So i got this idea when thinking about the charging/discharging option of the poll
According to what iA wrote this in the topic features a charge mechanic replacing the overdrive mechanic
I can see that there is going to be a charge meter to see when your charge is full
when the charge is full you can discharge it, firing shots at a higher firerate compared to overdrive with no heat cost.
My idea is to make the charge available with 4 power levels: level 0 (no charge), level 1 (week charge), level 2 (medium charge) and level 3 (stronk charge), with a meter showing you which charge level you are at. You fill up the charge meter by damaging enemies. When the meter reaches a specific level, you can use the the charge at that level and itāll keep going until your meter depletes. Raising the charge meter from level 0-1 doesnāt take too much time, from lvl 1-2 will take longer, and raising from lvl 2-3 takes the most time.
The charge meter should look like this, but vertical, and placed on the right side of the screen (i took this image from another game):
The charge meter will have different colors based on which charge level youāre at (maybe customizable ?).
note: this whole thing will become a waste if charge/discharge doesnāt win the poll, pls help me
I voted for dual weapons and as a drawback this spacecraft should have no satellite slots and instead the satellite-fire button is used for firing the second weapon.
Question: Does the exhaust of this new spacecraft has some different? Cuz I see the Raven (from the picture) has used other exhaust (not the first exhaust).
Well, it canāt be helped, however, iA can fix that situation.
In the poll setting, we can restrict who can vote.
All those clones account, try voting if you can. SIKE, GET THE HECK OUT OF HERE THOSE RIGGED VOTES
Can
Canāt
0voters
The reason why those rigged votes are there because iA, me and everyone havenāt noticed it before. So now, i hope the bad situation like this wonāt happen again.
you donāt need to over exaggerate about something that can be easily fixed like this one that you could just wait for ia to snap the rigged votes and by not midding at all and then boom, problem solved
seriusly, it is just absurdly annoying and it doesnāt help in anything else
I know that sometimes i can be that bad. My apologies. However, as what i mentioned, we can restrict who can vote in our polls, in the advanced settings. I think iA havenāt looked at that.
OK, this is my first chance to reply and thereās already fifty posts - hopefully Iām not late to the party. Awesome to see a poll for a big feature like this before itās actually implemented.
Also, Iām really sorry, but this turned out to be a text wall. Please stick it out to the end, hopefully Iāve made it worth reading.
Iāll start by saying that Iām not polarised against any of these options. Theyāre all coming from a pretty good angle. However, I do have some thoughts:
This idea is interesting. I think it would make weapons with fundamentally extreme or situational mechanics (coughAbsolvercough) much more desirable, because it would allow you to cover their weaknesses with a second weapon. On that note, however, how would Corn Shotgun interact with this? I can only see that being confusing at best, and potentially problematic - it would be a shame for the one thing that weapon really has going for it to be taken away even further.
Additionally, what weapon do you begin with as a secondary? Being unable to choose seems like a huge disadvantage for short missions. I donāt see why, if this is a new spaceship model, it canāt just have two slots for weapons on the mounting screen - unless thatās a very gruelling technical hurdle with the code for some reason. This also encourages players to buy more guns and upgrade them.
That would mean, however, that atoms are pointless - because you can upgrade weapons past up to level 8, and so youād essentially start with both at the āmax powerā a Raven can hit. (On that note, would it still be able to get a āMax Powerā points reward? Thatās a significant boost thatās pretty important in competitive missions.) The way itās currently described, a fully upgraded weapon would be in your primary slot, and then all your pickups would feed the secondary.
Perhaps worst of all, I canāt see anyone flying a Bomber with two pylons if you can fly a Raven which has two individually-customisable pylons and no speed penalty. The least popular ship model would just become utterly irrelevant.
Soā¦
ā¦to solve all this stuff above, Iām actually going to suggest a fundamentally different way to run a Dual Weapons concept - patent pending. Have the weapons be selectable, rather than simultaneous. Theyād both draw from the same firepower pool (no limit necessary) but they would replace overdrive on the ship as a trade-off instead. āFiring with overdriveā (double-clicking) simply fires the secondary instead of the primary, which would be tied to regular fire - which also means that mobile players wonāt have any trouble getting in on the fun. Itād also prevent the inevitable visual weirdness of shooting two weapon types at once.
This change makes the Raven less of a kitchen sink ultrapower ship, and more of a versatile swiss army knife that can adapt to the situation at hand - which I think suits the sleek, stealthy visual design of the vessel much better, donāt you? It would be a ton of fun this way to play with.
This āre-workedā Dual Weapons, or something similar, is probably my ideal best-case for the new ship, but if notā¦
As they are described, I like this suggestion the most. Indeed, Iād be okay with this replacing overdrive on all the ships (as @1galbatorix1 semi-suggested), although that leaves the question at hand still open. In fact, my entire thoughts on this proposition (and overdrive just generally) are pretty much exactly as Galbatorix said.
In addition to the concerns that have been mentioned by Galbatorix and @Enhawk (about this essentially adding a feature that removes features) Iād also say something nobody has been talking about - it fundamentally would change the way ship selection works. Currently, thereās no ship (model) thatās just flat-out better in certain circumstances. Bombers are generally looked down on, but the fact is they do give you more firepower at all times, just with a trade-off. H&C is weaker but you get more money. Even if the choices seem pretty obvious to some, in no situation does a ships benefits/detriments ever make it a āwrite-offā bad choice in certain circumstances.
That would no longer be true with the Raven, if it had environmental resistance. There would just be no reason to use this ship on any non-environmental mission. Itās just a flat-out bad pick going into some missions. Not saying thatās absolutely a bad thing, but it does have definite drawbacks, and more importantly, it just changes that way ship selection will look going forward irreversibly from āWhat do I think is best to fly?ā to just āWhat is best to fly?ā and itās worth thinking about if that shift is a good one to make.
Two additional quick notes here. Firstly, the firepower limit is here again - not an issue, but it just reminds me to bring up @GgWw1175ās proposition (I think it was his?) that Mullers be the only spaceship able to hit level 20 (Max Power!) Iām still a big fan of this, because it gives players a much more tangible reason to move on from H&C and a way to tease the Max Power game mechanic in the ship description. Plus, that feels like a really fitting perk for the classic Chicken Invaders spaceship.
Secondly, Iām just going to chime in with @Recruit_75 and everyone else saying that it would be totally fine to stop making environments strictly, purely negative effects - regardless of whether immunity to them comes with the Raven.
Indeed, if enough of these ideas prove popular, it might be cool to see one or both of the ālosingā options return in future spacecraft, if any more are made.
Iād also be ok with this, even (perhaps controversially) if it didnāt buff the overall firerate by 15-25%, at least to begin with. Iād be happy for the Raven to replace these particular perishables, as theyāre rarely ever useful on a per-mission basis as opposed to per-wave.
tl;dr: Dual Weapons if itās rethought into a selection system rather than simultaneous twin-fire at a cost of power. Otherwise, Charge/Discharge is looking good (or what OneWingLunarian proposed).
I feel like thereās a class of equipment better suited for a secondary weapon: satellites.
Think of it: the main weapons are balanced in such a way that equipping two of them could potentially cover for their weaknesses too much to the point of being overpowered (for example, ion could cover up a bit too much for plasmaās weak firerate). However, satellites donāt have this issue: theyāre purely for extra ammo and can work with other weapons pretty wel. So equipping them onto the ship internally while not allowing it to dock external satellites (or maybe have its capacity less than the other ships) would be a good tradeoff. To make up for their base dps being less viable on their own, their damage and rate of fire should scale up with firepower. They should keep the limited ammo, but they should regenerate the ammo at a rate that makes you need to conserve it for the moments you need it. I propose that double clicking with a satellite-equipped ship switch between two modes:
1.Maneuvering/Recovery mode
In this mode, the internally mounted satellite does not fire, but regenerates its ammo faster. Your main weapon still fires normally. The ship also has increased thrust and a reduced hitbox. Perhaps the environmental resistance could be activated during this mode.
2.Satellite-assisted fire
In this mode, the satellite fires along with your main weapon, but you have reduced thrust and less ammo regeneration. At the moment it can seem less interesting than the other mode, but this could potentially be solved by the addition of more satellites and/or interaction between the satelliteās fire and the weapon.
It sounds complex but it essentially boils down to: deactivate your internal satellite when you need to dodge stuff and when itās out of ammo, wait for the right moment to bring in the satellite for the extra dps. Itās still a rough idea, and the numbers would need work on them to get them right but I think it could potentially be more interesting than just two main weapons.
I agree that two ānormalā weapons on one ship may be too powerful. Indeed, Iāve said so myself in the past. But if switching between two is too powerful, then firing both at the same time would be very much so.
In any case, balancing the strength of things is something that can be done post-addition - I think the real things to keep an eye on with these suggestions is if anything is fundamentally problematic, regardless of the ānumbersā that can be tweaked (like the environmental resistance).
Iām not sure about a ship with a permanent buffed satellite for its gimmick. Given that any ship can mount a satellite, I am not sure if it would really feel like a distinct enough perk - it also runs the risk of being overcomplex for some players. I donāt personally find it overcomplex, but keep in mind a significant portion of the playerbase didnāt even know to use automatic fire, back when that was a thing.
True. Though I really want to see a ship that interacts with satellites in an interesting way, this is just my thoughts on how it could work. Plus, I feel it opens a ton of variety with satellite-affecting ships: the permanently mounted satellite (like a single, powerful satellite) could be contrasted with a ācarrierā type build that could carry multiple satellites that die out faster but have increased firerate or something as an advantage, like some swarm type build. I do get where youāre coming from, a ship based on satellites can seem bland, but if they had more variety to them theyād definitely be an interesting way of playing in their own right. The game does throw a ton of satellites at you on higher difficulties, might as well let the player make use of it. As for complexity, in practice itād just be like overdrive but with satellites though I do get your point lol.
As for the dual weapons, itās just very unappealing to me personally but I do agree it could be tweaked into being balanced. The only thing that stuck out to me was that one weapon was fixed, while the other could be changed, so if you had the same weapon itād just be a worse bomber. Itās just so ābeen there done thatā to me when the bombers exist, though I suppose they can be fun. It still strikes me as a very linear way to do things: surely a ship could do more than just primary weapons.
Iāve closed the poll because (a) there have been reports of alt accounts skewing the result and (b) the discussion below has produced more interesting/viable alternatives , making the current selections outdated.
There will most likely be a second poll with updated options in the future (which will also be stricter in who is allowed to vote).
I will also look into if/how any of these suggestions could be retrofitted in one of the three existing families (in conjunction with About the current state of spacecraft in the game , which sadly I havenāt had a chance to fully look into yet)
I kind of agree, although Iām not sure exactly what that would look like. It does feel a bit weird though - a ship that specialises on the part of the ship thatās not part of the ship, lol. But Iām sure there would be something cool that could be done with it. Maybe an engineer/carrier ship that actually manufactures a satellite for use once every so often.
I read it more like āIf you had anything but the same weapon it would just be a better bomberā but thereās still an inherent issue there. Thatās why I donāt think it should be able to fire both at once, but thatās just my two cents.
Primary weapons are no small part of this game (or the genre, really), and they are one of the few ābuilt inā parts of the ship, so I understand why they end up with such a strong focus and it feels pretty reasonable to me. Youāre right, though - variety is spice. Iād love to see something different, down the line if not with the Raven. Itās just challenging to make that balanced in a game that is literally about shooting for most of the playtime.
I mean, thatās understandable - itās a big read.
My two most important takeaways from it were the max power for mullers only thing, and mountable hardpoints. But there were a few interesting things in there, and a lot of time went into it, so itās definitely worth a good look. Overdrive is a complicated discussion, whenever it comes up.
Will this be in the same topic, or will it get a new one? Asking just because Iām worried Iāll miss it, like I often do with these things, aha.
This is an exciting thought, even if it doesnāt eventuate into something tangible.
Yeah, something like that, to contrast with an āarchitectā variant that focuses on one super-satellite
Yeah, but it does get really dull when all of it is based on the same 10+max power progression. Of course, balancing it is no small feat but itād be more interesting than the same thing but on two cannons, different weapons or not. Still though, I get your point
Yeah, two of the three suggestions were proposed as balance features for H&Cās and Mullers to set them apart. Even if these specific suggestions arenāt implemented, it would be nice to see some changes done to them to make them properly take their roles as starter ship and main-all rounder ships respectively. In my opinion the H&Cās should have their max power removed, and the Mullers be given environmental resistance (since itād be best to have their special ability be as passive as possible so as to be an upgrade but still retain its identity: they are the OG Chicken Invaders ships after all). Alternatively, Overdrive could just be removed from the H&Cās, though thisād probably need some tweaking
Well, in my perspective, a spacecraft with Environment Resistance feature is very great. However, i think it needs some works on it to make VF, or Raven, become balancing and interesting.
Remember that Environment Resistance in my work doesnāt mean that the spacecraft can fully ignore the effect of environments on missions. Instead, it can:
Hot Environment: Doesnāt overheat as fast as normal spacecrafts. For example: A normal spacecraft cost 10/5 secs to overheat (Normal/Hot); A Raven spacecraft cost 10/8 or 10/7 secs to overheat (Normal/Hot).
Massive Environment: Still have an effect on the Raven spacecraft, but much less. To give you a better look, a Raven spacecraft can move in Massive Environment as fast as a H&C or Muller one which has 3 Maneuvering Jet.
Frozen Environment: Everyone know that we use the spacecraft and move around to clean the frozen fog. With Raven spacecrafts, they can clean better. For example: The radius of frozen fog being wiped out with Raven spacecrafts is from 1,5x to 2x bigger than normal spacecrafts.
Electric Environment: As what iA said, the spacecraft can ignore the lightning only once. Kinda underpower. In my opinion, it should be 3 times. When you get struck by a lightning, you lose one shield. CAUTION: Ignore the lightning 3 times, not ignore 3 bullets from enemies. Bonus: iA should make a visual effect to see how many electric shields are left if the player join a mission with Electric Environment.
Thatās my suggestion. If itās a success, i hope @InterAction_studios will base on this idea to bring Raven into the game. Hope everyone enjoy and voting for Environment Resistance feature. Feel free to give a feedback. Thank you for reading.
