Page 9 of 14

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:41 pm
by Dorjan
Mastametz wrote:QUOTE (Mastametz @ Jan 20 2011, 02:34 PM) That would never happen. A team being whored mercilessly is likely to resign in under 10 minutes.
But besides that, don't think I speak for XT on this. I'm just a sadist that likes to punish my enemies just for the sake of them being my enemies. Most of XT does not share this trait.
Yes, it's a punk thing to do. and I am that punk. Yet I am not obligated to finish a game, and if people don't like it they'll know better than to fly against me (or for me, depending). It's my choice.

I do remember leaving that game, though I don't remember who were playing, either.
well I guess we're in agreement masta :D :iluv:

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:40 pm
by OTDT_Hunter
Btw, I have been playing for 10 years. So I think my input is worth atleast 1 cent. No I don't know jack@#(! about how to contribute to the core besides my opinions. Inless someone wants to explain to me all the differnt stuff and how to do it then sure I am willing to learn and give it a shot. I doubt anyone would want to spend the time doing so. I don't blame them. So if I could bring more to the game then my money and opinion. I sure would. Sorry I don't have the education to do so.

So get mad that I bring my opinion (which is over the top sometimes). I said I was sorry to Adept, he didn't deserve that. I am sure he is a decent guy in the world. I just have a big dissagreement with how this all went down. I do think we could of found someone better then Das to be in charge of CC. If there wasn't anyone else that was better qualified that didn't step up then I stfu and move on. I do disagree with Adept being on the CC team being a part of the CC "Balancing part of the core" The rest I am sure he will make a fine adition. There is plenty I don't know so if I am missing something go ahead and point it to me. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong.

Sorry if this should go in rants. I just figured I should explain myself one last time.

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:45 pm
by Adept
Disagreeing with me is fine Hunter. Let's just do it like adults.

Feedback is what makes this the community core project afterall.

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:40 pm
by Vanaka
Well, I'd like to add my two cents, here's hoping I don't get flamed :ninja:

Pulse probes: breaking it into two techs is a decent attempt but doesn't really change much.

My idea for PPs: Aren't PPs are meant to give ints a fighting chance against SFs? So make them do only that: make their scan range approximately the same as Hunter 1-2 range. you really shouldn't be able to find SB's halfway across the sector with them, thats a job for a scout (a heavy scout, preferably). Ints already have a lot going for them, if it weren't for the fact they can't rip and have low scan, there'd be no reason to fly anything else. ever. So giving them a loophole on the scan sorta breaks the game.

Bios nerf: I always thought the point of Bios was that their stuff is better, thats how you can justify waiting ten minutes for anything and everything and playing defensive most the game (and not doing very well at it too, against enh and adv tech while you have basic tech, usually the only thing that makes this somewhat bearable is gunships.) so why nerf them again? I mean really. And why take away one of the two draws of Bios exp? (the other draw being hvy cloaks)


Dreg: Love the new models.

GT: I think this has been commented on enough.

OH: tacking 5k onto their tech bases doesn't seem like much of Nerf, not when most factions have to shell out about 10-15k on ships OH doesn't have to buy.
Oh, and now their ships are hard to hit. hmmm.


TF: Don't play TF enough to notice if accel was a problem or not, really if TF need anything, their ints need to be bigger, so I can hit them. seriously, those flat little ints are so hard to hit. :unsure: (of course, this is probably just me :glare: )

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:01 pm
by Adept
Vanaka wrote:QUOTE (Vanaka @ Jan 22 2011, 10:40 PM) TF: Don't play TF enough to notice if accel was a problem or not, really if TF need anything, their ints need to be bigger, so I can hit them. seriously, those flat little ints are so hard to hit. :unsure: (of course, this is probably just me :glare: )
TF ints were made significantly thicker with the new model (a few cc editions back), so they are more hittable from head on. The effective 1.44 acceleration went down to 1.25 in cc_11. Not as far as I would have wished for (my favorite being 1.15, as their faction attribute was).

They may still be too jumpy. I hope they get played a lot and people give us feedback.

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:39 pm
by spideycw
Vanaka wrote:QUOTE (Vanaka @ Jan 22 2011, 03:40 PM) Pulse probes: breaking it into two techs is a decent attempt but doesn't really change much.
So true

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:57 pm
by NightRychune
Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jan 23 2011, 10:01 AM) TF ints were made significantly thicker with the new model (a few cc editions back), so they are more hittable from head on. The effective 1.44 acceleration went down to 1.25 in cc_11. Not as far as I would have wished for (my favorite being 1.15, as their faction attribute was).

They may still be too jumpy. I hope they get played a lot and people give us feedback.
i'm trying to figure this out

so each ship actually has a different acceleration based off whether its mass is above or below a certain average?

i'm not sure what you idiots are thinking but having 16 mass as opposed to 20 doesn't mean you accelerate 25% faster

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:09 pm
by the.ynik
NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Jan 23 2011, 06:57 PM) i'm trying to figure this out

so each ship actually has a different acceleration based off whether its mass is above or below a certain average?

i'm not sure what you idiots are thinking but having 16 mass as opposed to 20 doesn't mean you accelerate 25% faster
Yes it does.
Let's do the math:
Normal interceptor: 300 thrust / 20 mass = 15
TF (old): 300 thrust * 1.15 / 16 mass = 21.56 (44% better than normal)
TF (new): 300 thrust / 16 mass = 18.75 (25% better than normal)

Of course people rarely fly empty interceptors; the numbers come out a bit different with cargo loaded.

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:36 pm
by Adept
NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Jan 23 2011, 07:57 PM) i'm trying to figure this out

so each ship actually has a different acceleration based off whether its mass is above or below a certain average?

i'm not sure what you idiots are thinking but having 16 mass as opposed to 20 doesn't mean you accelerate 25% faster
Yes it does. :cool:

That is almost sig worty :innocent:

btw ynik, for some reason the mass of fuel and ammo isn't actually enabled. Maybe MS never got it to work right. The mass of the ship doesn't change as you spend fuel and ammo. Ejecting out your guns and counters does help in running away though, that's 3 tons (or 4 on a heavy), and since the hull weight of an int is just 20 tons the difference is quite significant.

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:10 pm
by NightRychune


anyway

my point is that reducing tf's overall accel and not specifically addressing their ints is a dumb change, particularly since TF sup and tac are pretty weak as it is and you just made them worse

good job guys, best balance team of any video game ever