Messages

1156

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New gun: no gun

« on: August 08, 2014, 10:19:04 am »

Unfortunately, players are often unaffected by commands. If only there was a STOP DOING THAT command...

Signal commands need a buff

1157

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Suggestion: crew joining during matches

« on: August 08, 2014, 09:20:46 am »

In my experience, most low level captains don't care about their crew loadouts and would prefer any crew over an AI. Notifying the captain of the loadout might teach them the importance of correct loadouts quicker and make them more perceptive about crew performance.

Contrary to common belief, the captain chooses crew loadouts not the crew. If a crew doesn't want to bring the captain's loadout then they can join a different ship. If a captain doesn't want a crew's loadout, then they shouldn't be forced to have it.

1158

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Suggestion: gun buffs

« on: August 08, 2014, 09:04:44 am »

If it's already so powerful and people still are't spraying, then what's the point of having such a powerful weapon? Its power discourages weapon and tactical experimentation and encourages flame use. If buffing the flame is a bad idea, then can we at least make it a bit less powerful? 

It can certainly afford to have some attributes reduced and still be an effective weapon. Even with a decreased range, or decreased rof, or increased reload time, it would still be a very viable and deadly weapon. In regular pub matches, there is no challenge when using the flame. I yawn every time I see one and I think players should try out different weapons. I understand its charm and purpose, but players deserve more challenge.

I don't care about flames but I know they piss off a lot of newer players who just want to have fun. When is it op enough?

I don't get why flare guns need a 20 sec reload time. 10 secs seems fair to me. Good flare hits are almost as satisfying to me as a juicy mine hit.

1159

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Suggestion: gun buffs

« on: August 08, 2014, 06:23:35 am »

The flamethrower has a range of 200m and 340m with lesmok: not close range, much longer range than any flamethrower. It's not realistic to buff the range so how about buffing the reload time of 6 seconds, or buffing the clip size of 250, or buffing the turning arcs, or how about making 5 stacks disable a gun?

Without chemspray the flamethrower is easy mode, the GoI noobtube. It's the easiest gun to shoot and most effective gun to employ. It doesn't matter how bad/ineffective your build is, as long as you use a flame you have a solid chance. The double flame squid with an effective strategy is the easiest ship in the game and does not require a human crew (my 43 match winstreak).

Without chem it's a point and kill weapon and the other ship has no chance if they cant kill/disable/get away in time. If you keep shooting them they will die with nothing they can do about it. The flame is the most powerful weapon in the game, and the way I see it, its power is punishment for not using chem spray.

We could just make the extinguisher suck more (ex. 5 sec cooldown 1 sec immunity), that would help a bit. The extinguisher is the most useless tool in most circumstances, it delays the inevitable and gives experienced crews a significant advantage. Nerfing will encourage more engineers to use chem and more pilots to request it.

I'm not suggesting making flames overpowered, but I think they need some buffs. This will increase chem use and alter strategies. Increased chem use may decrease flame use and encourage captains to try some of the other guns. I rarely use flames so it will not advantage me. Flame buffs mean I gotta kill quacker, and they wont stop me from ramming.

The flare gun got nerfed and now has the longest reload time of any gun. Flare guns have excellent turning/arcs and each flare does 10 fire stacks, making it a powerful  support weapon. Why does it need a 20 second reload time? Plus it's so fun to use while the flamethrower is boring. It's my second favorite gun.

Flare buff petition!
Flare buff petition!!

1160

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New gun: no gun

« on: August 08, 2014, 05:16:03 am »

With an AI pyra I think it's better to have an AI engi (who might repair) than to have side guns. This problem would be fixed if an extra AI command was added.

Or just make the flare gun less fascinating to novice players. Make it really boring so they don't shoot or repair it.

The flare gun is my second favorite gun but it got nerfed and the reload time is now 20 seconds. While this might theoretically make the flare gun boring, it has not worked. My powder monkeys and I will testify.

Flare buff petition!

1161

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New gun: no gun

« on: August 08, 2014, 03:03:51 am »

I would rather cripple my ship and not have side guns than have an extra variable for my crew to worry about. Most importantly, the side guns take valuable time away from repairs. I don't think my suggestion will catch on but I can still hope.

I like the "NO!" pilot tool idea. Hmmm I guess I don't need hydrogen....

Better idea: buff V commands!

1162

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New gun: no gun

« on: August 08, 2014, 12:06:26 am »

The only use for the No Gun would be to not have any use- hence its point. Pilots flying AI ships (notably pyramidions) put flare guns on the side so the AI only shoot the front guns. I can't tell you how many times gunners have preferred the flares to the main guns, or how many times the main engineer has neglected repairs and focused on shooting the side guns- often giving away my position or letting the hull die. 

1163

Feedback and Suggestions / Suggestion: gun buffs

« on: August 07, 2014, 11:41:05 pm »

Flamethrower not powerful enough please buff. I seem to be the only one who doesn't use it so it'll only really hurt me. Increase range please.

Buff flare gun please. Reload is too long to use as an offensive weapon. It's a lot more fun than a flamethrower.

1164

Feedback and Suggestions / Suggestion: crew joining during matches

« on: August 07, 2014, 09:51:43 pm »

There is nothing more annoying than extra gunners or pilots joining during a match and refusing to leave. Why not restrict extra gunners and pilots during match but still let a ship start a match with all gunners if it so chooses?

The second most annoying thing is a crew member with an ineffective loadout joining mid match. Instead, why not display a message containing the crew's loadout and asking if you want them to join. The message will NOT display the crew's level or name which will prevent the captain from rejecting low level crew. The accept/reject commands should be simple and non intrusive like F4 and F5. The message timeout should be short (10-15 secs).

Or let us play with AI if we choose by letting captains lock crew spots when the match starts.

Or restrict novice players to novice games. This may fix a significant amount of the above problems.

1165

Feedback and Suggestions / New gun: no gun

« on: August 07, 2014, 09:48:45 pm »

Because new players are often fascinated by the flare gun/mine launcher and may prefer to shoot it over the offensive weapons on the ship; and because it can be impossible to convince them not to shoot it, I propose a gun that takes up a gun slot but cannot be interacted with. This will force the gunners to shoot and the engineers to repair and make the captain's job a whole lot easier. 

1166

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Changing loadout during game

« on: April 22, 2014, 01:44:52 am »

If using switching as an advantage is risky and inefficient then why block class switching? I just hate having extra gunners or pilots and the majority of the time I start without a full crew. Less experienced players join in as a wrong class all the time and I just want it to be easy for them to switch. Start of game buffs are still possible and I don't see why we can't have class switching.

1167

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Changing loadout during game

« on: April 20, 2014, 01:39:22 am »

Players can still freely switch their tools, they just can't switch classes. I don't get why locking classes fixes the buff advantage problem because any class can take a buff hammer.  I can think of many reasons why switching classes mid-match would be necessary that don't constitute taking advantage (like if new players join). I think a simple timer penalty would be an effective partial solution. It wouldn't fix the problem but it would reduce the incentive to take advantage of extra buffs. The current system puts ships without a full crew at a disadvantage because second gunners joining is common.

None of this is a problem for experienced players, but it is for inexperienced players. Inexperienced players are not taking advantage of extra buffs so there's no reason to penalize disorganized less-experienced crews by disallowing class switching. Buffing and switching is still easy and like GeoRmr said, there are other solutions to limit switching.

The way I see it, this just hurts less experienced crews more than experienced crews.

1168

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Changing loadout during game

« on: April 19, 2014, 05:25:39 am »

Ah I see, I'll have to try buffing and switching next time. Thanks for the good ideas, I'll inform my crew for free buffs. Players can still take buff hammers then switch without penalty.

I think it would be better if everyone was allowed one switch per match- either to change their load or class, and rejoining through the lobby list would put them as their last used load. Of course this would allow one engi to buff and switch, but I think it would be a better solution. The other engi would either have to start as buff and switch or start as normal and switch to buff. Either way this means that they would be stuck as buff engi for some period. It would also prevent the gunner from buffing then switching unless they started with a buff hammer- which would render the first engineer's buff and switch ineffective. This would allow for a brief advantage at the start, or the ability for one engi to switch to buff at some point during the match- like near the end.

Or put on a time penalty for intentional leaving, or a time penalty for repeated intentional leaving. The way I see it, the current system just complicates switching class while still allowing tool switching. If I'm a gunner I can still grab a buff hammer then switch without changing to engineer.

1169

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Changing loadout during game

« on: April 19, 2014, 12:08:42 am »

Ok i get it. I don't see how this prevents people from gaining an advantage because they can still change their tools mid-match, it just complicates class switching. I don't see how switching classes constitutes an advantage because you switch classes to fix a DISADVANTAGE on your ship. Removing a disadvantage is not gaining an advantage. I don't get the point of locking people into one class.

1170

Feedback and Suggestions / Changing loadout during game

« on: April 18, 2014, 06:18:59 pm »

I noticed that I am no longer able to change class/loadout once a match has started. I cannot stress how essential this is for players. If I accidentally choose the wrong loadout I am stuck with it. Yesterday I joined a match right as it started and was stuck as a second pilot and unable to switch. Please please PLEASE revert this. It only causes problems and now ships will be stuck with extra pilots and gunners unless they leave- which is unlikely to happen. PLEASE