Page 5 of 6
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 5:32 am
by DasSmiter
Since when is Tac pushing cons around?
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 5:47 am
by Jimen
Tac's not very good at defending things, so against an enemy with a strong offense, Tac needs all the help it can get! It's hilarious to suggest that it's not useful to be able to spend $2k on a significant buff to con/miner survivability, pushes or no pushes!
Besides, I've heard that Tacspansion teams push a con every now and then!
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 10:02 am
by TurkeyXIII
If you want to buff tac by giving them a generalized GA that's more useful than shield GA (not hard) you can, as long as you're aware it's not going to compliment your primary tech terribly well.
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 10:28 am
by Raveen
As I see it there's two ways to approach GAs generally.
1: Move all GAs to Garr/SB. Personally I think that this would be an interesting experiment as it would provide comms with the maximum choice possible and create more diversity. It'd also promote investing in SB. If you're going to put GAs in Garr then it needs to be all GAs.
2: Rearrange the GAs within the techpaths. This again goes two ways:
2a) Arrange the GAs so that they compliment the tech path that they're in. The problem is that some GAs compliment more than one tech and some don't specifically compliment any. You also have no brainer GAs which effectively reduce choice and diversity because they'll always be bought.
2b) Arrange the GAs to compliment other techs to benefit multiteching. Many of the same problems as above.
Personally I'd lump the whole lot in Garr and just accept that some will get bought more than others. If nothing that radical is acceptable then I'd go with Drizzo's suggestion.
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 4:51 pm
by zombywoof
DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ May 16 2010, 10:32 PM) Since when is Tac pushing cons around?
Giga tac can, to keep enemy bbrs busy.
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:49 am
by Broodwich
this whole thread is classic misdirection from fixing bios
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:52 am
by NightRychune
yeah I can't believe anyone is seriously entertaining the idea of rearranging or changing the GA structure at all
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:08 pm
by DasSmiter
I thought this was starting to be about making cool new GAs
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 6:35 pm
by Freyja
DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ May 18 2010, 02:08 PM) I thought this was starting to be about making cool new GAs
Would be nice. More options can often be a good thing.
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 9:52 pm
by Jimen
DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ May 18 2010, 10:08 AM) I thought this was starting to be about making cool new GAs
Nope! Code change, apparently!