CC team, please have mercy!

Shizoku · Post by **Shizoku** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:21 am

QUOTE Dis3 was AoE until CC1 or something, it wasn't too long ago. It was too uber against ints (if i remember) and was removed.[/quote]

It was a later version of DN, it did take too long for that issue to get resolved.

voobscout · Post by **voobscout** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:15 am

[quote name='Adept' date='Mar 5 2011, 12:09 AM' post='571349']
...
Not sure I got this. Do you mean that some factions shoudl objectively be better than others rather than having a roughly zero-sum of strengths and weaknesses? Same for the tech paths. I guess I don't know what you're going for here.
...
quote]

One faction could have an uber exp, another faction might have uber sup. Objectively better is imho a misleading term. Perhaps saying that going a specific tech with specific faction should constitute a bigger incentive, then it is right now. Were I to articulate better, i'd say a faction should have a direction where it excels in a considerably noticeable way, compared to others.

The idea is to have a decidedly unfair advantage, when choosing a specific tech path. I remember dregh sup being so uber it could easily stand it's ground vs any exp, just as an example.

XRM hvy bbrs are just as much fun as figbees, at least they should be an equally attractive option.
GT econ was uber at some point, maybe strengthening it a little from what it is now is a good idea.

Icky mentioned dis3 aoe being scrapped as an ultimate anti-int cheese, i think it should simply cost more. If a sup team manages to mine to it vs nmy exp, that team deserves to pwn those ints.

I'm not sure if we should start noticing details at this moment, i think it's more important to agree on taking the CC slowly into slightly different direction, as a rule of thumb first thinking about perking some aspects instead of nerfing others.
Not to say that all nerfes are bad by default, some have a positive effect.
I'm advocating for increasing disparity between factions and tech, rather then averaging those out.

Most ships in dn460 felt very much alive, today same ships feel sluggish. It seems to be the result of gradual nerfing towards middle/average specs.

NightRychune · Post by **NightRychune** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:20 am

okay, voobscout

before you go any further go back through this forum and look at all the changelogs from CC1 to CC11

there really haven't been very many things changed since DN 00.04.60

voobscout · Post by **voobscout** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:39 am

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Mar 5 2011, 11:20 AM) okay, voobscout

before you go any further go back through this forum and look at all the changelogs from CC1 to CC11

there really haven't been very many things changed since DN 00.04.60

Amen to that!

I'm under the impression that all those small tweaks somehow made a cumulative effect over time.

But to stop talking out my ass as it were, i'll go through changelogs and produce an opinion of my own based in facts, not my personal perceptions.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:06 pm

Amazing how the more things change, the more they stay the same. This really reminds me of the A+ vs DN days. I wonder if voobscout will start calling CC the square core?

I was always an advocate for balancing using buffs rather than nerfs. The best way to fight cheese is with moar cheese!

Spinoza · Post by **Spinoza** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:02 pm

voobscout wrote:QUOTE (voobscout @ Mar 5 2011, 02:15 PM)
Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Mar 5 2011, 12:09 AM)
Not sure I got this. Do you mean that some factions shoudl objectively be better than others rather than having a roughly zero-sum of strengths and weaknesses? Same for the tech paths. I guess I don't know what you're going for here.
One faction could have an uber exp, another faction might have uber sup. Objectively better is imho a misleading term. Perhaps saying that going a specific tech with specific faction should constitute a bigger incentive, then it is right now. Were I to articulate better, i'd say a faction should have a direction where it excels in a considerably noticeable way, compared to others.

Well, there's this little thing call game theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
If a specific faction has a clear advantage with a specific path, the enemy can expect it will be used and he must take advantage of it.
For example, say Dreg sup was so uber it would be stupid not to go sup, opposing Bios or Giga or would be silly not to get a sup and steal tech.
The Dreg comm would either buy the tech and hope his perks win the game or will be forced to do something else.

So the advantage is not only negated, it can effectively prevent the tech path from being used to it's fullest.

By the way, as far as I'm concerned, Dreg sup (and Tac) is still very perky and alive.
Missile damage and tracking have not been changed.
Energy is still 1.15.
Speed is still high.

The only thing which has changed are the models.
You may be seeing more dreg expansion because the new int models have made it seems more fun.
Also, I think there are a lot of new players around which can't use missiles well, which may deter comms in pugs from going Sup.

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:19 pm

OK, looks like the waving of "BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A MUSLIM!" banners have abated a bit..

Here's something some of you do not get:

Unbalanced sides -> Stagnant gameplay
Balanced sides -> Rich (varied) gameplay

Read this a few times over. If you don't understand this, you should not be talking about core design. Hint, this is related to the game theory link Spinoza posted above - think/read about the equilibrium.

Don't believe me? We already had this for a loong long time. IC tacspansion, Giga Tac , BIOS Exp, Rix Sup, Belter MF rush ring a bell? If it doesn't, that's what we had game after game after game for years. They were very cheesy. They were very 'special'

So you don't want unbalanced sides. Now, if there are geniuses out there who can actually have uber cheesy tech scattered around and somehow manage to balance it all out, please please please make your own core and show us all how it is done

You are obviously far more talented than the original Alleg devs and pretty much everyone else who followed including myself, Noir or Viru.

But make sure you don't get stumped and are able to give me a NO BS answer when I give you a scenario and ask you how the other team is supposed to defend against or counter things. Or simply admit that all you have done is stagnated the game.

Elzam_ · Post by **Elzam_** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:57 pm

Are you saying we should all play the same factions against the same tech? So that the only advantages teams have are the players on them?

EDIT: Not trolling, I just wanna know what CC is trying to do :/

Perhaps a lot of fuss could be dissolved by just putting on the front page, "We at CC hope to do this. In order to this, we need to examine that."

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:20 pm

Elzam, I'd be a lot happier if you were trolling.... now I'm just gonna go weep.

See this http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...showtopic=61939 but I'm afraid that's not gonna be clear for you either.

Elzam_ · Post by **Elzam_** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:30 pm

I read that a month ago. I just wanted to know if you read it when you started proposting changes.