Carbon SpecMines

[spideycw]

Perhaps I would be inclined to pay more attention to you if you could post a sentence I didn't have to read twice to make sense of, just to find out you said nothing relevant to the discussion of changes of C Mines.

The idea you seem to be so stupid as to not notice that the fact that something is NEVER used means that it is by its very nature unbalanced is another strike against you. The fact that you think there is "zero discussion" on how it enhances game play or improves balance further proves to me you just stop by these forums ever so often to attempt to troll and have never stopped to actually read any topics or do any thinking.

If you think Allegiance is not already Kafkaesque, then that is because you are so busy doing nothing but attempting to int whore and failing miserably.

Changing C mines does in fact of point have something to do with making Giga more balanced, you are just too idiotic to realize it.

[Jimen]

Whoa whoa, hang on, NEVER used? That's not right. "Used less often than Si mines" isn't the same as "not used at all", especially since specmine choice depends more on rock availability than anything else.

[spideycw]

QUOTE (Jimen @ May 14 2010, 12:57 PM) Whoa whoa, hang on, NEVER used? That's not right. "Used less often than Si mines" isn't the same as "not used at all", especially since specmine choice depends more on rock availability than anything else.

I was addressing this quote by cashto

QUOTE (cashto @ May 14 2010, 12:27 PM) Retro boost, TTs, SY, Seismic, now CA mines ... "hey, here's a piece of tech never gets used.

not C Mines specifically. I beleive SysX just used them against XT this past weekend

[Koln]

QUOTE (cashto @ May 14 2010, 06:27 PM) It's just perks for the sake of perks.

IMO, it's perks for the sake of more paths available to win a game. The more the better.

[Broodwich]

i dont see any reason to perk ca specs. If i were to say anything it would be scan range since that is a lot more useful than lower sig (since once a base is eyed it doesnt go away). Like jimen said, people get specs for the money. si specs give the highest return, that is why they are the preferred. the small perk to ur specs survivability is essentially useless since if a full team (read: real run) gets in sector against any spec with dis2 or galvs it is dead anyway. If anything should be considered its whether si specs should be nerfed or not

[Raven_42]

^^Agree.

[NightRychune]

Why does Giga need to be perked? Do they lose an inordinate amount of games in pugs, or is the intent to make them more viable in higher-end competitive SGs? It seems that Giga is one of the most played factions in CC and it doesn't seem at all that they're doing badly. They have weaknesses that can prove to be very annoying when taken advantage of, but this is true for any faction.

Again, Si mines are used more than C or U mines because they produce far more money. I have seen many games where giga builds 1 or 2 Si mines, buys a sup, and then turtles until their Si mines make them enough money to buy tp2 and figbombers to then try and win the game. While "useless," C mines "advantage" of having a lower sig than the other mines is really irrelevant. Building them makes you $1,250 per minute per mine you build until they die, and that in and of itself far outweighs any other advantage they could possibly have. I would never build a U mine over an Si mine or C mine simply because it was harder to kill - I'd build them if I had an abundance of U rocks instead of Si rocks that I could choke off with caltrops or cheap piece of @#(! giga bases or whatever. I'd do the same thing with C mines.

TL;DR: C mines are fine as is, and furthermore making changes in the core that encourage passive gameplay is not the direction I want to see this game take.

[aptest]

I think "Why are carbon special mines not used more?" is an interesting question but in my mind the solution is irrelevant to the payday issue. My lamen's oppinion follows:

Giga is more likely to go sup.
If it does then carbon rocks represent alternative techbase locations.
Therefore eating a carbon rock with a special mine can screw you over in the event of a successful bomb
Because you would need a rock on which to build a new base

OTOH

TAC is seen less in pick-up-games.
therefore in this environement eating silicon rocks has less negative effect on further expansion than eatine carb or ur rocks.

However

I agree with U specs against exp-heavy opponents.

[SpaceJunk]

I vote relay because it would be nice to have a base that does something.

[Raveen]

QUOTE (Koln @ May 14 2010, 01:41 PM) Making it like a carrier instead?

No, as already mentioned, this would be a code change. This would be like the old Pheonix Transceiver, a base that you could launch ships from but could not dock at (it has a red door but no green door).