Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - obliviondoll

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Ability to KO crew members
« on: January 01, 2015, 08:45:51 pm »
Many game theory articles I've read deal with player agency. Simply put, taking control from a player is something that should be done in a very limited way and only for significant mistakes.

In GoIO, players only have 2 scenarios in which they lose control of their character during normal gameplay:

1. Your ship is destroyed. This is a relatively rare event and can usually be considered a significant failure by your ship's crew. If not a failure, it was a planned and expected trade of your ship for an enemy (or enemies plural), in which case the downtime is in a way still controlled by the players.
2. You fell off your ship. Once a player understands the game, this is extremely rare. If it happens unexpectedly, it's a signficant failure, and even then it's not a severe punishment, with near-instant respawning back on board the ship.

Adding a third - particularly one that isn't able to be directly influenced by the target player - seems to me like it would probably be a bad idea.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Instant-ish Ammo Switching [New mechanic]
« on: December 09, 2014, 03:14:08 am »
The drawbacks are the delay before you can resume fire after switching ammo types and the loss of ammo when the numbers don't line up to make a full unit of ammo. Why exactly does it need more than that?

You have to stop firing for 1.5 seconds to switch, stalling that precious damage output and giving the enemy crew 1.5s longer to work on repairs, and if you switch ammo types again, that makes for 3s of downtime without reloading.

This penalty is more punishing on weapons like the gatling gun with rapid fire and higher ammo counts. The truncated ammo count will punish the guns with slower firing and less ammo.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Instant-ish Ammo Switching [New mechanic]
« on: December 07, 2014, 01:16:26 am »
I'm not entirely clear on the logic/lore being able to explain how you can swap what kind of ammo is in the gun without reloading it.

That said, however, the idea does seem like it has merit, and I can see simple solutions to a couple of the other objections here:

hard to keep track of in a HUD.

The HUD only has to show the current ammo count for the ammo type you're using. If the gun is at 50% ammo and you have an ammo type with 6 shots per reload, it will display 3 shots. If you switch that to a different ammo type with 10 shots per reload, the HUD will show 5 because it's still at 50% capacity.

Lochnagar might screw it though, since the gun will have 1 shot, which could be interpreted as 100% so within maybe 3 seconds you could have a fully reloaded burst hwacha, but that depends on how good the code is written, I suppose.

If the Lochnagar round can't be loaded into a less-than-full gun without a full reload, this would negate the problem entirely. Switching to Loch after firing even a single round with some other ammo type would automatically force a reload.

It could be a special feature of Lochnagar rounds, OR it could be a function which kicks in any time the ammo count on a gun would drop below 1 on a reload. If we use the reverse of the example from above, If you're using an ammo type with 10 shots per reload, then unload until there's only one left, maybe you wouldn't be able to switch to an ammo type that only gets 6 shots per reload. Or doing so will force a reload because you don't have a full unit of ammo in the chamber. It could just "discard" any amount of ammo below a full round. So while 5/10 -> 3/6 is a simple whole-number conversion, 6/10 -> 3.6/10 = ???. Which do you think? If it's above 0.5 do we "round up" and give them the bullet unless it's the last round in the clip? Or round down so ammo swapping with less than full ammo could be costing some of the clip as well as time?

Personally, I'd rather see forced rounding down on the ammo count (truncation is the mathematical term, but it's likely nobody cares). But hey, discussion point! Anyone else got ideas?

Also, another point of interest... if you decide to switch ammo types, but select the wrong type in the first instance, does the ammo-swap timer work like a reload timer where it's only locked in at the last second? Or would you reset the timer every time you switch ammo types?

Again, I have my own opinion, and that is that, for simplicity's sake with the current controls (I sometimes use the scroll wheel for ammo swapping), they should apply the current reload mechanics here as well. Switch ammo type to begin the timer, but until it ends, you can freely swap. This would also mean that cancelling a quick-swap and reverting to your already-used ammo type wouldn't cost extra time, just the 1.5s *IF* you notice before the swap completes.

When looking at the idea from a "realistic" perspective, my own suggestion for solving this issue would make a little more sense. Unlike this proposal, it explains how new ammo types make it into the gun, which this idea doesn't. That said, looking at things in relation to fun, game balance and user-friendliness, I think this suggestion is probably the better option. (Yes, I like someone else's idea more than my own. Problem?)

Also, because I can't remain 100% on-topic without saying SOMETHING to spoil it...

It's "amount" not "ammount" and "flare" not "flair". Although at least "flair" is a real word, just not the one you were looking for.

Gameplay / Re: Artemis v Banshee
« on: December 03, 2014, 10:35:59 pm »
The French argument doesn't apply because Artemis is the name of a Greek Goddess, and not derived from French at all.

Sources confirm that Artemis is a non-standard feminine noun. Unfortunately, that makes it difficult to define how to convert it into plural, particularly since, as the name of a Goddess, it is intended to function as a standalone singular word without needing a plural form.

That said, many feminine nouns in Greek end in "is" in a common singular form. The plural form usually replaces this with "es".

The following are words derived from either Latin or Greek where the singular ends in "is", listed with their plural forms:

Axis -> Axes
Crisis -> Crises
Nemesis -> Nemeses
Genesis -> Geneses

Artemes seems like the logical and probably correct assumption.

Sources: (NOTE: URL only mentions Latin, but the page references Greek as well)

Fine then.

You want your English lesson to be public, go right ahead.

Here's the paragraph you seem to need me to dissect for you.

Let the Gunner* change ammo types ANY TIME DURING THE RELOAD. Every time a gun is reloaded - EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Manned or unmanned, manned by someone with the current ammo type or not - the gun should load standard ammo. When a Gunner selects an ammo type, a timer is begun. When the reload OR that timer completes - whichever comes first - the new ammo type is locked in. Abandoning the weapon or switchng to a new ammo type will reset the timer.

*Gunner as in "player manning the gun and loading ammo", not necessarily a player with the Gunner class selected

Point 1:
"*Gunner as in "player manning the gun and loading ammo", not necessarily a player with the Gunner class selected"

The * after the word indicates to check the subscript labeled with the same character. This clarifies that in the context of this paragraph, the word "Gunner" is not referrring to the role, but to anyone manning a gun on the ship.

That negates this argument:

In another note, all classes are equal, the only thing different is how many slots they have. So no exclusive functions for each class.

Because the above quote is working on the (clearly disproven) assumption that I meant these changes to only apply to the Gunner class, and not to all players.

Point 2:
"Let the Gunner change ammo types ANY TIME DURING THE RELOAD." - when taken as a standalone phrase, this could also be used in a description of how the current system works. In context, while it conveys that this aspect is the same as how the system always worked, it doesn't tell the whole story for either system, so it shouldn't be viewed on its own as an explanation of the system. Because this sentence doesn't give YOU new information, as a person with basic understanding of the English language, you should move on.

Point 3:
"Every time a gun is reloaded the gun should load standard ammo." - there was an insert in this sentence, but it doesn't affect the meaning of the sentence, being purely for emphasis. Saying that the gun loads standard ammo suggests that this is what will happen BY DEFAULT IF THE PLAYER DOESN'T ACT. This is a deviation from the current mechanics, and in this paragraph, is the first deviation I've referenced. The emphatic insert was because this is where I begin to propose changes. It isn't saying that standard ammo will be loaded no matter what, it's saying this will be the default setting selected whenever a reload occurs. If I had been explicitly proposing a removal of ammo types, assuming this was the only result for a reload would make sense. If it were a standalone sentence, it might also be reasonable to assume that. Within the context of the rest of the paragraph, and of my overall proposal, that assumption is completely senseless and demonstrates not a normal and understandable ignorance based on confusion, but WILLFUL and DELIBERATE ignorance.

Point 4:
"When a Gunner selects an ammo type, a timer is begun." - once again, it's possible to look at this sentence as a standalone sentence and find plausible grounds for a misunderstanding. The timer being referenced could be assumed to be the normal reload timer. The sentence following this one negates that assumption, but it isn't the only reason why the assumption is out of place in context. The entire framework of the paragraph implies that everything after the first sentence is me discussing NEW mechanics, not rehashing those which already exist. Reloading a gun is a concept which already exists in most modern games, and one which almost all gamers, and in particular those who have played GoIO, are familiar with. It doesn't need defining in generic terms like this, so assuming this is a reference to that timer betrays a lack of basic reading comprehension or further willful ignorance.

Point 5:
"When the reload OR that timer completes the new ammo type is locked in." - as mentioned, this negates any possible idea of the previous sentence referring to the reload timer, by specifically referencing this timer as being a separate timer running concurrently with the reload. It defines that BOTH timers are able to apply the effect of locking in the select ammo type, where the current mechanics only have one condition under which that will happen. This is also the point at which the already-negated-by-logic stupid assumption about point 3 is explicitly negated by the explanation that an alternative ammo type may be locked in, replacing the default setting of standard ammo.

Point 6:
"whichever comes first" - this is an insert to the sentence from point 5. It further clarifies that you don't need to remain on the gun until the reload completes if you simply man the gun for the shorter ammo lock-in timer. I didn't explicitly state this timer to be shorter than the reload timer, but everything about the proposal has implied such, so stating it outright would have been redundant, although I'm starting to suspect a little redundancy might be worth having if you people really are struggling this much with basic English.

Point 7:
"Abandoning the weapon or switchng to a new ammo type will reset the timer." - here, we have 2 interesting things. Firstly, a basic typo on the word "switching" - NOBODY CARES, MOVING ON. The actually interesting part is that this is the only point where I will actually concede to not being 100% clear. Even here, I was accurate in what I said, but there is room - even taking this sentence in context - for confusion. Everything else about the paragraph upto this point implies the correct meaning, but there is enough uncertainty for someone who isn't paying attention to maybe misunderstand at this stage. To be truly clear, it should have read "Abandoning the weapon before the selected ammo type is locked in or switching..." instead. Even without that clarification, it should be perfectly reasonable for someone who actually paid attention and understood basic English while reading it to realise that was the intent behind the suggestion.

If English is a second (or later) language for you, AND you were distracted by something else at the time, I'm willing to concede to the possibility that the last sentence in this paragraph could have led to a flawed understanding of my proposal. If you only have one of those as an excuse, I don't believe that is sufficient to explain the continued misunderstanding. Since both of you have gone back and tried to defend your mistakes, one by quoting me and the other by claiming to have re-read it, the only option I can see to explain your confusion at this stage in proceedings is that you're intentionally forcing yourself to misunderstand what I wrote to try and make yourselves feel better about the initial misunderstanding.

Also, including an off-topic aside along with an on-topic post ISN'T derailing the thread. Including an off-topic request for a side topic to be taken to PMs is MOST DEFINITELY NOT derailing the thread. This post, in spite of my intent to finish with an on-topic point, has enough off-topic to probably qualify as helping you two in your efforts to derail the thread. At this point, however, you've both made it clear you want me to clarify where you went wrong in public, so I'm happy to oblige. After this post, I will be happy to leave this whole incident in the past, or to continue the discussion (whether with counter-arguments or apologies on your part) in PM. Any further discussion of this particular off-topic rant in the thread will be disregarded or responded to with PMs.

And now that all that silliness is done with, lets move on and get back to the reason we're here...

My opinion on the buff hammer is to just make it not buff damage of guns, and instead make the buff an anti-snip buff(be that, an hp buff or a new buff that mitigates some % of the damage). Let ammo increase damage - let engineer tools repair/protect the ship.

That's the best gunner fix idea I've heard ever.

Did you also think it was the best idea you'd heard ever when I proposed it in the OP? Because that one of the alternatives to part of my proposed fix.

Another, also less ideal, but possibly slightly more viable alternative, would be to buff all weapons to deal more damage (at least half the buff currently given by the buff hammer), and to make the buff tool provide guns with additional HP instead of a damage increase. While not as bad as nerfing the buff hammer, I still favour changing the mechanics of weapon buffs.

As you can tell, while I think the idea has merit, I don't personally think of this as the "best" Gunner fix. I also don't think the change to HP buff would be a complete fix for the problem on its own. It would definitely be a good step in the right direction, however, and seems like something that should be comparatively easy to implement when balancing it against the rest of my proposal (or many of the other solutions offered in the past).

Two individuals who couldn't be more different from eachother in their views and thought processesses read it in the same way and differently than you meant it, believe me, you didn't write it clear enough.

My explanation was clear and correct. Two people's failure to understand basic English doesn't negate that. Linguistics is not a democracy. I've gone back over the paragraph in question to make sure, and while there was an omission which could potentially have impacted the clarity of my explanation, I don't believe it should be possible for this to cause a misunderstanding without both a diversion of attention and a lack of basic reading comprehension skills. As such, in spite of two people disagreeing with me, I'm confident that it is, in fact, both of you who are misunderstanding what I wrote, rather than any inaccuracy on my part.

You're welcome to PM me with either an explanation of what you think I said wrong or an apology if you wish. I'm quite careful about my use of English, and consider it an insult to be incorrectly told that I have misused the language. I'd rather not further derail the thread, but I will reply in private and I'm quite happy to dissect my own writing and explain why it makes sense for anyone who is having any trouble with it.

Well, I do like the timer idea even though I don't think it would change my gunner/gungineer routine. That is, unless that timer is set to "instant" in which case I would switch the ammo right after the reload on some guns. (more like go to normal and back to the ammo I had before to exploit it) This would actually buff gungineers as well since there wouldn't be any misloads anymore when you jump off the gun to whack it with the buffhammer.

A significant part of the reason for this proposal is to resolve the problem of misloads. And yes, both Gunners and Gungineers would benefit from the change. Gunners moreso, but anyone who mans a gun will see some benefit in terms of this mechanic simplifying their jobs. Even with a timer longer than instant, a 1s or less timer would be a great buff to players who could stay on the gun for that extra second then abandon it without sacrificing the desired ammo selection when they run off to help put out fires, or whatever else the player chooses to do. People whose primary role is to man a gun would benefit the most because they could be more free about when they return to the gun rather than having that very specific tiny window at the end of the reload in which they HAVE to be there to avoid dps and dpc (damage per clip) loss.

The second poposal would only buff the dpsr (fancy huh? that's how I call dps with reload) but on most if not all guns on which gunners are not viable right now the dpsc (dps per clip duh) or damage per shot (no acronym wtf) matters much more.

Buffing dpsr (yes, it's a nice term, although I'd be tempted to call it dps/r or dps-r personally) might not be as crucial, but while the damage per clip (more sensible than damage per second per clip) is often more relevant, a noticeable reload buff can make weapons more effective in multi-target situations, as well as benefitting ships with lighter weapons against "hard" targets like Galleons which can soak a lot of damage.

You need to play the game more because

Let the Gunner* change ammo types ANY TIME DURING THE RELOAD. Every time a gun is reloaded - EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Manned or unmanned, manned by someone with the current ammo type or not - the gun should load standard ammo. When a Gunner selects an ammo type, a timer is begun. When the reload OR that timer completes - whichever comes first - the new ammo type is locked in. Abandoning the weapon or switchng to a new ammo type will reset the timer.

Is how it is currently. Just simple.

No, that isn't how it works. At the moment, unless you're manning that gun RIGHT AT THE MOMENT THE RELOAD ENDS, NO MATTER HOW LONG YOU SPEND ON THE GUN BEFORE THAT POINT, it won't load your selected ammo.

If your gun has a 5 minute reload timer, and you're manning the gun for the first 4 minutes and 59.9 seconds with burst ammo loaded, then leave right in the last 0.1s before the reload completes, it loads standard ammo. If you leave the gun the instant you've fired the last shot from the clip, and come back 0.1s before the reload completes, you can get your selected ammo to load. I'm suggesting to change the former, but also to keep the latter.

Obviously the 5 minutes is exaggerated for effect, but you can see the point, right?

Also, when you have burst ammo selected, and empty a clip (or manually reload), as long as you're manning the gun, it will show burst clip as the loaded ammo type.

I'm proposing a SECONDARY TIMER, shorter than the reload time. At any time during a reload, you can select an ammo type to initiate the timer, and if that timer completes with you still manning the gun, your selected ammo type will be locked in EVEN IF YOU LEAVE THE GUN BEFORE THE RELOAD FINISHES. When you reload, the ammo should automatically revert to standard shot, so if you have your ammo type selected, it will have to be locked in again for the new clip that's being loaded.

Unless they changed it in an update after I made the original post, what I'm proposing is definitely not how the game works.

In another note, all classes are equal, the only thing different is how many slots they have. So no exclusive functions for each class.

You might want to re-read what you think you're arguing against. I specified this proposal to work for ANYONE manning a gun, NOT exclusively for the Gunner class. At one point I made an ambiguous use of the word "gunner" and explicitly labeled and clarified that I DIDN'T mean the suggested effects would be limited by class, but that they would be available to anyone manning a gun.

By reading her text past that paragraph it becomes clear that she didn't mean what she literally wrote. (assuming female cuz "obliviondoll" seems a female name to me) She suggested a mechanic that allows to change the ammo type whithout the need to man the gun at the time of reload completion by adding an option to change the ammo at the start of the reload.

Thank you for trying to "defend" me, but you're wrong about what I wrote not matching what I meant. I wrote exactly what I meant to write, Crafeksterty misread my post. Apparently, in spite of somehow understanding it correctly, so did you. But you're right about what I "meant to" write, which, funnily enough, is ALSO what I actually wrote. You man the gun for a short period at the beginning (or in the middle) of the reload, and don't have to be there when the reload ends. Also, I'm a guy, not a girl, although I'm not surprised you got the opposite impression from my name.

I didn't exactly get how the 2nd solution is supposed to impact on the 2nd problem - are you suggesting "changing the ammo type should reduce reload times" or "staying on the gun long enough for the lock in timer should reduce reload time"?

Both. I'm suggesting that different ammo types could have different modifiers to your reload time. But the reload time modifier wouldn't be applied until the ammo type is locked in.

On the 3rd thing: buffing the clip instead of the gun for a fixed timer is a new suggestion as far as I know. However, it'd make the buff tool viability very inconsistent among all guns. Buffing a gatling would yield a bigger gain per invested time than buffing any lower ammo gun. Of course, that is assuming you still would need 8 buff hammer hits to buff any gun. Also this would probably break another of muses paradigms and muse loves their paradims to the grave.

Redesigning the mechanics of weapon buffs would obviously require changes to how buffing weapons works. Maybe more or less hits could be required to buff a weapon based on the ammo count. Maybe more or less of a damage bonus could be applied per shot depending on the ammo count. Maybe it would need to be rebalanced some other way.

And maybe, as I said in my first post, it isn't viable for Muse to implement as a change anyway.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Rocket Harpoon.
« on: November 29, 2014, 11:07:21 pm »
In effect, this would be a lot like getting hit by a Squid... that pushes like an insane captain then explodes.

...that sounds exactly like most of my experiences getting hit by a Squid, actually...

So... I've been thinking about this off and on, while playing the game, and while not playing.

As a pilot, you will be the only player adequately equipped to fulfill the role of pilot. You need your 3 piloting tool slots for the ability to vary your ship's performance profile. Only one person may be on the helm at any time, so more than one pilot is a waste of those extra tools, which can mostly only be used when the player is on the helm. As a non-pilot, there's a very limited set of piloting tools to choose from and use effectively (Basically only Spyglass, but technically Rangfinder SHOULD be an option too).

As an Engineer, you will be able to fill multiple support roles on board the ship. Firefighting and damage control are both key aspects of an Engineer's role, and buffing components is sometimes a primary function as well, depending on the Engineer's build. As a non-Engineer, you're almost required to take a repair tool (Spanner/Mallet/Wrench) because keeping the ship alive is everyone's job.

As a Gunner, your primary role is to fire guns. This role can be fairly efficiently filled by any crew member. Gunners are "more effective" in the sense that they can man a variety of guns effectively, or they can use those rare guns where multiple ammo types are viable more effectively than any other single crew member. Any player moving about on a ship with mostly-similar weapons can perform competently as a Gunner without actually BEING a Gunner. Any crew member with an assigned area and only one or two weapon types in their designated zone can fill the role of Gunner with only one ammo type.

So, what's causing this disparity between classes? There are several problems. Lets look at each in turn, and address them. Some of the problems are relatively complex, and so are my solutions. I also have a tendency to overdo things, so please bear with my walls of text.

1. Problem.
Lets look at the difference in timing between buffing a gun and loading specialist ammo into a gun. An Engineer can buff a gun, then pre-buff until it only needs one more hit to be buffed a second time. If the Engineer is 0.1s late returning to the gun, the damage output is only reduced for that 0.1s window. If they're late by a whole second, the damage output is still only reduced for that 1s window where the gun is firing without a buff. If the buff wears off during a reload, this loss of damage is somewhat mitigated.

On the other hand, when a GUNNER is late, the gun has finished reloading. It doesn't matter if you're late by a whole second, or just a tenth of one. When you get back, your options are to fire AN ENTIRE CLIP with a loss of firepower, or to RELOAD THE GUN AGAIN AND TRY TO GET THE RIGHT TIMING. Not only have you lost whatever time you spent away from the already-loaded gun, but you're also either sacrificing ALL of the gun's potential firepower for the time it takes to reload, or firing at reduced capability until your next reload.

1. Solution.
Let the Gunner* change ammo types ANY TIME DURING THE RELOAD. Every time a gun is reloaded - EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Manned or unmanned, manned by someone with the current ammo type or not - the gun should load standard ammo. When a Gunner selects an ammo type, a timer is begun. When the reload OR that timer completes - whichever comes first - the new ammo type is locked in. Abandoning the weapon or switchng to a new ammo type will reset the timer.

*Gunner as in "player manning the gun and loading ammo", not necessarily a player with the Gunner class selected

With this proposed change, the current routines of players will remain entirely viable. A gunner can leave their gun as it starts reloading, let it reload on standard ammo up to the last 0.1s of the reload time, then suddenly throw Lochnagar or Burst Ammo in at the last second. BUT they can ALSO now lock that ammo type in at the BEGINNING of the reload, and walk off to do something else WITHOUT losing an entire reload plus more for missing their window. Switching ammo type on a loaded gun will reload the gun, much like it already does. Once you've waited out the ammo select timer, you don't have to stay on the gun to make sure it loads. And again, you can do what people already do and use the ammo switch to initiate a reload, leave the gun, then return at the last second to set your chosen ammo type just before the reload completes. You can ALSO switch ammo type, lock that ammo in, then walk away and be free to come back in your own time, knowing the right ammo will be there waiting when you get back.

2. Problem.
Most weapons only benefit from one ammo type. It's not entirely true, but it's close enough to be worth saying. Lumberjacks are good with a lot of different ammo types, each filling a different purpose. Hwachas gain different advantages from Heavy Clip or Burst Ammo. But with a lot of guns, you want to be relying heavily on one ammo type in almost every situation. Some guns might benefit from multiple ammo types, but in such similar ways that it doesn't really matter which you choose. Also, many weapons simply don't benefit ENOUGH from a change of ammo to be concerned if you don't have the right type to load.

2. Solution.
One part of this problem can be addressed by using the same mechanic proposed for problem 1. Add in a recognition of manual vs. automatic loading. At the moment, guns all have a fixed reload speed depending on the weapon. Once reloading is initiated, the gun will automatically reload by itself, with no input from a player. What if locking in an ammo type gave a small (10 - 20%) reduction to the weapon's reload time?

NOTE: I'd lean towards 10% in an "absolute" reduction where the timer is shortened based on the total reload time. If it's only shortening the reload time by X% of remaining time, I'd want the bonus to be larger, at least 15%

How does this fix things? This proposed change adds an extra incentive to using specialist ammo over the default ammo type. If you're not carrying ammo that suits a gun, you won't want to be manning that gun when it reloads, because you'll have to choose between loading a poor choice of ammo or waiting longer before firing.

In order to not overly penalise players who aren't gunners, reload speed could be improved by simply being on the gun for the required duration to lock in an ammo type even if using standard ammo. This could open the door for specialist ammo types to have a reload speed buff as one of their benefits over standard ammo.

3. Problem.
Buff tools. Simply put, the benefit of using a buff tool on a gun is too large in comparison to using the right ammo type for the situation. Additionally, a buff tool is a guaranteed improvement, where ammo types have the potential to make some guns less effective (Flamethrower + Lochnagar, for an extreme example). We've already addressed the lack of penalty when mistiming a buff, but that's a weakness of ammo types, not an undeserved strength of the buff tool.

3. Solution.
The buff tool's effectiveness on weapons needs to be rethought in some manner. The best solution I can think of is to quite thoroughly change how the buff tool works on a gun. Instead of buffing the weapon itself for a limited time, buffing the gun could buff the ammo inside it. This would be an indefinite buff, not timed. When the buff is completed, the bar wouldn't be a timer, but an ammo count. As shots are fired, it decreases, until the gun is empty. If you reload, the buff is reset (neither emptying nor reloading should remove pre-buffing, however, only an active buff).

Another alternative would be to straight-up nerf (again) the effectiveness of the buff tool on weapons, but for obvious reasons, I'm not a big fan of this idea. Buff tools need to benefit weapons in order to maintain damage output at a sensible level. It could also be used to buff reload speed, turn speed or rate of fire instead of raw damage output. Again, with the game being balanced how it is, I favour other proposals more.

Another, also less ideal, but possibly slightly more viable alternative, would be to buff all weapons to deal more damage (at least half the buff currently given by the buff hammer), and to make the buff tool provide guns with additional HP instead of a damage increase. While not as bad as nerfing the buff hammer, I still favour changing the mechanics of weapon buffs.

Obviously, while I've put a lot of thought into this post, I haven't addressed how difficult it would be to implement my proposal. I am suggesting quite significant alterations to core mechanics in the game, and while I believe these changes would benefit the game, it's entirely possible they would be impractical to actually put into effect. I hope for these suggestions to be considered by all (and picked apart by anyone who sees any significant holes in my logic). As much as I personally like the suggestions I've made, at the end of the day, even if the ideas are sound, it's down to whether Muse (and the Unity engine) can actually make it happen. It might be a terrible idea purely on the basis of impracticality from a programming perspective. I would hope not, but I don't know the inner workings of the game's code, so I can't say for sure either way.

Gameplay / Re: Junker viability and builds
« on: November 29, 2014, 01:46:42 am »
Not sure if it's been talked of, but has anyone tried Gunker? (full gat Junker?) I've used quite a bit in the matches I've piloted in, and from my experience it works very nicely if you have good comms with your ally. Get 3 gats on one ship, strip the hull in seconds, and slowly but surely you wear the hull down too.

It was in a relatively low-level match (highest-level player on either team was lvl 7) back before matchmaking happened. Also, it was primarily with players who should really have been in novice matches at the time, so not exactly the ideal testing ground for viable strategies.

That said... it DID work out unreasonably well considering the team I was in was the lower-level group and had most of the novice players in the match.

2 vs. 2

Enemy had a Hwachafish and Metamidion.
We had a Gat Junker and a quad-Hwacha Galleon with Banshees (my Fireworks Display).

Gats nearly insta-stripped armour, while the Galleon's Hwachas nearly instakilled targets once the armour was down.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Feedback Debate
« on: November 29, 2014, 01:36:07 am »
I don't usually pilot a Junker, but I've seen a few Junkers tap my ship to escape, although I think this usually means a dead balloon for them.
So you're saying to pair the bumpers with drogue chute? :P

I wouldn't know. Not a great junker pilot. I've just seen a handful of Junkers tap my pyramidion with their balloon to knock us off gun arc.

But I know using altitude altering tools and balloon blocking is very effective on a junker because the pilot can mallet the balloon.

Herr Kommandant can repair his own balloons for once.
(Herr Kommandant because Junkers were Prussian nobles. Get the joke? Eh, it was a long shot.)

For even more obscure joke, let me apologize to the Herr Kommandant:

"I'm Only a Humble Sergeant, Herr Kommandant"
(I don't even know what this is referring to. I saw it somewhere in the web. In fact, does anybody know what this is referring to?)

First off, I got both jokes.

Secondly, the second joke is a reference to a show called Hogan's Heroes, and now that you know you should look it up and watch it. Because it's amazing.

Back on-topic though, while I sometimes do run a Junker with both impact bumpers and a drogue chute, for exactly this reason, not getting hit by rams is *usually* a better option. It is possible to use impact bumpers to minimise the damage taken by voluntarily taking a ram, or by actively ramming for yourself. Once you've rammed a target, if you do manage to pop your own balloon, you can pop the drogue chute while reversing direction, and either take pressure off your crew by repairing the balloon yourself, or by simply telling them "no rush on the balloon, chute's up" and let them leave it for a more opportune time.

The approach to take depends on whether you're in a CQC build or not, how high up you are, and the relative positions and the reaction of the enemy ship after the ram.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Ammo Changes the Gun
« on: November 29, 2014, 01:19:39 am »
As much as this thread wasn't well thought out, this idea made me smile:

Beacon Flare - This is a fun one. Burst causes firework.

GoIO needs EVEN MORE fireworks.

(after all, there's a reason I have a Fireworks Display Galleon...)

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Feedback Debate
« on: November 27, 2014, 08:21:21 pm »
I don't usually pilot a Junker, but I've seen a few Junkers tap my ship to escape, although I think this usually means a dead balloon for them.
So you're saying to pair the bumpers with drogue chute? :P

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Feedback Debate
« on: November 26, 2014, 05:07:05 pm »
I use Drogue Chute.

Aggressively engage ANYONE with anti-balloon weapons, and Drogue gives you a longer window of throwing caution overboard as you float down instead of dropping like a rock.

I also use Impact Bumpers on a Junker sometimes.

Usually, yes, you want to be dodging the ram. But sometimes, NOT dodging can be beneficial, and sometimes, dodging then reversing thrust and counter-ramming with your bumpers on can throw an enemy's aim off because they've turned off their course-stabilising piloting tool after realising they didn't hit, and knocking them off-arc can be an unexpected approach. Simply ramming a ship back when they try to ram you catches most players off-guard when you're a Junker (why? Because you're a Junker! Junkers don't ram things!).

It isn't 100% guaranteed to work, but it does give you an edge simply because your enemy won't be expecting it.

Gameplay / Re: Poor Squid
« on: November 22, 2014, 05:30:39 pm »
The premise of the thread is that there's something "wrong" with the Squid performing best with short-ranged weapons.

In any game with classes or customisation where playable vehicles/characters can move at different speeds, the faster units are the best to equip short-range weapons on. I don't see why this would be a problem in the first place.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11