Free Allegiance Forums

This version will mainly address DM mode, or ("development off")

DM
Intentions:

replace adv scouts, with heavy scouts
replace ints, with heavy ints
replace enh fighters, with adv fighters
adv stl remain
gunships remain

ADD

Giga:
lxy fighter
lxy interceptor
lxy stl fighter
lxy scout
Belters:
Omnifighters
GT:
mustang
pt bomber
Phoenix:
vanguard

Tech:
replace all tech with mark 3 tech, or mark 2 if that is the highest available
EXCEPT
countermeasures, cm 1
use hunter 2, dumbfire 2, quickfire 2, seeker 2, lightning 1, zeus, antibase 1, hvy sig cloak 1

FIX
TF guns, and other assorted DM missing items, ic is missing adv stl, oh is missing adv stl, etc.

I have noticed, that in DM mode, the faction global attributes do not apply, such as pw damage+ or ship hull -, essentially every faction is on a level playing field, assuming the ship attributes are equal

ADDED Hvy Bombers, and HTTs.

This could let you start a "DM" with full tech, base killing abilities, and turning base invulnerability off, could teach teams how to counter, full tech, with offensive ships, like bombers or even htts, this could be a "quickstart" game, where you get the good stuff immediately, and if you coordinate hard enough you blow up the other team's base and the game is over.
In theory action would be fast and furious. pods off would make it insane, turn pods on, you've got potential for an interesting attack-counter attack game

General tweaks
BIOS
Fighters, move first gun up higher to tighten projectile groupings, autogen hitbox

IC
sf/sb move gun models to nose, use lwepemt2, rwepemt2, narrow tail fin, autogen hitbox
bomber/gunship move gun models to nose, use lwepemt, rwepemt, autogen hitbox

Gigacorp
Lxy Bombers, add 1 more antibase missile for total of 6

Lxy HTTs, increase mass to 120, was 90 (+33%), in comparison GT AP mass is 180
increase thrust to 1800, was 1350 (+33%)
increase reverse thrust to 0.75, increase side thrust to 0.75

Lxy scouts, add emp mines to dispenser list

Rix
remove pp from adv sfs and sfs, and sbs

TF
adv scout nan on gun 1 and gun 2
hvy scout: assign nan to gun 1, and gun 2
remove pp from adv sf and sf

TTs
I was going to reduce damage of SRM EMP, but now I see some issues with certain factions with their station shield GA and it's not worth it. TTs are kind of crappy, doable, but eyed immediately, most likely.
The other night I had Dreg Hvy Ints, MG3, I pushed an expansion next to an ic OP, vs IC SUP, and we capped it with TTs. My entire team of 6 or 7 was in that sector. Is that OP? Range between bases was like, 3 km. OMG TTs are OP. Not really. They're slow. The only way they ever should be sucessful is complete sector domination, combined with constructor pushes, which is exactly what I had done.
HTTs are now sucessor to TTs, meaning, once you have researched HTTs, TTs are no longer available.
TT requires ADV EXP to begin research. This will slow down some faction's HTT development. Other factions it won't matter. The reason I moved TT to ADV EXP is because some people think it is OP for basic EXP.


Carriers, cost 4000, was 5000
you can't send these into a sector all alone and expect good results anymore,
sup and tac don't need drones that can enter enemy space and take forever to be killed
as they are, it's a viable home rip, or a coordinated miner attack, or an escort ripcord to defend friendly miners, nothing more
if you want the "good" carriers, enhanced carriers are still buffed to hell.

Now the "BIG" changes. I have nerfed miniguns versus utility and medium hull. I have created a booster tree for expansion only. No more can you swap boosters with SUP and EXP. They are completely separate.

SHOTS/SEC DAMAGE/SHOT 1 MINIGUN INT DAMAGE/SEC HVY INT DAMAGE/SEC

MINIGUN 1 12.5 4 50 100 150
MINIGUN 2 12.82 5 64.1 128.2 192.3
MINIGUN 3 12.5 6.25 78.125 156.25 234.375


1 GAT ENH FIG ADV FIG

GAT 1 10 3.2 32 96 96
GAT 2 10 4 40 120 120
GAT 3 10 5 50 150 150


INT TRIGGER = 18 seconds (IC and OH 21.6 seconds)
HVY INT TRIGGER = 12 seconds (IC and OH 14.4 seconds)



Int, MG1, 42 seconds kill basic miner
Int, MG2, 33 seconds
Int, MG3, 27 seconds

HVY, 3 MG1, 28 seconds kill basic miner
Hvy, 3 MG2, 22 seconds
Hvy, 3 MG3, 18 seconds

Fig, 2 Gat1, 33 seconds
Fig, 2 Gat2, 26 seconds
Fig, 2 Gat3, 21 seconds

Adv Fig, 3 Gat1, 22 seconds
Adv Fig, 3 Gat2, 18 seconds
Adv Fig, 3 Gat3, 14 seconds

These values assume pw damage is 1.0, 100% accuracy, 1056 HP on basic miner, and 0 KB
not taking into account medium shield HP, ship hull GA or faction hull GA
not taking into account missile damage

Does everybody see how more efficient fighters are against miners? Good.
Even so, I am going to try a 5% damage nerf on minigun versus utility hulls.
This gives early game factions with no lt ints, a better chance to get tech.
Enhanced Miners are definitely worth the money.


Adjusted MiniGun damage wc_03

DM05
utility: was 0.25, change to 0.2 (-5% damage versus miners and constructors and carriers)

EFFECT:

Int, MG1, 53 seconds kill basic miner
Int, MG2, 41 seconds
Int, MG3, 34 seconds

Hvy, MG1, 35 seconds kill basic miner
Hvy, MG2, 27 seconds
Hvy, MG3, 23 seconds

Solo kills are still possible.

DM05
medium hull: was 0.75, change to 0.65 (-10% damage versus medium hull)

EFFECT:

-10% damage versus Ints, Gunships, Bombers, HTTs, PT Bombers, Mustangs, Guardians, Omni fighters, Vanguards

Hvy Int, MG3, damage versus medium hull = 152/second
Hvy Scout, Nan3, repair versus medium hull = 150/second

Int, MG2, damage 83.33/sec vs med hull
Scout, Nan2, repair 120/sec

Hvy Int, MG2, damage 124.995/sec vs med hull
scout, nan2, repair 120/sec

hvy int, mg1, damage 97.5/sec vs med hull
scout, nan1, repair 90/sec

int, mg1, damage 65/sec vs med hull
scout, nan1, repair 90/sec

hvy, mg3, damage 152/sec vs med hull
scout, nan2, repair 120/sec

The effects would dictate that lt ints, and ints shoot the nans, or some nans, before trying to kill a bomber
Where as- heavy ints in theory could spike, but only if a numbers advantage existed, and only if they
attack it simultaneously, and only if they have mg2 or mg3. Otherwise, if outnumbered by nanites, heavy ints could not spike the bomber or
htt out from under nans, especially if it is nan3.

Keep in mind KB was not considered in the figures here, nor pw damage, in theory if you had a few good kb ints,
then perhaps it would be possible, and I think 3 miniguns SHOULD do slightly more damage than its equivalent nanite level

AND that 2 miniguns DO NOT do more damage than its equivalent nanite level

And of course this 10% change will effect how ints engage other interceptors. It makes you consider, is it worth dogfighting with
another light int in a skirmish, if it will burn up more ammo? Maybe yes, maybe no.

I changed nothing else about minigun in wc_03. It retains its effectiveness versus light hulls and other hulls etc.

SIDE EFFECT:
pulse laser shares DM05, and as such has 5% utility damage nerf and 10% medium hull damage nerf
This is not bad considering, GT fighters were stockpiling fuel and missiles as they no longer need ammo

Afterburner 1
Afterburner 2
Afterburner 3

I've added a booster tree to the expansion tech path. The reason for it, is simple. Interceptors with Booster 1 are good.
Interceptors with Booster 2 are great. Hvy Interceptors with Booster 3 are insane.
The combination of more efficient Booster 2, or more efficient Booster 3 with higher thrust, makes them too good at everything.

Afterburner 1 compared to Booster 1, will have lower thrust, with the same burn rate.
Afterburner 2 compared to Booster 2, will have the same thrust, with a quicker burn rate.
Afterburner 3 compared to Booster 3, will have higher thrust, with a quicker burn rate.

I am increasing interceptor thrust values from 300, to 400. It means they have
better acceleration. The side effect is it limits their top "cruise" boosting speed. I think that in order
to create some semblance of fairness, no ship should be going 450 mps. I think 300mps or slightly over should be the
limit. A benefit to a higher thrust, is ints also slow down from 250 mps faster so it is easier to engage rather than
overboost. Also their side and reverse thrust ability will be improved by changing the thrust value.

When you combine the ship thrust change, with the new boosters, you get the following:

IC

Lt Int Afterburn1 227mps for 13 seconds
Int Afterburn1 242mps for 17 seconds
Hvy Afterburn1 272mps for 17 seconds
Hvy Afterburn2 293mps for 15 seconds
Hvy Afterburn3 313mps for 14 seconds

It would seem as you attempt to go faster than the ships base speed, it takes more fuel? to sustain that higher speed.
So on one hand, ints are capable of faster speed with the afterburner upgrade, but the trade off is a penalty in how long
you can light up your booster. And even though I like ints how they are. They dominate everything.

In comparison I have some fighter values

IC

Enh Fighter Booster1 220mps for 12 seconds
Enh Fighter Booster2 220mps for 15 seconds
Enh Fighter Booster3 220mps for 18 seconds
Adv Fighter Booster1 264mps for 14 seconds
Adv Fighter Booster2 264mps for 18 seconds
Adv Fighter Booster3 264mps for 22 seconds
Adv Fighter Hvy Booster 336mps for 11 seconds

These are IC values. This is not taking into account ship speed GA or faction speed GA.
You need to remember. The values listed on the booster is theoretical maximum speed. You never reach the actual value
because of fuel reloads. Probably figure that 95% of these values is maximum speed in the game.

SUPREMACY

change thrust of Booster 3 to 900, was 1125
change rate of consumption to 0.00072215, 15% more efficient than Booster 2
change thrust of Hvy Booster to 1350, was 1800 (150% of Booster 1)
change rate of consumption to 0.00094435

i really like this idea. i beleve your on to something good weedman.

Dont forget the Bios Adv fig 3rd gunmount...tighten her up Doc...use those extra stitches!

Only good things and drunken domination can come from weed.

kick his balls and they get bigger

A note about tts/htts:

The reload time on missiles (or anything else) is ALWAYS 5 seconds. Its hardcoded. The ARMING time for a missile is decided by core (and mislabeled as reload time in ICE) - meaning with the values you stated a tt will need 13 (5+8) seconds to shoot a second EMP missile. In an htt-run on an adv techbase you will easily need all 3 missiles - taking 16 seconds - enough time to actually need a 4th missile - taking another 13 seconds... Noone will use htts if you need 30s sitting on a base to cap it. Not to mention that you will be eyed at least 13s before shooting too - since the first missile loads that slowly. (Adv techbase shield: 10000. Shield repair in 16 seconds = 1600. Total 11600. DMG with 3 missiles: 10500. )
Lets not talk about starbases with 15k hp and 150 regen/s... better bring 2 or 3 htts if you want to try. (Even better: bring a bbr with the htt/tt to bring shields down)

Compare adv techbase with a BASIC bomber with ab1:

Effective Missile dmg 4k (both hull and shield). Rearm time 4s. After 3 missiles shields are down. (8s in) The shield will have repaired by ~800 before the 3rd missile hits. Meaning of 20k (hull) + 10k (shield) there is 18.8k hull remaining. Firing the last ab of the first rack (12s) leaves us at 14.96k hull. firing 4 more missiles takes 5s + 4*4s = 21s (total of 33) gives about 820 more HP STILL killing the base with the 8th missile and 0 kb - after 33 seconds. That is 4 seconds longer than capping it with htts. USING BASIC BOMBERS. (hvy bbrs does not make it faster unless you get enough kb and ab2 to finish the base in one load. ab2 and 3 does make it faster). Htts are not endgame tech with this change, they are useless. TTs without emp + bbrs is cheaper than tts + htts + emp and more effective with the sole possible exception of a stealth run on an outpost.

If you wish to nerf tts while keeping htts strong I would suggest
- shorter arm time
- weaker emp missile
- bigger rack for emp missiles on htt.

That way you get a long reload time on tts (thanks to the 5s) but htts can still quickly bring shields down. You could even make the tt need 3-4 or even 5 missiles (5 missiles meaning staying at the op for ~20s) to bring down outpost shields - it is after all a capture early in the game which can be very strong - as long as the arm time is fairly short so the htt spams those weak emps like quickfires and captures bases in a reasonable time.

I leave it to you to figure out the numbers, just know that I think it will not work as you planned it for now


EDIT: A word about TF scouts - since TF is slow sometimes (usually vs mini3 hvy ints) the only way to end the game is to get dual nan adv scouts - or get sbs. Adv scouts are generally cheaper, meaning the enemy will not get to turtle just as long... but the main problem is not TF speed, more the fact that turtling is too easy against endgame tech. If you are going to adress that in the future - theres more important things than double nans.

Successors with different costs are both bugged and silly. You bumped up TT cost to 1k?

Phantom's analysis is a bit off. For a start, shields don't have to be at zero to cap the base. Otherwise a quarter second of regen would make an HTT bounce. I'm pretty sure the number is <10% shields. So it looks like HTT pilots would need >0 kb. Shocking. Horrifying. Utterly useless now. Advanced Expansion teams can't possibly get that.

Reload time isn't hardcoded, it's a global core value. Not terribly important.

Last I checked, AB1 arming time was 5s, not 4. Significant over eight missiles. Whoops.

It's still a pretty significant nerf to HTTs though.

Why would you choose to fly a TT over an HTT if both were available? Only newbs do this @#(!.

You would not. There is not even 1 plausible reason to do so. HTT cost more? Who cares. It's stealthier. It's faster. It has more HP. It has more mass. Carries more missiles. It has a higher success rate. Period.

It costs 500$ more, that's why. If a player without spare money gets upgraded to a more expensive ship, they get booted for cheating. XC had that problem.

Ignoring the bug, for, say, an emergency recap, the commander might not have a minute for another payday.

Cost should be the same, or it should not be a successor.

Nightflame wrote:QUOTE (Nightflame @ Mar 16 2013, 10:08 AM) I'm pretty sure the number is <10% shields.

That's correct, everything below 10% shield hp left counts as shields down.
http://trac.alleg.net/browser/allegsvn/tru...hipIGC.cpp#L841

You can change that setting within ICE under globals, 05/05 DownedShield (value right now is 0.1).