Things that could use a change

[Adept]

I whole heartedly support HSharp in this.

Like I said months ago, the ungalvable bases make going sup vs. IC a much less attractive option than vs. anybody else. Since IC (exp) is so popular, this is a big part of the reason why so many games are exp on exp. If we make IC teles and ops galvable, we'll see more sup in general.

It would be a great experiment to do, in the very least.

[Broodwich]

Why not just make ic bases cost more? Then you dont have to worry about game scalability as far as sup and galvs go

[Xeretov]

QUOTE (Raveen @ Apr 28 2009, 11:49 AM) Would it be possible to allow IC to buy an upgrade from Normal to Heavy Bases?

I'm pretty sure this would be possible, but would it balance anything out? I dislike shooting down ideas, but aside from the additional cost to upgrade them the ops & teles would still be ungalvable. And you can bet that any IC team that sees the enemy going sup will buy heavy bases before the other team gets galvs up.

I would rather go with HSharp's idea of making the current ones difficult to galv, but not impossible. The numbers Apoch ran in TEK seemed a little bit high (about double the time) and I'd rather have it around half again the time. After a bit of math I came up with the following numbers using Apoch's example of 5 figs with no KB:

3.1x damage to shield = 86.8 DMG P/S
7.25x damage to hull = 203 DMG P/S

Shield: 7665/434 = 17.7 seconds
Hull: 7665/1015 = 7.5 seconds
TTK = 25.2 seconds

Even rounded off to 3 and 7 for modifiers gives you a TTK of 26.1 seconds.

If anyone else wants to play with the numbers, I whipped up an excel spreadsheet so you can compare different changes right next to each other: (download link)

[apochboi]

Actually I didnt use Tek, only smart people use Tek, I used Ice and calculated it all out myself since TeK does not allow you to turn an IC base galvable ..Anyway the modifiers used were suggested by Hsharp. Im glad you are considering the numbers in this post. Much better than "I THINK CHEESE IS GREAT CAUSE IT IS".
-Pocho

[SpaceJunk]

Meh, forget the bases. Miners that rip when they are about to die is cheating, face the facts.

[spideycw]

You should read this post if you ever plan on posting in this forum again.

[Drizzo]

I've seen sup win some pretty amazing games vs. IC

GT Sup with a 9 nan bomb run + AC2/AB2 Med and SS2 Hello?

Belters Sup?

When you tackle the problem of IC Exp, and IC in general, you can not go about it the retarded way, (Trying to fight them toe to toe) you are GOING to lose. That is the way most of you are addressing it, and it's probably from your severe lack of experience as a commander.

You bomb hard early and take away their real estate, thus taking away their mining, thus taking away those hvy ints. Then you get your figbees.

Most of you have forgotten/don't know how to play a bombing game, and since bombing right of the bat in an SG for some reason is considered not-classy enough for your ego, a lot of you have an idea that it's bad taboo. It is if done wrong. There's no counter to $#@!ing IC Tac/Span like shoving a bomber down their throat when they're weak.

You want to balance things out? Make bombing more viable by moving adv scouts to Garrison.

[HSharp]

Nice points Drizzle but im not seeing any points saying why IC bases shouldn't be galvable

[Makida]

Ah, I know I already have a bad track record here , but I have to say - isn't the onus on the pro-galvy side to prove that they *should* be made galvable, rather than the reverse? Drizzo argues that IC's non-galvable bases are not overpowered, and that sup against IC is already viable, and does not require the bases to be galvable. Since the status quo right now is that they're not galvable, and there seems to be a general consensus that "change for change's sake is bad," isn't it now up to people who think they need to be made galvable to counter those points, if the status quo is to be changed?

also nerf ints >_>

[Dorjan]

Not nerf ints, change ints.

But thank you Drizzo.

*claps*