Messages

16

Gameplay / Re: Damage modifier normalization

« on: July 17, 2013, 04:49:02 pm »

Flechette was pretty normalized as it stood, definitely did not need tweaking from there. When's the next series of tests? I'd be glad to attend if I can make it.

17

Gameplay / Re: The Mobula

« on: July 16, 2013, 10:08:24 am »

[On dragonmere's 3 engineer comment]

I love hearing this. Honestly I've found that, with my particular loadout, a gunner manning my top gun works best since I'm reliant on keeping certain guns firing at certain ranges. A gunner can bring the engineers ammo on top of his personal loadout (usually is only 2 types with a 3rd wheel anyways, now the 3rd wheel has a place) so when either engineer has to tend to his trench, the gunner is able to fill in for that weapon at a moments notice, have the right ammo to fire right away, and keep the ship fully effective. Thankfully when he has to fill in, we can forgo the top gun usually.

18

Gameplay / Re: GUNS & GUNS SKILL v1.3 Balance Issues

« on: July 16, 2013, 09:17:58 am »

Interesting it has a high ignite chance.. I've never noticed it. Then again I usually do not waste ammunition before a strip or suspected strip - as is typical practice of an explosive primary weapon. I'll play with that in some tests I do doubt it to be anything spectacular like the carronade with incendiary and warranting shooting before the hull is dropped.

19

Gameplay / Re: GUNS & GUNS SKILL v1.3 Balance Issues

« on: July 16, 2013, 08:49:39 am »

How about medium piercing weapons?

The horror! This would make the galleon far too powerful. Anyhow that's as far as I'll go there, it's a buried topic laying somewhere around here...

I do agree there needs to be more medium weapons, but as it stands medium weapons seem almost equally used besides the flak. I would blame that on its lack of secondary utility because we all know it's a strong finisher, but without utility and a projectile I'm sure I can outrun on land, it lacks that punch to bring it to the same level as the other heavy guns.

20

Gameplay / Re: "Artemis - Mercury" Role swap.

« on: July 15, 2013, 12:35:48 pm »

Sooo you're saying it's better to have a long range hwacha that also cripples your armor? I really fail to see the argument here besides exploiting a gun that's exceptional at two roles. I remain unconvinced that keeping a weapon that ruins armor AND components without any real skill required is not something that needs attention and change.

I'm pretty sure the numbers can be tweaked to rebalance the game and see no 'dps issue' considering this capability. Let us sit on the idea that numbers are malleable and the mechanics themselves are what's being discussed here.

21

Gameplay / Re: "Artemis - Mercury" Role swap.

« on: July 15, 2013, 10:07:00 am »

I'd much prefer the Merc be a specialized component killer so you know.. it takes skill to use effectively. That's the major issue with the long game right now: Any monkey can merc and the weapon is able to cause immense pressure due to being far too effective at two jobs.

Meanwhile, the Artemis takes a backseat as the "I cant get an x-fecta without this arc" weapon instead of being what it was originally intended. On top of being limited in its use, it's a bugger to master and land long hits with. So as was mentioned above, there's no reason to ever take this weapon unless you need its firing arc since a merc will do the artemis' job better as well as punch through their armor like nobody's business.

Considering long range piercing is what causes real pressure to a ship at range and a leading factor to their death. I would say it makes sense to make a long range piercing weapon require effort and skill while a less-than-lethal disabler not as much. With penetration on the merc, as is being proposed, you might even find a varied sniping loadout base.

22

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: What I Notice about GoIO and Why its Population has Been Decreasing

« on: July 15, 2013, 09:48:33 am »

Getting the post back on track?! An absurd request Shink! How dare yo-- alrighty then time to skip the page 3 warzone and requote from page 2.

I don't know wether there is an increase, or a decrease in population, but..

The social part of the game, needs improvements.

For starters; the ingame chat, on the main menu, clears itself way too often, leaving us not knowing what people are actually talking about. Getting a proper ingame chat in Place, will boost the Community aspect of the game.

What about a teaching channel? A help channel? Being able to see all players online?

I can go on and on about commubnity things though..

As Phoenix said a few posts ahead of this one, we do seem to have a cycle of incoming and outgoing players. Right now the steam sale is ripe and there is a push of new players incoming on top of the returning players from the patch - We'll see how far this will take the steady population.

I don't really feel there's anything to add to our social structure that isn't already in the works; Muse has been putting a lot of effort into reworking their social game through parties, clans, crews, and general improvements to chat. Teaching and help is offered openly in regional chat via CAs, Muse employees, and even friendly players willing to help out. Most even make it well known to ask if there are any questions or concerns.

As far as teaching goes, besides chat questions, there are weekly training matches held in the new player lobbies to provide hands on learning from the CAs. It's an amazing effort that shows our CAs dedication to this game as these exersizes are voluntary yet tend to have a good showing of goodwilled players willing to help. If you're interested in learning more about them, I direct you to the training day board.

The playerbase fluctuates as new people jump in, old people grow bored, and new people give up. It's like any other game. The difference is: There are actually people here who care very strongly about this community and will do everything in their power to keep it going. You can see their voices everywhere and most carry a CA tag by now. Unfortunately you cannot force knowledge into someone unwilling to learn, however the stress induced by these bad eggs is often short lived. I can say from my experience, that for every one player unwilling to learn I have found another 3-5 new people to friend.

23

Gameplay / Re: "Artemis - Mercury" Role swap.

« on: July 14, 2013, 12:20:32 pm »

There was already piercing ammunition in the era as well as being the early age of tanks. Something like HEAT was bound to come along in short order if war research continued at such a pace. According to wiki articles, the WWI armor piercing rounds were tempered stainless steel tips bored out and given HE ordinance. Basically it penetrated armor, then detonated inside the armor leaving a large hole at point of impact.. Which, while being bullets, sounds an awful lot like something that can easily translate into the structure of the artemis rocket.

24

Gameplay / Re: ENGINEER & REPAIR TOOLS v1.3 Balance Issues

« on: July 11, 2013, 10:05:02 am »

I like the changes. You're punished for bringing preventative tools and not using them correctly which is how it should be. I've been running spray to main engi while having the other engi bring extinguisher and it's been working great.. fantastic even. I keep important parts sprayed the whole match (Hull, Balloon, Main engine, sometimes turning) only letting them fall if I see we don't have incoming fires in the fight. The other engineer handles any callouts I shout, and we can switch positions if necessary to keep firepower up.

While the new mechanic is a pain to learn, I can say the motto has turned backwards: Extinguish THEN repair. However now much more thought goes into extinguishing and it's easy to overwhelm someone if they're not used to the change. As Thaago said, now you need to choose what fires are worth your attention, what components are expendable, and whether or not you can outrepair a stack for the time being.

While I feel the extinguisher still may be a hair too punishing with its cooldown, spray is doing well against fire for its intended purpose. Treat it like a buff hammer and not a fire extinguisher, you'll find its use invaluable.

25

Gameplay / Re: 1.3 General Speculation

« on: July 09, 2013, 12:01:38 pm »

I think that's just the nature of a Junker though. If you manage to get it's hull armor down, and don't kill it, you failed somewhere. It's kinda funny when people insist of focusing on the junker's hardest point to hit.

Bring a heavy carronade and watch junkers lose armor with record speed! Last night Echo and I wrecked a junker so quick our ally only really had to throw explosive at it (we had a blenderfish).. dead before they even knew what happened.

26

Gameplay / Re: 1.3 General Speculation

« on: July 09, 2013, 11:25:14 am »

Well, we can check the math for viability.. Heavy now loads 45 shots into the Gatling compared to 60 normal(for reference) and 72 greased.

So we can agree, gatling base fires 60 rounds @ 6.25/s leading to 9.6s of fire time while Heavy fires the 45 rounds @ 6.25/s leading to only 7.2s of fire time.

For simplicity's sake, 1 base gatling round = 1 damage. Thus we will apply the 20% modifier from greased as 0.8 damage.

Let's get the total damage based off normal for greased: 72*0.8=57.6
Multiply up the fire rate (+60%): 6.25*1.6=10/s
Apply the new fire rate to the new clip size(72): 72/10=7.2s of fire time

So to compare: Heavy deals 45 damage in the same time Greased deals 57.6 damage. That's a 12.6 (let's just say 12) damage difference per clip.

So ideally, as long as you can expect to land at least 61 of those 72 shots, Greased will outperform a full unload of heavy. Allowing an 85% accuracy rate to outperform the 100% accuracy rate of heavy. Obviously this is dependent upon gunner skill, but this is certainly something to take into account as perfect accuracy is a double-edged sword. Being a lasergun means any miss will lead to multiple misses as you reacquire target - sometimes a spread is a good thing.

27

Gameplay / Re: 1.3 General Speculation

« on: July 09, 2013, 10:29:33 am »

I'm not a big fan of how the gat's base spread was increased. Any ammo type other than heavy already has a terrible hit rate.

Something tells me that has to do with Heavy now being suboptimal at closer ranges, meaning a gunner can switch ammo type to something with more dps (besides normal) and outshine his engineer counterpart... wishful thinking

28

Gameplay / Re: 1.3 General Speculation

« on: July 04, 2013, 10:50:00 pm »

Did a preview of Minewars in 2v2 earlier...IT WAS FANTASTIC!!!

4 Mobulas, all mine guns, loads of hilarity!!!

Haha those runs were amazing. Learned a few tricks in them too. Like forcing explosions for a chain detonation... oh the carnage :O

29

Gameplay / Re: 1.3 General Speculation

« on: July 04, 2013, 05:01:51 pm »

The suicide should be fixed now, the last source of enemy damage will receive credit regardless. At least that's what my kamikaze-midion rides have taught me consistently.

30

Gameplay / Re: Jace's new patch notes.

« on: July 04, 2013, 02:17:37 pm »

yeah the loch buff is all good until someone point blanks you with flak after an armor strip or near armor strip ><