CC_11 Changelog

[Jimen]

The general issue, as far as I can tell, is basically that every couple of CC releases there's some weird "where the hell did that come from" random adjustment to a tech that has basically never ever been complained about or even talked about in CC. As in "why the hell were they even looking at an unproblematic tech when there's this well-known issue and that well-known issue that need to be fixed?" The current outstanding issues with the core have already been brought up by people who know them far better than me, so I won't reiterate them.

[Spunkmeyer]

Some of the issues are known to core people because only because they spend days looking at the core. I do agree with prioritization of course, that way people have a better chance to absorb stuff. Important things first, minor stuff last, so in that regard people are right.

But the "wtf there was nothing wrong with it" response is just wrong. In this case Gauss *was* overpowered compared to other GT special tech and that IS a balance issue that needs fixing, sooner or later. Some of these things will be pet peeves of CC staff and when they do a brain dump during discussion, they occasionally get picked up, if they are straightforward enough. There is no other reason for it. It's not ignoring the big stuff and working on irrelevant @#(!.

Again, CC11 was a very quick release since it's been so long since CC10. I can tell you a lot more discussion is going into CC12, and we'll probably have a preview of sorts and communicate the changes better.

Also some of what we end up changing, you just cannot be 100% on even after test games. We just need to release them and see how it goes. As long as we don't break the game, there isn't anything wrong with seeing how changes effect the game... we can and we will revert with the next release if we don't see the improvement we are looking for, and the next release will be sooner than later.

[Death3D]

Another factor to consider on PPs vs. SFs:

SFs have a (comparatively) very low sig to any other ship, as they should have. When cloaked they can even have something ridiculous like 9% sig (I don't remember the details right now). At 9% sig, even if a PP has the classical 4500+ sensor range, it will still only eye a cloaked SF at ~450 m.

Now, to the question of how Sup and Exp deals with Tac. Sup has sensor range, scouts that mount missiles. In my opinion, Sup is the illest equipped techpath to deal with tac. Sure, we should include that bases also have higher sensors with sup but that ammounts to 3600 (Sensor 1 at 3900) for Tps, ops and techs and 4500 (almost 5000) for garrs. Now, unless you're spamming garrs... you're gonna have to depend on really closeknit he rocks to defend a miner as sup. </sarcasm>

Exp has mobility and pps. Mini's have a 400 m range. Guess what, same 400 m range a pp has on a cloaked SF. Of course, SFs also have to mount hunters at some point pumping cloaked sig to around 80% iirc. Still only 2200 m sensor range on a PP. I'll just fire those hunters out of range and still hit the stationary miner while my friend in the other SF sweeps in with missiles unmounted to get in range of Utl2s. But I digress.

Seeing the SF for a fraction of a sec if you can't have no follow through. All you need is 2 QFs that hit at around 1300 m to kill an SF. Ints do have to boost there. And by the time you boost there, the SF has dropped missiles. How is an int supposed to kill an SF without being able to launch another PP?

I know I haven't come up with solutions. But I'm trying to get us to see all angles of the problem before coming with the hammer from one angle to try to fix it.

Edit: in before 'Exp doesn't have QF also?!'. No sensor range. A proposed difference: pump Sensor GA to something more 15% like. rather than 10%

[SpaceJunk]

SFs don't have any problem with PPing ints. If you are close enough to one, you are already attacking at full sig.

OTOH, I do wonder if Snipers are serving any real purpose besides getting SFs killed. I don't mean they are useless --just wonder if they are being found useable.

[Spunkmeyer]

QUOTE (SpaceJunk @ Feb 6 2011, 01:32 PM) OTOH, I do wonder if Snipers are serving any real purpose besides getting SFs killed. I don't mean they are useless --just wonder if they are being found useable.

Snipers are fairly balanced, but yeah, nobody knows how to use them. You use them for attacks from the rear and for the final kill. They also rob you of opportunity const kills since you won't have utils. Dropping the energy use or sig on snipers would make them easier to use. And overpowered if you had a team of players who could use them, but that's not ever gonna happen.

[lexaal]

Where can i find the cc11 to cc11b changelog?

[Dome]

QUOTE (lexaal @ Feb 6 2011, 02:27 PM) Where can i find the cc11 to cc11b changelog?

In the first post of this thread.

[lexaal]

The drama works like a magnet for my eyes.

[Jimen]

QUOTE (Death3D @ Feb 6 2011, 01:16 PM) Another factor to consider on PPs vs. SFs:

SFs have a (comparatively) very low sig to any other ship, as they should have. When cloaked they can even have something ridiculous like 9% sig (I don't remember the details right now). At 9% sig, even if a PP has the classical 4500+ sensor range, it will still only eye a cloaked SF at ~450 m.

Now, to the question of how Sup and Exp deals with Tac. Sup has sensor range, scouts that mount missiles. In my opinion, Sup is the illest equipped techpath to deal with tac. Sure, we should include that bases also have higher sensors with sup but that ammounts to 3600 (Sensor 1 at 3900) for Tps, ops and techs and 4500 (almost 5000) for garrs. Now, unless you're spamming garrs... you're gonna have to depend on really closeknit he rocks to defend a miner as sup. </sarcasm>

Exp has mobility and pps. Mini's have a 400 m range. Guess what, same 400 m range a pp has on a cloaked SF. Of course, SFs also have to mount hunters at some point pumping cloaked sig to around 80% iirc. Still only 2200 m sensor range on a PP. I'll just fire those hunters out of range and still hit the stationary miner while my friend in the other SF sweeps in with missiles unmounted to get in range of Utl2s. But I digress.

Seeing the SF for a fraction of a sec if you can't have no follow through. All you need is 2 QFs that hit at around 1300 m to kill an SF. Ints do have to boost there. And by the time you boost there, the SF has dropped missiles. How is an int supposed to kill an SF without being able to launch another PP?

I know I haven't come up with solutions. But I'm trying to get us to see all angles of the problem before coming with the hammer from one angle to try to fix it.

Edit: in before 'Exp doesn't have QF also?!'. No sensor range. A proposed difference: pump Sensor GA to something more 15% like. rather than 10%

What. About. SCOUTS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? First of all, Exp gets $#@!ing scouts too. Second of all, scouts have missile no matter which techpath you go. Third of all, STEALTHS ARE NOT THE ONLY SHIPS THAT RELY ON THEIR ABILITY TO HIDE. Yeah thanks just give all your $#@!ing stuff (including both bases and scouts) a 15% sensor range increase, and then how the $#@! am I supposed to sneak up on you with a 100% sig HTT or a 75% sig basic scout? Let's not even go into $#@!ing goddamn pulse probes. Go to hell and eat three bags of cocks! And then eat four more because you love cocks so $#@!ing much! Clearly the solution to stealths being too powerful when cloaked is to pump up all scanners and probes, and then maybe we can cram a dozen pulse probes in every cargo slot just for the $#@!ing @#(! of it! We can't just, you know, adjust stealths themselves to fix whatever you people think is broken this week! I have seen hell, and it's being the one person on the $#@!ing team who knows the goddamn value of having a <150% sig!!!!!