Messages

1

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A cry for change

« on: January 24, 2017, 06:10:30 pm »

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.

2

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A cry for change

« on: January 24, 2017, 05:46:15 am »

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.

3

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A cry for change

« on: January 19, 2017, 05:48:24 pm »

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.

4

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A cry for change

« on: January 19, 2017, 05:16:23 pm »

@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?

5

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A cry for change

« on: January 17, 2017, 02:32:31 pm »

-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.

6

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A cry for change

« on: January 17, 2017, 01:55:49 am »

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

7

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A cry for change

« on: January 16, 2017, 11:01:38 pm »

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.

8

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Defining Roles for Each Ship - A Return to Our Roots

« on: March 12, 2016, 08:26:59 pm »

I think the reason that the ships have drifted from their specializations is due to two factors: perceived usefulness, and team-play.

    The first issue, perceived usefulness, is due to the skill required to use some tactics rather then others: while most pilots can easily grasp and execute a pyra's headlong charge, the careful maneuvers required by a squid are more difficult to learn, and thus the ship seems weaker, as a larger portion of users have difficulty. This is also seen in several weapons, with the lumberjack and minotaur being prime examples of this perceived weakness: while they are just as deadly as a hwatcha in the right hands, they lack the simplicity of the "OP Liongun".

    The second issue of that of team-play. Some ships' specializations are best used with allies: a squid's harassment will be most useful when distracting/weakening the enemy as a more powerful, yet vulnerable ship (such as a spire) uses it to close and engage: the key idea of specializations is to be better in one area at the expense of another, and in proper team play, that weaker area will be filled by a teammate strong in it. However, this doesn't hold up so well when dropped in a lobby with an unhelpful "Ally". This is also seen in the gun examples: while the minotaur is quite powerful in disrupting the enemy, it cannot get a kill by itself, and as such, is seen to be weaker then guns which do not require coordination; the flak also has/had this issue.

    Combined, these issues make some ships seem much weaker then they actually are, thus leading to buffs/nerfs that lessen the weaknesses that defined their specialization.