Messages

31

Gameplay / Re: 1.3.3 ENGINEER AND REPAIR TOOL BALANCE

« on: October 30, 2013, 02:03:06 pm »

Now the question is, what changes can be made to make prevention feel more like prevention?  I think extinguisher is right now.

Here's a thought:

What if the Chem Spray had a much longer duration, but instead of providing blanket immunity or percentile reduction instead prevented the next X stacks of fire on the element in question? It allows an Engineer to prep multiple parts before combat and still do his job in combat (repairing where necessary instead of running around chem-spraying everything repeatedly), while making it so that large fire offensives require an Engineer with an Extinguisher to really deal with.

In a case like this I'd lower it's cooldown to 2-3 seconds (and maybe reduce it's power to only removing 2 stacks), but only apply the preventative buff when there are no fire stacks on the component already: that keeps it feeling good for preventative purposes, but bad for reactive use.

Of course, this would probably require a new graphic for Chem-Sprayed components, possibly with a number indicator (or color-shifting indicator) to show how close the Chem Spray is to being removed. This would allow attentive and quick-to-act Engineers to keep the part safe by refreshing the Chem Spray before it actually gains fire stacks. Once the fire has actually breached the protection, however, the Chem Spray is strictly worse than the Extinguisher.

So something like this...

Chem Spray
Extinguishing Power: 2
Cooldown: 2
Special: Applies a fire shield to non-ignited components for up to 2 minutes. The first 8 stacks of fire damage that component would take are negated. Once 8 stacks of fire damage have been negated, the buff is removed.

I like the sound of that, if it was doable it would certanly give the Chem Spray its place.
I have to agree with Sammy B.T. though, protecting component from damage shouldn't be thought as the exclusive responsability of the engineer, if the ship is under fire then it's the pilot's responsability to move away, otherwise you keep on reciving more stacks of fire then you are putting off.
So just like with the mallet I don't see taking more damage while on cooldown as a flaw, it's just a consequence of not being able to move away.

32

Gameplay / Re: 1.3.3 ENGINEER AND REPAIR TOOL BALANCE

« on: October 30, 2013, 10:52:21 am »

I have to agree that if a redesign of the chem spray is not a viable solution then rolling back on this latest change on the fire extinguisher seems like the only viable option, imho. Buffing the chem spray would just screw the balance even more and potentially make fire useless again.
Closest thing to a solution would be the chem spray buff lasting longer but reducing the power of components as suggested above, but I really don't understand why we have this changes implemented in the first place.
What was wrong with the fire extinguisher?

33

Gameplay / Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE

« on: October 29, 2013, 03:44:20 pm »

@ Mad Maverik & Garou
Congratulation for showing to the world your elitist bs point of view and going into a personal attack against a whole clan.
By the way, Garou, I'm pretty sure I've whooped your ass in pubs more then once. But I guess you hadn't your try-hard pants on. And I know how important they are to "pros" like you in order to accomplish something. 

It's incredibly sad how involving yourselves in a couple of events and sucking the fun out of the game make you think that you have any authority or expertise in this game. The truth is that you don't know anything more then the average experienced player, you just EXPLOIT more, and once you find the "optimal" way to play you get stuck in it like it was quicksand.

34

Gameplay / Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE

« on: October 29, 2013, 07:00:15 am »

@ Mad Maverik
The opponent had "ample opportunity" to kill you only if it had a longer range loadout, which it's not always the case. Before this patch gat-mortar was medium range after all.
The rest of your post is incoherent rambling so if you don't mind I'll just skip it.

@ Garou
No, it never required skill, you are deluding yourself if you think that's the case. It just required crew coordination, minimal crew coordination I might add.
Charging in is difficult? Seriously? Going in a straight line towards an enemy ship is difficult? Exactly HOW desperate are you guys to keep the meta inside your comfort zone?

Again in your argument both of you are assuming an opponent on a sniper ship that is aware of your position all the time. This is a pretty big fallacy and shows how limited you are in your thinking. Let's not even adress the strawman argument like "pyramidions were never invicible" (who even said that?) and just move on.
If your posts accomplished anything is convincing me that this nerf was in fact exactly what this game needed.

Still not convinced about the sniper buff, but I bet you can manage that in a couple of posts.

35

Gameplay / Re: 1.3.3 PILOT, PILOT SKILLS, AND SHIP BALANCE

« on: October 29, 2013, 06:48:46 am »

The problem is that the Mobula and Spire are now virtually identical in concept, with the difference that the Spire has superior firepower and it's easier to repair in battle.

36

Gameplay / Re: 1.3.3 PILOT, PILOT SKILLS, AND SHIP BALANCE

« on: October 29, 2013, 06:27:03 am »

To be honest, I'm kind of torn on the Spire changes.
On one hand, I like that ship and seeing it buffed is a good thing.
On the other, I HATE the trend of "foward-pointing guns are the way to go". I hated the Mobula because its whole deal was "look how many foward facing guns I have", which felt like a cheap way of making a ship powerful.
Point and fire, in my opinion, is NOT a fun way to play this game, expecially not on slow ships. Can't we have a bit more creative weapon placement so to encourage a radically different play style from ship to ship?

Anyway, here's hoping that the now-obsolete Mobula is redesigned with a different phylosophy in mind.

37

Gameplay / Re: 1.3.3 ENGINEER AND REPAIR TOOL BALANCE

« on: October 29, 2013, 06:19:03 am »

At this point a complete redesign of the chem spray is in order.
Some time ago someone proposed turning the chem spray application into a buffing process, like the buffing tool, with the effect lasting longer but requiring multiple applications  of the chem spray in order to kick in.
I think that's the way to go, for balance's sake, even if I dislike fire getting an indirect nerf.
If I had any saying on the matter I would roll back this latest buff on the fire extinguisher, slightly buff the chem spray and leave fire and related mechanics alone.

38

Gameplay / Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE

« on: October 29, 2013, 06:12:35 am »

I still haven't tested this new patch as much as others, but I think that a gat-mortar nerf was in order.
They might have overdone it though. The ideal result to me would have been no more one-clip kills, requiring metamydions and similar builds to have at least the time and skill to empty two magazines on the target before getting a kill. The range nerf wasn't really needed.

I don't like the idea of a sniper buff, mostly because sniper ships are awfully boring to pilot and totally dependent on their gunner's skill to defend and attack. We'll see how the meta developes.

Special thanks to Muse for nerfing the mortar right when I have to grind 2 achivements for it, that was nice. 

39

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Detonate Mines

« on: October 28, 2013, 06:38:55 am »

Definite support of this idea, it'll be in a C4 explosives style. I can see absolutely no reason for the zoom on a mine laying gun... The right-click detonate is a fantastic idea.

Same here.

40

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Please Make Gunners Useful

« on: October 27, 2013, 06:06:47 am »

Having ammo types switch between damage types would make gunners a lot more diverse. The carronades, for example. Have some ammo types load 'slugs' instead of 'shot', and do component and piercing damage rather than balloon, as well as traveling further.

I like this idea, I think it would work really well, even if it would be nightmareish to balance at the beginning.

41

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Please Make Gunners Useful

« on: October 25, 2013, 05:50:09 pm »

It's not really a matter of opinion, though.

I give you this thread, and any other "gunner is useless, please buff" thread as proof. I do not agree with your, nor any other person's opinion to buff x or change y mechanic to somehow make a gunner "better."

I build my ships to use a gunner. I train my gunners to use various ammo types, even on light weapons. This is my opinion.

You are not adressing my point though.
That being that everyone can fire a gun, but only an engineer can really do his job. You would be right if things like putting out fires and buffing components were available to everyone all the time and the engineer just could do it better by bringing the appropriate tool, but the game doesn't work like that.
If I want to put out a fire on a ship I NEED a fire extinguisher, if I want to shoot an enemy ship I DON'T need special ammo and expecially I DON'T need more then one kind, most of the times. While in every fight you can be assured that you are going to need a tool for rebuilding, one for repairing and something to put out fires because otherwise you are boned if you lack even one of these tools.
That is the problem.

What I'm saying is that there is no incentive in bringing a gunner along, it's just something you might want to do SOMETIMES, but most of the times there is no real reason if you are going for optimization.
As for threads like this popping up it doesn't mean that the issue isn't clear or that the situation is fine as it is. In fact it shows the opposite. If an issue is not dealt with then threads about it will keep on coming.
I'm not saying that gunners are useless, but I am saying that it's objectively the least useful class because of how the game is designed.

The flaw in the idea that to make a class viable you just need to give it more tools for their role is evident in the fact that on some ships even a PILOT is not all that useful. On a Galleon you're better off using ANOTHER engineer, arguably the same is true for the Spire.
Meanwhile no one EVER is going to say "no" to another engineer on board.

42

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Please Make Gunners Useful

« on: October 25, 2013, 01:49:09 pm »

Fact of this issue is that there are very firm lines drawn for the sides that think gunners are less useful, and those like me who believe every ship is to have one. The topic of "making gunners useful" has been beat to death with no real solution, mostly because it's purely a matter of opinion.

I'm sorry you have to go through that to gun, as I'm sure you are proficient at it. It's more a community divide than an "issue" with gunners.

It's not really a matter of opinion, though.
When you are repairing, you HAVE to have the rigth tools, otherwise you just can't do some things, like putting out a fire, or rebuilding fast enough to survive sustained fire.

Meanwhile, most guns are prefectly ok with just one kind of special ammo, and even if you don't have the right kind of ammo, the gun can still fire and if the engineer is a good shot it won't really make much of a difference.

If we had to put gunning and engeneering on the same level then it would be something more along the lines of having to bring ammo for every gun and if you don't have the correct one then you can't shoot the gun.
Or vice versa, if engineering was like gunning it would be like having the option to buff/put out fires even without tools, just less efficently.
See what I mean?

43

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Please, Remove Profle's Leave Count

« on: October 25, 2013, 01:42:07 pm »

Plus, having the leave counter going up for accidental disconnects or crashing issues is pretty bad.

Except it doesn't. I mean, if you never come back to the game, something you have a few minutes to do so, you don't get a leave count. And if it does happen, on shucks, you get one. If you're "accidentally disconnecting" or "crashing" enough times to where it's a regular problem and your leave count is shooting up, you entering games knowing full well that something like is likely to happen again is probably just as bad as you leaving (and before someone gets in a huffy here, I'm using you in the general sense, not referring to you in specific).

If the game was perfect, you'd be right. But I happened to crash without the option to come back in the game, probably because of connection issues.
And anyway I don't feel that if you are in a laggy, unplayable game you should HAVE to re.connect after disconnect no. 23, you should at one point have the freedom to say "screw this, I'll just look for another game and let someone else try".

44

General Discussion / Re: No love from MUSE on these Boards?

« on: October 25, 2013, 12:56:10 pm »

Muse is putting their efforts into making the game better. I don't think it's so big a deal to meet them halfway by occasionally clicking a twitter link.

No, but I do think that a more active forum is better then a less active one, don't you?
If we could get more bits and pieces of info here it wouldn't hurt anything.

45

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Please, Remove Profle's Leave Count

« on: October 24, 2013, 06:04:02 am »

I don't like the idea of a "leave counter", I think it approaches the issue from the wrong angle. Instead of punishing players for leaving by "shaming" them it should reward those that stay until the end on a losing match, maybe with an achivement, or another counter called something along the lines of "stand your ground" or "never surrendered" that gives an idea of being a badass for fighting until the end even if you lose.

Plus, having the leave counter going up for accidental disconnects or crashing issues is pretty bad.