This is mostly inspired after talking to drunk weedy and also being slightly intoxicated myself, but after ruminating on the ideas that came out, hell they started to make a lot of sense.
-Remove Fighter/bombers, they don't fit in with what Allegiance gameplay means. Everything you do in Alleg, if it involves destroying a base, does not, or rarely involves throwing as many people as you can at it until it dies. The exception to that theme is stealth bombers. Do we really need two exceptions?
-Remove XRM. See above.
-Lower the sig of TP2 from 1000. You know they're adv sup and starbase? How do you counter tp2? Fly above grid and drop 1 $#@!ing ews1 probe. Then get 2 people that know what they're doing to sit around outside your base and masturbate for 15 or so long ass minutes until the drop happens. TP2 should be lower sig so that it can be used for more than just a way to get 15 suicide bombers passed a camp. Raise the cost per probe to like the price of a giga tele ish (2k seems fair if its stealthier).
-Increase the acceleration, speed, and agility of Heavy Bombers. They need more than just more hull, they need to be able to get to their AB Range faster and be able to avoid rams like you could with the old HTTs.
-Add nan3 to sup. Spiking is a stupid, stupid concept. 7 people should not be able to stop the effort of 15 people by just maneuvering into a position where they can right click the threat away.
-Buff DM11 from being .85 vs med hull to 1 vs med hull. DM11 contains the AC turrets. AC3 + Nan3 + SS3 + Heavy bombers = No more spiking, TEAMWORK actually required to Bomb and Defend from bomb runs, $#@!ing beautiful 10 nan bomb runs with 2 bombers instead of 16 people in a fighter bomber boosting at a base. A lower sig (like 300 or 400) TP2 means that having a bomb run appear from behind a rock has more tension to it, and it becomes a sheer battle of skill, rather than who can hold down boost and right click at a base.
Makes the game harder and more interesting... Well that's the allegiance I would rather see rather than this fighter/bomber @#(!.
Radical Balancing Ideas
I like your ideas of perking hvy bombers and AC, nan, but i don't like the whole "remove a path from the tech tree". What i like of alleg most is that there are a lot of ways to win a game, and having one more with hvy bombers and such would be really fun.
Perhaps you could nerf fbs in order for them to require more teamwork, something like slowing them down or giving them less damage output (something like pt bombers) would make them need some support in form of distractions, fig escorts or even nanning if someone wants to. It also would make for a less "spikable" bomber and would work better against sup than against exp (slower fbs = easy targets for mini3 ints).
Maybe those ideas aren't good, but my point is that you should not remove some way to end the game
.
Perhaps you could nerf fbs in order for them to require more teamwork, something like slowing them down or giving them less damage output (something like pt bombers) would make them need some support in form of distractions, fig escorts or even nanning if someone wants to. It also would make for a less "spikable" bomber and would work better against sup than against exp (slower fbs = easy targets for mini3 ints).
Maybe those ideas aren't good, but my point is that you should not remove some way to end the game
.
ACS grad since 2nd Feb. 2010I think I was being a bit facetious 
Interesting ideas....
I do like flying in Figbee runs, and defending against them can be kind of fun (especially now they've slowed down) however I do take your point that Figbee runs don't quite fit in the alleg way. And some of it sounds pretty plausible...but my repeated refrain about length of games increasing comes to mind....if you make every endgame too difficult 2hr games become the norm.....and not in the good way.
Interesting thoughts though.
hmmm - this would require some thought on my part....
*notjarvis looks very pensive
Interesting ideas....
I do like flying in Figbee runs, and defending against them can be kind of fun (especially now they've slowed down) however I do take your point that Figbee runs don't quite fit in the alleg way. And some of it sounds pretty plausible...but my repeated refrain about length of games increasing comes to mind....if you make every endgame too difficult 2hr games become the norm.....and not in the good way.
Interesting thoughts though.
hmmm - this would require some thought on my part....
*notjarvis looks very pensive
Well, let's not forget that the Fighter/Bomber was the idea of a cabal of individuals (Noir and people Noir trusted) as a solution to get more people to play Supremacy instead of every game being IC Expansion, because let's face it, IC Expansion is the one strategy that persists because it works due to their ripping miners (A whole other can of worms to be opened elsewhere).
People don't bomb as much as they used to, and it's mainly because skilled players that dislike bombing or ending a game within the first 10-15 minutes have talked down bombing like it's an invalid way to go about playing a game. As a result that entire flavour of command strategy is dangerously close to dying out. I would love to see life injected back into the old school way of playing Alleg, which is why fighter/bombers completely fly against everything I like because for what it's worth, I played my newbie games before fighter/bombers saw the mainstream use they have now. I enjoyed those games far more, as it had more teamwork and intensity in them, components that are key to Allegiance.
People don't bomb as much as they used to, and it's mainly because skilled players that dislike bombing or ending a game within the first 10-15 minutes have talked down bombing like it's an invalid way to go about playing a game. As a result that entire flavour of command strategy is dangerously close to dying out. I would love to see life injected back into the old school way of playing Alleg, which is why fighter/bombers completely fly against everything I like because for what it's worth, I played my newbie games before fighter/bombers saw the mainstream use they have now. I enjoyed those games far more, as it had more teamwork and intensity in them, components that are key to Allegiance.
Last edited by Drizzo on Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Oct 16 2010, 02:48 AM) Interceptors are fun because without one, Drizzo would be physically incapable of entering a sector.
Any job worth doing with a laser is worth doing with many, many lasers. -Khrima
Beyond a shadow of a doubt if you don't watch them like a hawk they will stack their collective balls off - MrChaos on Alleg players
Beyond a shadow of a doubt if you don't watch them like a hawk they will stack their collective balls off - MrChaos on Alleg players
Before I go on with the rest of this post Drizzo, let me make it clear that I'm not bashing your idea. I just want you to expand on the reasoning behind your suggestions a bit more so I can make sense of them.
Right now:TP2 has 1000 sig and is usually spotted except by lousy teams which deserve to lose anyways.Defenders normally don't get to the probe in time to stop the run from ripping in.It takes about 4/5 of a team to both attack and defend with F/B runs.FBs are fast and tough enough to get to the base before the defenders can slaughter them.FBs don't shoot back and defenders will only die if they ram prox/minepack.This supposedly counters the toughness of FBs.The FBs have to get in range to launch at least the first missile, or two if many FBs have died.Success depends on enough people surviving to get in range and fire.The base usually dies assuming enough FBs have ripped in. The above is variable depending on how many good whores are around on the defending team.
Your suggestion:TP2 would have a reduced sig and may not be eyed by the average team (300% sig is 1500m max range by an EWS1).Defenders still wouldn't have time to get to the probe and stop the team from ripping in. The chances of this are actually reduced from current.It would still take about 4/5 of a team to attack (have enough nans) and ideally you'd want just as many to stop them.Hvy bombers and their nans would be faster and able to get to the base before the defenders can slaughter them.The bomber(s) will have turrets (at the cost of nans) that can destroy the defenders as well as prox from the scouts.This supposedly counters the fragile nans and relatively smaller runs (due to turrets).The bomb run still has to get in range to damage the base, but now has to stay in range long enough to fire several missiles and possibly even reload.Success depends on enough nans surviving to keep the bomber(s) alive through their missile launches.The base will usually die assuming enough nans have ripped in.The above is variable depending on how many good whores are around on the defending team.
To me it just sounds like doing the same thing, but differently. Some thoughts:
For starters, I'm not sure I like the idea of nan3 for a couple of reasons. First because TF already mounts the equivalent (dual nans on adv/hvy scouts) and they still seem to fail at runs, though I chalk that up to nan pilot failure more than anything, and secondly because any sort of offense against miners, carriers, caps, etc. will become that much harder. On the same note I agree something similar would be needed to survive mini3 spiking. While typing this I remembered the last time spiking came up for discussion and that one of our options was to move bombers into their own armor class. This would let us adjust spike damage from missiles & mini without causing any collateral nerfing to something else like miner offense and may be a better solution instead.
Second, I'm curious to know how you see the new low-signature TP2 probe working. I'd say 95% of the TP2 drops I see are about 3-4K from the base and are not destroyed before the run can rip in. I'm assuming that you want to ensure that the runs can't be stopped at the probe except by sheer luck (of somebody being within 2K of it)?
Third, I'd like to know just how much faster (or slower compared to the current FB runs) you want to see your TP2 bomb runs move at. Specifically, how much more time do you want the defenders to have? Worth noting here that TP2 drops are probably still going to be done behind rocks at 3-4K, and that nan scouts are significantly more fragile than Fighter/Bombers. On a side note, if we go this route I'd suggest making med shield 3 work the same as the current small shield 3: As a sup-only tech. SS2 and MS2 could also be moved to sup to encourage sup commanders to buy them, though I would look at this later.
Fourth, factions that can consistently ram their bombers are going to be at an advantage for time. Belters with their fighter nans are also going to be at a significant advantage because their runs will be much harder to stop, between the toughness of fignans and the sheer speed of their bombers. Also worth remembering for this and point #3 that some of the defenders will be destroyed by the turrets in the process. In this regards I think turrets will definitely be worth the two nan slots they take up. I'm not sure if we should give AC a damage perk however, since that also perks skycap and ints have enough trouble dealing with capships as it is. This is something I'd have to get a lot of feedback on before I made up my mind.
Fifth, do you see these TP2 bomb runs being more or less successful than the current FB runs? There are many people that complain about how unstoppable FBs are most of the time, especially compared to regular bomber runs. On the other hand, FB runs are game ending tech that end games so they don't drag on for hours and hours. I'm curious to know which school of thought you support here.
Right now:TP2 has 1000 sig and is usually spotted except by lousy teams which deserve to lose anyways.Defenders normally don't get to the probe in time to stop the run from ripping in.It takes about 4/5 of a team to both attack and defend with F/B runs.FBs are fast and tough enough to get to the base before the defenders can slaughter them.FBs don't shoot back and defenders will only die if they ram prox/minepack.This supposedly counters the toughness of FBs.The FBs have to get in range to launch at least the first missile, or two if many FBs have died.Success depends on enough people surviving to get in range and fire.The base usually dies assuming enough FBs have ripped in. The above is variable depending on how many good whores are around on the defending team.
Your suggestion:TP2 would have a reduced sig and may not be eyed by the average team (300% sig is 1500m max range by an EWS1).Defenders still wouldn't have time to get to the probe and stop the team from ripping in. The chances of this are actually reduced from current.It would still take about 4/5 of a team to attack (have enough nans) and ideally you'd want just as many to stop them.Hvy bombers and their nans would be faster and able to get to the base before the defenders can slaughter them.The bomber(s) will have turrets (at the cost of nans) that can destroy the defenders as well as prox from the scouts.This supposedly counters the fragile nans and relatively smaller runs (due to turrets).The bomb run still has to get in range to damage the base, but now has to stay in range long enough to fire several missiles and possibly even reload.Success depends on enough nans surviving to keep the bomber(s) alive through their missile launches.The base will usually die assuming enough nans have ripped in.The above is variable depending on how many good whores are around on the defending team.
To me it just sounds like doing the same thing, but differently. Some thoughts:
For starters, I'm not sure I like the idea of nan3 for a couple of reasons. First because TF already mounts the equivalent (dual nans on adv/hvy scouts) and they still seem to fail at runs, though I chalk that up to nan pilot failure more than anything, and secondly because any sort of offense against miners, carriers, caps, etc. will become that much harder. On the same note I agree something similar would be needed to survive mini3 spiking. While typing this I remembered the last time spiking came up for discussion and that one of our options was to move bombers into their own armor class. This would let us adjust spike damage from missiles & mini without causing any collateral nerfing to something else like miner offense and may be a better solution instead.
Second, I'm curious to know how you see the new low-signature TP2 probe working. I'd say 95% of the TP2 drops I see are about 3-4K from the base and are not destroyed before the run can rip in. I'm assuming that you want to ensure that the runs can't be stopped at the probe except by sheer luck (of somebody being within 2K of it)?
Third, I'd like to know just how much faster (or slower compared to the current FB runs) you want to see your TP2 bomb runs move at. Specifically, how much more time do you want the defenders to have? Worth noting here that TP2 drops are probably still going to be done behind rocks at 3-4K, and that nan scouts are significantly more fragile than Fighter/Bombers. On a side note, if we go this route I'd suggest making med shield 3 work the same as the current small shield 3: As a sup-only tech. SS2 and MS2 could also be moved to sup to encourage sup commanders to buy them, though I would look at this later.
Fourth, factions that can consistently ram their bombers are going to be at an advantage for time. Belters with their fighter nans are also going to be at a significant advantage because their runs will be much harder to stop, between the toughness of fignans and the sheer speed of their bombers. Also worth remembering for this and point #3 that some of the defenders will be destroyed by the turrets in the process. In this regards I think turrets will definitely be worth the two nan slots they take up. I'm not sure if we should give AC a damage perk however, since that also perks skycap and ints have enough trouble dealing with capships as it is. This is something I'd have to get a lot of feedback on before I made up my mind.
Fifth, do you see these TP2 bomb runs being more or less successful than the current FB runs? There are many people that complain about how unstoppable FBs are most of the time, especially compared to regular bomber runs. On the other hand, FB runs are game ending tech that end games so they don't drag on for hours and hours. I'm curious to know which school of thought you support here.
I chalk this up to "who the hell buys adv scouts as TF". People talk about dual nans on the forum like they're totally super broken, but they're really not that much better, and you'll find that the people who actually play games hardly ever buy 'em (although that may change under CC_09; I've heard people theorizing that thanks to the ramascout's ridiculous model, TF hvy scouts might end up being the next Rix hvy scouts).Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ Apr 22 2010, 01:33 PM) For starters, I'm not sure I like the idea of nan3 for a couple of reasons. First because TF already mounts the equivalent (dual nans on adv/hvy scouts) and they still seem to fail at runs, though I chalk that up to nan pilot failure more than anything, and secondly because any sort of offense against miners, carriers, caps, etc. will become that much harder.
Regarding figbees, I feel like they'd be just fine if not for tp2, and Xer's point of "well then how else will people end games!?" falls flat precisely because of that - other techpaths make do without tp2 somehow. If figbees had to fly through alephs, avoid eye till the last second, and/or launch from a freshly-pushed base, figbee runs wouldn't really be that much different (in terms of gameplay role, anyway) from int bombing. With tp2, though, the figbee pilots don't have to do @#(! other than press Insert when the attack order's given, hold boost when the rip finishes, and start right-clicking when they get close enough; the tension and hard work of sneaking multiple 100+% sig ships into a sector and setting up is reduced to just sneaking one 50% sig adv scout in there.
The nan3 could be a nice option, and balanced if:
1 - Only mountable on Hvy Scouts
2 - It costs a little money (100-200) so it is not infinitely scalable.
1 - Only mountable on Hvy Scouts
2 - It costs a little money (100-200) so it is not infinitely scalable.
Terran wrote:QUOTE (Terran @ Jan 20 2011, 03:56 PM) i'm like adept
Broodwich wrote:QUOTE (Broodwich @ Jun 6 2010, 10:19 PM) if you spent as much time in game as trollin sf might not be dead