Messages

16

General Discussion / Re: End of game 'rating'

« on: December 11, 2013, 07:02:28 am »

Hmm...so is it purely the number of things you successfully fix/shoot that determines your score? Because if that's the case then it means that if you're an experienced engineer and your team is so good that the ship hardly gets damaged at all, you'll get a terribly low score as opposed to the engineer who is on the other side and fixes a hundred or so parts while his team loses to 5-0. Wouldn't this actually downgrade many experienced engineers instead of reflecting their experience? Higher level engineers sticking to higher level captains and continuously defeating lower level players will keep getting low scores based on their in-match performance (performance = enjoying the view when there's nothing to be repaired), and thus, the system will not show anything of the level of their skills. I get to fix a lot more stuff when I fly with inexperienced crews than when I fly with people who kill enemies in a blink of an eye.

I got a 5.0 on a Squid as a buff and chem spray engineer -- I literally didn't stop moving for an entire game and no doubt my work was beneficial -- but on a Spire where I had a mallet, spanner and extinguisher, and I spent most of my time shooting and occasionally patching things up, my grade plummeted to around 0.5 I think. Perhaps 'Performance Grade' should be renamed to something like 'Class Contribution Grade' because at least that way it would be kind of accurate. It definitely needs to say what the grade is out of though, so 0.5/5.

17

General Discussion / Re: End of game 'rating'

« on: December 11, 2013, 06:06:14 am »

It's the old problem of attempting to numerically judge a game that is much much more complicated than the system can accurately represent.

Exactly. I don't mind the game totting up how many buffs or repairs I did, or how many fires I put out (actually, how many components I chem sprayed -- and protected from fire -- would be nice), but trying to accurately grade my performance when there are so many other things going on that are possibly as imporntant, if not more so, is going to be nigh on impossible. And what about communication? How do you measure that? Or being a pilot? Grades can be fun and make you feel better (or worse!) which could be as good a driver as any to make players play better but I have my reservations about how accurate and representative it will (and can) be. It could be a fantastic incentiviser if nothing else if handled correctly.

18

Gameplay / Re: Artemis

« on: December 11, 2013, 05:23:35 am »

I don't like the idea of adding an arming time simply because of the Art's parity with the Merc (long, no arm time), the Echidna's parity with the Hades -- as well as its bigger brother the Typhon -- (medium, arm time), and the Whirlwind's parity with the Scylla (short, no arm time). My issue with the Artemis isn't to do with its efficacy (having not been up against many triple Art Junkers, or Mobs for that matter), it's to do with only a single ammo type being particularly useful for it. I understand that not every weapon should be compatible with every ammo type -- that'd be silly -- but two or three viable choices would make the gun a lot more interesting. I sometimes roll with heatsink for the increased turning rate but that reduced range versus the increased AoE on burst is a killer.

Byron, what ammo do you get your crew to bring for the Arts?

Based on Byron's comments above, and one of Zill's comments from earlier on, I think burst might need looking at before touching the Art. I'd probably make burst reduce the turning rate of a weapon, this would hit the Artemis the hardest but:

a) open up other ammo types for it while not affecting other guns that much (by virtue that they have faster turning arcs anyway).
b) If other ammo types were to be used then burst shatter AoE wouldn't be quite as common and if burst was used then...
c) there would be more risk for the reward of increased AoE and increased clip size because...
c) close quarter combat and maintaining trifectas would be trickier, without diminishing the Art's power or adding arming times. And...
d) bring the Art closer in line with the Merc with reduced arc ability/agility.

19

Gameplay / Re: Artemis

« on: December 10, 2013, 07:27:46 am »

If I were to make a few possible suggestions, based mainly off my distaste of burst being the preferred/sensible ammo type for the Artemis:

1) Increase jitter slightly to make heavy clip useful for surgical shots on engines and specific guns at range or,
2) decrease rate of fire slightly to make greased a possibility or,
3) reduce turning speed further to bring it more in line with the Merc's reduced arcs without sacrificing its ability to gain trifectas. Gaining and holding a trifecta would take more time due to the slower arcs, and would become especially restrictive at closer ranges just like the Merc (and without bringing arming times into it). The time commitment getting a vector would make heatsink more attractive and possibly greased to quickly unleash a salvo so you can hop off to attend other matters.

The second suggestion may be a little heavy handed (or too slight to matter) but the third seems quite reasonable unless I'm overlooking something. The first suggestion would make extreme long range disabling much trickier and give that territory back over to the Merc.

Or alternatively make burst reduce turning speed? Or do less AoE damage?

20

Gameplay / Re: Range-Finder

« on: December 10, 2013, 06:30:29 am »

It would be more useful if you could left click the ship to mark the range for your crew to see. Right now you have to hold the ship in sight in order to see the range and only the guy with the range finder can see it.

What about the range appearing for all players inside the 'spotted' bracket while ever a ship is in sight through the range-finder, no clicking necessary? I prefer less HUD and more communication personally but tunnel vision coupled with mute players could be dangerous in pub games. A visual range indicator would be fairly subtle anyway. I did notice that there appears to be no visual cue that a player is range-finding, they just look like they're standing there, or did I just miss the exact moments they were using it? I'd expect a spyglass kind of animation/stance when in use.

21

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: End Game Pose

« on: December 10, 2013, 06:13:27 am »

With a little player and wardrobe co-ordination you could probably pull off a decent Harlem Shake on the victory screen if character poses and animations could be picked...

22

General Discussion / Re: Ship Scrambling and Other Upcoming Features

« on: November 17, 2013, 06:31:58 am »

You misinterpret what we mean when we say we wish to stick with a good team. If I get into a lobby by myself, have a random crew and random ally captain who listens and is generally inviting, then that to me is a good team. Good team does not = Scrimmage team (aka all friends/clan buddies).

Then on the other side, you have one decent boat, but then one that has the unresponsive captain with two gunners, and even the captain would be a gunner. His boat is all harpoons. Normally those ships dissolve pretty fast because they cant figure out why they lose all the time, despite our advice to remedy it. Then the forced swap happens. The two decent guys team up, and im left with a mix bag. You aren't balancing anything. You just trade from a team that can potentially win to a team that is pretty much dead when the game starts. This is why people will leave 95% of the time to make a new lobby. We aren't actively giving the finger to the community we have for so long tried to foster since beta.

Yeah, I understand by good team you don't mean scrim team.

You're not balancing anything in that particular scenario, no. You're never going to balance a 2v2 with three crews of similar experience/ability and one that is outright uncooperative. But a scenario where you've got an experienced team versus a team made up of a screwing around joke crew and a crew composed of newcomers that are wanting to have an honest to god match will be a different story. That's going to be stomp after stomp if teams remain the same and eventually people are going to drop out. If they're scrambled then the new crew that wants to play properly and learn (and, y'know, enjoy the game) gets a much better experience and sticks around. Yes, one of the winning crews will get lumped with the bad apple crew, but come on, which ever way you cut it, it's going to be a much more positive experience for new players who would otherwise have walked away never to come back. If there are two bad apple crews then at worst you get a supplemented 1v1 with your friends. I've rarely, if ever, encountered two bad apple crews on one team though and I'd still rather have them split up for more balanced games.

Surely the organised/experienced players who are wanting to stay with their friends no matter what will just organise friendly scrims independently seeing as they more likely have the connections, friends, clanmates -- as well as the time and inclination -- to do so? It seems ridiculous to me to punish the pub game crowd because they aren't organised enough. Pub games are wildly inconsistent by virtue that they're open to all. New players, dabblers, returners. They need everything they can get to get them into good games and playing well so they keep coming back. I played recently with a bunch of level ones who were bloody brilliant but it would have broken my heart to see them ground into a paste because the winning team wasn't prepared to sever their bonds in the name of good sportsmanship. Stomping and the prospect of allied crews abandoning a game just because they got scrambled is only going to leave a sour taste. And I really don't like the notion that the scramble feature will cause/force this kind of behaviour in allied crews. That's a choice, and a group one at that.

Besides, I don't see how stomping can be fun or practice, and leaving the lobby to start another isn't going to solve that either unless you've got a stable of friends to invite. But if you haven't, you're just making more people wait across more games, and there's nothing to say the new lobby won't fill up with more 'stompees' anyway. Then what are you going to do? Keep on stomping until you get scrambled again until you open another lobby? That just sounds like really bad form to me.

While I like the idea of making scramble optional at new game (options are good), giving that option may just keep the door open to stomping by the very people who are okay with stomping but not okay with scrambling. Pub players will go wherever there are games and if more non-scramble games are opened by more experienced players wanting to play together and 'practice', then we're back to stompsville again.

I think Asteria raised some great points on the implications of this feature on 2v2 versus 3v3 and 4v4.

23

General Discussion / Re: Ship Scrambling and Other Upcoming Features

« on: November 16, 2013, 11:15:18 am »

As a captain, if I end up being on a stacked team I suggest my crew and I switch over to keep the game entertaining, so naturally I welcome the swap feature with open arms.

With regards to the ship scrambling, and in addition to the above: I honestly don't care about playing with my buddies provided I have a reliable or receptive crew on my own ship (these can be randoms or friends/clanmates) and the game stays enjoyable for as many people as possible (by virtue that the winning teams are now scrambled to be with the losers). Stomping just leads to people getting angry and quitting and if there are fewer players there are fewer games. I personally think leaving a lobby and starting another just because you can't play with your friends on other ships, especially if you haven't got the numbers to make another full game, is damaging to the community as a whole because more people are left waiting around for longer to get into a match which in turn can lead to more people quitting. It's often painful enough waiting for lobbies full of experienced players to hit those Ready buttons, never mind waiting for a lobby to fill up in the first place.

Playing against friends (and taunting them in party chat) in a 'balanced' game is way more fun to me than absent-mindedly stomping the other team. Recently Valiant set up a lobby to play some practice pub games but the sheer number of clan tags in the lobby (around 12) put players off the moment they entered. We sat waiting for a fair while before I suggested we switch teams about to make the lobby more attractive and, sure enough, in no time we had a full lobby and a succession of fun games ensued. I think that's a much healthier way of doing things and the scramble feature looks set to try and promote that by doing it automatically after x amount of stomps. Anything but stomps can be great fun so trying to prevent them is a good step as far as I'm concerned.

Above all, players need to stick together and keep playing, and preferably in games rather than waiting in lobbies. I know it can be annoying playing with inexperienced or downright bad captains or crew but splicing them in with other better and more experienced crews is going to bring out the best in the more receptive players and cultivate growth rather than snuffing out any enthusiasm they had because the stompers wanted to stay together. Wanting to stay with the good teams all the time to the detriment of other players' experience just seems like terrible sportsmanship to me.

I don't see how the result of implementing this feature can be anything but a net gain though:

With ship scramble feature:
Ships get scrambled, winners are coupled with losers, nobody leaves to start another lobby = more balanced games ensue (technically)
Ships get scrambled, winners are coupled with losers, former winners get mardy and start another lobby = everyone waits longer to start a match
Before ships get scrambled, winners opt to swap with other ships voluntarily = more balanced games ensue (technically)

Without scramble feature:
Ships don't get scrambled, winners opt to swap with other players voluntarily = more balanced games ensue (technically)
Ships don't get scrambled, winners keep winning, losers get angry and quit or leave match to find a more balanced game = everyone waits longer to start a match

My only reservation would be the scumbags who'd surrender or intentionally lose to avoid the scramble, but who would do that? And would that behaviour be reportable? I rarely see trolls so this seems like a very remote possibility to me. The chance of former stompers leaving en masse seems more plausible but still undignified and every bit as damaging as the act of sustained stomping.

24

Q&A / Re: A few questions

« on: November 01, 2013, 12:53:32 pm »

Thanks Smollett and Hamster! Yes, I tend to roll heavy with fire but was never quite sure whether incendiary was a good ammo choice given its drawbacks (rate of fire mainly, while greased reduces muzzle speed as well as increases clip and RoF). Is there anywhere where I can find the chance to ignite percentages? I don't recall them in Wilson's notes.

25

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Please Make Gunners Useful

« on: November 01, 2013, 11:13:52 am »

This thread seems pointless to me now though, since the new patch I see gunners, despite the advantages a Buff-gungineer has, as much more useful and practically essential for multi-range ships and many more guns benefit much more from multiple ammo types than just having a gungineer, the flexibility of a gunner is realy starting to shine a lot in contrast to the specialization of the Buff-gungineer.

My thoughts exactly. The recent patch has definitely made gunners a lot more desirable now. The more imporant you make ammo types, the more important gunners become, and ammo types at the moment feel more important than ever.

26

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Please Make Gunners Useful

« on: November 01, 2013, 10:37:31 am »

[...] no reason an engineer tool should be able offer you 66% of what Charged rounds can do without any actual penalty to the gun and it does so in combination with whatever ammo type you will bring.

I'd say the penalty is requiring an engineer to peel off from whatever else they're doing (if there's a gunner) or dismounting their own gun (if they're a gungineer) to stand hitting the gun every 20-30 seconds for 10 seconds (don't know the exact figures) is penalty enough. More over, they've sacrificed some rebuilding/repairing power or the ability to extinguish to do this as well. I think there's plenty of penalities there. Sure you can prep a lot of components before engagements and preload ammo but during a fight all these things add up to make a tool that's pretty specific and fraught with danger if you mess your priorities up.

Edit: And yeah, I know you said 'to the gun' but it's all connected.

27

Q&A / A few questions

« on: November 01, 2013, 10:21:38 am »

• What pilot tools function when you leave the helm? If any?
• If a Lumberjack shot hits the top of a Mobula does that damage the balloon? Would the AoE breach the surface of the deck?
• How do incendiary rounds work? I know they increase the chance to ignite but how many stacks does that ignition make? How effective are they with each gun?
• What's the point of AoE on an explosive weapon if it's purely for hitting the bare hull health? I'm presuming this is for when components are shattered and the explosive damage hitting those components is transferred to the hull with all the appropriate damage multipliers? I have no idea.

Thanks in advance!

28

Gameplay / Re: Goldfish 1.3.3

« on: November 01, 2013, 08:56:38 am »

Oh wow, that must have been during my hiatus. Nevertheless, the flak cannon in Unreal Tournament made distinguishing between the carronade and flak in GoIO a lot trickier for me! What with it acting more like a shotgun firing hot shredding shrapnel/buck.

29

Gameplay / Re: Goldfish 1.3.3

« on: November 01, 2013, 05:35:13 am »

Gilder, do you mean heavy carronade? I thought I was the only one who couldn't get out of the habit of calling carronades flaks. I blame Unreal Tournament.

30

Gameplay / Re: 1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE

« on: October 31, 2013, 08:37:39 am »

Meant to add that the reduced jitter on the gat seems to make lesmok viable now as you close in, without putting heavy out of a job. I'm betting heavy would be great for surgically shattering certain components, what with its increased clip size, before focusing the hull. Charged, greased, heat-sink, incendiary -- I think they might all have a place now with the gat.