I always thought EMP would be fun if it damaged ships energy once shields were down (eg.. Galv fighters hit by emp lose energy and cant galv)
This would make EMP vs TF very very fun (not if you were tf)
Making it nullify cap weapons (ie cap ship cant fire until energy recharge) would be pretty nifty but balancing this trade off would be a pain in the ass
I only think item 3 is plausible...allow tts to mount EMP cannon and spend 30 seconds to EMP down shields sounds reasonable
EMP changes
If the time taken to successfully drop shields is more significant than the time to Ab1 the base with nan support, then I dont think it is a problem. The defending team deserves to lose its base.Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Nov 2 2010, 07:20 AM) TT being able to cap techbases sounds like a horrible change
the key is making it take a lot more resources and time to successfully complete than say a reg bomb run, but not making it impossible.
the difference though is a bomber = destroyed base, a tt = a new base for you too.
I like the TT can capture small bases idea and HTT for the big boys.
Although I still treasure the times when bombers and TTs walked hand in hand...
I like the TT can capture small bases idea and HTT for the big boys.
Although I still treasure the times when bombers and TTs walked hand in hand...
I decided to relive the days gone by in my new blog.
---
Remember, what I say is IMO always. If I say that something sucks, it actually means "I think it sucks" OK?
---
Remember, what I say is IMO always. If I say that something sucks, it actually means "I think it sucks" OK?
Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Jan 31 2012, 03:09 PM) True story.
Except the big about dorjan being jelly, that's just spidey's ego.
+1Dorjan wrote:QUOTE (Dorjan @ Nov 1 2010, 10:48 PM) the difference though is a bomber = destroyed base, a tt = a new base for you too.
I like the TT can capture small bases idea and HTT for the big boys.
Although I still treasure the times when bombers and TTs walked hand in hand...
Changing it to bomber req and getting rid of TTs is not a good balance idea at all, I dont even need to explain why as it has been stated.
Allowing TTs to capture smaller bases sounds like a great idea though, even if teams lack the coordination to use a bbr/tt run these days.
I dont see the point in the giving EMP cannon a hull damage change at all, Sup is supposed to be the effective techpath to stop SY, this in effect would give EXP complete superiority over any other faction.
Isn't the point of incremental changes that we would implement the last major int change widely approved of (some sort of PP nerf) and then sit back for a few months to see how it works before we make any other changes? Because I feel like other than the PP thing, exp is basically perfect right now, and making sweeping alterations to either EMP or TT would involve massive changes to Exp's costs and timing.
Moreover, I seem to recall an old CC mantra along the lines of "just because a piece of tech happens to suck doesn't mean we're obligated to go back and tweak it until it's usable". Has that changed?
Moreover, I seem to recall an old CC mantra along the lines of "just because a piece of tech happens to suck doesn't mean we're obligated to go back and tweak it until it's usable". Has that changed?
I still like the idea of the TT needing ints to drop the base's shield for it with EMP cannons. It makes for a different, and more challenging, kind of base capping, rather than just Heavy Troop Transport Lite™. 
Perhaps along with a buff to EMP cannons, regular TTs could be boosted a bit to make this easier, like say giving them as many hit-points as HTTs (basically making it "exactly same as HTT but can't mount EMP missile and costs less").
Perhaps along with a buff to EMP cannons, regular TTs could be boosted a bit to make this easier, like say giving them as many hit-points as HTTs (basically making it "exactly same as HTT but can't mount EMP missile and costs less").Why is it necessarily to make it worthwhile to load EMP into slot 1 when fighting cap-ships? Why is it necessary to give Exp any boost against shipyard at all, really?DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Nov 1 2010, 03:58 PM) The EMP changes I propose DO NOT make EMP effective versus cap hull. It is much better to carry a Mini3 in that situation. The point of the EMP change is the make it worthwhile to load the single EMP in Slot 1 and keep using it rather than switching it out for Mini once the shield is down.
Last edited by Makida on Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't think we really can make a meaningful differentiation between TT and HTT. If TT becomes too useful then no one will need or want HTT.
The closest idea I can come up with is to complete the "galv is to sup as TT is to exp" analogy (i.e., it's exp's way of getting rid of light bases while waiting for real endgame tech to come on line). But that would amount to a massive perk to exp (esp. if you could do this for basic exp while the sup team has to wait for adv tech). So then we'd be tempted to nerf TT's sig, speed, etc. into oblivion, making it as impractical to use as NG is today.
Bottom line, there's not enough room to have both TT and HTT. Making bombers the time and money speedbump to HTTs is not a bad idea, tho it still amounts to a perk to all but Rix (TF and Belters would probably have bought them anyways; and the other factions now gain a useful ship to do some early game bombing).
My order of preferences:
No change.Remove TTs, double the price of HTTs.Remove TTs, make bombers the prerequisite.Keep TTs, give them one missle (or perk EMP).
As far as EMP goes, giving them hull damage breaks the basic premise of what an EMP weapon is. But certainly we could give exp teams more of a reason to research / pick up EMP cannon against SY. Right now there is absolutely no value to mount EMP when you have mini3. I'll leave it to others to do the difficult math here, but let's set up a scenario where n heavy ints meet a fully turreted cruiser at an aleph; they are unable to save their techbase 3k away by packing mini3 alone, but if some fraction (25%?) of those miniguns were actually EMP, they could get the shields down so fast as to compensate for their uselessness on capship hull, and so that same group of n ints are able to save the techbase via clever use of communication and teamwork.
Now, again without doing math I'll state without fear of contradiction that currently, getting capship shields down is the easy part; the hard part is the fact that mini is so nerfed against heavy hull that most of the time spent is whittling the hull down, and that's another factor for why EMP is so useless currently. So maybe we need to perk mini against heavy hull and nerf it against large shields in order to accomplish this.
The closest idea I can come up with is to complete the "galv is to sup as TT is to exp" analogy (i.e., it's exp's way of getting rid of light bases while waiting for real endgame tech to come on line). But that would amount to a massive perk to exp (esp. if you could do this for basic exp while the sup team has to wait for adv tech). So then we'd be tempted to nerf TT's sig, speed, etc. into oblivion, making it as impractical to use as NG is today.
Bottom line, there's not enough room to have both TT and HTT. Making bombers the time and money speedbump to HTTs is not a bad idea, tho it still amounts to a perk to all but Rix (TF and Belters would probably have bought them anyways; and the other factions now gain a useful ship to do some early game bombing).
My order of preferences:
No change.Remove TTs, double the price of HTTs.Remove TTs, make bombers the prerequisite.Keep TTs, give them one missle (or perk EMP).
As far as EMP goes, giving them hull damage breaks the basic premise of what an EMP weapon is. But certainly we could give exp teams more of a reason to research / pick up EMP cannon against SY. Right now there is absolutely no value to mount EMP when you have mini3. I'll leave it to others to do the difficult math here, but let's set up a scenario where n heavy ints meet a fully turreted cruiser at an aleph; they are unable to save their techbase 3k away by packing mini3 alone, but if some fraction (25%?) of those miniguns were actually EMP, they could get the shields down so fast as to compensate for their uselessness on capship hull, and so that same group of n ints are able to save the techbase via clever use of communication and teamwork.
Now, again without doing math I'll state without fear of contradiction that currently, getting capship shields down is the easy part; the hard part is the fact that mini is so nerfed against heavy hull that most of the time spent is whittling the hull down, and that's another factor for why EMP is so useless currently. So maybe we need to perk mini against heavy hull and nerf it against large shields in order to accomplish this.
No, that was never the mantra. Though I 100% agree it should be.Jimen wrote:QUOTE (Jimen @ Nov 1 2010, 04:04 PM) Moreover, I seem to recall an old CC mantra along the lines of "just because a piece of tech happens to suck doesn't mean we're obligated to go back and tweak it until it's usable". Has that changed?
Last edited by cashto on Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Globemaster_III wrote:QUOTE (Globemaster_III @ Jan 11 2018, 11:27 PM) as you know i think very little of cashto, cashto alway a flying low pilot, he alway flying a trainer airplane and he rented
I'm still married to the TT being able to cap all bases. How about...
2 levels of SRM EMP. TT mounts EMP1, it takes 2 missiles (2 racks) for normal OP/small base, and 4 missiles (4 racks) for a large base.
If the EXP team can d their TT (which has less hull, shields, and speed than an HTT obvs) long enough for it to fire off 4 racks, potentially 5, then they SHOULD be able to cap a tech base. TT will be useful in a pinch, but nobody will abandon HTT for it.
EMP2 works just like it does now but can only be mounted on HTT, and HTTs are unchanged.
2 levels of SRM EMP. TT mounts EMP1, it takes 2 missiles (2 racks) for normal OP/small base, and 4 missiles (4 racks) for a large base.
If the EXP team can d their TT (which has less hull, shields, and speed than an HTT obvs) long enough for it to fire off 4 racks, potentially 5, then they SHOULD be able to cap a tech base. TT will be useful in a pinch, but nobody will abandon HTT for it.
EMP2 works just like it does now but can only be mounted on HTT, and HTTs are unchanged.
Terran wrote:QUOTE (Terran @ Jan 20 2011, 03:56 PM) i'm like adept
Broodwich wrote:QUOTE (Broodwich @ Jun 6 2010, 10:19 PM) if you spent as much time in game as trollin sf might not be dead
How is this any easier than the bbr + TT strat? At best, it's 5K cheaper?Icky wrote:QUOTE (Icky @ Nov 1 2010, 05:18 PM) I'm still married to the TT being able to cap all bases. How about...
2 levels of SRM EMP. TT mounts EMP1, it takes 2 missiles (2 racks) for normal OP/small base, and 4 missiles (4 racks) for a large base.
If the EXP team can d their TT (which has less hull, shields, and speed than an HTT obvs) long enough for it to fire off 4 racks, potentially 5, then they SHOULD be able to cap a tech base. TT will be useful in a pinch, but nobody will abandon HTT for it.
EMP2 works just like it does now but can only be mounted on HTT, and HTTs are unchanged.
Any TT that manages to be useful and effective will be overpowered. Collarary: any TT that isn't overpowered won't be useful or effective.
Globemaster_III wrote:QUOTE (Globemaster_III @ Jan 11 2018, 11:27 PM) as you know i think very little of cashto, cashto alway a flying low pilot, he alway flying a trainer airplane and he rented