331
The Lounge / Re: Any Canadians Around Here?
« on: March 20, 2013, 09:29:34 pm »
I live in Minnesota, US... That's pretty much Canada in terms of the rest of the country.
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.
332
The Docks / Re: Harpoon Research Division
« on: March 19, 2013, 12:38:55 am »...currently there are too many things to keep track of and makes it too unpredictable to use. The aim is to gamify it more and make it simpler.
If the harpoon were to be fixed, it would add a new game play style, which is always acceptable in my books. I'd also end up using it a ton, haha. I hope that our research division made an impact on pushing for its change!
333
News and Announcements / Re: Adventure Mode... it's coming (Kickstarter).
« on: March 18, 2013, 11:27:48 pm »
Take pics of the booth and stuff, cos I can't come, but I'd like to be there in spirit.
334
The Docks / Re: Harpoon Research Division
« on: March 18, 2013, 11:15:48 pm »My first thoughts is that it needs to not pull you in but maintain range where it doesn't let someone get further away... not just always pull someone in.
I would love it if a harpoon could attach to a ship, and then the gunner on the weapon could choose to keep both targets stuck at that maximum distance, or reel the target in. As of now, its very random, and its exponential, rubber bandy nature makes it difficult to use with calculations- it requires just as much luck as positioning.
335
The Docks / Re: Harpoon Research Division
« on: March 18, 2013, 11:12:53 pm »
Well, here's the data we collected from our brief R&D. The main ship will be referred to as A, and the target ship will be referred to as B. A was a Squid, while B was a Junker and a Pyra. I have included the conclusions I have come to in accordance with the data. These things were tested more than once, so I feel more confident calling them properties of the harpoon. The theories that I have listed are things that I have observed, but we did not pursue them with more experiments.
Once hit, B could not turn away from A, but it could turn towards the rope; it could only turn towards A without difficulty.
Once hit, A had extreme difficulty turning away from B, but could turn towards the rope.
Conclusion: The harpoon can restrict the turning of an enemy ship when attached on its broadside.
Theory: When A is directly behind B, and the harpoon is attached on the bow or stern, the turning difficulty is mildly lessened, but is still definitely a noticeable restriction.
At complete stand-stills, and no one at the helm, Pyra B shot A with two harpoons. Both crafts began to reel in towards each other, but the Pyra's speed was increased drastically more than the Squid. When A shot Pyra B with one harpoon, both ships moved at about the same speed toward each other. At higher and lower elevations, the target ship would be pulled toward the main ship. It would also gain or drop altitude.
Conclusion: The harpoon has a 'reeling in' effect that brings both ships closer to each other.
A squid's armor can be destroyed with two harpoon shots.
Theory: Two harpoons increase the speed of the main ship, not the target.
The size of a ship does not impact pulling force.
After ramming into a ship attached with a harpoon, the rammer would bounce away from the target a short distance, but the target would only turn- not shift location.
Conclusion: Ramming a hooked target will prevent it from absorbing ram momentum and spinning away.
From a close distance, A shot B Junker and put on full reverse throttle with moonshine. The reeling in effect increased exponentially the farther out the rope moved, eventually slingshotting both ships to switch places- the squid hit 88MPH and the junker hit warp speed.
Conclusion: The harpoon's 'reeling in' effect is exponential- The longer the rope gets after the initial hit, the stronger the pull force is.
The 'Hug' maneuver mentioned earlier in this topic was attempted, and worked. However, both ships narrowly missed each other as the main ship dropped. Both ships were moving at a medium speed, which would have guaranteed medium collision damage.
Conclusion: The 'Hug' maneuver is possible.
Other conclusions without a story involved:
There is a max distance that the rope can cover- it seems to be about half a square.
The harpoon's rope lasts a long time- I would wager between 8 and 15 seconds- long enough to pull a maneuver when within half a square of distance.
There were many cases, though, where things didn't seem to be able to be recreated. Therefore, I also conclude that the harpoon has strange properties that takes all variables into account- distance when fired, distance away from target after initial hit, altitude, both ship's momentum, and area of the ship harpooned.
Once hit, B could not turn away from A, but it could turn towards the rope; it could only turn towards A without difficulty.
Once hit, A had extreme difficulty turning away from B, but could turn towards the rope.
Conclusion: The harpoon can restrict the turning of an enemy ship when attached on its broadside.
Theory: When A is directly behind B, and the harpoon is attached on the bow or stern, the turning difficulty is mildly lessened, but is still definitely a noticeable restriction.
At complete stand-stills, and no one at the helm, Pyra B shot A with two harpoons. Both crafts began to reel in towards each other, but the Pyra's speed was increased drastically more than the Squid. When A shot Pyra B with one harpoon, both ships moved at about the same speed toward each other. At higher and lower elevations, the target ship would be pulled toward the main ship. It would also gain or drop altitude.
Conclusion: The harpoon has a 'reeling in' effect that brings both ships closer to each other.
A squid's armor can be destroyed with two harpoon shots.
Theory: Two harpoons increase the speed of the main ship, not the target.
The size of a ship does not impact pulling force.
After ramming into a ship attached with a harpoon, the rammer would bounce away from the target a short distance, but the target would only turn- not shift location.
Conclusion: Ramming a hooked target will prevent it from absorbing ram momentum and spinning away.
From a close distance, A shot B Junker and put on full reverse throttle with moonshine. The reeling in effect increased exponentially the farther out the rope moved, eventually slingshotting both ships to switch places- the squid hit 88MPH and the junker hit warp speed.
Conclusion: The harpoon's 'reeling in' effect is exponential- The longer the rope gets after the initial hit, the stronger the pull force is.
The 'Hug' maneuver mentioned earlier in this topic was attempted, and worked. However, both ships narrowly missed each other as the main ship dropped. Both ships were moving at a medium speed, which would have guaranteed medium collision damage.
Conclusion: The 'Hug' maneuver is possible.
Other conclusions without a story involved:
There is a max distance that the rope can cover- it seems to be about half a square.
The harpoon's rope lasts a long time- I would wager between 8 and 15 seconds- long enough to pull a maneuver when within half a square of distance.
There were many cases, though, where things didn't seem to be able to be recreated. Therefore, I also conclude that the harpoon has strange properties that takes all variables into account- distance when fired, distance away from target after initial hit, altitude, both ship's momentum, and area of the ship harpooned.
336
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New Role: "Saboteur!!!"
« on: March 18, 2013, 02:01:11 pm »
I think that, if a new role is included, it should fill a niche that hasn't been filled yet- no overlaps. The Saboteur role does alright in that category.
The pilot controls the ship,
the gunner damages and disables the enemy ship, and
the engineer keeps the ship from being damaged and disabled.
The gunner and the engineer both have roles that are intertwined, but the pilot only has other pilots to worry about. Maneuvers are what the role is all about: ramming, lining up shots, evading, hiding, and losing distance.
A counter to the pilot's role would be something that is aimed at removing the effectiveness of those maneuvers, may it be through disabling, finding/spotting, and in general, making the pilot's job harder. However, all of these counters are filled by the current roles. Finding and spotting is filled by both the engineer and gunner if they choose the spyglass, the gunner acts as the disabler by attacking certain guns, and enemy pilots are the primary difficult objective due to their control of the entire vessel.
I have not read many responses to this post, so I am simply just stating my direct response to your idea.
The monkey wrench (which is another word for pipe wrench, which does exist currently) would act like a manual flame charge dispenser, that also nerfs systems. Unless this is a permanent thing for a minute or something, a few whacks will remove the hindrance, which would be a complete bummer due to the fact that the saboteur would have had to board the ship in some timely fashion, and a debuff that could be removed with a quick repair would not be a good payoff. The constant, irreparable damage would be unfair if a sabo was able to hit the hull, engines, and balloon, as it would require constant attention from an engineer.
The blackjack could be a completely overpowered tool if it wasn't balanced correctly. The way you put it, it seems like once a saboteur is on your ship, you need a blackjack to get him off- what happens if there isn't a sabo? A constant pest would ruin a ship's chances. This would make having a sabo a required thing in order to counter itself. If an entire team went sabo, and launched itself onto a ship pirate style, they could stunlock the crew with blackjacks while they nerf their systems with damage over time, and then allowing an ally to destroy them as the unpiloted ship flys away to safety. Once the ship dies, they can all just respawn on their ship half a mile away.
Deck buffer is clever, but, once again, going through all of the hoops required to get onto an enemy ship wouldn't really be worth just mildly inconveniencing people by sliding around. If anything, they could just slide into walls in order to stop momentum and keep on repairing. And those that stand still, like the gunners and pilot, would not really be affected. Your own ship would be better off with an extra gunner, than impeding enemy engineers from moving, not repairing.
Bull horn is a captain slot, which means that all sabos would take this. The trolling and ear-blaring, speaker-bursting spams would be terrible. Assuming that a ship has to be close to each other in order to board(You even said, "No need to add extra boarding mechanics"), the act of shouting out positions doesn't sound very effective- unless the sabo plans on being on the ship for a very long time, or even after his own ship is destroyed. This brings me back to the fact that a sabo would need to be around in order to counter a sabo.
And lastly, "Box with two eye holes cut out of it™" is a counter for enemy sabos when you are on an enemy ship. This makes it a fight to see who can get a sabo on the other ship first. Once that happens, he can just sit there and effectively remove a player from the game, because he has to be on the lookout for that camping sabo, or else his ship will be tormented. Sabos counter sabos counter sabos. Its starting to sound like this role is just going to be fighting itself, with little help to the overall fight on both ships. Because the monkey wrench is a default loadout choice, it also means that their main intention is to board. However, they have to be on their own ship to fight other sabos, which renders every tool, except the blackjack, completely worthless. I don't think that's a very good choice.
Stuffing Lochnagar Shot into an enemy gun would be an annoying, ship-breaking choice, so why even bother using the monkey wrench when you can disable the ship's ability to fight?
The Saboteur role is an interesting idea, but I feel that roles would have to be centered around your own ship's operations in order to keep it fair. Coldcurse mentioned listening to enemy voice chat, having a radar, and seeing health. All of these are supportive, and would not ruin a ship's chances if it didn't have those tools. However, sabo would become required in order to deal with itself.
The pilot controls the ship,
the gunner damages and disables the enemy ship, and
the engineer keeps the ship from being damaged and disabled.
The gunner and the engineer both have roles that are intertwined, but the pilot only has other pilots to worry about. Maneuvers are what the role is all about: ramming, lining up shots, evading, hiding, and losing distance.
A counter to the pilot's role would be something that is aimed at removing the effectiveness of those maneuvers, may it be through disabling, finding/spotting, and in general, making the pilot's job harder. However, all of these counters are filled by the current roles. Finding and spotting is filled by both the engineer and gunner if they choose the spyglass, the gunner acts as the disabler by attacking certain guns, and enemy pilots are the primary difficult objective due to their control of the entire vessel.
I have not read many responses to this post, so I am simply just stating my direct response to your idea.
The monkey wrench (which is another word for pipe wrench, which does exist currently) would act like a manual flame charge dispenser, that also nerfs systems. Unless this is a permanent thing for a minute or something, a few whacks will remove the hindrance, which would be a complete bummer due to the fact that the saboteur would have had to board the ship in some timely fashion, and a debuff that could be removed with a quick repair would not be a good payoff. The constant, irreparable damage would be unfair if a sabo was able to hit the hull, engines, and balloon, as it would require constant attention from an engineer.
The blackjack could be a completely overpowered tool if it wasn't balanced correctly. The way you put it, it seems like once a saboteur is on your ship, you need a blackjack to get him off- what happens if there isn't a sabo? A constant pest would ruin a ship's chances. This would make having a sabo a required thing in order to counter itself. If an entire team went sabo, and launched itself onto a ship pirate style, they could stunlock the crew with blackjacks while they nerf their systems with damage over time, and then allowing an ally to destroy them as the unpiloted ship flys away to safety. Once the ship dies, they can all just respawn on their ship half a mile away.
Deck buffer is clever, but, once again, going through all of the hoops required to get onto an enemy ship wouldn't really be worth just mildly inconveniencing people by sliding around. If anything, they could just slide into walls in order to stop momentum and keep on repairing. And those that stand still, like the gunners and pilot, would not really be affected. Your own ship would be better off with an extra gunner, than impeding enemy engineers from moving, not repairing.
Bull horn is a captain slot, which means that all sabos would take this. The trolling and ear-blaring, speaker-bursting spams would be terrible. Assuming that a ship has to be close to each other in order to board(You even said, "No need to add extra boarding mechanics"), the act of shouting out positions doesn't sound very effective- unless the sabo plans on being on the ship for a very long time, or even after his own ship is destroyed. This brings me back to the fact that a sabo would need to be around in order to counter a sabo.
And lastly, "Box with two eye holes cut out of it™" is a counter for enemy sabos when you are on an enemy ship. This makes it a fight to see who can get a sabo on the other ship first. Once that happens, he can just sit there and effectively remove a player from the game, because he has to be on the lookout for that camping sabo, or else his ship will be tormented. Sabos counter sabos counter sabos. Its starting to sound like this role is just going to be fighting itself, with little help to the overall fight on both ships. Because the monkey wrench is a default loadout choice, it also means that their main intention is to board. However, they have to be on their own ship to fight other sabos, which renders every tool, except the blackjack, completely worthless. I don't think that's a very good choice.
Stuffing Lochnagar Shot into an enemy gun would be an annoying, ship-breaking choice, so why even bother using the monkey wrench when you can disable the ship's ability to fight?
The Saboteur role is an interesting idea, but I feel that roles would have to be centered around your own ship's operations in order to keep it fair. Coldcurse mentioned listening to enemy voice chat, having a radar, and seeing health. All of these are supportive, and would not ruin a ship's chances if it didn't have those tools. However, sabo would become required in order to deal with itself.
337
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: map idea, or inspiration
« on: March 18, 2013, 01:20:31 pm »
If Muse didn't want to make this into a night map, they could definitely add some sort of glowing crystal pockets on the walls in order to explain the lighting down there. I like this idea- dodging debris and obstacles makes being a pilot more rewarding.
338
Gameplay / Re: The lumberjack
« on: March 18, 2013, 01:17:18 pm »One thing about sound there will be more than one projectile on screen. Doing a ticking sound or timer won't work because of this, too many on screen means lots of ticking or whatever. A subtle sound effect of the projectile whistling through the air might be interesting though.
How about, when the weapon arms, it creates a quick burst of hissing noise that dies down quickly as it gets farther away? So... something like
*Whump*
.8 seconds of waiting...
*PFFSSSSSSSSSSS...*
The sound wouldn't become deafening because of the distance it would be at by the time more shots activate, and its fizzing effect would work well with the sound. The initial PFF is staccato enough to be able to pick out in conjunction with its current visuals.
339
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: New medium weapon ideas?
« on: March 17, 2013, 10:57:05 pm »Losing a heavy gun to get some disorienting/locating ability just wouldn't be worth it at all.
If that's the case... then Muse better increase the clip, fire rate, damage, range, and reload speed of the Lighthouse.
340
Feedback and Suggestions / New medium weapon ideas?
« on: March 17, 2013, 10:33:26 pm »
Its always fun to think about new weapons, and everyone's noticed there's only four medium weapons currently... so why not brainstorm for fun?
Trident Medium Harpoon Gun. Single harpoon that has a much stronger lasso effect than its light version. Longer duration, and can reel enemies in with noticeable force. Very long reload.
Lighthouse Medium Flare Gun. Lens flare effect that can obscure the vision of close-to-projectile ships, and has the same effect, albeit much larger, as its light version in smoke. Larger AoE, same damage, longer reload.
Maelstrom Medium Gattling Gun. Wind up time that increases fire rate the longer the trigger is held down. Wide spread, double barrels, larger clip, approximately the same damage per bullet, perhaps less, as the light version.
Orion Medium Rocket Launcher. Quicker fire rate than the light version, slower projectile speed, no projectile drop, large explosive radius, more damage, same clip size, longer reload time.
Basilisk Fang Medium Flamethrower. Smaller clip size, shorter range, smaller AoE, increased fire rate and damage.
Any other ideas?
Trident Medium Harpoon Gun. Single harpoon that has a much stronger lasso effect than its light version. Longer duration, and can reel enemies in with noticeable force. Very long reload.
Lighthouse Medium Flare Gun. Lens flare effect that can obscure the vision of close-to-projectile ships, and has the same effect, albeit much larger, as its light version in smoke. Larger AoE, same damage, longer reload.
Maelstrom Medium Gattling Gun. Wind up time that increases fire rate the longer the trigger is held down. Wide spread, double barrels, larger clip, approximately the same damage per bullet, perhaps less, as the light version.
Orion Medium Rocket Launcher. Quicker fire rate than the light version, slower projectile speed, no projectile drop, large explosive radius, more damage, same clip size, longer reload time.
Basilisk Fang Medium Flamethrower. Smaller clip size, shorter range, smaller AoE, increased fire rate and damage.
Any other ideas?
341
Q&A / Re: Questions about the ENGINEER
« on: March 17, 2013, 05:48:02 pm »
By clicking wildly and swapping between my two repair tools(Mallet and Spanner), it seems like I can rebuild a broken system much quicker because it removes the whack cool down. Is this a thing? Or am I just insane.
342
Guides / Re: OPEN YOUR SUCK: Battlefield Communication
« on: March 17, 2013, 02:52:02 pm »Direction: Ensure that the team you're alerting knows the direction of your contact. -snip- A few Captains recently began using "Port" and "Starboard" naval terminology to indicate the direction of their opponents.Good post- I wanted to add my two thoughts to these two categories.
"DIRECT FRONT!"
"RIGHT!"
"LEFT!"
"REAR!"
Range: By estimating the range to target and knowing the capabilities of your mounted weapon systems... -snip-
"1000 METERS!"
For directions- I always find that, because ship directions seem to act like stage directions, and therefore are quicker to understand when a crew member has the knowledge, I use them more than simply left or right. A quick list of important ship directions to me:
Afore- direction forward.
Astern- direction behind.
Aport- direction left.
Astarboard- direction right.
Adrift- undesired sliding due to wind.
There's more, but usually irrelevant to an airship. I usually don't say anything special for a ship's position other than above, below.
As for distances, I'm still not very good at judging precise numbers, so I instead say very long range, long, medium, and close. Those distances are based on my knowledge of how far a gun can shoot- close is the maximum range I've seen a barking dog land hits, long range is about the length of good artemis hits, and medium is about a safe distance to use the Hwacha. Everything more is just very long range, and therefore, safe distance from everything but Mercury.
Most of my ADDRAC's are simply: "Contact astern, enemy galleon approaching from smoke, Very long range. Turning to face them. Pepper them with the Mercury." Or something similar.
I also make sure to mention when I start to go in reverse, so my gunners can accordingly shift their aim.
343
The Lounge / Re: What did you name your ship and why?
« on: March 16, 2013, 06:17:07 pm »
My Squid has jumped between Delirium and Gustatory Hallucin(ation, sadly, the name is too long.), cos I think a mental illness is a good name for this thing, and tasting things that aren't there is also pretty wack.
My Spire is called the Rickenbacker, after System Shock 2's main ship. Fun game.
My Spire is called the Rickenbacker, after System Shock 2's main ship. Fun game.
344
Q&A / Re: Questions about the GUNNER
« on: March 15, 2013, 11:15:28 pm »Burst Rounds are good on weapons with a big basic AoE (Manticore,Lumberjack,Mortar,Banshee) by using this rounds u can deal damage to a lot of ship components at the same time.
Do burst rounds increase the AoE of all weapons, or just explosive damage?
345
The Lounge / Re: Introductions!
« on: March 15, 2013, 11:06:35 pm »
Hey, I'm Cul.
I've been playing this game for about a week now, and have been loving every moment of it. Just like all good newbies, I immediately started the game as a pilot of a Squid. Luckily, a few veterans happened into my ship and gave me some advice while I flew it around. This led me to stick with piloting. The game's mechanics captivated me, and I spent a lot of time memorizing things... and then I found the wiki.
I ended up rewriting all of it due to poor grammar and insufficient data, so if there's anything wrong, yell at me for that.
I enjoy playing as a pilot and an engineer. My crew would probably say that I'm much better as an engineer due to the fact that I fly like a drunk hummingbird.
I've been playing this game for about a week now, and have been loving every moment of it. Just like all good newbies, I immediately started the game as a pilot of a Squid. Luckily, a few veterans happened into my ship and gave me some advice while I flew it around. This led me to stick with piloting. The game's mechanics captivated me, and I spent a lot of time memorizing things... and then I found the wiki.
I ended up rewriting all of it due to poor grammar and insufficient data, so if there's anything wrong, yell at me for that.
I enjoy playing as a pilot and an engineer. My crew would probably say that I'm much better as an engineer due to the fact that I fly like a drunk hummingbird.