jbansk wrote:QUOTE (jbansk @ Apr 5 2012, 04:06 PM) You all are trying to circumvent the real problem here which is team size. Fix the player base issue and SY can be properly balanced.
Fix / Release R6 FIRST, pound the streets for players, get community back to a proper size and THEN address the faction / tech issues.
If you put half the effort into increasing the community as you do in tweaking sh.t, we'd have 1000 players.
jbansk wrote:QUOTE (jbansk @ Apr 5 2012, 04:06 PM) You all are trying to circumvent the real problem here which is team size. Fix the player base issue and SY can be properly balanced.
Fix / Release R6 FIRST, pound the streets for players, get community back to a proper size and THEN address the faction / tech issues.
If you put half the effort into increasing the community as you do in tweaking sh.t, we'd have 1000 players.
Maybe so but...
That's like trying to increase business by making more people come to your store, instead of keeping the ones who do come happy.
That's like trying to increase business by making more people come to your store, instead of keeping the ones who do come happy.
No. What I'm saying is fill the store with goodies that people want to have. Those already shopping will return as well as any new shoppers will become regulars.
It is absolutely a waste of time trying to get new players while R5 remains in place.
Back to the topic...
The reason tech paths are chosen is mostly because they are a necessity to win a game. Why go SY when you don't need to?
If you have enough vets and players on each team, the need to have SY can become necessary if the cores are properly designed.
Again, as it is right now, without the player base, there is no need or use for SY unless you dork up the cores completely.
Last edited by jbansk on Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[15:25] <BBT_> oh, so da vinci's mona lisa isn't his work?
[15:25] <+fuh-zz> No, he simply put effort into it.
[15:25] <BBT_> are you really that retarded?
Jb is correct, SY as a concept (large ships reliant mainly upon turrets) simply doesn't work in alleg unless games are ~40 players deep. The biggest issue is scaling, but that's not the only one.
The first and foremost battle in Allegiance is mobility. Teams look to expand their own mobility or limit an opponents before anything else. Sup does this through TPs and Exp does it through Ops (obviously enough). Where does SY fit into this? Instead of investing in mobility opportunities for the team (OP/TP/Ints/Booster 2) you've chosen to get a single large base. There might be some argument to be made for using SY as a forward game ender for Exp (something they lack for the most part) versus Sup, except that Sup is THE techpath to counter ships coming from the SY.
So there's very little place for it at it's current cost in the part of the game where the comm's main concern is establishing mobility for his team. What about later on in the game after the map is mostly settled? Well then we run into the problem mentioned before against SUP. It might be worth it as end game tech for an Exp versus Exp game, but consider that you've spent 20k for a constructor with no immediate benefits (assuming you don't push it to threaten their mining sectors), while they've probably used that 20k on a SUP to boost their ints up with GA/Booster 2 for the same price. You then have to spend a bunch MORE money getting cruisers (the first craft I'd vouch for in any major furball against a mass of enemy hvy ints) and tech such as LS/Sky2 while the enemy is getting close to adv end game tech like FB/XRM/TP2/SB and enjoying better dogfighting craft at the same time.
That's just role @#(!, I haven't even talked about the actual problem of devoting 5 people to a single craft in a game where aleph camping is the primary defensive strategy. There's still a good bit about SY, mostly in a defensive role however. Their long rip time means that miner rushes generally aren't defendable even at a TP unless you spot it early with good probing. This means you have to stick constantly with whatever you're defending, and that can only ever be 1 thing at a time. Figs can play miner defense and, if called for, be on the front lines for a galv run or miner killing team in seconds. Ints share the same ability for the most part, though they require a dockable base in both sectors to use this advantage.
So where does SY fit in? It isn't quick, cheap, or insanely strong unless the opponent simple doesn't have to firepower to overcome your shields. It either wins games as soon as the mfrig approaches or loses the game when that mfrig gets blown up or the SY is bombed down quickly. There's no player skill involved at all, simply "Did the comm get dis2/killer/mini2?" and "Do we have enough people on this aleph?"
I could see a version of alleg where the SY con is a necessary pre for building any particular techpath's constructor. In that fantasy world the garr would be replaced by SY and teams would need to decide whether they invest massive amounts into the SY or pursue other tech paths (which would take some re balancing of SY, but not extensive renovations).
In the end we come down to what SY can and should do in the current state of the game. Game ending super tech seems to be the best fit, sort of as an excuse for Exp's rather lackluster endgame options by getting a forward tech base with the promise of an over game if miner defense is good. It mixes with their econ GAs as well, but at that point is there any reason for other tech paths to get an SY? Tac and Sup have excellent endgame options already with how their @#(! synergizes with starbase tech, and I'd say since they lack the econ GAs they would be even more reluctant to invest in building up a completely different end game tech.
Another direction we could go is trying to once again make SY an equal rights tech path. The main problem with past solutions along this path is their reliance on a ship that costs money. This introduces an uncountable amount of headaches and eventually we're stuck with the current predicament, game sizes change seasonally and can even have major variations within a single match. It used to be fairly routine for a pre-primetime game to start around 7v7 and end up 25v25, and there won't be a way to counter this malleable game size's effect on the balance of ships that cost money until someone gives me a function defined floating HP total. You can see this problem become apparent even with bombers when games get up to about 20-25 players per side, though nan is a pretty interesting and IMO excellent counter to this trend that only lapses because of mechanical issues (its not a beam of constant healing ala Doctor in TF2, but more like a cannon loaded with heal shot ala my imagination). So if you design a new SY to be an equal rights tech path it has to incorporate free ships. Perhaps some bastard omni fighter with the ability to use only mk2 tech combined with a belter flag on the new SY?
Then again we can accept that SY is a non-tech (as it is at this point with SY-off being most common) and turn it into something like a Transceiver? A place to dock your drone carrier with unique pieces of tech researchable?
SY is hard to scale currently HP/Damage wise (could be mediated with some changes like hull = 1 and large shields providing most of the HP for caps (produces more headaches though) )
SY is resource intensive (both players and money are required en masse)
SY is boring
If you boys want to get rid of SY ships let me know (although it would be a tragedy to lose the assets). If you think SY should stay as anything but a Game Over button for money you're going to have to explain to present an idea that is FUN and BALANCEABLE (that is to say it must allow for player skill to make up the difference between adv/enh tech as it currently does for every other tech path).
Last edited by DasSmiter on Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Get over yourselves, don't try to win arguments on the internet where the option of a punch in the mouth is unavailable
"It is not that I cannot create anything good, but that I will not." And to prove this, he created the peacock.
DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Apr 6 2012, 04:48 PM) If you boys want to get rid of SY ships let me know (although it would be a tragedy to lose the assets). If you think SY should stay as anything but a Game Over button for money you're going to have to explain to present an idea that is FUN and BALANCEABLE (that is to say it must allow for player skill to make up the difference between adv/enh tech as it currently does for every other tech path).
Das, I think the ideas I presented earlier align 100% with what you're saying here.
My belief is that the SY endgame should be as powerful as any other endgame: heavy bbrs, htts, tp2 figbees, stealth bombers. All of these have scaling problems too, but none so severe as to break the game. Some of those are pretty hard to stop too.
Absolutely agree that an "unstoppable" juggernaut ship is no fun at all -- the same way that any "unstoppable" endgame tech is no fun. I really do want to optimize SY for breaking the exp turtle as that's one of the most frustrating parts of the game right now.
I'm very tempted just to take the latest CC and do this. We've been bickering over SY for years. It's time it just got fixed.
Globemaster_III wrote:QUOTE (Globemaster_III @ Jan 11 2018, 11:27 PM) as you know i think very little of cashto, cashto alway a flying low pilot, he alway flying a trainer airplane and he rented
If it will scale, ships cannot cost a lot of money. If they don't cost a lot of money, they can't be too strong. If they aren't too strong they can't be camp busters.
So you need to find an answer to that, and the most obvious answers are things like one-sided aleph res or stealthier caps.
Want bigger games? Log on to play at the official game time: 9pmET/8pmCT/7pmMT/6pmPT every day of the week. Also Saturdays 8pm UTC.
cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Apr 5 2012, 06:45 PM) No. That's just the superficial design flaw that masks the underlying fundamental design flaw: turrets, and SY tactics in general, are as boring as @#(!.
I opened a ticket over a year ago which would help this:
QUOTE Ability to tweak turret turn rates / acceleration in the core, at the part or ship level.[/quote]
That way you could do things like increase the damage of skycaps, but make them turn slow and sloppy. Think proper flak cannons. If a fig or int gets in close enough, they will be become hard to hit. Basically it would allow core designers to balance both the max and min ranges of a cap's weapon, and mix up the dynamics of turreting.
Last edited by Adaven on Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
You're fixing the wrong problem. You're trying to circumvent the real issue here.
Don't you think getting R6 out so that new players can actually install / run / play the game thus; increasing the community size...would be easier and more fun than turning SY into some twisted up animal? At this rate we'll be tweaking the other factions to accommodate 5v5 games within the year.
As I said earlier, if you fix the number 1 problem Allegiance has at the moment, the rest is cake.
[15:25] <BBT_> oh, so da vinci's mona lisa isn't his work?
[15:25] <+fuh-zz> No, he simply put effort into it.
[15:25] <BBT_> are you really that retarded?
"money scaling" is one of the problems with SY (and other techs actually). to fix this:
ask the dev(s) to add a new currency to the game. A currency that scale with the number of players. a currency used to buy ships and parts that need "scaling" (like cap ships and f/b for instance).
that currency could be the new 'payday', so a 10 players team would get twice cash each payday than a 5 players team.
i wrote about this once, here. I should finish that article some day, may be...
the other problem of SY is HP/damage scaling but it might become a non issue once money scaling is solved.
Last edited by KGJV on Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
