Messages

271

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: NIGHT MAPS + RANDOM IDEAS

« on: December 04, 2015, 08:40:46 am »

This wall of text looked very incoherent and impossible to read enjoyably so I took the liberty of revising it for the original poster and everyone else. Honestly, the night maps idea is decent, but I'd prefer static spotlights rotating on lighthouses. That would be badass. Without further delay...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello! Here is my post of random ideas I could have put in already-existing threads! Just be happy I didn't start a thread for EACH IDEA. Don't tempt me. I hope you enjoy it and provide feedback!

It would be really cool if there were maps that were really, really, dark and would require a spotlight to illuminate enemy (and friendly) ships. I do not propose replacing a gun with a spotlight utility, no sir. That would be silly. Who would replace a gun slot with a spotlight "gun?" No one! So, a large spotlight could be a spotting tool attached to the ship IN ADDITION to the typical gun slots for night/dark maps. Maybe the Galleon could have one on each side and gunners could mount it to turn the light on or off and aim it. Only the gunner class. Because gunner. But maybe the Pyramidion (and only the Pyra!) could have a little spotlight next to the captain? I'm so high right now. How about harpoons (if they actually worked...) as part of the ship too? Harpoon slots and spotlight slots and gun slots. All separate!

Aesthetically, the ships in this Steampunk/Dieselpunk game should be more detailed and feel a little more "homey." Think about it... these aren't just hours-long journeys between settlements; they are treacherous treks across entire continents! What would they have on their ship? Where's the galley? The bunks? The TOILET!?

Oh, and about the clothing and stuff... there should be a "I don't give a #*%, I'm a PIRATE!" look. Currently, there are far too many dapper ladies and gentlemen of leisure in this Steampunk/Dieselpunk game. I feel like they all have that look, like, "Ho-hum, I say, dear sir or madame, I do challenge you do a duel! Excelsior!" The ships, too! Way too Steampunk/Dieselpunk and not enough NYHARRRR PIRATEY shiz in this game. There should be more themes with raggity sails and whatnot. Skulls and crossbones and grog and rum and planks and eyepatches and parrots and achievements for bedding the captain's daughter! I've already visited the Guns of Icarus Online Steam Workshop and upvoted the MIGHT PIRATE VOICE PACK created by Atruejedi. I even shared it with all my friends! I really want to get it into the game... but it isn't ENOUGH FOR ME, MATEY! I'll make Muse WALK THE PLANK IF I DON'T GET A PEG LEG FOR MY AVATAR!

Now, let's talk about realism. I have no idea how art assets and computer power allocation work, so I'm just going to drop all this here: Let's say there are two Pyramidions in a game. The ships in skirmish mode look like they were built by their own crew with scraps. That's the art style. So, how can there be more than one looking exactly the same? If this game were Real Life™, how or why are these ships identical? There should be a lot of different types of ships looking like they were built from trash. Are these vessels mass produced? Is there a factory somewhere in the wastes that pumps out these ships on assembly lines and sells them all to each faction? Do they use the profits to influence elections and topple dictators? Does this fantasy world have their own military-industrial complex!? Are they Boeing? Northrop Grumann!? LOCKHEED MARTIN!?!? Conspiracy!

I've been looking at boss ships and they look crazy! What the hell? This means I don't like how they look but offer no reasons why or constructive criticism! I like typing. I wish you could hear my inner monologue's voice. It's like Robin Williams, all coked up.

What if, instead of the beacon flare gun, the captain could carry his or her own, personal, little, flare gun as a tool to spot enemies? It could occupy one of his pilot tool slots and replace a more needed tool. He could hop off the helm control to use it! It would be immersive. I know we already have a spyglass and that crews bring spyglasses to spot ships and that this handheld pilot flare gun would do the same thing, but... variety! IMMERSION! Occulus Rift!

Speaking of immersion, ships should have more functions besides the gun mounts the captain chooses. But I'm not going to suggest anything and anything I WOULD suggest would make little sense to add to the game. And hey, what about smoke bombs? I'm ignoring the other threads that recently proposed this same idea. Pilots would hate this. What if you shoot the enemy ship with a smoke bomb so they can't see anything around them but YOU and your allies can still see them? It would be like being caught in a cloud, except only for the target ship, defying all physics, realism, and fairness.

In my opinion, to make this game better, it should be more detailed and realistic. Like my only-affects-one-ship smoke-bomb-launcher idea. Gameplay isn't important. Cosmetics are! NYARRR!!!
Share your random nonsensical and unrealistic ideas!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're welcome.

272

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Pilot Not Limited to Captain

« on: November 27, 2015, 11:54:29 am »

I miss allowing a pilot class in the crew slot. It would be beneficial for a good pilot who lacks communication equipment to fly the ship in the crew slot so someone WITH a microphone can coordinate with the team ships from the captain's slot. I tried to do this earlier this week with a good, silent captain, but we were unable and I was sad.

273

Gameplay / Re: Sky Drifting and Potential Gameplay

« on: November 23, 2015, 09:24:16 pm »

I was thinking about the physics of GOI recently and did indeed wonder why there is no "drifting" (you know, like Tokyo Drift). I'd love to fly on Paritan Rumble, charge full-steam along the side of a building, then take a hard turn and drift around the corner to attack an opponent. The real-world physics make complete sense, but I'm unsure how it would be executed in-game... I mean, a tool makes sense to activate it... but having to replace one of the three current pilot tools in order to drift at all, when any ship should be able to because SCIENCE, seems a little silly. Perhaps just add another hotkey. It would really raise up the skill ceiling of piloting as well 

274

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Support weapons

« on: November 23, 2015, 09:15:43 pm »

a gun that would launch canisters that would release a huge obfuscating cloud would be awesome.

if you shoot an artemis or something at a ship it leaves a little puff of smoke that you cant see through. what if instead of the damage, it just made a really big cloud of smoke. you could use it to give yourself some breathing room by shooting enemy ships, which would then have trouble seeing you through the cloud. alternately if you used something like lochnagar, it woudl explode earlier and put the cloud closer to you, to give YOU some cover from others.

I would love something like a smoke grenade launcher. Could be useful on a Galleon's rear gun, a Pyramidion's side gun, or one of the Mobula's million guns. Can't guarantee how often I'd use it, though, if it straight-up replaced a gun position. Maybe if it were an ammo type, or a flare gun secondary fire option? Or, as was suggested earlier, turn the flare gun into a "utility" gun with flares, smoke grenades, shot-blocking-nets, etc. That would be the best option, IMO.

275

Gameplay / Re: The new Minotaur

« on: November 20, 2015, 06:07:25 am »

The mine launcher is acceptable because you at least have a choice when engaging a ship with it. If a pilot gets him or herself into a position where mines from the enemy are actively bouncing the ship around, well, that's on the pilot. The ship shouldn't have gotten close enough for mines to be an issue. The deployability (that's a word now) of mines and the short range of the launcher and the high skill ceiling of using it give plenty of risks to the pilot and crew of that vessel but rich (and hilariously mischievous) rewards when executed properly. I'll admit, I was hesitant to use mines at first... and I'm personally awful at launching them... but holy hell, flying a mine Mobula with three skilled crew mates? Fly high and get into a good position and... wow. Risky, though. But when pulled off... satisfaction!

With the minotaur, the obvious difference, which I'm sure we all agree on, is the range, which removes the choice players have when engaging the enemy. Hell, on a map like Water Hazard, I'm pretty certain all ships spawn within range of the minotaur. Eek. Hellish. Compared to mines... I can avoid mines by maneuvering my ship or shooting mine launchers before they become a problem, or taking longer range weapons to engage the entire ship. Not so with the minotaur, where, even if I chose to "counter" it with mercuries, artemiseseses, etc., I still might not be able to do so because I'm busy getting spun in circles...

To answer your original question, Daft Loon... SEVEN. A RESOUNDING SEVEN. I'm at the point where I feel like a bully even flying on a ship equipped with one and just find another ship... karma, y'know?

#playerchoice #boycottbouncing #minotaurmalfeasance #ridingonspinners #nerfnow #removetherage

276

Gameplay / Re: The new Minotaur

« on: November 19, 2015, 11:29:46 pm »

I played one game this evening. Then I had to take a break out of frustration. I flew a mid-range junker with a level 1 Pyramidian ally (who tried his darnedest, but was a level 2 engineer... sigh). Our opposition was a Hwatcha Goldfish and a Galleon with minotaurs. Everyone on the Galleon crew was under level 10, yet they dominated the match. My crew consisted of a normal friend I play with often and two novices (level 2 and 7, I believe). Those novices ragequit five minutes into the game because 'I wasn't giving them angles' because of constant minotaur hits. We proceeded to get wrecked to the tune of 4 to 1 until two solid players joined me and we brought the game back to 4 to 4. But we ultimately lost. Why? The minotaur. The @#%@# minotaur, which I already hated, but now I hate even more because it drove away my noob crew and put me at a supreme disadvantage for more than half the match. "Why, Atruejedi! Why didn't you use pilot tools to counter the bounce?" I was asked. I did. I used tons of kerosene, and I tried to time it properly. But it didn't matter. "But why fly a junker at all, then, Atruejedi? They are prime minotaur targets!" Do you want me to fly a more complex ship with people brand new to the game? No, thanks. The novices didn't repair dependably and the AI crew wasn't much better. The match went on for 40 or so minutes as my ally ran from place to place as I begged him to stay alive (he died 4 times by the end with zero kills) and tried to kill the enemy ships. I did destroy four of them, but the minotaurs made my life hell.

Is anyone familiar with Team Fortress 2? Minotaurs are like the items in that game that take control away from the player, and NO ONE ENJOYS THAT. Valve completely nerfed the baseball bat that immobilized players because of the outrage. How is the minotaur not suffering the same backlash? People love USING it, but no one enjoys fighting AGAINST it. It's the most rage-inducing weapon in the game, first an all-too-weak-yet-evil weapon, and now an extremely effective and therefore even more annoying weapon!

THE RAGE IS REAL.

277

General Discussion / Re: Gush

« on: November 18, 2015, 08:50:02 pm »

I'm surprised. I logged in just now (9 PM EST Wednesday night) and there are "only" 262 people online. I expected more this week. I assume the deluge begins this weekend with the Polaris Civil War event thing? I thought there would be more people "preparing" during the week for this event, especially considering the game is 50% off... alas, the Great Training Crusade continues and will continue and shall never end! We are the Disciples of Icarus and our mission is perpetual, our suffering unending, and our aim true. TO THE SKIES!

278

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: The Case for Falloff Damage and a Third Damage Type

« on: November 17, 2015, 03:26:56 am »

I have nothing to add as of now, but this is my post expressing support for Richard's above ideas.

Okay, nevermind, I started fantasizing about this. A third ammo type could...

1. ...Adequately balance the hwatcha (able to hit at long range for negligible damage, solid at medium range, but not overpowered at close range, especially with burst ammo).

2. ...Make the flamer more fun, allowing gentle licks ( ) at long range and swirling infernos at close range.

3. ...Make gatlings more interesting, especially about the above-suggested fire-starting at close range. I dig it!

4. ...Make the heavy flak not boring by allowing (negligible?) piercing damage.

5. ...Make the lumberjack more interesting by adding an ever-so-slight nudge (and remove the point of the minotaur )

It would also, most interestingly to me...

6. ...Nerf point-blank mortar. I assume mortars at point-blank range "in real life" wouldn't have had time to arm, considering there's no self-damage, and would just bounce off the enemy? As it is now, you should have to take self-damage when nuking an enemy with mortar at point-blank! After all, mines cause self-damage... Be consistent, Muse . Make them like the Demoman's pipebomb launcher from Team Fortress 2... problem solved, ha! MORTAR SELF-DAMAGE OR MORTAR ARMING TIME! I'm going to start a picket line!

7. ...Give light flak cannons negligible piercing damage, which I would love. Arming time kills the flak as of now... having the ability to pierce at close range would make it much more used and versatile. The old meta for Pyra was gat-flak, famously replaced by gat-mortar in more recent history... with the above two changes, now both could be flown! PEACE IN OUR TIME! GOD, I WANT THIS NOW!

And yeah, you've got me wondering how the Apollo lens array is gonna actually work... in the dev app, its animation "charges up" to presumably do more damage, but it's range is currently insane. I've only shot at dummies, but I know I am hitting scenery a kilometer out. I realize the lenses (lenses?) are focused... and my knowledge of light physics is limited... but I feel like the laser should do less and less damage the further away the target is. The idea is great; I just hope the execution is just as good.

And yeah, get rid of the mines' proximity. It's insane. I'm a skilled navigator; if I am dodging mines physically, don't let them blow me up 

Fingers crossed, prayers asked. Here's hoping.

279

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Please make rematch the default option

« on: November 13, 2015, 02:57:36 pm »

I received emails back from Muse. They're pasted below for anybody curious. From Mikko/Ayetach:

Hello Jamison,

Thanks so much for your thoughts! It has certainly sparked some discussion about how we can improve this so we appreciate you coming forward with these interesting ideas. We’ll definitely consider ideas on how we can improve this in the future.

Clear skies

And from Howard/Bubbles:

Hi Jamison! 
Thanks so much for writing us and articulating the issue really clearly.  Much appreciated. 

With rematch, there are a number of factors that we've been considering that guided the implementation.  With rematch, we do have to look at both perspectives (meaning from both the winning and losing sides).  As you may remember, we did have rematch default checked at one time, but we also had complaints that way.  So we moved to more opting in, but reducing the votes required to rematch to just a simple majority (>50%). 
With rematch, we've also made it constant (with vote) at the expense of maximizing player pool for matchmaker. 

Having both options for rematch with and without scramble is also something we've done before, but we had complaints about that being too cumbersome and granular (and therefore confusing).  So we decided to simplify it this way. 

The first thing that we want to do is to see how you guys like the new UI.  It'll be in dev app to test as soon as some of the backend data are hooked up so that all the functionality and new stats are working.  That should be an improvement over the current checkbox UI, which can be confusing and unnoticeable.  With default opting in or out of rematch, the implementation for us is easy, but the decision to make isn't as easy.  But hopefully with better visibility reminder, we can improve the participation in "voting" and opting into rematch.  Let's at least start at the interface level, which isn't very satisfactory right now, and we can test further. 

Thanks again, Howard

So now we just keep our fingers crossed... 

280

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Please make rematch the default option

« on: November 04, 2015, 10:54:02 pm »

Apparently editing my first post is not possible... so... as a followup:

Thanks for the suggestions and alternatives. It seems many people agree that the current rematching system is a problem and that there are various ways to fix it. That being said... multiple people have also told me, via this thread and Steam, that emailing Muse is the best way to get their attention. I find that odd, considering we're on their forum, but whatever. So! Here's a potential template email "petition" we can all copy, paste and send to them at feedback@musegames.com :

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Please change the GOI rematching system

Dear Muse,

I, [YOUR NAME OR HANDLE], along with other dedicated players of Guns of Icarus Online, am experiencing difficulties and frustration with the current method of rematching completed matches. The current system asks players to vote for a rematch by checking a box. Many players do not clearly understand what happens when they click the rematch check box or do not realize the importance of voting. Many good matches are thrown back into the search queue because of misunderstanding and negligence, failing to pass a rematch vote by one player. Many bad matches would become good, balanced matches if the rematch vote passed and scrambled the teams' ship rosters. A thread is active on your forum under Feedback and Suggestions which proposes the following ideas:

1. Clarify that voting for a rematch will scramble what ships are on each team for the next match.

2. Make the check box to vote for a rematch marked by default to passively keep lobbies together and players playing the game, allowing those players to stick with the fellows they've gained experience with and from, resulting in player retention and community growth.

3. Alternatively to point #2, change the voting system to make players actively vote against a rematch, resulting in players being sent back to the queue in an active manner, rather than passively. As above, this will result in players sticking with the fellows they've gained experience with and from and encourage player retention and community growth.

4. Allow a separate option to vote for a rematch with the same team compositions, resulting in a "true" rematch.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to receiving your reply.

[YOUR NAME HERE]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sound good? If so, I'll email this tomorrow and I hope you all do too!

Jamison

281

Feedback and Suggestions / Please make rematch the default option

« on: November 04, 2015, 06:05:09 pm »

I simply cannot tolerate this situation anymore without a public whine/complaint/rant:

Following the completion of a match, please make the vote to rematch the DEFAULT option. Or change the wording and make people vote AGAINST rematching.

So many good lobbies and close matches end abruptly because of newer or lazy or urinating players not realizing how important it is to vote. And the voting results always seem to fail by one or two votes, which is extremely, EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING. Did the match end in a clean sweep for one team? The lobby would have been ship-scrambled and balanced in everybody's favor after a successful rematch vote. Few seem to realize that.

EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS! Our fore-mothers and fathers fought for our suffrage! Don't squander their sacrifices! Don't perpetuate a broken system!

Please express support for this idea if you agree. That is all. Thank you.

282

Feedback and Suggestions / I had a dream... about a shovel...

« on: October 28, 2015, 07:14:23 pm »

Oh, hi.

Today I took a nap. During the nap I dreamed about playing Guns of Icarus Online. While "playing" in the dream I hit the hull with a shovel. "Huh?" I thought. "This doesn't belong here. I need to repair the hull. This shovel isn't going to do the job... WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE AND IT'S GOING TO BE MY FAULT. ALL MY FAULT."

When I awoke later, I realized... maybe I could rationalize this shovel into the game. Many times, when gang-banging the exposed hull of a ship with team mates to repair the armor, some jackanape will accidentally use a spanner on the armor and the hull armor will go down again immediately because of the cooldown time, albeit how short that cooldown time is. Or sometimes I'll mindlessly mallet an engine that was missing only a pixel of health, only to then be forced to wait all those precious seconds to repair it again. Well, I propose...

A SHOVEL. And that shovel digs up and tosses away a portion of the cooldown time! It would obviously be up to the developers to figure out exactly how to implement it, but I think the idea is unique and merits consideration (pending balance, of course).

Stupid? Genius? Absurd? Possible? How could it be implemented? Do you dig the idea? Do you dig puns? Plant your comments below.

P.S. Oh, and while I'm here... go check out my Mighty Pirate Voice Pack in the Workshop, and if you like it, vote yes 

283

Gameplay / Re: "What's wrong with the Pyramidion? What's wrong with the Hwacha?" - Awkm

« on: October 26, 2015, 09:18:48 am »

Long time listener, first time caller. Here are my thoughts on the Hwatcha and the Pyramidion as of late (the Big Spring Patch, or BSP), which have been talked about a lot lately in-game. I'm sure these points have been discussed, but as a former primarily-Pyramidion-pilot (pre-BSP) and a so-pro Hwatcha gunner (pre- and post-BSP), I feel like I can almost objectively criticize and critique this ship and this weapon.

The Hwatcha: I hear a lot of calls in-game about the Hwatcha being overpowered and it requiring a nerf because it's too ubiquitous and effective. But it's not. Yes, it's great at disabling enemy components and making the bad dudes crap themselves with all the daunting repairs. But it's awful versus armor and decent against hull itself. That's a good thing. It's a utility weapon. You disable enemies to help your team. Then, if you're smart, you get another gun on the enemy because you can Hwatcha allllll-daaaay using a Goldfish and you're not going to get a kill against a decent enemy. It'll just be a very long match. I generally fly with and for players of all stripes, colors, and skill levels, and I can tell you that a nub Goldfish captain understands the Hwatcha is great at hitting and annoying an enemy... but you'd be surprised at how ineffectively they use it because they rely so heavily upon it. Most newer pilots only use the Hwatcha and never purposely or purposefully use the side guns. Huge mistake, easily corrected with some helpful tips from more experienced pilots.

Pre-BSP, I loved the Hwatcha and burst and heavy ammunition were REQUIREMENTS. Now... burst still is, definitely, but I rarely find myself using heavy ammo nor asking my gunner to load it up. Heavy ammo on the Hwatcha can't provide the long-range disables that are helpful. But up-close, with burst ammo, the Hwatcha is devastating, and it should be. I only have my gunners use heavy ammo on the Hwatcha now at long range to assist allies who are already stripping armor. No longer can you jack up an enemy ship with heavy ammo at longish ranges. That's good! In short: the Hwatcha is fine. It's still awesome, pre- and post-BSP, but it's not OP. It isn't as useful as it once was with heavy ammo, and that's a GOOD thing. It's lethal because of the constant disables at close range, and that MAKES SENSE. Try not to get into those situations 

(Also: I quickly learned using gunner stamina for reloads is way less helpful than waiting for the long reload and having a better angle. I'm sure many of you will agree. I rarely use stamina for reloads at this point, only if I KNOW I'll be in angle... and I'm not a betting man.)

Now, regarding my baby, the Pyramidion: I think the developers lost their way when it came to the design of the Pyramidion. Someone above alluded to how the Pyra was supposed to be, by design, a ramming ship, or a glass cannon. I agree. And it no longer is. And that's sad. The Pyra now no longer has ... well, anything it's particularly great at, and things it's actively bad at.

Certainly some will disagree, but, as a long-time player with zero competitive experience and plenty of pub experience, here is how I've seen the Pyra taken, treated, and responded to:

The Pyra, like the Goldfish, is a great learning ship. That's where I cut my teeth. They're both straight-forward (literally) ships that can be equipped with understandable loadouts and job descriptions. We all know how the Pyra works: engineer on the bottom, engineer on the balloon, and an engy or gunner on the top-right gun. It's cliche and vanilla and that's GOOD. The Pyra was a ship any moron could fly. And many a moron (and maestro) did. THAT was the problem... too many Pyras. The Pyra was incredibly effective in the right hands, and not a disaster in the wrong hands. When the BSP came out, if I recall correctly, three changes were made: the Pyra's turning ability was nerfed, its horizontal acceleration was nerfed, and its armor was nerfed. As Meat Loaf so eloquently sang, two out of three ain't bad. But as we also know, three's a crowd. I think two of these changes would have been warranted, but that all three together are overkill. And the consensus seems to be... and I agree with it... go back to the original concept for the Pyra. It should be like the Juggernaut in X-Men 3: Once it gets a'goin', it ain't stoppin'. Restore the acceleration so it can ram. Give the armor a slight buff so it can actually make it to its target. BUT. I'm all about the nerf to the turning ability, and I'd even be okay with nerfing it further in the name of restoring the Pyra to a ramming ship. The Pyra should have to get close to be effective, and it should go in guns a'blazin'... and if it swings and misses, well, strike one, you're out, sucker. High risk, high reward. As it is now... it's high risk, likely-death without a very reliable bottom deck engineer and decent shooters. The Pyra has been stricken down as a learning ship because it's now a paper tiger against any experienced enemy. The Pyra nerf made me fly other ships more often, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm having more fun. Gone are my days of charging in at the helm of the RAMMING SPEED and killing my enemies... which, I agree, was too easy because if I missed or whiffed, I could easily recover and kill at close range. Nerf that turning. I'm rambling. I'm sorry.

Off-topic: Oh, and don't get me started on the Squid, which is now the most annoying ship in the game because of its resilience and speed, even in the hands of nubs. I used to HATE flying the Squid because you had to be a REALLY GOOD PILOT to fly one successfully... and if you WERE... you were a force to be reckoned with. And I was awful at maneuvering the thing. But now? I can fly one and do well. It didn't use to be that way! It was high risk, high reward... a ship for the skilled pilots. Hence, it's described difficulty-level in-game. Now everybody flies it because it was buffed too much in the name of allowing it to be flied more often... by people who shouldn't be flying it, like me. I miss being a one-trick-pony. I wish I still sucked at the Squid and I wish I still enjoyed the Pyra... but now the Squid is made of titanium and the Pyra is made of peanut brittle.

Okay, sorry. There are my cents, which I hope make some.