Forum Replies Created
According to NASA, Ceres is a Dwarf Planet, not an asteroid. Not even the largest Dwarf Planet, falling behind Eris and Pluto. 4 Vesta would be the largest asteroid now under the new classification (from my understanding).
**Literally never heard the term groundpounders outside of the Corps until these forums, where it is more often than not used in a derogatory manner.
Oorah, from a fellow Devil Dog.
I too believe the jittering issue is overstated. It confuses the bots so much because of the leading code they have is meant to track your trajectory, so naturally if your trajectory is constantly changing, they’d get confused. A human would not be so confused as the movement would be so small as not to make much of a difference in my opinion.
While I feel the strategic enhancement of positional combat is valid, I also feel it’s overstated. Surely there is a middle ground that you can have greater positional combat without sacrificing too much mouse control.
I don’t think challenging someone to a 1v1 is going to prove your point to anyone Jediluke.
The ironic thing is….after all the dust settles….years from now perhaps….WE will be the ones still playing the game while the majority who might have been catered to move on to their next ground pounder.
I think we best stick to discussion about the game and it’s mechanics and less on making broad statements and assumptions 😉
I’m still holding out hope that Revival will come up with something that maybe no one thought of that satisfies all parties, instead of just going with one extreme or the other. One can dream!
I stopped posting for off the topic reasons, but this is too fundamental a topic to stay quiet on. All of this is my own opinion. SUMMARY IS AT THE END.
I am against any FORCED mouse limiting. There seems to be two main reasons why people want it: A) Joystick/gamepad users who see mice as an unfair advantage and want limits on mice to make it fair to them, and B) users who believe that having slower turn rates add to the experience of positional combat.
My primary concern with ‘A’ is that by limiting the mouse turn rates, you basically turn the advantage of mice into a disadvantage, essentially making it unfair for mouse users. Limiting joystick turn rates won’t accomplish much since I doubt many joystick users have their turn rate close to max. I’d hate to have one user base “nerfed” because the other sees it as unfair, especially since mouse users will outnumber joystick users. Joystickers will get exactly what they want, and mouse users will be forced to accept less then ideal conditions if they want to play.
My primary concern with ‘B’ is that (like mentioned in the other thread) if you adjust too heavilyl, then you are basically forced to play positionally. I think this argument is slightly exaggerated, and only really applies to the top level players. Also, how quickly can someone turn and immediately hit their target (that’s not right next to them) in Overload with no mouse limiting with something other than the driller? If mouse limiting is forced to promote positional combat, then I feel it would require the maps to be very carefully designed so that you can play that style, but still have compelling combat, instead of just who can run and flank the fastest/best.
I’d also like to offer a similar concept. In a lot of online multiplayer games, you get players with a better internet connection than others. Some players have lower pings, and sometimes it can be significantly different causing the players with the lowest ping (say 25) to have a significant advantage over those with higher pings (100+). Should we limit this advantage to make it fairer to those who have a lower ping? (basically should we add a minimum amount of “lag”). I think most (and I’m just guessing) would say this sounds silly, and I counter that limiting mouse turn rates to make it fair for joystick users sound equally as silly to me. Not a perfect analogy, but close to enough to make my point I think.
Then also, do you limit it only in multiplayer? That could cause some frustration if you can choose what you want in SP and CM, but MP you can’t. Sure, giving the server option to specify could work, but what about matchmaking? You’d have to have two seperate matchmaking systems, one for limited and one not (to give players options). I can tell you if mouse limiting was forced to strong or very strong, I wouldn’t bother playing multiplayer. Weak or maybe even Normal is as high as I’d tolerate. I agree that Overload isn’t a true FPS, but it also isn’t a true flight simulator.
I would also point to Descent Underground as an example of what a Descent like game would feel like when mouse turn rate limiting is taken too far. Mouse control is one of the biggest issues people have with the Early Access version, so much so that Descendant even said they completely overhauled the system in their internal build to make it better.
This might be much like tri-chording boost, where it’s impossible to come to a consensus. Maybe Revival can come up with a way to meet in the middle (much like the tri-chording dilema) so that each side accepts it even if they don’t completely like it. Sadly I don’t have a proposed solution, but I feel all aspects need to be discussed so Revival can make the best choice.
SUMMARY: Severally nerfing one player base to satisfy another is not the solution imo. Any forced limiting should be small or an option given for those who run dedicated games (not matchmaking). Also, a majority of players will be mouse users, so Revival shouldn’t put the majority of players at a disadvantage. In my opinion.
EDIT: This post might sound a little harsher than I intended, so I’m sorry if it does, I don’t intend to do anything other than discuss.
Hi there! I was a little disappointed about it, as I clearly put a lot of effort into getting them all. It was so satisfying knowing that I got every one that I could, and then to have a couple taken away was like, well, disappointing like I said. I can understand to a point, because it is in Early Access and everything is subject to change, but I was hoping the Achievements were solid. It’s hard for me to say I want a replacement, but it does make me wonder what other Achievements may be removed at release time.
In any case, I await official release, and once I get through the Single Player campaign, I will promptly start the Achievement hunt. I wonder how long it will take me? If you also plan to do the same, then I will say good hunting pilot, take no prisoners. 🙂
Awe, I’m touched. Thank you so much. While I may have provided the spark, it was up to you to push through and achieve your goal, so really, you deserve all the credit. I’m sure you’re a much better player than you give yourself credit for, as some of those achievements are certainly not what I consider easy. A big congratulations to you my friend, for putting in the time and effort, and for finally completing your goal. Well done 🙂December 6, 2017 at 8:19 am in reply to: Couple of suggestions regarding stat records (Ctrl-C/Ctrl-A) #15544
– Player damage to himself
Or herself 😛
I like the idea of having some sort of run identifier. Such as “12/6/2017 RUN 1” or whatever to help differentiate data sets.
I also like the idea of the data somehow saving itself so you don’t have to do 2 copy pastes after every run.
Not sure if any of this is doable, but it would be nice.
I don’t think it’s particularly terrible
it’s an adequate option once you figure out how to place shots.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement 😉 Out of context sentences aside, I do feel the Cyclone could use some real love on the dev side, as I don’t feel it lives up to everything it could be. Or maybe I just miss the Vortex too much lol
Good to see at least one person get some use out of it though.
Before the discussion gets TOO heavy, keep in mind we still have 1 more primary and 1 more secondary coming upon release.
I disagree with some of what you say about the Reflex. I use the Reflex/Driller exclusively at this point. I don’t agree at all that it is unusable without the L upgrade. While I love the L upgrade, I do find it to be quite usable without any upgrades. Sure, it has a limited range, but it’s not the only weapon to have a limited range (Flak for example, or Cyclone). It’s used to offset how powerful the weapon is. Much like other weapons however, you have to adjust your gameplay to suit it.
I don’t find the unupgraded Impulse as much of a utility as you do. I find that on Insane, the bots dodge Impulse fire at mid-large distances, forcing you to get into close range where you’re better off with any other weapon. It’s good as a starter but until you get an upgrade, I find it to be lackluster in performance. It doesn’t really have a niche where it performs better than other weapons.
I felt the Flak was an interesting weapon and provided a nice way of dealing lots of damage, for the price of being up close. I liked it as an alternative to the general shotgun you see in most every other shooter. Then the Crusher was added. I’ve said it as soon as it did, the overlap of function between the 2 weapons is too much. Both use ammo, both are really only effective at close range, and I haven’t encountered a situation where I’d pick one over the other, just pick whichever one I had or was next on the scroll list. The only real difference is “style” and how you like to play. Crusher requires aim, Flak is spray and pray. Both are strong. I’d be perfectly fine with either one just going away and having a new weapon take it’s place (though it’s probably too late for that now).
Oh the Cylcone. It may be the Spreadfire of Overload, but it didn’t use to be. It originally started life as a weapon called the Vortex. The Vortex was very much similar to the Helix from D2, and was a good balance between cool, powerful, but not OP. I actually used the Vortex. I think if you straight up brought that back it would fit in well and be a great “up close energy weapon” to provide a mirror of the Flak. The cyclone just falls short on a few different things as you have stated. Anyone out there use it as their go-to energy weapon?
All this is just my opinion based on my own in-game experience.December 3, 2017 at 8:48 am in reply to: Open Office Spreadsheets for pasting the stats that we get with Ctrl-C & Ctrl-A #15519
Excel 2007 and later will open .ods (OpenOffice spreadsheet) files as well, in case you’re using that. I don’t know if the compatibility is 100% but it seems OK to me at a cursory glance (although I am using O365).
It’s not 100% compatable. There is something in there that the Excel format doesn’t support. Using Excel 2016 btw.October 24, 2017 at 4:55 pm in reply to: Could you prevent Powerups from de-spawning while they're in your view? #15258
You’re missing the point. 5 minutes is already quite long enough. I’m well aware that you’re saying they would have different despawn timers. Making it longer for Armor Orbs wouldn’t help anyway because they would still be despawning upon approaching them. It would just happen at different times.
I think you’re missing the point. I specifically said it “Might not be the best solution but could ease the frustration some.”
Keywords: NOT (the best) and SOME (as in won’t solve the issue).
Please stop trying to make everything in an argument.October 24, 2017 at 4:42 pm in reply to: Could you prevent Powerups from de-spawning while they're in your view? #15256
The despawn timer is already at 5 minutes.
Uh, yeah, I am very aware of this. I was suggesting making the shield despawn timer seperate from energy and ammo, in case I wasn’t clear enough in my previous comment.
I think from a newbie standpoint, the Automap is still a 3D space that you need to maneuver in, therefore it could be quite confusing for those starting out not to be able to roll the automap like they roll their ship.October 24, 2017 at 4:34 pm in reply to: Could you prevent Powerups from de-spawning while they're in your view? #15253
I preface this with the fact that I don’t have an issue with powerups despawning on me. I never see them despawn and if I’m away from a powerup long enough for it to despawn out of sight, then I”d forgotten about it anyway. However, the following is my take on the issue based on what I’ve read.
I like defconx’s idea to have the powerups flash when they’re about to respawn. Seems like a simple method (instead of creating lightning bolts or w/e) to let you know something is going on. As far as an audio cue, it makes little difference to me since I probably won’t hear it anyway. I’d just ask to not have it ONLY be an audio cue.
Another idea (on top of defconx’s idea) is to have just the shield orbs have a slower despawn timer. Might not be the best solution but could ease the frustration some.
I am a rank beginner, both to this game and the 6dof genre. My only first hand experience is a few laborious runs through the training mission, and then a tentative fly through of the first level on trainee. I didn’t die! I am proud of myself for finishing a level.
Welcome to the game, and to the genre! Nice to have you with us, and congrats on not dying! 🙂
I marked it for the proper time. Check it out: