Messages

31

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Flame Vortex Cannon: Ixion

« on: August 21, 2014, 01:37:34 am »

This is the most ridiculous and awesome idea I've heard of for a new impact damage weapon.

It would require VERY careful balance - keep in mind that impact is effective against EVERYTHING...

32

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: My idea about new ship and playable planes.

« on: August 21, 2014, 01:33:23 am »

I agree with a (VERY) limited amount of fuel. I think 2 or 3 minutes is a good maximum timeframe before you have to return to refuel.

If my suggestion for damaged planes losing fuel was taken, 3 minutes at lower speeds might be good, because going faster would burn through fuel faster, and going slower would make you an easier target, meaning you take more damage and burn through it faster.

Also, I think if a plane is destroyed, it should just be gone until your ship dies, not respawning on a timer.

33

Gameplay / Re: Fire Extinguisher - your opinion?

« on: August 20, 2014, 07:35:19 am »

I generally like having both on my ships. Both offer good benefits, but both have their limitations. There are many situations where Chemspray is better, but in my experience, there are just as many opportunities where the Extinguisher is a better option.

34

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Add/Subtract Ships from Matches Option

« on: August 20, 2014, 06:57:33 am »

Random off-topic comment: Why do so many people capitalize Muse Games as MUSE?

Might
Unveil
Serious
Endeavours

Must
Unseal
Secret
Envelopes

Money
Unspent
Saves
Effort

Most
Ultimate
Ship
Engineers

And the token doge...


Much
Update
So
Expectation

TOKEN ON-TOPIC COMMENT: I approve of this suggestion, and think it would be cool if there's a practical way to implement it.

35

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Call for Gunner Ammo Ideas

« on: August 16, 2014, 07:52:10 am »

The only ammo that needs to happen imo is having heatsink work if it is being reloaded...having the entire reload cycle be vulnerable really defeats the purpose of letting the gunner shoot while being flamered. We can have the 3 stack removal only happen after reload, but reloading with it selected should preserve the chemspray effect.

Easiest way I can think of to somewhat improve this situation is to set a fixed-duration fire immunity on reload when emptying the heatsink clip. Make sure that duration is equal to or less than most of the shorter reloads in the game, and only the longest reload times will be risking fire kicking you off the gun during the reload.

36

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: viewing ship themes

« on: August 12, 2014, 11:28:36 pm »

or something.  something!

I, too, want Muse to something the something out of this problem.

37

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: My idea about new ship and playable planes.

« on: August 12, 2014, 07:30:54 pm »

I think I may have something here. This post will be long, and I have several proposals to outline, so bear with me.

There is one way I can think of to limit player-controlled Biplanes enough that they're not a way to circumvent the team-based (and role-based) nature of the game. Conveniently enough, this approach seems to me like it would ALSO help with the problem of Gunners being frequently cast as second-class citizens in the game. It requires several features to be included with Biplane behaviour:

1. Fuel. In place of the altitude gauge in the cockpit, or opposite/alongside it, there will be a fuel gauge. Fuel will replenish while the Biplane is on the deck of the Carrier and unmanned/engine is off. When the engine is on at 0 thrust, fuel should be used at a minimal rate, and when it's at full throttle, you should burn through fuel relatively quickly. Also, after taking damage, the fuel gauge should gradually drop, with the rate of fuel loss increasing as the plane takes more hits.

2. Ammo. Biplanes will be pre-loaded with ONE LOAD of standard ammo. A Biplane pilot can reload it with ONE LOAD of each specialist ammo they have on hand. Reloading a biplane will waste any unused ammo. Pre-loading will replace the default ammo with the specialist ammo loaded (allowing a double-load of one ammo type). Special ammo that increases (or reduces) turn speed will apply to the plane's pitch and roll capabilities.

3. Movement. Biplanes could be controlled by using the mouse (or right stick on a controller) to control pitch and roll. Turning speed should be adjusted based on the equipped weapon (faster turn speed for weapon = faster pitch and roll speeds) as well as the above mention of amo. The plane's current throttle setting should also affect turning, with a higher throttle setting slowing your turns. Speed should likewise be based on the weapon's firing arc (tighter arc = lower top speed and acceleration). The throttle controls could work like the helm with R and F, except that with 0 thrust, you stall and the plane's nose drops when the speed falls too far. Also, instead of a reverse thrust option, you'll have a single step below 0 thrust for "engines off". when switching either way between 0 thrust and engines off, there should be a short cooldown before the throttle can be moved again.

It's important to note that I'm suggesting for ALL of the above to be used to balance and limit Biplanes, NOT for one or two of those limitations to be implemented. The above conditions would ensure that biplanes need to regularly return to the ship to repair, refuel and re-arm. It would also make Gunners valuable for their ability to carry twice as much ammo. As for dealing damage to Biplanes, I'm leaning towards saying they should have a TINY amount of hull HP with armour HP roughly equal to a heavy weapon. As with anything else, armour can be repaired (but only while the plane is safely landed on deck) but the small amount of hull would be permanent damage.

As for how the Carrier itself should work, I have a few possible ideas:

1. A normal 4-player airship, with only 2 engines and only 1 gun mounted on the ship itself (relies on Biplanes for damage output). Captain equips 3 light weapon slots - one for each Biplane, and the single turret-mounted weapon. The ship would be relatively durable, but slow, much like a Galleon. With only 2 engines and a relatively flat layout, it should be relatively easy to Engineer, but this is because you'd potentially be seeing 2 crew members off the ship at times, and being 1 player short would be the expected normal situation. Also, having only 2 Engines makes it more vulnerable to being disabled, and also means that a single engine taking damage will cause more trouble for the pilot (much like Squids with 4 engines being tricky to handle while under fire).

2.a) A special game mode for 3 vs. 3 battles with each fleet having 1 Carrier and 2 regular ships. These ships would be larger, and could hold 6 players, with 2 - 3 turrets, 3 or 4 engines and the 2 Biplanes. With the 4 vs. 4 display of 2 ships top and 2 bottom, you could merge the top pair into a single entry with 3 crew per column. The top-right player is the Captain, and sets up the ship's loadout, while the top-left player would be the Squadron Leader, and is responsible for setting the weapons up on the Biplanes. Using this method, the ship could be made more complex, with an Engineer (or anyone with a rebuild-capable tool) being required to attach fuel lines to the Biplane after landing (automatic ejection when the engine is started). In this mode, it would be like a team deathmatch, but played to 4 or 6 kills, and the Carrier counts as 2.

2.b) An alternative game mode could have one team with a Carrier and two escorts, and the other with 3 or 4 ships trying to take the Carrier down. Similar rules to the above, but maybe with more crew and possibly even 3 or 4 Biplanes. In this mode, Carriers could count for 2 or 3 kills, depending on the size of the ship, and 5 kills to win might be more practical (3 point Carrier + 2 regular ships).

3. In any game mode (possibly exclusing 2 vs. 2), any 2 ships could be combined as a Carrier if a pair of Captains agreed. The structure of the ship would be much like what's described in 2.a) above, with 6 crew. In this case, the pair of ships would lose a crew slot each, and this action couldn't be taken if there are more than 3 players on either ship. The space normally taken by the 4th crew member would be replaced with an indicator to mark which "other ship" is the other half of the Carrier, and possibly to identify whether the top slot is the Captain or the Squadron Leader. Top-left should take precedence as Captain with top-right as second choice, while bottom-right should take precedence as Squadron Leader with bottom-left as second choice. This creates an order of Captaining vs. Squadron Lead being arranged under the same basic principles as reading in most European languages.

NOTE: I may come back and edit this with alternatives/additional thoughts/spelling/grammar corrections. I'm heading out now and don't have time for my usual proof-reading. Hope it's mostly coherent.

38

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Those Japanese Signals

« on: August 12, 2014, 06:48:52 pm »

Then again, if I have something important to say, I use actual voice chat to say it.  V-commands are reserved for things like "I'm getting on aft guns!" on a pyramidion. 

I have a tendency to call "Man the port guns!" when i can grab the helm of a Squid, and "Man the fore guns!" on my Galleon for no reason other than to annoy one friend who's always on the ship when I do it.

He seems not to have noticed that when I give ACTUAL orders, it's over proper voice chat...

39

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Those Japanese Signals

« on: August 12, 2014, 03:45:14 pm »

You know that big symbols with arrows also appear on the screen, right?

Oddly, I managed to forget about this until you mentioned it.

I wouldn't object to the symbols showing up for at least a moment longer than they do at present. They fade just a little too fast for someone with merely quick and not instant recognition of the symbol.

40

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Those Japanese Signals

« on: August 11, 2014, 11:03:22 pm »

Yes, mail checks to Muse Tower, 55 Globe Statue Circle, The Labyrinth, Paritan, Burren.

Quick, everyone!

Before they change address!

Print out the following image and sent it off like Queso asked:



(Sorry for the off-topic, but I couldn't pass up an opportunity like that one)

41

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

« on: August 11, 2014, 10:50:26 pm »

When I explain that I'm not starting the match without a loadout and the person refuses to leave, then that's on them. They are the one delaying the match. They realize that the match is not gonna start and eventually they or I leave. It's inefficient and a waste of time. Yes there might be a million reasons why someone isn't communicating, and I might win the lottery. Players that are the least likely to cooperate are new to the game and young. What does that tell you. I would go as far to say that I don't think I have ever had a crew of at least lvl 5 not cooperate. It's a low level player problem.

When you say you're not starting the match without a specific loadout, that's on BOTH of you - assuming they understand. One of you has to be willing to back down, or accept that the other doesn't know what you're saying. BOTH OF YOU are delaying the match. I'm not putting ALL the blame on you here, but you can't rightfully put all the blame on another person when YOU HAVE A BUTTON YOU CAN CLICK TO START THE MATCH AND THEY DON'T. The players least likely to cooperate - only counting the ones who communicate, of course - are mostly young. That tells me that young people are very often immature and stubborn. I'm not young, but I'll admit to sometimes being immature and stubborn too. For that matter, some of your comments in the discussions we've been having on this forum have also come across that way. It just seems like it's a default setting on a lot of younger people, instead of something that an older person needs to work towards during the course of a dispute.

"What if they were in the lobby before you? But you're the Captain who's just joined"
I avoid joining captain slots with novice players already in the crew because those are the least likely to cooperate. Whenever I join a lobby I'm always a gunner or engineer. I never join in as a pilot.

And if a novice switches onto your crew because their Captain is uncommunicative, or because as a higher-level player you look like someone they can learn from? What if they're interested in getting better, but want to TRY THINGS OUT and see how they work (or why they don't) for themselves?

It used to be that if you joined in as a second pilot you could exit, switch, and resume. Now it is counter intuitive where you have to join from the lobby list. Muse implemented this in order to prevent players from "taking advantage of the system". A lot of times players don't realize that they're joining in as a second pilot. If they received an alert that required confirmation, there would be no excuse for accidentally joining as a second pilot or gunner. At that point, joining in as an extra pilot would be considered trolling.

I totally agree with this. Given that the matchmaking system won't be putting players into matches in progress, it's a moot point now though. If such a functionality does return to the game, I would like to see some form of mini-lobby before a player loads into the match. Notify the Captain that a new player has queued to join the crew, give an option to view the player's loadout, and sync them into voice chat. Make them wait 20 - 30 seconds OR until the Captain hits a "ready" button. If they have a bad loadout, the Captain can talk to them and see about possibly changing a few things (like not being a pilot). If the Captain doesn't do anything, they still join. If the Captain tries but the new arrival can't hear/understand or refuses to change, they still join. If the Captain and the new crew member work things out faster, they get into the match faster.

42

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

« on: August 11, 2014, 10:37:40 pm »

The community agrees with me that the captain should always be the one flying the ship. The captain on the ally ship needs to speak to the pilot, not the engineer. Otherwise there is an information delay. A squid engineer who is repairing might have no view of the situation while the pilot would. When you're repairing a component, your field of vision is limited to that component and its vicinity.

I'm just going to quickly check something. You're aware that I'm part of the community, right? You know I actually do exist? Yes? Good. And you're also aware that the other player I've seen who was a successful and effective Engineer Captain on a Squid also plays the game and is therefore a part of the game's community? Right?

A large portion of the community agrees that the Captain should ALMOST always be the one flying the ship. In the lobby where I saw that Engineer Squid Captain, he was originally advised not to do it by the other Captains. He explained his case, and the other Captains said "that actually sounds fair. Lets see how it works".

Having an ally with a non pilot captain is frustrating if you're trying to communicate with the person flying the ship. But if a crew wants a non pilot captain, that's up to them. For example, I often see (inexperienced) clans have a non pilot captain who say that they're on skype or teamspeak together so they communicate. It's annoying for the ally, but it's their choice. My problem is with players that join a captain slot just to choose the ship and be the captain.

Having a good Captain who can act as an effective communications officer can somewhat alleviate the frustration of that situation if the Captain maintains effective contact with both the friendly Captain and his own crew (including Pilot). In the match where I saw a non-Pilot Squid Captain, there were precisely ZERO times during the match where I felt like our Captain was letting a breakdown in communication happen between us and our friendly ship.

I am constantly looking around the ship while I'm flying to see what my crew are doing and to watch the components. Even under heavy fire I am always changing my view unless I already know the rear situation and component info. A pilot that is maneuvering is by no means busy. It might take practice, but the pilot should be able to maintain situational awareness. In my experience, the most distracting part about flying is watching the crew to maintain crew efficiency.

When you're at high altitude and not navigating close to hazards and trying to find an optimal high-speed path through an area, sure. Also, when you're in a relatively central location with a good view over your ship, sure. On most ships, the helm is ideally placed to suit, and the mechanics of flight are ill-suited to the kind of behavious that requires intense focus from the Pilot.

When I bring a Galleon to a heavily built-up map, it takes a lot more focus to Pilot effectively than on more Galleon-friendly maps. Even so, my elevated position on the helm allows me to make up for that by having good vision over the majority of the ship while piloting.

With my Junker, if I decide to pull some fancy flying using its great agility to my team's advantage, I sometimes need to focus more intently on watching where we're going than what my crew are doing. Once again, the majority of the ship is visible from the helm while facing forward, making it relatively easy to identify potential problem areas while concentrating on flight.

The Goldfish is relatively fast and agile, and that combination can be used to pull some neat tricks. It takes some additonal concentration, but once again, you're mostly fine because the relatively centralised and elevated helm lets you retain good visibility over your ship without significantly compromising your positional awareness as a Pilot.

The Pyramidion's frontal helm makes it easy enough to look up and see the state of the front guns and balloon, but anything else requires you to lose sight of your current flight path. This is generally safe though, because with the moderate speed and slow turning arc of the ship, it's rare that you'll want to be putting yourself into situations where you need to pull out such fancy manoeuvres anyway.

The Squid is extremely fast and has crazy turning. It's also very fragile and relies heavily on its ability to evade rather than tank damage. The Pilot therefore needs to be more focused on piloting than in any other ship, particularly when engaged in combat. Its speed also lends well to the use of short-range weaponry, where it can quickly move in, hit a target, then disengage to avoid return fire. Alternatively, it can often move into a target's blind spots and maintain a position where it can't be hit effectively while raining down its own fire onto the victim. These actions once again require a lot of focus from the pilot, and detract from their ability to maintain the crew. Additionally, when simply travelling, people expect Squids to get places faster than anyone else. A skilled Pilot can shave valuable seconds from the time required to reach an important location, whether that be to capture a point, set up an ambush, or save their teammate with a well-timed distraction or finishing blow. When the ideal position to look over your crew's actions requires you to turn more than 90 degrees away from your direction of travel, keeping focus on your crew and movement at the same times is much more of a challenge than you get from other ships.

You are adamant that the squid example worked with an engi captain, and if the crew agreed and ally was ok with it then fine. If we ask the community you will see that there is never a situation where the captain shouldn't be the pilot even though it might work in certain situations. If that squid was flying against me, the non pilot captain would be a detriment- the balloon would constantly be broken (I love popping balloons).

You love popping balloons. Good for you. While repairing the balloon on the Squid, an Engineer Captain can position themselves to have good visibility over the engines or hull, and still retains a decent view of the other, while also being able to keep somewhat of an eye on the ship's movement AND having the directional indicators spaced to allow them to identify which guns are available and which need repairs. While engaged in combat, the Pilot can help out with on-board crew management if needed, and the Captain is then freed up to focus more on repairs and coordinating with the friendly ship. While on board that Squid, we fought someone else who loved popping balloons. It worked out better than I've seen with a Pilot Captain on the same ship.

When I said that if gunners were useful on small guns then people would bring them I meant to say that they would bring them competitively. The only small gun you might see a gunner on is the hades. If you control engagements, there is always a best ammo and no point of having multiple ammos.

If you assume that you can always control engagements, then you're assuming just as much of an unrealistic best-case scenario as the one you were incorrectly applying to my previous arguments. When you DON'T have control over the engagement, you're often stuck with reverting to default ammo as an Engineer, where a Gunner could switch to something that lets them keep up an edge in firepower. This, in turn, allows your ship to edge out the enemy ship in dps or add utility effects (incendiary for example) to help turn the tide and force the enemy crew to worry about more things than just firing back at you.

You also didn't address the fact that both the Pyramidion and Junker have plenty of viable loadouts which benefit from the presence of a Gunner (though rarely 2), and neither of those ships has a single heavy gun.

I don't like hwatchafish because it's boring, but on my hwatchafish I have a gat and carro which are both good with heavy clip or greased. When playing in regular pub matches (opponents aren't running 3 engi), I have gunners. If you're flying against a 3 engi ship with buffs, you need 3 engi. I would always have a gunner on a lumberjack however (except if there were 2 on a galleon).

And this doesn't negate the fact that Hwacha/Gat/Flamethrower is a common combination, or the fact that your own preferred ammo types for that loadout would be better carried by a crew with a Gunner than one without. Your ship might be easy enough to manage with 3 Engineers, but that doesn't mean all ships will always perform at their best with that crew setup, or even that all ships with light weapons only will always perform better with more Engineers. I'm not saying that there AREN'T valid arguments against bringing 2 Gunners on most ships. I'm saying that there are occasional exceptions to the usual rule, and that there are times where ONE Gunner can be more useful than a third Engineer. Engi Captains on Galleons aren't the usual rule, but are common enough to warrant mention as well. You COULD run the main guns with Engineers instead of a Gunner, technically. But nobody does, because while having 3 Engineers is a big help, the Gunner's role on most Galleons is MORE IMPORTANT, so it's better to swap the Pilot out to fill the bonus role of third Engi.

A gunner with the ideal ammo is just as effective and significantly less useful than an engi with the ideal ammo. Decide engagements and plan accordingly. If I had 2 gunners on a ship then I would lose if I was facing a reasonably competent opponent. No player in the game is good enough to fly with 2 gunners.

An Engineer with the ideal ammo type for a particular gun in a particular situation is no worse than a Gunner with the same ammo on the same gun in that situation. When the situation changes, whether by requiring a move to a different gun, or by changing range or other factors, the Gunner can retain optimal efficiency operating the gun, while the Engi falls behind in performance for that particular role. Once again, you're assuming a best-case scenario where your ship is always the one controlling the engagement, and the enemy never gets to a position where your Engineer's single ammo type isn't the best option because the target isn't where you want them to be.

Special ammo isn't always necessary. For example, the standard Duck junkers have a top artemis bottom hades on one side, bottom gat top mortar, and front artemis. The top engi brings wrench buff chem burst ammo for the artemis. Front engi brings spanner mallet chem burst (hull on junker can be repaired from the front). Bottom engi brings spanner mallet buff and lesmok for the hades. Both the gat and mortar use regular ammo. This is the most efficient loadout for the build.

Special ammo isn't always necessary, you're right. I never said it was. But having an edge from using it when the enemy doesn't is still an edge. You repair faster, an enemy with a different crew makeup will hit slightly harder.

Trust me, 2 gunners is not viable on a goldfish. If 2 goldfish face off and one has 2 gunners, they will always lose. Yes they do have a better variety of ammo, but there is always an ideal ammo. A gunner with the ideal does the same dmg as an engi.

There is always an ideal ammo. And in different situations, the ideal ammo will be different for many guns. A gunner with the ideal does the same damage as an Engi, but can be doing more damage when they move to a position where the Engi's ammo is no longer ideal, but the Gunner has a different ammo type that is.

Being able to have a spanner and mallet or wrench and buff gives an invaluable advantage over just having a wrench. For example, components (especially guns) always need to be at full health. The number 1 mistake people make is not keeping guns at 100% health, and a mallet makes this more efficient (especially on big guns). A buff hammer makes even damaged components more efficient. If you buff a balloon as soon as you rebuild it, it functions almost as well (or better) as at full health.

Funnily enough, having 2 Gunners doesn't prevent a ship from having any Engineers. It's strange how that works.

I would argue that the galleon is the only viable 2 gunner ship as long as you're not planning on getting too close or having guns disabled. On a galleon, the upstairs engi and pilot do repairs. The only repairs downstairs are guns and engines. A double lumberjack galleon is the safest and most effective 2 gunner ship I can think of. One day if I'm feeling brave and flying against novices, maybe I'll take a double gunner double lumber galleon.

As soon as you said "if you're not planning on..." you fell right back into that same trap you kept accusing me of earlier. Just because you DON'T PLAN ON getting close to the enemy, doesn't mean it can't happen. And as mentioned earlier, the advantage with dual Gunner Galleon is that sometimes, you'll be able to swap your Pilot out for a backup Engineer and have a Gunner with 3 Engineers, or 2 Gunners and 2 Engis.

That said, right here you're basically conceding that there are situations where two Gunners can be effective, which is the argument I had been making. it isn't necessarily BETTER, but it's not ALWAYS going to be a worse option than having lots of Engineers.

Again, you misunderstand me. If I ever get unruly, then there's a reason for it. Not starting a match due to uncooperative players is not being unruly, it's being responsible. Keep in mind that I'm not the only one to do this. All experienced players have run into this problem.

If a Captain has a reason for what they want, and you refuse to do it because you disagree with their reasoning, you call their refusal to start the match "unruly". If you are a Captain, and you refuse to start the match because your crew aren't doing what you want, you say that "is not being unruly" and that they're being "uncooperative". THIS TELLS ME THAT YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Once I was on a mobula and the captain wanted our gunner to switch class because mobulas should have 3 engi. They refused and we waited. And waited. I left after about 5 minutes. The captain made a reasonable request and the crew member refused. Asking the gunner to switch wasn't being pushy. He didn't have to be on the ship.

Was there space on another ship? Were any of the other ships in need of a Gunner? Did the player respond to the request? If not, how do you know they heard it? That player joined a ship without a Gunner, and obviously wanted to be a Gunner. They might not have understood the request. They might have seen that there were Gunners on the other ships, and/or that there were no spaces on the other ships. Yes, 3 Engineers might be optimal for that ship, but a well-equipped Gunner, while not perfect, isn't going to magically ruin all hope of the ship getting anywhere.

Yes waiting in a lobby is boring and can be frustrating when you're just waiting on one captain. Yes the captain could just start the game with his second gunner or bad loadout. But expecting them to is inconsiderate. If I have an extra gunner, I won't start the match. If someone is waiting on a loadout, be considerate.

What exactly is "inconsiderate" about wanting the best for THE MAJORITY OF THE LOBBY? You have at least 16 people in a full lobby. Making them wait because of a dispute between 2 people is more inconsiderate than making 1 person deal with a bad situation. And as long as the game mechanics favour the individual player being able to customise their loadout (pro-tip: This will be forever), it's the Captain who should be expected to be the bigger man and put up with uncooperative crew in a public match.

If I ask someone to bring a sensible loadout, I am not being pushy. I am being reasonable and responsible for my ship, crew, and team. If I don't want to bring a captain's loadout, then I should leave. If I'm captain and a crew member will not change their loadout or leave, then eventually I will leave. I don't think it's fair that a captain should have to leave due to an uncooperative crew.

If you ASK someone to bring a sensible loadout, you're not being pushy. You're being reasonable and responsible for your ship, crew and team. If you refuse to accept a different, BUT ALSO SENSIBLE loadout, you're no longer being reasonable and responsible. You ARE being pushy. You don't think it's fair that a Captain should have to leave due to an uncooperative crew. I don't think it's fair that a crew member should have to leave because of an overly-aggressive Captain.

NO captain should ever push their crew around. A captain that bullies their crew is a bad captain. What we do is request loadouts, and either wait for them to bring it or to leave. If there was a simpler way we would do it. There isn't, so people need to learn to deal with it.

No Captain should ever push their crew around. By refusing to let the match start until someone gives in to your demands (and as soon as you refuse to start without the "request" being followed, it IS a demand), YOU ARE PUSHING YOUR CREW AROUND. A Captain that bullies their crew is a bad captain. By waiting until they bring your designated loadout or leave, YOU ARE BULLYING YOUR CREW. If there was a simpler way, you would do it. There is. YOU can be the bigger man, instead of a bully. You can accept SOME measure of suboptimal loadout on your ship and launch the match anyway. You've tried private messages. You've tried talking to the person. Maybe they replied and refused your request. If they're talking, explain during the match, why their loadout wasn't ideal. If not, PM them again after, and explain. If possible, point to specific situations where your suggested loadout would have worked better for the ship.

As for deliberate bad loadouts, in my opinion you should only use them if your ally is ok with it. If your ally wants a serious game, don't take a joke loadout. If your ally wants a serious game but the other side has joke loadouts, do what you want. Occasionally I like a joke loadout. Flare squid is fun against mobulas and gat junkers are very amusing. If there are 3 harpoon mobulas in a match, it's your duty to take a harpoon mobula or join a different match.

I've seen a match with 3 harpoon Mobulas and a sniper Spire. none of the Mobulas had any weapons but Flamethrowers and Harpoons. The Spire managed to ram-kill one of the Mobulas, and everyone was totally fine with it being there. If anything, it might have made the match funnier. But yeah, I agree with your point. Bringing a joke loadout when the rest of the match is playing serious isn't cool. USUALLY, being the only sensible loadout in a joke match is less than cool too, but I've seen exceptions. Usually where crew are trying things out that they've never done before, or they're a full crew of new players and the rest of the match are joke builds in an effort to handicap themselves and give the new guys a chance to learn.

More to follow (I hit the character limit... oops)

43

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: more maps for practice

« on: August 11, 2014, 08:51:02 pm »

I'm another +1 on this.

I can't think of a reason for anyone to actively NOT want this (except the devs, in whose case it's an additional lower-priority job to clog up the pile). If there's someone with an argument against having more maps for practice, I'd be really interested in hearing their reasons for it.

I, too, prefer darker maps. I'm nocturnal out in the real world, and I have better vision at night than in daytime. For the most part, this holds true for me being better able to see well in darker maps and at night in games with day/night cycles (Dragon's Dogma is a rare exception )

44

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

« on: August 11, 2014, 03:59:21 am »

The captain is the person who is flying the ship. All experienced players recognize this. Engineers with repairs have a very limited view of situations, and likely have no time to look at the map or strategize. Under ideal circumstances where a squid engineer had no repairs, yes they would have a better view. While the captain has the hardest job, engineers have the most hectic job- especially on a squid. I can tell you from experience that an engineer that is repairing often has a very limited or no view of the situation. If the engineer has repairs, they can't see the situation and can't communicate effectively with the ally. It is always best to have the person flying the ship to be the captain.

The captain is usually the person who is flying the ship. All experienced players recognise this. Engineers with repairs have a very limited view of the situation compared to a Captain on most ships. They likely (but not definitely) have no time to look at the map or strategise. By the same score, Pilots who are busy flying the ship (which is happening ALL THE TIME, not just while under fire) have no time to look at the map or strategise. While the Captain has the hardest job, Engineers have the most hectic job at the worst of times - especially on a Squid. If the Engineer has repairs, they can't see the situation quite as well as when they're not busy, but still better than a busy pilot can, and can't communicate as effectively with the ally. It is always usually best to have the person flying the ship to be the Captain.

Assuming a worst-case scenario at all times, the pilot MIGHT be more free to look around the ship SOME OF THE TIME. This means the fastest ship in the game is permanently in a position where it's taking enemy fire and unable to disengage for the entire duration of the battle, without exception or a moment's reprieve. While it's POSSIBLE that this might happen, it's far more likely that there will be downtime on a Squid - a ship heavily focused on hit-and-run attacks, with a reliance on mobility and agility over durability and firepower - for the engineer(s) than for the pilot. Regardless of whether or not the situation is ideal, the ideal situation for a Squid involves the pilot being busy ALL THE TIME. Only the absolute worst-case scenario for a Squid will have the Engineers busy as consistently as the Pilot.

In the same way, under ideal circumstances (ex not getting shot at), having 3 gunners would be best. If you're dealing with a challenge then you need at least 2 engineers. If gunners were useful on small guns (your gat example), then people would bring them. There is always an ideal ammo to use. I would much rather have a spanner mallet buff engi with heavy or greased on my gat than a gunner. On some small guns like the hades or mine launcher having 2 ammos is very useful, but still not necessary. If a pilot has control over every engagement, then there isn't a gun in the game that needs more than 1 ammo. The only reason that I don't fly with 3 engi when it would better to is because it can be hard to convince a gunner to switch. A gunner is more likely to switch ammo than class so I just don't bother.

If you know your ship will never be shot at, not just 3 Gunners, but 3 Gunners with buff hammers would be best. If you're dealing with a challenge then you need at least 2 Engineers, but one will frequently be manning a gun, and the other will frequently be on the Spyglass or unoccupied. Even if you know your ship will only be shot at intermittently, a Squid should still be moving around constantly, and manoeuvring most of that time. If Gunners weren't useful on Small Guns, then nobody would bring them on Junkers and Pyramidions. On some small guns, having 2 ammos is more useful than on others. Even when a ship can control every engagement, having the flexibility of multiple ammo types can be an advantage.

On a heavy carro goldfish it's better to have a spanner mallet buff engi with heavy clip than the standard gunner loadout of heavy charged incendiary. On hwatchafish I like one engi with burst and the other heavy. I will have the main ammo engi bring spanner mallet buff depending on the presumed engagement range. With hwatcha gat flame, the gat should probably have greased and the flame lesmok (or greased, although I do like burst flame). Luckily, each engineer can carry a different ammo and can preload the guns.

So you have 3 Engineers on your ship with Hwacha, Gatling and Flamethrower. One has Heavy Clip and another has Burst, leaving the remaining Engineer to bring Greased and Lesmok for the side guns. Somehow, this doesn't sound quite right to me. Can you see the flaw in your proposed logic?

A double gunner goldfish is a death sentence. Yes it would be useful to have lots of different ammo options, but it would be way more useful to have an engineer and the ideal ammo. A wrench buff chem engi on the balloon is very useful on a goldfish. Goldfish are a frontal attack ship so they can choose their engagement range- bring the ideal ammo for the presumed circumstances. Try flying double gunner against any competent captain, you'll see why it wont work. Although goldfish have a lot of health, they are fragile and can be difficult to repair in emergencies.

With a good Engineer, and Gunners willing to stop shooting and help with repairs, a double Gunner Goldfish can work out just fine. It won't necessarily perform BETTER than with two Engineers, but the slight edge in damage output can help to prevent the ship taking as much damage. I'm not talking about an improbable perfect situation where you never take hits, but a more realistic scenario where you manage to play to your strengths similarly well to how the other ship performs. Two Engineers means maybe faster repairs, and almost certainly more efficient firefighting. Two gunners means more effective damage output, and a greater variety of utility applications on weapons. You can cause more damage and set more fires with dual Gunners, but you can take more damage and extinguish/prevent more fires with dual Engineers. Do you want to be even more of a glass cannon, or add a little splash of tank into the mix?

Again, unless you're not planning on taking damage then you need at least 2 engineers. I would love to have 2 gunners on a double lumberjack galleon but it's not feasible when facing a competent opponent. Ships need 2 engineers. If you're flying against me, you need 2 engineers. In my experience, the double gunner ship always loses.

On a Galleon, I'm never going to try and argue that 2 Gunners is a good idea when you're facing actual combat. Not because the extra Gunner couldn't be useful, but because the parts that routinely need repairs and firefighting are too spread out for a single Engineer to handle effectively. On a Goldfish, even the longest routes from one part of the ship to another are comparatively easy to manage, and the worst-case scenario takes a secondary Gunner away from the role to help with repairs, which is no worse than having a second Engineer who's not manning the extra gun either.

Burst is the standard artemis ammo. If a captain wants me to bring lesmok then I know that they will try to be long range and are focusing on accuracy. Even if I think that based on the circumstances burst would be a much better choice, I'm still gonna bring lesmok.
If I'm crewing, I'm gonna try to give the ship the best chance at success. I don't run into captains that make bad requests, but of course they do exist. If a captain tells me to do something that will sabotage our chances of success, I will explain why to not do it. If a captain wants to deliberately sabotage their team, I will refuse. If they become unruly then I will leave.

If they become "unruly"? You mean like YOU DO when you don't get your own way as Captain? At least you're consistent about pushing for your way as Captain and leaving the ship when you're not Captain.

You're misunderstanding me: if a captain wants you to do something stupid in a match, then do whatever you want. If a captain is sabotaging the success of the team then you should do the right thing. Piss him off and in the future maybe he will realize his error. If a captain wants you to bring a bad loadout then first tell him why it's wrong. If he doesn't budge then you should bring it or leave. Or you could tell the lobby and the lobby will make their arguments against the captain's decision.

Ah. So what you're saying is that it's ok for a "good" Captain to be a jerk and push people around, but if they're "bad", then you should troll them and/or go against their wishes. And clearly, you must be the right person to define what's "good" and what's "bad", since you have more experience than everyone else, right?

Either apply your reasoning universally to ALL Captains, and to all non-Captains, or apply your reasoning ONLY to yourself and don't hold others to your standards. In an ideal world, every player would speak a common language, and every player would have a working mic, and nobody would need voice commands or even text chat. In an ideal world, there would be nobody embarrassed about their voice, accent, lack of experience speaking English, or injured in a manner that restricts communication. In an ideal world, when someone is wrong about something, another person explaining why they were wrong is all it would take to make them realise their mistake. Your "the Captain is always right when I'm Captain, but not when the Captain is an idiot" approach could potentially work in this ideal world. Of course, that would assume you're always right, but as an experienced player in a well-respected clan, this is probably not far from the truth.

If a captain wants a terrible loadout that would be detrimental to the team, then the lobby can protest and request that the captain join a different lobby. If the captain refuses then the lobby could make a new lobby. This is a potential problem, but in my experience it is not a real issue. It might happen but it's rare. If a captain is waiting on a loadout, then that crew member should just leave instead of making the lobby wait.

I've been in a lobby once where everyone except me and one other player was a high-level player with a lot of experience (10+ in at least 2 roles). People were playing to win, and trying their best. I was getting to a point of feeling competent with the game, and while I was still making mistakes, I didn't feel like I was holding the crew back on my ship. The other player around my level (I was 2 all around at the time, he was level 3 Gunner) had his Captain complain that he wasn't listening to reason in the previous match and trade places to put him on the crew of a more tightly-managed ship. He was asked (not told) to change his loadout, and he said "nope". He was asked to provide a good reason why not, and the only response was another "nope". EVERY SINGLE OTHER PLAYER IN THE LOBBY agreed to drop and create a new lobby without him. I was invited along, and another player filled that one remaining slot.

I've seen the same thing happen when it was a Captain being an idiot. I've also seen a group of players with experience levels ranging from level 1 everything to level 10+ in every role, where the lobby was laughing and joking and nobody was taking anything seriously. We had a Captain bring a Squid with 3 Flamethrowers, and on his Pilot loadout, he brought Lochnagar ammo, and kept kicking people off the guns to load it into them. When he left the helm, he ALWAYS left it at full throttle. It was ridiculous, but nobody cared, because it was HILARIOUS. I was Captaining a (mostly) sensible Junker build, but I spent more time ramming the enemy Galleon than shooting it, and my Gunner spent most of the match on the front-mounted Artemis than he did firing broadsides.

If a captain in my lobby wants a stupid laugh with his loadout, then I will protest. I would expect the other captains to do so as well and to try to get the captain to leave. If this happened every time captains want a stupid laugh, then there would be fewer attempts at stupid laughs. If a captain is disrupting a lobby and refusing to leave, make a new lobby.

If anyone - Captain or no - is disrupting a lobby, I agree, ask them to leave, and create a new lobby if they don't. If EVERYONE is having a stupid laugh, then I don't see the harm in playing along. If I'm in a very serious lobby and my Captain asks me to do something for a stupid laugh, I'll question whether that's appropriate for the lobby. And I'll do so publicly and get the rest of the lobby involved in the conversation because it's not only relevant to our ship. If it's a novice match, I'm less concerned. If it's a lobby where the teams are stacked and I'm on the side with all the clearly more experienced players, I'll probably play along as a form of handicap for the team.

I'm going to reiterate what I'm assuming all captains who have the problem I'm trying to explain go through.
A new crew member joins, I welcome them aboard and tell them what to bring and where to be.
I explain why they will be using the ammo and what they should be using the gun for.
I tell them that they need to bring the loadout or to please join a different ship.

See, this is fine. "PLEASE join a different ship" is fine. ASKING, not DEMANDING. EXPLAINING, not just dictating.

There is no debating over the ammo, the crew member doesn't change their ammo according to the gun. They don't see what gun they will be using and suggest their preferred ammo, they just keep what ammo and tools they already have.
Yes I could just leave the lobby and try to find an open captain spot, but I would much rather stay in the lobby that I had already picked out and want to play in.

And do you know the reason for the lack of communication? You say you'd much rather stay in the lobby you'd already picked out. Did you think that maybe so would the other person? What if they were in the lobby before you? But you're the Captain who's just joined, the guy who's been waiting for half an hour in the lobby he wants to be in should bow down to your whims, right?

I have made odd requests before and had my crew have questioned them, but in the end I have never had a crew member who is questioning my decision not do what I asked. Part of the reason may be because of how much I have played the game. If I was a low level, players might be less inclined to listen.

When I've been a Captain and have been dealing with a communicative crew, I've had crew who ended up using different loadouts from what I had originally proposed. In every case, they've explained their position and the reason for their preference, and I've considered their advice and made a decision. I've brought a very meta-looking Junker with Gat/Mortar broadsides and a Gunner has joined my crew and said "I'm a crack shot with a Hades, can you replace both Mortars with them?" and I decided to go along with it because our friendly ship was well suited to working with that alternative loadout.

At least a hundred times before have I given crew loadouts and had no one on the ship attempt to bring it or give any explanation to why not. I don't care about crew level. As long as they listen they are a good crew. Yesterday I had an excellent crew for many matches of a lvl 3 and 4 engi. They made mistakes but they listened and they learned and everyone had a good time.

That's great. Maybe name your ship "TALK TO ME" instead of "OBEY YOUR CAPTAIN" like I had previously suggested. I like a good crew who can work together without much communication being needed, but I sometimes prefer to have a more talkative crew.

45

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Achievements, a whole lot of achievements (and stuff)

« on: August 11, 2014, 01:52:26 am »

-Silly "put out fire with chem spray" achievement. Chem spray is used to prevent fires, so this is counter-intuitive at least.

yeah I'd love to see this changed, but there's a question of what to change it to...

Use chemspray to prevent X fires - when the ship is hit with fire weapons while your chemspray is still in effect, you get credit towards the achievement.

That would be an ideal alternative, but it might be difficult to code the game so it tracks whose chemspray it was.

Also, on the topic of practice mode, I've taken a couple of friends into practice mode when they said they didn't feel confident going into a proper game yet. Also, have you guys noticed that you can create multi-ship practice lobbies? You can set up 1 vs. 1 duels there, which seems odd, but I want to try it out when I have a large enough group of friends to make it work.