What are the most important balance issues in the core?

[Alien51]

QUOTE (Dorjan @ Jan 31 2011, 03:11 PM) So the unit to unit combat was at what you were going for.. oh boy.

So you say they're completely different? Because StarCraft Heavily uses RPS and C&C didn't follow it so closely?


What's the definition of interceptor?" a fast maneuverable fighter plane "
What's the definition of Fighter? "Fighters are small, fast, and maneuverable"

SO you're trying to make fighters the "tanks" of alleg but failing to realise that both craft are meant to be light.

TL:DR? You're contradicting yourself a little here. Just because in your head, "interceptor" means a fragile thing which shoves off its load and runs away again (which is really what a fighter does currently, abiet slowly) doesn't mean it should be.

I don't know what "TL:DR?" means.

Definition of interceptor you have right, but you forget that that is in relation to other fighter craft.
Definition of fighter you have right, but you forget that that is in relation to all planes.

Trying to make Figs the Superiority Fighters of alleg.
Trying to make Ints the Interceptors of alleg.

QUOTE (Dorjan @ Jan 31 2011, 03:31 PM) Oh I agree, I've said many times (or at least once on the forum) that if alleg supported it, I would opt for ints to have superior firepower, less hull, more speed and less fuel. Meaning they would go faster, dodge better, shoot @#(! dead faster, but run out of steam faster too.

The trouble with that is again the attack on miners, how fast / much fuel is right to change so much of the interceptor?

If Ints become weak enough it will become a battle of positioning. Ints will look for a hole in the defenses, and Figs have to keep a constant defense/Superiority of the area.

QUOTE (sono @ Jan 31 2011, 03:37 PM) You are probably correct; good point. However, unfortunately, due to the limitations of the core engine - unless i am mistaken, correct me - it is not possible to make ints a shorter range ship unless you mess up their booster (i.e. ridiculously small bottles requiring a reload like every 10sec)
I'm not sure i want that..

We could instead mess up or remove Figs' relation to boosters and buff their base speed; and then make Ints' boosters what we want.

[Icky]

QUOTE (Mastametz @ Jan 31 2011, 03:59 PM) Carrier bomb

...because with perked mini and hull, it'll be super hard to focus fire on the bomb train?

[SpaceJunk]

If you make them virtually blind, they will have a hard time loitering around without a scout escort, and allow miner and bomber nans to stay uneyed for longer.

[Icky]

QUOTE (SpaceJunk @ Jan 31 2011, 04:38 PM) If you make them virtually blind, they will have a hard time loitering around without a scout escort, and allow miner and bomber nans to stay uneyed for longer.

Because a base being bombed won't eye the nans?

[Mastametz]

As it is, theoretically a team can spike a bomber with mini1 ints despite number of nans if they just ram if away from nans and shoot it.
But this type of thing doesn't happen anymore.
Because people play like @#(!.
If you carrier bomb and the bomber humps the carrier and the nans hump the bomber, appropriately
ints are going to overboost into prox/get ripped by turrets

[Jimen]

QUOTE (Dorjan @ Jan 31 2011, 12:11 PM) They have, sometimes it is lost in the noise. For example, Viru has countlessly said that one failing of sup teams is the lack of Carriers being used. Now that might be an underlying balance issue but if you have a carrier push at the enh fig stage you're good to go even vs mini2 ints assuming equal skill. Ints have a very hard time hurting the carrier so it will take a while to fall (assuming a 10-15 vs 10-15 type game) the figs will have lead indicators for the voobs and near infinate missiles if they choose to DM on the way to the target.

The main issue with the balance between sup and exp is the way people want to play their games. Sup seems to be "lets defend until galvs" instead of "lets get bombers, and upgraded bomber tech and carrier bomb the $#@!ers"

I personally blame glavs for that @#(!e but hey ho, I don't cry about it just observe. I maybe wrong, who knows. All I do know is that people think sup isn't as fun as exp because of the way people fly sup. If you have a commander who is using sup like I outlined above, your team will think sup is fun. Lots of action and the game will be decided in 30 mins as either a monumental $#@! up or a win. Shorter games (mostly, there are ofc exceptions) make for more fun games. More action condenced into shorter times.

This ofc is forgetting TAC but that's another issue

I think the general reluctance to play sup like it's supposed to be played is because it's difficult, and there's very few really competent commanders about. I'll gladly build a carrier now and then, but to use it correctly takes a level of understanding that I don't quite have yet. Compared to exp, which sometimes feels like it's just "push a base, spam `am, and babysit miners until hvy ints to come up", carrier management feels like wasted effort for the new comms.

QUOTE (Mastametz @ Jan 31 2011, 03:45 PM) Double their fuel consumption, double their sig, buff minigun damage 20% and increase int hull 20%

I actually kinda like that, since it limits exp's ability to screw around with an enemy econ and makes it a bit easier for the foe to quickly reach the late-game techs where their true strength lies, but exp's own low costs and great econ perks still give it an edge.

[Mastametz]

I do like this general idea in a hypothetical sense, I don't really know how it would be balanced though. It would make one problem a million times worse - opening op push. As it is every serious SG on CC is ic vs dreg or ic vs ic, because the initial 5 minutes can easily decide the outcome of the entire game. Starting with light ints is a HUGE advantage, and if int damage/hull get buffed (and any number of nerfs to compensate) there would be no way to ever stop an opening op push to enemy home, or opening miner rush. But I guess you could balance that out giving ic and dreg starting figs instead of light ints. I'm not really campaigning for anything, just throwing around ideas.

[Dorjan]

We could just make all factions start with figs

QUOTE (Alien51 @ Jan 31 2011, 09:34 PM) Trying to make Figs the Superiority Fighters of alleg.
Trying to make Ints the Interceptors of alleg.


If Ints become weak enough it will become a battle of positioning. Ints will look for a hole in the defenses, and Figs have to keep a constant defense/Superiority of the area.

I think you think too much of "formations" which work in aerial combat but not in space. If ints were made faster, with more firepower and figs were made slower but tougher all you do is make figs even less fun to play and ints that much more fun. The balance would go way in the favour of ints again too.

[Alien51]

QUOTE (Dorjan @ Jan 31 2011, 06:55 PM) I think you think too much of "formations" which work in aerial combat but not in space. If ints were made faster, with more firepower and figs were made slower but tougher all you do is make figs even less fun to play and ints that much more fun. The balance would go way in the favour of ints again too.

But Ints would require more skill to fly. No more get as close as you can and shoot till something pops, cause you'd pop first.

[Jimen]

QUOTE (Alien51 @ Jan 31 2011, 07:09 PM) But Ints would require more skill to fly. No more get as close as you can and shoot till something pops, cause you'd pop first.

Perhaps we should ask one of the good dogfighters of Alleg to give their comments on int skill requirements, rather than Alien $#@!ing 51? Just a thought