Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jul 2 2008, 08:38 PM) Any love for the "HTT needs bomber researched" and getting rid of TT's?
It's somewhat radical, but then again TT's are so rarely used I doubt they would be missed. If it feels awful in actual games, CC can just switch things back in the next update.
Surely that'd be a perk to exp, exchanging a hard to use ship for the much easier to use bomber?
Ok, it might be a nerf in PUGs because some people like to bomb no matter what, but for the proper games it'd be a serious perk to Exp.
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
I'd rather suggest making both bombers and TTs required for HTTs. After all for SBs you need both BBR and SF reaserched. Why to hell it should be different for EXP? But thats another topic.
I think the idea of either making bombers required for HTT or moving TT to garr tech is one worth exploring. Exp is the only tech path that can easily survive the loss of a garrison before bombers are researched.
An exp team needs to stay alive until hvy ints and then they can push back with HTT's. Both sup and tac are screwed without bombers being researched while exp is merely out a base.
Making bombers a requirement would probably be the smallest change. Although moving TT to the garrison would make for some potentially interesting gameplay changes -- sup/tac teams potentially able to recap, maybe a lot more bomber/tt combo runs. I don't know if it would work, but I think it would definitely be interesting...
blackrob wrote:QUOTE (blackrob @ Jun 26 2008, 02:17 PM) Since we're tossing out ideas, here's a crazy one, I can't make it work maybe someone can...
Leave TT, but give ints (or maybe just hvy ints) "Lt" EMP missles. So to cap a base w/ TT you will need a swarm of ints throwing Lt. EMP at the base and then the TT can cap.
This, of course, would make ints hilariously broken for int-bombing and against cap ships.
The reason for this is because it's hard to change only TT and make TT more useful but less than HTT. A HTT is already pretty boring, no guns, just missles and shields, not much room to downgrade from there.
Is it theoretically possible to achieve balance by
1) making Lt EMP missles one-per-slot and weigh a ton (to decrease int dogfight ability, and take up cargo space)
2) Tweaking damage modifiers so that Lt EMP won't do much damage to cap ships
3) Lt EMP costs 50 bucks per missle and takes 8 to take down an op's shields, more against tech base
They already have this it's called EMP Cannon1 and EMP cannon 2
TT"s are already viable with ints using emp cannon1/2 it's just people don't do it as a technique often. I've done it with teams I've commanded about 4 times and it does work.
I could see a TT having an emp turret once emp cannon 1/2 or both are researched, and tt cost increased to 250.
Well the logic behind it all is we could claim all of the above ships need 'Big missile launch' technology (AB-type/EMP-type), which nets you... Bomber, HTT, SB, FB, whatnot.
One short sleep past, we wake eternally and Death shalt be no more; Death, thou shalt die!
I would prefer that we consider what is best for core balance and gameplay rather than your notions of symmetry, which are pretty much irrelevant to game mechanics.
We shouldn't be making changes just for the sake of change or because it looks pretty in the F5 menu. We should be making changes to improve gameplay mechanics. Removing TT as a prereq for HTT grants further advantage to an already very powerful tech path. I don't see a valid reason for doing this.
"You give my regards to St. Peter. Or, whoever has his job, but in hell!"
- - - -
I propose HTTs should cost the sum of all capturable bases on the map.
cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Oct 16 2010, 02:48 AM) Interceptors are fun because without one, Drizzo would be physically incapable of entering a sector.
