rix, belts and ic

Sealer · Post by **Sealer** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:09 pm

I believe this can be changed after mutual agreement.

/edit/ at least for next league /edit/

Post by **Raveen** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:18 pm

Evincar wrote:QUOTE (Evincar @ Feb 12 2009, 01:43 PM) you forget that the only core we are allowed to play the league is CC

If a new core emerged and people wanted to play league games on it there would be a discussion in the OC. There isn't a ban on new cores but the rules needed to be specific at the time of arranging the league.

mcwarren4 · Post by **mcwarren4** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:47 pm

This is what I hate about most people's view on how to balance a core. Evincar listed out changes for all of those factions and every single change was to make the factions stronger rather than making the three 'chosen' ones weaker. If we keep going down this road we might as well go ahead and reintroduce Bacon's BFG and call it a day.

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:10 pm

Well Rix and IC tread a very fine line in terms of balance from what I can see, Belters are naturally cheesy however. Besides, Evin was talking about balancing these factions for SGs, not PUGs. If you made Rix any weaker, they'd be useless in PUGs, which they are around 60% of the time anyway. IC have actually reached a level that is very satisfying with every techpath being worthwhile besides maybe pure Tac.

Broodwich · Post by **Broodwich** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:41 am

if you balance a comeback faction to compete with strong opening factions then their endgame tech will be incredibly overpowered. Then if you nerf their endgame you have a faction that is just the same as the rest. This idea is stupid

edit: i will say dreg needs a perk, they are supposed to be able to push around rapidly, and they cant really push around if their ints suck ass. For the uninitiated dreg ints have less ammo, do less damage, have less hull, have larger hitboxes, and have worse gunmounts than ic ints. All they have up on them is speed and agility, which helps for miner killing but they can barely push stuff over basic figs, and get raped by rix ones

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:33 am

I know...FREE ENH CON FOR DREGGIES!

Evincar · Post by **Evincar** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:27 am

mcwarren4 wrote:QUOTE (mcwarren4 @ Feb 12 2009, 06:47 PM) This is what I hate about most people's view on how to balance a core. Evincar listed out changes for all of those factions and every single change was to make the factions stronger rather than making the three 'chosen' ones weaker. If we keep going down this road we might as well go ahead and reintroduce Bacon's BFG and call it a day.

yes, i have to agree with crono here that the balance benchmark is IC followed by belters. on an unrelated note, the fact that rix somehow fits in the equation is a matter of luck.

All the factions should be centered around buffs/nerfs/differences wrt ic/belts. if you want to nerf ic/belts/rix, first your work is more complicated because at the moment they are the only balanced factions (THE UNBALANCED ONES ARE NOT BALANCED BETWEEN THEM), and second because they are on the middleground. the rest of factions either use perks or nerfs respect ic/belts (ic has above average ammo and above average pwew dmg, but the rest they are pretty much on the 1.0.

edit: and i value your opinion here, just don't discredit my ideas because you think they are not the correct way to implement a change. if you also understand there is a massive utility gap between the factions, please state your ideas about balancing them, i will not make fun of you. in fact my exaggerated ideas had this in mind, that other people started talking about what they thought balance meant in general terms.

so, if you feel the game is not balanced, for squad games or for pick up (or both), this is the subforum and more specifically this is the thread to discuss it and how to alleviate those differences.

there is another issue, change is supposedly intended to be progressive as i understand from what the cc reps have said. if we decided to nerf rix/belts/ic instead of buffing the rest, we would eventually end having to do a massive faction attribute change, and above all, the factions are intrinsically powerful because their openings and bombing capabilities (rix & ic, belts & ic) are powerful and fast. this is the best way to play squad games as you know, there is no room for an expansive, careless economy as giga was intended to be (but now as it has been nerfed so much it is not), there is no room for a slow juggernaut like tf is supposed to be. all of them get decimated by a quick opening that sets the mood of the game.

my first idea is give them a slight artificial boost over the opening minutes, maybe by giving the lt ships more hull/ammo/better hitboxes (in the case of dreg, and tf in some other way, this is already a problem that can't be corrected unless the model is removed), extra con speed (tf would be taken more seriously if their constructors capped at 80 or even an above average speed like 90 or 100, in fact it could be an interesting perk), free opening ships (seriously, giga scouts won't plant a single constructor on the opening vs any of the top tier squads vs any decent faction).

for brood: i understand very well the idea of a comeback faction. comebacks are surreal in SGs. unless you want to do something really drastic like double tf's yield (i would still pick belts over a 2.0 tf yield).

Grzegt · Post by **Grzegt** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:09 am

mcwarren4 wrote:QUOTE (mcwarren4 @ Feb 12 2009, 09:47 PM) This is what I hate about most people's view on how to balance a core. Evincar listed out changes for all of those factions and every single change was to make the factions stronger rather than making the three 'chosen' ones weaker. If we keep going down this road we might as well go ahead and reintroduce Bacon's BFG and call it a day.

You have a point there, but please remember how you handled nerfing interceptors in CC. You left interceptors unchanged, and instead
"every single change was to make the fighters stronger".

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:13 pm

Evincar wrote:QUOTE (Evincar @ Feb 13 2009, 10:27 AM) ...because they are on the middleground. the rest of factions either use perks or nerfs respect ic/belts (ic has above average ammo and above average pwew dmg, but the rest they are pretty much on the 1.0.

IC is not 1.0 accross the rest of the stats.
+ Very significant ship energy perk.
+ Tough stations with ungalvable small ones
+ Significant missile damage perk

Post by **pkk** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:23 pm

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Feb 13 2009, 09:13 PM) IC is not 1.0 accross the rest of the stats.

Hull standard value is 0.9, not 1.0...