Free Allegiance Forums

i think it if it takes off should only work a littl for certen factions to reduce the nerf efect and it should not work on things like sbs because it would ruin the gaming expiriance and make tac the only option

Hmm, I would say take out the GT Turret Nan, and sub that tech in with this Weapon which can give energy to other ships when nanning.

Just another note, Galving/Dis2 runs would also allow the frequency of Combat Nans to nan Fighters while the Fighters are Dis2'ing the station. But i'm sure this cheeze isn't even close to the Rix SR and Bios Cloak cheeze. /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

KGJV wrote:QUOTE (KGJV @ Sep 17 2008, 01:08 PM) coding is often boring once you know exactly what must be done.

And ATM, I feel pretty alone in the dev team. all others are MIA /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roll:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />

so i'm just in a 'flood the forums' mood /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

this makes me kind of want to help you out

but i recently downloaded the code, took one look at it and fled in abject terror

I really dislike the idea. Energy management is an important part of Allegiance.

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Sep 28 2008, 04:27 PM) I really dislike the idea. Energy management is an important part of Allegiance.

you don't like this idea because it expands on an important part of allegiance?

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Sep 17 2008, 12:10 AM) really the questions are:

should i add a property to particles to allow them to effect a target's energy either positively or negatively (efficiency would be determined by how much energy drain the weapon has vs how much energy the particles give (or take) from the target, though the weapon could just as easily be PW or PE)

and

should i a add the option so that the effect only takes place when the targets hull is at 100%

and by "should" i mean, is it something that is wanted and would be used and won't be a waste of my time

(in the above the first person would be KG)

Adaven wrote:QUOTE (Adaven @ Sep 24 2008, 06:56 PM) Some of you are starting to make sense, but most are not seeing the Forest because of the Trees.
Q1: Do you want "weapons" that can reduce/increase a target's energy supply?

Q2: Should there be an option for such effects to kick in only when the target has a certain amount of hull?
These are the real questions you need to be discussing at this point, not dithering about balance. If Orion can balance a missle that kills everything in 2 sectors, I think we can manage to do this without screwing things up too badly.

I for one see lots of potential for both features I mentioned for both current alleg as well as new factions/Cores. My own hobby core would greatly benefit from these updates, and might cause it to actually be released some day.

I say go for it Kage, and here are my suggestions/requests to make it even better:
-Let us choose the hull % for each weapon on our own, don't lock one value into the code.
-The option for effects to activate below the threshhold hull % as well as above. Example: A gun that chews up hull until the target is down to 50%, at which point it removes hull and energy (the story being because it needs outer armor to be removed before it can damage internal systems)

an option should be added to specify if a weapon can ignore shields

rix and tf bombers are totally $#@!ed if that thing adaven said about a weapon that reduces energy gets put in

Rix? Because of sr scouts? You probably won't hit them with this anyway, and there is still a possibility that the enemy will restore energy with equivalent counterpart to your weapon. Unless ofc this weapon will be mountable on ints, but it won't.

I like the idea. Expand allegiance please.

KGJV wrote:QUOTE (KGJV @ Sep 16 2008, 01:18 PM) what if nan could restore the energy pool of the target too ?

this would only happen when the hull of the target is at 100%

So if you fire nan at a target:

- if hull is less than 100%, than the hull starts to regen (like now)
- if hull is 100% then the energy of the target starts to regen (new stuff).

Of course this would require a code change.

How about this for a code change: NAN3: repairs hull, shields, and energy.

If hull < 100%, regen hull.If hull = 100% and shields < 100%, regen shields at 50% of the hull regen rate.If shields and hull are both at 100% (or the nan target has no shields), regen energy at 25% of the hull regen rate (overcharging).If hull, shields, and energy of the TARGET are at 100%, drain the NAN ship energy, then shields, then hull at 200% of the regen rate. Think of this as an overload penalty/feedback loop, or a circuit fail-safe to prevent overloading the target.BONUS: Penalizes nan pilots who are not paying attention. Nanning will require more focus. When your target's all charged up, you better STOP FIRING. CAVEAT: An energy meter indication on friendly ships becomes extremely useful; if this Nan3 stayed around long, folks would clamor for an energy indicator. ODD SIDE EFFECT: accidentally nanning a fully healthy enemy would damage the nan. Just imagine the (0) questions... "I shot that guy, but my ship died! What th!?!--"ANNOYING SIDE EFFECT: Over-nan suicides due to energy indicator lag! You never know...

Result (theory sans any sort of numbers):

Making this researchable tech slows deployment a bit.Only mountable on Adv+ scouts. Repairs hull 10% faster than Nan2, but requires 25% more power to do the job. It's a net loss if you're not planning on using it for full hull/shields/energy regen on big ships.Reduces the effectiveness of randomly nanning; if you overdo it, you start taking damage.Scaling the regen (100%, then 50%, the 25%) nerfs it a bit. Might reduce the cheese factor.Provides a way for nans to be more useful, but this new ability will require more strategic thinking. Example: after a defender attacks but fails, leaving the nan target damaged, is it more efficient to wait until the nan target's shields regen by their own recovery time, then use the nan to regen energy? Or should the nans just pour all their energy into repairs, taking the risk of depleting their own power too early?Easily nerfable by adjusting the amount of energy drained from the nan ship with each firing, and the feedback loop damage penalty.

How to defend against it:

During the initial attack, one or two attackers take down the shields of the main target first to reduce the energy regen effect of the nans.Then spread damage across the nans as quickly as possible; each pilot focus on one nan and drill it dead. COORDINATE!Get between the nan and its target: you get repaired, then the nan gets damaged if it "overcharges" you accidentally.Lather, rinse, repeat.

Then again, what do I know... I've been out of the Allegiance loop so long, I didn't know FigBees were useful end-game tech at all!

The issue with that idea is that the nan would never die from overnanning. Once they have zero energy, the nan stops firing

Andon wrote:QUOTE (Andon @ Oct 28 2008, 12:10 AM) The issue with that idea is that the nan would never die from overnanning. Once they have zero energy, the nan stops firing

It would still be a "punishment" for over-nanning, since the nan will quickly drain its energy, and might not be ready to nan the target when it really starts taking damage. I like it; it makes being a good nan more challenging. But I also think this is a whole separate discussion. This kind of "penalty" for over-nanning might be a good idea even if nans don't have any impact on energy (or shields), that is, a penalty for over-nanning a fully (hull-wise) healed target.

On the thread's original topic, while adding guns that can charge or drain energy is interesting, it impacts different factions in very, very different ways. For example, energy-draining weapons would be very useful against TF or Rix bombing runs, but pretty much useless in any other set of circumstances (even with Bios, you'd need to find the cloaked ship before draining it, and by that point you might as well just try to kill it; same with Belter sfs and sbs). Energy recharge ships would be useful mostly for Bios, against whom energy-draining guns would not be very useful; they would also be useful for the TF, which are probably the *only* faction for which this would be balanced, as you could have some ships trying to recharge the bomber so it could shoot, and others to drain it so it cannot. For Rix it could be useful in some circumstances, but with upgraded tech, they usually don't have as many problems with energy as TF (and their turrets don't use energy). They could be useful for Tac for Belters too, but again, energy-draining weapons would be less useful against them, so it would not be too balanced.

One fun thing I could imagine, however, would be an energy-draining area-of-effect weapon for use against cloaked ships, like a deployable drone that drains energy from all enemy ships in a fairly large radius, if there is a way to do that. That would be useful against Bios and all factions' tac. It could be balanced by making the drone expensive, limiting its life-span once deployed, and making the rate at which it drains energy not too high, or dependent on proximity to it.

I don't think any of the discussed code changes should be tied to the ship having 100% hull; it should be an entirely separate consideration.