GoD II

Discussion / Announcement area for Good Old Days II Core development.
Paradigm2
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:00 am
Location: College Station, TX

Post by Paradigm2 »

I used a rixian int bomb/ tt rush to defeat Masta's GT PT bomber rush the other night... you just need a determined team.
-Paradigm2
Vipur24
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Florida

Post by Vipur24 »

I was there... OH BTW G.o.D. PWNZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Immz says " Can you not $#@!ing read Bacon? ENGLISH MOTHER$#@!ER! DO YOU READ IT? I even bolded it out for you. Sheesh. "
Adaven
Posts: 1958
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Greater Ozarks

Post by Adaven »

I think an important part of what makes ints/tt almost impossible is that the requirement of mounting an emp significantly weakens your teams ability to camp.

Ints start emp-ing shields
Defenders launch
1) Ints have 1-2 less guns to whore defenders, some slip by to attack tt
2) voobs don't dismount/reassign emp when switching to engage the launching defenders, thier aim gets messed up, and more defenders slip by
3) Since 1) & 2) means it requires more ints to hold the defenders at bay, there's a good chance they'll all start chasing the lauching defenders and the tt will bounce off of the regenerated shields.


To get this to work, it not only requires an inordanite amount of teamwork (compared to the average 4 man htt run), but you also have to maintain the right balance between ints beating the enemy off your tt and ints beating down the base's shields so you can actually get in.

Different suggestions that might help:
-make emp projectiles travel at the same speed as minigun particles, so ints have to worry about less when things get crazy. This will also result in emp getting used more in general, which I think is good.
-increase emp damage to base shields. That way commanders can just say " Ints w,x,y, & z take care of the shields and the rest whore them into submission", without having to worry that the shields are down in time. My reasoning: 1 int mounting emps should be worth ~ 1 emp missle.
Dengaroth
Posts: 3329
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 7:00 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
Contact:

Post by Dengaroth »

Agreed on both counts.

(emp cannons have had those changes in EoR for a while now, it does make them a lot more useful)
Image
Image
RT: The number of typical responses decreases exponentially as the number of joke options increases.
Image
Grimmwolf_GB
Posts: 3709
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Grimmwolf_GB »

The core needs more play time to weed out the bugs, before I introduce new ones.

Your suggestions are very good, adaven. I will think about implementing them.
So far the (non-adv.)exp branch was lacking a good stand-alone base attack. It could also be fun to do that kind of attacks and that's what it is all about. smile.gif
Last edited by Grimmwolf_GB on Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Patman3
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Patman3 »

EMP changes sound nice, but have you considered what it could do to belter sup? Galv+EMP on every fig would hurt a lot, especially since it takes no energy from your galvs.
Grimmwolf_GB
Posts: 3709
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Grimmwolf_GB »

Do belts already mount EMP cannons, I hardly ever see EMP cannons picked up, let alone bought by anyone? One could disable them for Belters to avoid that.
Good point. smile.gif
Spunkmeyer
Posts: 2013
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Contact me regarding: CC, Slayer and AllegWiki.

Post by Spunkmeyer »

That's not all. I don't know if this is in Plus Release 7 but in the latest release miniguns do more damage against giga light hulls. If you boost emp, you need to lower that back down.

I still think int + tt is a wash, but I would support trying to make it work.


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.

Zapper
Posts: 1306
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Denmark

Post by Zapper »

Request:
in Construction: could we change the order Con's are chosen. The TP is down in the bottom and should be up by the Ligth station's.

in F3(ship GUI): the new ship's are placed in the top so scouts and other redeveloped ships are going to the bottom, could we arrange places for the ships to go from Ligth(on top of list) to Hwy(in the bottom).

Im sorry if this is always requested, im lazy...
Zap
Last edited by Zapper on Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Life suck's and then u play Alleg.
-.. ..- -.- . -. ..- -.- . .----. . -- .. ... - .... . --. .-. . .- - . ... -
Image
madpeople
Posts: 4787
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:00 am
Location: England

Post by madpeople »

Zapper wrote:
QUOTE (Zapper @ Sep 1 2006, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
in F3(ship GUI): the new ship's are placed in the top so scouts and other redeveloped ships are going to the bottom, could we arrange places for the ships to go from Ligth(on top of list) to Hwy(in the bottom).

??

do you mean f4 in base? - ship selection screen

f3 is minimap
Post Reply