Things that could use a change

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:50 pm

That may be but this is not the topic for the discussion of an Exp nerf. IF there was a discussion why don't you make a new thread and link to the old one?

DasSmiter · Post by **DasSmiter** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:08 pm

Welcome to 2 pages ago Gui.

I agree that IC ungalvable bases basically kill an entire part of the sup structure, but it just forces you to rely more on the other perks of Sup. How about the mobility that tp's give you to defend the most random sectors? How about the fact that when you're in a fig with mine pack and dumb2 you are a $#@!ing htt killing machine?

I hate fighting IC because I rely (like many people) so much on those galvs to give me superior map control if I let the exp roll into my mining sectors. Going Sup against IC exp (or even tacspan) just shows how much people rely on one aspect of the sup structure.

~edits~
Why isn't this the topic for a discussion of a change to Exp? Forgoing the argument that the topic is named in such a way as to allow for discussion on varied aspects of balance, a change to Expansion could very well influence how useful Sup is vs. IC even though it doesn't address the issue that we're discussing at the moment.

guitarism · Post by **guitarism** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:29 pm

I came back to that point because we seem to have lost track of that

The main thinking here is that either galvable bases will make it easier for sup play against IC in general, or that ints in general combined with the ungalvable ops make IC that much harder to beat when they are exp. While we can fix the ungalvavble part, it still leaves us with the ints are way too good at everything at this moment problem.

If nerf ints a lil bit, we may find the sup vs ic problem dissapears, or at least gets better.

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:00 pm

DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Apr 29 2009, 05:08 PM) Why isn't this the topic for a discussion of a change to Exp? Forgoing the argument that the topic is named in such a way as to allow for discussion on varied aspects of balance, a change to Expansion could very well influence how useful Sup is vs. IC even though it doesn't address the issue that we're discussing at the moment.

First off this topic has been about the galvability of IC since page $#@!ing two.

What the $#@! does a change of Exp have to do with whether or not IC is galvable. Oh wait...now I remember. Buying base hull and shield ups affect how prone to being galved IC is!

Make your own $#@!ing topic about Exp if you want it but this one is now about Galvs fool

Post by **zombywoof** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:27 pm

QUOTE What the $#@! does a change of Exp have to do with whether or not IC is galvable?[/quote]

QUOTE ( @ Apr 29 2009, 02:29 PM) If nerf ints a lil bit, we may find the sup vs ic problem dissapears, or at least gets better.[/quote]

Though I do agree this isn't a discussion topic for expansion.

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:20 am

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Apr 29 2009, 07:00 PM) What the $#@! does a change of Exp have to do with whether or not IC is galvable.

l1ngus · Post by **l1ngus** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:29 am

How about we start threats on specific topics. All this mixing everything up makes it very hard to follow the discussion. Perhaps someone could seperate the proposals, that are worth to be considered.

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:09 am

This thread is about IC base galvability for the last 4 pages. No need to separate what everyone but one person seems to be focused on.

Personally while I think the arguments are good for making IC bases galvable my gut feeling is that it is not the best way to cut down IC. I think coming at it from a different angle is the way to go (ie exp changes/ripping miner changes/etc)

However if we WERE to make IC galvable I would say it would have to be at least 1.75-2x as hard other factions to galv

Drizzo · Post by **Drizzo** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:23 am

Making IC bases galvable would change the face of allegiance, the one that players have been familiar with for the last 10 years (beta players)

slap · Post by **slap** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:33 am

Have we move past the IC vs Sup difficulty?

I am not familiar with ICE and this might be impossible but if its not:

tl;dr version:
Why not make IC miners have their own hull class. Make this hull class especially vulnerable to Galvs.

The way I see it we have One tech path shared by all factions (Sup) Having trouble with one faction(IC) invulnerable(or incredibly resistant) to one weapon(Galv) in these factions.

This seems to mean we need to nerf something in IC in relation to galvs.

These options seem to be the most viable:
1 Make IC bases galvable
2 Perk Galvs in some other way vs IC only(All of these would require a new IC specific armor class, this might be impossible if it is I'm sorry, and some variant of 1 may be neccessary).
-Any one type of hull vulnerable either: basic ships, bass killing ships (ie bombers HTTs), or a type of utility ship.

Of these options 1 seems to be ruled out by Faction Uniqueness. When balancing something it is arguably bad to remove uniqueness from a faction in the presences of other viable options.

Option 2 now breaks into several parts (This ratio is going to be hard to decide, but I think it should easily out damage 2 or 3 nans.):
A) Give this vulnerable armor some fighting ship/s
-This would serve to change the fighting dynamics, and create a host of balance problems in Non IC sup vs all IC sup paths (except perhaps scouts but a dedicated scout killing Galv seems strange, and not useful)

Give this vulnerable armor to capital
-Sup is already strong vs a cap game, and this would be limited to a single tech path
C) Give this vulnerable armor to constructors
-This would serve to halt the ability of late game IC to expand vs sup at all (unless uneyed). It would allow for galv to remain a strictly anti base weapon and would mean that while you could not remove IC from the map you could prevent them from pushing into your sectors.
D) Give this vulnerable armor to miners
-It seems that sup may have the most trouble against IC miners. Fighters are unable to get close to IC miners before they can rip. A vulnerability in IC miners vs galv would create a situation where IC literally cannot mine, this is arguably as large a problem as being galved off the map. If one fighter can take down a miner in a matter of seconds(defended or not) IC will be in trouble.

I personally believe option D would create a new and interesting way for SUP to hold its own against IC.