Is it?:
Is it?:
Cobra: heat dissipation and capacity increased.
Kingfisher: Boost speed, fuel capacity, and pump speed increased.
Hammerhead: Shields increased.
Heavy Cannon: range decreased slightly
Light Cannon: damage increased and now causes bonus damage (5%)
Missiles(LR/SR): Lock range increased, locking time and reload time decreased.
--wj
65 Comments
Sort by:
Oldest first
0
MFD_IT
g5 seem bit too powerfull atm , we'll see with the time.
a quest about beams... befor i was finding easyer to hit with zoom , now seems more correct the aomoming point if without zoom... , i'm not well with beams but , since i like ot , i would like to know if ther was a change the aiming metod , the cross for aim and where the beam go seems not match well , especially it change for near to far , and woth or without zoom...
asking other way ...the beam go straight to the aiming cross , or is realated with ships direction too ??
i would say fuel capacity, and pump speed increased for all the bombers , exept a little decrease for panter.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
William Johnson (Engineer)
G5 still has very low dps, if it is too awesome I will reign it back in a little next week. Beams go straight to the aiming cross. The aiming behavior is unchanged. --wj
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
MFD_IT
beside a probably lucky first impression with the new configuration , effectivly is not overpowered , since also aiming well when turn isn't so easy as with other ships , plus it lacks in missiles and torps interception ...so is good how it is now after better testing.
the aiming quest above was about beam (cobra , kraith and nighthawk ...they seems to me as they need slightly different aim point in order to hit well , especially by different distances...is it possible ???).
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
longshot
One thing the G5 is proving extremely awesome at is destroying turrets. 3 or 4 Kingfishers can remove every turret in under a couple of minutes, even with defenders chasing them - the rockets, their cannon make short work of the turrets and their speed makes them very difficult to chase & stop. Then everyone jumps in a bomber to torp the defenceless carrier - game over within 5 minutes.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
the anger
Its inevitable that given enough time after a re balancing, people will find the most efficient method to winning each game type all over again. but here i have to agree as is - kingfisher seems a tad OP in CA for the time being. i dont know what can be done about it short of nerfing the G5 some, which i would like to avoid doing as im sure many will agree.
its easy to determine which is more broken - can the same be done with sidewinders? Stingrays? Kraits? if so then the game type as it is now needs to be made harder - perhaps turrets are only temporarily knocked out for 5 mins? wouldnt help the current situation but G5's are not indestructible either, a well positioned pirhana or swordfish can make quick work of them.
however, if this is something only the G5 can pull off then it ought to be nerfed in a way that makes it more fair for CA games without crippling it elsewhere. i say this because it is currently absurd, where one G5 can solo wipe out all the turrets in the first half of a match guaranteed even with some defense from the other team... i suppose the simplest thing to change is the rocket fire rate on the G5, as the rocket spam isnt used much vs ships, but vs turrets it is key to why they go down so fast...
its easy to determine which is more broken - can the same be done with sidewinders? Stingrays? Kraits? if so then the game type as it is now needs to be made harder - perhaps turrets are only temporarily knocked out for 5 mins? wouldnt help the current situation but G5's are not indestructible either, a well positioned pirhana or swordfish can make quick work of them.
however, if this is something only the G5 can pull off then it ought to be nerfed in a way that makes it more fair for CA games without crippling it elsewhere. i say this because it is currently absurd, where one G5 can solo wipe out all the turrets in the first half of a match guaranteed even with some defense from the other team... i suppose the simplest thing to change is the rocket fire rate on the G5, as the rocket spam isnt used much vs ships, but vs turrets it is key to why they go down so fast...
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
CanSwiss
I think the G5 is just fine as is. I am by no way in the league of you aces that can wipe the turrets down in 3 minutes flat, but I find it is a great bird that MAKES me a better pilot just by being in it. I recently learned the Rocket Decoy technique, and use it in all my carrier runs, regardless of ship or reason. If I have to be in front of the enemy carrier, it keeps the turrets off of me.
I think that the defense has to step up its game to deal with the G5's stripping the carrier. A few FH-250's /A80's can really hamper the G5's. Not a Bad thing. I love playing defense, and often find no matter what bird, even the G5, the rush when you are being over run makes me lean on the AB too much. So i have to deal with that and anticipate. Makes me a Better pilot. Most of the real unbalanced games I have been in, is because of a Lack of players. When the rosters are full, its a blast. A 4 on 4 CA is not that much fun. More like a massacre even if there is one or 2 aces.
Nerfing the G5 would just make the good pilots do it with another ship, like a Sidewinder Merlin or Viper. Then others will be complaining again. The balance in the ships and their roles have become MUCH better since I started playing.
We should concentrate on pilot training. Not nerfing good ships.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Jiel
Rockets are still fairly useful in dogfights and I spam them often. The problem is that they're unwieldy and somewhat difficult to hit with in a circle chase. Their 1.75sec reload time compensates for this at least a little, though.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Web Trans
Nice Idea about knockout and not destructed
a very cunning idea :)
My Timbs
a very cunning idea :)
My Timbs
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Jiel
Properly flown light fighters or other Kingfishers are still entirely capable of mincing Kingfisher pilots that are focused on destroying turrets. It's just that usually, the pilots capable of doing so are on the opposite carrier, also destroying turrets. The Kingfisher might be the best anti-turret ship, it doesn't have that huge of a lead on it when compared to Sidewinders, Kraits, and maybe Stingrays(never flown an FH-90 though). It's not unreasonable that it shines in one niche or else it'd just be a sub-par ship that no one would bother to fly. Given two pilots of equal skill, the G5 is easily dispatched by Vipers, Merlins, and Swordfish; erased simply from some combination of their faster turn rates, significantly higher DPS, and SR tracking missiles. Excepting the Merlin, prestige ships should be able to easily keep up with a Kingfisher as they have faster or adequate afterburners. The Swordfish only has a minor 7% lower afterburner speed while still having slightly higher turn rate. Let the G5 win in at least one aspect of the game. x:
Punishing its ability to destroy turrets would also spill over into further weakening its already shaky ability to dogfight. Many (other) people already consider the Fast Cannon hard enough to aim, never mind that it has half the DPS of triple MGs and still less DPS than double MGs.
tl;dr
Jiel is a conceited prick that considers flying the G5 to be giving the opposition a favorable handicap. The longer dogfights and the difficulty in shooting down a Kingfisher is largely offset by the fact that were it a Merlin, they would have already been long dead. This way they're given at least some opportunity to fight back. The G5 currently has the right balance of being challenging to play while not being too disadvantaged to the prestige ships.
If that was still tl;dr
I HAS A POTATO GUN. COME AT ME, BRO. :v
Punishing its ability to destroy turrets would also spill over into further weakening its already shaky ability to dogfight. Many (other) people already consider the Fast Cannon hard enough to aim, never mind that it has half the DPS of triple MGs and still less DPS than double MGs.
tl;dr
Jiel is a conceited prick that considers flying the G5 to be giving the opposition a favorable handicap. The longer dogfights and the difficulty in shooting down a Kingfisher is largely offset by the fact that were it a Merlin, they would have already been long dead. This way they're given at least some opportunity to fight back. The G5 currently has the right balance of being challenging to play while not being too disadvantaged to the prestige ships.
If that was still tl;dr
I HAS A POTATO GUN. COME AT ME, BRO. :v
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Web Trans
Now in G5-Kingfisher I outrun V66, X99, FH-200/250. If I am good I also outrun another G5.
I have changed to G5 in CTF, CA and yesterday in S&D.
Corby, when you read this, I apologize, you were not cheating in G5 with your 40 kills in S&D, it was yuor skill AND the G5.
So don't run around telling G5 is good the way it is. Its Attribs now are of a Premium:
long boost, long boost fuel, absolut unbeliveable drifting and a better trunrate than Merlin.
I fly around a carrier, only the "best" ace pilots anabling kill me ... like Marvin, Cash (sorry dont remind the name) Corby and some other Pretorians and DHMSs.
Last games I also could kill some in X99 and V66. Believe me, I was more surprised than them i think, because that should not happen at all ...
But the feedback of you all is the reverse, so for what I said is only my opinion and it is absolutly false....
cu in space in my IMBA G5
I have changed to G5 in CTF, CA and yesterday in S&D.
Corby, when you read this, I apologize, you were not cheating in G5 with your 40 kills in S&D, it was yuor skill AND the G5.
So don't run around telling G5 is good the way it is. Its Attribs now are of a Premium:
long boost, long boost fuel, absolut unbeliveable drifting and a better trunrate than Merlin.
I fly around a carrier, only the "best" ace pilots anabling kill me ... like Marvin, Cash (sorry dont remind the name) Corby and some other Pretorians and DHMSs.
Last games I also could kill some in X99 and V66. Believe me, I was more surprised than them i think, because that should not happen at all ...
But the feedback of you all is the reverse, so for what I said is only my opinion and it is absolutly false....
cu in space in my IMBA G5
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+1
longshot
Yeah its a premium due to its speed and handling alone. In S&D its low DPS & difficulty aiming make it a balanced ship imho. Its only CA & to a lesser extent CTF where I believe it dominates too much. As Ferc argued elsewhere, why use the Sidewinder now when the G5 does everything the F3X did only better, plus it has shields.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Xron
You buffed Missiles?
Are you sure their not strong enough already, I can often decimate the field in a barracuda and the short range missile is one of the strongest factors in making the premium ships overpowered.
Are you sure their not strong enough already, I can often decimate the field in a barracuda and the short range missile is one of the strongest factors in making the premium ships overpowered.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
William Johnson (Engineer)
Lock time decrease is very minor (around 10%). The lock range is increased, but not the missile range. This means that hitting with missiles will be more skill based. Also missile lock range was shorter than several normal weapon ranges, which didn't make sense.
I'll keep an eye on the missile changes. Rockets have gotten a lot of love lately, and I want to make sure both secondaries are viable. --wj
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Xron
Hmm.
Just a thought, do you think a missile that automaticly tracks to the nearest target to it but doesn't turn very well.
If you've played crimson skies you'll know this weapon type as the magnetic rocket. I think that would be a more sutible weapon for some of lighter missile ships like the viper and the merlin.
Just a thought, do you think a missile that automaticly tracks to the nearest target to it but doesn't turn very well.
If you've played crimson skies you'll know this weapon type as the magnetic rocket. I think that would be a more sutible weapon for some of lighter missile ships like the viper and the merlin.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
-1
Ian Bennett
I'm afraid I have to agree with Xron--I feel like the homing missiles were already borderline overpowered before they got the buff.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Ian Bennett
I think the reason such an opinion is unpopular on this forum is that most of the players here are the long-time veterans--who usually fly top-of-the-line ships (i.e. the ones with homing missiles).
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Xron
Shhh keep it down, the praetorians have eyes everywhere... they'll silence anyone who speaks the truth.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
-1
Jiel
Why do you love the tracking missiles so much, Xron? I mean, I never find a particular need to use them anymore, what with the G5 lacking them entirely and all. It's not so hard to wean yourself off of them and aim in order to get a kill. Also, tracking missiles are some of the most useful things in the game. They're not particularly difficult to dodge and they act as a glaring advance warning that someone with trouble aiming at you feels like dancing.
tl;dr
Tracking missile buffs? Hell. Yes. COME AT ME, BRO. :D
Also, potato.
tl;dr
Tracking missile buffs? Hell. Yes. COME AT ME, BRO. :D
Also, potato.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Xron
I think either your being sarcastic or you did not read my post... I hate tracking missiles.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
longshot
There's a bug with the Hammerhead shield increase - starting health was raised to 1100, but max health left at 1000, which means its still at 1000. A fully upgraded Hammerhead right now still only has shields at 1120, whereas it should be 1232.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
CanSwiss
I don't think the Hammerhead needs more shields. I think it needs a slightly larger heatsink, or a little more AB fuel or top end. But that's just me.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+1
longshot
When I fly it, what I notice most is its lack of either speed or turning ability. I agree, I don't think buffing shields was the way to go with this (not that they're buffed anyway - see my post below).
The damage it deals out has been increased substantially via the enhancements to fast cannon and tracking missiles, so probably best leave the heat shields alone. A full burst + missile from the Hammerhead, if delivered accurately, can take down anything except a bomber & even then it inflicts heavy damage.
The damage it deals out has been increased substantially via the enhancements to fast cannon and tracking missiles, so probably best leave the heat shields alone. A full burst + missile from the Hammerhead, if delivered accurately, can take down anything except a bomber & even then it inflicts heavy damage.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
CanSwiss
I think your right. Since the buff on the cannons, then a little AB boost would do it. Or, a little more in the tank then.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+3
MFD_IT
do you think in future will be possible fix the turning rate , so that will not be affected by "secondary" situations , like rolling or screen size or else ? i still not got well how those matters works , but would be better fixed for all players to standard turn.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+1
longshot
+1 - same for zoom level too. These 2 issues are the biggest obstacle to new players getting into the game. Why put artificial barriers in their way like this? They're given by default a limited field of vision with the zoom out keys not even listed in-game, not told that the ship turns sharper sideways than up/down which is counter-intuitive to players with flight-sim backgrounds ... and as a result they lack spacial awareness, can't turn sharply, and vets fly circles around them and dispatch them with ease.
Surely, surely these problems can't be that hard to address?
Surely, surely these problems can't be that hard to address?
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
JazzyCat
Veteran Pilots: For now, try posting a 'Public Service Announcement' message of sorts to global-game chat or in the Lobby when there's a large population of players active. Mainly aimed at the new players (1 week or less experience). Eg:
"TIP: Zoom out the field-of-view while flying using the square brackets. You'll see more & turn faster!"
"TIP: Turn sharply by moving mouse-cursors far left/right while counter-rolling."
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
longshot
Zoom not only lets you see more, it lets you turn sharper too.
That's a helluva lot of text to type when we're struggling to say "gg" before the next game starts - if only we could cut/paste...
Yeah everything like that helps, as does directing players to the community forum where they'll hopefully read stuff like that for themselves, but having to do all this just shows how vital it is that this is fixed.
That's a helluva lot of text to type when we're struggling to say "gg" before the next game starts - if only we could cut/paste...
Yeah everything like that helps, as does directing players to the community forum where they'll hopefully read stuff like that for themselves, but having to do all this just shows how vital it is that this is fixed.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
JazzyCat
If you can think of a shorter version of what I have above, conveying the crucial info while being persuasive, be my guest. I can manage to type one of those lines (whoo, speed-touch!) but yeah, it's still a pain in the arse. Would love copy/paste capability, but I ca see that getting abused quite easily too.
"TIP: Use square brackets. See more. Turn faster."
"TIP: Sharp Turns = far-left/right + counter-roll."
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
William Johnson (Engineer)
I intend to add a computer assistant feature, that periodically message a player tips until it is turned off as an option. To implement this, I would need a list of tips (of sufficient length that it doesn't drive ppl crazy. Feel free to generate a list. --wj
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
William Johnson (Engineer)
Do you mean increase all the turn rates, or fix the bug/feature that make horizontal turning better than vertical turning? While I agree that zooming out makes it feel like you are turning faster (the camera is moving faster due to the changed radius of arc) but I am not sure that zooming out actually increases your turn speed. --wj
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+1
longshot
I've conducted a few stop-watch experiments in a Rhino (slowest to turn, so easiest to measure) - you can repeat this yourself if you want.
Turning to the top or bottom: default zoom = 14 seconds, zoomed out = 12 seconds for a full circle
Turning to the side: default zoom = 4.5 seconds, zoomed out = 3.5 seconds
Turning diagonally: default zoom = 4 seconds, zoomed out = 3.3 seconds
You can see the huge disparity between sideways and vertical turning, and the slight but significant increase when zoomed out.
Furthermore if you do what Xron did when he posted on this issue a month or so back - turn your monitor on its side so you can maximise the vertical height, its possible to then turn sharper vertically than horizontally.
From the experiments that Xron, Jiel and I have done, it seems that turning speed is calculated by the distance the mouse is from the centre of the window, but this isn't scaled for zoom or window size. You could say that this is just a quirk of the game & users can learn to live with & master it, but its not a logical feature that newbies would expect & hence its a needless barrier to them learning the game & sticking with it.
Turning to the top or bottom: default zoom = 14 seconds, zoomed out = 12 seconds for a full circle
Turning to the side: default zoom = 4.5 seconds, zoomed out = 3.5 seconds
Turning diagonally: default zoom = 4 seconds, zoomed out = 3.3 seconds
You can see the huge disparity between sideways and vertical turning, and the slight but significant increase when zoomed out.
Furthermore if you do what Xron did when he posted on this issue a month or so back - turn your monitor on its side so you can maximise the vertical height, its possible to then turn sharper vertically than horizontally.
From the experiments that Xron, Jiel and I have done, it seems that turning speed is calculated by the distance the mouse is from the centre of the window, but this isn't scaled for zoom or window size. You could say that this is just a quirk of the game & users can learn to live with & master it, but its not a logical feature that newbies would expect & hence its a needless barrier to them learning the game & sticking with it.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
-2
Xron
That is so broken it's not even funny.
Put that on the must fix list, though the team systems are still more important right now.
Put that on the must fix list, though the team systems are still more important right now.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
-2
Xron
Increase turn rates? No.
I mean fix the bug (and it is a bug) that makes horizontal or square screen turning better.
Also as a easier fix for one of the problems, remove the [ ] zoom feature. The only people who use it use it to get a faster turn radius and to be honest, I'd rather play the game as it's supposed to be with out zooming out hugely.
I mean fix the bug (and it is a bug) that makes horizontal or square screen turning better.
Also as a easier fix for one of the problems, remove the [ ] zoom feature. The only people who use it use it to get a faster turn radius and to be honest, I'd rather play the game as it's supposed to be with out zooming out hugely.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+2
longshot
As my post below shows, you _can_ turn faster zoomed out.
How can you judge how the game is "supposed" to be? I like having a fisheye lens view of the universe, please don't take that away or I'll go back to smashing into asteroids that I didn't see (its hard enough avoiding the ones that I _can_ see!).
Given the advantages in peripheral vision it provides, isn't it better to make it zoomed out by default & allow people to zoom in if they prefer?
How can you judge how the game is "supposed" to be? I like having a fisheye lens view of the universe, please don't take that away or I'll go back to smashing into asteroids that I didn't see (its hard enough avoiding the ones that I _can_ see!).
Given the advantages in peripheral vision it provides, isn't it better to make it zoomed out by default & allow people to zoom in if they prefer?
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Xron
But if some one wants the closer veiw they will lose out by not being able to turn fast enough.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
longshot
At present that's true. The answer isn't restricting everyone to a narrow field of view & a lower turning rate. Its fixing the bug so that turning is the same regardless of zoom settings & window size/shape, and in the meantime making the default zoom to be the maximum rather than partly zoomed in.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
-2
Xron
While I totally agree with what your saying, I was suggesting the zoom function removal as a temporary, easy fix.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
William Johnson (Engineer)
It would be trivial to make the default zoom the maximum zoom or to remove the feature. --wj
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Xron
Do one or the other.
Or a bit of both by setting the default to seacond to maximum (which feels a lot nicer to fly with than the current max) and then remove the maximum (for now).
Or a bit of both by setting the default to seacond to maximum (which feels a lot nicer to fly with than the current max) and then remove the maximum (for now).
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Web Trans
William,
pls do not take out feature (any), let them be use a standard high for all.
I some times use the high view, wenn I am in Bombers to take down turrents with MG....
So taking featrues out you know, is a programmers view, but users view is let them be some where for me to use them if needed.
thx
pls do not take out feature (any), let them be use a standard high for all.
I some times use the high view, wenn I am in Bombers to take down turrents with MG....
So taking featrues out you know, is a programmers view, but users view is let them be some where for me to use them if needed.
thx
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Kovyn Alander
+1 to Longshot
I use the zoom as it is when I pilot a beam ship. It's my "sniper scope". I don't use it for turning because I frankly don't want to be holding an extra key or change the vision that I'm use too when already when flying. Taking the zoom out "temporarily" as Xron has suggested is just a minor fix to a minor problem.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+1
Snubby
It would be great if you would stop listening to Xron. K thnx. Just because he posts on these forums (way too often) doesn't mean he speaks for the majority nor the people who have invested the most time.
um, map editor? Squad play? I know you say that changing ship stats is quick and easy but let's move forward here. Enough already. We have been playing the same maps for seven months now.
Seriously WJ , do you want this game to die again like it did right before Steam? What will save it then. I only say this out of fear of losing an awesome game. Please, Please no more ship mods until the map editor and social features come out.
Skill is the Great Equalizer
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+3
Xron
I'm hurt.
But I do agree with a lot of that.
To Wj
Squad play is REALLY important right now, hell even a change team option would be a HUGE improvement, because a lot of players like games with decent team play.
And new maps would be great.
Now Snubby, three things.
Don't be like this I want to be friends.
Map editors are hard to make... like really, it's a whole new program and I still have yet to see confirmation that he is making it. I mean I would love to see him make it and we definatly need some new maps but the editor could take more time than we can afford.
Edit: Seems that he is making a editor of sorts but it's currently behind the Squad play and customization in priority, I suggest making a post to promote it's creation rather than attacking mine.
Last point I know you don't mind unbalanced games "Skill is the Great Equalizer" and all... but many people hate them, especially if it appears to be pay-to-win at the first glance (the premium ship's stats are still quite daunting). Your right in saying skill is more important... but you'd have to tell that to every single new player to stop them from just looking in the hanger and saying "Oh THAT kind of game."
(I bet this comment will get multiple down votes just because it's me, at least -2)
But I do agree with a lot of that.
To Wj
Squad play is REALLY important right now, hell even a change team option would be a HUGE improvement, because a lot of players like games with decent team play.
And new maps would be great.
Now Snubby, three things.
Don't be like this I want to be friends.
Map editors are hard to make... like really, it's a whole new program and I still have yet to see confirmation that he is making it. I mean I would love to see him make it and we definatly need some new maps but the editor could take more time than we can afford.
Edit: Seems that he is making a editor of sorts but it's currently behind the Squad play and customization in priority, I suggest making a post to promote it's creation rather than attacking mine.
Last point I know you don't mind unbalanced games "Skill is the Great Equalizer" and all... but many people hate them, especially if it appears to be pay-to-win at the first glance (the premium ship's stats are still quite daunting). Your right in saying skill is more important... but you'd have to tell that to every single new player to stop them from just looking in the hanger and saying "Oh THAT kind of game."
(I bet this comment will get multiple down votes just because it's me, at least -2)
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+1
Snubby
Don't listen to what I say Xron. we need people like you to fan the flames of discussion. I don't hate you. ;) I never down vote your comments. okay maybe once. but just once. No worries mate.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Xron
Sweet.
But seriously... you need to make a post on current priorities. I would my self but everyone would disagree with it on principle.
But seriously... you need to make a post on current priorities. I would my self but everyone would disagree with it on principle.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+1
Snubby
I have many times but no one listens to me. Except for that time when WJ added hanger invulnerability. ;)
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Ian Bennett
Another note with the turn rates thing-- the keys to zoom in/out (that can also buff your turn speed) DO NOT SHOW UP IN THE CONTROLS MENU. Thus newcomers won't even know the option exists.
I feel like the game is harsh enough without there being a "secret button" that gives veterans an edge (even a small one). Ever try dogfighting a fully upgraded X99 with an unupgraded F-3?
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
the anger
They will be - see this post
WJ:
I will almost definitely change the default zoom to 105 (which is 3 ticks out from the current default). This is the widest I can set it without getting visual distortions. I will go a head and make the FOV commands *official* and add them to the key mapping list.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+1
Xron
Most of my comments and posts are aimed at making the game less harsh for new players. But I've found that a large portion of the forum active players harbor no love for this cause.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Snubby
I understand the need for new players to be able to jump right in and not get slaughtered the first time they play. I feel for them.
If you change the game to suit all the new players then what is left for us?
the game doesn't need "dumbing down", it needs a way for people to play together and not with the general populace. there will always be the player who will change their name or create a new account just so they can "pawn the noobs".
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Xron
Making the ships balanced and trying to get rid of some exploits does not equal dumbing down.
It equals common sense.
It equals common sense.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+2
longshot
Snubby, the issue as I see it isn't that there's a strong need right now to separate vets from newbies. Its that there isn't the gameplay depth necessary to keep people playing once they've mastered ships & tactics, so the vets aren't being retained. How many of the top Praetor aces play now? It'd be great to have high quality games where the high skilled match up against each other without a crowd of clueless straight-flying nuke-spamming cannon fodder in the way, but even if there was a way to achieve that (apart from migrating to the asian server) it won't happen unless the highly skilled players are, you know, actually playing.
Making the gameplay interesting & varied (new maps/gametypes), and meaningful via stats retention and a ranking display within the game - these need to come first along with squadron play that WJ's spoken of recently. Add to that regular IMBA "challenges" or tournaments that get the winner's (whether individual or squad) name up in lights in the game's honour role, and there's reason for the top players to stick around & keep fighting, and for squadrons to develop & practice tactics.
Separating aces from nuggets isn't something I really care for atm as there just isnt the player base. If all the servers were constantly full then yes, maybe, but then how would a nugget get to know & learn from or befriend the top players if they never see them & try to kill them :)
Anyway, WJ's recent move to make the ships more balanced with their individual strengths & weaknesses has improved gameplay imho, I don't see any recent changes as dumbing the game down.
Making the gameplay interesting & varied (new maps/gametypes), and meaningful via stats retention and a ranking display within the game - these need to come first along with squadron play that WJ's spoken of recently. Add to that regular IMBA "challenges" or tournaments that get the winner's (whether individual or squad) name up in lights in the game's honour role, and there's reason for the top players to stick around & keep fighting, and for squadrons to develop & practice tactics.
Separating aces from nuggets isn't something I really care for atm as there just isnt the player base. If all the servers were constantly full then yes, maybe, but then how would a nugget get to know & learn from or befriend the top players if they never see them & try to kill them :)
Anyway, WJ's recent move to make the ships more balanced with their individual strengths & weaknesses has improved gameplay imho, I don't see any recent changes as dumbing the game down.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
JazzyCat
Or of sufficient brevity, lol.
I'll work on a list tonight if possible, this week definitely, and PM it to you.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+1
Nova
Xron i actually use zoom key more than you ever think, and i do it for better accuracy not for faster turn rate. So stop generalizing that nobody use it. Seems that you want to change everything that's not your liking. You want to make the game more easier? then you are trying to take off the main fun factor of this game, skill and learning curve.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
MFD_IT
cause you think this your thought is just objective reality instead ?
i can say i lke too , but is nice as much is hard , and for someone maybe not funny at all.
the other posts are intended to help as much people as possible , not to adjust for personal likes , as i intend them at least.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
0
Xron
I'm not trying to make the game eaiser, I'm trying to make it less counter intuitive.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
+2
ZigZagJoe
Honestly, the only thing i think really needs to be sorted is that zoom level should not change the turn speed.
Horizontal vs vertical turn rate adds flavor, IMO. Obviously it should be regularized (ie. % of height, not based on window ratio), but otherwise...
Also, any restriction/removal of zoom is gonna earn my ire. I use both normal-view zoom (bracket keys), usually 2 clicks in, and window zoom for obvious reasons. It's not broken, don't fuck with it.
Horizontal vs vertical turn rate adds flavor, IMO. Obviously it should be regularized (ie. % of height, not based on window ratio), but otherwise...
Also, any restriction/removal of zoom is gonna earn my ire. I use both normal-view zoom (bracket keys), usually 2 clicks in, and window zoom for obvious reasons. It's not broken, don't fuck with it.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
-3
Xron
I'm all for adding flavor... but really it makes more sence for up turns to be faster and side turns to be drifty, adds flavor and isn't counter intuitive. And gonna point out yet again, I suggested the zoom removal as a temporary fix to be fair on the newbs while he fixes up the larger problem... and then bring it back.
Translation provided by Microsoft translator:
Links
Community stats
- 1,091People
- 931Feedback
- 6,495Comments
- 5,578Votes
- 1Staff
