46
The Lounge / Re: Ban Jedi
« on: November 21, 2016, 10:56:13 am »
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.
47
Gameplay / Re: Burst ammo, oh no. Artemis, why you so good?
« on: November 18, 2016, 11:46:17 am »
Inverting the Artemis vertical arc is just... strange and unnecessary. The Artemis itself isn't the problem; the ubiquitous Burst ammo used in it is. Nerf the extra rocket and it becomes much less of a problem.
The Artemis having almost no ability to aim upwards is seriously its Achilles heel, makes using it and flying with it unique, and makes gameplay very interesting with it... for example, you KNOW if you see an Artemis Mob/Junker you HAVE to stay ABOVE him to have a chance; this is a GOOD thing because damaging the enemy balloon will HELP you. If the arcs were reversed, well, shit, damaging his balloon would just keep putting the Artemis-equipped enemy IN arc! Bad idea, bad idea.
Also, having crewed on MagicMetalMan's Gatling/Artemis Pyramidion... I can tell you it simply doesn't work (but he, of course, refuses to admit this
) because of the Artemis's lack of an upward firing arc. He wants to ram (it's his natural instinct!), but as soon as he gets too close, firing that Artemis effectively (or at all!) becomes very difficult.
Also, what would an upward-firing Artemis do to ships like the Spire? So weird. Do not want.
I stand by my proposed, overly simplistic suggestion to Burst ammo: just get rid of the extra clip size. I'm against reducing the projectile speed and the AoE if those nerfs are in addition to the clip size "reduction." Plus, remember: Muse is going to test Burst ammo in the Dev App with a universal 1 meter AoE effect on all weapons. So, patience!
The Artemis having almost no ability to aim upwards is seriously its Achilles heel, makes using it and flying with it unique, and makes gameplay very interesting with it... for example, you KNOW if you see an Artemis Mob/Junker you HAVE to stay ABOVE him to have a chance; this is a GOOD thing because damaging the enemy balloon will HELP you. If the arcs were reversed, well, shit, damaging his balloon would just keep putting the Artemis-equipped enemy IN arc! Bad idea, bad idea.
Also, having crewed on MagicMetalMan's Gatling/Artemis Pyramidion... I can tell you it simply doesn't work (but he, of course, refuses to admit this
) because of the Artemis's lack of an upward firing arc. He wants to ram (it's his natural instinct!), but as soon as he gets too close, firing that Artemis effectively (or at all!) becomes very difficult.Also, what would an upward-firing Artemis do to ships like the Spire? So weird. Do not want.
I stand by my proposed, overly simplistic suggestion to Burst ammo: just get rid of the extra clip size. I'm against reducing the projectile speed and the AoE if those nerfs are in addition to the clip size "reduction." Plus, remember: Muse is going to test Burst ammo in the Dev App with a universal 1 meter AoE effect on all weapons. So, patience!
48
General Discussion / Re: On the subject of vote kick...
« on: November 17, 2016, 09:25:20 am »
During this past weekend's Chaos Skirmish, we had a(n otherwise cool) guy who apparently DIED during our lobby randomization. He was in the captain's slot and wouldn't change ships, wouldn't type, wouldn't talk... we had to get [Muse] MetaFive to join and boot him from the lobby. Thank goodness MetaFive was online, or we'd have had to reform the lobby and restructure a 32-person match.
Custom lobbies definitely need a kick option for the lobby creator if the lobby remains private. And if a vote-kick option existed for PUBLIC lobbies... I'd want an overwhelming supermajority to actually kick someone. Like 80%. Otherwise, yes, it would be abused to hell and back (and I can already feel myself getting kicked by stackers and elitists for raging against the machine
)
Custom lobbies definitely need a kick option for the lobby creator if the lobby remains private. And if a vote-kick option existed for PUBLIC lobbies... I'd want an overwhelming supermajority to actually kick someone. Like 80%. Otherwise, yes, it would be abused to hell and back (and I can already feel myself getting kicked by stackers and elitists for raging against the machine
)
49
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Co-Captain in recent players list
« on: November 16, 2016, 08:29:12 am »
Absolutely, yes.
50
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: 4v4 paritan spawn
« on: November 14, 2016, 01:34:18 am »
Sciorpe grabbed this screenshot last night during Chaos... progress! The Paritan spawns have been tweaked:
51
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Would this fix Flayed Hills?
« on: November 08, 2016, 06:26:51 pm »...with maybe a Skyball type warning of where the next point will be.
That's the only way I'd be on-board with this randomization of the points. I like the predictability of knowing where the next point is ahead of time; it allows for strategic fleet movements and decisions. I'd want a 90 second warning (which is half the time a point can be active). Seriously. That's generally when I start telling my allies to move out if we just wiped out a point and have definite control.
52
General Discussion / Re: 4v4, Black Sheep, or Diamond in the rough?
« on: November 08, 2016, 09:59:22 am »...but you can afford to have a ship be a dedicated flanker and do shenanigans without risking as much...
Disagree. I love flanking on Sepulcher and Dunes. It isn't a problem with the maps, map size, or game mode, it's a probably with a lack of experienced players in the lobby. Which is fine by me. I'm all about growing. I'll deal with it.
what
I think you misread or I miscommunicated. In my opinion, grouping up and personal decisions matter more the fewer ships there are, as you make a larger contribution. Larger ship counts let you have flankers without worrying as much about not being grouped up. Flanking is even more advantageous in 4v4 than 3v3 and 2v2, since you lose less firepower from your main fleet to have a flanker.
I'm not sure if you think that I think flanking is bad or something, but I love flanking. I have very average reactions and technical skill in all games, so I rely the surprise factor and flanking to make up for it.
That "but" made me think you didn't think it was possible in 4 vs. 4 matches for whatever reason even though you did think it was possible in 3 vs. 3. Miscommunication, then. That confused me. Sorry!
53
General Discussion / Re: 4v4, Black Sheep, or Diamond in the rough?
« on: November 07, 2016, 11:31:16 pm »...but you can afford to have a ship be a dedicated flanker and do shenanigans without risking as much...
Disagree. I love flanking on Sepulcher and Dunes. It isn't a problem with the maps, map size, or game mode, it's a probably with a lack of experienced players in the lobby. Which is fine by me. I'm all about growing. I'll deal with it.
Quote
Ideally to me, 3v3 would be the most common type of match in the game...
I could deal with this, but I really do see 2 vs. 2 as cancer on the game because of the small player base essentially "promoting" stacking and stomping.
Quote
4v4s to me are like 32 person servers in TF2. They're sometimes fun, but you better like chaos spam, and feeling like you can't change the tide at times.
Hm. I blame the map spawns for this one. Paritan, for example, desperately needs the spawns adjusted. I already logically and visually explained how to do this to Muse, so let's see if they take heed; as it is now it's an unfair clusterfuck (see here). But even Water Hazard has this problem: the initial spawns are absurdly close to each other, ESPECIALLY in 4 vs. 4 VIP... Muse just needs to show us all the spawns and give us an editor. We'll do the work for them!
Quote
There's also the fact that half of the time they're running Crazy King, which I personally loathed as the most unfair and unbalanced gamemode (advantageous spawns, unintuitive plays heavily favoring anti-balloon builds)
Muse needs to #AuditTheSpawns. They've admitted they never really bothered thinking about how they could improve Crazy King and the spawn system, so even if we proposed changes, there's no infrastructure to accomodate those changes. Perhaps Alliance will change that. Hopefully. I rag on this issue here.
Quote
...before Skyball took its place...
Don't get me started...
Quote
...and do not have a King of the Hill map, which is my personal favorite mode.
GET ME STARTED! #YoureWelcome
KOTH is coming to 4v4, with the now renamed "Breach Occupation" map. The question is which of 3 reasons is responsible for the horrible mangling of suggested name and mode theme:
1 - They really insist on using a game mode themed name even though only 1 map will have the theme.
2 - We will soon be seeing the amazingly renamed "City occupation" and "Giant basket of sandstorms occupation" koth maps.
3 - They expect to be releasing more koth maps and want to start the theme with this one.
See above link. And I still hate all of the VIP map names. Groan.
Quote
Things 4v4 needs to get beyond 'meh, at least it averages out the balance a bit'
-Something to make crazy king less of a scenic tour of the least scenic maps and more of an actual airship combat game.
I actually really enjoy it SOMETIMES... when the spawns don't instantly fuck one team. It has tons of potential, it just needs the spawn system revamped.
Quote
-Some kind of fix to the inherent spawn camping of dunes and sepulcher
...Hm... perhaps "randomize" the Dust Storm? Instead of just rows 5 and 6, have it alternate randomly through rows 3/4 and 7/8 after the initial middle rows to force the relocation of fleets. Less predictable. I know I'm constantly telling allies to stay the hell out of rows 5/6 and get comfy in rows 4 and 7, so this could work (and screw me in the process, but all in the name of gameplay #ChristFigure).
Quote
-Some medium sized maps
#CanyonCantWait... Been begging for Canyon as 3 vs. 3 VIP and 4 vs. 4 VIP and DM for... months? Also no reason we can't have 3 vs. 3 Labyrinth KOTH... And why don't we have that Battle for the Ball map turned into a DM map called Graveyard? Essentially it would be a larger Duel at Dawn! You guys need to email this petition and spread it among your clan mates and the community at large:
click me click me #AdaptTheMaps petition click me
54
General Discussion / Re: 4v4, Black Sheep, or Diamond in the rough?
« on: November 07, 2016, 06:02:42 pm »
4 vs. 4 and 3 vs. 3 Master Race member here.
4 vs. 4 would be much more acceptable if Muse would hurry up and #AdaptTheMaps while also giving their game an optimization pass/patch. Many player's PC performance seems to suffer exponentially when there are 8 ships in a match. And the massive memory leaks don't help either...
I've actually received PMs from "veterans" who get upset with me for setting up 4 vs. 4 lobbies because then these paragons of the community can't find any 2 vs. 2s to stomp in. Seriously pitiful.
Just demonstrates to me that 2 vs. 2 is the real cancer of the game. #StackNStomp
4 vs. 4 would be much more acceptable if Muse would hurry up and #AdaptTheMaps while also giving their game an optimization pass/patch. Many player's PC performance seems to suffer exponentially when there are 8 ships in a match. And the massive memory leaks don't help either...
I've actually received PMs from "veterans" who get upset with me for setting up 4 vs. 4 lobbies because then these paragons of the community can't find any 2 vs. 2s to stomp in. Seriously pitiful.
Just demonstrates to me that 2 vs. 2 is the real cancer of the game. #StackNStomp
55
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: End of match to Lobby UI proposals. IN VIDEO FORM!
« on: November 07, 2016, 05:53:03 pm »I'm not 100% sure about being forced to stare at a map vote for a minute unless it ends early if everyone votes. I personally like the ability to talk about the match in lobby shortly after it ends. Maybe an option to return to lobby view after voting?
Well, shit. I hadn't thought of this either. I do enjoy post-match banter and ribaldry and would be sad if it were diminished. GOI is largely social and while a reduction in Lobbies of Icarus would be an overall good thing, I think this would be an unfortunate side-effect of Richard's proposed UI changes. Perhaps once you've voted, you have the option to go directly back to the lobby (and an icon near or graying of your name will indicate you have yet to return) or simply stay "in-game" to admire your statistics?
56
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: stamina in spectate
« on: November 07, 2016, 05:48:54 pm »Could be useful for telling how some captains pull off those insane maneuvers.
+1 do want
57
Feedback and Suggestions / Re: End of match to Lobby UI proposals. IN VIDEO FORM!
« on: November 07, 2016, 01:40:21 am »
Brilliant. Doing God's work... or, at least, Muse's 
I still want the tip box on the lobby screen, dammit.
I still want the tip box on the lobby screen, dammit.
58
Gameplay / Re: Burst ammo, oh no. Artemis, why you so good?
« on: November 06, 2016, 07:41:52 pm »
Been saying this for a while ( derrrrp )
The Artemis isn't the problem; the choice ammo is. Burst is used for the AoE. Giving it an extra rocket makes it OP (well, not technically OP...) and does not incentivize using different ammos. The slower firing rate is fine. If it needs another nerf beyond removing the clip size bonus, if anything, make it turn the gun a tiny bit slower. That way, you're incentivized to not use it when at closer ranges.
The Artemis isn't the problem; the choice ammo is. Burst is used for the AoE. Giving it an extra rocket makes it OP (well, not technically OP...) and does not incentivize using different ammos. The slower firing rate is fine. If it needs another nerf beyond removing the clip size bonus, if anything, make it turn the gun a tiny bit slower. That way, you're incentivized to not use it when at closer ranges.
59
Community Events / Re: The Big Brass Revival Rules and Announcement (First Tournament w/ CASH Prizes)
« on: November 05, 2016, 04:46:36 pm »
- First place team will receive: $200 total for the team (to be split by team leader's discretion,) title: Biggest Brass Bruiser, badge, and name an in-game AI.
Oh my god, I'm tempted. That's awesome.
This sounds great. I hope many teams sign up and I look forward to hearing more details. Better advertise the shit out of this, Muse!
60
The Gallery / Re: "Night map" Screenshots
« on: November 04, 2016, 08:17:07 pm »
In modified form... DO WANT!
Muse added in one-time use items because of the Super-Tar bug... perhaps now we'll get purposely added night mode maps!?
A man can wish. It would make holding fire and flares incredibly tactical.
Muse added in one-time use items because of the Super-Tar bug... perhaps now we'll get purposely added night mode maps!?
A man can wish. It would make holding fire and flares incredibly tactical.