For the most part if you need the AoE dis3 you first need a good KB(32+) to solo a non retarded int and still know what your doing. Take the old dis3 vs a good hvyint 1v1 you WILL lose EVERY time unless you manage to draw them into a minepack but that would go against the idea they are good, if they eat a dumb they are dumb.
You are and always have been better off with gatt3 minus it takes longer to learn to aim with the huge sprites, que red text in sig...
Disruptor 3
-
Rand0m_Numb3r
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:00 am
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin
-
CronoDroid
- Posts: 4606
- Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
- Contact:
I'd spent some time thinking about this situation as well, and mentioned it to some of my fellow dataheads in RT. I originally thought that perhaps figs and ints should be a little closer in killing ability than they are now. I think that the effective combat ability of various paths has to be looked at in terms of playing your strengths.
Ultimately the game is not about dogfighting, but about overpowering your opponent through economy, map control, and technology. Those three elements have an inter-dependancy, and each faction has various ways in which attacks those three elements of the game.
While interceptors are extremely effective at killing things, they have to mass their forces generally to achieve their objectives. Supremacy doesn't have the same stopping power, but they can make their bombing campaigns very effective, and can pick their fights more easily.
Supremacy plays to its strengths by trying to hit everywhere at once, and aborting the runs that will likely fail. With riptime perks and the shortest riptimes to begin with, they can always be in the field in small groups, looking for fights. Confident that they are equipped to deal with any threat, and can easily run if outclassed. Also should something important need to be defended, they can rapidly respond to that threat, and then go back to whatever they were doing.
Expansion plays to its strengths by stonewalling the opponents. They should be base sitting with a handful of scouts in the air unless something requires their attention. When there is a single purposeful objective, be it escorting a con, or intercepting cons, bombers, or miners. Expansion should react quickly by trying to have ops as close to the action as possible, and decending upon the opponent like a swarm of bees.
Tactical plays to its strenghts by making sneak attacks on targets of oppertunity, and by maintaining informational control of the map. Tac doesn't need to probe the way sup and exp do. Each sf is as effective at scouting as scouts (in terms of sig/scan ratios). Tac should have one fighter camping every single point of interest, so that they have as much warning as possible. With Tac it only takes one pilot and 10 seconds of inattention to kill something important, and they are always watching you. But they're hard pressed when you bring the fight to them.
So in a nutshell, you beat exp by ignoring their ints and focusing on what's important, be it the miners, bombers/htts, or cons. Exp beats you by making it such that you can't igore their ints.
Shipyard is the counter to Exp when you have to take the fight to the ints, but you still have to divide and conquer.
I'm no veteran commander, but from what I see when I look at the game, and how its pieces interact, is a relationship where tac > exp > sup > tac in terms of technology, but tech advantages are a very fine line. It ultimately comes down to teamwork and employing the proper tactics to overcome the technical advantage, and playing a tech path the wrong way is a disaster. Overall the game seems pretty well balanced most of the time.
As for Cable's post about fighter/interceptor naming. My understanding is that in military terminology, interceptor is a craft designed to excel at destroying bombers and their escorts. Supremacy Fighters are designed to be able to strike other fighters and heavier targets depending on their loadouts. In the context of allegiance I think this is largely true. It appears that fighters in the airforce context are supposed to be better than interceptors in a dogfight, but since ints in allegiance have to fill a point defence role against other combatans which are often figs/bombers, I think the fact that ints > anything in a dogfight is fair.
As Ben Kenobi once said, "There are alternatives to fighting"
Ultimately the game is not about dogfighting, but about overpowering your opponent through economy, map control, and technology. Those three elements have an inter-dependancy, and each faction has various ways in which attacks those three elements of the game.
While interceptors are extremely effective at killing things, they have to mass their forces generally to achieve their objectives. Supremacy doesn't have the same stopping power, but they can make their bombing campaigns very effective, and can pick their fights more easily.
Supremacy plays to its strengths by trying to hit everywhere at once, and aborting the runs that will likely fail. With riptime perks and the shortest riptimes to begin with, they can always be in the field in small groups, looking for fights. Confident that they are equipped to deal with any threat, and can easily run if outclassed. Also should something important need to be defended, they can rapidly respond to that threat, and then go back to whatever they were doing.
Expansion plays to its strengths by stonewalling the opponents. They should be base sitting with a handful of scouts in the air unless something requires their attention. When there is a single purposeful objective, be it escorting a con, or intercepting cons, bombers, or miners. Expansion should react quickly by trying to have ops as close to the action as possible, and decending upon the opponent like a swarm of bees.
Tactical plays to its strenghts by making sneak attacks on targets of oppertunity, and by maintaining informational control of the map. Tac doesn't need to probe the way sup and exp do. Each sf is as effective at scouting as scouts (in terms of sig/scan ratios). Tac should have one fighter camping every single point of interest, so that they have as much warning as possible. With Tac it only takes one pilot and 10 seconds of inattention to kill something important, and they are always watching you. But they're hard pressed when you bring the fight to them.
So in a nutshell, you beat exp by ignoring their ints and focusing on what's important, be it the miners, bombers/htts, or cons. Exp beats you by making it such that you can't igore their ints.
Shipyard is the counter to Exp when you have to take the fight to the ints, but you still have to divide and conquer.
I'm no veteran commander, but from what I see when I look at the game, and how its pieces interact, is a relationship where tac > exp > sup > tac in terms of technology, but tech advantages are a very fine line. It ultimately comes down to teamwork and employing the proper tactics to overcome the technical advantage, and playing a tech path the wrong way is a disaster. Overall the game seems pretty well balanced most of the time.
As for Cable's post about fighter/interceptor naming. My understanding is that in military terminology, interceptor is a craft designed to excel at destroying bombers and their escorts. Supremacy Fighters are designed to be able to strike other fighters and heavier targets depending on their loadouts. In the context of allegiance I think this is largely true. It appears that fighters in the airforce context are supposed to be better than interceptors in a dogfight, but since ints in allegiance have to fill a point defence role against other combatans which are often figs/bombers, I think the fact that ints > anything in a dogfight is fair.
As Ben Kenobi once said, "There are alternatives to fighting"
Last edited by factoid on Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I make it a point not to chat with AP off... space is vast, but it's never vast enough for my scout."
-
CronoDroid
- Posts: 4606
- Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
- Contact:
-
DreamWalker
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:00 am
While you are correct that the best way to use Sup is to take advantage of its fast response time, it requires some coordination to use sup effectively. Sup is best used when the team is coordinated and willing to do massive runs together (bombing runs, galv runs, miner runs, etc.). Expansion, by contrast, shouldn't be used as much like that because it can take much longer to respond to a bomber if you're attacking miners one or two sectors over. That's usually okay, because it doesn't take as many ints to stop a bomber as it takes figs.
The true problem here isn't that Sup is inherently more powerful than Exp (as many a squad-game has proven), but that the Exp playstyle is much more effective in groups with poor coordination (i.e. almost every pickup game).
The true problem here isn't that Sup is inherently more powerful than Exp (as many a squad-game has proven), but that the Exp playstyle is much more effective in groups with poor coordination (i.e. almost every pickup game).
Last edited by Gappy on Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
We've upped our standards. Up yours.
I agree that sup requires a lot of coordination, but ideally it's coordination amongst small teams. Sup benifits from the fact that any bomb run, galv run, or miner hunt can be both real or a distraction, and you don't know until they rip out, or something dies. GB gets this, they will hit you from several places at once, and rip out any runs that will likely fail. They're all threats, and if you split your defense, it's likely that at least one run will make it through due to confusion, response time, or some combination of both. If there's a target that's critical, they will hit that target from several places at once. They keep up the pressure, keep you running ragged, and wait for you to make a mistake. I admire them for their ability to do that.Gappy wrote:QUOTE (Gappy @ Apr 17 2007, 05:00 AM) While you are correct that the best way to use Sup is to take advantage of its fast response time, it requires some coordination to use sup effectively. Sup is best used when the team is coordinated and willing to do massive runs together (bombing runs, galv runs, miner runs, etc.). Expansion, by contrast, shouldn't be used as much like that because it can take much longer to respond to a bomber if you're attacking miners one or two sectors over. That's usually okay, because it doesn't take as many ints to stop a bomber as it takes figs.
The true problem here isn't that Sup is inherently more powerful than Exp (as many a squad-game has proven), but that the Exp playstyle is much more effective in groups with poor coordination (i.e. almost every pickup game).
They can do it because each of their strike teams know when to fight and when to run. Sup needs the ability to multi-task, and that's usually too much for just the commander alone.
"I make it a point not to chat with AP off... space is vast, but it's never vast enough for my scout."
Giving a squad's tactics as an example only serves to help prove the point. =\factoid wrote:QUOTE (factoid @ Apr 17 2007, 10:25 AM) GB gets this, they will hit you from several places at once, and rip out any runs that will likely fail. ... They keep up the pressure, keep you running ragged, and wait for you to make a mistake. I admire them for their ability to do that.
We've upped our standards. Up yours.