Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:47 am
I heavily approve of this core.
It has some nice balances, but it might play TAC Heavy with PP nerf and Tac buff.
It has some nice balances, but it might play TAC Heavy with PP nerf and Tac buff.
Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:18 am
I for one welcome our new 1337 overlords.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:48 am
To an extent, Ryj, and it boosts tac. That's not bad given the usual complete absence of tac.ryjamsan wrote:QUOTE (ryjamsan @ Jan 19 2011, 06:43 PM) you remove carriers to SY but leave SY cost's hi. This totaly removes any reason to EVER go sup and feeds the int whores.
Not bad pkk. I'd rather see carriers stay in gar though without rip capability - so they could help exp.
Or perhaps they could be more expensive and have less of a rip capability.
It'd be interesting to see if exp can match tac with these settings. The main issue will be escorting constructors. I think the fuel nerf should be sufficient.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:08 am
killing a huge number of things that contribute to fast-paced, active gameplay is not a good thing
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:14 am
As much as I would like Allegiance to be like the old AZ days where going any tech was fun. Losing the fast pace like Night said could make for very boring games. I can't imagne a Tac vs Tac for 3 hour game being to much fun. Espeically if Tac vs Tac is played as much as Exp vs Exp is now.
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:02 pm
Will you please get this goddamn thing on AU so we can check it out? Sheesh...
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:04 pm
It's still experimental, this shouldn't get on AU yet. Maybe we can try it on a squadgame.Spunkmeyer wrote:QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Jan 22 2011, 10:02 PM) Will you please get this goddamn thing on AU so we can check it out? Sheesh...
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:11 pm
Well...You won't get any "experiments" if it's not on AU =) Organizing a squad game takes a lot of effort, you'll end up with a lot of pissed people if it ends up being unplayable.
Dunno, talk to TE? I don't think AU needs to be a "sacred' place for only mainstream cores. The file sizes are small, the download time is minimal.
Dunno, talk to TE? I don't think AU needs to be a "sacred' place for only mainstream cores. The file sizes are small, the download time is minimal.
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 2:11 pm
No, sillyface. Ripcord energy needs to be 1337!pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Jan 19 2011, 04:01 PM) Good interjection... So ripcord energy of SF/Fig needs to be 1321...
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:02 pm
WIN!Clay_Pigeon wrote:QUOTE (Clay_Pigeon @ Jan 23 2011, 04:11 PM) No, sillyface. Ripcord energy needs to be 1337!
Also pkk, I'm sure we can try this out in a GB vs. RT if you want. It would be quite interesting to see the fuel reduction in play.