Messages

1

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: October 11, 2014, 01:22:34 pm »

I've been monitoring this thread for a while now, and I'm surprised (and slightly disgusted) at how people are discussing this as if the extremely remote possibility that muse would consider implementing a complete redesign of game mechanics would ever actually happen.
(They barely have enough time to give us more maps)

That's not a reason to not discuss this. Otherwise you could just go in every thread in this section and post the same message.

P.S. Its a terrible idea that would completely screw up game balance. (Maybe you can tell by the number of positive responses that agree with it in the thread? Heck, even Milevan doesn't like it.)

Edit: Before everyone tells me to chill out because - its just an idea-
Can we get a mod to move this to the pit? The continued discussion of things like this in a serious board sometimes makes Awkm do strange things to the game.

How? Why? Care to explain. With numbers.
The quantity of people saying "no" doesn't matter for me. The "quality" is. If a person can't back his statement with logical explanation then all his ranting matters not to me. And it doesn't matter how big his numbers under the avatar.
This is also a serious thread. I'm not suggesting guns shooting lazorz here.

One more thing: i tend to take every statement about psychological side of changes with a grain of salt. Humans have a strong defensive mechanism called "Impriting". It makes us very clingy to all old things. "Users generally prefer systems similar to those they learned on and dislike unfamiliar systems."

I have asked a question:

is the absolute protection really necessary to provide satisfaction?

Example 1:
Current system: Hwacha barrage deals 80% damage to the hull. Your hull have 50% You have rebuilt the armor and wasn't killed. You have retreated form battle.
My system: Hwacha barrage deals 45% damage to the hull. Your hull have 35% You have rebuilt the armor and wasn't killed. Hull took 15% damage. You have retreated form battle.

How major is the difference? In both cases engineer has saved the ship right before the killing blow. So the engineer should be satisfied in both cases. Sure, taking no damage is a bit better but still.
Now, let's look at it from the other side of a barrel.

Example 2: Goldfish in 1 v 1 fight against other Goldfish. The second one is critically damaged and disabled. G1 strips G2's armor with a side gatling then turns to finish it with Hwacha.
Current system: G2's engineers furiously whacking the hardpoint, rebuilding armor right before the barrage. Hull takes no damage and it could be repeated indefinitely.
My system: G2's engineers furiously whacking the hardpoint, rebuilding armor right before the barrage but some damage bleeds trough. Eventually G2 would be killed.

The question: Why a combined efforts of 3 people from the first Goldfish should be completely nullified? Why should they be frustrated?

I recall the first example you gave was the galleon surviving on 5% permahull. I can't see how this would be any different except that it would now be even more likely that the galleon will survive.

That example just proves that exploiting the hull damage is very difficult and there's not too much difference between a new ship and the one that was a hair away from death. I think critical hull condition should make the ship very, very vulnerable.

Why will this not work?
...
 Good captains who adapt to this new system will not give any ship the option to retreat and will hunt down and kill the opposing team. They have to, or any advantage they hand in the engagement will be lost. This means that the only "repairing to full" will be done by the team that hunted down and killed the other team and are just waiting on re spawns.

Do you think the current situation "just assume the best position and wait until they come to us" is better? I think no. Waiting game is boring to play and boring to watch. Besides, spawncamping would be much harder because campers would lose a chunk of hull with each fight and won't be able to repair it quickly enough.

2

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: October 11, 2014, 05:54:14 am »

I see. I have replied to that post but it looks like i've slightly misunderstood it.
Basically, you'd like the engineer to provide absolute protection to the ship, am i right?
In that case i'd like to ask you: is the absolute protection really necessary to provide satisfaction?
In my system medium armor allows the hull to take 2x more damage. Heavy armor allows to take 3.5x more damage. With this numbers keeping armor repaired provides the ship with substantial boost to its survivability. I think this gives engineer's job a lot of importance.
Also, with the increased hull hp pool ships won't die in seconds after armor break. So if main engineer was distracted (needed to shoot for example) when armor was broken, he would have more time to go back and rebuild. Again, it would forgive mistakes a bit more.

Some of the resistance you are meeting comes from the tone you take in many of your posts, stemming from experiences you have had that many on here have not had, or disagree with. It is hard to calmly enter a discussion when you start off by denying that a tactic regularly used by many posters here doesn't currently exist (retreat).

That wasn't actually denial.
What is "retreat" currently: You hide behind a corner then turn around and go back to fight fully repaired. It requires very little time and full repair could even be done in battle if enemy has eased the pressure a little. That's why i don't really consider it a proper "retreat"
When you need to really break off the fight and require a lot more time to repair then it's much closer to "retreat" as i see it.

Additionally, I guarantee that a weakened ship could and would hide for as long as it took to heal up before entering another engagement. There are no time limits, no outside factor urging players to engage. A weakened ship has nothing to lose by hiding for 30 minutes (okay, even just 5).

In the CP game this is not a problem at all. In the DM... Ideally some kind of detection and intercept system need to be made to limit the mobility of fast ships but i can't think of a good one for now. Such system can benefit the game in its current state too.
-----------
Many complains are about repairing the hull. But i don't want to drop this bit of a system.
1) Ships would become prone to wearing down.
2) You won't have any choice but to fight no matter how badly your hull damaged.
3) You won't have a reason to make a "long retreat". Only short ones behind a corner.
I hope my motives are clear. I don't want a Squid equipped with a light flak to slowly and painfully wear your ship down.

In the meantime i can suggest 2 solutions:
1) Hybrid system where you can repair only 50% of taken hull damage. I don't like it much this because the possibility of wearing down still exists and becomes even more painful.
2) Material pool system. You have a supply of "spare parts" to repair 40% of the hull. Then you need to replenish it at the specific point. (1 in the centre for DM and 2 at team spawns for CP) so your enemy would know where to catch you. That one is different from the system where you pick up the hull hp directly. (it was suggested somewhere here but i can't find it now)

3

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: October 10, 2014, 02:45:25 pm »

I never really looked at squid tanking like that. I always looked at it as "If everything's shooting then something's going to sneak in" and "We've got a free disable!"

For me, squid tanking seems absurd. Then again, haven't encountered one, but hey, life's a b----- and it'll come round to me eventually. It just feels like sacrificing mobility, firepower, and outright movement (in increasing order of people on hull) isn't the way to go.
----------
Back to the system, this would empower all the heavy weapons (some with lesser, some with more) the power of punching through a hull. Can you imagine the bypass? All the heavy weapons with the ability to damage a hull? That's the point of the thread though, isn't it...
----------
The hull recharging is a bit expolitable. This makes a squid's (albiet now proven to be large) hull to be a problem. If it can take quite the amount of damage, then fly away, good luck finding it if it decides to say "Screw you, I've got 125 health left" and begins flying around. Fun? For both teams, no. Will it happen?
...
Trying to catch up to it in anything but? Especially if it's burning moonshine and pooping out loch mines at you? No thanks!

It is indeed very close to absurd. But this absurd has happened to me many times giving enough time for a third person to repair the central engines. Then i could move and drop a tar cloud or something. Some damage indeed sneaks in but not too much. It's something you have to experience yourself to believe.
-----
Not exactly. Heavy carronade and Lumberjack won't be affected at all. But all light guns with explosive damage would.
-----
1) Don't let it escape. Harpoons (reworked, i hope), engine disable etc.
2) Goldfish can (40 vs 47 m/s) chase Squid for quite some time. Mines are mines but a good Hwacha barrage and it's stopped.
On the other hand, escaped Squid leaves his teammate alone. Also, in case of CP mode you don't have the luxury of unlimited time.

Yeah... right. By now I'm fairly sure any attempt to convince you the "problems" you want to "fix" are game mechanics which work well and as intended is futile due to your tendency to either outright ignore arguments or to "counter" them by trying to sell bullshit as fact. Pretty much the same goes for the criticism of your system.

Ahem... I'm trying to answer every more or less logical argument. Please point me to the ones that i've missed.

4

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: October 10, 2014, 11:13:26 am »

If  you guys want to go on a complete "This system is bad" rant, that's okay, but make sure you have evidence to support it, and that you stay civil.

That's the point of view that i respect. I salute you for that.
Indeed, the best way you could convince me is to find a logical argument that i won't be able to counter. So far the only thing that i wasn't able to answer is the "no need to change anything" protective behaviour.

If the enemy manages to kill both of your ships, than it often takes far longer than 2-3min. to get into an engagement that is adventagous to you, which means not a meat grind. It takes even longer when the enemy moves back.

It took me 1:15 min to meet with the other team in the canyon Ambush. Galleons from both sides. Just an example from random game.
I also expect the respawn system to be tweaked a bit to make this time more concistent. It's needed for the current system too. Right now the only situation when you could exactly predict how much time it would take for reinforcements to arrive is the CP game mode.

"-Hit and Run would be improved because every shot would deal some long-term damage."
But how is it some long term damage if it is repairable?

"Long-term" damage means it can't be repaired quickly. For example a gun could be rebuilt in less than 10 seconds. That's a short-term damage. For a game a few minutes is quite a substantial amount of time.

I personally consider heavy weapons to be specialized disabiling tools.
I feel like if a gun with high shatter and explosion goes nuts on a ship, not only is the ship now taking considerable hull damage, but now all the guns are broken. From (albiet limited) experience, Hwacha's specailty is saying nope to "Shoot back" tactics, so I can envision all Hwacha galleons unleashing broadside after broadside to not only disable their opponents, but kill them as well.
---------
But I like my opinion of Hit and Run tactics more, which is piss off the enemy enough with minor disable and damage, and let your teammate with that weird dual-mort build and gats on the side obliterate them while they're busy trying to repair things like balloon or guns or engines or...

I don't think that it's a bad thing. Galleon can be easily outmanoeuvred and if you disable his engines (which are exposed when broadsiding) he turns into a big stationary target. So Galleons can be outplayed in a number of ways and i don't see a reason to make staying into his firing sectors a safe thing. Right now Hwachas on the right side of Galleon are like fireworks. It burns but it's not lethal.
------
The "disabling hit and run" tactics is a valid one and nothing about it is supposed to be changed in my system.
But i have responded to Milevan Faent's message. He's complained that damage that his Squid dealt in the attack would be repaired. But he forgot that to deal some permanent damage in the current system you have to break trough armor first

...
Again, my view is "What ideas can we find from this?" It is not agreeing with changing, just a simple "How would this work?"

Well, you just confirmed how ridiculous "squid tanking" can be. His armor can be rebuilt in less than 2 seconds (2 engies) and then repaired to full HP. That's 230 hp in 2 seconds with a very small window to deal some real damage and no "cooldown".  Or 0.75 seconds if the whole crew does it. Ridiculous isn't? Even though Squid can't fire back at this time it should not be treated as "balanced".

5

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: October 09, 2014, 12:36:14 pm »

By taking away the ability to deal permanent damage  to the enemy you disallow newer players to benefit from a previous engage. It would lead to singled out engages where no benefit is taken into the next fight if you ve dealt serious damage to the enemy.

1) If one team weren't able to break armor then absolutely no permanent damage is dealt and no benefit for them in the next engagement.
2) Making hull slowly repairable promotes quick actions in order to exploit it. If you let your enemies too many time to repair (like 2-3 min) - it's your fault.
If you really-really don't like the idea of being able to repair the hull between battles then try to think about my system without this component. It would lose quite a bit of depth but still would have benefits over the current system.

if the armour goes down and the engineers get it back up is there really a point? The hull is still taking damage and the massive extra damage they sustained has probably already lost them the fight.

A knowledge that hull could withstand 2-3 times more damage is not enough? Besides, in my system the "massive damage" you mentioned would only count as "moderate damage"

Unlike everyone else I'm going to just ask about the system and see if your idea could either replace /
combine with GoIO and not jepordize the game.

A set of really good questions. If only more people could do that.

1.) How will the possibility of repairing the hull change gameplay tactically?
-If by "tactically" you mean "in the middle of the battle" then not much. I expect the hull repair speed to be slow enough to not affect the outcome of the battle.

3.) Utilizing high armor and hull (to my memory) and a bunch of heavy weapons that now become more useful in killing rather than disabling, what would happen to the galleon?
-Well... it would become able to use his main guns to actually kill someone. Right now medium guns alone are useless in this role because of absence of piercing damage.

4.) Would repairing the hull be done with a completely different tool? Would people have to hit the current hull area? Or somewhere else? And would it be like the current system of whack and wait, or like the buff hammer, where people can all start smacking away but for low low hp?
-Sitting in one place smacking one thing for minutes is not fun (*glance at carronades*) So it may be usual repair scheme or a passive regeneration. It could be done in a way that's best for the players. As long as repair rate is under control.
I didn't planned to create any new tools for that purpose.
New hardpoint won't be required if hull regeneration would be passive. Otherwise a new point should be made. No other options here.

5.) How would this add more focus to other weapons? As in change the current metas like gat-mortar? This adds power to all weapons, not just a select underpowered / underused few. Weapons I'm looking at include the artemis, banshee, H flak, carronades (both of them), hades, and flamer.
-All explosive (full or partial) weapons would be able to kill lightly armored targets without the help of armor-stripper. Other guns' roles aren't supposed to change.

6.) Would damage taken from components go as a percentage into the hull while dealing some damage to components? Or would it still do full damage to the components before going to the armor / hull? And even then, would damage from broken components go to just the armor, or the hull / armor hybrid?
-My system is not supposed to change any of damage redirection rules. Any damage redirected or delivered via AoE is supposed to affect both hull and armor.

7.) What happens to flame stacks?
-Damage from flame stacks on armor should not damage the hull.

8.) What sort of tactical moves would be created besides retreat and repair? Please name 2
-Hit and Run would be improved because every shot would deal some long-term damage.
-Strategic withdrawal. The difference from tactical is that you need more than 15 seconds and have to break off the chase.
-Engaging in 2 v 1 battle if one of the ships is heavily damaged.

9.) Sandstorms. Those things that whittle away everything on the ship. What do those do to the ship? Or is it suddenly possible to now get constant perma-damge from the sandstorm? (which would suck)
-Not intended. Sandstorms currently affect only guns and engines but not armor.

10.) What would be the use of piercing weapons if perma-damage can be pushed through armor anyway?
-Won't be required against lightly armored targets but stripping armor allows to deal 2-3 times more damage against medium and heavily armored targets.

11.) Would buff hammer add on a reduction on damage taken to the hull too? This is considered due to weapons piercing the armor regardless of it's state.
-The hull is not supposed to be buffed. But i just got the idea to make buff hammer much more useful for that role. Just an idea though.

2.) With a armor of mortar-strip-possible, and a squishy hull, would the squid become flat out useless?
Or would it gain an insane speed buff or something?

such as squid tanking (The damn things can be near immortal with good engis and pilots, along with teamwork),

I just don't like the system because it means my Squid would be all but useless, no matter what. Either it gets slaughtered, or the damage it deals in the brief hit-and-run attacks I make is repaired between runs. Either way, I lose.

Squids...
First of all, let me point out that Squid have third strongest hull. Only surpassed by Galleon and Goldfish. Also, its armor can be rebuilt momentarily making the hull even more difficult target. And don't forget about its evasion capabilities too.
Doesn't matter how much teamwork (not too much BTW) the "squid invulnerability" requires it should be limited. It's just the rule of design.
-In my system Squids would get a substantial boost to its hull HP.
-The best Squid's defence would be as it is now: not get git at all.
-Hit and Run tactics implies that you deal more hull damage than you take. But currently dealing ANY hull damage means you have to break trough armor. In this case Hit and Run would actually be easier to execute in my system.

Also, the Galleon wouldn´t be able to follow up escaping enemies to give them the deathblow. Or the galleon could be the new best choice for each fight. It got enough tankyness to simply don´t care about the hullintegrity and keep shooting. After the enemy has been defeated, they would focuse on repairs and wait for the next engage. As long as a Galleon gets 2 kills for each death, they will win.

I expect harpoons to be more valuable for slow ships. (Assuming devs would make them usable) Also i have suggested to make a separate turrets just for utility guns so they won't use the light turrets.
Galleons won't turn into a "best choice." It still can be outmanoeuvred by other ships and medium guns are still lacking piercing damage making them ineffective against heavily armored ships.

6

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: October 07, 2014, 02:03:19 pm »

Here comes the "you are noob" arguments again. Both from CAs... *sigh* I won't even try to reply to that because you haven't even read the whole sentence. No use speaking for the deaf.
Next time you want to reply -  start it with something like "The current system is better than suggested here because..."
or "Your system have these flaws: ... "

Would a junker, with only light guns, have light armor? Or heavy armor because it has so many guns? Or a standard armor because it strikes a medium?

I'm a beginner, and again, it is semi-sort-of misleading when you see those big marks show up on your screen while pounding on someone with mortars. Then again, this is a team game. People will actually, for the sake of success, do one of two things: 1) Complain that you're not doing it right and then do number 2, 2) Tell you that piercing weps come before explosive weps.

Whichever armor class Junker would have in my system it's supposed to be shown in the ship description. This information is easy to show and easy to understand.
On the other hand, a newbie captain may be completely misleaded. His learning is completely dependent on the other people. If his mistakes were noticed and were politely explained and he didn't took it as insult then good. But if not? What if he have all AI or other newbies on the crew? They would shoot and white marks would pop up showing that damage is dealt but in fact they would deal no damage at all. The current system is just counter-intuitive in this case.

7

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: October 06, 2014, 01:10:07 pm »

Actually I do believe most explosive weapons in GoI are a good example for a game mechanic thats easy to pick up, but hard to master.
...
What you really want is to HIT the enemies hull when the armor is down. The difference between these two statements is where players can improve their skill and situational awareness. Due to the travel time of the projectiles it's usually required to shoot explosive weapons before the armor is actually destroyed.
...
Allowing explosive damage to inflict hull damage all the time would severely lessen the importance of well timed shots and hence dull down a well established and well working game mechanic.

I'm not convinced.
Mortars and hwachas are used at point blank range and have more than enough ammo to allow for some mistakes.
Hflak is no more difficult to use than another long range guns like Mercury field gun.

It would "lessen the importance" of this top gunners' "skill" only because it would not be the only one. This trick would stay as it is and would allow to deal maximum damage. But there would be more tactical tricks to learn.

It looks like you want to make the game more intuitive for new players. But with your new system, you will probably confuse them. Many novices allready prefer only explosive damage ships, when they are captain. I guess it is because the gun says "good vs hull" and with your system they would be able to kill easily pyras, squids, mobulas, spires and goldfishes with double mortar on their pyras. They will probably take even more time to learn, that an exposed hull is better for them to finish off heavy armored ships, what a galleon and a junker would be.

I think it would be better than a situation when said newbie can't kill anyone at all. Much better.
Besides, after having troubles with killing a Junker, newbie may want to know why and see a "heavy armor" note. After that he may think of bringing an armor-piercing gun himself. This process would be much more "natural" learning process than a note saying "you MUST bring gatling gun" and new players would feel clever and rewarded.

8

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: October 03, 2014, 08:47:43 am »

With your modifications, a heavily damaged ship is a dead ship. I win a battle and have 2 choices - hide in a corner of the map to repair my permahull, or enter a fight knowing I have literally no way to prevent death.
Currently a heavily damaged ship can be used successfully...

That's the intended behaviour from the beginning. Taking hull damage is supposed to make you easier target next time. That's a handicap for a losing team to make matches more even. But currently it's not quite exploitable. Many people here (including me) said that a ship with a damaged hull isn't an easy target. That means the intended feature is not working or working not effectively enough.

1) Would rams/terrain still do any significant damage with your new system?

2) The other team might not even have a chance to exploit it at all, if the enemy team quick on the draw and picks them off 1by1 at the spawn directly, while they mindlessly rush in to get the chance to exploit.

3) Your suggestion is in contrast very punishing for the own ship. If the hull engineer shoots the guns, he can't shoot the gun because the hull will get damage, even when the armor is up.

4) It may limit the skill ceiling, but I can't see how your system "unlimits" it. Shooting while the armor is up is more of a desperate move to get a kill quickly before bad stuff happens.
You can't see how much armor damage the enemy ship took, so it, to me, sounds less like "adapting" and more like "being desperate". Especially since destroying the armor is still a viable option, why would I risk not killing it during the armor break?

5) If they don't rush in like that or the enemy team just moves back a bit, there is a high chance that all the effort of getting hull damage has brought nothing at all since it is getting repaired, bit by bit.
...
In your system, the "repairable hull" is actually the exploitable part, because you won't die that easily if you just camp in a corner for 2 minutes and then be back at full health.
Your system introduces a new tactic: "Camp in a corner for 2 minutes to be back at full health".

1) Sure. I don't see a reason why not. But with increased hull health ships would be able to take a few more hits.
2) That situation is much more likely to happen in the current system. You just don't have enough time in 2 v 1 to break trough armor and exploit hull. With the ability to exploit hull right from the start it would be easier.
3) Same situation with the current system. Engineer can't shoot the gun when trying to keep armor repaired.
4) Actually you can. When ships take hull damage they do show visual damage. The ability to find out the enemy hull's status and knowing when it's easier to make a finishing blow ignoring the armor would become the parts of the gunner "skill"
5) The key word is "bit by bit". The repairs are supposed to take time. Sometimes it would force players to retreat instead of proceeding to spawncamp. And sometimes you just won't have a time to completely repair. When you need to hold the captured point for example.

The exact amount of time needed to repair the hull is not strictly defined and could be tweaked.

9

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: October 02, 2014, 11:43:28 am »

without the willingness to actually consider what the counter-arguments are.

All the "counter-arguments" i hear are the same sentences repeated over and over again. Most of my answers were just ignored. Like now. You just ignored 90% of my previous post.

*sigh* okay starting over again.
C-A #1: Making hull always vulnerable would take away "teamwork"
Answer:

• In my system holding explosive barrage until armor is stripped would be a valid way of working in a team. However, sometimes it would be wise not to. This would actually require more skill from gunner because he would need to adapt to situation instead of relying on the "shoot only when red" definitive answer.
• Armor would still be a valuable part (especially on heavy ships) and every possible way of working as a team around it would stay in place.

C-A #2: Making hull repairable would eliminate its influence on the next battle
Answer:

• The repair speed won't be fast. But other team would have to act quickly to exploit it. The exact numbers are discussable.
• In the current system to exploit the permanent damage you need to break trough armor. In some cases (Galleon) it's so difficult that 90% of the battle it's not giving any advantage.

C-A#3: Ships would die quicker.
Answer: They're not. Increasing the hull health pool would decrease the damage/ hull hp ratio of explosive weapons. That should increase the time needed for hull destruction. Currently this ratio is so high because explosive weapons need to operate in a very small time window.

The other counter-arguments (unless i have missed something) are just "i don't want it to change". That's just a Baby duck syndrome

=================================
Now it's time for a counter-offensive move. I would make a quick recap of the current system's flaws.
The current "shoot only when red" system is:

• Very punishing for newcomers. The game has lost a lot of new captains and gunners because of that.
• Limits the skill ceiling for explosive weapons by presenting only one valid option.
• Makes exploiting hull damage much more difficult than it should.
• As a result of previous point it limits the number of tactical choices. (Examples were presented earlier) 

Do you have anything to say in its defence?

10

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: October 01, 2014, 11:30:12 am »

Okay, here's a recap:

• 2 of 3 people are evading to give me straightforward answers like they're in the court and i an the judge.
• 2 of 3 people are possessing an inhuman calculations capabilities. Average human can only make brief assumptions here. Throw in 4 human factors per crew too. Sure, you could classify the situation but i doubt anyone is capable to precisely tell the result.
• Captains and crew skills are halved when the hull is on full health. I might start thinking that the awkward movie trope, where a hero absolutely needs to take a few punches before he could start fighting back, is actually true.
• I should have asked some of the questions in other way.

But hey, at least i've  got some straightforward answers that proved my points:
Taking 50% hull damage decreases your TTK only by 0.8-3 seconds. (1.68 seconds average) Throw in greased rounds for a better effect.
Taking 50% hull damage doesn't change anything major in your behaviour. Sure, you'll fly more carefully but still you don't have any choice but to fight.
Exploiting the enemy's permanent damage is difficult

Yes the game is hard to learn and master but that's what makes it rewarding and enjoyable.

It is majorly game altering to go from needing to wait for armor breaks to kind of wanting to. Making it so that basically any weapon combination can work for a team is great for individual based games like your average fps. However it takes away from the team work based dynamic.

There's a catch: "work" and "work effectively" are 2 significantly different things.

Easy to learn, hard to master.
This is the design paradigm used by many good games. It is implies that a game should be easily accessible and have a room to grow.
Imagine you've got a powder monkey on your team. He occupies mortar and shoots continuously dealing little to no damage. The result: you lose, everyone frustrated.
Why is it happening? Because the game isn't asking you to play as team. It punishes you for not doing so.


The other facet here is choice vs calculations
I won't make a wall of text describing the difference between the two of these. Just watch this video.
In a game choice is always more engaging for a player than a calculation.

Here's an example for you:  Your ship was destroyed and you're moving towards your ally. But when you almost arrived your teammate was destroyed too. What's your actions? Only one: run. By the time you'll engage enemies would be completely repaired and this is a logical calculation to regroup and attack together.
Now, imagine the same situation but if it's a CP game, not a deathmatch. You may want to move forward to block the point. Or wait for your ally. You're making a choice.
Calculations are engaging only the first time. Next time you'll know the correct answer and just execute it. Choices are always engaging.

My system can allow for a choice to be made in the first situation. In my system exploiting hull damage would be much easier and if know that one of the ships has sustained heavy damage you may consciously choose to take a risk. You may easily kill damaged ship and turn it into 1 v 1 battle. The other team would also be presented with a choice: retreat to repair hull damage or risk to lose one ship if you decide to exploit it.
"To be or not to be" that question weren't so engaging if it would've had a definitive answer.

Now give me straightforward answers to these 2 questions:

• Would it be better for a game if it would stimulate players instead of punishing them?
• Do you want to have more opportunities to make a meaningful choice in the game?

No more "depending on..." please. Just "Yes" or "no"

11

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: September 30, 2014, 09:38:17 am »

Please answer a few questions. Some of them almost rhetorical, some are related to basic knowledge but trust me, they're all important for the discussion.

• How much time does it take to kill an exposed hull with mortar? Assuming that gunner is competent.
• How much time does it take for a destroyed team to engage into battle after the last ship was destroyed?
• How much damage your ship is supposed to take for you to recognise a "bad" and "really bad" battle situations? Assuming that's you're not outnumbered.
• How much time does it take to perform all necessary repairs to return to a "good" condition from that states? Assuming that your engineers are competent.
• How does your damaged (by 50%) hull changes your tactical and strategic behaviour?

I shall answer these questions myself after seeing some answers from my opponents. Otherwise it would be (again) a discussion about my skill level.

12

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Improving utility guns usability (flare, harpoon)

« on: September 29, 2014, 02:16:13 pm »

Side guns on Pyramidion may be (more likely) used for alternate config (long range, disable)
Side guns on Goldfish more likely to be used for gatlings/flamers.
Like i said, swapping any of these for a flare gun is not a worthy option as it hampers your damage/flexibility.

The problems of the harpoon isn't the point of this thread. It should be discussed separately. This thread is about making all (current and future) utility guns to be usable more often.

13

Feedback and Suggestions / Improving utility guns usability (flare, harpoon)

« on: September 29, 2014, 01:54:14 pm »

Greetings. I think that some attention should be directed at the guns that are performing a non-killing role. I think they should be brought to the battlefield more often.
But these guns have a problem: to bring one you'd have to replace one killing gun. Or you have to equip them in a slot that makes using it difficult. (rear slot at a Galleon for example)
To solve this i suggest to make special gun slots just for these support guns. With the possibility to equip them in one of the usual light gun slots. These slot aren't supposed to be on every ship. Only on those that have very few slots or have them in a positions that makes using these guns difficult.

Adding these special slots would also allow developers to increase ship's support capabilities without affecting its damage output.

Examples:
Galleon may have 2 of these slots on the both sides of the structure under the balloon. With a passage trough the center between the two guns.
pic 1
pic 2


Goldfish may have one in front of the helm.
pic 3

14

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: September 29, 2014, 01:45:08 pm »

This requirement of having to hold the explosive for offensive or avoid/disable the explosive for defense greatly increases the teamwork aspect of the game.
...
You also incorrectly state that the state of the hull doesn't matter. It most certainly does. Armor doesn't last forever and against good enemies you can expect it to go down quickly once engaged in direct combat.

These teamwork aspects aren't going anywhere. But they would be less mandatory. Experienced teams would still hold the mortar fire until the armor is stripped to deal 2x more damage. But inexperienced teams would not be punished so hard for the imperfect performance. They would deal less damage but would still deal it.
Besides, i think that the situation with 5% hull Galeon should not be normal. It was very thrilling for me but i bet it was frustrating for my opponents to not being able to kill my barely duct-taped ship.
...
Example: you're on a Junker against a Spire and something else. No matter how much Spire's teammate bitten off your hull you'll still die from a single charged Hflak shot once your armor go down.
Does it really matter how many time pass between armor going down and hull going down under mortar fire: 2.5 or 3 seconds. Your tactics and combat actions aren't changing.  Your survival is dependent on your luck more than on your skill.
I think the possibility of evading combat to repair critically damaged hull opens up much more strategic choices. Currently you have no other choice but to engage in combat.

15

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Hull and armor system overhaul

« on: September 29, 2014, 12:21:36 pm »

My system doesn't change much in terms of teamplay. I doubt it would change anything noticeable.
Everything that  SirNotlag have said is true for the current system as well. 
If a duel between two identical ships happens then the first who shot is winning.
The ambushed ship would take some hull damage anyway. Probably the same percentage. But it would be much more tolerable in my system because the hull would have much more HP and it is repairable. Ships would be able to survive for some time even with their armor stripped. Currently losing armor = quick explosive death incoming.