Messages

1

The Lounge / Re: Gunner Idea Suggestion

« on: December 13, 2016, 10:21:44 am »

I meant the idea in the sense that a Gunner.....

You know like how when they showcase an assassin or spy training, they always show them disassembling and reassembling a gun.

I would think that if you were a gunner, pilot, or engineer, you would be trained or you would learn skills such as these over time.

If a gunner had more knowledge of the system, than wouldn't a gunner also know how to disasseble and reasseble a gun faster than an engineer?

2

The Lounge / Gunner Idea Suggestion

« on: December 08, 2016, 11:09:00 am »

Hey, its been a while since I played this game....

Ok to the point: I have a suggestion for the gunner but I don't think this idea is relevant enough to put into the "Gameplay" section so I put it here.

In a lore sense, I would think that if you are called "a Gunner" you would know the make-up, composition, and mechanics of any gun there is out there better than anyone.
So in that case, a Gunner would be more knowledgeable about a Gun than an Engine and an Engineer more knowledgeable about an Engine than a Gun.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest a Gunner be able to Repair and Rebuild "Gun" components faster than engineers.

Not sure how to integrate that with Gunners being able to use Engineering Tools, if Stamina would take that into account or how fair it would be for Gunners to have a passive ability dedicated to them.

Just thought it was a neat idea.

3

Release Notes / Re: Version 1.4.6 Release Notes

« on: May 24, 2016, 01:06:10 pm »

If you want choice options when joining MM, join as spectator.

Shhhh

4

The Lounge / Re: A fond farewell.

« on: May 19, 2016, 11:37:01 am »

I’m not going to sugar coat it
It sucks that you’re leaving

What’s sucks even more was that I didn’t get to play with you one more time after my hiatus.
I always thought it was a little odd that you weren’t online as often as you used to be.
I will be honest the most horrible thing I will admit to is that I only seriously paid attention to it now.
Now I feel a little horrible inside.

I know Vanlander or Oklusion don’t play anymore but I know that if they still did, they would be sad to see you leave as well.

I’m sure you have your reasons for keeping to yourself. We’ll respect them.
You have definitely left your mark here.
You’ve taught Noobs to become Vets, and most importantly, we don’t forget horrible jokes that easily.
You better damn well make sure you’re still continuing to kick "arse".

We know you’ll still be around. In this game and community though, we’ll keep you in our memories like scars on the heart, remembering the fondness those who we’ve lost over the years.

                                                                                                                                  See you Sky Slicer ...

5

The Lounge / Re: The logistics of having dark souls character creator for guns

« on: May 10, 2016, 01:46:47 pm »

I will say that other than Muse allocating resources into other fields,

People would be prone to creating pretty horrific or inappropriate looking skins.

I mean if I had the talent, I know the first thing I would do would flood a gun model with rotating pictures Steve Buscemi.

6

The Lounge / Greek Myth names for Muse to make silly Weapons

« on: September 29, 2015, 10:29:42 am »

List of Famous Greek Mythological monster names and weapons they would make
-Medusa
A weapon that slows down ships or increases it's weight
-Chimera
A hwatcha mixed with a Banshee and an Artemis
-Cereberus
A triple barreled Dakka machine

7

Gameplay / Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker

« on: September 29, 2015, 07:41:46 am »

Damn, wish I could change the title to add Spire as well
This makes me advocate Byron's Idea of switching the Stats of the Spire and the Junker even more.

-The Junker would take the role of being a Glass Cannon with armor, while also having a decrease in turning acceleration for increased Vertical and Top speed.
-This way, having the Hull Engineer off the guns wouldn't hurt it's overall firepower as much considering the bulk of the Junkers firepower comes from it's broad sides.
-I would condone having higher Top speed considering you still would have the problem of big hit-boxes on the Balloon as well as gun exposure. Also, the fact that it would have decreased forward mobility while having to turn to get its side guns in arc like you mentioned before.

-The Spire would essentially become a Turret with high Turning acceleration and armor for low Top speed and vertical mobility.
-I would say the decreased Top speed wouldn't hurt the Spire as much considering it has a light and Heavy gun pointing forward.
-The Increased Armor would also make the Hull engineer focus more on shooting than repairs which means that a few more Light guns would be shooting more frequently than usual.

8

Gameplay / Re: A Suggestion for the Echidna Light Flak Cannon

« on: September 29, 2015, 03:20:06 am »

None of these are jobs that the Light Flak should exceed in or even be good at, so of course it won't be good at those things.

@_@

9

Gameplay / Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker

« on: September 29, 2015, 03:19:04 am »

After playing what was possibly the most one sided massacre i have ever participated in flying a well buffed junker I'm developing a suspicion that fast junker would be one of the most OP things ever to be included into the game. More experienced opponents might have been able to keep up but this was only the result of the buffkit, I dread to think of stat buff + buffkit.

Do keep in mind that I wanted to make the Fast Junker have sh*t armor.
Basically if a pilot didn't outmaneuver enough, it would be eaten alive by a single Gat-Banshee/ Hwatcha/ Artemis/ Lumberjack/ etc
p:

Problem is if it can move fast enough to avoid arcs it can bring a gat-mortar side into arc far too easily and unlike the squid has no need to maneuver between the two gun arcs and can bring another 3 guns worth of options.

How maneuverability are we talking here? 
-The reason the Squid can outmaneuver/Avoid Arcs so easily is because of the combination of high Turning/Forward/Vertical (Not that much) acceleration
Another aspect is that the Squid has high Top speed and so will be more able to get in close range engagements
-The Squid is like an Acceleration God. With the Junker you would still to an extent be more reliant on firepower rather than maneuverability but it would have that High Top speed to be in situations where you would be able to Brawl quicker.
-If you were to compare maneuverability, it would be similar to a Goldfish and how the Goldfish deals with this is that it depends on the firepower of its heavy gun.
-It would be a goldfish that sacrifices vertical acceleration for more turning and forward acceleration (For more capabilities in circling)
Only this time it has even less survivability with same armor but less health in exchange for the firepower of a Trifecta


I should really elaborate on what I mean by Sh*t armor
-A full greased Banshee clip can pull off 540 damage to Hull health and so you would be able to kill a Junker in one armor break relatively easily considering how hard it is to escape from a Banshee (If you decrease it's armor to around 400 it would break that armor like butter through a Hot knife).
-If we look at a scenario where two enemies are doing nothing but sticking together and covering each other, a Junker would be Skittled because focus fire from basically only one ship would significantly increase its Skittleability.
It would need to be more reliant on its ally considering its low survivability.

-Also in this scenario, you wouldn't be dependent on that High Armor to tank while you're always in Gat/Mortar Arc. Considering the firepower of Gat/Mortar, you don't kill the enemy fast enough to compensate for the risk of breaking such low Armor.... I think...
-You would have to depend on firepower that reduces the damage potential of the enemy ship \o_ Disable _o/
-As a bonus, the Disabling capabilities would also assist in out-maneuverability because it would decrease the Maneuverability of the enemy ship (I need a Thesaurus).
-I'm not saying you wouldn't bring Gat/Mort  , but you would only bring it when you have a really good ally or a really good Pub stomp

10

Gameplay / Re: A Suggestion for the Echidna Light Flak Cannon

« on: September 28, 2015, 08:49:12 am »

I think flak should be buffed vs. balloons and engines, to give it a little more utility.  It's kill range works, but it could use a little tweaking.

You could increase its AoE radius.

-If I'm guessing this right you would increase the Flaks chances of breaking armor because it would be spreading the total Explosive damage to more around the ship.
Kinda like how a Buffed Burst Mortar can finish off a Pyramidion by itself because it is capable of breaking armor relatively easily by spreading the damage over more armor.

-If you increase the Aoe radius you also make it so that you increase the chances of hitting secondary damage farther away from the hull while the Flak is out of Arming Time (Maybe even hit the Balloon).
Kinda like how (because the Aoe radius of the Lumberjack is so high) you can kinda still pop a balloon if you hit armor with a Lumberjack.

-You also increase the chances of breaking components
If you hit the Balloon component enough times with the burst damage from Explosive, you can even pop the Balloon
You might even increase the chances of causing fires
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would essentially get a Burst Flak with normal rate of fire
-While I do kinda like these changes, the Flak still wouldn't be very good at Breaking Armor, Popping Balloons, Breaking components, or starting fires compared to other Disabling guns.
-It would be nice but other weapons would be able to do the job at a much more reasonable rate.
-In my opinion, the only way to increase its utility would be to switch its Secondary or Primary damage type for something that causes fires, disables, pops balloons, or breaks armor.
Because it's a Flak, I don't know if I would be okay with that idea considering it has a very popular big brother that brings pride to the "Flak" family name.

11

Gameplay / Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker

« on: September 28, 2015, 08:25:18 am »

Ugh being sick is horrible, can't get anything done

After playing what was possibly the most one sided massacre i have ever participated in flying a well buffed junker I'm developing a suspicion that fast junker would be one of the most OP things ever to be included into the game. More experienced opponents might have been able to keep up but this was only the result of the buffkit, I dread to think of stat buff + buffkit.

Do keep in mind that I wanted to make the Fast Junker have sh*t armor.
Basically if a pilot didn't outmaneuver enough, it would be eaten alive by a single Gat-Banshee/ Hwatcha/ Artemis/ Lumberjack/ etc
p:

As an aside how do people prefer to run buffs on their junker? I'm thinking of running buff engineer 'gunner' for the hull and main engine and pilot buff for the balloon.

Back when I used to play seriously and have a Mic,
-I used to run double buffs on Bottom and Top Deck w/ Main kit on hull
-As a Pilot I would bring a wrench because I tended to accidentally miss time a rebuild for a repair with a spanner on Junker balloon more often
-Also I kinda liked to be able to repair because I wanted engis on guns being buffed/shooting constantly (that was hard to do with a damaged balloon while enemies were dropping only just below arcs).
-I also tended to find that it wasn't that far of a distance for the Bottom Deck Engi to reach the hull (Would just top up buff on hull -> run down and Top up buff on gun).

-I've seen some guys replace the Main kit on Hull for Main kit Buff but I just like the consistency and safety of a good old Main Kit
-Didn't even want a 24/7 Buffed Trifecta anyway 3_3

12

Gameplay / Re: A Suggestion for the Echidna Light Flak Cannon

« on: September 24, 2015, 09:40:18 am »

The current Light Flak has capabilities in two clipping ships in two armor breaks so all I would be doing would be making it more able to two clip/kill in two armor breaks.
I would say that there is always possibilities in missing shots with the inconsistencies of shots as I mentioned before.
It also has Arming time and relatively slow projectile speed to predict the shots.
Not to mention there is always inconsistencies that happen in the time of that second armor break.
Also adding a second Flak means sacrificing disable potential from an Artemis, or Banshee.

While you could argue that it would make the Heavy Flak less effective...
The Heavy Flak kills all ships in one clip/armor break, except the Galleon in two clips/armor breaks
The suggested Light Flak would kill the Junker, Pyra, and Mobula in one clip/armor break but everything else in two clips/armor breaks

13

Gameplay / Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker

« on: September 24, 2015, 09:02:38 am »

Be it the reign of Double Merc Sniper play to Quick Gat/Mortar kills to Heavy Carros to Multi-range Disable
The nature of this game relies on checks and Balances that work towards the uniqueness of what each ship can bring in a fight
I think this game suffers very big nerfs that don't take into account the severity of changes they entail. Big nerfs like those were good when the Game at the start was very imbalanced but now the game is becoming more balanced due to previous changes.
-Once a build/style/ship gets nerfed, players retreat to the playstyle that is the lesser nerfed and seems to be the next imbalanced factor (something that requires less risk but high reward).
-I don't think Nerfs are in their right, necessarily bad. I just think that we have had balances that went a little too far than it should have.
-If all we do is Buff, then everything becomes overpowered and that makes a fairly boring game. (Unless it is a game that sacrifices Balance for Variety like Hearthstone or Duck game)
-The more balancing patches the game takes, the more the game should become balanced and so people will retreat to the aspects that seem less balanced. The process goes over and over again as more patches continue, making the game more and more balanced along the way.





-When I suggested the change to the Mobula I looked into its ship design, its current stats, its strengths and weaknesses, as well as role it serves in combat. I also look into how each of those play towards Firepower, Mobility, and Tank-ability. I watch a lot of competitive play of the Mobula as well as use it a lot. I notice a lot of mistakes that both me and other pilots make that I think should be punished rather than forgiven considering those four factors.
-I don't just make these suggestions because I think the presence of a certain aspect makes the game imbalanced. If that's all I said then I would be suggesting everything about the ship be nerfed (Kinda like what has happened to the Pyra.... poor pyra).
-I don't want the Mobula to become another Pyra but I do think it shouldn't have that much Turn speed considering those four factors.

-I also took this approach to the Junker. My main problems were more about its ship design and how it plays into its stats and play-style. I think having that much exposure to components and balloon makes it a very bad slow/tanky/Jack-of-all-Trades.

Honestly I think that junkers and galleons are very strong ships, but they might be the hardest to master.

-My suggestions were never about how the Junker was underused. My suggestions were about problems I had with it concerning its ship design and stats that configure it towards a certain style of play that I think doesn't coordinate very well. My suggestions were to make a style of play more centered around its ship design by changing its stats.
-Look below

I think people have experimented for a long time and we have seen Junkers in competitive games none the less. My problem isn’t regarding putting Junkers in competitive (although it might lead to that), my issue is in how the ship design of the Junker doesn’t make it very versatile or effective in many different situations in it’s current state.

I do agree that the nature of disables are what make the Junker as ineffective as it is. I will say though... a combination of slow speed and exposed components make disables much easier to hit and make the ship much more vulnerable to future disables.
This is bad for the Junker because the damage modifier from disable weapons will dig even faster into the hull once a component breaks, making that "Second highest armor in the game" useless.
I’m getting a little sick of having to repeat myself so please just read my previously mentioned problems with the current Junker.

-I really like comparing the Junker to the Squid because I think the way the Squid ship is designed is very similar to the Junker. They both have very close components to make it easier to engineer on, very exposed components, and a big balloon at the top.
-I think we see the success of the Squid because it has the maneuverability to nullify it's weaknesses in balloon, hull, engines, and gun exposure as well as counter many builds. I wanted to make the Junker more like the Squid in that it wouldn’t be as fast but have more firepower. I also wanted to decrease it's armor to encourage the play-style of outmaneuvering enemy ships much like the squid.

And

Also I want to say that I don't like how the Junker is configured towards Long range play. Mainly because it has very exposed components and a big balloon which means a ship like that staying still is a ridiculously easy target. I mentioned some of the problems in disabling in a previous post.

-I do agree that the game is very inconsistent and just because something is considered counter-able by another build, doesn't necessarily mean the result will be as you expect. There are a lot of factors to take into account and not every thing will be ideal.
-A ship that is considered countered will be more likely to be countered. I think the Junker is considered counter-able by many builds for very obvious reasons concerning how it is shaped and how it plays into its style of play.
-You can bring the Junker all you want and play it without regard to the map or enemy ship and you will still win matches regardless.
-Play the Junker enough and you will realize its strengths and weaknesses
-We have all played the Junker for a very very long time and we all seem to know its many weaknesses and strengths
-It can still surprise us... but I really don't think that it should only be surprising us

14

Gameplay / Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker

« on: September 24, 2015, 06:59:50 am »

Increasing angular drag on the mobula alone as a way to reduce its maximum turn speed. Its neater than changing the engine stats which would change acceleration and linear movement as well.

I'm not aware of a way to see the drag stats for ships, i may be wrong about the way things work and turn speed etc are arbitrary but i think the speed, acceleration etc stats that are visible are derived from engine thrust, engine position, drag and mass.

Okay, I've been looking through the wiki and previous old forum posts from the old forum for stats on Ship specific Drag stats.
I've also been looking at the very first update patches.
Are you making this up?
or are you suggesting adding increased drag specifically for one ship? Cause I would honestly think it would be simpler to change it's Max turn speed if you were going to nerf it.

Next Topic

I don't think mobula should be turn nerfed. If ya wanna nerf it give it junker speed. Complicated changes wont be implemented.

-I did kinda think about decreasing it's top speed originally to make it more like a turret, but I think the Spire should have that kind of turret role.
-I really liked Byron's post about switching the stats of the Spire and Junker because the way the Spire is designed with so much exposed armor and open platforms for increased situational awareness makes it a pretty good turret. It also has the firepower to make up for its weaknesses in exposed components. You would decrease the ability of chasing that Brawl Spires have but make the ship more able to tank as well as encourage more gun shooting/less repairing.
-The Mobula has a big balloon at the bottom that hides components. The Balloon at the bottom also works against the upward arcs of the Carronades as well as projectile drop of Lumberjacks. I don't think a turret should have these kinds of advantages.
-Not to mention, the Mobula features many claustrophobic compartments which decrease situational awareness when firing guns.
-I believe a turret should be vulnerable on all angles while having high armor, firepower, reactivity, and situational awareness to make up for it's lack of top Speed and vulnerability.

-Also a decrease in top speed would decrease its advantages in controlling distances. I think this advantage is what gives the Mobula its greatest strengths in Multi-range engagements because you can better control the types of guns (be it long or short range) you want fired as well as keep them firing because they'll still be in arcs.
-While you could argue a decrease in turn speed would do this even more, only certain ships have capabilities in circling the Mobula (Junker, Squid, Goldfish). The rest mostly rely on more firepower, ambushing and killing the Mobula before it can get arcs with its high turn speed, or hoping that the Mobula is in a position to get surrounded/Flanked.

-I think the forward facing guns, the forward mobility, and tunnel vision design of the ship should play towards the ship's strengths in controlling distances. I think the key to flying a ship like the Mobula should be to always have multiple enemies in front of the ship to avoid being flanked due to slow turn speed. When I used to fly a MinePyra (before the Nerf) and I was being double teamed, I would always fly to have close range capabilities with mines and long range capabilities with an Artemis on both enemies to avoid getting surrounded. I didn't turn once, I just relied on always being in a position to have the guns in arcs by backing up.

-I think the current Mobula is too forgiving in positions where it is being Flanked or surrounded and I think Pilots should be more punished for carelessly being in those scenarios considering you have guns at the Front where you can directly control distance.

15

Gameplay / Re: Suggestions for the Mobula and Junker

« on: September 23, 2015, 09:43:13 pm »

Why on earth (or in the sky as it may be) would anyone use the artemis for this when we have the hwacha and banshee??

I would \o
Those are three good components you can disable in one clip and you would normally want two Artemis'es in the first place on a ship. I do pretty well with a Mercury with only two shots and with heat-sink I can disable three components.
If we change the Hwatcha back to the previous high jitter,
Heavy clip normally broke 1 or 2 components in a clip at long range and burst would break 4 or 5 in one clip at short range. Remember, that reload time is pretty damn long and Hwatcha shots don't hit every time.

I don't follow. You were talking about breaking armor with the artemis for an achievement as a reason to avoid certain stat changes but that achievement can be gained far easier with the other kinds of rockets.

Oops I meant this quote not that one

Making it need 2 shots goes a bit too far i think and would essentially become 3 shots on any gun manned by an engineer with mallet.

Next Topic

The simplest way to nerf turn speed - increasing angular drag - would help with the 'clip a building even slightly - spin 720' problem the mobula has at the moment. I wouldn't mind that aspect at all.

Do you mean increasing angular drag for all ships or increasing it on phoenix claw?
Also where do you see it? I've only seen it on helm items.