Free Allegiance Forums

Theres a few factions with 1.1 and 1.15 or even 1.25 Base shield mod. Add Base GAs and even with 30kb you will sit in front of the base for 30s trying to reload... Sorry but I still insist that this wont work out.

Weedman wrote:QUOTE (Weedman @ Mar 16 2013, 09:04 AM) Why would you choose to fly a TT over an HTT if both were available? Only newbs do this @#(!.

The main concern I have with TTs right now is, if I have TTs, why would I spend 10k to upgrade them to HTTs? If I'm forcecapping I'd rather save that 10k for outposts to push or maybe a sup so I can get GAs. It doesn't feel like the hull and speed difference is worth the 10k research.

I'm all for finding a way to balance them vs outposts and make them not work well vs techbases.

Phantom032 wrote:QUOTE (Phantom032 @ Mar 16 2013, 01:01 PM) Theres a few factions with 1.1 and 1.15 or even 1.25 Base shield mod. Add Base GAs and even with 30kb you will sit in front of the base for 30s trying to reload... Sorry but I still insist that this wont work out.

Multiply by another 1.21 for exp vs exp, which is fairly common.

TTs are slow, as slow as bombers. Some are easily pushable, some take skill

I have edited my first post with changes.

And I will try to modify the bios fighter gun mounts also.

Little trick I learned btw weed: do these tables in Notepad (which it looks like you did) then use the code tags around them to make them keep the format.

Also don't use tab, instead just use the spacebar. Here I'll redo the table. QUOTE When you combine the ship thrust change, with the new boosters, you get the following:

IC

Lt Int Afterburn1 227mps for 13 seconds
Int Afterburn1 242mps for 17 seconds
Hvy Afterburn1 272mps for 17 seconds
Hvy Afterburn2 293mps for 15 seconds
Hvy Afterburn3 313mps for 14 seconds

It would seem as you attempt to go faster than the ships base speed, it takes more fuel? to sustain that higher speed.
So on one hand, ints are capable of faster speed with the afterburner upgrade, but the trade off is a penalty in how long
you can light up your booster. And even though I like ints how they are. They dominate everything.

In comparison I have some fighter values

IC

Enh Fighter Booster1 220mps for 12 seconds
Enh Fighter Booster2 220mps for 15 seconds
Enh Fighter Booster3 220mps for 18 seconds
Adv Fighter Booster1 264mps for 14 seconds
Adv Fighter Booster2 264mps for 18 seconds
Adv Fighter Booster3 264mps for 22 seconds
Adv Fighter Hvy Booster 336mps for 11 seconds

These are IC values. This is not taking into account ship speed GA or faction speed GA.
You need to remember. The values listed on the booster is theoretical maximum speed. You never reach the actual value
because of fuel reloads. Probably figure that 95% of these values is maximum speed in the game.[/quote]
Have you been testing these values in-game? If you give me a way to do it I'd love to test them for you and get you real values rather than theoretical values.

Hey Weed it looks pretty interesting, can we have this soon so we can start checking it out more?

Weedman wrote:QUOTE (Weedman @ Mar 13 2013, 06:26 PM) Gigacorp
Lxy Bombers, add 1 more antibase missile for total of 6

This will make the slight extra cost worth it and definately give the feel of luxury without being OP.

Weedman wrote:QUOTE (Weedman @ Mar 13 2013, 06:26 PM) Lxy HTTs, increase mass to 120

Along with the other changes to lxy htt this also give a nice feeling of luxury without being OP and at a good cost.

Weedman wrote:QUOTE (Weedman @ Mar 13 2013, 06:26 PM) TF adv/hvy scout

A little scared the adv sct might be a little crazy but given it's energy it might be alright.
I do like a lot that the hvy sct retains its dual nans, I agree dual nans were bizzare to use though the uniqueness was worth it.

Weedman wrote:QUOTE (Weedman @ Mar 13 2013, 06:26 PM) TT's

Granted it's hard to figure out a good balance. The shield GA was a good catch and would definately be something to consider.

The one thing about the idea of reducing effectiveness of emp missile that was nice to me was actually how it made major bases more of an effort in and of itself with HTT to a lesser extent than the TT. Right now TT with the changes proposed would mean that they are a force cap tool, however they were a force cap tool regardless once they could cap a base.

An option to keep them the way you were looking at before in terms of emp would be to give the emp levels 1/2/3 where you'd have 1 and 3 be a little worse/better than the old standard which would be emp 2. It would also take care of how fast they could loose missiles. Having said that trying things as you now have it should be interesting though I personally am in favour of the missile as a limiter in many ways.

HTT successor over TT makes sense of course so that's all good.

Making TT require an Adv Exp is interesting, it does mean that most of the arguments against TT's being able to cap moot when everything is considered as a whole... however it also makes the concept of TT's much less viable in that the requirement of adv tech slows down their deployment which was one of the reasons that TT's were actually being made to be used. Obviously Bios will be happy with the change, as would any faction with a faster than average research time, it does really kick slow factions in the face.

Overall I suppose the TT questions will be decided on the field of battle with more play testing, looking forward to it.

Weedman wrote:QUOTE (Weedman @ Mar 13 2013, 06:26 PM) Carriers

Making them cost less because they are more disposable is fine I suppose, I don't think they really need a cost reduction but as I like carriers it's really hard for me to say no to a 20% cost savings, they certainly aren't OP now and in small games will be used more often. More carriers makes things a bit crazy for miners, however that does mean that there is more action in the often slow mid game and keeps the pressure up early... we'll see if that gets to be a problem or gets even better gameplay.

Weedman wrote:QUOTE (Weedman @ Mar 13 2013, 06:26 PM) nerfed miniguns versus utility

Very much enjoy this, and it makes for more dynamic choices when attacking miners (and cons to a lesser extent). It also along with other changes makes the int pilot use more brain to decide on the cargo loadout of fuel/ammo. The tie-in with GT Lasers isn't a huge issue but will certainly be noticed, it will often require issues with energy management. It certainly also makes people think even more strongly on enhing miners (and cons).

Weedman wrote:QUOTE (Weedman @ Mar 13 2013, 06:26 PM) nerfed miniguns versus ... medium hull

STFN, that's pretty much is what this says and I'm all for it on that basis alone. I am a bit scared that player insanity will abound but nothing to be done about that really. I like how you related the mg1/2/3 to the nan1/2/3 somewhat. Since the changes to nan1/2/(3) along with other changes, too many people are currently taking the option of ignoring nans- again player related but some of it is ignorance of the changes. So we'll have to make sure people are educated in game more.

Weedman wrote:QUOTE (Weedman @ Mar 13 2013, 06:26 PM) Int Afterburner

I like even though the top speeds of the average int becomes a bit crazy but I have to reserve judgement until I fly ints for a bit with changes. I do like how the more improved the afterburner the less fuel efficiency you get with an int, it's a trade off that works fair and means think when you boost. It's also quite nice how the fighters booster gives them longevity as opposed to speed which is otherwise tied to fighter research.




Keep up the good work!

Yes, I actually spent alot of time on this in the past few days. I know that exp in wc2 is too good. So there is a chance this can be deployed soon for a good period of time before I even think about any new release and hopefully people actually play on it.

I do not aim to change things, just because.
I try to look at it logically, and if I think it would be best for the game, then it's worth trying.
TTs is an example, not to beat a dead horse, but nobody uses TTs. They have no real purpose except to burn some EXP money (EXP after all is a pretty cheap path, despite its 5000 credit items) and time delay HTTs.
The only time they are used is when 1 team is creaming the other and the commander says, yo, we're gonna tt something for laughs.

Nerfing mg damage is a tough decision, but when you consider nan3 can't save bombers or htts from a mg3 spike, then it's worth trying. It really is logical isn't it? STFN. Scouts are easy prey after all when they are tailing a slow ship.

I have a good project ahead of me, it will take quite some time to finish

Kick his balls and they get bigger.

New faction is broken:
- cons can not rip
- adv tech disabled
- research shows annoying $1 after invest

It should be either disabled or fixed.