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 - Mattilald Anguisad

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19
Whatever, I don't even care anymore about this.

SCS match C (Storm Ryders vs The Tea Timers) was recorded by me, and is available here:

Community Events / Re: Proposed SCS testing event.
« on: October 04, 2014, 08:40:28 pm »
Well this whole event was set up just to test up rules variation. 10 minute match timer didn't work out.
Problem with current implementation is that lobbies will often devolve into endles cycle of counter picking until ref sternly tells them to stop wasting everybody elses's time. I think the prick-in-order idea has a potentiona - might need a bit more time to pick.

Q&A / Re: When turning the ship, which one is faster?
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:38:58 am »
Well duh turning by crashing is faster than any other turning.

Q&A / Re: When turning the ship, which one is faster?
« on: August 30, 2014, 06:07:36 pm »
It's a basic principle but cycling the engines from forward to back actually does make you turn faster....
Not faster but tighter turn, witch in many maps is more important.

Q&A / Re: When turning the ship, which one is faster?
« on: August 30, 2014, 06:05:34 pm »
I don't have numbers but by going by missisipi one, missisipi two...missisipi twenty menthod of counting time, same 360° turn tuned to take to 20 on a stock junker (within measurement error) no mater if it was full foward, full reverse or neutral throttle position. No I did not have a stop watch to accurately measure time.
The reason why you put ship in full reverse when enemy is passing you, is to more easily keep arc or get back into arc faster (you don't have to do a 180° turn when reversing). going full foward you are ruaranteed to lose arc of enemy passing by you. Putting throttle in full reverse is also to make tighter turns (especialy if you were going full foward previously) If you were stacionary you generaly don't need to put in reverse when turning).

damage of the shot*component modifier would make most sense, ergo i would assume (ammo+buff)*component modifier. I would assume (not having access to any code) damage is calculated on the component side.
But will need confirmation by anyone that has access to numbers. Where have gone the days, when the only anwer was something allong the line of "you don't realy need to know that formula".

Gameplay / Re: Rebuild Behavior
« on: June 09, 2014, 06:59:20 am »
I assume the relative nerf to spanner was an attempt to make gunners more viable (difirence in rebuild power used to be relatively larger).

I have been personally assured they have found the source of the issues and aree working on it last week, and after testing the new netcode in the dev app events  end of this work-week I'm confident that most common issues will be fixed very soon.

Gameplay / Re: Rebuild Behavior
« on: June 08, 2014, 11:35:45 am »
Q: How does the rebuild power of the tool is affecting the number of hits or rebuild power(?) per hit of tool on different components
A: It's simple every component has a fixed amount of rebuild power required to be rebilt. Divide that by the repair power of the tool (round up) and you get the needed amount of swings to rebuild a component.

As N-Sunderland rebuild power of components isn't related to component's HP (as the component is still badly damaged when rebuilt) - ship armor is the exception and it is related to armor value, but there is a lot of rounding in there, so it's impossible to get exact formula from it.
Major rehaul of rebuild times of components were changed in one of the following patches: 1.1.4 1.1.5 or 1.1.6 - not entirely sure (i belive it was 1.1.4 - I remember it as the great flak nerf and great hawacha op-ness, I could be wrong).

Q: Also, if anyone knows too - what is the 'cooldown' for using a tool for rebuild?
A: Animation cycle when holding down the button seems to be ~1.0 sec, animation cycle when manualy pressing the LMB seems to be ~0,75sec as Sammy B. T. allready wrote.

Gameplay / Re: Double Flack on Pyramidion
« on: May 26, 2014, 06:28:17 am »
In theory double flak works fine if you can wokr together with the other ship(s) to destroy enemy's armor. But no mater how good your coordinations, good enemy teams will find a way to split up the 2 ships, and eliminate the ship that can destroy the armor first.

Every class needs to have a choice of ammo type - gunner just needs to have more. - Just add default ammo as a choice. And ONLY if this is done the ammo could stay with the ammo type it had last.

Matchmaking would automaticaly dump all the players in the loby at the same time, and switching between the teams won't be possible - for the obvious reason you pointed out yourselt.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New ship idea: Dragonfly
« on: May 25, 2014, 01:09:58 pm »
Ballons have fixed value (1200 baloon health for all ships)

Weapons have fixed arcs meaning ship would have front and rear be blind sides (as it should be with such a heavily armed ship). You can arc fron pair ships at -45°/+45° and rear guns could be turned to -135°/+135° witch would hive you all around covarage but you'd have hard time keeping all 3 guns shooting starboard/port or 2 guns shooting foward/backward - but I doubt it would get thru since ships got to have blind spots, otherwise you have no need to turn in combat (balance concerns).

11m/s2 is too large acceleration.
Keep in mind squid's mass is 115tonnes (115000kg) - and it's lightest smallest ship.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New ship idea: (sky)Reaper
« on: May 25, 2014, 12:55:58 pm »
I dunno if 2 baloon idea could be implemented (outside of a visual thing). Also light engines are used for turning ship - they have to be in pairs (if one is destroyed ship starts turning into the side with the destroyed turning engine).

It would weigh at about 150tones (150 000kg) probably(suid is the lightes and fasters ship and it still weighs 115 tonnes). And acceleration wouldn't be more than 6m/s2 - (witch is slightly higher acceleration than squid).

Interesting design concept.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19