(EXP == FUN) => (other tech =\= fun) ?

[SumVeritas]

QUOTE (SpkWill @ Feb 28 2012, 01:02 AM) Well sup is designed to kill bases, tac to kill economy and they are both totally useless because you can't kill anything in a pod. Exp vs Exp is and always has been the way to play allegiance, it depends the most on taking map position, on teamwork and on player skill. It simply makes for better gameplay, better competition and it's always painful to see someone go sup or worse tac.

There are a few situations where it is useful to go supspan or tacspan or to get a 2nd tech to end the game after going for hvys.

To me really the whole concept of tac and sup and sy is just bad. It's really dull to play any of the optimal (gamewinning) strats for these techpaths. There are a few exceptions like full bombing with sup or ac bombing with supyard other than that it's just boring.

I mean in exp you are literally constantly rushing the enemy miners/cons breaking camps having massive furballs over constructors. Taking kbs off wannabe whores and surviving with your 40kb intact with almost zero hull. What is there in tac? Sit in their mining sector hiding and wait for the d to $#@! up? Hope they get bored of camping an aleph so you can sneak a sb in? Tac v Tac is literally a battle of who gets sick of the game first.

Sup v Sup is just as bad flying techless fighters around because your comm doesn't want to buy them tech. Boost 1 figs take about ten days to get anywhere.

Fighters are slow, fat, noisy and completely incapable of using the increased fire power that missiles give. Tac is so fragile that one tiny error will have you podding for 5 mins.

If you go sup or tac you are going up against exp and your entire team is going to hate you for making them fly inferior ships before you've even started the game really. Even if you win it's a pyhric victory as the exp team probably whored the $#@! out of you.

[Mastametz]

You have to remember that many people (dumb people/Euros) are easily entertained and also don't like the stress level involved with the abrasiveness of interceptors.
to them, tac (long boring 20k flights in silence) are enjoyable.

[aptest]

QUOTE Edit: I suppose maybe the issue people have is that since Expo is an inhereantly defensive tech path, if you fail at expo (in terms of miner O), your team can still have a chance to scrape out HTTs and pull off a comeback win, whereas if you fail with Sup/Tac you're pretty much dead (always exceptions of course, but as a general rule you need to partly cripple enemy econ early on with Sup and Tac). But I think that makes sense from a gameplay perspective.[/quote]

In my eyes, the premise that Expansion is a defensive tech path is wrong. Interceptors are the best ship in the game for operating "balls to the wall" into enemy sectors - mainly because of their ability to get to their target fast. fighters are supposed to have some advantage in mobility that is derived form their ability to teleport, but since you will usually not have a tp (carrier) on the enemy miners, there is still considerable travel time - probably more than the time it takes an interceptor to boost from the adjesant sector.

[JimmyNighthawk]

My correction of the topic title:

> (EXP == FUN) => (other tech =\= fun) ?

EXP "cmp" FUN xor EXP '===' FUN while (other < FUN xor other != fun)

ps: pkk, was sagst Du?^^=)

[Adept]

Ints have the highest damage output, best evasion under fire, and the best escape mechanism (boosting away, as opposed to trying to rip or escape under cloak).

These things combined means that other things being equal it's the interceptor pilots who are racking up KB, which amplifies their already high damage output.

This has been the main reasoning in making fighters a little more responsive (by lowering the mass and hence acceleration under booster) and reducing the fuel of the interceptors. Tac has gotten a few boosts to their effectiveness as well (by reducing the power of CM and upping the damage of snipers, as well as introducing worth while minishields).

[BillyBishop]

There's no denying the mastery of the int, and it's praises are already well sung.


The other tech paths certainly have their fun, and it can often vary with the play style.


Tac's Stealth Fighters are in effect your snipers, except that there are a few problems with that. The main one of course being that many people don't know how to be a sniper and think it involves tapping the interceptor or fighter pilot on the shoulder at .5k and firing an lrm while shooting utl at them. Mostly it's a training issue.

The other problem is once the enemy knows where you generally are, they can often boost there before you can get out of dodge, and ints can pulse you when they're close and pod you. Scouts are easier to deal with if you haven't walked into one. Seeing what people like let's look at GT gauss or the XC sf/int snip2 of death, missiles are nice, but a true sniper loves their direct fire weapons, perking snip1/2 a little and increasing the sig on firing will definately make them more fun, for that matter you can add snip3.

Personally I think tac is pretty much fine as is, I'm just saying that if you want to make it 'more fun' then perk snip a bit.


Sup's fighters suffer from training as well, using a dumbfire on a moving target is tricky, qf's are relatively weak, and seeker is frankly not as good at seeking as it's name implies. Maybe a 'sidewinder' type missile with great agility that can help deal with those close quarters fights and a look again at the other missiles. I haven't had a chance to look but the fighters boost sig increase might be worth toning down a bit. Sup is pretty good as is.


More than anything the problem are with GA's. Just the he3 GA alone makes all exp tech easier to get, toss it in sy.

[Adept]

QUOTE (RoyBrown @ Feb 28 2012, 06:01 PM) Personally I think tac is pretty much fine as is, I'm just saying that if you want to make it 'more fun' then perk snip a bit.

This was done. Perking it any further would push it's damage to ridiculous levels.

QUOTE <missile stuff>[/quote]
I forgot to mention that Seeker 2 has also been made less useless. Seeker 3 is in fact a very nice sup weapon system, if your team makes it that far up the sup tech tree.

Again, there's a need for good sup adv tech. Fighters have fairly good parity in effectiveness with interceptors on the enhanced tech level, as they add a third gat while the int just gets an upgrade to mini 2. The heavy ints third minigun pushes it's direct firepower far above that of the adv. fig, but seeker 3 and mine packs keep the adv fig in the game. The advantage in one-on-one stays with the heavy int, as it should but the sup team isn't completely screwed.


QUOTE More than anything the problem are with GA's. Just the he3 GA alone makes all exp tech easier to get, toss it in sy.[/quote]
This has indeed come up a few times

[DonKarnage]

What gets to me is that we're usually facing mini 3 heavies in smallshield1, seeker1, quickfire1, dumbfire2, gat3 adv figs with no minepacks.

How often do you ever get fully upgraded figs in a game?

[Malicious Wraith]

QUOTE (DonKarnage @ Feb 28 2012, 02:05 PM) What gets to me is that we're usually facing mini 3 heavies in smallshield1, seeker1, quickfire1, dumbfire2, gat3 adv figs with no minepacks.

How often do you ever get fully upgraded figs in a game?

Every game where I am playing on a core with treasures on, and a decent economy. Or I could just play Bios.

[Alien51]

Make carriers cheaper, weaker, with a lower sig.