Messages

31

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

« on: May 04, 2014, 08:23:13 pm »

this is totes needed. not only cause it would rule. but also it would expand the store revenue stream for muse. dem micro transactions yo.

32

World / Re: A couple of questions regarding the nature of this universe...

« on: May 04, 2014, 08:05:15 pm »

That's not a macguffin. I'd say it's closer to minovsky physics. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinovskyPhysics

possibly with a trace of http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SchematizedProp

dude true facts. i couldnt remember what minovsky physics was called and was far too lazy to look it up. party hard wayne.

33

World / Re: A couple of questions regarding the nature of this universe...

« on: May 04, 2014, 07:03:32 pm »

As you can tell, I detest loose ends.

detest loose ends.
use MacGuffin that requires highly advanced physics.
create even more loose ends.

34

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A new piloting tool: Ship Stabilizer

« on: May 03, 2014, 04:13:36 pm »

Well, you have to consider that it's a double-edged sword. It's only really useful for snipers if the enemy doesn't get close. If an enemy gets close, they no longer have 3 effective anti-brawl tools (kero/moonshine + claw + hydro/tar for instance), but 2.

this is true. just not sure if it will be enough of a handicap against a skilled sniper team that no longer has to deal with their own ship's movements, its really close. like i said, i love the idea, and it could potentially make things very interesting.  could even see some use on more mid-range oriented builds for situational movement control.  It definitely merits testing.

35

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A new piloting tool: Ship Stabilizer

« on: May 03, 2014, 03:16:56 pm »

i am torn.

i love the idea of a ship stabilization tool. but i dont want to make it any easier for snipers .

36

World / Re: A couple of questions regarding the nature of this universe...

« on: April 25, 2014, 07:24:15 pm »

I just say 'magic'. For example the item blurb for phoenix claw explicitly states it works by 'luck'. That's pretty much equivalent to magic.

or that it works on the human construct that is luck. the pilots belief in the fact that luck is real makes it real.  By which, i mean it gives the pilot confidence to pull off that risky maneuver and because the pilot has that extra confidence he/she succeeds where pilots who do not believe, or are shaken by the loss of their lucky claw, fail.

37

World / Re: The World?

« on: April 25, 2014, 06:36:39 pm »

In the old forum some Muse people mentioned global warming taken to the next level. I still prefer an alternate earth either with less gravity or a super dense atmosphere.

well if a super war and arms race occurred that would correlate with vastly increased greenhouse gas emissions due to production methods and power sources of the time. and as such an earth atmosphere that has gone through that will be much denser than our atmosphere we know today.

38

World / Re: A couple of questions regarding the nature of this universe...

« on: April 25, 2014, 06:05:42 pm »

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I have a couple of in universe questions.

First, let me state unequivocally that whatever issues I might have regarding "realism" I do not believe that game-play should be radically adjusted to better reflect that idea.

But, my questions are pretty basic.

1) Given that the balloons are clearly too small (or the crafts too big) to maintain any positive buoyancy, given current Earth gravity and atmospheric density, is there an in universe explanation for this? If so, what is it?

2) Given that balloons are notoriously vulnerable, is there an in universe reason for the astounding toughness of GoI balloons. Similarly, is there an explanation for how easy they are to repair?

3) Given the small size of most of the craft and the seeming lack of any real living space on most, will there be remodels of the ships for the persistent universe that make long journies somewhat more "realistic"?

Again. I get Rule of Cool > realism in most cases here. I am just posing some questions in case this has been thought out any for potential story-lines be they in game or out of game titles.

Thanks!

Well this game, and all games, is a representation of what it portrays. It is an approximation that comes close to what would actually be happening but does not show everything due to it being an entertainment medium created with limited resources.  Not just money and time but data, the closer the approximation gets to simulated reality the more advanced the hardware and software have to be to run it. As this is a for profit, entertainment venture you have to back away from that extreme, nor is it a minimalistic "art game", so a middle ground has to be found.

In regards to your questions about the balloons and ship sizes,  the same could be said about hundreds of other minutia about the game. why cant you climb rigging, why do you take continuous damage while on the ground, where is all the ammo for the guns coming from, and so many others. The answer to those is that they are all there in universe, they are just not being represented in the approximation you are observing. A game is like a shadow of a world. you can see its shape, make out basic features and functions, but it does not show the worlds true depth.

also, its not really a situation of cool > realism. its all about aesthetic, with out a unifying aesthetic governing how everything in the game looks in relation to everything else while at the same time staying within resource constraints, the user experience suffers. It leaves the player feeling like the game is incomplete and lacking something or leaves them stranded somewhere in the uncanny valley.

39

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: The Real Goldfish Fix

« on: April 21, 2014, 05:04:08 pm »

this is definitely a better fix than angle changes.

it also reflects what the average crew in universe would do.  it is much easier and cheaper to weld some scrap to the front of your ship to protect your important, and presumably expensive, heavy gun than it is to remove and reposition your sidegun platforms.

40

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Guns jam, ammo changes, and passive class abilities

« on: April 10, 2014, 07:54:45 pm »

Isn't any weapon that gets "destroyed" essentially jammed? The weapon's parts are not unusable, it just needs to be smacked until it works right again. I could see a jamming mechanic working by guns slowly taking damage after extended use. This would force occasional gun maintenance on the crew even if they are not taking fire. It might reduce the deadliness of trifecta and quadfecta builds, but would be most damaging ships that some how acquired two gunners.

dude trufax, i am totally for this solution for some reason, just seems like its a good way to simulate damage from use. besides, non-stop firing of any relatively complex weapon will cause damage to to the extent of breaking way more often than enemy fire would. the internal moving parts are what matter, the outer parts are usually fairly robust and can take hits without breaking the gun. when various media depict guns stop firing due to enemy fire its because the operator(s) are dead, not the gun being broken. ramble ramble ramble anyway yeah nice one hamster.

41

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Point the Goldfish's guns forward

« on: April 04, 2014, 03:26:03 pm »

The Artemis has the final say in disable. Triple art effectively used has far greater range and precision as well as more consistent, maintained disable and a lesser vulnerability to return fire than a Hwacha. Both the Hellhound and Manticore are (at least alone, and in my opinion) highly ineffective against the combination of gat mortar and art disable that you'll experience trying to get close to most high level teams.

The artemis only has the "final say" if you build this situation in such a way that soft cover does not matter and you are flying in a straight line. as it is in reality every single map has enough soft cover, if used to the fullest, a goldfish can move in close unseen. and by flying in a non-linear fashion you can dodge a great many artemis shots while you are far away. no gun is unbeatable. and if it is the question should be how to change that gun, not to design the game around imbalance.

I do not see how highly varied gun angles are necessary when, as has already been discussed at length, the Goldfish is fantastically manoeuvrable and unlike a Mobula or Galleon doesn't need a gun arc in every direction to quickly attack enemies on any side.

also the multiple gun arcs matter because you can fire then protect your heavy weapon by turning, shielding it with your ship, and still being able to put out some damage to support your ally. if you put the focus more towards frontal attacking, then it is actually more vulnerable to being locked down

42

Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Point the Goldfish's guns forward

« on: April 04, 2014, 02:32:58 pm »

There are barely any situations where it's good call to turn in the side guns if the front gun isn't a hwacha.

you dont turn in the side guns. the side guns gain arc incidentally as you move and twist. you are not playing for high dps in a goldfish you dont need to be hitting every time. you just need to hit at the right time. when it is of most value to your team.

If you are flying a goldfish you must fly unexpectedly aggressively and aggressively defensive. with the speed of a goldfish you can weave in get some hits and get out, not easily mind you, the engineers need to be up to snuff. you can also fly in such a way that you target the ships targeting your allies. you can remove enemies from arc on  your allies and you can just straight up remove the damage sources. giving your ally time to repair and kill the threat. (this all assumes you are using the hwatcha or carronade which are the most popular weapons on the goldfish, if you are going for a damage goldfish with the flak or lumber your gunner better be good because you have to be constantly changing target to what ever ship is the biggest threat/easiest pickings.)

by removing damage sources from your allies and thus preventing damage that was going to be taken, you are essentially healing your allies, in a round-a-bout way. the goldfish functions much like the cleric in 4th edition dungeons and dragons.  yes you are supporting your allies but you are doing it by beating the fuck out of the most opportune enemy. and it becomes more and more useful the more allies you have.

if you turn the gun arcs forward you remove its capability to be hitting almost no matter what direction the ship is facing and moving, thus making it boring.

43

World / Re: Real Ship Names

« on: April 01, 2014, 01:38:37 pm »

I'd like to think that the Junker was developed under a cool name like Páoxiāo (Chinese for Roar or Thunder)
Or perhaps something like Yòngchù (usefulness/effectiveness)

Names like that would be interested to have floating around, though I'd suggest it's more simple to have an amalgamated name as we do now - at least for informal discussion and battle plans

well the junker, as i said, was developed by the people of the Arashi League so i doubt it was givin a chinese name. maybe you meant the Galleon? 

44

World / Real Ship Names

« on: April 01, 2014, 01:31:12 am »

So, I had thought recently, if all the ships in the game currently are ships that are widespread throughout the world, the names that we call them surely cannot be their real names. the names we use are slang that have popped up over the years and taken hold due to the familiarity of seeing these ships in the skies and ports across the world.

take the junker or galleon for instance, they are ships specifically stated to be designed by certain groups, the arashi league and yesha empire respectively. Surely the prideful Arashi would not name a ship of their design a JUNKer, and why would the ethnically Chinese yeshan epire name a ship of their design using a word that has european roots. similar statements can be made of every ship in the game.

So, the question remains, when these ships were developed. when they were brand new technological innovations. what were the names their people gave them and what are they probably still known as in their homelands.

45

Gameplay / Re: Hull buffing effect and increased rebuild time

« on: March 29, 2014, 10:55:35 pm »

yeah, alot of people dont know that downside of the hull buff. i certainly agree it should be in the tutorial.

i had a greater point to make here but i stopped after those frist two sentences, made a few drinks, discovered this in my open tabs, and now i cant for the life of me remember what it was so yeah. tutorial material. do it.