Changes in Pub

[Wazzaaa.nl]

All this cryn of weasel is useless, they got cloak + stealth bro how are they useless
All ships without xradar can't see them, how's this not an advantage for the weasel.. sigh
sure make them small again but don't give them cloak then
I think that's the most annoying part of weasels, have to watch radar for them
NOONE GOT TIME FOR THAT
do whatever u want with the weasels give them brick, repel, rocket, stealth and mini-size
just remove the cloak, this will solve all problems

[Bosshawk]

my understanding was that the brick was not going to be buyable.. it was supposed to be a one time shot per death...they might have changed that im not sure....

i think the weasel could have been better as it was before, just take away the rocket... or the rep.. maybe not both...leave it small maybe... as is.. completely cloaked it has just become a spawn hunter again

[Tone]

You accidentally set the price of a brick as 200, even though its the same as a rocket and repel which are 100 and is ultra-short lived. You got confused and were thinking of extreme games & other zones when setting the price.

[Vehicle]

People who are saying that the current weasel settings are overpowered have clearly not actually tried to play the ship in a base game. It's fucking useless. Please fix this already. I don't care if you take away stealth or make it drain energy or whatever the fuck you do but come on for God's sake you took a shitty ship and made it absolutely useless. Like 100 percent garbage.

FIX IT.

[sc00p]

Okay I'm gonna be completely honest here. The changes to lev seem okay for the most part - the increased manuverability offsets the lack of a portal, and reducing the power of the bomb is fine. However, the ability not to buy outside of safe is just dumb. And the increase in power of Weasel is WAY WAY too much. Making them big doesn't do ANYTHING to offset the fact that they are completely invisible to any ship without XRadar. If you thought Levs were ruining basing before and driving players away, then you should be just as concerned about completely invisible weasels ruining every corner of the arena.

[Oranje]

If u not gna make it small; should allow cloak AND stealth

[Rab]

yeah... cloak AND stealth doesn't do anything to improve basing

[dofus]

That's why we need cloak to drain energy like the old small x (which also had radar)

[bandcampgirl]

Everyone just cloaking people in entrance now or hunting people that are. So much for more basing

[Shaz]

It would need to make sure the following criteria were followed: ****1**** The ability to cloak (but not necessarily stealth)...

Why is cloak a requirement?
It would be much easier to balance if you gave the weasel a completely different role (and it could potentially make it useful, as opposed to the griefing ship that it's almost always been).

[AceHac]{er]

You make all the changes making the lev and weasels weak pieces of ship and still you can't give them the same use of !buy that other ships have - either make all ships !buy fair or take it out completely. Let weasels buy repels and let levs buy in open space (or make ALL ships buy in safe).

[midoent]

I think the lev bomb should be small enough to effectively rep. Right now the explosion radius is still too big.

[usoi]

Regarding the wzl, I really like the old settings long time ago. You don't lose energy continuously for having stealth and cloak on and it starts with a x radar. no rep or rocket. It was perfect for stealing flag because it was small. Of course you'd have to be skilled enough to avoid the terrs and other wzl (x radar). I think the timer resets once an enemy ship touches it but now it has to be held for a few seconds iirc.

As for levs, I pretty much stopped basing in pub when pure pub was gone.
The new levs kinda remind me of nightwasps a little.

[Left_Eye]

Here is why I think the cover (Pub 0) should be changed;

• The best designs are those that have nothing left to remove, not when there is nothing more to add. There are many examples of good things being ruined by people trying to stuff in ‘features’ that are not part of the original intent. Does a browser really need to be a address book too? Does a operating system really need to have a solitaire game to be good?
• Dance with the one who bought you. If we had a historically proven Pub 0, one where new players joined and stayed, why the constant addition of features over time?
• Pub 0 should not be used as a test bed for new features. I can think of no legitimate reason to experiment with the ‘flagship’ of a product. Pub 0 should be stable and consistent. Of course something might change over time but these should be rolled out in other arenas, tested thoroughly, measured against the objectives, and only them rolled our into Pub 0. But rolling out new features to Pub 0 and then relying upon casual observation to justify the changes? That is like changing the popcorn in a theater and then asking how people in the theater how they like it.

I couldn't agree with this more.

[Ephemeral]

Quoting yourself to justify your own opinions? Cool. I think part of the reason this game has survived is precisely because the 'objectives' are different for everyone, and different to the same people at different times. I'm not trying to start an argument here but I really don't think it's cool for people to go around defining what the game is for other people.

You are right, what I think the objectives are is not important. What is important is that there are objectives and a mission statement. Objectives can be changed at any time; if folks want a different objective for the game then decide what it is, communicate it to everyone, and then set off down that road.

I think that the entire game can indeed support players who have different reasons for playing. But as I said I think that Pub 0 is the ‘cover to the TW book’; the contents of this book can be enjoyed for whatever reasons. No one is telling people what they should enjoy about TW, that is not what objectives do. But players, especially new or potentially new players, are judging this book by its cover. If we don’t keep the cover to this book attractive to new players than sales for the book will drop off.

And on the back cover of this book we list the objectives to the game. It is a simple summary of what this book is about and allows players to quickly understand the intent of the game at a glance. Just as important, it powerfully communicates the purpose of the game as a motivational direction for all decisions. It is supposed to be used to measure the success or failure of the various operational decisions that are made over time.

But to say that just because I contributed to the wording of the current objective I am running around defining the game for other people is not right. The point I have been trying to make (for many years) is that we have been trying to make the front cover to this book ‘be all things to all people’. Pub 0 cannot be this, especially when considering ship settings. If you stuff 15 more ‘sub-arenas’ into the Pub 0 map the ships still have the same settings; and the settings for hockey aren’t good for the settings for general pub play. What we have now is a cover to this book which is crammed with so much stuff that people pick the book up, take a quick look at the cover, put the book back on the shelf, and then walk out the door without reading the book. The cover is now jumbled and over-whelming to those who pick it up to take a look yet for the last few years the direction has been to keep adding more and more stuff.

Here is why I think the cover (Pub 0) should be changed;

• The best designs are those that have nothing left to remove, not when there is nothing more to add. There are many examples of good things being ruined by people trying to stuff in ‘features’ that are not part of the original intent. Does a browser really need to be a address book too? Does a operating system really need to have a solitaire game to be good?
• Dance with the one who bought you. If we had a historically proven Pub 0, one where new players joined and stayed, why the constant addition of features over time?
• Pub 0 should not be used as a test bed for new features. I can think of no legitimate reason to experiment with the ‘flagship’ of a product. Pub 0 should be stable and consistent. Of course something might change over time but these should be rolled out in other arenas, tested thoroughly, measured against the objectives, and only them rolled our into Pub 0. But rolling out new features to Pub 0 and then relying upon casual observation to justify the changes? That is like changing the popcorn in a theater and then asking how people in the theater how they like it.

So I am not telling people what to take away from the game, that is not what I have been saying at all.
eph