Messages

1

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: The Bounty Board

« on: September 23, 2013, 04:55:55 am »

Here's how I'd do it:

Anyone can sign up. However, the list will only display the top 20 at any given time. To get in the top 20, you have to be active and have a good kill/death ratio.

It's not necessary to be high level, the list should display a mix of levels. However, you must have played a reasonable amount the last days, and have a positive k/d or win rate.


This way, the top "wanted" list would actually reflect skilled players and be a source of motivation for the rest to aim high and earn a bounty.

2

General Discussion / Re: Question for Pilots

« on: September 20, 2013, 03:35:31 am »

Most: Squid/Goldfish (balloon poppers)
Least: Galleon

Yeah I'm a bit of a speed devil. The galleon bores me to tears, particularly with a sniper build. I spend more time manning the top gun than at the helm :S

3

Gameplay / Re: Mobula builds

« on: August 09, 2013, 05:30:39 am »

Artemis - Gat - Flak - Gat - Artemis

Two engineers on the side top decks, One gunner with pipe wrench on the top deck.

When engaging from long range, the engineers man the artemis to start harassing. When the fights get close (or the enemy notices us) both engineers jump to the lower deck, and alternate focus fire with gatlings with fixing either hull or balloon, whichever they're in charge of.

Since it's a front attack ship, engines are usually protected, but if necessary the gunner can go back and fix the main engine. Meanwhile, the gunner has the hardest job because he must keep strict timing to harass with the Flak, but at the same time make sure it's ready on a full clip to unload when the enemy loses the armor.

This has so far worked very well for us since it makes crisis management easy. Everyone has very clear roles, and the role which requires the most strict timing (flak gunner) is almost distraction-free, which makes sure the gunner always nails the salvo in time.

4

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Divide Lochnagar damage by clip size

« on: July 28, 2013, 03:15:21 am »

I'm very surprised by some of the hostile and nonconstructive responses here! It honestly seems like some people did not read or understand the original post and proceeded to attack, degrade, and condescend to the poster. Not what I've come to expect from this forum.

The OP is not suggesting making this ammo type good for everything. They correctly point out that the ammo type is disproportionately bad for the guns it does not work on (and you must admit that no other "mismatch" is as bad) and suggests a way to ameliorate that - making guns take damage over time as they fire, in proportion to their total ammo. A Gatling for example might get off 15 shots before it breaks, or something like that - the details weren't set. Its still a bad match for the gatling, but maybe not as bad. Low ammo type weapons would be largely unaffected - it all depends on the details.

Do I think the suggestion is needed? Well... no. I think its ok for us to have an "expert" ammo, and I like how Lochnager works as is. That said, it is extremely noob unfriendly, so maybe a bit of tweaking is in order. Having a gradual gun breaking might be a good step in that direction. It also might open up new tactical possibilities. For example, a gat with this might do less damage per cycle, less damage per clip, and break, but for a little while deal very high burst dps. Thats situationaly useful and also interesting. Would a good gunner ever use it? Probably not.

Thank you very much, you get my salute.

You said pretty much everything I had in mind. I was planning to write something like that but the condescending tone of some answers killed my motivation.

Guys, I know this game involves thinking. However, thinking involves decisions, choices. Lochnagar in 80% of the game's weaponry is not a choice by any strength of the imagination, and that is bad design.

5

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Divide Lochnagar damage by clip size

« on: July 27, 2013, 02:59:13 pm »

Personally, I think that a single bullet from a Gatling, with lochnagar, shouldn't do the same amount of damage as a full clip- nor half a clip. I don't think that its believable when a single little ~pew pbbblt~ bullet from the gat suddenly rips apart half of the armor of a ship. Not all ammo types can be used on all guns, but most guns can use more than one ammo to get different effectiveness out of it. Its a Gunner's job to learn each weapon and find out what ammo types work the best for each.

I understand the sentiment but I think you misread my suggestion

I'm not asking for Lochnagar BONUS damage to scale off clip size, but rather Lochnagar SELF damage to be lower based on clip size, so a Gatling dies out after firing several shots, rather than after the first trigger pull. Damage from an individual shot should stay the same.

To the rest of posters: I understand different guns benefit from different weapons. However, I think there is a big leap between using suboptimal ammo and using ammo that straight doesn't work. This is worsened by not being evident to newbies at all, and the game has been criticised for a steep learning curve.

6

Feedback and Suggestions / Divide Lochnagar damage by clip size

« on: July 27, 2013, 06:56:04 am »

I love the idea behind Lochnagar ammo, a high risk-high reward shot for skilled gunners. Unfortunately, I think the design is flawed. Unlike other types of ammo, which may be better or worse on different guns, Lochnagar is the only type of ammo that straight doesn't work on certain guns (such as Gatling or Flamethrower). This is bad for a couple of reasons:

1- The most obvious, it limits gameplay choices. It could be used in several different guns, but by design it can't, which leaves the gunner with fewer tactical choices.

2- It's very bad for newbies. I've seen many youtube videos in which a newbie loaded Lochnagar on his gun and wondered why it didn't work. Hell, if I recall correctly there was a point in the TGS podcast in which someone tried to shoot a gatling with lochnagar and wondered why it felt like a pea shooter (maybe it was on some other video, please correct me).

So how can this be fixed? I think there is a simple way to deal with the issue with Lochnagar ammo, and it is the following:

Divide the damage the Gun gets from firing Lochnagar by its clip size.

It doesn't have to be exactly that, it can be twice the damage THEN divided by clip size or whatever. The idea is that the weapon breaks after a consistent percentage of the clip size has been used, so if you're used a one-shot gun it will break right away, while you'll be able to empty anything from half to a full clip when using a gatling, before it breaks down.

I think this would make Lochnagar scalable between different weapons while keeping its background drawbacks (terrible rotation speed, self damage). What do you think?

7

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Other than Airships

« on: May 30, 2013, 01:33:41 pm »

I think the notion that biplanes equal no teamwork is narrow sighted. Player driven biplanes could be made as teamwork heavy as airships.

Imagine a 4-biplane squad working the same way an airship does, it needs 4 people to be manned and functions as a single unit. One biplane is the refueller (the rest need to constantly go back at it for repairs). Another is a bomber + ammo depot, but it's very slow (so it powers the rest and needs to be protected) and there are two fighters.

With setups like this, or similar (such as a couple of two-person biplanes that exhibit synergy) could be teamwork heavy and offer a faster paced, twitchier gameplay for those interested.

I'm all for it, as much as for bigger, meatier boss ships =)

8

World / Re: What faction will you fight for?

« on: May 28, 2013, 04:01:34 am »

My problem is that I can't decide between the League and the Guild, and they don't really get along too well (I know I know, they aren't in war, but still...)

9

World / Re: What faction will you fight for?

« on: May 27, 2013, 06:46:57 am »

I always read "the baronies" as "the bronies" =( I don't want to belong to that group...

10

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New Close-Range Weapon Discussion/Suggestion Thread

« on: May 24, 2013, 03:05:42 am »

Thanks for the review guys!

Here's my rationale for the weight:

It is indeed bigger than a normal light gun, but it is also mostly made of wood (while, say, a gatling or a light flak is much heavier) also, the clip is very small (one shaft at a time) so in terms of weight, it would fall into light category. In terms of bulk it might be borderline, but that can be justified with a small arc of fire (which it is supposed to have anyway).

11

The Lounge / Re: Occupations and Careers

« on: May 23, 2013, 03:16:22 pm »

I'm about to finish my degree in Electrical Engineering (well, here in Spain it's a 5 year long programme that adds up to a degree in that plus a master's in, in my case, electronics and systems engineering).

I want to make a career out of AI. I love enhancement cybernetics as well, hoping for that field to become bigger in the future.

12

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New Close-Range Weapon Discussion/Suggestion Thread

« on: May 23, 2013, 11:12:08 am »

I'm toying with the idea of a ballista that shoots huge lance-like chunks of metal at short range. Pure piercing damage, and the special effect would be pushback. A hit from one of these lances would bump the ship back in that spot (potentially making it turn if you hit in a way that applies torque, or smashing it against the wall).

What do you think? Should I ellaborate this more?

EDIT: Bah, in for a penny, in for a pound:

(temporary name):

"Lancer" Composite Ballista:
Range: Very Short
Damage: Pure Piercing (very high)
Clip size: 1
Effect description: Shoots a huge steel shaft with a loud "thunk". It deals significant piercing damage and pushes back the ship at the point of impact. This is a physics-based push and as such will have more effect on lighter ships, and it would be able to apply torque to ships, smash them against canyon walls, slow them down to counteract an impending ram, and so on.

Why would it be fun to use?: Well, aside from the Harpoon it would be the only weapon to let you explicitly fiddle with your opponent's movement, and as such it opens up many possible strategies. With focus fire it would be possible to repeteadly smash an enemy against a wall, to turn an opposing ship out of its arc of fire, etcetera.

Why would it be fun to play against?: It's a one shot, slow reload weapon, and as such it encourages good tactical decisions such as keeping track of the reload time and proper positioning (not being close to a wall to be rammed against, having the right angle...)


To justify the fact that it is short range, the projectile could be designed in a way that doesn't look too aerodynamic... (It could have a ram head, which would look awesome by the way)

13

The Lounge / Re: Your first User name?

« on: May 23, 2013, 07:41:56 am »

Falcord. It was my acc name for Diablo 2.

Thought I had created it myself, but apparently I pulled it out of my subconscious, because years later I re-watched an episode of Dexter's Laboratory in which one of the characters had that name...

14

Gameplay / Re: First/Third Person and FOV

« on: May 23, 2013, 07:11:58 am »

I wanted to revive this thread to see if I'm the only one with a strange reason for piloting in third person.

I like piloting in 3rd person because the tilt of my character's torso gives me a quick visual hint of how much the steering wheel is turned. In really tense moments it can be hard to gauge and having my character leaning completely against one side or another is a great giveaway.

I do everything else in 1st (gunning, engineering) but I just can't pilot in anything other than 3d. It also seems to give me more spatial awareness (although I left the FOV at default because I hate the  fish eye feeling...)

15

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New Close-Range Weapon Discussion/Suggestion Thread

« on: May 23, 2013, 03:08:56 am »

I hope that didn't come out as harsh. If it did, that wasn't my intention. I'm just trying to give the best constructive criticism I can :3

What? No, it's awesome! I wish I could get an intelligent analysis like that on all ideas. Thank you very much!

I see your point by the way, being fun to play against is the weakpoint of my proposal. I will write another one I have in mind later, after reviewing yours in kind.

To salvage the Steam Jet: What would you think if the blind effect didn't linger? If the reduction in visibility only happened during the attack itself, maybe it would give the enemy motivation to run away. Also, the Steam Jet could lower the engine power while it's being fired (after all it's tapping from the working fluid of the steam circuit) so it naturally makes it easier for the enemy to run away, kind of like a disengaging weapon.