Concept: Ints (including lt and hvy varients) by default mount afterburners instead of regular boosters. Devels for these parts are in Expansion not in Supremacy.
Problems Potentially Solved:
* Allows changes to the boosting properties to be focused on Ints without affecting other ships.
* Can be used to give lt ints and early Exp a nerf whilst not damaging mid to late game.
* Can be used to stop IC/Dreg opening dominance by nerfing Lt Ints
* Gives Exp another tech to buy.
* Adding tech to exp also helps balance the costs between the techpaths.
Commentary:
My idea is that ABurn 1 would be a "less good" booster compared to Boost 1, ABurn 2 would be roughly equivalent to Boost 1 and ABurn 3 would be Boost 2ish. Depending on what options are available in the part you could change the fuel consumption and/or accelleration compared to Boost. Regular and/or Heavy Ints should be able to mount Boost 2/3 if they are purchased in a sup (or not if that's a bad idea). Figs should not mount ABurn (unless it seems like a good idea).
Exp has a more linear purchase path than the other techs (Ints -> Mini 2 -> Ad Exp -> Heavy Ints -> Mini 3 -> TT -> HTT -> SRM EMP). Adding a new branch to the Exp tech tree adds choice and variability to the game.
What are your thoughts people? I can't see any compelling reason to not do this except for the "Status Quo Rules" crowd who object to any and every change. None of the numbers are set and tweaking may limit any of the outcomes I've suggested above (there's no need for there to be a nerf against lt ints except that I think it might be a good idea).
Afterburners
Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Feb 19 2009, 01:23 PM) would ints be able to mount regular boosters if they bought a sup?
Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Feb 19 2009, 01:23 PM) Regular and/or Heavy Ints should be able to mount Boost 2/3 if they are purchased in a sup (or not if that's a bad idea). Figs should not mount ABurn (unless it seems like a good idea).
I like the idea. I take that afterburner1 wouldn't require a research, else lt-ints would be greatly nerfd.
But I have the fear that hvy ints will be much more overpowered this way because you can get afterburner3 way cheaper than boost2/3. As solution I could imagine a requirement of boost2 for afterburner3, and Ints/HvyInts not being able to mount Booster.
This way you have to buy a Sup or at least find/steal booster2 until you get even crazier game dominating ships. That's only a very small obstacle actually, but together with the limitation to the afterburner it could keep the hvyints power in control while making Exp more expensive - what it really should be.
EDIT: And it's a good way to limit the often discussed Ints range
Last edited by finki on Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I approve.
Though it does make exp even more independant (previously, if you wanted better boosters you had to get a sup too), so in some ways it's a bit of a perk.
Ints shouldn't mount booster 1 if afterburners get implemented though, otherwise there is no reason to use afterburner 1 since booster 1 is better.
This also takes up very few core resources since there are very few boster flags used already
Though it does make exp even more independant (previously, if you wanted better boosters you had to get a sup too), so in some ways it's a bit of a perk.
Ints shouldn't mount booster 1 if afterburners get implemented though, otherwise there is no reason to use afterburner 1 since booster 1 is better.
This also takes up very few core resources since there are very few boster flags used already
Last edited by madpeople on Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Since we're already throwing oddball ideas into the air (uh, sorry Rav 
)
*this is all just throwing ideas in the air, no need to crucify me yet
I've always been a bit unhappy with the basic booster tree on figs. Light booster & cruise booster feel more useful for the fighters role than booster 1 for instance. Better all around speed for fighters vs. insane accel and "within the sector intercept" for ints would seem the order of the day.
I'd be careful about touching the current situation though. It's definitely not perfect, but it's not badly broken either.
Int boosters (high accel, low efficiency) and fig boosters (like lite booster / cruise booster / ...?) would be an interesting split. Ideally ints would have significantly more fuel, but be unable to use the fig boosters, aside from the basic lite booster. Figs would be able to use the int boosters if the pilots so choose (sup couldn't develop them), but would be much worse with them, as is the case now (not enough fuel).
***
Am I the only one who prefers light booster on most starting figs if I can get it? A rix or GT basic fighter is a much better ship IMO with light booster instead of booster 1.
)*this is all just throwing ideas in the air, no need to crucify me yet
I've always been a bit unhappy with the basic booster tree on figs. Light booster & cruise booster feel more useful for the fighters role than booster 1 for instance. Better all around speed for fighters vs. insane accel and "within the sector intercept" for ints would seem the order of the day.
I'd be careful about touching the current situation though. It's definitely not perfect, but it's not badly broken either.
Int boosters (high accel, low efficiency) and fig boosters (like lite booster / cruise booster / ...?) would be an interesting split. Ideally ints would have significantly more fuel, but be unable to use the fig boosters, aside from the basic lite booster. Figs would be able to use the int boosters if the pilots so choose (sup couldn't develop them), but would be much worse with them, as is the case now (not enough fuel).
***
Am I the only one who prefers light booster on most starting figs if I can get it? A rix or GT basic fighter is a much better ship IMO with light booster instead of booster 1.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
No.
1) Right now boosters form a synergy between Sup and Exp, just like sig GAs for Tac and Exp, or missile GAs and SRM ABs research for Sup and Tac. I wouldn't like such synergies to go away.
2) If you really insist on making another boosters set, at least make them very different, like high accel short duration, instead of 'the same but weaker' as you suggest.
3) Or maybe instead improve LtBoosters so they will
- sometimes be picked over regular boosters on ships that can use both
- be useful for ints because now they are not
1) Right now boosters form a synergy between Sup and Exp, just like sig GAs for Tac and Exp, or missile GAs and SRM ABs research for Sup and Tac. I wouldn't like such synergies to go away.
2) If you really insist on making another boosters set, at least make them very different, like high accel short duration, instead of 'the same but weaker' as you suggest.
3) Or maybe instead improve LtBoosters so they will
- sometimes be picked over regular boosters on ships that can use both
- be useful for ints because now they are not
I'm sorry Rav, I had to point this one outRaveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Feb 19 2009, 01:23 PM) * Can be used to stop Dreg opening dominance by nerfing Lt Ints
I like the idea, it always bothered me that ints are able to get anywhere fast because of massive fuel capacity/speed. I don't think it will pass though, exp is not really overpowered as it is.
"For save the world from this epic gay, Clint have this hope : he would put something great and big in his ass."
Because the synergy between sup and exp was mentioned so often atm I repeat:
Let's make booster2 a requirement for afterburner 3.
With AB2 being somewhere in the scale of booster1 things should be fine.
And with weaker I think rav meant different but weaker in general. So shorter range for ints etc.
Let's make booster2 a requirement for afterburner 3.
With AB2 being somewhere in the scale of booster1 things should be fine.
And with weaker I think rav meant different but weaker in general. So shorter range for ints etc.
Yes, although I would leave the final numbers to the CC team. ABurn could be as different as possible or similar but less good. It's their call.finki wrote:QUOTE (finki @ Feb 19 2009, 03:29 PM) And with weaker I think rav meant different but weaker in general. So shorter range for ints etc.
If you have dependency between Boosters and ABurners somehow then you maintain that synergy (not that I'm particularly devoted to that as a concept, I think if you want that you'd need to radically reorganise the techs tbh).
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
I like grav's suggestion that you have to have a sup and boost 2 (or just a sup?) to get afterburner3. aftbur2 just being boost 1 is a good choice imo as it makes it a must have for exp teams and is only a slight nerf and equalizer.madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Feb 19 2009, 07:45 AM) Though it does make exp even more independant (previously, if you wanted better boosters you had to get a sup too), so in some ways it's a bit of a perk.
QUOTE Ints shouldn't mount booster 1 if afterburners get implemented though, otherwise there is no reason to use afterburner 1 since booster 1 is better.[/quote]
agreed. but i do think, as stated above, that ints/hvy ints (not lt ints) should be able to mount boost2/3, whether picked up or bought in a sup.