Messages

16

General Discussion / Re: Old Galleon?

« on: November 30, 2014, 10:32:41 am »

Yes to Greek Fire.  Burns everything, without fail.  Burns on water, melts metal, green, amazing, what more do you want in a gun that spews flames?

To not become obsolete with the invention of gunpowder.

17

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Another gunner fix proposal - multi-tiered approach needed.

« on: November 30, 2014, 10:14:18 am »

By reading her text past that paragraph it becomes clear that she didn't mean what she literally wrote. (assuming female cuz "obliviondoll" seems a female name to me) She suggested a mechanic that allows to change the ammo type whithout the need to man the gun at the time of reload completion by adding an option to change the ammo at the start of the reload.

I didn't exactly get how the 2nd solution is supposed to impact on the 2nd problem - are you suggesting "changing the ammo type should reduce reload times" or "staying on the gun long enough for the lock in timer should reduce reload time"?

On the 3rd thing: buffing the clip instead of the gun for a fixed timer is a new suggestion as far as I know. However, it'd make the buff tool viability very inconsistent among all guns. Buffing a gatling would yield a bigger gain per invested time than buffing any lower ammo gun. Of course, that is assuming you still would need 8 buff hammer hits to buff any gun. Also this would probably break another of muses paradigms and muse loves their paradims to the grave.

18

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Ammo Changes the Gun

« on: November 27, 2014, 11:20:34 pm »

I'd love to see some ammo types cause impact damage. Making enemy ships go the way I want is fun.

19

Gameplay / Re: Pulsing Kerosene

« on: November 26, 2014, 07:48:21 pm »

Use moonshine and all your kerosine problems go away.

20

Gameplay / Re: Reagan's Star Wars, or Shooting Down Projectiles

« on: November 26, 2014, 07:45:26 pm »

[...]
Also, say you were a ball of molten metal, or an explosive.  Now let's say you're hit by a gat round, an ARMOR PIERCING BULLET.  You'd explode too. Yes, I know, it might miss the explosive, and it might not work at all for the hades
[...]

Arguing with reallife logic won't help you in a game.

[...]
Hell yes that's an achievement, but its not reason to implement this.
[...]

Of course it is, every game needs unreliable point defense.

21

Gameplay / Re: Artemis v Banshee

« on: November 24, 2014, 07:51:32 pm »

[...]Artemii[...]

Take my salute!

I think banshees were slightly more popular right after the patch cuz everyone wanted to try it out.

22

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Feedback Debate

« on: November 24, 2014, 07:47:33 pm »

It's the munker duh.

23

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Duel at Dawn Spawns

« on: November 24, 2014, 07:45:51 pm »

Weren't those the random spawns where you couldn't choose?

24

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Pets.

« on: November 24, 2014, 07:44:23 pm »

Lol I read pests and though of cockroaches clogging up engines and rats nibbling connectors from the wheel to the engines/bloon or the bloon itself. But yeah, cosmetic pets why not.

25

Gameplay / Re: The Art of Ramming Theory

« on: November 24, 2014, 07:40:46 pm »

Nah I didn't do that, since I was interested in actual rams and not the centre of mass I used test dummies. I might have been quick to assume the centre of the target painting is also on the centre of mass. Wether it actually is or not didn't matter to me since it was definetly closer to the centre of mass than the outer border of the test dummy.

26

Gameplay / Re: Reagan's Star Wars, or Shooting Down Projectiles

« on: November 24, 2014, 05:41:31 pm »

Go to practice mode with a buddy, have an artemis on both ships, shoot eachothers artemis at the same time. Begone, none believer.

27

Gameplay / Re: The Art of Ramming Theory

« on: November 24, 2014, 05:27:44 pm »

[...]
In theory, I kinda mapped out the center mass of each ship to apply max force to cause max damage. Take in account for the enemy turning and movements as factors that may vary. I Alway thought the middle of the ship is where the hull is and that can be true as well.
[...]

I believe hitting the enemy ship in a way your velocity vector would go through their centre of mass or not does not make a difference in terms of damage.
We know impact damage (the damage rams, terrain and mines do) is responsible for bouncing ships around, from experimentation with different ammo type and buffed/unbuffed mines we also know higher impact damage means more bouncy.
Now, if the damage was increased by hitting an enemy ship towards its centre of mass it would mean both your and their ship would get pushed away from each other more post ram. Since the ram has different effects on the enemy ship depending where you hit it in relation to its centre of mass, a quality statement about the relation of the damages can only be made by observing the ramming ship. However, in some tests to that I never noticed a huge difference in the ramming ship's behavious after the ram. Small differences could occur by minimal derivations in testing conditions which could not be controled. (It is damn hard to produce the same test over and over in this game)
It can be concluded that either there is no or a insignificant difference in damage depending on where you hit the enemy ship.

@ Wundsalz where the centre of mass of ships is can be estimated by testing with rams. Ram a ship closer to its centre of mass and you shove it more, ram it farer from it and you make it rotate more. Since you can't turn a ship's vertical axle by ramming it, you can assume the centre of mass is actually more like an axle of mass.

28

Gameplay / Re: Reagan's Star Wars, or Shooting Down Projectiles

« on: November 24, 2014, 05:10:25 pm »

I haven't seen it happen, if it does at all, but I don't think its such a good idea to implement it.  It would buff Gat and Carronade, and any high spread, high fire rate weapon.  Imagine a Junker with its armour down, and someone fires a big ball of fuck you in the form of a Heavy Flak round.  Someone sees/hears it and fires their carronade at the right time, the flak shot blows up.  Someone fires Hwacha, and as they're traveling the target opens up with a gat.  Gat shots hit the rockets and they disappear.  I DO think its a cool idea, but I don't want it.

Yeah right. First of all we do not know how much damage a shell/rocket must receive in order to be destroyed. Second, nobody reported any hitscan raycast weapon to have shot down projectiles and third, if anybody manages to hit those projectiles midair intentionally, he/she deserves to shoot it down.

29

Community Events / Re: Sunday Community Skirmish #29 (Signups for Sunday 23rd November)

« on: November 23, 2014, 04:54:22 pm »

Could we kick Duel at Dawn out of the map rotation?

30

General Discussion / Re: what do you think of the new spotting UI?

« on: November 19, 2014, 11:15:35 am »

I'd like to see the spots like that. Mostly because the white rectangles barely give any information about the enemy ship besides their relative position to you. Sure, you can estimate their distance with the map or radar, but seeing the tiny enemy ship to know it's 2km away instead of relying on remembering the sizes of the map squares or the circles on the radar. So basically, every argument, besides optical dislike, that was brought by people before this post is a pro instead of a contra for me. Sniping will get a little easier. Not much because you still will loose spots when enemies are in clouds, however sniping never really was a good strategy to begin with. So It can use that tiny buff.