Free Allegiance Forums

NightRychune wrote: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

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

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.

sono wrote: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.

TheCorsair wrote: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

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

Dorjan wrote: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

notjarvis wrote: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.

pkk wrote: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.

Adept wrote: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).