Messages

1

The Signal Tower / Re: Schwalbe makes videos. He shouldn't.

« on: July 08, 2016, 11:28:03 pm »

At first I was gonna get on your case for shittalking someone who made mistakes but seemed generally cooperative, but Jesus H. Christ. I feel your pain, and I tend to try and call out how toxic the noob hating in this community.

I hope you didn't suffer too much from the brain bleed this left you with.

2

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Suggestion: Crew disabling gun

« on: June 29, 2016, 10:10:42 am »

If you want CS:GO flashbangs for some reasons do them well - "counter" would be turning your (characters) head away...

Also, taking away piloting slot to counter this... So either this will be used so seldomly that nobody will use the counter or it will become a meta and everyone will be taking this. I don't think we want things to go this direction.

Also I think Muse have been telling us for a while that they don't want to implement something like this.... soo.... fruitful discussion is fruitful

So, just for the sake of humouring this idea, let's say that when the flashbang projectile hits the ship, it gives an audible cue and sticks to a particular location, when times up, it will detonate and cause whatever debilitating effects have been discussed. Counters would obviously be facing away from it and, perhaps to prevent audio disruption, moving away from it.

Even if you successfully counter the flashbang itself, you've still managed to somewhat disrupt the crew. Even so, I can just imagine five of these on a mobula for the most infuriating thing to play against ever conceived.

Also, the timer after the flashbang "sticks" to the enemy ship is shorter depending on range, rewarding skill. Then again, fast-paced brawls seem like the only possible area this kind of mechanic would make that much of a difference.

Humouring over. Please, do not implement guns that directly influence the crew's ability to perform specific jobs.

Maybe the minotaur could randomise your wasd keys for half a second after impact to simulate staggering :^)

3

The Lounge / Re: Overwatch Tracer Pose Controversy

« on: March 31, 2016, 08:50:12 pm »

This thread is making it very hard to hide the fact that I'm a dirty SJW

Earn that badge, say something that would get you the label

4

The Lounge / Re: Overwatch Tracer Pose Controversy

« on: March 31, 2016, 07:50:58 pm »

An entire character isn't founded upon open sexuality, therefore they should be a complete nun. There is no middle ground. Happy, bubbly, silly women are clearly incapable of harboring or expressing any sexual tendencies either physically or in speech/action.

In truth, I don't really give a shit. I'm getting Overwatch butt or not, because I'm not buying it for the arse and cleavage; I'm getting it because it looks fun to play. I just think people should care 1000% less. I say sexualise whoever and whatever you like in your creation, be that everyone or no one.  If you feel the balance of who is sexualised and who isn't is tipped unfairly, be more willing to show skin/flirtaciousness/libido in male characters instead of advocating for almost right-wing levels of censorship. Sex appeal is not nearly as horrendous as it is painted. Hell, to generalise that all men act like apes in the presence of an arse and cannot see the person it is attached to, or claim that rival female sexuality from a completely fantastical character drives women out of social groups and hobbies is a hugely sexist proposition, depending on which one you take.

That's the principle of it, the way I see it, and I'm not someone who really cares much for fan service. I find it distracting and often transparent. In games like Mass Effect, for example, it hampers a lot of the more emotional conversations with extremely clear examples of "look at this arse, don't you wanna bend her over and have a tea party on it?" in the camera work/character design during very serious and played-straight moments. That being said, what made the romance of Mass Effect so compelling for many players was actually the characters and personalities of the candidates for it. That's all you'll see the players talk about when being serious about who they chose and why, which, to me, kind of shows most people that absorb themselves in any kind of fantasy setting have the brain juice to disassociate sexualisation from character, or take it as part of the character without it conflicting with anything. Despite my complaints, I respect the rights of Bioware to make the game how they see fit, same with Blizzard, and if they are seeing fit to accept this criticism and change it, so be it. All I can hope is that they considered it and agreed with what was leveled at them, instead of having a company meeting with PR staff that advised them to cave into ideas they did not agree with, because having any kind of artistic expression, no matter how tacky or slight, be dictated by outside people with ideology behind them is a sad precedent.

As for Guns of Icarus? Lol. The character models and cosmetics are not nearly appealing enough for sexualisation anyway. And none of the player avatars actually have a personality, so it's a non-issue. If Muse wanted to release a swimsuit pack, why the hell not? Not that I'd really want that, it'd look stupid.

5

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Level requirement to create clans

« on: March 30, 2016, 01:21:59 am »

>or harassing women in the game

I agree with nearly every point you have to give about Ceresbane, but dude, women do not equate to minors.

Errrrm. Pardon me, but where did Richard stated so? ^^
He just listed two of Ceresbane's activities.

Maybe I am tired, but from what I read, I see him stating that he only dealt with Ceresbane where he felt needed, and this was included in the list. I don't really see the need to distinguish "harassing women" from any other antisocial behaviour towards other player unless you see this as some kind of special case which requires outside interference more than harassment of any other player.

6

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Level requirement to create clans

« on: March 30, 2016, 12:11:17 am »

>or harassing women in the game

I agree with nearly every point you have to give about Ceresbane, but dude, women do not equate to minors.

7

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Level requirement to create clans

« on: March 29, 2016, 06:22:56 pm »

8

General Discussion / Re: How would YOU nerf the Mobula?

« on: March 20, 2016, 04:40:25 pm »

Man this is stupid. Same qq nerf talk, not even going to read it all.

You should probably read OP properly. Title is to keep conversation centered, but my belief is to buff other things rather than hit the Mob in its stats.

9

Community Events / Re: SCS Timer

« on: March 16, 2016, 01:14:17 pm »

What are the opinions about the current overtime rules? Keep it? Change it? Drop it?

Hugely preferred to the old system. People still play the timer, but it makes for a fairer and more competitive end to a match, instead of the option to play ridiculously passively being given to the team with the kill advantage.

10

General Discussion / Re: How would YOU nerf the Mobula?

« on: March 16, 2016, 01:10:24 pm »

The Mobula works in the same space as the Spire. It brings 3+ guns on a forward facing target, but its repair points are far enough away from the guns that the crew is forced to decide between repairing and shooting. It is superior to the Spire in that the Mobula's horizontal profile vs the Spire's vertical profile is not as vulnerable to long range high damage shot drop weapons (hadies, lumberjack, flacks).

If I were to nerf the Mobula I would increase the damage output of long range non shot drop weapons like the banshee. I would also move the repair points further away from the guns. The effect would be to increase both the frequency that components catch fire at range and how long gungineers are spending engineering instead of gunning.

I like this one. Probably because I like the banshee.

11

General Discussion / Re: How would you balance/change the game?

« on: March 16, 2016, 11:30:23 am »

Hwacha has 50 clip, shoots twice as fast, does only minor pierce damage, and every rocket applies the same force as a Minotaur shot. I can't wait for the "fuck off over there" meta.

12

General Discussion / Re: How would YOU nerf the Mobula?

« on: March 16, 2016, 11:20:55 am »

Thanks for the input, Mean, but I feel you're trailing off on a point that I actually address in that first post. The title of the thread is misleading, but it keeps the conversation centered where it should be. If you read what I have said, you'll note that I am in favour of buffing other ships and playstyles to combat the over-saturation and ridiculous versatility of the metamob build. I also never acted as if the metamob is unkillable. The problem is, it's a direct upgrade from so many other builds. Two pilots with equal skill with crews of equal skill; whichever is using the metamob is going to win. That is a problem.

I also hate stacks, but that is not what this thread is about. I also feel that more balanced lobbies would highlight the strength of the metamob even more, assuming balance is settled at mid to high level. At a lower level, blitz-centric ships seem to be extremely powerful because newer pilots do not know how to avoid getting caught out.

Let me state again, because I've seen several people TL;DR the shit out of me and argue against a statistical nerf I never called for: I feel the best nerf to the Mobula is a buff to other ships.

13

General Discussion / Re: How would YOU nerf the Mobula?

« on: March 16, 2016, 08:30:27 am »

I said it before and ill say it again.

I feel like all ships are balanced minus spire and pyra which need armor and accelation buffs.

I dont feel like mobula is op. Its tough but the damn things sucks as soon as you shoot at it.

My opinion.

Pyra and Spire need attention way more than the Mobula, and I said myself that I'd prefer to see changes to other things to shake up this boring-as-hell current meta rather than a straight up numerical nerf to the Mobula.

In all honesty, it's just the one Mobula build that infests the game like a fungus between an old dude's toes that I feel is overpowered. Disable enough to lock down a ship entirely, power enough to kill quickly, very specific approach angles that might provide an advantage, but the dumb-as-fuck verticals might as well make that favourable engage a coin flip as to whether you will kill the ship in time.

My biggest problem with it, however, is how painfully unfun it is at this stage. I know that is subjective and I can't hide my biases here. I'm just so bloody sick of seeing them. When 75% of the ships in a single match are Mobulas and Mobulas make up just over 14% of the available choices, with infinitely more if you narrow those Mobs down to the overused meta build, then you kind of see where the power is sitting. And considering how seeing three quarters of the ships in a game being the same thing with only tiny variations is not even remotely surprising, it kind of shows how polarised the metagame has become.

In its current state, that single Mobula build is overpowered, but likely as a result of aggressive nerfs to everything else in the past.

14

General Discussion / Re: How would YOU nerf the Mobula?

« on: March 15, 2016, 06:16:37 pm »

I felt like those gravity changes should have hurt the mob a lot, but I guess those are gone now...

They also hurt everything else substantially more. If I was informed correctly, relative to other ships, this was a buff to mob's vulnerability to blending as it fell slower than ships like the galleon and spire, although faster than it does currently. In a sense, whilst this was huge buff to blenders, it indirectly made the mob outshine its peers on yet another level.

15

General Discussion / Re: How would YOU nerf the Mobula?

« on: March 15, 2016, 05:11:22 pm »

Ive thought about this alot.  I love the mobula.  I like how open and big it is.  And how it must be compartmentalized to crew.  That said, the worsed nerf I would give it is turning speed reduction, lower its up and down buoyancy, something on the movement side of things.  To change gun arcs to me defeats the benefit of the mobula at all.  Heck even add another ramp or something to it so the engies take longer getting to the hull and balloon.

I wish were not so cynical and could love the mob like you do. I don't even find metamob fun to fly anymore, in any capacity. In the majority of situations, unless I'm up against a better pilot in the same ship, I'm pretty much signing myself up for the same match over and over again. Stay high, rain hell, slowly grind them out as they steadily lose the ability to maintain repairs against three weapons, all while they are completely incapable of turning the favour of the engagement because they are engine and weapon locked by arts. It's not fun for my enemy and it's not fun for me. As for my crew? Well, that's for them to decide. Seen as I crew more often than I pilot, I can say that I find any position aside from gunner on said ship boring, because it's just so samey. Hades is only fun because I am learning how to get to a respectable level on it for competitive use, so I still find landing lots of shots satisfying. However, I'm sure that charm will die once I get to that level.

Defeating the benefit of the Mob might not be such a terrible thing. The benefit of controlling distance and being powerful both short and long range is a little ridiculous in my book. Pressuring engineers off of guns is the most effective way to deal with them, but can only be accomplished through enough shots before the inevitable sniping of all your components.

I always thought the verticals were a bit bloody stupid. In a realism sense, moving at the speed it does would probably shift it out from the crew's feet and have them hurtle down towards it and break their legs once the movement is over. In a game sense, also a bit stupid. It gives the mobula yet another easy way to avoid what would be certain death to any other ship and open up a committed brawler to an ally or regain advantage.