CC_000001b Feedback

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:33 pm

i haven't been telling anyone anything.
red's pot about the 12.5 thing was the first i've heard of it, i understood from the change log it looked like a 10% increase from dn4.60, which wouldn't have been as good as a 10% reduction from 4.50

i was asking to get a response that would explain to people what it actually is.

i should probably explain that i did post that at 1:15 am here (*notes same time zone*)

apochboi · Post by **apochboi** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:23 pm

lol fair enough /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> i didnt explicitly say you were doing it, but I did hear someone was going around saying it was a 12.5% increase /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> which clearly isnt true.

Gandalf2 · Post by **Gandalf2** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:50 pm

Well feedback. I was an an epic TF comeback game a few days back - we were adv sup against GT adv sup, with research, and a pali in our sector only sector, and the rest of the map. Really GT should've won it but they didn't get their act together properly. However I do not think we would've made our comeback without the TF perks (we had to DM for a long time, and kill lots of bombers & nans too). Therefore I think this game demonstrated that TF are now more balanced.

Of course that is only one game, but yeah I haven't heard any negative vibes about this change - and no-one on GT complained that they lost that game because of the TF perk.

Ramaglor · Post by **Ramaglor** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:08 am

That game was a loss because the GT commander thought that it was possible to outwhore tf figs with figs....... tf has some incredible strengths, but their weaknesses seem to crippling the rest of the time.
I bet you if they had miners that were completely normal that tf would do much better.

Psychosis · Post by **Psychosis** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 3:18 am

TF miners are okay as they are, they are just far to freaking expensive

EonGuardian · Post by **EonGuardian** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:55 am

Why was GT's He3 Yield dropped? /huh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":huh:" border="0" alt="huh.gif" />

apochboi · Post by **apochboi** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:58 am

EonGuardian wrote:QUOTE (EonGuardian @ Jun 9 2008, 12:55 PM) Why was GT's He3 Yield dropped? /huh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":huh:" border="0" alt="huh.gif" />

GT Cost is 0.8 which means its 20% cheaper than standard. They also had Full He3 yield, so a miner would bring in a full load of He3 those two factors together = a very easy cheesy faction. The He3 Yield was brought down to bring their econ into line with other factions and not the ridiculous values it previously had.

Edit: Sp

KofiMan · Post by **KofiMan** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:27 am

Psychosis wrote:QUOTE (Psychosis @ Jun 8 2008, 08:18 PM) TF miners are okay as they are, they are just far to freaking expensive

I thought they cost so much to discourage people from using them offensively.

Gandalf2 · Post by **Gandalf2** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:16 am

They are too slow for that surely!

apochboi · Post by **apochboi** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:26 am

The old DN miners, ive seen a few commanders sending their miner ahead of the con, and using it like a carrier, thankfully I think those days are gone /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />