Code change, and looks like a ugly one at that.Youngmoose wrote:QUOTE (Youngmoose @ Oct 19 2011, 05:25 AM) A way to solve this would be to add sy switch that would time on after 30-60-90 min. Then tie whatever tech you want to sy. This would solve 2 gameplay issues.
1) It could potentially eliminate uber cheese tech in small games. How would it be to play a 5v5 and know that bombers or carriers wont be used for 30 min?
2) It gives a team with map control more options to kill a turtled team.
I like sy, and I like bombing. But not in the first 5 min of any game
Carriers
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:38 pm
- Location: .
-
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Lebe hinter dem Mond.
Not directly, you could add a development (see version development), which would need that time (like 30 mins) to finish, to enable that tech.ChaoticStorm wrote:QUOTE (ChaoticStorm @ Oct 19 2011, 05:44 PM) Code change, and looks like a ugly one at that.
The Escapist (Justin Emerson) @ Dec 21 2010, 02:33 PM:
The history of open-source Allegiance is paved with the bodies of dead code branches, forum flame wars, and personal vendettas. But a community remains because people still love the game.
-
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:18 am
- Location: Melbourne, Aus
I have code for that lying around somewhere...pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Oct 20 2011, 03:02 AM) Not directly, you could add a development (see version development), which would need that time (like 30 mins) to finish, to enable that tech.
QUOTE (Randall Munroe)14.2: Turkey consumption rate of the average American in milligrams per minute[/quote]
-Making carriers not present in small games is going to have a large gameplay effect.
-Low speed squishy Fighters are greatly helped by carriers to reach miners and to maintain sector presence.
-Lack of carriers will neccecitate boosting the ability of fighters to access enemy miners by another method.
-It is my oppinion that other methods (faster figs, cheaper and more numerous TPs) are inferior in terms of gameplay.
-However this is just my lamen's oppinion.
P.S. the idea that figs should not be able to pod ints is utter B.S.
-Low speed squishy Fighters are greatly helped by carriers to reach miners and to maintain sector presence.
-Lack of carriers will neccecitate boosting the ability of fighters to access enemy miners by another method.
-It is my oppinion that other methods (faster figs, cheaper and more numerous TPs) are inferior in terms of gameplay.
-However this is just my lamen's oppinion.
P.S. the idea that figs should not be able to pod ints is utter B.S.
Last edited by aptest on Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:00 am
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:18 pm
Too close for missiles, switching to guns!DonKarnage wrote:QUOTE (DonKarnage @ Oct 21 2011, 05:41 AM) If you ever remove Quickfires, could you consider lowering interceptor ECM so that seekers lock onto them more quickly? Once an int gets into close range and sidethrusts, all but QFs are useless against them.
That is Kinda the point!DonKarnage wrote:QUOTE (DonKarnage @ Oct 21 2011, 04:41 AM) If you ever remove Quickfires, could you consider lowering interceptor ECM so that seekers lock onto them more quickly? Once an int gets into close range and sidethrusts, all but QFs are useless against them.
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.