Free Allegiance Forums

Yeah the dreg models look awesome. I haven't played with the TF models or IC fig hitboxes yet. I also haven't seen the OH turret perk in action yet but I'm interested to see this. Getting a good pilot/gunner would seem OP in the early game vs enemy economies, but we'll see.

BIOS taking another nerf is upsetting but I'm biasm since I love their ints so much (BIOS ints were also nerfed the same way in XC).

I don't know why anyone would care about a nerf to gauss as it's a novelty tech that has no bearing on the game at all. The way in which this nerf came about doesn't concern me since it's such an unimportant tech to begin with.

Nerfing PP in the way it was done seems relatively ineffective to me. The reason I thought pps were OP (as they were) is because it was so easy to use them to find scouts hiding in enemy sectors. I'd like to see them act as a "pulse" (1 second) or have their range nerfed. Having a pp2 seems like a bandaid to the problem since people will just buy pp2 if they are concerned with scouts eyeing their stuff.

Besides HK2/3 I don't think SY should be nerfed.

Good work overall. It's nice to have people working on these things. A more public community oriented way of deciding things would be beneficial for a community core... but of course that might be much more difficult since people have varying ideas of balance. The CC team should perhaps make a draft version of changes proposed and post it publicly a couple weeks before the changes are planned to be implemented so that any overwhelming objection could be processed, while weeding out the idiotic posts. /2c

I saw gauss twice in the last week. It sucks royally to be on the other end.

The real issue is that TTs still don't have EMP guns.

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Jan 18 2011, 07:07 PM) i am also pointing out the problems with community balance, and i also think it's a bad idea to nerf factions (bios) because people don't want to or can't learn how to play against them. but, then again, that's why I'm creating a seperate core for squad-level play

Community balance has its issues, but generally I think it works fairly well in the end. Not the best for exploring new concepts of course (say XC's super Giga)

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jan 19 2011, 08:27 AM) Maybe it's all part of a beautifully Machiavellian plan on Das's part to negate criticism of the models and of himself and use Adept as a flak jacket?

Hey shush.

i think you overestimate the power of giga! it is far from being unstoppable, but it's finally dangerous in its own right

I doubt it's unstoppable, but its basically regular Giga with extra powers

Thread pruned.

Keep the thread about cc12 please, outlashes against the management (or lack thereof) can go to rants.

juckto wrote:QUOTE (juckto @ Jan 20 2011, 05:12 PM) Thread pruned.

Keep the thread about cc12 please, outlashes against the management (or lack thereof) can go to rants.

yet it's titled cc11?

Mispost I should think

I think if the community were made more aware of changes that are proposed to be made within the core, we would avoid this kind of controversy. Not to say there wouldn't be any controversy, that's naive to think, but it would cut down on.

We have tons of ideas posted, many that people like and want to see, we've also been polled about ideas and so on, yet it feels like very few community ideas make it into the core.

The Gauss change felt a bit like a slap in the face ("We REALLY don't give a @#(! what anybody wants").

Now I know there are more than a few community ideas that made it in, in some way or another.

Personally I feel like this isn't six months worth of core changes. This feels like a last second mish-mash of "oh @#(! we need to update the core!".

Six months should have rendered more than this. I understand that all devs are volunteers and as such development cannot be reliably steady, but come on. Six months?!