Discussion of Bios changes

Jimen · Post by **Jimen** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:46 pm

girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 04:27 PM) Won't people simply stop buying Starbase then? Or maybe upgrade it only if they go sup, for the hvy scouts and tp1, and then only after they get the supremacy itself? Then we won't see gunships at all. Which would suck, since no other faction ever uses them as it is. The fact that they're available early is the only reason Bios bothers with them at all.

Actually, a major reason gunships aren't worth the cost right now is because of Bios' starting Starbase. Since it's so ridiculously easy for Bios to get the Starbase tech, any buff to said tech disproportionately affects Bios, the result being that raising up gunships to be worthwhile for every other faction would make them ridiculously overpowered for Bios. It comes up every time anyone suggests any change at all to any Garrison or Starbase tech (example) except Retro Booster. If we put a reasonable obstacle between Bios and Starbase (such as forcing Bios to spend time upgrading their garr), the CC team will finally, finally be free to buff up the underused Starbase techs like gunships without having to wrestle with the Bios factor - right now, any gunship buff is by definition a Bios buff because it's so ridiculously accessible to Bios and only Bios.

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:58 pm

I think the best way to buff gunships is to make them easier for other factions to get in one way or another, rather than to make them more powerful -- in which case Bios gunships probably wouldn't be affected by such a "buff" anyway. Of course that's a whole separate discussion, but I really, really don't think Bios should start with a garrison just because there's an off chance that might make it easier to buff gunships later on. And I've already said why the other reasons don't seem to make sense to me.

juckto · Post by **juckto** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:01 pm

QUOTE And lets face it, treasures are on 95% of the time so Bios can just get cash boxes to replace the paydays.[/quote]
You can reduce the probability that cashboxes will spawn within ICE.

Freyja · Post by **Freyja** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:29 pm

QUOTE 1-4[/quote]

I'd prefer these to not be done as to me it makes the faction feel un-Bios-y. Sorry if that isn't specific enough.

QUOTE 5) Increase Con Build Time[/quote]

Bring this back to normal and I think Bios will become very much in line with other factions.

QUOTE 6) Increase mass of their small ships to normal[/quote]

I can live with seeing mass/fuel resolved.

The idea of Bios starting with only a garrison is interesting, specifically as it relates to looking at making all starbase tech more useful. I am unsure if this is a good idea though would be interested in seeing if it could be made viable.

Gappy · Post by **Gappy** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:43 pm

Faction win/loss statistics say BIOS is fine. It feels about right, and despite losing 2 games for every one it wins, you guys want to nerf it more? Crazy.

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:53 pm

Freyja wrote:QUOTE (Freyja @ Jun 19 2010, 07:29 PM) [1-4] I'd prefer these to not be done as to me it makes the faction feel un-Bios-y.

I agree that the faction's overall feel/uniqueness shouldn't be lost, but how is the size of the fig/its capacity to drop prox/the Bios economy more integral to their character than their ability to get cons out quickly, their light ships, and them starting with all tech bases being advanced (including starbase?) To me it seems changing these things would make them much less "Bios-y" than changing the scale of their fig or nerfing their economy...

TheCorsair · Post by **TheCorsair** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:56 pm

Gappy wrote:QUOTE (Gappy @ Jun 20 2010, 09:43 AM) Faction win/loss statistics say BIOS is fine. It feels about right, and despite losing 2 games for every one it wins, you guys want to nerf it more? Crazy.

I feel this way about it

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:13 am

These thread makes me feel like we really need to have a PuG core and a SG core.
Bios is strong in PuG because people are bad. Are we really "balancing" things that can be used in squad games, based on PuG bull@#(!?

Xeretov · Post by **Xeretov** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:21 am

Gappy wrote:QUOTE (Gappy @ Jun 19 2010, 07:43 PM) Faction win/loss statistics say BIOS is fine.

I rue the day we start making balance decisions based on ambiguous faction win/loss statistics.

Jimen · Post by **Jimen** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:27 am

Gappy wrote:QUOTE (Gappy @ Jun 19 2010, 07:43 PM) Faction win/loss statistics say BIOS is fine. It feels about right, and despite losing 2 games for every one it wins, you guys want to nerf it more? Crazy.

This is because morons go Bios expecting it to be a Win Button, but fail to go Sup. Bios Exp has been oddly popular lately, and most of the Bios losses I've seen lately happened when a team went Bios Exp and still managed to fail to HTT.