's not how we use trello internally. The problem with trello is the word didn't get out about it so it became just another diffused location that we had to watch and monitor, which takes time and with so few people using it was horribly inefficient.
The best places for feedback are email, the weekend testing groups, and in the player skype group, which if it hasn't been linked let me do that again.
https://join.skype.com/xHPWhHT6gPfM
As with the last changes to the mobula and wildweek, the skype group is one of the best places for discussion, though as jedi and Richard can attest it can get loud in there and people can disagree.
Naoura is right when he says its not DLC any more. The size is too large to have it be called a DLC and that's definitely poor planning on our part. We are where we are and a couple months away we need to get this out.
-
Yupo. Currently we are talking about screwing up all the ammos in a future #WildGunsWeek.
https://join.skype.com/jyZzL5nAZrwq
-
Muse should try and join vet lobbies and newer players alike. I feel that most of them have lost their touch with the game right now. And they have to regain it. Be it through feedback or through playing themselves.
Ok, I'm fairly new to this game, but plan on investing at least 500+ hours into it, as it to me seems like one of those games to me. The kind that is horribly underrated, but with the little community it has, is very "tight knit," as I've heard. So far, I have no place on the forums as of the time posting this because of my little experience with the game. But this post reeks of truth. I would love seeing members of Muse joining novice games and giving some lucky few the ropes, straight from the mouths of the developers. If that'd happen to me, that would stick with me for months. Certainly, something like this would make someone want to stay a little longer than, like, three or four hours of getting stomped because they decided to say "hey, eff the tutorial! I got this! how hard can it be?"
-
There are dev games if you are interested. You get a free item if you win. However, dev games are pretty contrived, and I don't think that is exactly what you mean. I am sure you mean things like Teachers do, dropping a level 45 on a novice match and saying "Hey guys, I am here to show you how to win." I have had some interesting moments doing that, though not always good.
Little secret, though. Come closer....
Closer......... Devs are not very good at the game. shhhhhh. Don't tell them I said that.
-
There are dev games if you are interested. You get a free item if you win. However, dev games are pretty contrived, and I don't think that is exactly what you mean.
Indeed not. Even in dev games, the devs generally stick on the same ship, all together. They should be spreading out and actually playing with their players. But it is nice to attend, complain to them, pretend they are listening, and then win a prize.
Honestly, I find it incredibly frustrating that the devs, during the dev game, value the stream more than the gameplay. Newsflash: nobody cares about the banter, and barely anybody watches the dev game stream. More people are playing than watching, yet Muse values the stream more than the gameplay and teamwork. Viewers (and players, for that matter) want to see how your game works and how you play it. But you don't give them that. This is the same problem with all of the "famous" YouTube streamers. The devs are guilty of the same behavior, in a way. And I've been bitching about it for ... ever, to no avail. And as the lobby said today...
(http://i.imgur.com/8aoeVAM.jpg)
Lemme zoom in for ya...
(http://i.imgur.com/COhTmlq.jpg)
And I didn't even ask him to say that 8) Many of my prophecies have come true. Many more will. But how much time will be wasted in the interim? Will we survive?
Little secret, though. Come closer....
Closer......... Devs are not very good at the game. shhhhhh. Don't tell them I said that.
Fixed. Because that's what this thread is all about: Muse needs to get #InTheTrenches if they are ever going to allow this game to realize its potential and flourish. I kickstarted Alliance years ago, but I doubt Alliance will save this game.
To address Keyvias' question of what I would change tomorrow if I could... If I had to choose ONE THING... I would INSTANTANEOUSLY #AdaptTheMaps because it WOULD TAKE AN HOUR. I have been begging Muse weekly at least since May of 2016. There is literally NO REASON these maps are not in the game right now:
Fight over Firnfeld 4 vs. 4 Death Match
Northern Fjords 4 vs. 4 Death Match
Water Hazard 4 vs. 4 Death Match
Clash at Blackcliff 3 vs. 3 VIP
Labyrinth 3 vs. 3 King of the Hill
Battle for the Ball 3 vs. 3 Death Match ("Graveyard" as a possible name)
Battle for the Ball 4 vs. 4 Death Match ("Graveyard" as a possible name)
Why literally no reason not to include them? We already have variations of them in other game modes. Size matters not. Judge me by my size, do you? Do, or do not. There is no try, Muse. And you choose to do not. I've also asked for these maps, but Muse could claim they aren't capable of handling 4 vs. 4:
Canyon Ambush 4 vs. 4 Death Match
Canyon Ambush 4 vs. 4 Death Match
Canyon Ambush 4 vs. 4 VIP
Clash at Blackcliff 4 vs. 4 Death Match
Clash at Blackcliff 4 vs. 4 VIP
But I wouldn't believe that claim. Canyon, for example, is a massive map with blocked off left/right edges, completely perfect for 4 vs. 4. It would be the god damn most amazing map in the game, beating Breach (which is universally loved, #YoureWelcome). The problem with decreased performance falls on the ships. The Spire and Galleon need optimized. When Chaos Skirmish does matches with 8 Galleons or 8 Spires, there is a noticeable drop in performance. We aren't doing anything to break the game, simply playing it.
Gah. I'm frustrated. Time to wrap this up. The long version of how I'd fix Skirmish and therefore grow the playerbase can be found here (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,7462.msg132602.html#msg132602), but here's the short version:
#InTheTrenches (Muse, play your game, dammit)
#NerfGreased (Too common)
#NerfBurst (Too common)
#RestoreLoch (Too powerful in Gatling and nobody asked for this change)
#ChangeCharged (Because it's used in, like, three guns)
#HowAboutAHowitzer (Because we want the Old Heavy Flak AND the New Heavy Flak. Oh wait, Eric/Awkm explicitly said in the dev chat that this would never happen and couldn't give us a good reason beyond artwork, which we didn't care about)
#AdaptTheMaps (Send your email petition here (http://steamcommunity.com/groups/goichaos/discussions/0/357286663694545839)!)
#SupersizeSpectate (Because why not, and so many have asked for it?)
#SkyballOverhaul (We're so close (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,7958.0.html) to having good Skyball...)
#AuditTheSpawns (I said I'd do all the work, and have been ignored)
#LuckOfTheSpawn (Because Crazy King is so broken)
#TankSpire (Maybe the numbers the community suggests will actually be used this time, instead of arbitrary changes with no explanation from a phantom menace)
Still waiting to hear from the art team about my suggestions for decal positioning. It was "forwarded" to the art team three weeks ago.
Remember that time I submitted a voice pack to the workshop and it took Muse over 11 months to tell Howard it existed, and then, after I begged him in the dev chat publicly, it was in the game within a week?
Remember that time I wrote a 5 chapter story (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,8062.0.html) about Andrakuz's novice piloting at the Chaos Skirmish and sent it to Muse? No response.
Remember that time I sent Muse a curated list (https://www.dropbox.com/s/6hdqmwftqi8mi64/goi-tips-66.txt?dl=0) of 66 community suggested tool tips? Only a handful were used. And we never see them because matchmaker is the only time you see them. Sad.
Remember that time I sent Muse 11k words of Star Wars themed (https://www.dropbox.com/s/484nars3p1g1tjq/Thatthingsoperational.pdf?dl=0) Alliance feedback? Here's the response I got from Ayetach (to clarify: I am not singling Ayetach out at all. On the contrary, he's a great dude. I'm just pointing out that nobody higher up ever gave me a serious or in-depth response after all that work):
Jamison,
This is a truly massive feedback and its pretty impressive how much work and thought you put into this.
That said, as much as we appreciate your amazing dedication to the game its also wise to consider a few things when giving us your constructive feedback:
Bullet points on separate ideas or issues really help us organize your thoughts internally, the Star Wars theme is certainly entertaining but makes its hard for people like me and Matt to wade through to, in the most minimalistic terms, the important points of each feedback you make.
Additionally it helps us if the pictures you include are limited to mainly what is necessary to convey certain issues or suggestions like screenshots in the game.
It has been a treat reading your Star Wars themed feedback and hopefully these tips will prove to assist you in helping us with your thoughts and ideas.
Thanks so much again!
Seriously? That's it?
¡Viva la Revolución!
-
Set the clock to start a little further back on muse not adapting the maps fast enough
https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,6605 (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,6605)
I should have really pushed for it back then
-
Set the clock to start a little further back on muse not adapting the maps fast enough
https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,6605 (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,6605)
I should have really pushed for it back then
Under the Gun (King of the Hill, 2v2 and maybe 3v3)
Using the 2v2 firnfeld map with the capture point under large gun in the center same as Anglean raiders point A.
:o :o :o I thought I was being original! :'(
I still want a KOTH on Dunes in which the Ribs are the hill...
-
:o :o :o I thought I was being original! :'(
It vindicates your approach with the emails, hashtag etc though, just suggesting (and emailing and getting back 'thats a good idea') didn't get anything to happen.
-
Yupo. Currently we are talking about screwing up all the ammos in a future #WildGunsWeek.
https://join.skype.com/jyZzL5nAZrwq
Why? Aren't there more important things like fixing loch? Seems like this is part of the problem
-
You should have joined the skype. The #wildammoweek was all about shaking things up and getting rid of gatloch. Talk was concentrated around how to make Greased more close range, Charged and Heavy used more (without laser missiles), and Burst less OP. The conversation drifted around quite a bit, but the consensus was that loch must go (as it is).
A well received thought on Charged is to give it more velocity.
-
I'm now in the Skype group. Those changes all sound welcome, but without including incendiary. Instead of describing with the words "wild" and "screwing up", it should be called what it is: balancing
-
Tank spire changes are now in. Based on player feedback with no adjustments.
-
Yep can confirm changes are made in the dev app! 8)
Who's up for a testing session friday/this weekend?
Lets test the crap outta da tankspire and lend muse the collective tens-of-thousands of hours we got in this game!
-
I will be testing it all week in Alliance (where it was quite weak) until we gather the troops.
-
@Keyvias Have changes been made, or at least discussed, so that this does not happen again?
Or are we going to be right back here grousing next week?
-
No changes from this. https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,8232.0.html
-
To clarify, I meant changes to the feedback and suggestion processes that resulted in the frustrations this thread set out to address, rather then balance / experimental changes.
-
Well, currently in the player committee skype they're planning on what they want to see next (for ammo.)
And for their theory crafting we're proving logistics support like the exact formula we use for things like jitter.
So we're trying to be open and work with the community so they can say exactly what they want to see and test.
-
If TankSpire changes are officially patched into the Devapp, I might just make an attempt to get in and help out :D
Thank you Keyvias for popping in and helping to give the lowdown on plans for post-Alliance content drops. I recognize you guys are pretty pushed, but of all the things I think needed most at this time, it's transparency. The update rundowns you guys do for Alliance are helpful to get a sense of progress, and ideally a bi-monthly timeline and content overview dedicated to Skirmish mode proposals and changes would be similarly appreciated. With two weeks between, that should be great for quick balance change updates and asset testing.
I do not recall having ever seen a survey or poll asking users on their general opinions of potential changes, nor an official sticky top thread for post-testing feedback - if these already occur, perhaps more in-game advertising is the answer? The Skype group sounds good, but I worry it is too behind the scenes hardcore for most players to ever get involved in, including me.
If I may suggest one thing here, for example, it's that many new people don't actually grasp the main damage types when choosing guns. It may be ideal to 'split' the guns more visibly into distinct type columns to help make it painfully clear - sort of like how Borderlands manages its skill tree system.
Also, #HowAboutHowitzer intrigues me greatly.
-
You should very much hop in devapp and play with it. She's a beast. Glorious Queen of battle!
#HowAboutHowitzer is related to the desire to have the old flak back, along with this https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,7654.0.html
-
Groovy - so in essence a Hull-killing Heavy Merc?
-
Basically old flak with loch. One big, powerful shot.
-
I agree wholeheartedly with the people saying the PvP aspect of GOI needs some love, more content, balance etc. Thoses are truly needed for the game to prosper in time.
I have joined the game two years ago and nearly nothing has changed since then which is a shame because as good as Alliance is gonna be, you don't keep a game alive with PvE content until you give tools for the community to add more contents themself, something that I don't see coming so far. Just look at the Left 4 Dead franchise, second one lived because of the great modding support, now look at the first one or Alien Swarm, they died pretty quickly because of the lack of it and thoses are games supported by Valve, not an indie developper.
PvP is always more important for niche developpers if you want to keep a game alive. From a personal point of view, as exciting as PvE can be it will never be as good PvP for a game like GOI, fighting real players will always be more interesting considering how the game works, crew system, loadouts etc. This game is truly mean to be a PvP game in core, no matter how niche it is.
Spending all your ressources on making PvE content is a terrible decision in my opinion, even more if you do it after having developped the core game which is PvP, going from PvE to PvP developpement would have been fine but not PvP then PvE... This is the best way to loose all your vets that have mastered the mechanics over the year, because PvE content is often considered like an introduction, a tutorial to the rest no matter how good you make it. And the newcomers who will enjoy Alliance will get bored of it after some time and look for PvP as well but if you do not add content to it, everything will fall apart pretty fast.
Also my personal feedback to make the game better as a whole, for everyone, is to expand the tasks an engineer/gunner has to do, most of the time bots can do better because their task is so repetitive in core, there is low skill involved and little reward.
Try to add some depths for using weaponry, more recoil, wind to take in consideration, things like that, make it more like skill shots so a high skilled gunner can keep improving his aim after hours and hours of gameplay. Contrary to right now where you use a gun for 10 min and pretty much will never improve past this point excepted some few special guns. Having different set of munitions is a good idea but it's not enough.
For the enginner, add some new concepts over repairing stuffs, like some QTE that if well executed allow to repair a component faster, or synergies/boosting, if one engineer is hammering a gun with a special tool while someone is shooting, it will shoot faster, or if he is constantly hammering the engine with a special tool the ship will manoeuvre faster. Try to reduce the tools the captain have to boost the ships, and make the enginners have most of them instead. Make them more directly impactful of the ship performance, they should feel always involved and not only active when a component go down, I would like to look outside the ship as an enginner and feel comited in the action, seeing a enemy ship following us, I could decide to improve the speed the best I can or boost the hull on the go, truly helping my capitain directly while executing a non repetitive task, adapting to the situations I am witnessing outside the ship, I will feel important and it will feel truly rewarding.
To go with it and avoid trolling allow the captain to give individual permission to an enginner, like for example as an enginneer I want to use Moonshine on the engine, it could send a quick request to the captain, if he press V for example it allows me to use it. He could also give all time permission via the board interface (where you mute people) to a trusted enginneer on the deck etc. Do a distinction between casual and ranked matches and add the long wanted kick option only in ranked matches.
To summarise you should really try to make thoses jobs more interesting and interdependant that they are right now, create a game in the game where being the pilot is not the only fun/rewarding position of the game and where everyone must work together for the greater good.
Though the game is great for a little indie game and the price I paid for it, I might be asking a bit too much out of you guys, I would like to express my cheer respects and I won't be mad if the game is considered done after Alliance release. After all you are the captain of this ship, and I had already my fair share of fun along the way (I own two accounts, that explains my low level on this one btw). ;)
-
They had some of those features you mentioned. You can see them in early videos on Muse Games youtube channel. People did not like them, so it was changed. Adding complexity to a game where you are already busy most of the time would not be good. Asking engineers to load in moonshine? You would have riots.
-
https://youtu.be/YCHOu_kuKCs?t=2m28s
Yea, seems like a neat idea. Until you try to explain the shit.
That being said, I would still like some sort of "skill shot" mechanic to rebuilding things. Right now the only one we have is when 3 people are rebuilding the same component and you get the mallet on it as its rebuilt before someone accidently gets a repair cooldown with the spanner (which makes me feel cool, btw).
-
There is already two minor forms of these skill features in game: buff and chemspray. Done well, they can make a huge difference, but most players prefer the simplicity of the reactive tools.
The other issue is that a good engineer is rarely idle: they are either fixing something, firing a gun, buffing/chemming, or they are keeping any eye on arcs that the pilot/gunners might miss. The last may sound unimportant... until your balloon dies to an unseen carrofish. A good engineer keeps their eyes open, and glances about as they preform their duties; a single unspotted ship can ruin an entire team's push. .Hey, didn't they have a galleon? Where'd it go? *engines exploding* oh, there it is!
As it is, there are times when three engineers can't keep the ship running, much less two. (On a squid: captain brought moonshine, tar, claw. Used scroll wheel; was forgetful.) Even on the "simple" ships, such as the goldfish, a well organized crew can bring buff/chem, and keep busy with those.
As for the skill involvement, in my mind it comes down to knowing what to repair, when to do so, and how best to get there. AI may be better on some ships, but there's a reason AI engineered mobulas are rare. Learning the optimal routes, and when you may need to leave your post to make it before the armor break, can be the difference between a healthy ship and a smoking wreck.
The guns are similarly divided between those the AI can use well, and those it cannot. I've never seen an AI gunned munker, and while I can't be sure (having not seen one), I doubt it would be effective. Loosing special ammos means that a decent human can always outperform the AI, even if it's only getting in a few extra shots by starting with lesmok. Others benefit from timing/context: as anyone teaching new players how to run a metamydian knows: "hold until red!". At long ranges, some rely on predicting where it will be, which is again easier for humans then AI.
To summarize: there is a lot of skill involved in engineering and gunning, but it is a learned, knowledge based skill rather then quick reflexes arcade-style skill.
-
I've never seen an AI gunned munker, and while I can't be sure (having not seen one), I doubt it would be effective. Loosing special ammos means that a decent human can always outperform the AI, even if it's only getting in a few extra shots by starting with lesmok.
AI don't fire mines, just like the flare they simply won't touch it.
-
Explains what engineering is.
Yea, that's my point. I didn't bother elaborating on what engineering consists of because most people in this thread already know.
Here, I'll take what you typed and make it simpler.
Prioritization, time management, and situational awareness.
-
The core thing that I am trying to say is being a gunner/engineer is boring imo, it's a very repetitive task and not rewarding, you are like slaves to the captain's will pretty much.
That's why bots are decents at doing this job and outplay most average players because it's a pretty boring and repetitive job. Yes you are busy all the time, but doing not very fun/rewarding things. I won't be against a rework on how you manage your time on the ship, mostly as engineer, faster repairing could allows more room for other more interesting stuffs, for example.
I am not saying the ideas I am proposing are the ones you must apply at all costs, just the general direction I would like thoses jobs to improve in the future.
Peace. ;)
-
Boby, that's just experience telling. Engineering is probably the most important role, aside from captaining. Platforming and time management are what make Engineering the most entertaining. You are the one keeping the ship alive, and you are the one who is responsible for the insane movements the Captain is trying to pull off.
You're not a slave to the actions, you're responsible for the actions, at least under a good captain. If the cap doesn't have engines, the ship can't avoid an incoming hwacha barrage, not effectively. Your balloon goes down, your ship is likely going to crash, meaning you are responsible to keep the ship alive.
Complicating the engineering process locks down the engineer, the opposite of what you want. An engineer needs to be fast and mobile, hitting every component he or she can before something else comes in to kill the ship.
Bots are moderately effective, but not nearly as effective as a skilled engineer who knows how to prioritize more effectively. Being able to react on the fly to incoming threats, incoming damage, and potential damage is incredibly important, as is predicting what damage is going to be coming in at what time.
An engineer has to be more aware than even the Captain. While the captain has to strategize with the other captain, keep an eye on the enemy, figure out if he's in arc, watch the engine health, etc, the engineer has to watch what ships are incoming so that the captain can be alerted, spot them, realize their armament, brace for incoming attacks, react to captain's use of the engines, repair the engines as they come, quickly do hull repairs while keeping some of the weapons alive so that the gunner has a chance to counter the enemy as they come in, all while keeping an eye on any and all component damage so as to react to any other incoming threats.
Don't fret. Engineering is integral to the ship, and it is quite entertaining, even if it may not feel as rewarding. A lot of people have those concerns, simply because engineering is so critical.
-
The core thing that I am trying to say is being a gunner/engineer is boring imo, it's a very repetitive task and not rewarding, you are like slaves to the captain's will pretty much.
That's why bots are decents at doing this job and outplay most average players because it's a pretty boring and repetitive job. Yes you are busy all the time, but doing not very fun/rewarding things. I won't be against a rework on how you manage your time on the ship, mostly as engineer, faster repairing could allows more room for other more interesting stuffs, for example.
I am not saying the ideas I am proposing are the ones you must apply at all costs, just the general direction I would like thoses jobs to improve in the future.
Peace. ;)
With all due respect, I believe you may have bought the game that is unfit for you, sir. G'day.
-
Awfully tame of you Schwalbe.
-
With my 2,3k-ish match count I feel experienced enough for you not disgarding my opinion so quickly.
I think Boby's post went completely over your head. Of course I don't mind you having a different opinion but I think you don't see the issue. It's very telling that Bobby says engineer is not fun and first thing you respond with is that engineer is important. Nobody said it isn't. It doesn't matter at all for this case though.
Platforming is an exaggeration of what engineer is doing. How much platforming do you 'really' do on, say, mobula, spire, junker or pyramidion? Not much. I wouldn't say jumping straight down to reach the lower deck or jumping over a rail is really (an engiaging) platforming. Jumping over the stairs not to be blocked by a sticking out pixel is not platforming. The best of it is on the squid and even there it's like one or two jumps you have to learn and that's it. Rinse and repeat.
On time management... meh. This would have been true if cooldowns had been changed a bit. Usually it comes down to a good repair cycle and following your captains orders. And at some point you can't really get better at it because, again, cooldowns. Not even mentioning that many times you're just forced to camp the hull or baloon anyway, and again, you can't get any better at it and it's not really engaging.
-
I wasn't disregarding his opinion, just offering up the view I had on his.
From what I saw of what he was saying, most of the things he was offering there would lock you down, pin you to an area. A quick QTE for a near full repair would encourage staying in place, trying to execute a perfect repair rather than being extremely mobile across the ship, attempting repairs on all fronts. Trying to give a firing speed boost to a weapon would encourage an engineer to simply support the gunner, rather than be where he or she is needed.
I know you're much, much more experienced than me. Believe me, I know, hell, practically everyone on the forums is. From what I know, however, speed, maneuverability across the ship, and timing are what an engineer needs. They need to be everywhere at once, even with cooldowns. Light repairs if you can handle it, so that you can get to something else that needs more urgent repairs. Small repairs here or there, as well as you can do them, before you run to mallet a component. The cooldowns just encourage this, quickly moving about a ship and keeping your repairs up.
And platforming is what an engineer does, if it isn't as expressed on some ships, but there again, it's the ship and what the ship is supposed to be doing that encourages or discourages it. Your example of the Mobula is because what the Mobula is designed for; long distance engagements. The Squid is very apt, as it's supposed to be a fast and loose ship, with the engines the priority rather than the hull. Then we move to ships like the Spire and the Goldfish, which certainly do encourage platforming between the top-decks and the lower decks. Ships like the Galleon and the Pyra I don't believe encourage much platforming due to what those ships are supposed to do.
As for camping, yeah, you do end up needing to camp the hull or balloon at times, and I would definitely like a tool that helps with that. It's not that I'm against trying to hold a component, but I don't think that's the focus of the engineer. Might be a difference of opinion, but a lack of mobility is an engineers bane.
I'm not against new content or new mechanics. Far from it. I would definitely like new content, and maybe one or two tools that do allow you to camp more effectively, or else be much more powerful for camping, but I would rather they be very costly, simply due to your lack of mobility. What Boby was suggesting, honestly, seemed to pin the engineer down much, much too hard for my view of things.
As for not seeing the issue... I think it's just a difference of enjoyment for some people. There are certainly people who don't enjoy engineering. That's fine. Engineering isn't for everyone, just like Gunning or Captaining isn't for everyone. Some people like the simplicity of running their chem cycle, other like the complexity of trying land a Lumber shot at five kilometers. People take to some things more than others.
-
I would argue that the routine/"boring" is needed: it allows for the engineer to carry out their tasks without being hyper-focused on them, allowing them to retain a wider view. This is most notable on Crazy King matches: it is often the engineers reminding the captain that it is time to move on, as the captain is distracted by their focus on piloting.
In regards to the fun aspect, different people enjoy different things. I personally find the repeated loop of "identity critical task, start on it, plan next move, complete task one, repeat " extremely satisfying when done properly.
-
I love being engie. Over 6k matches, probably over 5k of those as engineer. Yes, there are hard limits in the game that can dictate what you can achieve, but prioritization is a huge part of being a good engineer. I'm not talking simple stuff, like rebuilding the hull before harpoon gun. It's about knowing whether to rebuild the main engine or the turners first, based upon the situation. Or if you need the second turner before the main. Knowing when to mallet the hull after a rebuild or chemspray it, even if it means it's going to go down almost immediately. How many rebuild hits you can squeeze into a component before abandoning it to mallet the hull, returning to finish the rebuild afterwards. Or if it's more important to finish what you're doing before leaving. Whether to mallet a flaming component or chemspray it. Whether or not to brace a failing component with the spanner before a mallet hit to extend its life.
Sometimes, when dealing with inexperienced pilots, it's about not rebuilding the main engine, knowing that you're saving the ship from a suicidal 1v2 charge.
The same is true in every class: knowing the basics and having some experience will get you 90% of the way there. But the last 10% earned from fine-tuning and situational awareness is a really big 10% and can make all the difference.
-
Naoura I was not saying QTE should lock you down, or they should absolutely make QTE, again it was just me giving quick thoughts on how I would like the enginneer job to improve, aka more direct skill involved and less repetitive routine mechanic style of gameplay that I personally can't bear. If they could improve AI bots to help them prioritize more, then for me engineer would be like the ultimate bot job right now.
It's clear engineer need to be a job based around mobility and time management even after the change of direction I am suggesting.
But I hear you, we have just opposed affinity about this position I guess, you like it and I don't. Who I am to tell you you are wrong after all. It might be not made for me that's all. Personally I can only bear playing captain position, and I often pity thoses poors engineers who are non stop paying for my own mistakes and never get praised for their hardwork, it feels like a painful job to my captain's eyes (I try to praise them after every game).
Gunners seems a bit more fun imo, because you know people like to shoot stuffs, personally I don't in this game as it is too basic with nearly no depth in the aim mechanic, but I can understand the players who do even though I am always wondering inside how long thoses guys gonna enjoy shooting stuffs with their brain off.
When I am the captain I like my crew to have a good time, to have fun shooting weapons that are the same time fun and effective, have fun repairing stuffs but I rarely get the impression they are truly having fun after a couple of matchs on thoses jobs, more like they are waiting the first opportunity when I get out to take my position or that they are so bored they go idle/afk in the middle of the match, and I need to remind them the objectives through my voice to make them motivated to perform their duty again.
That makes me sad sometimes.
-
No offense Boby, but what levels are you often playing with? Higher level engineers rarely go afk in the middle of match, or don't have a good time along their run. Honestly, I don't see what you mean with them wanting to take your place. I know one absolutely fantastic engineer who actively despises captainig, and my clan has made a fantastic inside joke about it.
As for QTE's not locking you down, indirectly, I believe it would. People would end up focusing on getting a perfect QTE on a failing component rather than giving it a mallet and running to repair the next thing, which would, in the longer run, cost you the ship. Perhaps for higher levels, they might be able to disengage from the idea of getting a full repair with a well done QTE in order to repair a failing engine, maintaining maneuverability so as to not lose the ship, but less experienced players would keep on the component, going so far as to camp it for the QTE rather than repair engines, which would slow them down and lower their effectiveness.
As to no depth in the aim mechanic... You've never been on a Lumber, have you? Or really used a Hades, or mines? A lumberjack shot from nearly 3-4 kilometers is a lovely thing to behold, especially on a ship that is moving. Or maybe a Typhon, which is underused simply because it's not paired well with anything besides a Hades, and it's rather difficult to time the shots between the engineer manning it and the gunner attempting to land the extremely slow, extremely hard to hit with flak rounds. Meanwhile, mines offer something completely different, trying to utilize different ammunition types to get more or less range before the mine hits it's arming time and deploys. I cannot begin to describe the satisfaction of getting a Loch mine detonate on an enemy ship after you've fired it perfectly into their path.
Again, it might be a difference of opinion, but I think you need a little more time when to see some things out. Engineering can be fun and satisfying, but even I'll admit, some people find it boring. Same goes for gunning, where they might not feel like they can ever do anything, or else get annoyed at missing juuuuust that one shot. And the same goes for captaining, those who don't like the complexity and the difficulties of coordinating with a second captain, and would prefer the simpler side of things, like engineering or gunning.
Please note I'm not being hostile to you, or trying to be dismissive. Just giving my opinion on things, and how I don't see some of the suggestions as being healthy for the ships in Guns. I admit, having a tool that would assist camping would be a nice addition, especially since it'd be balanced because it slows your engineers down and makes them less mobile, and therefore unable to keep the ship alive. Hell, I suggested and posted a concept of such a tool ages ago, I may send it to you if I can find it again. The reason I mention it is because Guns is starved for content, and should the devs, after hell freezes over, decide to look at the forums to try and grab a few new weapon, tool or ship concepts, then I would rather there be something for them to look at. Post the ideas you have, please! People are going to poke holes in them, but that's what can strengthen them, not dismiss.
-
He's giving a quite an honest opinion about his perception of the game from a novice viewpoint. He's not the only one. I'm sure many novices walk into this game saying "wtf, all i do is swing this hammer thing. no wonder the player base is this small." then switching to gunner gets double gunners and vets rage.
I see alot of response is give it time, tips on what a true engie does, however it doesnt matter because of the systemic issues this game has only a select few make it through the "boring" phase to understand the game as a whole and/or even care.
-
Red, those are the people who see CS:GO on the Games Similar to This on Steam. They think the game is only shooting, and that they can solo the fight. That goes on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Guns is.
I agree, something new would be wonderful. Something new that isn't Skyball or old VIP. Something for each of the classes to spice things up a little. But that's not going to matter much if someone still thinks of Guns as CS:GO, or a game where they can go on a solo killing spree, or only want to watch the pretty explosions.
The reason the response is 'give it time' is because it takes time to take apart the expectations and replace them with the truths. Tips on what a true engie does is because if a lower level tries to simply play gunner as an engie, everyone suffers even if they didn't switch to double gunner. A select few make it through any position, possibly with the exception of gunner.
A lower level pilot might stop trying to play captain because they rage quit after realizing that no, they can't solo the match. Or they are tired of dying all the time, despite the fact that they've been told multiple times why they've been dying and how to fix it.
A lower level engineer might stop because, yes, engineering feels kind of unsatisfying... if you don't know what you're doing, or else you think the game is something it isn't.
A newer gunner might leave because they can't snipe a ship with one shot, or else don't enjoy just sitting on a gun and waiting for an arc their captain might never give, or else gets tired of having their weapons be ineffective because they're using the wrong ammunition.
Those that quit due to the game being 'boring' are those with different expectations. Not wrong expectations, just not the one's that Guns would deliver on.
-
When I am the captain I like my crew to have a good time, to have fun shooting weapons that are the same time fun and effective, have fun repairing stuffs but I rarely get the impression they are truly having fun after a couple of matchs on thoses jobs, more like they are waiting the first opportunity when I get out to take my position or that they are so bored they go idle/afk in the middle of the match, and I need to remind them the objectives through my voice to make them motivated to perform their duty again.
That makes me sad sometimes.
Burn engines more. If you're not burning anything it gets really boring for engineers very quickly. Especially Pyramidion main deck. Pyramidion is probably the worst ship to engineer on if the pilot never burns, because that thing is built for constant burn. And tell them to yell at you if you're overburning and about to lose an engine from it. If you can get an engineer to watch that for you then you're free to monitor other things as a pilot. If it's still boring for them, make them take chem spray. They won't have more than a few seconds to sit still then, and it's better than the extinguisher the majority of the time anyways.
Engineering has a lot of little things that add up to make it a complex task. Should I patch the minor damage with a couple spanner hits so I can still burst heal or just mallet and head to another part? Are my components safe enough to help the other engineer? Should I extinguish or repair the engines? Do I hold the spanner on the hull get the instant rebuild hit or try for the clutch mallet heal? Am I prioritizing chemspray too much or too little? Do I go for the risky Galleon main engine repair trick or leave it to the other engineer?
It's a lot of very small decisions whose answers vary a lot depending on what precisely is happening around you. If your captain managed to get out of arc of the enemy, it may be safe to be "greedy" with repairs and repair all the things. Extinguish engine fires, rebuild some side guns, take the time to fully repair engines, help the gunner repair, etc. On the other hand if you're locked in combat, you have to keep an eye to your hull, count the seconds on the mallet cooldown, may need to abandon an engine rebuild to maximize hull repair, wait to finish a rebuild so the incoming rockets don't immediately destroy it, etc.
For me, enjoying engineering is about enjoying optimization. Optimizing movement, optimizing timing, optimizing repair output, optimizing chemspray coverage. The last 10% that River Turtle mentioned is when engineering really gets interesting.
Also, try engineering more. Especially with higher level pilots. Engineering is only especially dull when the captain doesn't know what the engineers can handle or isn't doing anything interesting. I've had to plead to Pyra pilots to use kerosene before.
-
Have a slaute, sir.
-
Engineering is boring. The skill-cap for engineering is pretty low, and it just comes down to memorizing cycles, and *occasional* prioritization. Burning engines doesn't create fun. Firstly, it turns the "enjoying the map, looking for enemy, planning next move" experience to "bouncing between 2 or 3 engines." There comes a point when you could repair a burn or do a buff cycle with your eyes closed.
(Though once you have a rough idea of what parts are most important, prioritization fades as well.)
In the end, it just mostly comes down to running in circles in the most effective paths during "downtime" and doing brief cycles in between guns and "your part" during combat. Furthermore, the ability of an engineer to impact the outcome of a match is fairly low compared to other classes. The difference between an "expert" engineer and a "middle of the road" engineer is lower than other classes. Engineering "important" as in "an engineer must exist" not "takes the most skill." Furthermore, when you're an engi, you don't really get to "take in" the match--all your focus is on the ship. Don't patronize newbies with "lul git gud, this isn't CSGO." It's a legitimate problem in game design, and has been since launch.
Game needs less disable, and possibly the ability for engineers to "overcharge" parts in ways pilots or gunners can't. Something fun that doesn't involve either camping the hull, or running in circles playing whack-a-mole. Or just make disable weapons less common, and encourage ships where everyone gets to gun.
-
Engineering is boring. The skill-cap for engineering is pretty low, and it just comes down to memorizing cycles, and *occasional* prioritization. Burning engines doesn't create fun. Firstly, it turns the "enjoying the map, looking for enemy, planning next move" experience to "bouncing between 2 or 3 engines." There comes a point when you could repair a burn or do a buff cycle with your eyes closed.
(Though once you have a rough idea of what parts are most important, prioritization fades as well.)
In the end, it just mostly comes down to running in circles in the most effective paths during "downtime" and doing brief cycles in between guns and "your part" during combat. Furthermore, the ability of an engineer to impact the outcome of a match is fairly low compared to other classes. The difference between an "expert" engineer and a "middle of the road" engineer is lower than other classes. Engineering "important" as in "an engineer must exist" not "takes the most skill." Furthermore, when you're an engi, you don't really get to "take in" the match--all your focus is on the ship. Don't patronize newbies with "lul git gud, this isn't CSGO." It's a legitimate problem in game design, and has been since launch.
Game needs less disable, and possibly the ability for engineers to "overcharge" parts in ways pilots or gunners can't. Something fun that doesn't involve either camping the hull, or running in circles playing whack-a-mole. Or just make disable weapons less common, and encourage ships where everyone gets to gun.
I disagree.
-
I used to think that engineering would be easy. Then I gitted gud. After nearly 2k matches as engineer I still haven't reached the skill cap.
-
Once again, different tastes in play. Engineering is boring to some, I get it. It is. There are times where I would want to go captain, or gun, to shake things up a little. However, I like engineering, because I like the way it plays. Yes, it's simple, yes, it's critical, but it's also rewarding in a different way than Piloting or Gunning.
You say an engineer has little impact, to which I disagree. With disable as it is, they are probably the most impactful part of the match. I agree that disable needs to stop being the pure meta, and I agree with new content to the engineers. Skirmish is starved for it anyways. But I disagree on making it so that everyone gets to gun. It'd be nice for more people to be able to shoot, but then they'd stop having to man the weaponry so as to repair everything before they could man them again. Now we've got a different kind of cycle, and one that doesn't do much to replace the last cycle.
As for ships that encourage everyone to gun, they exist! They're just squishy. The Mobula and the Spire are probably the best example of this. The Junker is another, a tanky ship with a perfect layout for an engineer to do both gun and repair. Honestly, the ship that most discourages it is the Pyra, and that's just because of the nature OF the pyra; be in the middle of the battle, take as much as you can, don't die. The maindeck on a Pyra is often the most boring for some, due to being needed almost solely for repairs. Just the nature of the beast. And then we have the Galleon, a ship which, you would think, would encourage having the ability to let the engineer gun, but it's done rarely in the case of Hwachas, as you want a rolling broadside for optimal damage, and the gungineer is stuck fixing engines.
And I'm not patronizing. That's what was on the Steam page. That's what people do walk in looking towards. Something that has been stated before is that one issue Guns has is that there's nothing like guns, meaning no one has anything to pull from, and can only go in with their expectations.
On the on the ship, I half agree. Your focus is suppossed to be on the ship. Your part is to keep it alive, and carry it to victory. But that's what you have the icons for, so you can be scanning the skies while watching component health. I've helped my captains several times by calling out ship placements they've missed, spotted and unspotted. I've also been responsible for getting kills as an engineer, especially on ships like the Junker, where the gunner is responsible for strip, not kill. And that's something you have to be aware of, when to leave a component to burn, and when to get the kill that will save the ship. So yes, your focus has to be on the ship, but no, it's not entirely taken up by it.
Less disable would be wonderful. More kill based weapons would offer up a more critical side to repairs and hull, and make engineering that more desperate, and, from my point of view, fun. The engineer is the one with the save, getting that spanner hit in just before the explosives hit, saving the day. It would make engaging that much more daring, as you're likely to still get disabled and very quickly killed. This is fine. I don't mind it. Having tools to overcharge engines and weapons would be wonderful. I *want* something other than the buff hammer. Armor kit from Alliance, thoroughly balanced, would be an awesome addition! As would, say, countless other additions that have been posted here. But they would still be timed, and still require the engineer to be highly mobile and situationally aware. Meaning we're back where we started. Unless you want to add more to the icons at the edge of your vision, and inspire clutter, you're back to square one with moving about the ship to boost components.
The fun of engineering is, as you say, 'running in circles playing whack-a-mole'. It's fast. It's mobile. It's trying to be everywhere at once. It's not patiently waiting for arc on a weapon, or trying to coordinate an ambush with your ally. You state it can be repetitive. So can everything, given time, especially when perfected. Dodging rams can become simply boring, simply because you know exactly the maneuver to take to avoid them. Or else using the same weapons day in day out can get boring, because you've mastered the only ones anyone ever takes. That's just where being starved for content comes in.
-
For me, most to least exciting if you only stick to your role are Pilot (WHOOOOOOO!), Brawler Engineer (Gotta fix it all! And shoot that thing!), Gunner (gets dull), Sniper engineer (are we there yet?), Sniper gunner (at least the engineer gets to climb the rigging).
I do understand the viewpoint, and can't disagree with a personal opinion. Telling someone they are wrong when they say they think something is boring is the same as telling someone they are wrong when they say their favorite color is blue.
For this reason, I have previously championed a 'lighter' introduction to the game, with two person crews of Pilot and First Mate on smaller ships. With only two people, there is more for each one to do, and roles are less defined. Much more arcade-like.
-
I remember your abbreviated entrance to the game, Richard. The Krill, correct?
I'm not certain I agreed with it or not, but it's not a bad direction. I do think that Vet's WILL jump in on it, however. If only to interrupt the monotony, and to challenge each other in a much more fast-paced, higher risk game.
-
I've wondered at times about the possibility of being able to lock a single slot as a dedicated AI main engineer with its own preset pattern so that people can play ships that have 3 fun/popular roles without the problems associated with either the AI leaving its role and becoming ineffective or the 4th crewman getting bored with their role.
-
I've wondered at times about the possibility of being able to lock a single slot as a dedicated AI main engineer with its own preset pattern so that people can play ships that have 3 fun/popular roles without the problems associated with either the AI leaving its role and becoming ineffective or the 4th crewman getting bored with their role.
That'd be nice to do. I often find myself not taking the ship I want to because I don't want to screw people over. I went on a Goldfish binge for about a week and felt guilty about it.
-
Shameless plug alert!
Why, yes, it was the Krill. Also, the Pinno. (https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,7933.msg131895.html#msg131895) Two person ships with one default AI.
(http://i.imgur.com/gOpGjSf.jpg)
-
Still don't get the one AI, may as well just use reuglar ships and ship them with two AI, buuuut that's my opinion.
-
I might not be the best man to give suggestions as I am obviously not as much in love with the game as you are guys.
That said, I like the game, played ~60 hours, it was great but I can't see me coming back very often after that point if no more mechanics are added. I tried to like engineering but it gave me headaches (motion-sickness) just to spam my left click button and run hammering component after component in a never ending fast paced loop.
I have been taken by the hand by some vets captains like Lysanya who were truly great at explaining me a loop I had to perform to be the most effective on their ship, I found joy in trying to please their needs the best I could but I never truly liked it for the gameplay itself sadly. I felt like a simple cog in the wheel, barely looking outside when I fucking love the atmosphere of the maps, locked in my task, hammering stuffs in a repetitive manner.
At a certain point we could loose or win, it didn't matter for me, my experience was the same.
For the gun part, I like to play tactical shooter where you have some challenge trying to hit that decisive bullet (Squad, R6, CSGO as you mentioned), I am not suggesting it should be the same because of course we are talking about ships here, but obviously the skill involved in shooting weaponry in GOI doesn't attract me that much, my only exception is the mine launcher with thoses rounds that goes super far (lesmok ?), I found the challenge/reward thing very good on them but that's pretty much it.
A lot of others were just painful to use for me, with very low turning rate or stuffs like that, it's not even what I call a challenge at this point but it being just purely frustrating for the sack of it.
The rest were just mindless shooting guns like the gatling or the flamethrower.
That left me with the piloting that I love actually, because I can look at thoses beautiful sceneries, and me just holding the wheel, hearing thoses sweet noises when I turn the ship makes me happy alone. I don't think I am a bad captain either as I was often fairly competitive against vets crew. I am burning thoses engines all the time too, and using every tools without mercy but I feel like my engineers are just here to wip my ass, or to give me the paper when I sneeze, I feel bad for them truly as I don't like that job myself, but hearing you guys truly liking it I think I am gonna change my view on them a bit.
Anyway I got bored of piloting after a while because there were no new ships to try or loadouts exciting me.
Well I realise I am saying nothing relevant here, only pure subjectivity, so I will just end by suggesting to add more contents (maps, loadouts, ships etc.), I would be happy to pilot again if it happens, until then I am gonna take an happy break.
-
Don't worry about it not being relevant.... it is Boby. Skirmish mode has been starved for content for a long, long time. The last weapon added was the Minotaur, which... honestly, hasn't been widely accepted, and the last ship added, if I remember correctly, was the Mobula, and that was almost 4 years ago.
As I said, personal taste defines each role. Some people are better off in a captains position, others on a gun, and some beating the deck. You've got your taste of Guns, and we do hope you come back. Alliance mode is something that is coming, and I hope you come back for that at the very least, to get a taste of it as well. It's got some new ships for you to try, as well as a whole PvE mode.
If you don't feel like coming back for Skirmish, at least come back for Alliance. It's something new to GoI, and I sincerely hope you find it more to your liking if you haven't any love for Skirmish.
-
mentioned Squad
God damn right.