I think we should just leave tp2 as it is.Jimen wrote:QUOTE (Jimen @ Apr 23 2010, 02:46 AM) Stuff
Radical Balancing Ideas
ACS grad since 2nd Feb. 2010Beefing up AC3 sounds like a horrible idea. The only time teams buy ac3 is when they are whoring in hvy scouts. Why would you want to make hvy scouts more powerful?Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Apr 24 2010, 07:33 AM) Beefing up heavy bombers and AC3 sounds like an interesting idea.
MrChaos to Sharpfish wrote:QUOTE (MrChaos to Sharpfish @ Oct 2 2011, 08:55 AM) Damn there went my hope you died in a couch fire.
Before anyone inevitably suggests it, no we aren't removing mini-AC from hvy scouts.
That said, we can increase the full AC power without increasing mini-AC power (which would perk bombers but not hvy scouts). As I mentioned earlier though, I'd want to see this idea in action before I decided if AC needs a perk or not.
That said, we can increase the full AC power without increasing mini-AC power (which would perk bombers but not hvy scouts). As I mentioned earlier though, I'd want to see this idea in action before I decided if AC needs a perk or not.
Even if MiniAC becomes available with researching AC, you still have two separate weapons which stats you can change..._SRM_Nuke wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_Nuke @ Apr 24 2010, 10:58 PM) The only time teams buy ac3 is when they are whoring in hvy scouts. Why would you want to make hvy scouts more powerful?
The Escapist (Justin Emerson) @ Dec 21 2010, 02:33 PM:
The history of open-source Allegiance is paved with the bodies of dead code branches, forum flame wars, and personal vendettas. But a community remains because people still love the game.
My POV is the secret to balancing TP2/figbees/whatnot is not in the activation time of the tp2 or the energy but rather with the ripping times of the scouts, bombers and FBs. We could increase the necesity of teamwork if we forced a rather longer ripping time to bombers and even longer for FBs.
With this idea, more scouts would have to rip in to the TP2 to keep nanning it (and avoid the DF spike of only 2-3 defenders [the usual quota of guys that actually make it to the tp2 it time to spike it or kill the nan first]) while the rest of the ships rip in.
Pluses:
+ Requires more situational awareness from everyone on the team
+ Gives defenders more of a chance
+ Gives defenders something other than spiking the TP2 to do (in case, for instance we make ripping times for scouts SHORTER)
+ Leaves tp2 just as effective for alternative stuff such as galving, etc
Minuses:
- Doesnt solve the problem of scalability (it's a lot better than the current incarnation though... bigger games = more defenders to spike the tp2 or reach it)
- People will complain of having to fly scout to die... like usual.
I'm being fairly shortsighted with this idea, I'm sure, but you're more than welcome to critize/flame.
With this idea, more scouts would have to rip in to the TP2 to keep nanning it (and avoid the DF spike of only 2-3 defenders [the usual quota of guys that actually make it to the tp2 it time to spike it or kill the nan first]) while the rest of the ships rip in.
Pluses:
+ Requires more situational awareness from everyone on the team
+ Gives defenders more of a chance
+ Gives defenders something other than spiking the TP2 to do (in case, for instance we make ripping times for scouts SHORTER)
+ Leaves tp2 just as effective for alternative stuff such as galving, etc
Minuses:
- Doesnt solve the problem of scalability (it's a lot better than the current incarnation though... bigger games = more defenders to spike the tp2 or reach it)
- People will complain of having to fly scout to die... like usual.
I'm being fairly shortsighted with this idea, I'm sure, but you're more than welcome to critize/flame.
One short sleep past, we wake eternally and Death shalt be no more; Death, thou shalt die! 
Fixed it for you, but sadly that is a good point._SRM_Nuke wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_Nuke @ Apr 24 2010, 11:58 PM) Why would you want to make Rix hvy scouts more powerful?
I doubt the other heavy scout turrets getting a small perk (like the 1.0 vs. med) would be an issue.In theory one could just keep AC as it is, and give the heavy bomber a 3rd AC turret. (Hey, the topic says radical ideas)
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
theres nothing different about rix hvy scouts than stupid @#(! like tac or stang rush. if your team $#@!s around you are going to lose against it.
QUOTE Drizzo: ha ha good old chap
Drizzo: i am a brit
Drizzo: tut tut
Drizzo: wankarrrrrr
Drizzo: i only have sex whilst in the missionary position[/quote] Fas est et ab hoste doceri - Ovid
Drizzo: i am a brit
Drizzo: tut tut
Drizzo: wankarrrrrr
Drizzo: i only have sex whilst in the missionary position[/quote] Fas est et ab hoste doceri - Ovid
The idea of nan3 has been raised before but been talked down by those in charge - I don't think a poll was done...? I'm still very much in favour of it and long for more "regular" bomb runs as Drizzo advocates.
I would agree with Koln that TF dual-nan bomb runs do succeed more often in my experience. If you've got mini3 though it will always be ridiculously hard to bomb against is though, since nans die in like 0.5 seconds to a good int pilot with mini3. Nan3 would still help though as more nans would have to be killed before concentrating fire on the bomber.
I would agree with Koln that TF dual-nan bomb runs do succeed more often in my experience. If you've got mini3 though it will always be ridiculously hard to bomb against is though, since nans die in like 0.5 seconds to a good int pilot with mini3. Nan3 would still help though as more nans would have to be killed before concentrating fire on the bomber.
spideycw - 'This is because Grav is a huge whining bitch. But we all knew that already' Dec 19 2010, 07:36 PM