Heavy Cloak...

Jimen · Post by **Jimen** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:28 pm

Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ Mar 12 2010, 08:21 AM) Anyway I really don't like the increasing the stealth component of htt-ing. It's very un-exp. They already have a stealth component, in lining up, plotting a route, clearing probes etc. Then when it's all in place, it's go-go-go to try and get to the green door through a maelstrom of battle. I like it, the problem is it doesn't work enough.

Presumably, the problem is seen to be that the opponents have too much time/firepower in which to stop the enemy. The firepower issue has been brought up earlier in the thread (that it may be that everything is getting to strong) and would be a big thing to fix, in which case we are presumably trying to fix the time the opponents have. (Although, making the htts heavier or something could indirectly help the firepower issue.)

If that is where the discussion is at, well, hvy cloak just seems like massive overkill and would massively change the nature of non-bios htt's as we know it. The whole big battle wouldn't happen so much, the htt would just appear 2k from the green door and you wouldn't really have much of a chance. It would almost be like they had stealth bombers. Surely there are less drastic ways to give the defenders less time? Knock 10-15% off the htt sig? Add a bit onto the speed?

Exp isn't some RAWRRRRRRR UNSTOPPABLE POWER techpath. It's more like your miner's walking down a dark street at night when suddenly a bunch of ints pop out of the bushes and beat it to death. The whole "flying through a maelstrom of battle" thing doesn't work vs adv tech, which makes the HTT crappy endgame tech (unless we give it mass and hull comparable to a capship). I think the question you're trying (but failing) to ask is "do we want HTTs to be crappier versions of bombers, or do we want them to be proper endgame tech?"

Paradigm2 · Post by **Paradigm2** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:39 pm

I'm not trying to imply that HTTs would be unstoppable if people knew how to ram on offense, I'm just saying that when it is done properly it can be extremely effective. And yes, when people launch to defend at the moment the htt is spotted (say, 2.8k out), if it isn't being rammed well they will easily have enough time to line up and take care of it, but if its coming at 150+, at best you will have time to make an angled ram attempt, and that requires "leading" with your ship on defense. To "lead," you must make a prediction on where it will be based on its current speed, and if that speed changes right before you are about to ram it (i.e. an offense player rams it past you), then you are going to miss.

I have observed this done many times, and unless the entire physics of allegiance have changed in the past few months since I've been in grad school (instead of putting in my usual 100 games a month), then it is still a valid tactic.

Jimen · Post by **Jimen** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:48 pm

Paradigm2 wrote:QUOTE (Paradigm2 @ Mar 12 2010, 04:39 PM) I'm not trying to imply that HTTs would be unstoppable if people knew how to ram on offense, I'm just saying that when it is done properly it can be extremely effective. And yes, when people launch to defend at the moment the htt is spotted (say, 2.8k out), if it isn't being rammed well they will easily have enough time to line up and take care of it, but if its coming at 150+, at best you will have time to make an angled ram attempt, and that requires "leading" with your ship on defense. To "lead," you must make a prediction on where it will be based on its current speed, and if that speed changes right before you are about to ram it (i.e. an offense player rams it past you), then you are going to miss.

I have observed this done many times, and unless the entire physics of allegiance have changed in the past few months since I've been in grad school (instead of putting in my usual 100 games a month), then it is still a valid tactic.

Yes, I agree that *insert ship here* is unstoppable when no one probes and there aren't any roving scouts to spoil uneyed runs. Now can we discuss a theoretical scenario where the team being HTTed against isn't incompetent? And speaking of incompetence, you do realize that any boost-rammers are guaranteed to be eyed, making them extremely predictable, right? And why angled rams? The HTT has to fly to the base, meaning it'll be flying nearly straight at anyone launching from that base.

Paradigm2 · Post by **Paradigm2** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:08 pm

The problem is not that HTTs are getting spotted really far out, its that when they get eyed they are too slow to cap the base before someone has time to line up and ram them out of the way.

One solution is to be super stealthy so there simply isn't time to "react" unless you were being proactive and waiting for the htt. The other solution is to make HTTs really fast so that once they're eyed you don't have time to simply "react" unless you were being proactive and waiting for the htt.

Solution two is already implemented into the game, and simply is not used properly (ramming). Solution one is currently a faction unique specialty (bios). Sure you could make all the HTTs vanilla with cloak, but your scenarios aren't changed if the cloak perk is given to all factions, and if anyone ever learns to ram the other factions, it just makes it twice as easy to cap.

Some bases you will always be able to line up and hit the HTT (Rixian outpost, for instance), but the vast majority of tech bases require some time to turn around and orient yourself in front of the htt, and almost always you end up ramming at an angle.

Jimen · Post by **Jimen** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:25 am

Hey cool, that's irrelevant, because I doubt the CC team is going to remove the ability of all Bios ships to mount Hvy Cloak, nor are they going to give every ship of every faction the ability to mount heavy cloak. I've seen plenty of people complaining that mass can't be perked and cloak can't be added, because those would take away from the "unique" HTTs...but I haven't seen any of those people offer any better suggestions. How about you, sambasti? How do you think we could improve HTTs without touching their sig, mass, or lack of cloaking ability? Why not offer a solid alternative?

sambasti · Post by **sambasti** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:46 am

Sure thing:

Fix sweet spots, make sure people know where they are, and as you would probably recommend for just about everything else, stop failing at ramming.

Another possibility would be increasing mass slightly, which would be the equivilant of giving them lt cloak, except for mass instead of stealth, and maintain GTs uniqueness of ultramass htts. If you need to raise it more, you can perk AP Htts, as there is an extra cost associated with getting them, meaning its fair to make them better.

Vlymoxyd · Post by **Vlymoxyd** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:53 am

I'm not really a fan of giving all Htts hvy cloak(there are better options imo), but they really need a perk and at the very least, it would be an improvement over the current situation.

I disagree about moving hvy cloak 2 to adv exp, it'd nerf bios(no HC2 after 10 mins) and would make starbase less interesting than it is currently.

I'd like to see PPs in adv exp. I think that htts is the end game tech that is the most affected by PPs(stealth caps are impossible with a Htt vs PPS while SBing and TP2ing just become harder)

Standard cloaks with an htt that has as much energy as a bios htt would be overpowered. bios htts would have to be unable to use those.

I'd like to see Htts with small ranges nerves gas(maybe 300-400m). Imo, the main weakness of Htts is that they have dock to cap a base. It forces them to line up with the green door(can only engage on one side) and can be easily stopped with good rams or greatly slowed down by proxes. It could remove some of the thrill of flying a htt but would fix the main issue of htts, which is having to dock on a green door.

Imo, TTs should be available at the start of the game with no research. It'd make Htts cheaper and make TTs used more(They're actually pretty decent with bombers when they're available, they just are often not worth the investment).

Archangelus · Post by **Archangelus** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:33 pm

Spidey unless I got it wrong (Im not native enlgish so @#(! can happen)
you said on the first topic: "Hvy cloaks moved to starbase"

And then you replied saying they werent moved?!
Care to enligthen me plz?!

Also, I believe that increasing the recharge time, or reducing the cloak time, would balance more than simply using lt cloak or sig cloak. 15-20s is enough energy to travel like 3.5k or so. The scan range of the pp´s would also be a viable option (although it would put tac even 2x or more effective). Reading through it all I felt the idea of the med assault shields would fit better into this. Before making all htts cloakable, giving them assault shields should be taken in consideration( we could change them a little from the ones used by phoenix at DN, giving them more hp, or making em more resistable(without hp increase) to normal weapons are some ideas, also putting them only usable into htt´s and/or hvy bbrs).

Post by **Tigereye** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:24 pm

Everyone take a deep breath
Breathe
Breathe......
Breathe...........

There.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion about HTTs (without the emotional epeen measuring)

--TE

(PS: if anyone cares about my lowly opinion, giving Heavy Cloak to HTTs is silly. I like Mastametz's suggestions a few pages ago. Mass changes? Separate TT and HTT so they're researched independently - one highmass/highsig, the other lowmass/lowsig. HTT gets multi-EMP misisles, TT gets 1.)

Compellor · Post by **Compellor** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:18 pm

I'm not sure I understand this EMP missile idea. A HTT with one missile per rack can easily capture a basic tech base, as well as shipyards. One missile with 30KB can capture anything but a starbase (ignoring faction mods and Exp GAs - you'd need too much KB vs TF, IC, and GT Adv techbases, but you'd only need 17KB vs Bios if they don't have base shield GA). The only downside is that if you bring down the shields then get knocked off course, the shields might have time to come back up, but it takes 9 seconds to load a second missile so by the time you're back on course you may have reloaded. Yes, technically we could completely rebalance base shields (or make EMP missile do less damage to major bases, though that could be an issue with IC), but I'm not sure how best to do that, if we should at all. In fact, the biggest disadvantage to having one missile per rack would probably be in terms of mass, in that you can't load yourself down with as many missiles that way.