EMP changes

[DonKarnage]

Between the time the TT is eyed, and when it reaches the green door, how many EMP1 interceptors would it take to drain the shields of a minor base in sufficient time? How many would be needed for a light base?

Unless the damage table on the wiki is far out of date, EMP cannon is shown to only do 50% against the shields of a minor base.


I will refrain from voting or suggesting anything until I am absolutely certain that a change is or isn't needed.

[LANS]

QUOTE (DonKarnage @ Nov 1 2010, 11:03 PM) Between the time the TT is eyed, and when it reaches the green door, how many EMP1 interceptors would it take to drain the shields of a minor base in sufficient time? How many would be needed for a light base?

Unless the damage table on the wiki is far out of date, EMP cannon is shown to only do 50% against the shields of a minor base.


I will refrain from voting or suggesting anything until I am absolutely certain that a change is or isn't needed.

The wiki damage table is far out of date.

For accurate weapon damage values, use TEK:
http://freeallegiance.org/FAW/index.php/TEK

[DonKarnage]

EMP still does 100% against Lt base shield and 50% against minor base shield.

Ignoring faction perks/nerfs and base shield recharge, it takes:
(1) EMP1 Interceptor 46 seconds to drain Lt base shields.
(2) EMP1 Interceptors 23 seconds to drain Lt base shields.
(3) EMP1 Interceptors 15 seconds to drain Lt base shields.
(4) EMP1 Interceptors 11 seconds to drain Lt base shields.
(5) EMP1 Interceptors 9 seconds to drain Lt base shields.
Against Minor bases, the time to drain would be doubled.

EMP1 does 9 direct and 9 AoE damage per shot at 4 shots per second to give 72 DPS.
Would it be correct to use 6666/(72*2) for calculating time to drain shields?

[Broodwich]

you should really take your own advice sometime

[Icky]

QUOTE (DonKarnage @ Nov 2 2010, 12:20 AM) As I thought. However, that still doesn't answer the question, how much of the team has to be tied up in EMP ints?
It's a balance, because every interceptor that's dropping the base shields isn't defending the TT, nanning it, or camping the base door.

It's good you said this since I don't think it occurred to anyone else that this might be a BALANCE issue. Thanks for helping!

/sarcasm

[Spunkmeyer]

QUOTE (DonKarnage @ Nov 1 2010, 11:20 PM) Would it be correct to use 6666/(72*2) for calculating time to drain shields?

You need to subtract shield recharge from damage inflicted.

TT is not underpowered per se. TT caps have been done and not that hard to pull off eother, but t's mostly not worth it: Exp is inexpensive... you get ints, mg2 if you are unlucky, damage 1, he3 yield pays for itself. You have enough defensive strength meanwhile, so miners are coming in and time till heavy ints is usually spent chasing after enemy miners. So delaying heavies an extra 12.5K, leaving enemy miners alone, and trying to put together what amounts to a combined "galv" run + mini bomber run is typically not worth it. Miner whoring while running for heavies gives better returns.

Now, I think it's an admirable goal to make unused tech work to enrich gameplay, but you gotta keep in mind the reason is not always that the tech is underpowered. Sometimes there are other issues, like the above. In the past, I did play with the idea of having TTs carry a single EMP missile per slot, reduced in effectiveness so it could not take out op shields in one shot. If you make TTs work solo or with little support, then it's a significant exp boost and you need to deal with consequences of that.

[Icky]

QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Nov 2 2010, 07:19 AM) You need to subtract shield recharge from damage inflicted.

TT is not underpowered per se. TT caps have been done and not that hard to pull off eother, but t's mostly not worth it: Exp is inexpensive... you get ints, mg2 if you are unlucky, damage 1, he3 yield pays for itself. You have enough defensive strength meanwhile, so miners are coming in and time till heavy ints is usually spent chasing after enemy miners. So delaying heavies an extra 12.5K, leaving enemy miners alone, and trying to put together what amounts to a combined "galv" run + mini bomber run is typically not worth it. Miner whoring while running for heavies gives better returns.

Now, I think it's an admirable goal to make unused tech work to enrich gameplay, but you gotta keep in mind the reason is not always that the tech is underpowered. Sometimes there are other issues, like the above. In the past, I did play with the idea of having TTs carry a single EMP missile per slot, reduced in effectiveness so it could not take out op shields in one shot. If you make TTs work solo or with little support, then it's a significant exp boost and you need to deal with consequences of that.

I don't think a TT that needs at least 2 racks to cap an OP will be effective solo or with little support. A single fig now can stop an HTT run if you dont have sufficient nans. Do you not think it would take MORE effort to effectively use a TT?

[LANS]

I would appreciate seeing TTs being the capping equivalent of basic bombers - good with support against early game tech, but easy to stop, and very vulnerable to a good probe net.

[Gandalf2]

QUOTE (LANS @ Nov 2 2010, 12:35 PM) I would appreciate seeing TTs being the capping equivalent of basic bombers - good with support against early game tech, but easy to stop, and very vulnerable to a good probe net.

Hmmm,

I'm at work so I can't check this, but what's the sig on a tt? If we do give tt's some sort of EMP missile, could we increase the sig on a tt to be more like a bomber's one?

[Adept]

I still hate the idea of TTs mounting EMP missiles.

TTs are in the game almost exclusively as a speed bump to slow down the race to HTTs. We could just up the price of EMP missiles and HTTs, and set the requirements so that the speed bump effect is maintained. EMP missile as requirement for HTT research for instance, and get rid of the silly TT once and for all. Less confusion for new players as well.