What are the most important balance issues in the core?

[NightRychune]

you've always been better off as sup just going straight to galvs against any exp team that isn't IC

they buy you pretty much total map control unless it's an adv sup mirror

[Dorjan]

QUOTE (NightRychune @ Feb 1 2011, 05:07 PM) you've always been better off as sup just going straight to galvs against any exp team that isn't IC

they buy you pretty much total map control unless it's an adv sup mirror

this is what I fear. I'm starting to think "galv" or the role the galv fits should be in shipyard if anything

iirc wasn't the galv meant as an anti capship weapon, not an anti base?

[pkk]

QUOTE (Dorjan @ Feb 1 2011, 06:09 PM) iirc wasn't the galv meant as an anti capship weapon, not an anti base?

From what I know it was different:

http://www.freeallegiance.org/FAW/index.ph...28build_1832.29

Code: Select all

2. Balance changes:
    All weapons, except Galvonics, do absolutely no damage to any type of station.

    Galvonics can only inflict damage on outposts and teleport receivers.

[DasSmiter]

QUOTE (sono @ Jan 30 2011, 09:09 PM) It is IMHO an important balance issue because it changes the gameplay (i.e. dynamics of the game) of exp in a potentially fundamental way that will actually require more commanding skill and situational awareness instead of plain old quake in space style whoring for exp to be successful, eventually leading to any number of constantly proposed "exp nerfs" to become unneccessary. Oh don't say it, i know exactly what you just thought: Those changes are just to make the game appeal to noobs anyway. Well that is your opinion and you are entiteled to it. I, however, think we need to
*puts on sunglasses*
go deeper.

You have provided much amusement tonight; i am now going to bed, and i just hope the mods don't have to much work cleaning up the mess you made.

I appreciate your views on balance Sono, but it takes 2 to tango. Keep on posting, but don't let it devolve into name calling.

QUOTE (TheCorsair @ Jan 30 2011, 11:03 PM) Yet those who whine the most are being listened to by CC devs and making radical changes to a game that has worked well for years (such as removing quickfires) behind closed doors all based on their own personal opinions and prejudices. Oh no I podded someone with quick 2,remove quick2 kinda crowd

Uh what

[pkk]

QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Feb 1 2011, 06:59 PM) Uh what

Even thinking about such things is strictly forbidden!

[SpaceJunk]

Dis 3 used to be really powerful (AoE even). As far as I can remember you could just force bomb with Dis 3 figs. I can remember galvs being bought specifically to counter SY.

[Adept]

QUOTE (Dorjan @ Feb 1 2011, 06:24 PM) 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'm thinking we could at least remove cruise booster to slow them down (and free up a tech slot).

[Alien51]

QUOTE (notjarvis @ Feb 1 2011, 08:52 AM) 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.

I think we can safely say that most people agree that shorter games are better games.

I believe the way to achieve this would be to change a few game dynamics to make all techpaths more offensive.

[Dorjan]

QUOTE (pkk @ Feb 1 2011, 05:50 PM) From what I know it was different:

http://www.freeallegiance.org/FAW/index.ph...28build_1832.29

Code: Select all

2. Balance changes:
    All weapons, except Galvonics, do absolutely no damage to any type of station.

    Galvonics can only inflict damage on outposts and teleport receivers.

ah right, I mis-remembered, thanks for the correction.

Still, I dislike the whole galv mentality

[spideycw]

QUOTE (Adept @ Feb 1 2011, 02:20 PM) I'm thinking we could at least remove cruise booster to slow them down (and free up a tech slot).

Is freeing up a tech slot reasons to change things out of curiosity? Are we running out of tech slots?