Page 4 of 6
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:20 pm
by Spunkmeyer
spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Feb 18 2012, 02:05 PM) I disagree with most of what shedding says except about econ adjystments. Spot on there.
I don't see how it possibly changes the way you run your miners. The AI ignores capacity unless miners are half empty anyway, and there is nothing you can do about it short of micro-managing every load, which you don't do (nobody does) because you are out and about half the time.
Capacity is mostly irrelevant.
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:59 pm
by DasSmiter
SpkWill wrote:QUOTE (SpkWill @ Feb 18 2012, 12:18 PM) I hate how core balance is so one sided. I mean what the community wants is the dreg int fixed so that faction is viable again and what we get is a completely unwarranted thread about making econ adjustments easier for core developers by making miners have uniform capacity.
It's like instead of fixing the actual balance issues you just want to implement your own ideas and hope people will put up with it.
I fear CC is pretty much heading the same way again just under a new leader. Maybe instead of proposing the changes you want you should let the community dictate to you which changes are important?
Haven't we already addressed the dreg int in the "Dreg feels weak" thread?
This is something from XC that has plenty of advantages from a core dev perspective. The reason I created this thread is that I felt it would have a noticeable effect on in game commanding and I wanted to ask the community if they minded it. Obviously some people are supporting and some are against in this thread, so then we have what is called a discussion. This is something where people post their thoughts and I read them and decide whether the opponents are whiners or the supporters are idiots.
I try not to make insane amounts of changes to the core, but progress marches ever forwards. Allegiance is a very weird game to balance due to the crazy amount of variance between settings/map/player, which means that there's always something worth fixing. Anything that can be done to reduce this variance is something I try to consider, thus this idea.
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:35 pm
by spideycw
Spunkmeyer wrote:QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Feb 18 2012, 03:20 PM) I don't see how it possibly changes the way you run your miners. The AI ignores capacity unless miners are half empty anyway, and there is nothing you can do about it short of micro-managing every load, which you don't do (nobody does) because you are out and about half the time.
Capacity is mostly irrelevant.
I micromanage the majority of my miner loads dude because I am not an idiot.
Try switching to command wing
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:41 am
by SpkWill
DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Feb 18 2012, 08:59 PM) Haven't we already addressed the dreg int in the "Dreg feels weak" thread?
This is something from XC that has plenty of advantages from a core dev perspective. The reason I created this thread is that I felt it would have a noticeable effect on in game commanding and I wanted to ask the community if they minded it. Obviously some people are supporting and some are against in this thread, so then we have what is called a discussion. This is something where people post their thoughts and I read them and decide whether the opponents are whiners or the supporters are idiots.
I try not to make insane amounts of changes to the core, but progress marches ever forwards. Allegiance is a very weird game to balance due to the crazy amount of variance between settings/map/player, which means that there's always something worth fixing. Anything that can be done to reduce this variance is something I try to consider, thus this idea.
So basically we have a "discussion" and you ignore all the people you disagree with deride them as idiots and then go ahead with the changes you wanted anyway? Whilst pretending it is what people want.
Sounds a bit like our political system lol.
Ps $#@! off you patronising *#$@
pps fix the int fuel 20% nerf is so $#@!ing frustrating to play with.
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:58 am
by Broodwich
not only him sheff, spunk and adept too
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:58 am
by Mastametz
Can we get real now and just name this RT core so there's no false pretenses? After all, the changes will come from whatever conversations Das has with Adept.
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:23 am
by BillyBishop
SpkWill wrote:QUOTE (SpkWill @ Feb 19 2012, 01:41 AM) pps fix the int fuel 20% nerf is so $#@!ing frustrating to play with.
Learn that ints aren't meant to boost for 20 minutes without docking, or learn to boost.
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:55 am
by Mastametz
If we're still hammering on the whole idea of substantially hindering an ints mobility then minigun damage needs to be buffed or int hull perked, or both
and give them 0 scan range for all I care
then they'll be completely dependent on con pushes/carrier pushes but will utterly destroy anything that gets too close
which makes the most sense conceptually imo
figs should not come close to being able to stand toe-to-toe with an int - in his territory - without a significant tech advantage/carrier support, etc
but ints also shouldn't be able to boost around the map freely making *everything* his own territory
in conclusion - buff minigun damage, buff int hull, remove int sensors, nerf fuel capacity, nerf ammo capacity, buff int accel/top speed
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:55 am
by DasSmiter
Jesus christ you'd think I pissed in the somebodies vagina. This change isn't going through until I decide it goes through, and I'm not going to say yay or nay until people get a majority either way. I'm this close to deleting all the idiotic posts about how RT runs this core blah blah blah get used to it. I'm in RT guys, Spidey was in SysX and Aarm was in PK. Noir was in XT. Guess what core devs join squads
Get a hold of yourselves, I post this thread because I want to feel our community sentiment. I don't post threads just to say that people are idiots (no matter how completely thickheaded they might be).
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:33 am
by Broodwich
Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Feb 18 2012, 04:58 PM) Can we get real now and just name this RT core so there's no false pretenses? After all, the changes will come from whatever conversations Das has with Adept.
lol, i forgot adept was in rt