Cheap caps

Discussion / Announcement area for Allegiance Plus Core development.
madpeople
Posts: 4787
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:00 am
Location: England

Post by madpeople »

yeah, but everyone plays dn so much more in the past, as far as they know, all sy works the same way...
Last edited by madpeople on Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Spunkmeyer
Posts: 2013
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Contact me regarding: CC, Slayer and AllegWiki.

Post by Spunkmeyer »

Thanks for all the responses. Basically I think there is a whole tech tree there that screams for more use.

Pook:

I think getting the cap to rip to TP2 is a bigger problem...and in any case we can tweak the rip time.

Tmc:

Yes, Plus caps are not easily nanned, so weaker MFs and Cruisers would
essentially be either a) dog food B) going back to nan trains. That needs to be
addressed in the final design, whatever it'd be.

Raveen:

I think I would keep things the same as much as I can
because I don't see a problem with the basic setup requiring a
secondary base. I don't want to invent an independent tech path
that doesn't require a special rock.

I don't think unfamiliarity is a long term issue, but cost and strength
are. Of strength, the problem is advanced tech is so good it gets it done
without needing caps, and once you realize you are stuck without caps - you
don't have any money for them! So it boils down to cost again.

Badger:

We are talking classic Alleg/Plus shipyard, not DN shipyard.

Terra:

Plus caps are balanced vs all three techs. They are good vs tac and exp, ok vs sup.
So that's not much of a problem.

Regardless though, you may have a very good idea there. Level 3 ships in Drydock??
That'd instantly make shipyard VERY popular.

Pedro:

Again that's DN stuff.. classic Allegiance shipyard is different. But I'm thinking of
something along those lines. Money per nuke could be a very good idea. This ties in what
TMC said: there is no sense in making base destroyers too much like bombers, so MF and Cruiser
should keep their relative strengths (although I think we can safely lower Cruiser HP to about 4500
since it's super heavy hull and keep its functionality intact, and significantly chop the price)
We can still make them even cheaper and add $ cost to each nuke to make it expensive to go all out with them, but they'd be cheap for single base kills.

Keep them coming.. I'll mull on this some more and post a prototype for us to discuss.
Last edited by Spunkmeyer on Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.


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.

Pook
Posts: 1757
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Texas, USA

Post by Pook »

Spunky - you can multi-quote on this board it's coo.

ps - what no response to my uber caps? mrgreen.gif
Image
Spunkmeyer
Posts: 2013
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Contact me regarding: CC, Slayer and AllegWiki.

Post by Spunkmeyer »

That new fangled electronic quoting tech you got there is too much for old timers such as myself tongue.gif


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.

Badger
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:00 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Badger »

nm mrgreen.gif
Last edited by Badger on Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
madpeople
Posts: 4787
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:00 am
Location: England

Post by madpeople »

get someone to make a sy faction, that really needs sy to combat it, sup would be ok, but skyripper < galvs..

then people will play sy more, they may even like it.

unless it genuinely is broken

sy vs sy matches...
wizard58
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Romania

Post by wizard58 »

Just 1 question can u add automated turret's to a ship?
If yes just think a bit a 1 man devastator with 3-4 auto turrets , can that be done ?
Or a assault carrier from witch u can launch ships not just rip to it, but u have to be on board the carrier wen it's docked to be able to launch from it afterwards and can only sustain about 4 ships in the dock bay , or just make carrier's carry drone ships like the ones nix use ; i mean that is the normal purpose of a carrier isn't it ?
This may sound stupid to some people but i really don't care what they think if this will improve game play. doh.gif

laugh.gif
Image
madpeople
Posts: 4787
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:00 am
Location: England

Post by madpeople »

code change
Weylin
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:00 am

Post by Weylin »

How would it work out if capitals were geared towards sheer survivability, and not damage output?

To give the main forward gun a skyripper, and the turrets low velocity (400mps or so) heavy cannons that are capable of galv type damage, but ineffective against small ships.

For disruptors to be nerfed, nannite effectiveness increased, and for the capital ships survival to depend on defenders.



So, in short, a squad of 5 small craft would have a better damage output than the 1 pilot and 4 gunners in a capital ship, BUT, the capital ship would outlive the 5 ships in a large fight.




I don't know, I just don't like how capitals are a "kill everything in 1 second" or "get dis'd down in half a second" thing.
Camaro
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:00 am

Post by Camaro »

Well Weylin, the Spidey rock was sorta that.

Except it had 18 turrets.

Was fairly useless though... it could block alephs or ramkill giggleops with 10kms of speed gains.
Image
Image
Post Reply