Icky wrote:QUOTE (Icky @ Jan 31 2011, 10:54 PM) Because a base being bombed won't eye the nans?
GAs aside, Advanced Tech scan range is 3000, and a basic scout with shields and missiles down is 75%. If your whole D launched in ints, or a lone scout spotter got killed by the turrets, they wouldn't start hitting nans until 2250.
SpaceJunk wrote:QUOTE (SpaceJunk @ Jan 31 2011, 10:05 PM) GAs aside, Advanced Tech scan range is 3000, and a basic scout with shields and missiles down is 75%. If your whole D launched in ints, or a lone scout spotter got killed by the turrets, they wouldn't start hitting nans until 2250.
SpaceJunk wrote:QUOTE (SpaceJunk @ Jan 31 2011, 10:05 PM) GAs aside, Advanced Tech scan range is 3000, and a basic scout with shields and missiles down is 75%. If your whole D launched in ints, or a lone scout spotter got killed by the turrets, they wouldn't start hitting nans until 2250.
Maybe your int pilots are real good.
Not practically. Assuming the bomber is seen, and the scouts are within practical nan range of the bomber, the ints will see the nans as they fly close to the bomber. Unless you nerf int scan range to the point where they are downright useless without a support scout, carrier, or base.
Alien51 wrote:QUOTE (Alien51 @ Jan 31 2011, 10:41 PM) I think that is what he was going for. "Virtually blind" an all.
So we have the blind helping the blind discuss blinding ints.
Superb.
Alien and Spacejunk are now assisting each other in core discussions! I'm certain we will have some really well-thought-out ideas come from this alliance.
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
OK. This whole thread got multiple waylaid into specifics, generalisations and trolling.
In general, I'd have much preferred a More high level discussion about What Are the Aims Of Balancing in the core.
Talking about one specific ship versus another is all very well, but without an overreaching target we are at danger of changing the curtains while the house is in disrepair.
Question What are important balance issues in a Core?
Length of games - the superior team should have the ability to end the game in a decent amount of time. Hardly anyone likes turtling. And a drawn out wait while a team which owns the map develops tech to end the game is always dull....
Economy - The game should be dependent on economic victory - a team with no economy should struggle greatly to get anything.
Techpaths - Each of a factions tech-path should be at least viable and have a fighting chance, to reduce the effect of rock placements.
^^ Is sort of what I would think are the main things to consider when developing a core.
Last edited by notjarvis on Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dorjan wrote:QUOTE (Dorjan @ Jan 31 2011, 05:11 PM) They have, sometimes it is lost in the noise. For example, Viru has countlessly said that one failing of sup teams is the lack of Carriers being used. Now that might be an underlying balance issue but if you have a carrier push at the enh fig stage you're good to go even vs mini2 ints assuming equal skill. Ints have a very hard time hurting the carrier so it will take a while to fall (assuming a 10-15 vs 10-15 type game) the figs will have lead indicators for the voobs and near infinate missiles if they choose to DM on the way to the target.
The main issue with the balance between sup and exp is the way people want to play their games. Sup seems to be "lets defend until galvs" instead of "lets get bombers, and upgraded bomber tech and carrier bomb the $#@!ers"
I personally blame glavs for that @#(!e but hey ho, I don't cry about it just observe. I maybe wrong, who knows. All I do know is that people think sup isn't as fun as exp because of the way people fly sup. If you have a commander who is using sup like I outlined above, your team will think sup is fun. Lots of action and the game will be decided in 30 mins as either a monumental $#@! up or a win. Shorter games (mostly, there are ofc exceptions) make for more fun games. More action condenced into shorter times.
This ofc is forgetting TAC but that's another issue
Don't blame galvs, blame figbbrs. Back in the good old days (actually not as good as advertised but tough) Sup knew it was going to have to get heavy bbrs so it got bbrs and made use of them, incrementing the effectiveness with tech like AC and so on. Galvs were a side issue and a handy way to regain some map control. Now galvs are a stepping stone to FBs and nobody seems to want to bomb any more (note, Raveen does not actually play).
As for balance changes - I'd like to slow the rush to Adv Tech and make the game more winnable in the mid game. If you could win with enh tech there'd be far less of a lull in games whilst both teams tech up.
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Feb 1 2011, 04:06 PM) Don't blame galvs, blame figbbrs. Back in the good old days (actually not as good as advertised but tough) Sup knew it was going to have to get heavy bbrs so it got bbrs and made use of them, incrementing the effectiveness with tech like AC and so on. Galvs were a side issue and a handy way to regain some map control. Now galvs are a stepping stone to FBs and nobody seems to want to bomb any more (note, Raveen does not actually play).
As for balance changes - I'd like to slow the rush to Adv Tech and make the game more winnable in the mid game. If you could win with enh tech there'd be far less of a lull in games whilst both teams tech up.
That's a fair point. I'm not up on the history here so Fig/bs are a new toy which caused this issue? Thanks for that Raveen
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?
SpaceJunk wrote:QUOTE (SpaceJunk @ Feb 1 2011, 04:50 PM) There was a period in which TPing Heavy Bombers with XRM missiles was preferred to FBs.
Then XRMs were nerfed and FBs perked (I think it was smaller size, and something else).
During this period did the sup teams get early bombers or did they wait until galvs, then tp2, then xrms?
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?
