Page 4 of 18
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:25 am
by Koln
I don't know why are you people always talking about nerfing stuff. Something is overpowered when you can never, or hardly ever, beat it. Fb's don't always work, that's a fact. They're made to work, and they have to work, as every other end game tech. I've seen more Fb's run fail than sb run fail. Why not nerf SB then? Because they have to work. Htt run work less than the other two techs, but you have ints to camp the base before (have you ever seen Sheff with a hvy on your red door and tried to launch? Can you live more than 10 secs? Most of us can't, and Sheff is obviously not the only whore in the game).
If the other team get endgame tech before you is your fault: not killing miners, not defending yours, letting them expand....Stop complaining about end-game tech being unstoppable and don't let them get it, kill them before.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:29 pm
by jbourne
I think that introducing a chance for a tp2 probe to destruct upon a ship riping to it is not a good idea. Randomness over a small sample size (and you can expect only few tp2 drops per game I suppose) takes skill out of the equation. I think it is a nice thing about alleg that if you do a certain thing in a particular way, you can expect a particular outcome (hence skill>luck)
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:35 pm
by Naboki
I dont like the idea that a random event can decide a game.
Limiting the energy of a tp2 (so that only 5-7 fbs can rip to a tp2) seems to be more effective to me.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:40 pm
by notjarvis
Naboki wrote:QUOTE (Naboki @ Jun 3 2009, 02:35 PM) I dont like the idea that a random event can decide a game.
Limiting the energy of a tp2 (so that only 5-7 fbs can rip to a tp2) seems to be more effective to me.
Then you'd have to do multiple TP drops to be assured success which might be quite cool.
I still think it doesn't really need a nerf though, and there are more broken things in the balancing of the game than Figbees.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:58 pm
by Adam4
Then you'd need to check the code regarding redundancy rips (which I think doesnt exist in the code) unless x figbees accepted an order to go to one particular probe (which is hard enough as it is), it wouldnt work.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:13 pm
by Clay_Pigeon
While the new folks probably don't remember, randomly self-destructing tp2s were a part of Allegiance up until FAZ R2 (or 3?), so reverting to that system isn't the massive change you may think. The code is probably still in there (just commented out).
For every ship that ripped, there was a chance that the tp2 would die. Common practice was to pack/drop a 2nd tp probe and/or do multiple drops in sector. It worked! Sup was somehow able to close games, so its not all that radical a departure from how Alleg was played in the past. I'm personally not all that opposed to reverting to that system, with some minor adjustments (such as random number generation only kicking in after _____ ships have ripped to the probe).
Suggestions for figbees -
take away minepacks/hvy plas
incrementally reduce top speed.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:22 pm
by Abomination
What was the original reason for tp2 having a chance of destruction? I'm pretty sure it was not for balance reasons, hence why it was changed to its current unlimited energy state.
Of course remember that back then it was an accepted practice to put tp2s in base holes and inside of rocks, giving you essentially free base kills. Now you can't even place a tp2 too close to a rock!
I suggest TP2s are untouched. It's the funnest sup tech, and essentially sup's real end-game. It also costs the most money to get (and I don't mean per probe). Simple solutions like making fighter-bombers cost more per unit, or giving them a larger model, should be given preference.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:48 pm
by pkk
Abomination wrote:QUOTE (Abomination @ Jun 3 2009, 05:22 PM) What was the original reason for tp2 having a chance of destruction? I'm pretty sure it was not for balance reasons, hence why it was changed to its current unlimited energy state.
Maybe, because it was easier to code than adding energy to probes.
Sourcecode:
Code: Select all
//FAZ: this is where tp1/tp2 are randomly destroyed (1/6 chance)
// future mod: use ((IprobeIGC)pmodel) to access the igcprobe datas
// mmf comment out for now
// this is causing a server crash, not every time, but seems like if TP is destroyed while
// someone else is ripping to it, boom, server goes down
// we crashed it with a TP1 dropped in open space (not near an asteroid)
/*
if ((type == OT_probe) && (randomInt(0, 5) == 0))
{
// mmf debug
debugf("mmf debug teleprobe random destroy\n");
KillProbeEvent((IprobeIGC*)pmodel);
//pmodel->Terminate();
}
*/
From
Allegiance 1.25 readme:
QUOTE Teleport probes 1 & 2 have a one in six chance of self-destructing immediately after being used. On average, about 4 ships will be able to use a teleport probe before it self-destructs.[/quote]
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:38 pm
by Psychosis
I would love to see Figbees more fig like and less bbr like, because as of now, they are nearly worthless as a fighting platform
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:40 pm
by Andon
I agree - they're Fighter/Bombers, not FastBombers.
This could be helped a good deal by essentially reverting them back to fighters and then rebalancing them with some form of weaker AB weapon, like a torpedo or something.