NG SBs were designed to match the point at which they would be eyed and could capture a base with what a same-faction HTT with sig 2 GA could do. This was fundamentally flawed, as HTTs are used with immense amounts of support - int and nan escorts, compared to the typical use of SBs to sneak in and kill a base. The big perk in using them over HTTs is that you can capture non-dockable bases, like TPs, spec refs, etc with them.
So - give them a specialized use to do just that. Nerve gas SB research can include a special EMP missile that only works to damage the shields of bases that can also be damaged by galvs. IE: They work on ops, TPs, refineries, et al, but have no effect on tech bases or heavy bases, with the same arm time/sig as AB1. (Might also need to add a way for them to deal very, very, very minor damage to a small base's hull to prevent shields from coming back up while you arm NG missile). NG missiles can also use the same arming/loading time, and raise the sig of the NG missile to make NG SBs maintain the sig they have now, with said missile armed, to keep them a larger target in large-scale runs on tech bases, where they can still be used to capture the base if used in tandem with standard SBs to lower the shields first. Upgrade the range of the NG missile itself to 500-800 meters, maybe?
Let's take a look at NG sbs
-
RealPandemonium
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:32 am
- Location: NY
phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ May 3 2009, 12:54 PM) I think... it's hard to explain what I'm talking about since you don't play SSBB. By making it situational, I mean, something you'd do only under a precise set of circumstances. Like, say, recapping when you're vs exp. Making NG absolutely inferior to SBs in every way, except that when an HTT manages to grab your adv tac then you need a NG SB to take it back.
The thing is, NG sbs would have to be, in my opinion, good at taking your base back and bad (or at least worse) than SBs at everything else.
Dev opinion is voided.
IMO Edmond wrote:QUOTE (Edmond @ Aug 31 2010, 04:20 PM) I think girly's idea is much better, since it is more freeform, only needs to be updated by one person, and maintains the openness of the command channel without the spaminess. Plus it can have ASCII goatse.
Your opinion is voided. If you have nothing to add to the conversation then do not $#@!ing post
I'm sorry I don't remember any of it. For you the day spideycw graced your squad with utter destruction was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Sunday
Idanmel wrote:QUOTE (Idanmel @ Mar 19 2012, 05:54 AM) I am ashamed for all the drama I caused, I have much to learn on how to behave when things don't go my way.
My apologies.
Spidey did not add anything to this conversation >.>
NG should just be given to SB's!
NG should just be given to SB's!
Get over yourselves, don't try to win arguments on the internet where the option of a punch in the mouth is unavailable
"It is not that I cannot create anything good, but that I will not." And to prove this, he created the peacock.
As it stands now, they have only one real functional use, taking small outlying bases. It, in theory, can do that well in the right situations.
Honestly, would it be so bad to have it Tac-Researchable, but mountable on normal and heavy bombers? Realistically, they are going to have a hard time getting there and setting up the situation either way. With this it becomes a bit more flexible, which might make it taken more often.
Honestly, would it be so bad to have it Tac-Researchable, but mountable on normal and heavy bombers? Realistically, they are going to have a hard time getting there and setting up the situation either way. With this it becomes a bit more flexible, which might make it taken more often.