Exp too powerful?

Discussion / Announcement area for Good Old Days II Core development.
Grimmwolf_GB
Posts: 3709
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Grimmwolf_GB »

I was told that Exp is too strong or SUp/Tac too weak on the core.
What is your experience and what exactly would you consider to be the cause and possible fix?
KGJV
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Transilvania

Post by KGJV »

Depends on whay they mean by "Exp is too strong".

Original gameplay design of 3 paths was as follow (always good to remind what it should be):

Exp : expand with strong economy by building everywhere (pushing). has strong defense (ints) to protect territories. capture the ennemy bases at the end. it's what 'expansion' means (the word not the tech).

Sup: dominate the ennemy by killing their sectors (bomb). it's what 'supremacy' means (the word). It's all about hitting "hard & strong".

Tac: stealth tech to kill the ennemy economy and then stealth bombing their bases. Hence the word 'tactical'.

This is the 'basic' gameplay of each tech. That means if you go sup it is to bomb and wipe the ennemy out of the map, if you go exp it is to develop a strong economy to expand all over the map leaving "no space" to the ennemy. You ints are only here to defend your bases. If you go tac it is to kill right away the ennemy economy.

Problem is that almost no one follow these basics:
They all play a mix of 'expansion + tactical' (tacspan). That is they 'expand' (covering the map) while trying to kill ennemy economy (killing miners).

So with this kind of playstyle, exp tech is king because of ints range : you can kill the ennemy econ with ints like you do with sfs because ints can fly 2 or 3 sectors away (fuel). So why bother with tac or sup ? Exp can do it all.

Also exp is self sufficient, provide great cash and it includes good counters (notabily pulse probe vs tac/tp2)
Sup requires hb/adv scout/tp1/shields (sm2/3 & med2/3) from starbase to get 'better'.
Tac requires sup for ab2/missile dmg/missile track and/or exp for ship sig/pw range (for rix station pods).

On top of that exp provides the best econ (he3 GAs and adv miners).

The only exp weakness (or counter tech) is shipyard but then again it often fail because of cost and 'aleph camping' or how a single prox can ruin a cap shield (again "prox" tech is in exp...). (hence the need of 'one side' resonators)

So whatever you try to balance a core by tuning only 'numbers', exp will always be strong because of all these.

The way fix to do is really to reduce greatly ints range by cutting their fuel. Ints should be only efficient in their own sectors.
Or to enhance greatly other techs, like giving free HB/adv scout with adv sup for instance and free sm2/3 with enh/adv figs. And ab2/3 in tac/adv tac as well as ship sig.
Or a way to keep tac&sup in balance with exp econ (he3 gas/adv miners).

Well nothing really new here, this has been discussed for 7 years now and still havent changed.
Image
beeman
Posts: 630
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:01 am
Location: Huntsville, AL

Post by beeman »

Can't a team still get bbrs from the Garri? This means someone that goes EXP could get bbrs and HTT. Why not make it so EXP could only capture bases....SUP can ony bomb, and TAC can only SB. Make a unique base killing technology for the Garri. Also, I agree that the int is a bit too powerful.
Image
"What if, star sailor, I were to come over your house and punch you in the $#@!ing face?!
Will that finally get you to shut the hell up?!?" -- neotoxin
TheBored
Posts: 4680
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:00 am
Location: At my desk staring at my monitor...

Post by TheBored »

Drop the scan range on ints with a small drop in fuel, see how that goes. Boost up Sup so figs can actually kill things within a reasonable amount of time. I love the hate that I'll get by saying this, but some of DN's sup changes are really, really nice. Half price tech along with gats that don't suck? Yes please. Since I play mostly squad games only these days, I've been playing a majority of my games on GoD. I played a PU game on DN the othere night and I was practically in live with the fighters since I could actually kill something wub.gif

Create a techpath that *cant* kill miners or cons and you have just created a techpath that has no purpose in Allegiance. If we wanted an expansion complex by the definition that Kage provided, you'd need to let exp build more cons at once or something I guess. With things set up as they are, Tac can expand just as well as Exp. Rather than redefining basic gameplay, how about we just stick to the gameplay that we have grown to love over the years?

TB
Image
spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Nov 28 2008, 02:50 PM) All the retards are contained in one squad mostly (System X)
[18:48] <Imago> dont take me seriously
aem
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Post by aem »

KGJV wrote:
QUOTE (KGJV @ Jul 29 2007, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The way fix to do is really to reduce greatly ints range by cutting their fuel. Ints should be only efficient in their own sectors.


First of all. I've never really played GoD. I've hardly played at all for a long time due to problems with R3. My take is ints should be very efficient in their own sectors, but much less effective the farther away they get. Cutting their fuel is one option. But I'd do things a little differently. The fact is that on about every core I've played exp does not play like exp was really intended. Sure its really up to core devs to make their cores how they want. But I personally would like to see exp changed quite a bit.

Ints were never supposed to be able to go 2-3 sectors away and rape miners. Definitely not. They should have major difficulty traveling more than to just adjacent sectors. I think I'd aim to have them have a very low top speed, perhaps 60mps at the most. Have them retain enough fuel so that they can power their way plenty to defend their sectors. But they will run out of fuel if they are trying to get to other sectors quickly. They would have some mobility with light boosters for travel and for escorting cons but still crippled the father they get from home. Raise their sig so they can't sneak up on miners as easily. That is tacs job.

Yeah that means to be successful with exp you need to defend your sectors with your superior firepower. Push bases far deeper with exp than you can with tac or sup. Power your way around, take the strongest attacking sectors on the map, and cut off enemy expansion. To defeat exp you cut off their income by killing their economy or surprising them, especially when they have large amounts of ints not so close to a base.

With sup, you can expand quicker and to more sectors. Fighters can teleport around the map with ease and are far more mobile and agile than ints of sfs. Overwhelm the enemy with large groups of attackers before they can get prepared. To defeat sup you can cut them off and overpower them with exp or ruin their economy and sb them with tac.

With tac, you are all about stealthiness, taking out miners, and intercepting cons. You have the weakest defense, at least until you get adv tech so you need to be careful and keep the enemy poor and do your best to stop their cons from giving them sectors to attack from. Finish them off with well coordinated SB attacks. To beat tac you take extra care with your miners and cons, provide superior escorts with your cons to get sectors to attack from, and then overpower them.

To sum the exp issue up, I think it basically comes down to them getting too close to sup and tac. They can sneak around too easily, allowing little time to defend against attacks, and they are too mobile compared to fighters.
Last edited by aem on Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vlymoxyd
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Québec, Canada
Contact:

Post by Vlymoxyd »

Well, I somewhat agree with KGJV here. Exp with less fuel could still own the enemy econ by pushing ops in enemy sectors.

The half price on many sup tech is something MS should have done very early in alleg developement imo.
I'd also like the faster con building upgrade. maybe switch enh con and miners to exp and reduce con and miner build time for enh and even more for adv.

I personally never really liked that exp is a no weakness techpath.
"Désolé pour les skieurs, moi je veux voir mes fleurs!"
-German teacher

Image
http://www.steelfury.org/
KGJV
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Transilvania

Post by KGJV »

Other way to view things could be:

do he3 GAs really belong to "expansion" ? doest this make sens ? Should this be a 'garrison' technology instead ?
same for adv miners ?

Also ships comparison:

'expansion' has no missiles and shield so basically you only need to buy the guns (mini). the ship 'strong med hull' come for free.
sup & tac requires to buy the guns and missiles and shields.

So with exp u get more money but you need to spend less to fully equip your ships, leaving more cash for building ops/teles or other tech. It becomes almost a 'must have' tech.

So something is not well balanced here.

Mini2 should cost 10K+ may be? or make "gatt2+df2+sm2" the same price of mini2 ?
same for 'lrm2 +utl2+snip1".

Point is to keep balance between 'what u get for same amount of cash'.

Other way of viewing :

With current balance, it looks like we have not the choice from 3 paths but rather 4 classes of tech: gar, exp, sup or tac, sy.
That is exp isnt in the same class than sup & tac. It's much like if sup & tac are just secondary techs.
And it's not because only of the ints but because of the exp GAs and perks (pulse and prox are terrible tech) too.
Image
rojomojo915
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Post by rojomojo915 »

well i think the reason the econ ga's are in the exp is because you are supposed to be spending more $$$ by spamming ops all over the place
Image
Image
Sycrus
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:04 am
Location: California

Post by Sycrus »

rojomojo915 wrote:
QUOTE (rojomojo915 @ Jul 29 2007, 08:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
well i think the reason the econ ga's are in the exp is because you are supposed to be spending more $$$ by spamming ops all over the place

very mucha likea comment

I hate comms who spam tp's everywhere when you have hints....


/me looks away.... tongue.gif
NakPPI@XT wrote:QUOTE (NakPPI@XT @ Oct 7 2008, 03:50 PM) I didn't log in to allegiance to be taunted by some keyboard warrior that gets off by bragging about the size of his nuts in a 10 year old video game
asheron2k
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Texas

Post by asheron2k »

rojomojo915 wrote:
QUOTE (rojomojo915 @ Jul 29 2007, 10:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
well i think the reason the econ ga's are in the exp is because you are supposed to be spending more $$$ by spamming ops all over the place

Wouldn't the appropriate solution be to give exp a type of unique ultra lt op(preferably a cheaper half hull giga lt op with smaller scan range) instead of giving them added economic potency?
Clay_Pigeon wrote:QUOTE(Clay_Pigeon @ May 13 2008, 08:24 PM) can i post a story about my cat flying an elf?
Post Reply