Free Allegiance Forums

SpkWill wrote:QUOTE (SpkWill @ Feb 19 2009, 09:17 PM) What? People buy a sup all the time for the boosters. Boost 2/3 can make the difference between a tp2 dieing or your tech dieing.

Not to mention it will please your int jockeys no end. I know I always get a warm fuzzy feeling from getting better boosters for my int

No.

If a new type of booster was to be implemented, I like Drizzo's idea best, the booster should have lots and lots of acceleration but consume fuel rapidly. However this has the potential to throw the whole game out of whack depending on boosting range, and besides, there's nothing really wrong with the current setup.

Exp isn't as strong as any of these new "NERF EXP" threads seem to indicate, I see no reason why we need to diminish Exp's power even more. Let me address the opening points:


QUOTE * Allows changes to the boosting properties to be focused on Ints without affecting other ships.[/quote]

This is a legit reason, but rather pointless. If there's a problem with int fuel, then reduce int fuel. Personally I think acceleration and deceleration rates are fine as they are, but an int's boosting range is contentious. Yes, they can get on station quickly to kill enemy miners, but contrary to popular belief they CANNOT boost three sectors to kill an enemy miner without either not having enough ammo to deal with an increased amount of potential defenders, have enough fuel to pursue targets or manuever, or boost back home (rock podding is not always possible especially if you're IB and nobody comes to help you). If people are complaining about ints being able to boost from an op next to a mining sector, kill the miner and all the defenders with enough juice to get back home, it's the mining team's fault for leaving the miner next to an enemy op anyway.

QUOTE * Can be used to give lt ints and early Exp a nerf whilst not damaging mid to late game.[/quote]

So you want to take away Exp's only advantage over the other techpaths? It has been made abundantly clear from thousands of games that Exp simply does not have the endgame power or versatility of the other techpaths. Most Exp teams will usually get SBs to finish the enemy because they are infinitely more reliable game enders than HTTs. Exp's mid/late game pales in comparison to Sup and Tac's. Exp gets Hvy Ints which can beat figs in a stand up fight, yes, and Adv Cons with which to push into enemy sectors and a more powerful economy so they can afford another techpath, but Sup gets Galvs which can decimate an Exp team's offensive capabilities, TP2, uncappable teles, much better HTT/Bomber stopping power in the form of DF3, etc.

Tac gets Hunter3 and Clk3 Adv SFs, and it is safe to say that when they get these, Tac's combat potential against Exp is extremely lopsided in Tac's favour. It takes a smart (understatement) int pilot to kill a Hunter3/Clk3/Sniper2 Adv SF with his or her Heavy Int, but any guy who knows how to hit the cloak button and fire missiles can take out any number of Hvy Ints very easily.

Exp's power is best at the start of games and it drops off dramatically after the 20-25 minute mark. So this point is not a very good one.

QUOTE * Can be used to stop IC/Dreg opening dominance by nerfing Lt Ints[/quote]

Same as above.

QUOTE * Gives Exp another tech to buy.[/quote]

Which doesn't really help it's endgame capabilities in any way.

QUOTE * Adding tech to exp also helps balance the costs between the techpaths.[/quote]

You get what you pay for. Exp may be the cheapest techpath, but it's not very effective at ending games.

So don't change ints because HTT sucks? That's not a persuasive argument.

If anything this is a perk to late game Exp as the heavy ints will have better boosters without resorting to buying a sup.

Not to mention that you think that nerfing fuel is ok, but providing a way for Exp to buy it back is not.

This was done in EoR, if I remember correctly.

Before I continue, I do agree with Crono and will try and clarify some of his points. Something to remember about ints before you complain about their range is the fact they can't ripcord. Yes ints can boost a couple sectors to kill something and then boost part of the way home. After that they're screwed and have to float slowly back. This is assuming they packed enough ammo to kill the target and some defenders and there wasn't a magical powerup 200m from their flight path. A fig can float to the target faster and boost the rest of the way, then ripcord back. Right now they have problems because of their high signature compared to ints. Thats a discussion for a different topic but I would support lowering fig signature.

I also agree that HTTs are often unreliable endgame tech. Bios is the exception here as they seem to do extremely well with them. That makes me wonder if all HTTs should be allowed to mount hvy cloak. The energy on HTTs (and thus cloak time) would have to be played around with a bit to balance it out properly though. Before I get thrown into the "int lobby" and ignored though, I do admit that exp teams have the best economy (due to yield GAs being in exp), arguably the best miner defense with ints and spend less overall on tech. They should be able to afford the tac or sup they need to end the game instead of HTTs, so it becomes a question of "do we want to change that?"

Exp is popular because of the strong econ, powerful defense and less money spent on ship tech. Buying afterburner upgrades would help with the tech costs a bit if we went that route but perking HTTs to be more viable would require a nerf somewhere in my opinion. I do realize that exp teams are supposed to spend the extra money upgrading cons and pushing ops/shipyards/etc but I don't see many doing this, possibly because they have a hard time getting a bomber or HTT to live long enough to cap the enemy base in question and its just easier to get a tac and buy SBs. Also remember that I'm basing my comments on pickup games not squad games since this is CC and we aren't balancing strictly for SGs.

I think what Crono was trying to point out was that because of expansion's poor endgame the original idea behind interceptors isn't working. Pushing bases into enemy sectors is often a poor idea unless the other team is horribly out teched. If we nerf the range on ints we should probably perk HTTs or some other aspect of their endgame to make up for it, without having to resort to buying a tac.

For what expansion has to do to keep the enemy from TP2ing / SBing before the exp team can get its own SBs or TP2 up to end the game, I think the current int range is fine. Boosting two sectors to kill an enemy miner is their only option for this because an exp team against a freely mining tac or sup team should lose every time assuming equal skill level. While HTTs are not impossible to stop and neither is a run of TP2 figbees or SBs, HTT runs are much easier to defend against than the latter two. This is of course open to argument and I expect to get flamed for saying it, but why do exp teams normally end with TP2, SBs or SY rather than HTT (Bios not included)?

Now that I've said all that. I like the idea of separating fig boosters and int afterburners. It would let us make changes to more than just fuel and we can get some proper fine tuning done on each ship type. Perking booster accel for figs would make ints too strong. Increasing fuel consumption would hurt ints / belters ships too much unless you went and tested every fig and increased their fuel to make up for it. At least with the boosters separated we can affect the top boosting speed, boosting signature, acceleration and fuel consumption (although that can be changed elsewhere) for them. What and how much each of these changes are for each ship is open for a debate.

(Edited for grammar and clarity.)

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Feb 19 2009, 01:23 PM) 1. So don't change ints because HTT sucks? That's not a persuasive argument.

2. If anything this is a perk to late game Exp as the heavy ints will have better boosters without resorting to buying a sup.

3. Not to mention that you think that nerfing fuel is ok, but providing a way for Exp to buy it back is not.

1. Well, let's consider my whole argument first. Exp is fairly balanced at this point, if anything it's weaker than Sup or Tac. Because its endgame tech sucks, its start game should be good.

2. Sup has many benefits aside from better Boosters, 80% of the time when an Adv Exp team buys a Sup, they will already have Booster2, or Booster3 if the enemy is Sup, so the economic factor is reduced. Plus, you can buy Hull and Agility GAs to massively boost your int's capabilities. I would still want to buy a Sup for the Hull GA. It isn't a perk by any means, you might not have to buy the Sup for better boosters, but if Afterburner isn't a dropped tech (Lv 3 techs aren't treasures and you said it'd only be as good as Booster2), what's the point? Booster2 is a common treasure, so you're only really paying 10000 for the Sup where you would normally be paying 12500.

3. I don't think nerfing fuel is okay, I would be against it, but if you mean that I would agree with an action like nerfing fuel as a balancing tool (that is changing a pre-existing attribute rather than adding in a new tech), then yes I would think it's okay. Also, where did I mention I would be against a Fuel GA? I would love a Fuel GA if it was possible.

Could just move booster 2 and 3 to exp .

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Feb 20 2009, 04:32 AM) Define Sup/Exp synergy please. Sup tech is not essential to exp and a sup is very very rarely bought to back the exp up and certainly not bought for the booster upgrades.

As for your second point, I don't understand what you're getting at I'm afraid.

Sup is rarely bought to back up exp, but independent boosters would make this even less likely. Hull and Agility GAs and booster upgrades give the team an edge over a pure exp team.

CronoDroid wrote:QUOTE (CronoDroid @ Feb 20 2009, 08:11 AM) If there's a problem with int fuel, then reduce int fuel.

What he said. The same could be done for thrust and mass ratios, speeds, etc. The only thing that can't be changed by tweaking the int directly is boosting sig, but that's yet to become an issue.

CronoDroid wrote:QUOTE (CronoDroid @ Feb 20 2009, 12:09 AM) 3. I don't think nerfing fuel is okay, I would be against it, but if you mean that I would agree with an action like nerfing fuel as a balancing tool (that is changing a pre-existing attribute rather than adding in a new tech), then yes I would think it's okay. Also, where did I mention I would be against a Fuel GA? I would love a Fuel GA if it was possible.

AFAIK this isn't possible without a code change. Afterburners are a way of achieving the same result with the current core setup. Like I said, I'm not suggesting that any other changes (or even this one) have to be made, only that they'd be possible.

I still like the idea of adding choice into the exp techpath. To try and give the same sorts of variability as Sup has with Booster, Gat, Dis, Minepack.

I don't see whats wrong with the current setup, moving afterburners to exp gives people even less reason to do anything else.

just keep int fuel down

Moving? This is a seperate tech to the current boosters and would be added to exp. Boosters would remain in Sup.