Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - OverlordEgg

Pages: [1] 2 3
Well it seems we're all in agreement -- how can we make this happen?

If you want to help out more you can email and bug them reference this thread, although during the dev fireside chat yesterday when I asked "are you going to do anything with the rangefinder anytime soon" they replied with a surprisingly definite "yes" so it's possible they've already been reading this thread. Still, it can't hurt to try anyway just in case.

I really like the idea of rangefinder showing arcs.  As for the distance of projected arcs, maybe the more you zoom in the farther out the projections go?

This way you can either zoom way in and have very accurate predictions but poor awareness or stay zoomed out to watch the big picture but be somewhat less accurate with the projection.

This is a nice touch.

I would also add that the HUD should disappear while using rangefinder. Further limiting situational awareness since this seems to be the balancing feature.

I originally posed potentially requiring someone to zoom in enough on a ship so that a % of the ship filled the view before they got to see arcs, but I think I like your ideas better.

i'm actually not opposed to overlordegg's compromise ideas that only others can see the arc outlines. but i'm not all for it either, imo the arcs should not be complete, they should only give say the first 500 meters. and maybe extend that to 750 meters if there are two rangefinders being used..

That's an interesting thought, though the problem I see with it is that within 750 meters most people I give weapons like the lumberjack and hades to can already land most of their shots without help, especially if they're using lesmok ammo, and the person using the range-finder is zoomed in as well, meaning if their target is outside 750 meters they're probably not seeing anything at all. Then add that to the fact that the line already cuts off at clouds and that the gunner can't even see anything, plus the delays between saying information and response. I feel like with all the potential confusion that can get lost in translation between people, the person holding the rangefinder should be the one person who really knows what they're doing. I'm not completely against having a range cutoff, but as I see it now, to do that without defeating the purpose of the whole thing the distance would probably have to be so far that most guns would hit their max bullet range first anyway.

I also think allowing the rangefinder to show a bullet's path all the way to its max range would add be an interesting learning tool for pilots, allowing people to more efficiently dance around and position within their gun's ranges, and making the range finding part of the range finder more relevant. Another interesting thought is perhaps even allowing the rangefinder to show arming time somewhere along the prediction path. To me, this would be a really neat thing to have when piloting as a visual to put proper range in perspective up close, though I fear that might make it too powerful.

...but I would make it be the highlighted arcs of all the guns as demonstrated in practice. This would be something I would actually use to train people. Everything else, not really.

What do you mean by "the highlighted arcs of all the guns as demonstrated in practice?" If I'm understanding you right, that's exactly what I'm saying the rangefinder should do.

Too kooky imo.  Not really fitting with the idea of a rangefinder.

What do you mean it doesn't fit the "idea of a rangefinder?" And what about the function itself? What if the tool had a different name?

My only objection is it would honestly make the guns OP. Lumberjack and hades are already very powerful if the shooter gets the beat on a ship in that first or second shot. Being able to spam their first volley would honestly break balance imo. It sucks as it is going against the top tier gunners and even they usually miss their first shot.

If it still needs to be nerfed I'm open to ideas, but I currently don't think so. I see the current idea as balancing it's own use on two main aspects:

1. Tunnel Vision:
Keep in mind that just to use the range-finder is already sacrificing a pilot slot and tying up one crew member to its use. If it's given to an engineer, that's someone who isn't repairing or shooting, and if it's the pilot, that's someone who has sacrificed some of his maneuverability (one less pilot tool remember), and is zoomed in on one single ship, and focusing on relaying instructions, meaning he's paying less attention to the battle around him outside that ship. This alone means that with one person drawing fire it would make a teammate more potentially able to sneak up on them. I realize it doesn't guarantee it mind you, but it's a lot more to have to focus on while zoomed into a single ship and concentrating on adjusting a gunner's firing arcs. I may have to try flying with spyglass constantly zoomed in to test this. Potentially, we could even require a ship to be zoomed in on a certain amount, for example, make them take up 75% (arbitrary number, this could change) of the range-finder's view for the arcs to appear. This could also help facilitate communication between captains as well, since being zoomed in means the other pilot would have to warn you of incoming ships.

2. Delayed Reaction:
When you tell someone to do something (repair the engines, or open fire for instance) they're not going to immediately parse what you say and respond. Even the best players will still have a little delay, due to the time it takes for the server to relay the words coming through your mic to their speakers, and simple human reaction time. The delay between telling someone information and the gunner responding and correcting means it's not necessarily an immediate and surgical hit. You'll have to have some REALLY good communication skills to catch the faster ships like the squid, or even a medium speed ship that suddenly uses hydro, to the point where it would probably just be more reliable to let the gunner try aiming on their own because their reaction will be faster and you have to focus on maneuvering the ship to keep up. At this point the squid, in this instance, has closed inside your arming time and is killing you, and you're down a pilot tool because you brought the rangefinder. This leaves you even more vulnerable than sniping ships at close range usually are, and more reliant on your teammate, because you probably need him to bail you out.

Another smaller difficulty is the way the current shot indicators interact with clouds. The moment that line hits a cloud it stops right then and there, which would of course make using it for long distance sniping hard, and give opponents the chance to neutralize the rangefinder's effects by using clouds for cover.

I see where you're coming from. More lumber and hades hits = bad time. That's a valid concern, and that's the main reason why I nerfed my original idea into where it is now.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Automated vet game
« on: March 08, 2016, 10:34:49 am »
I don't see why not. If you're playing a vet game, it should count as a vet game even if it wasn't found through "vet matchmaking."

I wasn't surprised. Its you elaborating on an idea from the core concept (the above quoted text). And frankly I wasted my time reading the elaboration since it still uses said quoted text as the basis.

It's a compromise. An attempt to find a way to make everyone happy without sacrificing my own position completely. If you want this to proceed, you could tell why you don't agree, suggest a change in the idea, suggest a change of direction of thought, maybe even suggest your own idea. Honestly there are countless ways this discussion could go, but instead you decide to act like a bullheaded child. Do people actually take you seriously? At least I'm trying to stay diplomatic and peaceful and consider other people's thoughts. For instance, even YOURS. You thought it would be overpowered for the gunner to simply see the shot path? So I nerfed it by making them rely on another to tell them.

Or we could, you know, just shoot down each other's ideas without giving them a chance. That's how things get done.

So I've been thinking, how about this new idea: There are shot-path indicators you see before the shot, or tracer paths you see after the shot-

instant no.

I've tried so hard to keep everyone's thoughts in mind and keep this as reasonable and diplomatic a debate as I possibly can despite everything. Now I know you have a reputation to keep up, but you could try to not be an asshat for the maybe one minute it would take you to read the whole thing. Maybe you'll be surprised, maybe you won't. Who fuckin knows.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Make ships easier to get around in
« on: March 08, 2016, 09:20:28 am »
I definitely don't want to lose the parkour aspect of the ships. I think the way they're currently designed makes them interesting and unique to engineer on and finding what little jumps and skips and shortcuts you can take to be as efficient as possible is what makes engineering fun.

That said, if they went about fixing up the glitchy things (sticking to walls, floating up guns,  passing through components, difficulty falling to the bottom of the spire ladder without sticking to the wall or ladder somewhere, etc.) they would definitely not be missed.

So I've been thinking, how about this new idea: There are shot-path indicators you see before the shot, or tracer paths you see after the shot, BUT only the person holding and scoped in with the range-finder sees them. The person on the gun sees nothing but the usual.

Thus person holding the range-finder becomes the "spotter" telling the gunner where to shoot. This way we can facilitate communication and teamwork, and provide people on the guns with helpful information that can assist them in doing their job better without making things too easy for them. It also removes the worry that people might be bored "staring" at an enemy, since the spotter will (if they're doing their job) be watching moving shot indicators/tracers and relaying information the whole time. Over time as gunners get more used to landing shots from various distances, they will adjust to the point where they no longer need the spotter's guidance, and overall skill level will most likely improve, but even for experienced gunners, you could start adjusting to more extreme ranges, like 2km+ (I know I could use some more practice anyway).

Potentially, you could also add a crosshair of sorts to the range-finder with markings that correlate to the markings on the lumberjack and hades. (Though I'm not sure how that would work exactly, given the two different perspectives, but it's the start of an idea)

Of course, the range-finder could also tell the exact range still, otherwise the name wouldn't be relevant. Which would have the added bonus of also informing people when exactly their gun is in range. Whether or not the shot indicator the spotter sees should disappear at a shot's max range is something worth thinking about. I think it would be a benefit, as multiple cones for something like a carronade going off into oblivion cold somewhat obscure vision, and it would create a nice communication dynamic of "wait for it...wait for it...3..2..1..shoot!" However, making the range-finder too powerful has been a valid concern, so it's up for debate. Alternatively, we could use tracers. In this instance however I think shot-path wins out. Tracers you would only see AFTER the first shot, which if you're trying to optimize distance for that first shot, pretty much defeats the point, and telling the exact range is something range-finder does already, so only relying on that has been proven to be unnecessary. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, mind you, what it would do is make range-finder mostly a sniping tool, which I'm okay with, but I'm doing my best to try to keep everybody's ideas in mind, and telling when guns are in range was a suggested feature that people seemed interested in.

One argument FOR tracers instead of shot-path, is that this idea is inspired by real world sniper spotters, who watch the path of their partner sniper's shot and tell them how to correct if they miss.

However I personally would argue against tracers overall, as most of the shots that you would need that kind of assistance with practically leave a tracer trail already.

I've tried to find a compromise that suits everyone, but if something's wrong with it, or you feel left out, or if I could've argued my idea better (that one feels like it's always the case), feel free to tear it the usual new one.

I don't think people quite get the whole point of trying to find common ground. We're never going to get anywhere if we keep slapping our whole ideas into each other. The point is to find what we DO agree on and THEN move on to the details.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Ally ship name display
« on: March 07, 2016, 08:21:06 pm »
Words in my mouth much? When did I accuse it of anything close to dumbing down the game?

Sorry, I was addressing everybody, not just you. Didn't mean to imply you said everything. And I don't mean to imply that this is the best thing ever, or that it would revolutionize goi, but people are shooting it down with reasoning like "oh we'll all become stupider, the game will be too simple." I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd miss the noob teammates emptying their hwacha into me.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Ally ship name display
« on: March 07, 2016, 07:33:09 pm »
I would also like to point out that we've already removed the need to communicate our exact position by putting it on the map. So, I guess the proper solution is to remove the map? Don't want the game to be too easy for people.

That's fair. The reason I posed this question is because I see in this thread a lot of arguing that's going nowhere. I feel like a lot of people have their own ideas, and when someone else comes up with one it must be wrong because it's not theirs. I'm hoping that by making people break their thoughts down to as simple as "how should this affect gameplay," we can find some common ground and maybe go from there.

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Player-suggested tips
« on: March 07, 2016, 06:59:22 pm »
Someone should see if they are willing to make this a sticky thread so it can accumulate ideas over the longer term.

I am absolutely okay with this idea.

Pages: [1] 2 3