Messages

46

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Another way to balanced an apparent gunner issue..

« on: March 08, 2015, 10:33:22 pm »

-stuff-

I agree, if they could make ammo have more utility and extend there usefulness - gunners could become more valuable on more guns because more situations demand them.. I liked the idea they had going to.. change ammo to being less mix bag and more specific in what it does.. but I guess that went on the back burner for stamina or something.. ? idk..

That said I think the primary issue is short range guns don't benefit from multiple ammo types.. and its because there is no "situations" for the current ammo to... There range is to short.. Most of them have multiple ammo that work well with it.. just one is all you really need for it.. and more engineer tools is more valuable then the minor benefit you'd get having two other ammo..

Even if you think about it.. What do ammo types do for gunner? They let him use a gun more effectively ad various ranges (usually long, mid, short).. That's ammo only strength really..  atm.. So I think if they did new ammo they would have to think out side this box.. and make ammo effect engagements in more ways then range..  but idk what that might be.. I have thought about it.. but short of really gimmicky niche ammo ideas.. I don't know what would really stand out...

Even removing standard ammo would really only effect.. heavy flak, lumberjack, artemis, hades, and mine launcher.. I think?. and that's only because lesmonk = more effective long range and standard = useable short range with lesmonk.. Gunner is more useful in all these cases already (except the artemis.. but artemis is an engineer gun not a gunner gun anyway.. 99% of the time so its irreverent)... 

Pretty much all the other guns - gunner usually not that useful for anyways.. because one ammo will do it (and more doesn't outweigh the value of two engineer tools) and standard isn't a factor in why..

Another major issue with removing standard in any form is you nerf engineer but don't actually buff gunner at all for many ship loadouts.. Due to - each class generally has a "spot" on the ship .. and if the gun is in an engineer slot.. It doesn't matter if a gunner is better or not - it has to be a engineer.. (think galleon top deck, spire top deck, pyra top right.. etc )... So nerfing engineer here doesn't help the gunner game all the time..

If the change isn't making gunner more or equally as viable in spots gunners go.. then its not that useful.

The topic idea would force more gunner use (as Zill says).. because otherwise you don't have more then one ammo or you have at lest one less effective gun.. and this effects.. most gunner slots positively and effects some engineer slots negatively. (Positive in that.. if more gunner use was a goal, then it would cause it - Negatively in that, it hurts engineer slots but doesn't help gunner usefulness).

-That was.. maybe more words then needed!-

-stuff-

I don't deny there would be a lot of.. changes.. The builds would still be usable, they'd just be less efficient..

Weather the changes would be to many and the viable gunner not worth it as a result.. Could be the case.

As said though, just a random thought. I didn't actually think it through entirely, so idk if I am for it myself.. Just sounded interesting to me..

-stuff-

No no.. the argument is..

Pilot has:
3 pilot tools 1 engineer tool and 1 ammo plus standard ammo (so actually 2)

Engineer has
1 pilot tool 3 engineer tools and 1 ammo plus standard ammo (so actually 2)

Gunner has
1pilot tool 1 engineer tool and 3 ammo plus standard ammo (so actually 4)


So gunner technically has the weakest options - cause as Zill says ammo has a diminishing return and standard is usually not useful to a gunner.. cause they have a better standard range ammo choice.. but the engineer benefits form standard ammo in certain cases.

So the two main suggestions I've seen is, give everyone a pipe wrench  (basically standard ammo in tool form).. or  remove standard ammo on guns and make them reload whatever a player puts in it to make it so.. Engineers only have a single option when on a gun - same as a gunner only has one option when it comes to tools.. (or give both two options)..

This was just another thought on how they could remove standard as the secondary ammo, and instead make it so non-gunner has no ammo versatility (like gunner has no repair versatility)... and all ammo versatility comes from the gunner class.

47

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Another way to balanced an apparent gunner issue..

« on: March 08, 2015, 02:45:44 pm »

Now the way this was worded, you make it sound like you only want pilots/engies having standard ammo. I thought the idea was either that, or one specialized ammo and no standard (either or).

I mean, The pilot would pick the one ammo the ship has in the ship loadout screen.. So rather then every ship being pre-loaded with standard (which you could pick) - you would pick any of the existing ammo.. and that would be the ammo on the ships guns..

So like a two art one hades junker.. If you pick burst, your engineers on the arts have burst as usual.. but the hades has burst, so if you want lesmonk hades you have to have a gunner.

Mostly it just weakens three engineer and buffs two enginer one gunner.. in more situations.. I assume anyways..

I'm of the mind that gunners are perfectly fine as is, and need no special attention. I like that there is choice (three engie, one gunner two engie) so long as it's balanced. Figured id put that out there moving forward. I won't say that this idea is horrible and shouldn't be done, but yea.

I don't disagree, as the gunner does work as intended on the guns that benefit a lot from multiple ammo's. but it does seem Muse's desire is to see more gunner use in more situations (hence stamina..) - So this is just I guess another side idea to effect gunners use.. To make them more useful or appealing in more situations..

I don't care actually to much about gunner cause I don't like to be a gunner usually, but... there is no lack of would be gunners haha. but I thought it sounded like a different way to do it.. Then the usual stuff I see for this..

Gunners are fine, it is just people don't know how to use them correctly or they actually don't need them

This is the issue I think that the gunner has. Which is Why people suggest ways to improve or change something so they are needed more often.. Weather we need to have them useful in more spots, is debatable - but muse dose seem to want them to be..

48

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: swords

« on: March 08, 2015, 11:31:09 am »

I'd like swords also.. but I'd like vanity tool skins more..

49

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Make all pilot tools usable by crew.

« on: March 08, 2015, 11:28:49 am »

Even with an annoying deny feature

1. One ship will have too many pilot tools
2. Why should a crew want to use a pilot tool, how does that crew member even remotely use itself... How is it used... like it doesnt expend any of their time. Spyglass forces them to look and find enemy ships then click.

Still one pilot. Only one helm.. The pilot having an engi tool fixing the balloon is not an issue? - So an engineer aiding the pilot is also not an issue.

Game is apparently team work.. Adding more teamwork elements to consider I think is a nice thing.

Well standing at a part, using it.. Does expend your time. If your using something on an engine -your not fixing things, your not shooting things. - Your not looking around for enemies - Most pilot tools need to be constantly on to be used right? so you'd have to constantly use it to maintain the effects - I assume.

I would assume they would get relevant animations and if necessary cool down or cast times (idk if needs cast times but its an option for balance)  and be used similar to normal engi tools (ie click to use it on the relevant part - maybe hold.. so less clicking is needed)... Not just hold it anywhere on the ship and it magically works.. If that's what you thought I meant.

50

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Another way to balanced an apparent gunner issue..

« on: March 08, 2015, 11:19:26 am »

If such a system were put in place, how would you handle reloads? It would require changing, as currently if you leave a gun before it's done, it reloads standard ammo.

Just reload the selected ammo? That's a bit of a hidden buff.
Default to standard like always? You get two ammo, in a really odd way.

It reloads the ammo selected. Every ship has this, so while a buff.. everyone has this buff.. and I think it should be this way right now..

It was for a few months like.. early last year or late 2 years ago.. and it was fantastic. So its already possible to change if they wanted to.. Basicly it was whatever ammo was last loaded in to the gun, would reload in to the gun as long as the person who emptied it had the ammo.. Didn't matter if you left the gun or not once it started to reload.. as long as someone without the ammo or AI didn't touch it it'd reload with your ammo.


Another buff is gunner in theory has 4 ammo - while everyone else has 1 (maybe a balance issue but.. since ammo is less relevant then tools - its debatable if its a major negitive or.. just more gunner buff). - Something to consider..

Major nerf is Engineers and pilot  could only use the default ship ammo - This means all three engi ships only have one ammo on board.. So if you want ammo diversity you have to have a gunner to get it..

This leads to a lot of crew balance changes (or at lest people have to re-think it).. Like pyra - gunner isn't useful on a pyra usually because.. you don't need more then one ammo to use most light guns effectively.. but if you have two light guns that use two different ammo's.. Then the only way to have both used efficiently - is to have a gunner.

Legit suggestion, woe to those whose pilot picks loch as standard ammo, but yes I like that idea!

Standard loch... that would be.. Loch for gunner only ammo? no? haha..

51

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Make all pilot tools usable by crew.

« on: March 08, 2015, 11:00:13 am »

To solve any trolling issues.. They could just add a button for the captain to enable or disable crews using pilot tools directly, so if you got a troll you could deny them. (I don't support kick features, but I'd support deny features ).

If its a new player issue, then like most new player issues, you have to explain it to them.. and hope they get it - if not.. use the above option..

As for claw vs kero or something... Two cases it is either.. It stacks - and you then turn and move faster.. (but more engine damage).. - or it doesn't stack and the pilot wins.. Either case if they aren't trying to troll you then they will stop and repair the engines regardless...

Tar is probably the most risky tool.. Since they could force you to tar yourself.. but at the same time, could be interesting you could have someone use it at proper times..

52

Feedback and Suggestions / Another way to balanced an apparent gunner issue..

« on: March 08, 2015, 08:57:47 am »

Several have said it, and idk what topics so un... People say gunner isn't fair because gunner has one less option then other classes.. because of standard ammo

Basically.. Engineer and pilot have 3 of their class, 1 of each others class, and then 2 ammo choices.. while gunner gets 1 of the other classes items + 3 ammo.. So only one less compared to them.

What if they just remove the pilot and engineer ammo choice, and let the pilot pick the ships "Standard ammo" on the ship loadout?

This way the pilot and engineer get one ammo (from the ship loadout) and the gunner gets his three choices..  Also make standard ammo an actual ammo.

This also has the added effect, that your engineers can't bring different ammo so the gunners options maybe more useful then a third engineer. Also I guess AI would use whatever ammo you have as "Standard"..

Thoughts?

53

Feedback and Suggestions / Make all pilot tools usable by crew.

« on: March 08, 2015, 08:46:38 am »

What if you could use any pilot tool as another class, by using the item on its relevant part - moonshine on an engine - hydrogen on the balloon.. impact bumpers on the hull.. etc. Perhaps with some cool down between uses separate from the tool cool down for if there is a major balance issue..

For tools like tar and moonshine maybe it has to be used on all engines before it activates.. or maybe it just makes the one do it.. (tar being 1/3 or 1/4th the normal effect because its only one of three or 4 engines doing it).

Issue with stacking tools.. Either let it stack or just make it so the pilots overrides any crew used tool.


Do you think this would have a big effect on what you want crew to take in the pilot slot? Do you think it'd have a negative or positive effect on the game? Or maybe just not useful at all?..

I think it'd have a positive effect in that it opens more options... and maybe adds some useful things you couldn't normally do.. 

54

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Handicap system..

« on: March 05, 2015, 03:56:27 pm »

Yeah, its close to taunting the opponents.

There are allready ways to handicap oneself like mentioned.
To be honest, once Coop or Adventure mode punches the shelves in the face, then we may have more competent players. Like players that play coop, get accostumed to the game, then bring their known skills to pvp so we wont need to think too much about noobs and whatnot in pvp because they will know how to intereact around ships.

So there wont be a need for any kind of handicap whatsoever.

I disagree its taunting really.. and doubt new players would developed a negative stigma against it.. because I assume most people like having a chance to win in every match.. 

I don't think its a useful argument though weather or not the system would be useful vs overly stacked lobbies.. More things like, would it make it more fun for both teams.. or actually create more balance when there isn't any..


I do think bigger population would solve the issue regardless.. cause more people = bigger pool = over time less unfair matches, an so less issue..

I do hope co-op lets more enjoy the games gameplay more, and thus pour over to PVP when they are bored of shooting planes.. but we'll see when it actually happens, how it effects it..

My point is that currently (to my knowledge) there is no expectation of any kind of handicapping. I've never come across a match where the enemy team told us to take all pilots cause "we're too pro." If you put the option there for all to see, then not opting to do it makes you just look like an ass, which is just going to cause tensions and solve nothing.

I'm not quite sure how you would hide it if it was an option as opposed to taking a "meh" load-out. A patch would come out saying "hey we added a secret handicap feature. If level discrepancies are too high, an option will come up for the higher leveled team to handicap themselves." Everyone knows it's there, and it sparks the potential for awkward "uh, did you guys hit that button?"

I expect no handicapping of any sort currently. Easy for me as a player to say now, but this hasn't changed since I started in beta. I wouldn't learn anything if we all weren't on a level playing field and my loss wasn't only due to my mistakes. I'd be busy trying to account for a handicap instead of figuring out that rushing in alone was getting me killed all the time. And in all honesty, even taking "meh" load-outs is confusing for new people who are looking at them, and if they lose, suddenly think that's what they should be doing. It's a poor example.

I'm not saying people can't have fun and take silly builds. That's on them, and we all do it cause we can. Personally, I have my load-outs and I play matches. There's zero thought into if I should be making it easier for my enemy because they appear new. I do not believe that such a system would help anyone. I do believe it would only rise tensions between new and old players.

Is a fair point. An could be a potential issue depending how its addressed and used by people - or implemented.

I know I have played with newer people who are of a mind there meh loadout is good because they've seen it used well or work well.. when in reality it didn't work because it was a good loadout.. .

I wasn't thinking though it appearing when there is enough MMR discrepancy (because you'd have to base it on that and not levels..) but rather anyone past point X could opt to use it. But this could make it more useful as an opt in thing specifically for people who want to do it but not necessarily just given to everyone.. Since the average person I doubt would use it... and only people who captain a lot really even need it.. Though its less useful then the teacher program no doubt...

That said I don't think they would learn less over all then current stacked matches though from it.. because all they learn now is you can lose really fast. - no matter what you do..

The point of topic was just a random thought though and see opinions and if it was worth sending as a feedback idea directly to muse, I don't really want to argue to hard for it but felt obligated a little cause it was my random thought haha..

55

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Handicap system..

« on: March 05, 2015, 09:54:56 am »

Wouldn't such a system create an expectation of x team with higher levels to handicap themselves every time a newer opponent was present?

On top of that , how would the newer team feel if they win against handicapped opponents? Good? Insulted?

Why would it? Do you expect them to handicap themselves now by some means? Idk if new players are even aware they got stomp by terrible loadouts.. Is stomping them with a bad load out less insulting then using some other mechanic to level the field?

The point of making it player driven and not game driven - is people can decide when "they" want to use it. Hiding as suggested entirely maybe the best approach so only you know you had a harder time..  Because handicapping yourself is beneficial to you if you want more challenge when a match clearly isn't gonna give any..

Would you be upset if someone beat you while handicapped?

fighting games, rts, rhythm games, fps, mmos, mobas do no such thing and for a very good reason.

Its git gud or get out. Always has been. And the only way to do that is to go against people of similar skill levels and steadily grow. Not handicapping players that are obviously better than you. You won't learn anything from people holding back.

Oh hey guys did you know that if you lvl up you'll get nerfed? Sounds suuuuper fun right? Who the heck would play a game like that?

There are games that imploy handicap system though.. Some people like to have fun in games. Also fun =/= casual as you may want to imply as this would do the opposite for the person using it.. Since you would have to try more.

Also self-imposed actions are not forced actions. An the way your post reads you seem to feel like I am suggesting new players are allowed to handicap you against your will or the game decides it... Also level has nothing to do with it really (the level restriction is more so new people didn't use it not knowing any better - I'd be for it even being a special opt-in thing.. like being allowed to play in novice games to teach new people is).

Also "go against people of similar skill levels" so if I am clearly better then you, isn't it better for you if I play at your level so you can learn more? Or will they learn more if you just spawn camp/meat grind them to death as fast as possible and apply 0 challenge to yourself and to much to them to overcome? (Since that's how a lot of really stacked DM's go)..

Who wants to play a game where when you get good you will almost never find a challenge if you play with friends?  I mean if you can't beat low skill people with a handicap git gud or git out..

As stated above, such system creates many problems without solving any existing problems or enhancing play.

If we want to, we handicap ourselves with different loadouts.

So why doesn't these loadouts cause the same problems? I do not believe any new problem would exist because there were more options to make challenge... nor would it remove the current options.

It does help solve a problem though.. As it would make an otherwise non-challenge become a challenge - for you.. weather only you know it or everyone in the lobby does.. Weather that enhances gameplay would be an opinion as its a matter of if you find it more fun to have a challenge over no challenge in such a case...

Of course it doesn't actually solve the issue of stacked lobbies, because you don't have to use it, but it gives more tools to if you want to.

I suggested a handicap system a while ago, but it went the other way. Give the outmatched ships some sort of buff. I would not like it if my tools did not behave as they should, but would not mind if a foe's tools behaved better. Less damage on pilot, reduced recoil on guns, faster reload, longer buffs, etc. The game would have to keep track of wins and losses, of course, and only offer the handicap to players with consistent losses.

I considered it, but I think it might be more difficult to adjust.. Its easier for you to decide.. I want to make this lobby harder for me - then it is to know if someone else wants to make it easier for them... + Kamoba's points on it make sense..

Also making it game driven and not player driven isn't good imo... I think its better to let us decide where to use it and not the game to decide "hey this guy needs to win". I think it'd be used more appropriately.. and have more interesting applications that way..

- -
Also To add I feel the handicaps would need to be adjustable on each level (ie.. you could lower just ship stats or just gun stats or just tool stats.. or just victory conditions.. to make it more fun for whoever is using it..).. - not just an all or nothing.. because that makes it harder to apply..

I don't think the handicap should be should be viewed purely as a way to make the game easier for the weaker side to win, but rather harder for you to win so its less boring. I am sure some people have fun in stomp lobbies, and prefer it to having to try.. - and I think we all do realistically sometimes but then we also wanna have to try sometimes.

How it may look could just be.. unn like

Gun Damage
(bar displaying current %) + or - 5%

For each option.. reducible to some min% but if victory condition is changeable I think it would need a lobby wide vote.. Since that effects everyone.. At lest captains voting for or against it being changed.. Everyone has to agree to change it maybe..

56

Feedback and Suggestions / Handicap system..

« on: March 04, 2015, 06:55:56 pm »

Since this game is pure pvp.. and this means the more skill discrepancy there is between to teams the more stomping there will be.. And since .. Just the way MM works (or even the old match list for that matter) - you will always get some stacked matches.. and it also means the game is pretty much user driven..

What if muse gave us the option to handicap our ship (after some level), like nerf tools, nerf ship stats.. nerf gun stats or maybe lower the standard for the other team to win (ie 2 kills the weaker team wins but still 5 for the strong one to..).. IE make it so its harder for you to easily stomp.. - and players could decide when to employ it.. (Some people will take bad loadouts and such to do this already I know)..

Would you use this if it were available or would it require some reward for using it to make you want to use it?

Would this be a possible way to let players deal with stacked lobbies themselves by turning them in to more of a challenge.. and be reasonable?..

Just a random thought..

57

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: new players

« on: March 04, 2015, 05:56:58 pm »

To MightyKeb
I did not ignore him at first, I am not a moron. I always try to establish comms with everyone, just to make sure they can hear me, just in case there is an emergency where I do need to talk with them. I know the world does revolve around me, and does not change itself for the sole purpose of giving me a challenge. I did not carry my team in that particular instance, as my teammate was at least on my level, and we both had a great crew (discounting the bow dweller). I also refuse to believe that succeeding in one game alone could lead to elitism, or that I could succumb to elitism. Yes, I realize that sounds like elitism itself, believing I am too good to be bothered by your petty ideas of good and bad, but it is really not.

I have always had a decent idea of myself, and how others view me, so I have some idea of whether or not I am good, as a human being. Sure, I throw some smartass comments around, but for the most part I am a decent person. Also, my skin is unbreakable, so do not bother apologizing for something to me. I have never felt insulted on the internet, though many have tried, and I doubt anyone in this community could be cruel enough to come up with an insult that would crack through my impenetrable shell of laughter and jokes. Everyone on these forums is too nice to break me. Even Schwalbe, though I do feel he could have come up with a better name than sarcasm train. Maybe the Flying Sarcasm, setting sail for the port of Fuck You. Liked the stuff after that though, so my idea could not really be applied. As you were then.

Now that's a gigantic paradox technically, but I'll take your word for it. Still, even though you've defended yourself from my arguments by justifying them and almost finding a common ground, you havent touched why exactly leaving and reporting is, in your words I quote, "childish" and what instead is your solution? Perhaps the community'll find your established method superior, and that is assuming you have one in question.

Maybe they do like I do and.. just live with their choice and have fun anyways? Your gonna get bad apples in any game if you let them completely ruin it for you then.. well your loss really.

It is fun to play on a dysfunctional ship in its own way.. Just like its fun to play on a cookie cutter ship... Just a different experience and different learning opportunity.

Personally my interaction with new players is... (Since I only engineer for now...) Ask the second or other engineer(s) (depending if its one or two) - if they prefer to shoot or main engi.. (or relevant question for the ship).. 99% of the time they will say shoot, so I suggest the best ammo for the gun and main engi. If they chose to not bring it, oh wells.

If a group is cooperative I will suggest more things to be helpful to them (if guns are really bad, suggest better loadouts .. if they can do something more efficient - how to do that.. etc.) and if they don't seem to care then I don't bother and just use these matches to help myself be better in hard situations..  (How to prioritize.. damage awareness etc).. You get a lot more of that in low skill lobbies then you do in high skill ones honestly..

I can't remember the last time I had a truly bad match because of someone. Actually my last bad experience is a game where some new person was playing how they could and the "vet" captain decides its his job to scream at the person the entire time until they leave.. or the game ends - and pretend like everything that goes wrong is that one persons fault... - I'd much rather play with the "bad" new player then those types of "good" vet players..

I know one of my earliest games in GOIO was on such a ship from a certain clan and pretty much completely avoid that clan for most of my GOIO career because of that one person.. Lucky I met more fun people who didn't scream so much and I stuck around. And honestly if I had met a few of those types in a row I would of quit the game before I really got started..

As for games with out right trolls (ie captain who feels the need to ram the ship in to the ground or.. second engineer who thinks the front gun of the goldfish is his and not the gunners no matter what any say... etc).. Not much muse can do about really.. They exist in every game .. No need to take it to seriously.. These are the cases its fine to report and leave a lobby afterward I think (I'd never leave mid-match though but wouldn't blame anyone who does)... -but usually they leave..


--

For the topic point though.. What can muse do to help new players learn things quicker but not make it unfun, I still think forcing them to do the tutorial before they can opt out of novice could help some... (they can still level out of it if they don't want to do the tutorials).. This should at lest remove most of the people who don't even know mallet is for repair and spanner for rebuild.. and other minor issues..

I also think novice should last X matches instead of till X level in a class.. And the number needs to be worked out to whatever it seems takes the average new player to learn the basics of the game.. and is better then an AI at it. (which isn't a really high bar.. but its higher then you see sometimes). (even though you don't want this type of idea its more just reference for the next bit).

Idk what else they can really do though short of things that would make it just unfun... Most people seem to just want to jump in to the game and play - that's fine but.. They should do it in novice - not a normal match.. Not just because people don't always want to play with them but rather it gives them a bad experience - being stomped and feeling like you couldn't do anything to win isn't exactly fun (for either side really).. So giving them enough time or the right knowledge to understand why they are losing so badly.. Might help them feel less bad and more willing to try to get better at it..

I don't actually think though Muse needs to teach them gun arks and loadouts and correct ammo types for guns, and all that technical stuff that can change any patch..  because I think they learn all that just fine over time if they stay (like we all did). I think they should just focus on making sure they know enough about the game that then can understand why they might lose or what tools do.. and of course being willing to cooperate with other players.

Its hard to really do that though outside the tutorials in the actual game.. just because the content of the game is user driven and doesn't employ any story or anything to use.. So it sorta depends on the older players to teach the more technical things..

This post is to long.. but oh well.

58

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: What is keeping novices in novice?

« on: March 02, 2015, 12:45:39 pm »

Once again I must stress this point, locking novices into novice makes new people not be able to play with friends who have already passed the novice mark, and it's been Muse's long standing mantra to not let something like that happen (and before it comes up, from what I've seen, yes, it happens quite often).

Let's not kid ourselves here, this thread isn't about helping new people get better before they get into higher level games. This is basically a circlejerk about how much x person hates new people on their crew for whatever reason. Suck it up and move on.

Actually it doesn't have to lock them out at all because we have plenty of mechanics in game to let them play with friends that isn't MM. In the Fireside chat the devs agreed they should possibly do more to improve the situation. So I think its you who is out of touch on this issue. (watch around 20min mark for this weeks FSC, and 37min mark).

I don't hate new people or their crews or playing with them(my stranded for good new player is pretty low), I do find it unfun to just stomp them because MM can't do its job... (Granted I thinks its more a population issue then MM, I don't hate MM personally).

I do feel they aren't learning enough before they are being mixed in causing unnecessary issues.. That could be avoided if they learned first. If the game isn't teaching them the basics before mixing them in, then the game isn't doing a good job introducing them to basic concepts.

Some people are, I agree, a bit overly abusive toward new people.. and expect people to play better then they themselves most likely play.. If they lose its automatically because you suck.. - but they are minority from what I've seen.

59

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: What is keeping novices in novice?

« on: March 01, 2015, 07:29:04 pm »

I think two changes could help the issue some..

Make novice last X matches. This removes any level issue..(At this point I personally wish they would just remove the level system entirely.. as its distracting)..

Make it so you can't opt out of novice mode unless you finish the tutorials (For MM searches).. This way there is at lest some chance they will know that mallet is repair and spanner is rebuild.. and maybe some other basic things that sometimes people don't know even after several matches..

I don't think we need a hard lock on it, where they can't leave due to community size.. friends.. etc Its good they can find a game in normal lobbies if needed.


--
Another probably unpopular option is to leave novice as is.. but add an advanced lobby option where only players above X will be put in to it by mm.. But I doubt that could be a thing.. And like novice if not enough people are on you get moved back to a normal lobby...

60

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Pyramidion and minotaur cannon - feedback.

« on: February 27, 2015, 10:41:23 am »

I agree pyra nerf is to much.. They die so fast now it defeats the purpose of the ship..

But I do agree with Muse it should help lower pyra use count (which is what they really wanted to do with the nerf - they want to mix up the meta now), so I am for the nerf for awhile.. So we can maybe see some more other ships (more squid be nice).. I say that and yet I still ended up on a pyra most of the time..

I also agree Minotaur seems to push a bit to much when on a junker.... when there's 2 on you you literally never have an ark and just slowly die .. - not really "fun" gameplay.. (1 Doesn't feel as bad).. Issue though depends how competent the other team is at focusing you.. When they are it feels really op when not it doesn't seem as bad..