Fighter-Bombers.

[Icky]

I'm not sure how its relevant to bring up fantasy scenarios. We should be talking about scaling 10-15 per side, not 50 per side. Adding irrelevant arguments will only muddy the waters further, and this @#(! is pretty muddy as it is.

[Valiance]

imo the best way to balance it would be a code change so that the damage for galvs/fbs and or hulls of stations/miners/cons are what they are now divided by X, then multiplied by 15 (just as an example)
X would be the number of people on the team.
For instance, in a 10 v 10 game it is fairly difficult to galv, so galvs (assuming the damage is multiplied by 15) would be buffed up somewhat, whereas in a large game (30v30) galvs would be downsized significantly. Unfortunately this is a code change and I have no idea how large of one it is.
For example:
lets say galvs do 100 dps.
10v10, each galver is doing 100/10*15=150 (probably unbalanced, but this is an example)
30v30, each galver is doing 100/30*15=50
50v50, each galver is doing 100/50*15=30

As I keep saying, these numbers have just been used as an example, mainly because they are easy to work with =P

[spideycw]

Sadly this is the wrong forum to discuss any code changes

[slap]

Perhaps figbee cost modification could be a possibility? As the price of a FB run varies based on how many FBs you send, and you need to send more FBs in more populated games, we could scale the cost steeper.

@Sambasti, you proved your point well, I was just telling phoenix the actual percentage doesn't matter. Although I did so in an "analytic" manner.

[Icky]

"."

Misread previous post!

[notjarvis]

QUOTE (Valiance @ Jun 19 2009, 05:10 PM) imo the best way to balance it would be a code change so that the damage for galvs/fbs and or hulls of stations/miners/cons are what they are now divided by X, then multiplied by 15 (just as an example)
X would be the number of people on the team.
For instance, in a 10 v 10 game it is fairly difficult to galv, so galvs (assuming the damage is multiplied by 15) would be buffed up somewhat, whereas in a large game (30v30) galvs would be downsized significantly. Unfortunately this is a code change and I have no idea how large of one it is.
For example:
lets say galvs do 100 dps.
10v10, each galver is doing 100/10*15=150 (probably unbalanced, but this is an example)
30v30, each galver is doing 100/30*15=50
50v50, each galver is doing 100/50*15=30

As I keep saying, these numbers have just been used as an example, mainly because they are easy to work with =P

Nah - if you make dmge dependent on team numbers - should you make miner yield scale to compensate too? Prices of Figbees? Prices of Rps?

This idea has been discussed here.

I'd be against it personally as theres too many factors to deal with affecting game balance in a straight core, making scaleable factors would increas te difficulty of balanced core generation a lot.

The best the CC team can do IMHO, is to balance for 10-15 a side games or so, and ignore the whining when people complain about balance in a 30v30 Cluster£$%K

[Vlymoxyd]

About confusion factor: The best way to stop FBs isn't to focus fire, it is to have every defender stop 1 FB each. That way, you minimize the time spent flying between targets.


Currently, FBs don't scale well, it's a fact. However, it is not, imo, an argument that can be used to support ideas that are worse at scaling. Something being bad is not a reason to make it worse.
I can find 2 main reasons why FBs won't scale(There's a bunch of minor ones too):
1-Base hull/shield is static
2-Time spent on switching targets(Larger teams means higher odds of having several person attacking the same target, which will mean more time reaquiring targets and less time shooting). That's where I'd put confusion.

Currently, since the battle is usually not fought near the base, #1 has a reduced effect(It's still important though, don't get me wrong). #2 is the main reason why it's much easier to FB with larger teams with the current form.

Making FBs like galvs would have no impact on #2 and would turn #1 into a major issue.

The fight should have as little to do with the base hp as possible in order to avoid the scaling problem that comes from the base armor/shield being static. The best way is to make sure that the fight doesn't happen near the base.



Price is not something that should be overlooked, but it's not a perfect solution by itself. If the only thing used to scale FBs was the price , FBs could become an unstoppable tech if a team is willing to pay $X for them. A higher price, however, would have the advantage of giving an incitative to teams to use less FBs. I think price can be "good" for balancing, it's just not as "fun".

Imo, the best way to deal with FBs is making them easier or harder to kill by changing their armor, their speed or their size.

[Icky]

QUOTE (notjarvis @ Jun 19 2009, 04:25 PM) The best the CC team can do IMHO, is to balance for 10-15 a side games or so, and ignore the whining when people complain about balance in a 30v30 Cluster£$%K

QUOTE (Icky @ Jun 19 2009, 11:39 AM) I'm not sure how its relevant to bring up fantasy scenarios. We should be talking about scaling 10-15 per side, not 50 per side. Adding irrelevant arguments will only muddy the waters further, and this @#(! is pretty muddy as it is.

[Compellor]

I agree with the overall point, but I think we see 15-20 per side often enough, that we should be talking about 10-20 rather than 10-15. That's sort of a nitpick though.

[zombywoof]

QUOTE (slap @ Jun 19 2009, 12:07 AM) @Phoenix your objection doesn't change sambasti's argument.

So what? Forum lawyer somewhere else.