Exp too powerful?

Discussion / Announcement area for Good Old Days II Core development.
Vlymoxyd
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Québec, Canada
Contact:

Post by Vlymoxyd »

I've been saying that rps are overpowered since 1.24(or actually since MS removed the 5k research)
"Désolé pour les skieurs, moi je veux voir mes fleurs!"
-German teacher

Image
http://www.steelfury.org/
Camaro
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:00 am

Post by Camaro »

Make Miners only damage-able by TAC? WTF?

every game would be tac vs tac which is beyond boring. or it would be both sides gots all the tech cause they are filthy rich.

sounds REALLY fun. Maybe give miners a UTL-01 hull and cons a UTL-02 hull and reduce the damage mini-guns do to the miners but not the cons. that way ints wont be so powerful vs miners.

Tac (and sup to a certain extent) is a delicate creature, as Apoch has shown in his core, missiles can be blatantly overpowered and require neigh-any skill. the so called "Sniper" rifles are more like rifled guns, better range but nothing great. Bump their range to 1.5-2k range and we will see tac being used more... and more effectively! Look at tac on EoR, they arent terribly stealthy while in combat... but man they pack a punch! they can stop an int before it can even get within range (of course if you miss your sorta screwed). This sort of tac play is far more enjoyable and interactive as you actually need to aim a little bit.

Sup? Hmmm... I suppose you could add Long range AB missles or whatever, but those are SOOO overpowered in large games. Perhaps... perhaps in the sup line you could research a special "Supremacy Bomber" which is just a more powerful bomber (The only problem i can see with this is trying to put override codes on both the normal and hvy bombers). Give sup a small cap-ship like boat which is only a support vehicle, 2 AC turrets + 1 hvy nanite turret + pilot. 2 of these things should be able to do a reasonably decent job of keeping the bomber alive while also fending off enemys (figure you would need all these people in nans anyways for a normal bomber). Make these support ships somewhat more vulnerable to Tac weapons to keep the field even.
Image
Image
Blinder
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 7:00 am

Post by Blinder »

No matter the core, the problem is always the same, exactly as KGJV points out. Slash int fuel and see where that gets you. Sig is lower because they're supposed to be the fun surprise the SF finds sitting near the miner, upping it makes them sitting ducks against their intended prey and doesn't (read: shouldn't) matter against sup because you'll have scouts and upped probes all over creation. Tightening sup gun mounts is a side issue, not a way to balance exp (but always good to look at), and giving sup free tech is a red herring as well: EXP gets a big econ but is supposed to start out with just an average territory, so the econ upgrades make it so you can better push outwards (instead of having to grab all you can at once), offsets tac (the runs you do get are better), and helps out against sup (constantly rebuilding OPs/teles/refs). Sup grabs massive territory because they can get full presence anywhere they can prop up a TR (so they can expand with OPs, refs if they have 'em, and TRs while EXP can only really move forward with OPs or tech-OPs) so they *should* have enough sectors to bring in the extra dough, and can very quickly make the exp team think they forgot to buy their upgrades because of how much they spend on OPs (or just bomb them into oblivion from a lot of directions at once which the ints can't handle). Tac has an uphill climb vs. exp because they can't hit miners nearly so easily as vs. sup or other tac and because ints can keep cons clean a lot more easily as well, whereas they can kick sup's legs out from under it (sup can be in a lot of places but it only takes 1 SF to tie up a lot of your team on miner D and con D, and SBs eat TRs for breakfast leaving plenty of folks at home to stop your bombers), but that's beside the point.

Or, at least, that's supposed to be how it works. In reality 300mps multi-sector trips home make it much harder than it is supposed to be for sup to deal with exp, because you're fighting ints in their sectors (well, yeah), the border sectors (but YOU run out of fuel/ammo before THEY do?!?), and to top it off, your back sectors (and they can still make it home in time to greet your bomb runs in a lot of cases). Int-swarms can move from sector to sector VERY quickly meaning earlier on your bombers aren't going to be able to out-maneuver ints, and later on even galv runs get met with most of the other team even if you hit multiple bases at once (wipe one run out and quick transfer to the next sector). Worse still, they can float on into your base sectors and chew you up as soon as you launch (launch animation or no, you're still gonna come out the same door so you're always doomed as long as they can hang out). All of sup's intended counters to ints are horribly horribly vulnerable to... ints (boosting out to a TP probe in plenty of time to kill it, or else it is so far away it doesn't have a chance and once again even multi-drops are hard to make pay off well). Plus, they've devoured your miners! Good luck getting the galvs you were supposed to use to help make the fact that it is hard to push bombers through easier to bear, let alone the caps that were supposed to put EXP centers out of business.

Ints need to be effective, so you can't just make 'em painfully slow or fragile, but IMO they need a big hit to their fuel (re-do accel so they can hit similar speeds and use the boosters for maneuverability and for the initial intercept, but so you can't even dream of having them get you home from another sector) and I'd have a big reduction in minigun damage to utility hull on standby (if you need to kill a con that is being pushed into your sector, kill the escorts and then have someone a) kill it from scouts/bomber, b) blow it up right when it builds as your ints stick around and camp it, or c) let it build and chuck a TT/HTT into it right away). Ints should be the ultimate in small-hull destruction and should chew bombers up as well (though I'm not so sure they need to do as much damage to bomber hulls as they currently do, either). They should be MUCH less effective against utility ships than sup, and should be fighting caps with caps and/or bombers, not *just* an int-swarm.
terrenblade
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:00 am
Location: Flying Invisable Warship
Contact:

Post by terrenblade »

Ints should be SCREWED if you kill the last base in a sector, make them more resistant to rock damage also.

I wana see a failed defense leading to many deaths :EG:
Mad? Oh yes, quite mad.

Vader shot the nans first.
Grimmwolf_GB
Posts: 3709
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Grimmwolf_GB »

I will have a look at it as soon as I got time again... My work is using up all the brains I got (which is not a lot).
KofiMan
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:00 am

Post by KofiMan »

Hmm. Crazy thought..

Nerf mini damage vs. all kinds of shields. Have tougher shields for Miners/Cons.
Grim_Reaper_4u
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands

Post by Grim_Reaper_4u »

we all agree that exp is too cheap and too powerful, so i suggest a few changes which could be made to Exp :

-take out the Yield GA
-make tech more expensive (or sup/tac techs cheaper)
-remove treasures from the game (finding mini2 makes exp comms all wet wink.gif )
-make ints 50-60 mps cruise speed
-less fuel
-much more sig (HTT too, because HTT should be a base camp weapon not a sneaky weapon)
-possibly a turret or 2 for HTT and lots more sig, same as HB
-give miners special hull-type which ints have a hard time killing
-nerf mini dmg vs bomber hull, it's too easy to solo a bomber with mini3 or perk nan2

sounds good doesn't it wink.gif
Death3D
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:49 pm
Location: Panama City, Panama

Post by Death3D »

You guys are approaching this the wrong way. We just have to play bigger maps with less He rocks per sector. So you *actually have to expand* as expansion. Maybe to make stuff be more feasable whilst under this hypothesis, lower base thruster speed for ints (by 20 mps) and up the thruster speed on figs a little (by 10 mps). Figs should be able to hunt miners as easily as they do (just it's obvious they're doing it, high sigs), but miners shouldn't. Make those who do pay a little more of a price, unless their commander expands for them. Hell, if we followed this guideline, we should even raise the fuel content on ints.
You'd still have to "stealth mine" even if you have refs. Just maybe lower the price on TF refs so they can be spammed and are not $#@!ed by this change.

But yeah, more sectors, less he-rocks per sector. Make miner o more of a challenge and start rewarding miner d more (higher miner survival through hiding).
One short sleep past, we wake eternally and Death shalt be no more; Death, thou shalt die! Image
Grimmwolf_GB
Posts: 3709
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Grimmwolf_GB »

Making Exp more expensive might be a way to deal with it. I am not happy with the cheap DN tech, it makes miners less important.
Sorry if this has not moved in a while, I am working on my diploma at the moment.
pkk
Posts: 5417
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Germany, Munich

Post by pkk »

15k to research minigun2/3? huh.gif
The Escapist (Justin Emerson) @ Dec 21 2010, 02:33 PM:
The history of open-source Allegiance is paved with the bodies of dead code branches, forum flame wars, and personal vendettas. But a community remains because people still love the game.
Post Reply