151
The Gallery / Re: Romance on the Airship Perry
« on: May 14, 2014, 07:21:43 am »
News:
Log in using the email address and password you selected when registering in-game. Forgot your password?
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.
152
Gameplay / Re: 1.3.6 Hotfix Flamethrower
« on: May 04, 2014, 01:59:24 am »
As if the gat/mortar combination, the lochnagar flak, the mine launcher, the lumberjack, the heavy carronade or any other weapon isn't frustrating to be faced against when a level one.
This 'flamethrower ruins noob games' argument is invalid. Yes, it is easier to run but it's also easier to counter compared to any of the guns and tactics that have been common for the last 10 months.
edit;
and yes wundsalz is right
if everyone keeps complaining about the flamethrower an alternative would be to just make it a piercing 'gatling' with far less damage which also creates a fire every now and then
boring, lame but retains some usability
This 'flamethrower ruins noob games' argument is invalid. Yes, it is easier to run but it's also easier to counter compared to any of the guns and tactics that have been common for the last 10 months.
edit;
and yes wundsalz is right
if everyone keeps complaining about the flamethrower an alternative would be to just make it a piercing 'gatling' with far less damage which also creates a fire every now and then
boring, lame but retains some usability
153
Feedback and Suggestions / Heatsink
« on: May 01, 2014, 05:33:06 am »
Since everyone agrees on the last improvement on heatsink, I suppose this one will be staying.
If that is indeed the case I have 2 minor suggestions;
If that is indeed the case I have 2 minor suggestions;
- Make heatsink extinguishes add to the 'fires extinguished' stat
- Add 'Extinguish X fires with heatsink rounds' on the gunner's 9th shooting achievement
154
Gameplay / Re: 1.3.6 Hotfix Flamethrower
« on: May 01, 2014, 05:26:21 am »
Current flamethrower is balanced.
155
Gameplay / Re: 1.3.6 Flamethrower Changes
« on: April 29, 2014, 03:57:55 pm »
After extensive testing conclusions are the dev app flamethrower is good. Good good. Reliable, strong, counterable. I'd still vote for a minor decrease in range but only time can tell if that's neccessary.
Heatsink does need a buff. Reloading a gun while it's being focused by a flamethrower will stack 6 to 10 fires on it so you're gonna have to time your reload with the enemy flamers reload to get it to work properly- but an increase to fires extinguished from 3 to 4 would be ideal imo (plus symmetry you know.. extinguishes half the fires that it'd take for the gun to be unusable).
Sorry for not posting this on dev forum but apparently I can't access it even though I've got the dev app
Heatsink does need a buff. Reloading a gun while it's being focused by a flamethrower will stack 6 to 10 fires on it so you're gonna have to time your reload with the enemy flamers reload to get it to work properly- but an increase to fires extinguished from 3 to 4 would be ideal imo (plus symmetry you know.. extinguishes half the fires that it'd take for the gun to be unusable).
Sorry for not posting this on dev forum but apparently I can't access it even though I've got the dev app
156
Gameplay / Re: 1.3.6 Flamethrower Changes
« on: April 29, 2014, 01:25:19 pm »
New heatsink looks good. Functionality is greatly improved, now you can 'cheat' the fire stacks by repairing the gun while loading and also getting the fires removed.
I like the change but the number of fires removed might need to be tweaked. On one hand it's very decent, considering that you get a minor extinguish without setting a repair cooldown or disrupting an engineer's repair loop. On the other hand, reload times are pretty big and you also can't 'save' a gun with over 8 fires this way.
Not sure if putting off 4 fires instead would be too good..
I like the change but the number of fires removed might need to be tweaked. On one hand it's very decent, considering that you get a minor extinguish without setting a repair cooldown or disrupting an engineer's repair loop. On the other hand, reload times are pretty big and you also can't 'save' a gun with over 8 fires this way.
Not sure if putting off 4 fires instead would be too good..
157
Gameplay / Re: 1.3.6 Flamethrower Changes
« on: April 29, 2014, 12:10:43 pm »
o7 haha
Only issue is that such a change would favor guns with smaller clips or faster reloads. Still seems more efficient than its' current version though.
And yes, a change in heatsink is necessary not because of the flamethrower shenanigans but mostly because heatsink is never used for what it was supposed to be - a fire preventing clip
Only issue is that such a change would favor guns with smaller clips or faster reloads. Still seems more efficient than its' current version though.
And yes, a change in heatsink is necessary not because of the flamethrower shenanigans but mostly because heatsink is never used for what it was supposed to be - a fire preventing clip
158
Gameplay / Re: 1.3.6 Flamethrower Changes
« on: April 29, 2014, 12:02:07 pm »
Two fixes for the heatsink that could be easy to implement are
The latter might be a cool idea, it adds a time management concept to gunning that's usually more prominent in engineer roles
- Every time heatsink clip is loaded x fire charges are extinguished
- Every time heatsink clip is loaded, gun is fire immune for 20 seconds (regardless of ammo changes or heatsink clip running out). A gun with heatsink clip can still catch fire if 20 seconds have passed since its' reload
The latter might be a cool idea, it adds a time management concept to gunning that's usually more prominent in engineer roles
159
Gameplay / Re: 1.3.6 Flamethrower Changes
« on: April 29, 2014, 08:17:49 am »
Well if you think you can maintain a mobula versus the current flamer as an engineer, good for you- I know I can't.
160
Gameplay / Re: 1.3.6 Flamethrower Changes
« on: April 29, 2014, 07:42:11 am »
Buffing spray is by no means an answer, quit suggesting it.
It's an extremely effective tool, already far superior to the extinguisher. Besides, buffing the spray wouldn't solve the issue of mobulas/spires being unplayable and gunners being useless versus new flamethrower.
Decrease range to 80%, drop the damage to minimal, maybe also increase the reload a tad and flamer becomes a very short ranged yet powerful disabler that's still relatively easy to counter and doesn't break ships all by itself.
It's an extremely effective tool, already far superior to the extinguisher. Besides, buffing the spray wouldn't solve the issue of mobulas/spires being unplayable and gunners being useless versus new flamethrower.
Decrease range to 80%, drop the damage to minimal, maybe also increase the reload a tad and flamer becomes a very short ranged yet powerful disabler that's still relatively easy to counter and doesn't break ships all by itself.
161
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Interface changes in 1.3.6
« on: April 28, 2014, 12:40:56 pm »
The icons are sweet but text does need to be always visible
162
Gameplay / Re: 1.3.6 Flamethrower Changes
« on: April 28, 2014, 12:08:44 pm »
The only thing I consider TOO strong about the current flamer is the ignition chance. An unsprayed component will suffer extreme amounts of fire stacks in zero time, an unsprayed ship will just be set ablaze and quickly burn out.
I'm all for a change of meta- I had huge amounts of fun playing today both using the flamer and facing it. It's not 'uncounterable', in the sense that with an average crew we were still able to survive encounters and get kills safely versus ships utilizing a flamer+something combination. It adds tension and changes the way engineering is done (different priorities, more varied loadouts depending on enemy guns etc). However I'm certain that it would be literally impossible to stand a chance against such a combination when fighting on a ship with spread-out components such as the mobula or the spire, and in any way the gun is far too punishing to inexperienced/uncoordinated crews.
I'm in for keeping the flamethrower a viable alternative to the previous meta but it would still have to be tweaked. Wundsalz's suggestions of strongly nerfing the flamer would result in it being once again turned into a low-tier gun that's only used on casual games or in very specific loadouts to disrupt enemy repairs and prolong fights. I think we should instead embrace change and see how allowing the gun to renew the meta could actually refresh tactics and gameplay.
There's a lot of ways the gun can be changed without being thrown into the pit again;
-Reduce the ignition chance to half but not any less
-Keep the ignition as is but at least have it do no damage by itself
-Reduce the range
-Reduce the rate of fire
edit:
or just completely rebalance it and turn it into a medium gun :fire::fire:
I'm all for a change of meta- I had huge amounts of fun playing today both using the flamer and facing it. It's not 'uncounterable', in the sense that with an average crew we were still able to survive encounters and get kills safely versus ships utilizing a flamer+something combination. It adds tension and changes the way engineering is done (different priorities, more varied loadouts depending on enemy guns etc). However I'm certain that it would be literally impossible to stand a chance against such a combination when fighting on a ship with spread-out components such as the mobula or the spire, and in any way the gun is far too punishing to inexperienced/uncoordinated crews.
I'm in for keeping the flamethrower a viable alternative to the previous meta but it would still have to be tweaked. Wundsalz's suggestions of strongly nerfing the flamer would result in it being once again turned into a low-tier gun that's only used on casual games or in very specific loadouts to disrupt enemy repairs and prolong fights. I think we should instead embrace change and see how allowing the gun to renew the meta could actually refresh tactics and gameplay.
There's a lot of ways the gun can be changed without being thrown into the pit again;
-Reduce the ignition chance to half but not any less
-Keep the ignition as is but at least have it do no damage by itself
-Reduce the range
-Reduce the rate of fire
edit:
or just completely rebalance it and turn it into a medium gun :fire::fire:
163
Feedback and Suggestions / Include clan emblems as balloon decals
« on: April 27, 2014, 10:00:31 am »
Not sure how complex or resource-hungry task that would be, but it would be superextracool if players were able to use their clan's emblems as balloon decals.
Like, give us some formatting specifics (size, colormode, shape, filetype) and allow us to upload icons that are visible on each clan's page and can also be used in place of balloon decals for players' ships as long as they're members of that clan.
Like, give us some formatting specifics (size, colormode, shape, filetype) and allow us to upload icons that are visible on each clan's page and can also be used in place of balloon decals for players' ships as long as they're members of that clan.
164
Feedback and Suggestions / Make use of 3v3/4v4 exlusive maps
« on: April 11, 2014, 05:56:29 pm »
Seriously.
The amount of maps is extremely limited, even more so considering 3v3 lobbies are rare and 4v4 are one in a million. You've already put a ton of work on non-2v2 maps, why not make better use of them? I've got 2000 games and I haven't yet gotten the Red Sepulcher map exploration achievement. I've got friends with 500+ games who didn't even know Sepulcher existed and have a total of less than 20 games on Raid/Hazard/Firnfeld.
And besides all this, the game is most balanced and optimized for 2v2 games.
Start with Desert Scrap, I can definitely see it working as a 2v2 CK, since it's already not very spacious, the spawning distances are very close to the capture point and we only have a lousy Labyrinth to play CP on atm. Why is it even a 3v3 in the first place? It doesn't feel like 6 ships can fit in this map at all to be honest.
Firnfeld could also work as a 2v2 DM. It's kind of too big and open but come to think of it I'd rather play 2v2 Firnfeld than even more games on Dunes.
Same goes for Hazard. This map is truly a piece of art that we don't get to appreciate. Flying it with 4 ships should be viable even if not optimal.
I'll agree that the rest of the maps would probably offer a too stale and boring gameplay with fewer ships though.
I realize you can't possibly invest any time and money on maps right now, and it makes sense. But what you can and should do is give us the chance to enjoy the content you've already created that's mostly gone unused.
The amount of maps is extremely limited, even more so considering 3v3 lobbies are rare and 4v4 are one in a million. You've already put a ton of work on non-2v2 maps, why not make better use of them? I've got 2000 games and I haven't yet gotten the Red Sepulcher map exploration achievement. I've got friends with 500+ games who didn't even know Sepulcher existed and have a total of less than 20 games on Raid/Hazard/Firnfeld.
And besides all this, the game is most balanced and optimized for 2v2 games.
Start with Desert Scrap, I can definitely see it working as a 2v2 CK, since it's already not very spacious, the spawning distances are very close to the capture point and we only have a lousy Labyrinth to play CP on atm. Why is it even a 3v3 in the first place? It doesn't feel like 6 ships can fit in this map at all to be honest.
Firnfeld could also work as a 2v2 DM. It's kind of too big and open but come to think of it I'd rather play 2v2 Firnfeld than even more games on Dunes.
Same goes for Hazard. This map is truly a piece of art that we don't get to appreciate. Flying it with 4 ships should be viable even if not optimal.
I'll agree that the rest of the maps would probably offer a too stale and boring gameplay with fewer ships though.
I realize you can't possibly invest any time and money on maps right now, and it makes sense. But what you can and should do is give us the chance to enjoy the content you've already created that's mostly gone unused.