451
Gameplay / Re: Engineer Strategy Dicussion
« on: May 02, 2013, 02:10:41 am »
The pipe wrench is significantly less efficient for hull tanking. I'm kind of surprised you would even suggest that.
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.
452
Gameplay / Re: Engineer Strategy Dicussion
« on: May 01, 2013, 10:52:12 pm »
You said nothing while we were in the lobby. We got in, you noticed I had a buff hammer, and told me to get below deck. I said I was fine on hull, to which you replied "fuck this" and left. The balloon possibly had one stack of flame on it.
Since everyone seems to be on the anti-buffmain train, I'll try to clarify some of my reasoning. One misconception is that if something is on fire, you need to drop what you're doing and put it out. This is rarely the case, if the balloon or hull have a few stacks it's generally fine to let them burn for a bit. On the Galleon, for instance, I feel it's much more important to have the fire tool downstairs, where fire damage has a much faster impact on the effectiveness of guns and turning engines.
Hull brings more situations where you have pockets of "downtime": while it's on mallet cool-down. Again using the Galleon as the example, the lower deck engineer is not going to have as many opportunities to keep those components charged. Time-critical balloon buffs I foresee becoming relevant with the decreased effectiveness of hydro.
Hull buffs after rebuild are also very useful for staying alive. There are many factors which will lead to subsequent incoming volleys being less effective: changes in terrain positioning, falling out of arc, damaging their guns, better cool-down timing, teammates assisting, etc. Hull buff out of rebuild is a straight 30% heal which bypasses cool-downs. I've often found it the deciding factor between surviving and not.
There are pros and cons to each side, but it seems there's a general lack of understanding of certain (effective) buffing styles.
Since everyone seems to be on the anti-buffmain train, I'll try to clarify some of my reasoning. One misconception is that if something is on fire, you need to drop what you're doing and put it out. This is rarely the case, if the balloon or hull have a few stacks it's generally fine to let them burn for a bit. On the Galleon, for instance, I feel it's much more important to have the fire tool downstairs, where fire damage has a much faster impact on the effectiveness of guns and turning engines.
Hull brings more situations where you have pockets of "downtime": while it's on mallet cool-down. Again using the Galleon as the example, the lower deck engineer is not going to have as many opportunities to keep those components charged. Time-critical balloon buffs I foresee becoming relevant with the decreased effectiveness of hydro.
Hull buffs after rebuild are also very useful for staying alive. There are many factors which will lead to subsequent incoming volleys being less effective: changes in terrain positioning, falling out of arc, damaging their guns, better cool-down timing, teammates assisting, etc. Hull buff out of rebuild is a straight 30% heal which bypasses cool-downs. I've often found it the deciding factor between surviving and not.
There are pros and cons to each side, but it seems there's a general lack of understanding of certain (effective) buffing styles.
453
Gameplay / Re: Engineer Strategy Dicussion
« on: May 01, 2013, 09:09:38 pm »Haven't played today's patch yet, but I've always hated surprise buff hammers on my main engineer. I remember arguing recently with a level 8 engineer that went mallet/spanner/buff on the top deck of a Galleon. I wanted top as I had gone mallet/spanner/chem spray and that buff hammer would be a lot more useful on the guns and turning engines. He claims there won't be a fire upstairs, and sure enough within two seconds the balloon had caught fire and I had to haul my ass all the way up there to extinguish it. Needless to say the ship died shortly after as I was constantly fighting fires while the other engineer tried to steal repairs on the hull.
That was me. You ragequit about 20 seconds into the game without communicating your concern; the ship certainly hadn't died at that point.
454
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Match replays
« on: April 28, 2013, 06:28:08 pm »
This is the number one feature I want to see in Guns of Icarus.
455
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Adding colors to the lobby chat for regional, team, and crew, adding team VC
« on: April 26, 2013, 10:06:21 am »
One option is rather than the entire line, have it the same as in-game where the [Crew] and [Team] tags, along with the typist's name, are colour-coded to your team.
456
Community Events / Re: "The Cogs" Week 6 - Brackets
« on: April 25, 2013, 08:12:00 am »As far as test servers or not, I am not playing this week, but even then I don't see the problem, meta changes, patches happen, the patch is going to hit next week anyway, all you have to do is deal with it a week earlier than you would have had to regardless.Asking the entire base of competitors to download, register, and get organized in a separate client with a total of three days notice, when some of the teams are putting in a lot of effort just to get everyone to the Cogs in the first place. There's also the key fact that it's a development test build with some pretty serious bugs currently (ships freezing in place), and I definitely noticed performance issues. How it could be considered a stable platform for a competitive tournament is unfathomable.
On the other hand, this is exactly the kind of thing I've come to expect.
457
Community Events / Re: "The Cogs" Week 6 - Brackets
« on: April 24, 2013, 09:15:01 pm »
I completely agree with what Corvus is saying. This is ridiculous.
458
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Static component status indicators
« on: April 08, 2013, 01:49:11 pm »There's a lot of options that could be implemented for variations in the HUD, crosshairs, sounds, graphics, etc. etc., but because they don't have a real impact on people, and because the current style seems to work, Muse is probably going to keep their efforts focused on problems and expanded gameplay, such as the new game mode, balancing, ships, and weapons, in lieu of minor details that are simply options.
It would have an impact on me, thus why I created the thread. Several other people have also spoken up in favour, so there appears to be some amount of interest in the idea. That and the fact that it's strictly an interface feature, one which has already more or less been implemented in spectator mode already, would make development cost minimal. While there may be other reasons for not adding it, I doubt that difficulty of implementation is one of them.
459
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Static component status indicators
« on: April 08, 2013, 09:41:26 am »But... if the system doesn't need to repair, then why do you need to see it? By taking damage, a system pops up, which is more than enough for me, and should be more than enough for others. If the UI showed all systems, the screen would just have unnecessary clutter, and light damage wouldn't be visible without something to discern it from the other fully-repaired things; it would probably flash or change colors. I feel that the extra visuals would just be really distracting compared to the non-obtrusive setup that's going on now, because both options- static and dynamic damage indicators- literally would do the same thing, albeit with more or less on-screen pictures.
The problem is not the amount of time it spends on the screen, but rather the location. When I say "static", what I mean is that it would appear in the same place (the upper left, for instance) rather than somewhere along the border of your screen based on your orientation and position relative to the part. In addition, while you may consider the current implementation "more than enough", I do not, and if expanded as an option, it would have no impact on players who didn't elect to use it.
460
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Static component status indicators
« on: April 07, 2013, 10:21:39 pm »Honestly, I love the idea. However, it really only applies to engies, as it's their job to manage that stuff, so perhaps a class specific ui? although that may be a bigger re-work than I imagine, it would also open the door for other stuff like captain or gunner specific ui aids.
The only issue I have is that It might be hard to tell the motors and guns apart ie: a squid with four engines has one damaged, if the icon sin't over the damaged one then how do you know which one is damaged?)
I think it would be best as kind of an optional "advanced UI", which experienced players who are already familiar with the ship layouts could toggle on in settings. Another idea is to label the indicators somehow, eg, FL (front left gun), UR (upper right engine), etc.
461
Website and Forum Issues / Re: Can't modify posts in Feedback forum
« on: April 07, 2013, 12:14:02 am »
It seems like not allowing edits would either A) make moderation more difficult, as people have to bug them about every change, or B) lead to threads not being updated (see: squid racing). The server-side storage and performance concerns I have to imagine are entirely irrelevant considering the low-traffic state of this forum.
Related: http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=1841
Related: http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=1841
462
Community Events / Re: Squid Racing!!!
« on: April 06, 2013, 11:41:24 pm »I wish you could see these at the same time as playing. I can never remember a map.
That's what the second and third monitors are for!
(or you could just print it out)
463
Feedback and Suggestions / Static component status indicators
« on: April 06, 2013, 01:33:19 am »
While I can guess the reasoning behind the current indicators (to show new players the locations of the parts on the ship?), I'd like to see the option to toggle on a static set of indicators like the ones recently added to spectator mode. Give players the ability to more quickly and accurately see the entire status of the ship they are on, rather than needlessly scanning the borders of their screen, allowing more attention to be spent on the things happening outside.
Screenshot from spectator for reference:
http://i.imgur.com/XQHdKMv.png
Screenshot from spectator for reference:
http://i.imgur.com/XQHdKMv.png
465
Community Events / Re: The Fight Club [SIGNUP]
« on: March 25, 2013, 03:00:10 pm »But I suggest stripping the concept down to it's bare essentials for simplicity - say best of three/five and never the same map twice, winner can't change team, ship or crew loadout but does choose the next map. Don't be too prescriptive on the map sequence, and that way the same rules will work for 2v2 or 3v3, and for DM or CP.At this point 2v2 DM is considered the standard for competition, and I feel keeping it focused on that is best, for the sake of keeping it "simple" among other reasons. That being said, the rules can be adjusted later on (or by someone else) to accommodate other game formats if the need arises.
One of the primary goals is to build a ruleset which can help fix some of the issues which exist in competitive play currently. It's part competition, part experiment.