Messages

16

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Ball Turret

« on: September 08, 2013, 04:30:41 am »

Or alternatively it could have the same limited turning arc of whatever gun is placed there, but a greater degree of vertical movement (at least, the ability to look almost straight down).. that way, it could be used for 'bombing runs'.

17

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Pancake Ship

« on: September 06, 2013, 09:01:21 pm »

Hmm.. I'm not sure if that kind of division would work.. as it currently stands one Engineer has to deal with repairing all of the guns, the hull and the main engine, while the other only has to fix the turning engines and balloon. It's not really an even load. The Mobula works with that kind of layout because it's symmetrical, and crossing over to the opposite side isn't too difficult if necessary.

I don't mind the idea of the alternating ramps leading from upper to lower and vice-versa, but where would the joining point be? At the moment it seems like they pass each other without meeting anywhere. And if they do meet somewhere in the middle, the next question would be; why is this layout better than a ramp from upper to lower in the middle of the ship, with a central corridor also leading from front to back?
The idea makes me think of the Spire, with it's spiralling ramp that runs all the way around.. but it only works because the Spire is small and the central ladder is there if needed.


As for the idea resembling the Mobula - you're right, it does in some ways.. but I wouldn't worry about it so much. After all, the majority of the ships currently included in GoIO mostly conform to the 'ship hull slung under a balloon' design, with only a few exceptions and some variation in general layout of components and pathways.
It's not unreasonable that another ship like the Mobula could also exist - and there are enough differences for it to stand out as its own ship.
Also, the Mobula sits atop its balloon, whereas I envisioned this ship as being almost entirely engulfed by it, with balloon bulging out both above and below. It would be less of a 'hovering flight deck' like the Mobula, and more of a 'balloon flying fortress'.

The limited visibility wouldn't just extend to the sides, but also the top and bottom of the ship.. so I reckon if is given high manoeuvrability and vertical mobility, but slow speed, this would balance out the increase in firepower it has over the Mobula. It would perhaps need increased armour.. possibly this could be a sort of 'Galleon' version to the Mobula's 'Goldfish'?


I think I see what you're getting at with the torus-shaped balloon - that's a pretty good idea, and works very well with the crows nest/watchtower idea..
Only thing about separating the hull and balloon is that it would mean losing the visibility restrictions that would require the tower in the first place.

What if.. the torus were turned on its side, and the main bulk of the hull sat in the hole in the middle, with a spindly double-decker gantry leading out to the engine/gun platform at the rear? A bit like a screw and washer.



..ok that's not precisely a screw and washer, but it better illustrates what I mean! >.<

The watchtower/crows nest could come up from in front or behind of the balloon, since the hull sticks out on either side.

18

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Pancake Ship

« on: September 06, 2013, 03:50:52 pm »

Hmm interesting.. you know, I'd completely forgotten about engine placement >.<

I like your suggestion for having heavy guns instead of dual light guns - it would certainly bring something to the table that no other ship currently does (other than, as you mentioned, the Galleon). I was a little worried my suggestion was too close to the Mobula, this would certainly mix things up a bit.

I also like your suggestion for the helm placement.. I'd actually drawn something like that myself, but I erased it since I couldn't figure out where to include the helm on Riggatto's version. It basically makes the corridor layout look a bit like a peace sign ^^

I basically agree with everything you've said (including the balloon/hull hardpoint placements) with the exception of two things - First, I believe the rear guns could both be located on the upper deck on either side of the main engine, forcing crew members to switch decks if they want to cover the back of the ship.
However, rather than joining these decks with ladders, a ramp in the middle could lead from the lower front of the ship to the upper back, with passing spaces on either side (or the reverse, with small ramps on either side and a corridor down the middle). Possibly there could be ladders on either side of the helm cabin leading down to forward guns, which would also allow a shortcut for engineers looking to get to the balloon hardpoint as fast as possible.

It would work a bit like the Mobula does is some respects.. there would be two areas to be divided up between two engineers, as well as additional guns for them to use when they aren't repairing. If anything it might be more complicated for the gunner, as he would have to run back and forth a fair bit if the engineers are busy (or if the pilot is asleep and doesn't think to turn the ship fast enough xD)

The other thing was the shape of the ship you outlined.. I realize it's only a basic text layout to give us an idea of what you were talking about, but I actually envisioned the hull and balloon being integrated together much like Mobula.. a sort of.. hamburger shape, a bit like this:

    ______
   /  ____  \
_/_/   H   \_\_   Front View
\__G___G__/
   \______/

    ______
   /  ____  \
_/_/L M L\_\_   Rear View
\__T___T__/
   \______/

As you said, its main weakness would be poor visibility and a massive target in the shape of the balloon.. however by sandwiching the hull inside the balloon, it might help split the damage between hull and balloon, and make it a bit more challenging to take down - especially by ramming.
It would also have something of a blind spot above and below as well, since the turrets are all relatively close to the hull, there wouldn't be any way to look directly underneath or above - a small ship could conceivably hover there while they recover from an attack.

I'm still kind of keen on the idea of the crows nest coming out of the top though.. it would negate the visibility penalty somewhat, but as I mentioned it would take crew members away from the main hull, making it more or less unusable in battle. It would be useful for spotting at a distance though, and a well coordinated crew might even make use of it tactically (for example, outfitting Field Guns on the rear, and relaying directions to the pilot to fly backwards while they get in some long range hits).
It probably isn't necessary though.. I guess it would be down to the folks at Muse to determine if it added or unbalanced anything.

19

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Engine name markers

« on: September 06, 2013, 12:19:26 pm »

Guess it's just me then.

The less you have on your HUD makes it more of a need to turn your attention to look. Or ask your engie, who should already be deciding on what to fix and when.

I'm speaking from an Engineers point of view mostly, not a Captains. As someone who primarily uses a Mobula, the job is divided among at least 2 Engineers (who also have to divide their time between repairing and acting as gunners).. and among all the crews I've flown with, I still find that people tend to assume the engine symbol belongs to the other side (and don't dismount their gun to check), and I constantly have to yell at the other Engineer to do his job and get to the engine before it breaks (oddly these same people have no problem attending to the balloon/hull or the guns on their own side.. but they don't seem to know when their own engine is about to go, hence my suggestion to differentiate them somehow).

While it may seem like just a small adjustment to the HUD  it'll make you less dependant on your crew, Possibly making you only use voice chat to bark orders (not saying JUST you, just speaking in generality)

I have to disagree, the only difference would be the ability to identify an engine faster than before - that's it. The Engineers would still have to attend to their specific areas, nothing would change except I would hear less of 'Umm, guys there's an engine down, go check if it's yours' and 'Oh it's MY engine that's down?'.. happens more often than you'd think.
People who bark orders would still bark orders, and people who don't wouldn't be any more inclined to do so than before.


I see a lot of people are against additions to the UI in this game.. well how about this: Don't add anything.. just re-use what's already there.
Have three separate icons, one for each engine, pointing in a direction relevant to that engine.. so the left engine has a left facing propeller, the right engine has a right facing propeller, and the main engine is the symbol as it currently exists in-game.

Like this:

20

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Pancake Ship

« on: September 06, 2013, 11:18:00 am »

Busting out my epic MS Paint skills (because I CBA to open up Photoshop right now xD ), I did a rough diagram from your description, Riggatto, as well as a suggestion of my own.

On the left is your suggestion, with two guns at each point of the 'crosshair'.. I wasn't sure if the guns were supposed to sit on the edge of the balloon or project just beyond it on walkways, but it's a small detail.

On the right is my alternative suggestion.. basically 4 forward mounted guns spaced so that there is a small overlap window for at least 3 of them to be facing one target at the same time (a bit like the Mobula, only with the guns all on the same level). However unlike the Mobula, it would also have 2 rear mounted guns to deal with ship sneaking up from behind.
While it wouldn't have a rear blind spot, it would have two large gaps on either side that would give enemy ships some opportunity to approach unwary crews.

The lines inside are for suggested walkway paths, allowing fairly quick access to each gun. I'd suggest that maybe the hull, balloon, and pilot wheel are all located on a separate level, otherwise it might make using this ship a little too easy.

It'd be interesting if the main bulk of the ship sat mostly inside of the balloon (including the walkways, again much like the Mobula), making spotting enemies much more difficult since there would be nowhere with a clear view all the way around. A crows nest of some kind could be stuck on top and accessed via a ladder, forcing a crew member to be away from their post if they want to keep a lookout (the only alternative being that the crew has to split up and hang around opposite ends of the ship).

21

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Pancake Ship

« on: September 06, 2013, 10:46:55 am »

I would have to agree with Eukari - it might not have any blind spots, but it wouldn't necessarily be able to concentrate enough fire-power in any one direction to be worth using in most battles (although it could potentially be very useful for holding capture points).

Giving it two light guns at each end would give it far more guns than any ship out there at the moment.. it might not be able to aim them at someone all at once, but it would allow crews to outfit themselves with just about every light weapon there is.. which might be its only advantage - with a good crew and a smart pilot aiming the correct side in the right direction at the right time, this ship could be a short, medium and long range attack ship all at the same time.. just not a particularly powerful one.

It would be damn difficult to use effectively.. I think it would probably end up becoming a support ship at best.

I like the idea, but I think it may still need a little work. ^^

22

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Ball Turret

« on: September 06, 2013, 10:33:26 am »

That picture is all kinds of awesome 

Having a turret underneath a ship could potentially be useful, but if the turning ability is no better than a side-mounted gun (including how far it can tilt up and down), it doesn't add anything to the game - in fact, it could potentially make things worse if it ends up being more difficult to mount/dismount than a regular turret (which it might not, depends how it is implemented).

However, the limited turning ability of most guns is part of the game balancing - if you were able to plug any kind of gun into that thing and suddenly have an ultra-manoeuvrable version of it, it might create some balance issues.

You could possibly limit which guns are able to be used in that slot, but this still creates the possibility of a ship with no blind spot (although I know some of them do have rear turrets, so it might not be such a problem).

Perhaps a ship with only belly-mounted ball turrets? Much in the way that the Mobula is only able to attack from the front, this ship could only be able to attack targets that are below it.

It could potentially be quite interesting.. although once players are wise to its limitations, I foresee a lot of battles taking place at the maps ceiling cap.. so maybe not 

23

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: rebuild status in the hud?

« on: September 05, 2013, 11:37:20 am »

I can see some problems for colorblind people as well as keeping 2 spanner hits apart on a Galleon's hull instead of a Squid's one. Since this wouldn't be any help at all then by only minimal changes to the brightness of the red, I suggest using a different bar. This would add more to the HUD, if for example 2 engineers and 1 gun had to rebuild stuff because of 2 Manticore Hwachas attacking you -> 3 more bars added to the HUD.

There are already bars on the HUD as the HP of each item is reduced - why not simply re-use that same bar in a different colour?
I know you mentioned there may be issues for colour blind people, but if the repair progress bar colour was substantially different from the usual health bar, they should hopefully still be able to tell the difference? Admittedly there are many different types of colour blindness so I know accounting for all of them is difficult to do.. but this seems like the simplest way to add this feature without adding additional elements to the UI.

Perhaps if the repair progress bar were also to flash on and off to differentiate it from the health bar.. or a tiny spanner could be placed next to the bar to indicate it is for repairs.

24

The Lounge / Re: What did you name your ship and why?

« on: September 04, 2013, 06:54:49 pm »

Mobula - "In Debt To The"

Why? Because in the pre-game lobby it reads "In Debt To The Mobula".
Why? Because when you run into us you'll soon be sleeping with the goldfishes, see?  *taps out cigar*  xD


Oh and we also have a Goldfish called Wanda... ^^

25

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Engine name markers

« on: September 04, 2013, 05:18:52 pm »

This problem will solve by time. The longer you play this game the more you will see differences in those icons by taking a look at heigth and which the side the symbol is located on if you turn your had by a few degrees, still on a gun.

I'm not sure how much time you think is needed to learn.. I'm a relative newbie compared to some on this board, but I've won 30 out of the last 40 or so matches, so I'm pretty sure I've got a pretty good grasp of the game so far (although having a damn fine crew probably has something to do with it as well xP).. but I still think this could be a useful thing to have.

On the Mobula for example, it's been my experience that while manning one of the wing guns, the engine behind you might be distinct from the others, but the opposite wing engine and the main engine tend to hover closely together, and it takes turning all the way around to differentiate the two. On the Spire as well it can be hard to tell if the main or turning engines are damaged if you're on the top deck, as the one behind you and the ones below you both move to the bottom of the screen in a relatively small space (and since the guns are off to the side, the icons aren't necessarily spaced apart well enough to tell apart).

I'm not saying this is the experience on all ships, but on certain ships it would be nice to be able to tell the icons apart more easily.

Well, as an engineer has to move to the component that should be repaired anyway and to do so turn around to face the component he can easily determine where it is.

This isn't exactly correct, as on the Mobula the hull is split into two and therefore requires at least two Engineers that cover their own areas as well as manning the guns when not repairing - it's in a situation like that that I see being able to filter out unnecessary information would be useful. As I said before, it's annoying to have to jump off a gun to go repair an engine, only to realize it's on the opposite hull and the other Engineer hasn't realized it's his problem to deal with.

As a pilot you usually notice which engine is broken by the symbols (since you're often centered) and the behavior of the ship.

I suppose.. can't say I've had the pleasure of flying with a pilot who knew their right from their left, but that's just my misfortune.. >.<

To sum it up: I guess you will dominate this problem the more you play, it is something you will gain a feeling for quite quickly.
If someone sees it another way, I'll be glad to hear it though! Maybe it's just me seeing it that way.

You make good points, and the more I think about it the more I realize that this suggestion is specifically aimed at an issue I have with Mobula's (and Spire's to some degree).. on other ships I suppose it makes less sense.

However I have seen suggestions on this board for a sort of 'quick command' menu for captains to issue orders, and I could see marking the engines with symbols making non-verbal communication somewhat easier.
As the game stands now though it may not be as useful as I thought..

By the way, this is what I envisioned it looking like:

26

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Engine name markers

« on: September 04, 2013, 12:41:07 pm »

It's hardly an obtrusive element to add to the HUD though, as it would sit on a tiny portion of a pre-existing UI element, rather than adding something new altogether.

You say that turning your head is enough, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you - more often than not, the icons are lumped so closely together that I'm often required to turn around to face the back of the ship in order to determine which engine is being indicated. While this might not sound like a big issue, it's a pain to jump off of a gun in order to look around and find it's another Engineers problem, especially when those last few seconds on the gun could be the deciding factor in a battle.

What I'm suggesting will allow not only for Engineers to determine where their job is located without having to move, but also for other crew members to keep an eye out for specific engines while doing their own jobs. It's one thing for the Pilot/Captain to yell out that there's an engine down (but is unable to turn around far enough to check while piloting the ship), and another for them to be able to instantly say  'Main engine is broken!' or 'Left turning engine is about to go down!'. It's a small but not insignificant change when engines are separated by a large distance or located on separate decks.

27

Feedback and Suggestions / Engine name markers

« on: September 04, 2013, 11:42:45 am »

This is a minor change that I think would make Engineers lives just a tiny bit easier - add individual markers to each engine icon to identify which one it is, so players can determine which engine is down without having to look around to see which location that icon hovers over.

While I know most ships keep the manoeuvring engines together, there are some ships (like the Mobula) where the player is required to run the entire width of the ship to reach each engine. In most ships the main engine is separate from the others as well. However, there's no way to tell which engine is down at the moment, and it can be a little annoying have to jump off of a gun or repairing a component to check where the engine is (and if the task of fixing it is better delegated to someone a bit closer).

A single letter would work well (such as 'M' for main engine, 'L' for left engine and so on), although in the interest of making localization easier, symbols could be used instead - perhaps a ◀ for the left engine and ▲ for the main engine etc, etc..
They wouldn't have to be large symbols, I was thinking perhaps overlaid on the edge of one corner of the original icons. Just enough to provide a bit more information without getting in the way.

28

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: rebuild status in the hud?

« on: September 04, 2013, 11:16:13 am »

I like this idea!
I'm usually an Engineer, so an indicator like this is less of a must for me than it would be for the Captain.. but then again, I tend to fly on Mobulas, and it'd be nice to know if the other Engineer is doing his job properly! =)

I can see it as a bit too much though, if there are many components damaged, some down, you see the compass above and the tools in the bottom and inbetween some yellow lines too. Depends on how it would be presented I guess.

I don't think it would add much in the way of clutter to the HUD.. but it could be made a bit more subtle - for example, rather than being a yellow progress bar, the red 'broken' icon could fade back to its normal colour as the repair progresses. The only downside to this that I can see is that if an Engineer is interrupted one click away from a full repair and forgets to go back, it might be hard to tell apart a fixed component from a nearly-fixed one.
So maybe it would make sense to add a distinctive colour to repairs in progress..

29

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Helm rope - Tool or keybind suggestion

« on: September 04, 2013, 11:06:00 am »

Just an extra thought, but as a counter to this, collisions should reset all helm controls (aside from maybe balloon rise) to neutral if no one is at the helm.

Good idea, it probably wouldn't be very popular if it could drive your ship into the ground repeatedly until you were dead.. although perhaps this should be a flaw left in to balance the usefulness of the tool out - after all, most other tools have some kind of negative consequence for their use as well as the positive.. at the moment all this has is the fact that the pilot will be away from the controls if something unexpected happens.

However I definitely agree that ship-to-ship collisions should knock the control lock off.. it allows the opposing players the chance to counter the advantage you may have gained by gaining the pilot as an additional gunner or engineer.. if they're smart enough to read the situation correctly and ram you off course, that is.
I don't see Spires being able to counter this somehow.. but they're fast enough to dodge a ship on 'autopilot' anyway.

As per locking the helm accidentally, the wheel would only lock if you set your 'ropes' tool to active, then left the helm. As soon as anyone got back on the helm, it would reset. So, I suppose it would already be a 'tool + key (E by default)' combo.

Makes sense, and would be a lot less complicated than what I was suggesting.

30

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: In-Game Map Distance Scale

« on: September 03, 2013, 09:48:10 am »

Wow it's tough to choose between each idea, they're both pretty good..

I think ultimately I would have to lean towards the 'rangefinder' spotting tool idea though, as it encourages teamwork slightly more than the map idea - if only because it actually requires another member of the crew to be standing with their spyglass out and relaying the information to the others, whereas the map is available to everyone no matter what they're doing, so people would likely just check it for themselves.
Although since the map would provide a scale rather than the exact distance of the target, it would take more time to work out than the spyglass, so the spyglass would be more convenient and easier to use in battle (assuming the crew member using it didn't already have their hands full with their normal duties).

If that seems like it might be making things a bit too easy though, you could always outfit the spyglass for stadiametric rangefinding rather than just giving an exact readout of the distance, forcing the user to work out the distance for themselves.
The only problem with this is that it's generally used to find the distance of something whose dimensions are known (e.g. for a sniper to gauge the distance of a human target), but the various ships are wildly different in size.. Still, it might add an extra level of challenge, for people who like to do everything on hard mode.

Alternatively the rangefinding scale could adjust itself according to the ship that's been spotted. This would require the person checking the range to focus on the ship for several seconds to make the adjustment before they could use it to check the range.
Or if we want to keep things a bit more plausible (rather than including magically self-adjusting lenses), the spyglass could come complete with a set of lenses, one for each ship type, which the player would then flip through to find the one with appropriate scale. If this were to be included, the rangefinding spyglass could be included as its own distinct item separate from the regular spyglass, which would have the different set of marked lenses, but would be unable to zoom in.

The 'spotting' ability could also be different - instead of permanently marking the target, it could temporarily add the target distance onto the enemy ship (visible to the entire crew), which would fade away after a few seconds. This would only happen if the player clicked when the enemy ship was located in the correct position on the rangefinding scale, and would only be a very general number (in 10 meter intervals for example) rather than a specific distance. It would need to have some kind of cooldown to avoid people spamming the ability constantly.