1
Gameplay / Re: Major and Minor Playstyles
« on: February 20, 2017, 08:49:49 pm »
They are, but the comp scene is on life support. But as a look at the "overall meta" of the game, it's one of the best I've still seen.
News:
Log in using the email address and password you selected when registering in-game. Forgot your password?
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.
2
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Only Positive Ammo #Adjust the Ammos
« on: February 09, 2017, 04:04:42 pm »
Well, ideally, I'd like to see this happen on the Alliance end before beta comes out. The success of Alliance is important for everyone invested in the game. We can debate skirmish balance until the end of days, but we know what the Devs are focused on.
3
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Only Positive Ammo #Adjust the Ammos
« on: February 09, 2017, 03:35:43 pm »
This is a first step, pies, aimed at making the game more intuitive. You are correct--there will always be a meta ammo for each gun. What the gunner class provides is the option to switch ammo in a gun more often. I could see this being more desirable if all ammo types were an upgrade to normal.
Secondly, I don't think this limits design space. This would create a solid core of "basic ammos" for new players. Once they're balanced, Muse could create either "hybrid' ammos, which combine a portion of the effects of the basics, or ammos with a greater risk/reward factor.
For example, they could introduce a "mega greased" that severely reduced range, but increases DPS past basic greased, or vastly increased jitter.
Secondly, I don't think this limits design space. This would create a solid core of "basic ammos" for new players. Once they're balanced, Muse could create either "hybrid' ammos, which combine a portion of the effects of the basics, or ammos with a greater risk/reward factor.
For example, they could introduce a "mega greased" that severely reduced range, but increases DPS past basic greased, or vastly increased jitter.
4
Feedback and Suggestions / Only Positive Ammo #Adjust the Ammos
« on: February 09, 2017, 02:50:56 pm »
Currently, every ammo in the game has a mix of positive and negative effects, making them (designed) at least, to be a “sidegrade” to Normal ammo, rather than a straight upgrade. However, I believe this philosophy adds hard-to-balance unintended uses for ammos, and overall, makes for a confusing new player experience.
With the impending release of Alliance, it’s important that new players aren’t overwhelmed with information. When I first played Guns, I had to use a calculator to judge how Greased works on various weapon types. This results in players either ignoring ammunition, or taking ammo that looks good on paper, and then coming into conflict with more experienced players who know better. (See, Charged on Gattling Guns.)
This also makes the Gunner class less useful, as normal covers the “weaknesses” of many ammo types perfectly on it’s own.
I would imagine this also makes balancing on Muse’s side difficult, as they have to account for incredibly sub-optimal ammo uses from players, in addition to the many other barriers to learning the game.
I, and many veterans would like to propose a test where all non-range related penalties are removed from all ammo except Lochnagar (Which can be considered an “advanced” ammo), and see how it functions in both Alliance and Skirmish.
With the impending release of Alliance, it’s important that new players aren’t overwhelmed with information. When I first played Guns, I had to use a calculator to judge how Greased works on various weapon types. This results in players either ignoring ammunition, or taking ammo that looks good on paper, and then coming into conflict with more experienced players who know better. (See, Charged on Gattling Guns.)
This also makes the Gunner class less useful, as normal covers the “weaknesses” of many ammo types perfectly on it’s own.
I would imagine this also makes balancing on Muse’s side difficult, as they have to account for incredibly sub-optimal ammo uses from players, in addition to the many other barriers to learning the game.
I, and many veterans would like to propose a test where all non-range related penalties are removed from all ammo except Lochnagar (Which can be considered an “advanced” ammo), and see how it functions in both Alliance and Skirmish.
5
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A cry for change
« on: January 25, 2017, 02:30:52 pm »
Engineering is boring. The skill-cap for engineering is pretty low, and it just comes down to memorizing cycles, and *occasional* prioritization. Burning engines doesn't create fun. Firstly, it turns the "enjoying the map, looking for enemy, planning next move" experience to "bouncing between 2 or 3 engines." There comes a point when you could repair a burn or do a buff cycle with your eyes closed.
(Though once you have a rough idea of what parts are most important, prioritization fades as well.)
In the end, it just mostly comes down to running in circles in the most effective paths during "downtime" and doing brief cycles in between guns and "your part" during combat. Furthermore, the ability of an engineer to impact the outcome of a match is fairly low compared to other classes. The difference between an "expert" engineer and a "middle of the road" engineer is lower than other classes. Engineering "important" as in "an engineer must exist" not "takes the most skill." Furthermore, when you're an engi, you don't really get to "take in" the match--all your focus is on the ship. Don't patronize newbies with "lul git gud, this isn't CSGO." It's a legitimate problem in game design, and has been since launch.
Game needs less disable, and possibly the ability for engineers to "overcharge" parts in ways pilots or gunners can't. Something fun that doesn't involve either camping the hull, or running in circles playing whack-a-mole. Or just make disable weapons less common, and encourage ships where everyone gets to gun.
(Though once you have a rough idea of what parts are most important, prioritization fades as well.)
In the end, it just mostly comes down to running in circles in the most effective paths during "downtime" and doing brief cycles in between guns and "your part" during combat. Furthermore, the ability of an engineer to impact the outcome of a match is fairly low compared to other classes. The difference between an "expert" engineer and a "middle of the road" engineer is lower than other classes. Engineering "important" as in "an engineer must exist" not "takes the most skill." Furthermore, when you're an engi, you don't really get to "take in" the match--all your focus is on the ship. Don't patronize newbies with "lul git gud, this isn't CSGO." It's a legitimate problem in game design, and has been since launch.
Game needs less disable, and possibly the ability for engineers to "overcharge" parts in ways pilots or gunners can't. Something fun that doesn't involve either camping the hull, or running in circles playing whack-a-mole. Or just make disable weapons less common, and encourage ships where everyone gets to gun.
6
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: HEY SCRUBS! I have a ship for you.
« on: January 18, 2017, 01:12:04 pm »
It's not a bad thing for newbs to fly the ship they want to fly. Galleon also has the benefit that everyone *can* man a gun if they want. The game just isn't balanced around galleon combat, though.
(Partially because of the fact that Heavy Guns are wonky as fuck.)
(Partially because of the fact that Heavy Guns are wonky as fuck.)
7
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A cry for change
« on: January 17, 2017, 08:25:33 pm »
Wow, it's been forever since I've posted here. I left after the Loch nerf--it killed my favorite playstyle, but I've kept with Alliance, and fully expect to put time into it, but more casually.
Since this thread is racing, I'll add my two cents--I liked the bit about expectations. My confidence has been severely shaken, and frankly, I don't expect to play Skirmish until heavy changes are made, but I will definitely give what I'd like out of this.
When it comes to new content, I'd expect maybe 3 major content "events" per year. Each content update should include at least two features (New Ship + New Gun, New Faction + New Gun, Ship Ported to Skirmish + New Ammo Type). These can be announced and hyped, and should probably have a sale located around them. This also gives months of time for testing. I understand your graphics designers are strained, however, so I'd be willing to accept two per year. New ship cosmetics would also be very welcome.
Balance where exceptions seem to be most strained between Muse and players. Frankly, balance communicating has always been poor. I am not trying to insult you--I'm simply stating a fact. Reasons behind nerfs and buffs are either unintuitive, muddled, or not communicated at all, player response is often ignored, and you attempt to do blind testing with a far too limited fragment of the guns community. Overwatch, a game with a far larger budget and community also seems to have similar problems with constructive PTR results, so I suspect this has little to do with community size, and mostly relates to the fact that most people who play PTR already have heavy involvement with the game.
That's fine.
What I'd like is non-blind PTR tests to try to catch game-breakingly OP things, then bi-weekly balance patches that adjust numbers very sparingly, rather than wild swings. I'd like the desired effects and concerns that lead to this directly stated, and perhaps "meta breakdown" reports. I would like you guys to be unafraid to revert previous changes if they're poorly received, and not leave guns in "gimmick" territory because they came out unsatisfying (Minotaur). It was overnerfed, and rather than adjusting it's function/numbers, it's been left to stagnate. (One of my favorite things from Overwatch is the ability to analyze that sort of thing.) Internal reporting of deadlines would be nice--I'd say you're not actually accountable to the community, but I feel like there's been persistent tension since I've been a player.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On Balance Philosophy Below:
Overwatch also tends to balance both around a competitive level, and a newbie level. I'm not sure what Guns balances around, partially because the game has a very odd sets of required skills. There's teamwork, aim, and ease of use, communication between captains and crew, and we have very few "middle experience" players. I believe many of the game's balance problems come from it's biggest strength--Teamwork. There is a heavy limit to how much one player can impact a match positively, as very few guns have a high, aim-based individual impact, and engineering is time management. The closest to a "carry" roll in the game is the Captain. This results in players losing without knowing *why* they lost, as there's little (mechanically) they can do to impact it.
I feel like many balance patches are "band aids" to cover that problem--nerfing flame weapons, increasing gun ease of use, and so forth. Some defy logic, however, such as the loch patch. This also creates the problem where Time to Kill feels very high to inexperienced players, and low to skilled players, as broken builds (on a new player's side) make matches grind forever, and turn engineering into a chore.
The solution to this is not "get gud." The game needs low-skill weapons that also fall off in effectiveness as you get better, and high-skill weapons that require some sort of mechanical skill or teamwork to execute. Ammo can also fulfill this purpose--altering the fundamentals of a weapon to create a different risk/reward. I feel like Lochnagar was a good example of that sort of effect.
As bad for the "teamwork" focus of the game as it initially seems, GOI needs a noob tube, as well. The Hwatcha fits that department--or used to, but it's also fundamentally unfun, as it only involves one gunner, works only on specific ships, and is heavily disable focused. One one hand, part of the engineer tax is learning to prioritize components, but mass ship disable is *far* too easy, and it's counterplay is under-powered. This, like fire, leads to an unfun new player experience.
The number of semi-hard counters in this game needs to be toned down. A match should not be decided by the ship chosen in the lobby. I suggest allowing players to change loadouts mid-match, and lowering the number of hard counters in the game.
I would start incrementally adjusting weapons to push them harder into specific niches, and encourage actual mastery. This gives a reason to continue playing competitively, and gives skills other than "teamwork" to build.
The game should be relatively easy to enter, and dick around with, but have a mastery requirement that takes practice. The Hades and the Lumberjack are the only two guns that I feel are "worth" mastering, and they've risen and fallen in meta.
When I played competitively, I probably wouldn't have liked many of these suggested balance changes, as they diminish the "teamwork" aspect, but I feel like Gun's problems require a hard look at the philosophy of the game's design.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
With that, I leave one final question:
What are the stages of improvement and mastery for each role in the game? How does a player "get better?"
This isn't rhetorical--I am honestly curious. How do you envision a player's introduction to the world of Guns of Icarus going, and how do you see them getting better? (Especially knowing many will not have the time or desire to improve, or find a stable team?)
Since this thread is racing, I'll add my two cents--I liked the bit about expectations. My confidence has been severely shaken, and frankly, I don't expect to play Skirmish until heavy changes are made, but I will definitely give what I'd like out of this.
When it comes to new content, I'd expect maybe 3 major content "events" per year. Each content update should include at least two features (New Ship + New Gun, New Faction + New Gun, Ship Ported to Skirmish + New Ammo Type). These can be announced and hyped, and should probably have a sale located around them. This also gives months of time for testing. I understand your graphics designers are strained, however, so I'd be willing to accept two per year. New ship cosmetics would also be very welcome.
Balance where exceptions seem to be most strained between Muse and players. Frankly, balance communicating has always been poor. I am not trying to insult you--I'm simply stating a fact. Reasons behind nerfs and buffs are either unintuitive, muddled, or not communicated at all, player response is often ignored, and you attempt to do blind testing with a far too limited fragment of the guns community. Overwatch, a game with a far larger budget and community also seems to have similar problems with constructive PTR results, so I suspect this has little to do with community size, and mostly relates to the fact that most people who play PTR already have heavy involvement with the game.
That's fine.
What I'd like is non-blind PTR tests to try to catch game-breakingly OP things, then bi-weekly balance patches that adjust numbers very sparingly, rather than wild swings. I'd like the desired effects and concerns that lead to this directly stated, and perhaps "meta breakdown" reports. I would like you guys to be unafraid to revert previous changes if they're poorly received, and not leave guns in "gimmick" territory because they came out unsatisfying (Minotaur). It was overnerfed, and rather than adjusting it's function/numbers, it's been left to stagnate. (One of my favorite things from Overwatch is the ability to analyze that sort of thing.) Internal reporting of deadlines would be nice--I'd say you're not actually accountable to the community, but I feel like there's been persistent tension since I've been a player.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On Balance Philosophy Below:
Overwatch also tends to balance both around a competitive level, and a newbie level. I'm not sure what Guns balances around, partially because the game has a very odd sets of required skills. There's teamwork, aim, and ease of use, communication between captains and crew, and we have very few "middle experience" players. I believe many of the game's balance problems come from it's biggest strength--Teamwork. There is a heavy limit to how much one player can impact a match positively, as very few guns have a high, aim-based individual impact, and engineering is time management. The closest to a "carry" roll in the game is the Captain. This results in players losing without knowing *why* they lost, as there's little (mechanically) they can do to impact it.
I feel like many balance patches are "band aids" to cover that problem--nerfing flame weapons, increasing gun ease of use, and so forth. Some defy logic, however, such as the loch patch. This also creates the problem where Time to Kill feels very high to inexperienced players, and low to skilled players, as broken builds (on a new player's side) make matches grind forever, and turn engineering into a chore.
The solution to this is not "get gud." The game needs low-skill weapons that also fall off in effectiveness as you get better, and high-skill weapons that require some sort of mechanical skill or teamwork to execute. Ammo can also fulfill this purpose--altering the fundamentals of a weapon to create a different risk/reward. I feel like Lochnagar was a good example of that sort of effect.
As bad for the "teamwork" focus of the game as it initially seems, GOI needs a noob tube, as well. The Hwatcha fits that department--or used to, but it's also fundamentally unfun, as it only involves one gunner, works only on specific ships, and is heavily disable focused. One one hand, part of the engineer tax is learning to prioritize components, but mass ship disable is *far* too easy, and it's counterplay is under-powered. This, like fire, leads to an unfun new player experience.
The number of semi-hard counters in this game needs to be toned down. A match should not be decided by the ship chosen in the lobby. I suggest allowing players to change loadouts mid-match, and lowering the number of hard counters in the game.
I would start incrementally adjusting weapons to push them harder into specific niches, and encourage actual mastery. This gives a reason to continue playing competitively, and gives skills other than "teamwork" to build.
The game should be relatively easy to enter, and dick around with, but have a mastery requirement that takes practice. The Hades and the Lumberjack are the only two guns that I feel are "worth" mastering, and they've risen and fallen in meta.
When I played competitively, I probably wouldn't have liked many of these suggested balance changes, as they diminish the "teamwork" aspect, but I feel like Gun's problems require a hard look at the philosophy of the game's design.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
With that, I leave one final question:
What are the stages of improvement and mastery for each role in the game? How does a player "get better?"
This isn't rhetorical--I am honestly curious. How do you envision a player's introduction to the world of Guns of Icarus going, and how do you see them getting better? (Especially knowing many will not have the time or desire to improve, or find a stable team?)
8
Gameplay / Re: Gunner vs. Buff Engi on Heavy Carronade
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:08:21 pm »
It used to be my favorite ship. It's still playable in pubs, but it's useless in competitive. And I just have no desire to play it in pubs--the constant nerfs on a build that was never meta has worn me down.
9
Gameplay / Re: Gunner vs. Buff Engi on Heavy Carronade
« on: April 01, 2016, 12:18:11 pm »
There is no reason to take a gunner anymore. Lochnagar required stamina to aim quickly. Now that it is no longer viable, the arc advantage is negligible next to the DPS of Charged+Buff.
There is also very little reason to take a blenderfish anymore.
There is also very little reason to take a blenderfish anymore.
10
Gameplay / Re: New Lochnagar - Math and speculation
« on: March 19, 2016, 10:47:45 pm »
The magic number is not changing loch, and making blenderfish useless.
11
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Loch changes and effect on overall gameplay
« on: March 19, 2016, 10:42:07 pm »
I'm not playing until Loch is fixed.
12
Gameplay / Re: New Lochnagar - Math and speculation
« on: March 19, 2016, 05:58:53 pm »
Please revert loch changes. I want to fly carrofish.
13
Release Notes / Re: 1.4.5 New Balance Changes "When Ambush Comes To Shove"
« on: March 19, 2016, 02:33:28 am »
This feels a lot more like post-hoc damage control than anything else.
Re: Spire
Spire has a great winrate. However, spire is incredibly easy to counter-play IN LOBBY. The in lobby counterplay is the aspect is the problem.
Re: Spire
Spire has a great winrate. However, spire is incredibly easy to counter-play IN LOBBY. The in lobby counterplay is the aspect is the problem.
14
Release Notes / Re: 1.4.5 New Balance Changes "When Ambush Comes To Shove"
« on: March 19, 2016, 02:26:21 am »
Loch is unusable on heavy guns.
15
Release Notes / Re: 1.4.5 New Balance Changes "When Ambush Comes To Shove"
« on: March 19, 2016, 12:21:17 am »
PvP games have to balance around competitive. If you balance around casual, players lose interest. It's as simple as that. They reach the ceiling, and find that it's shallow, and there's nowhere to go. This doesn't mean that you should have complexity for the sake of complexity-"Simple to learn, difficulty to master" should be a goal.