Messages

16

Gameplay / Re: The Philosophy of the Sky Captain

« on: June 20, 2014, 11:34:00 pm »

you left out something very important.

The Drunk Captain.

17

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: character progression needed

« on: June 10, 2014, 05:33:28 pm »

Or a way to encourage new players to stick with the game to become better ... im a new player and i see if i play for 20 weeks it will be the same as if i play for 1 week .. other then my new eye patch ... but some kind of beneifit like 1% damage per level on a gunner sould encourage me to level ... plus whats teh reason for haveing the 1-3 game and the open to any lvl games if no diffrence in levels .. ? .. some time things can be to balanced ... but if you like your game the way it is good on ya .. who am i to come in here with new fangled ideas and input and voice them ... hope your game goes strong for a long time its a fun game .. just dont want to see it stagnate with the same 20 people flying the same 3 ships all year long ..  ( If you want everyone to be even every fight you should only have 1 ship with 1 type of gun also .. ) .........................

i think you are missing the point.  this game is a pvp co-op which differs greatly from both straight co-op and straight pvp. 

in straight pvp, such as tf2, cod, battlefield, etc. a "progression" system is inplace to keep people playing the game and unlocking "better" weapons, but this is in reality just a device used by this type of game to keep you playing (and there for more inclined to spend more money) as no matter the weapon, any one player can be killed by any other player at any given time. the primary unit of interaction is the player, and those units are equal. (when i say equal i mean from a game mechanic stand point not equal aptitude at the game)

in striaght co-op a progression system is there again to facilitate your continued playing (and spending) but the system is arbitrary and largely of no consequence  because you are not in conflict with human opponents, sure it makes later content of the game easier, but that content is only harder so there can be a progression system that can latch on to your brain.  the player is again the primary interaction with the game mechanics and and is again equal with all other players, except in one aspect.  time spent playing. but as the players are not in conflict with one another and there is a scaling difficulty level, it makes no difference toward unit equality.

in a co-op pvp game, such as this, many of these ideas are turned around and some completely obiliterated.  the player is no longer the primary unit in the game, the primary unit is the ship.  the player, meanwhile, is a sub-unit, a fraction of the entity that is actually interacting with the game mechanics.  the object actually in conflict.

so you take our 4 person crews for 1 ship. the ship is the object actually in the action, making it the primary unit of interaction with the game mechanics. that means each player is 1/4th of a unit. and having access to all the same equipment and choices as every other 1/4th unit of the game, 4 of them can come together and make 1 whole unit that is exactly as equal, has had the same choices affecting the outcome, as any other 1 whole unit.

now if you start buffing players, i.e. through a conventional progresson system. those 1/4's are no longer equal and there for they could come together to make a whole unit that is greater than another whole unit, i.e. has a bias towards winning. a real, actual, game mechanically induced bias not just greater experience with the game. and that is a problem.

18

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: character progression needed

« on: June 10, 2014, 02:58:54 pm »

not if you just give vets the buffs from a buff hammer .. somthing simple that can be counterd by non vets useing a buff hammer .. just MINOR change is all im talking about not like i said add FRIGGIN LAZERS !

but that isnt really simple.  buffing players completely removes the point of limiting loadout options for classes.  say you have a vet gunner; now that she/he no longer needs a buff on their gun an engineer is freed up to focus on repairs or put in even more extra damage right away.  in a game with a small playerbase character progression in such a way only alienates newcomers.

that style works in killing floor because you are not fighting other players.

19

World / Re: Real Ship Names

« on: June 02, 2014, 04:02:42 pm »

I honestly doubt that most ships received proper names in their early developing cycles at all. Especially in a post-apocalyptical scenario resources probably aren't that obtainable, and thus any built ship has to be modified to fit its environment the best (e.g., deserts, alpine landscapes and such). Sailing the sea is one thing. The sea, well, remains the sea. Flying low-altitude however surely requires less subtle changes to a boat's design. I could think of a CQB-Squid for urban combat or something the like. So, even with certain designs being superior, those would still have sub-designs. I'm thinking about it like the early submarines were named. During the Second World War, German submarine classes ranged from Type I to XXIII, not containing any names at all. Those then received further sub-classes, as II A, II B, II C and II D. Even the Type VII, the workhorse with its main-type ending up being VII C, never received any change to something more recognizable. Similarity can be found in U.S. history, where the class of the most-built submarine during the First World War was simply called S. According to Wikipedia (our beloved, never-failing source for trustful knowledge *cough*) those S-class boats sometimes received the name Sugar Boat, what I would take as the equivalent of the class names we are using in GOI.

Our problem with the Galleon is fixable by just this pattern: the first submarine fully designed and built in China (meaning without being a copied U.S. submarine) was the Song-class, in 1997. This name, however, is only the classification the NATO gave to it. The Chinese name for the class is Type 039, separated also by letters, e.g., Type 039G.

If you put the pattern of boats driving below sea-level on ships flying above, we could easily get something like FW 42-A for the first Galleon (FW being the abbreviation for flying whale... I'm not always in a creative mood). But that, alas, doesn't really sound attracting nor fearsome enough for a game, does it?

yeah, but it wouldnt be for the game, it more reveals something about the "personality" of each of the factions. The Yeshans are highly militaristic and would probably use those very dry designations. but cultures with different values would have different styles to their naming of ships, if they were indeed state sponsored.  a privately built ship that has since become a common design would likely have had a proper name

20

The Lounge / Re: Nautical or Aviation terms?

« on: May 31, 2014, 11:59:04 pm »

i remember a thread about this long long ago. but basically it breaks down as this, the nautical terms make way more sense for like 95% of the game. engineers would probably use aviation terms for the operation and parts of the engines,as they are essentially airplane engines (though an argument could be made for the nautical propeller conventions) and terms relating to how high up the ship is are obviously aviation-based. 

and as for port/starboard vs compass directions.  the relative ship based directions are actually more efficient and faster for crew communication.  by using the compass directions, you require each member of your crew to look up at the compass then figure out where they should be looking. if you use port/starboard people know immediately where they should be looking, it takes some getting used to for a completely new player but a three second explanation when you are not in combat is much less of a cost than those same three seconds while they figure out the compass while they need to be shooting the enemy.

and i would definitely use port/starboard over left/right. because left and right is more used to refer towards peoples personal orientation in their lives, and port/starboard is always the ship's left and right. also you sound cooler and people get way more into the game if you play along with a small touch of nautical terminology. its just more fun.

21

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Can we have cooldowns appear in the icons?

« on: May 30, 2014, 11:50:13 pm »

1. i just laughed for like 5 minutes at your name. its just so blunt. panties. lawl. beers may or may not have been involved in my finding of it so hilarious.

2. it would be certainly useful. but i think it would be too usefull. timing is what separates great engineers from average engineers, and i like that learning curve that emerges as a consequence of not having all the info you need on your screen at all times.

22

World / Re: Real Ship Names

« on: May 29, 2014, 03:19:11 pm »

Perhaps they just built one and said "Thats cool, lets build more." 

that is undoubtedly what happened, though over years. the designing and constructing of a ship is a complex undertaking. so, keeping with the squid, it is from the order of chaladon, they would have a name for it (when it was first made and only flown by people within the order) that is most likely different from the name it is known by today (the squid). 

Think of the names of the ships in-game right now as sailor slang for those ships, an informal name that it goes by in the greater world. An example of this is the humvee ( not a ship i know but its an easy example ).  The humvee's actual name is High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), humvee is a slang term for the vehicle used by soldiers that has entered the common vernacular.  the same would be true of these common ships in the world of GoI:O.

23

World / Re: Real Ship Names

« on: May 28, 2014, 02:18:02 pm »

I imagine, given the game's setting, that most ships of the same design wouldn't even be similar. Given the lack, or surplus, of parts and other factors of post-apocalyptic life.

Two squids, for example, could vary wildly in construction, material quality, etc. The shipwrights would probably improve on these ships where possible and make cut backs when needed.

i would agree with that totally, but what im interested in, for example, is what the squid would have been called when it first graced the skies of Chaladon. before it was a common sight throughout the world.

24

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: The role of an Engineer

« on: May 24, 2014, 08:26:51 pm »

well as you all are busy not actually responding to his post and just telling him to play engineer more and play it better, lets actually take a look at the suggestion.

your suggestion of giving the pilot tools to the engineer is an interesting one, however, that would require engineers have the ability to take pilot tools as well as repairing tools if they are still going to be in charge of repairing the ship. this presents a problem as it would essentially remove the pilot as a class. 

the way it is set up right now 1 class can influence the movement of the ship better than all others, 1 one class can influence the health of the ship better than all others , and 1 class can influence the guns of the ship better than all others. and this is, i think, the proper way to have the 3 classes laid out to promote intra-ship cooperation, the pilot cannot use those tools if the engineer does not repair damaged components, the engineer cannot repair damaged components effectively if the gunner does not destroy damage sources (be that an enemy ship or the components on that enemy ship), the gunner cannot remove damage sources if the pilot does not position the ship correctly.  if the engineer could influence the movement and health of the ship better than all others why have the other classes at all? the engineer would be the correct choice for every member of the crew for maximum ship versatility and combat effectiveness.

your perception that the engineer does not contribute to the pvp, while not technically incorrect, is lacking in the big picture view of the situation.  the combat in this game is not between individual players on each ship, it is between ships as a whole, each member of the crew working together as one cohesive unit. perhaps that is a failing of the game that it does not present that perspective clear enough. but that is a debate to have in a different topic.

all in all, welcome to the game and the forums. and keep up posting suggestions, looking at why the game is as it is and looking at why or why not the game should have some new piece of content are both equally important.

25

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Tar and Sandstorm engine damage

« on: May 24, 2014, 07:13:37 pm »

I can understand Tar smoke damages engines but how does tar smoke damage guns? What logic is there to that? I can give the engine damage cause they suck unpure air in them and all that but GUNs? Can we insert some logic here? Or is the logic that the oily smoky tar gets in the guns moving parts and jams them? All right i can see that to certain point but currently the damage is insane. In my opinion the tar gun damage is way too high.
It is a cool idea you can use the tar smoke to harm your opponents and hinder their pursuit but the dam scale is way out of proportion. Remove the gun damage completely? Reduce the gun dam to 20% of the current? Im i alone thinking this is out of balance?

realistic? defs not. but out of balance? im not so sure.

Tar requires a very specific set of circumstances to be of any use. you have to have your engines facing the enemy, the enemy has to then stay directly behind your engines for an extended period of time, and you have to be moving in such a way that you do not move into your own tar (and hopefully keeping the enemy in it).

the second requirement is key. your enemy has the ability to just move out of the way (rather easily if they are running hydro or vent). if they dont move, grats, you will probably kill them and have just saved your and all your crew's lives. but a smart opponent will pursue you at the edge of their gun arc so they dont get tarred but can still shoot you, functionally making it a dead tool.

its a risk/reward kind of thing. if you opponent doesnt know how to deal with it, its great. if they do, you are now movement tool down.

26

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Why the current level system is not good

« on: May 20, 2014, 08:22:18 pm »

Yup, planning on ways to move towards non achievement based leveling.. more XP related... things you shoot... things you repair... etc.

When?  Dunno!  Definitely for co-op though.

Please make it based on wins instead of specific stuff you do in-game. Basically if you reward specific actions in-game people are going to gravitate towards playing based on XP gain instead of playing to win, just like they are now. NOBODY wants a pilot running around repairing guns 'for xp' or 'for an achievement'. IMO the best way is to simply reward WINNING matches against equal or higher-skilled opponents, while disregarding what actually goes on in the match, because the definition of playing well varies immensely from ship to ship and player to player, and it's wrong to measure them all by the same stick.

This system would allow for the widest variety of playstyles and encourages better play for XP. If you run out of higher-skilled opponents to gain XP from, join a tournament, which incidentally also also helps the community and promotes good play. It would basically work like an ELO system, except nobody would ever lose points.

except for that directly hinders the player who does not have time or  interest in tournaments and the "competitive" scene in general.

again, when you say people are playing in such a way that they intentionally sabotage their ship now for achievements, or that they will do so in the future with xp, what sort of games are you playing that you are running into that problem in such a significant quantity and/or severity? Are people really playing for the achievements or are you not communicating with your shipmates leading to their ideas of what is the right course of action differing from yours? (or perhaps you are mistaking ignorance of mechanics as malice) I have a sneaking suspicion that your memories are playing tricks on you with regard to how widespread that problem is. I too run into people who are not playing the most efficient game of guns of icarus ever, but usually it is due to inexperience with the game or a misunderstanding of mechanics; not achievement hunting.

27

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Why the current level system is not good

« on: May 17, 2014, 03:28:16 pm »

CoD is not by any means the only game to utilise an XP based levelling system. Same way 3D graphics are used in CoD - it doesn't mean 3D graphics should only be used in shallow CoD clones.

do you have to scare some crows away from your crops? why did you build this straw man?

no where did imply that cod is the only game with an xp based leveling system.

look, whether you agree with the renown approach or not, the fact remains that an xp based system is inappropriate for this game as there is no possibility for progression everything that matters in the game is already available to everyone. you will just have arbitrary numbers increasing until they reset to zero and start increasing again. it will be a measure of playtime more than anything else.  If an xp system is inappropriate then you have to use something else or not have a leveling system at all.

With the achievement system already built into the game and people already investing their time into it, there is no way to get rid of it without pissing people off. its here to stay in skirmish, thats just how it is. i personally dont care about the achievements either, but i dont think its as big of a problem as you guys are presenting it as, i very rarely run into anyone that is not willing to work together in favor of doing their achievement.

28

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Why the current level system is not good

« on: May 17, 2014, 12:49:25 pm »

are we doing this again?

i think you guys are looking at the levels from the wrong angle. they are not your rank, they are not an indicator of skill, they are infact an indicator of renown within the world.  as you preform more and more amazing feats of skill, word of your name spreads in the world, and you "level up"

this is reflected in how the unlocks are handled and even in how the community treats levels.

you only unlock cosmetic items, those cosmetic items are things you have collected in your travels, perhaps given by greatfull people you have helped or looted from towns you have raided. a "higher level" person, i.e. someone who has performed more amazing feats has clearly spent more time traveling and therefor has more cosmetic items.

as far as how people treat levels in game. they are taken as a mark of experience and skill; high levels are assumed to be good, while low levels are assumed to not know what they are doing untill they prove themselves.  Is this not how a famous person, regardless of actual skill, would be treated in the game world?  their actions have spread around the world and their reputation precedes them.  someone not as famous, lower level, would not have that same reputation and thusly assumed to be just an average joe untill they show their skill. 

with no unlocks that affect gameplay being a part of leveling up, an achievement based system is the only way a level system makes sense at all. you just gotta get your heads out of cod land.

furthermore, i think you are overestimating the segment of the population for whom leveling up is a main motivator.  secondary or tertiary sure, or they want a certain unlock so they have to level up to obtain it. but to have leveling up be THE reason they are playing the game, i just find it hard to believe that is a very large segment of any game.

29

World / Re: Real Ship Names

« on: May 12, 2014, 03:01:54 pm »

This may be just me, but just because the Yesha Empire's design has its roots in chinese culture in the eyes of the developers doesn't exactly mean that they speak chinese in this game. I mean, just based on the world's geography and laws of physics you can tell that this is an alternative world, they might as well all speak the same language, and term "european" may not exist, so language restrictions to the ship's name may not be there as well.


Though I sure would love to know more about the world, with the origin of the ships included. It's always nice to sit and think on how various aspects of the game's world came to be, but I would rather see the facts about it than make wrong assumptions.

well based on the faction feature on the Yeshan Empire, the language has definitely held on. their capital is Chang-Ning. furthermore, if you look at that world map that showed up with the adventure mode kickstarter,  the marked locations are largely named with Asian based names.

Well it is an alternate world in that world war 1 never ended and lead to the apocalypse.
However, the people of the world have existed together through all that has happened, spoken languages are not lost, you can lose literacy but people can always speak to each other. With the massive population reduction and isolation of the post-war world, before the age of air, the language probably did change, but its general characteristics would be intact, and a kind of homogenous language would have no chance of emerging.

Though, as the age of air progresses, i suspect a quasi universal language may emerge, either due to conquest or trade supremacy.

30

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Store wishlists - ability to buy for other players

« on: May 04, 2014, 09:01:39 pm »

Oh, and moustaches! Don't forget the moustaches!

game still needs more beards