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 - krait

Pages: [1] 2
1
The issue I'm trying to highlight is that, despite use of the same base map, there's not enough to distinguish the game types; our brains self-condition themselves to ignore common stimuli, and in this sense the map names have the same effect as fine-print. It doesn't seem like it'd be hard to make a few extra icons such that the preview for each (base-map, game-type) combination is unique, and at this point anything would help.

Alternatively, some prominent "the map has changed" or "the game type has changed" indicator would solve the issue.

Either is unarguably better than matches being wasted when one team doesn't notice that paritan changed to labyrinth.

2
I feel that map preview images should be distinctive between capture point and deathmatch games, even when the base map is the same; the reason this is important is that it's often unclear that, e.g. paritan has switched to labyrinth, which has grave consequences on early-game strategy. The duplicate images I can think of off hand are:

- Paritan and Labyrinth
- Sepulcher and Flayed
- Anglean and Firnfield

3
Release Notes / Re: Server Downtime and Patch Release v1.2.1
« on: June 28, 2013, 05:45:02 pm »
It seems that since a recent patch, AI crew are essentially worthless on long range guns, usually not attempting to fire on an artemis or mercury until within medium flak range, and often missing 90% of shots until considerably closer than that. I think it's important that the AI not have perfect accuracy, but something like getting 80% hits is reasonable considering that the AI doesn't usefully single out ship components that their weapon type is specialized for, thus is generally less effective than human gunners in any case.

4
Some games you are gonna end up with 3 powder monkeys, but eh, can't win em all.

Commanders could be given "at most" crew class limit buttons for their ship for each class, with pilot defaulting to 0 (commander doesn't count against this), gunner defaulting to 1, and engineer defaulting to 3. Clicking the class icon would decrement the limit (so clicking on gunner once would indicate that zero gunners are desired), and roll around back to three when clicked on zero.

Monkeyism can be dealt with in a number of ways: the most straightforward seems to be "max level minimums", which cannot be lower than the current class level. For example, if I am a level 8 pilot, level 3 gunner, and level 4 engi, my max level is 8. A level 5 pilot (regardless of their other class levels) could set the level limit to no lower than, say, 2 less than their current level -- since my max level is greater than 3, I could fill their crew slot. If they were level 10, they could set the limit to 8, and I could still fill their slot, but someone with 3,3,3 class levels could not.

What would stop people from simply "down-thumbing" for lack of skill, or the fact they just don't like them? Then you get all these false representations of players for reasons other than being a straight troll.

Level 3 always seemed like a "graduating to competence" level to me, where game mechanics knowledge is well enough rounded that the player should know what they're doing. If they're max level is less than 3, they should be protected from thumbs down. Otherwise, thumbs downs should not be allowed unless at least 3 players give it (or in a 2v2 match, at least 2 players give the thumbs down). Regardless of the numbers of thumbs down, at most one should be recorded per match.

The fear is that people will start kicking new crewmembers instead of trying to teach them the basics.

There are already achievements that reward playing with low level crews.

And since non-English speakers tend to be silent, it's hard to know that they're not intentionally being douchebags and really just don't know that taking the front gun and not shooting is a bad thing.

There's also a problem with people without mics (who do speak your language) needing to type it in, taking their hands off of repairs, gunning, etc. This could be solved with one or more menus of common communiques (such as you see in Team Fortress, et al), that translate into the receiving user's language. User's languages could also be indicated in game, though you'd want to avoid using 'language flags', since these can be offensive to users who speak a language but don't live in the country indicated by flag.

5
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Underdog honor
« on: March 24, 2013, 08:01:12 pm »
Would an easier system be to award an "academy point" to the Captain every time a member of his crew levels up whilst flying with him? - that will be biased towards flying with lower level players and taking them through the basics.  Academy points could count towards either a unique ranking system, or unique costume awards, or just be a vanity badge visible against player profile.

The problem is that you see level ups so infrequently that people won't reliably be able to count on this, and thus will probably not care about it -- it'd be like one of those achievements you get without noticing, and don't really care about enough to actively work for. Making it based on achievements would help, but progress toward achievements may help even more.

6
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Underdog honor
« on: March 24, 2013, 05:38:33 pm »
It might be higher benefit to reward a high-averaged level player jumping on the ship of a low-level pilot. Really a great pilot with an inexperienced crew does a lot more for a team than a new pilot with a great crew. IMO, it's about the pilots, not so much about the crew.

7
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Commander auto-promotion
« on: March 24, 2013, 05:15:59 pm »
Changes to Quick Join are going to limit this problem soon, but it would definitely be nice if this could happen too.

To be clear, my problem wasn't so much that somebody jumped in as commander, but that because they were commander, they were able to force me off the helm (even if they weren't pilot-classed). Since I wasn't officially commander, I wasn't able to communicate with allied commanders anyway -- I just want to have some way to limit this kind of rudeness/bad-teamspiritedness (which in this case, easily cost our team the battle).

Another way of going about it would be to prevent anyone but a pilot (whether or not they're the commander) from being able to force someone off the helm, and preventing any pilot from forcing a higher level pilot off the helm (while preventing anyone from forcing the original commander-pilot off the helm). Of course, this is all more complicated than auto-promotion.

8
Feedback and Suggestions / Underdog honor
« on: March 24, 2013, 05:10:14 pm »
Regularly I see fights where a group of 3 friends, often with crews in the 6-8 range, play against a team composed of level 1-3 members. Certainly experience levels don't confer additional abilities, but regardless of a general gamer's skill, I find experience levels are a reliable indicator of... experience.

I propose some metric or series of achievements that rewards players for fighting on the low-experience side of an greatly imbalanced fight (they'd have to be present both when the match starts and ends). If it were an achievement, it should involve enough matches (maybe 100+) to prolong the amount of time players would be willing to make the conscientious decision of turning a, usually guaranteed, win into a fighting chance.

I'd still favor an "honor" metric better, though -- experienced players who regularly choose the experienced side (with increased weight on captains) would have this slide towards zero (or into the negative, depending on implementation), while those who choose to even things out would rise in prestige. All of this would be relative to the amount of imbalance, with imbalance below a certain threshold having no effect (so a 8-8-6 vs an 8-8-8 match would not affect this metric for any of the captains).

To allow players to still play in clan or pre-determined team configurations without a large risk of penalty, when setting up a game, a minimum or maximum captain level could be specified to, for example, to enforce "noobs only" games or to prevent a trio of new captains from jumping into a game they couldn't reasonably win against a coordinated high level team.

9
Feedback and Suggestions / Commander auto-promotion
« on: March 24, 2013, 04:49:35 pm »
When the existing commander leaves (and their auto-reconnect option times out), I propose that the first person on helm gets auto-promoted to commander (and the commander slot would be once again filled when viewed from the lobby). I've had a few annoying cases where players jump into the commander slot, and steal the helm -- most recently it was a powdermonkey, who clearly had not picked up any skill yet, stole the helm in the middle of a tied-score fight against a then-disadvantaged enemy, and logged out as soon as our team lost the battle.

10
So if you want the added 'swag' you just ad a note? Doesn't sound very concrete. =P

Last I checked, kickstarter is designed around a strict tier structure, and doesn't really have mix-and-match functionality, so a note may be the best they can do. But I have no doubt that if there are any problems, they'll make sure you get taken care of if you pay extra for optional swag.

11
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Pilot Training
« on: March 24, 2013, 03:39:03 pm »
I could definitely use like... a private tutor of sorts

LOL. I seem to recall you discussing all the things that makes a captain... not good. Fly with enough bad captains and just behave oppositely to the traits they all had in common :P

That said, I think Skrimskraw is right that most friendly players (which is hopefully most of us) would be willing to crew your ship and give you tips; I'd certainly be happy to do that when you find me online.

12
The Lounge / Re: Learn how to code?
« on: March 22, 2013, 05:13:23 pm »
Getting started it is much easier to learn Java or Python than C, but the easy way is not always the best way.

I know a great many people who use pointers when they don't need them -- and for the wrong reasons, often their intuitions (or what they've been told) about performance are exactly opposite in those cases to how the hardware is working. It's rather easy to only half-learn use of pointers, and that's pretty dangerous. Lacking pointers, a language with extremely clear reference-vs-nonref semantics means that there wont be a lot of the confusion involved if and when a programmer starts learning a pointer-based language.

13
The Docks / Re: Harpoon Research Division
« on: March 22, 2013, 05:07:10 pm »
If I'm available at the time such a thing gets scheduled, count me in -- I'll act as an observer, spectator, pilot, gunner, whatever.

14
The Lounge / Re: Learn how to code?
« on: March 22, 2013, 12:51:53 pm »
My recommendation is to pick a language and environment that are modern and easy to learn and debug, rather than choosing something simply based on popularity. C++, for example, would probably not be anywhere on that list (you can write medium sized programs in other languages in the same amount of time that even common mistakes can take to debug in C++). Even if you have a target mainstream language you want to approach, if it's not one of the semantically simpler languages (remember, simplicity doesn't mean less powerful -- sometimes quite the opposite!), then it can be faster to learn general programming concepts first before attempting to transfer those concepts onto learning a harder language.

15
For people who haven't been following this thread (or have been following it but still "aren't following"), it may be good to distinguish playable modes from mode bonuses.

For example, CE Adv mode sounds like if you have it but I only have Adv mode, you'll be able to access areas, use ships, and otherwise do things that have a game-mechanics effect that I can't do, when afaict it's bonus swag and costume coupons. I'm still not sure what CE Skirmish means for someone who has what is currently available on Steam as "Guns of Icarus Online."

If the spreadsheet were updated so that all the checkboxes under "CE Adventure Mode" were also given checkboxes under regular Adv mode, and CE Adv were renamed to something like "Adventure Mode CE Items", it might be more clear.

On another note, it sounds like any backer, $5 or more would get to beta test adventure mode, but would lose adventure mode once it goes out of beta? Or would it just mean that they would be able to beta any changes that will come to all skirmish play?

Also, will the 4x packages confer closed beta access to the other 3 licensees?

Pages: [1] 2