PDA

View Full Version : Patch Balance Thread at Petro


Naso
11-18-2006, 05:08 PM
http://www.petroglyphgames.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1112

It sounds like the starvipers at least are going to be fixed, though that only comes out from the second dev post. Don't see anything about mass-driver damage though, just decreasing accuracy vs fighters. I posted a link to the cap-ship discussion here, since the devs do come post here, but that's probably the best place to give feedback.

The Source
11-18-2006, 05:57 PM
Wow. That iis one large list. They should have teken care of this before they released the game. Grrr...

wedge2211
11-18-2006, 07:26 PM
TIE Phantoms can go 80 seconds under cloak with 10 second cooldowns? Makes them a whole lot more interesting...

Funny how they've made a lot of balance changes to the old EaW units, like A-Wings and Corellian Corvettes. You'd think those would be all set by now.

On the whole, looks like a pretty good list, and I'm glad to see it.

Valter
11-18-2006, 08:05 PM
I just hope Petro will fix the numerous bugs as well...

lukeiamyourdad
11-18-2006, 10:55 PM
Funny how they've made a lot of balance changes to the old EaW units, like A-Wings and Corellian Corvettes. You'd think those would be all set by now.



Not really. When you introduce new units and new factions, balance can need to be reviewed totally.

TearsOfIsha
11-19-2006, 04:16 AM
These sound like a good list of changes. The A-Wing in particular should be much more worthy - it's sounds more like the dogfighting nightmare that it's supposed to be.

The business about Mass Driver losing accuracy against fighters is a godsend. Excellent. The change to the MC30 is understandable as well. Actually, every consortium change is pretty good, except the Vengenace frigate. I think I speak for most people here when I say that it didn't need to be more powerful.

But..... Rebel orbital bombardment. Hmmm. An extra 3 seconds might be all I need..... yes.... sounds good.

Overall, all of this sounds good. Well done Petro, can't wait for it ;)

mrsparkle
11-19-2006, 10:22 PM
Yes, I might actually want to play space skirmish battles again. And considering that space skirmish battles are pretty much all I play...

Rust_Lord
11-19-2006, 10:55 PM
Ive posted my whinge in the FOC patch thread. I see more improvements to the ZC than nerfs! Severely disappointing.

Naso
11-20-2006, 09:20 PM
Yeah, I really wish they'd take down the vengeance frigate, though the starviper'll be balanced it looks like. At least they're making the ISD a bit stronger now! :)

Rust_Lord
11-20-2006, 09:46 PM
Yes the changes in red are even more recent. The ISD HPs increase is minimal but better than nothing. The Ion cannon changes will be good. Its a surprise to see the Keldabe toned down and the reb troops HPs reduced. I think that is a good idea. and surprise suprise the ZC stations are getting nerfed though not substantially.

YertyL
11-21-2006, 10:04 AM
Wow, the recent changes IMO really make the patch much better. I wasn't exactly thrilled before (change seismic charge from instakill to insta-instakill, buff vengeance frigates wtf?), but a pretty heavy buff for SD health and damage, the juggernaught and a nerf to ZC space station sounds good to me.
They'll still IMO need to nerf a few things, e.g. the insanely good special ability of the Keldable or the damage of the crusader to cap ships.

Rust_Lord
11-21-2006, 08:07 PM
Yes I fiddled with the XMLs last night according to what Petro intend to do and tested out some stuff. Since the ISDs ion fire rate has been doubled they are a bit nastier and finally have more firepower than the Mon Calamari cruiser. Although they gain only a little over 200 extra HPs (3225 total up from 2980) they are now finally tougher than the Mon Calamari (3010). Its not huge but at least its what most of us wanted and the price wasnt increased. The rear TLs on the ISD fire at a slower rate (5) than its front TLs and the TLs on the MC (all 7) which should be addressed. That would make the ISD spot on.

Crusaders are more annoying even if their health has been slashed however they have been altered to reflect what petro had in mind for them in the first place; they can now shoot down a salvo of missiles without one sneaking through. I dont mind this change at all.

Interceptor IV is much better now though I spotted in the XML when changing it that it actually has the armour of an assault frigate whereas the two comparable reb and imp craft only have light frigate armour so when Petro says ZC stuff is underarmoured it is not always true. At least now you can catch them and they can't out run torpedoes.

Engaging Keldabes and ZC stations is not as suicidal anymore. My bombers actually made it to the station to do a torp run, YAY! With such a nerf to the Keldabes ions and no price change the shield leech ability wont be touched I expect.

Some subtle and some drastic changes = we are definately getting somewhere. Dumbfounded by the improvement to the Vengeance though. I can play so cheesy with them already.

Shadow_015
11-30-2006, 09:02 PM
I have to reiterate this as I did on other threads....

Since the Imperial Star Destroyer is now stronger than a Mon Calamari Cruiser, I think it's only fair that MC's now get Hangar bays with fighters...even if its a minimal amount of fighters...

Also, the Home One needs to be SERIOUSLY IMPROVED!!! It needs more weapons (at minimum one more) and its existing weapons need to be made stronger. At the moment its nowhere near the behemoth it was in the movies, since it was stronger than other MCs and the largest of those around at the time...

The Assault Frigate and the Nebulon-B Frigate could also use a bit of a boost,as there are no MC40s and since there are so many more competitors in their category and also stronger ships which the Rebels do not have

Valter
12-01-2006, 12:15 AM
I strongly disagree, there should be NO changes to the Mon Cal's! They work just fine, besides they aren't supposed to be super-strong. They are outfitted luxury cruisers, not battleships...

The rebel strategy is to outmaneuver the enemy, not overpower the enemy (overpowering is the imperial philosophy).

I have played as the Rebels in FOC and they work perfectly...if you know how to use them effectively.

YertyL
12-01-2006, 06:53 AM
I have to reiterate this as I did on other threads....

Since the Imperial Star Destroyer is now stronger than a Mon Calamari Cruiser, I think it's only fair that MC's now get Hangar bays with fighters...even if its a minimal amount of fighters...

Also, the Home One needs to be SERIOUSLY IMPROVED!!! It needs more weapons (at minimum one more) and its existing weapons need to be made stronger. At the moment its nowhere near the behemoth it was in the movies, since it was stronger than other MCs and the largest of those around at the time...

The Assault Frigate and the Nebulon-B Frigate could also use a bit of a boost,as there are no MC40s and since there are so many more competitors in their category and also stronger ships which the Rebels do not have
OK, I think you've overlooked a little detail: SDs cost about twice as much as MCs (or at least much more) - and the Home One owns any regular SD or Mon Cal 1on1 and is larger than the other MCs or SDs.
And why the heck should assault frigates and Neb-Bs be improved? They already own their Imperial counterparts - if at all I'd suggest a boost for the Acclamator, not for the Neb B.

Shadow_015
12-01-2006, 07:35 AM
I strongly disagree, there should be NO changes to the Mon Cal's! They work just fine, besides they aren't supposed to be super-strong. They are outfitted luxury cruisers, not battleships...

The rebel strategy is to outmaneuver the enemy, not overpower the enemy (overpowering is the imperial philosophy).

I have played as the Rebels in FOC and they work perfectly...if you know how to use them effectively.


I think you're overlooking game balance. In the original FoC the Imps strategy was to have unlimited fighters (well basically) while the Rebels have stronger shields - effectively making a MonCal stronger. If the SD gets stronger than the MonCal then the MonCal has no tactical advantages over the SD anymore making the game unbalanced.

And giving the stronger Rebel fighters argument isn't valid anymore because the Imps now have TIE Defenders, TIE Interceptors and TIE Phantoms. That limits the Rebels immensely in terms of tactical advantages.

Shadow_015
12-01-2006, 07:36 AM
I strongly disagree, there should be NO changes to the Mon Cal's! They work just fine, besides they aren't supposed to be super-strong. They are outfitted luxury cruisers, not battleships...

The rebel strategy is to outmaneuver the enemy, not overpower the enemy (overpowering is the imperial philosophy).

I have played as the Rebels in FOC and they work perfectly...if you know how to use them effectively.


I think you're overlooking game balance. In the original FoC the Imps strategy was to have unlimited fighters (well basically) while the Rebels have stronger shields - effectively making a MonCal stronger. If the SD gets stronger than the MonCal then the MonCal has no tactical advantages over the SD anymore making the game unbalanced.

And giving the stronger Rebel fighters argument isn't valid anymore because the Imps now have TIE Defenders, TIE Interceptors and TIE Phantoms. That limits the Rebels immensely in terms of tactical advantages.

And yes I do know how to use Rebels thank you very much! I can win with them in FoC despite the disadvantages, but the fact that they are so nerfed in this doesn't make it very much fun to use them anymore.

And Valter, your argument about them being Luxury cruisers is valid in the fact that they should be weaker than ISD's according to canon, but not valid towards whether they have a hangar or not. Either way I think MCs should receive a hangar for game balance and for canon.

Shadow_015
12-01-2006, 07:46 AM
OK, I think you've overlooked a little detail: SDs cost about twice as much as MCs (or at least much more) - and the Home One owns any regular SD or Mon Cal 1on1 and is larger than the other MCs or SDs.
And why the heck should assault frigates and Neb-Bs be improved? They already own their Imperial counterparts - if at all I'd suggest a boost for the Acclamator, not for the Neb B.

The reason the Frigates should be improved is because the Rebels only got two units. Granted they are both supposed to be 'Capital Ship Killers'. However, since there's also the Vengeance, Aggressor, Kedalbe, SSD and Eclipse, I think it would at least be fair if Rebel units got a boost to hold out a bit longer against all these stronger enemies. Maybe not a boost vs. Imperial ships, but definitely Consortium ships.

Even though the MC Frigate and B-Wing are there, they are still quite expensive. At 4000 credits you might as well build a MonCal and for the B-Wing...700 for only 3 of em considering the fact they get shredded by StarVipers is also not worth it.

Speaking of MonCals, I'd was thinkin of about 2 squadrons accompanying the Hangar. That way it's significantly less than the ISD but enough to keep the MonCal in the game.

So since Rebels obviously can't receive new units during a patch, I figure its only fair to tweak them a little bit.

The Acclamator doesn't necessarily need tweaking but I argue the Home One does (not necessarily in size, but I mean in weapons) because out of the four main heroes (Zann, Ackbar, Thrawn, Piett) it has no offensive weapon, only 'direct all fire' and 'boost shields' and while boost shields comes in handy, direct all fire isn't always useful. It therefore sometimes lacks the firepower to withstand a skirmish for a long time in comparison to the others, and I think maybe a proton torpedo launcher would do the trick.

Actually, even a Hangar would do it; with 1 X-Wing Squadron and 1 Y-Wing squadron (or even A-Wings or B-Wings since Ackbar created B-Wings) - it would definitely make the Home One more competitive. Plus, it would also make the 'direct all fire' option useful for Home One if its just by itself in a skirmish.

ImpElite
12-01-2006, 09:19 AM
wow, triple post.

Shadow_015
12-01-2006, 09:38 AM
yeah, sorry about that. Duno why it posted one double. Was only meant to be two to reply to each different post

ImpElite
12-01-2006, 01:51 PM
ahhh, okay.

SAGEKING-PG
12-01-2006, 07:09 PM
They are in the final phases of testing the patch guys :) There is quite a list of fixes across the board which I hope to share with you guys soon. Thanks for your patience. Expect an update early next week.

ImpElite
12-01-2006, 09:08 PM
Sweet, thanks for the reply, SAGEKING-PG. Can't wait for the new map editor!

Valter
12-02-2006, 02:27 AM
I think you're overlooking game balance. In the original FoC the Imps strategy was to have unlimited fighters (well basically) while the Rebels have stronger shields - effectively making a MonCal stronger. If the SD gets stronger than the MonCal then the MonCal has no tactical advantages over the SD anymore making the game unbalanced.

I'll tell you again, the rebel strategy in FOC is to outmaneuver the enemy, not overpower the enemy. Besides, the Mon Cal will always defeat a Imperial Star Destroyer in combat because of the "boost shields" ability.

And giving the stronger Rebel fighters argument isn't valid anymore because the Imps now have TIE Defenders, TIE Interceptors and TIE Phantoms. That limits the Rebels immensely in terms of tactical advantages.


The rebels still have some advantages in the fighter department; The B-wings can lock s-foils, rendering the fighter virtually untouchable by laser fire and increasing the Incidence of bombing runs, A-wings are better than TIE Interceptors thanks to the "lure" ability and X-wings are faster than any TIE fighter (when using s-foils).

And yes I do know how to use Rebels thank you very much! I can win with them in FoC despite the disadvantages, but the fact that they are so nerfed in this doesn't make it very much fun to use them anymore.


I agree with you here but I don't think giving Mon Cal's a hangar bay is the solution. Now THAT would cause balance problems like mass spamming X-wings and Y-wings.

And Valter, your argument about them being Luxury cruisers is valid in the fact that they should be weaker than ISD's according to canon, but not valid towards whether they have a hangar or not. Either way I think MCs should receive a hangar for game balance and for canon.


What will giving the Mon Cal's a hangar bay solve? Tell me Specifically ...

TearsOfIsha
12-02-2006, 09:24 AM
They are in the final phases of testing the patch guys :) There is quite a list of fixes across the board which I hope to share with you guys soon. Thanks for your patience. Expect an update early next week.

No offence Sageking, but Delphi told us this last week.

ImpElite
12-02-2006, 09:28 AM
plus this is a GAME NOT CANON, things have to be balanced otherwise the Empire and maybe the Consortium would kick everyone's butt no sweat. :vsd: :vsd: :vsd: :vsd: :vsd:

TearsOfIsha
12-02-2006, 09:39 AM
I strongly disagree, there should be NO changes to the Mon Cal's! They work just fine, besides they aren't supposed to be super-strong. They are outfitted luxury cruisers, not battleships...


I'm sick of hearing this argument. Yes, it works great for canon, but it doesn't help the game at all. The Mon Cal is alright against an ISD but they are absolutely pathetic against Keldabes. I can't work out whether the Keldabe is the most unbalanced pile of crap that I've ever had the misfortune of playing against (that shield leech ability alone is basically a cheat) or whther the Mon Cal has been abandoned by Petro. But bleating on about how the Mon Cal should be weaker than the ISD is totally pointless without coming up with the agrument that Rebel Fighters should 0wn Imperial counterparts. You can't have everything - that's why the ZC is basically seen as mistake by a lot of the peopl on this board, they don't have anything approaching balance.


The rebel strategy is to outmaneuver the enemy, not overpower the enemy (overpowering is the imperial philosophy).


Great. Now all the rebels need is the ability to do so. But they don't. Hence the f**king huge balance problems.


I have played as the Rebels in FOC and they work perfectly...if you know how to use them effectively.

Why is it when anyone asks for something to be upgraded the argument degenrates into some genius saying "you just don't know how to use them blah blah blah". Tell me Valter, is having a Mon Cal cruiser destroyed before it gets more than one volley off by a keldabe, 'working perfectly'?

No it isn't. If that was supposed to happen the Mon Cal cruisers would have a price of 100 and a pop. of 1.

Shadow_015
12-02-2006, 11:35 AM
I'm sick of hearing this argument. Yes, it works great for canon, but it doesn't help the game at all. The Mon Cal is alright against an ISD but they are absolutely pathetic against Keldabes. I can't work out whether the Keldabe is the most unbalanced pile of crap that I've ever had the misfortune of playing against (that shield leech ability alone is basically a cheat) or whther the Mon Cal has been abandoned by Petro. But bleating on about how the Mon Cal should be weaker than the ISD is totally pointless without coming up with the agrument that Rebel Fighters should 0wn Imperial counterparts. You can't have everything - that's why the ZC is basically seen as mistake by a lot of the peopl on this board, they don't have anything approaching balance.



Great. Now all the rebels need is the ability to do so. But they don't. Hence the f**king huge balance problems.



Why is it when anyone asks for something to be upgraded the argument degenrates into some genius saying "you just don't know how to use them blah blah blah". Tell me Valter, is having a Mon Cal cruiser destroyed before it gets more than one volley off by a keldabe, 'working perfectly'?

No it isn't. If that was supposed to happen the Mon Cal cruisers would have a price of 100 and a pop. of 1.

I totally agree with this. Finally someone who understands it. The bottom line is, The Consortium have totally thrown the game off-balance. And I definitely think the MonCals have been left behind.

And Valter, you say the Rebels' strategy is to 'outmaneuver the enemy'. Well, that's very open ended considering the fact that you can do that with ALL sides. There's no special function which allows them to do that so the argument isn't very strong.

By the way thanks SAGEKING-PG for giving us a heads-up. I'm anxiously waiting for a patch because at the moment it isn't very much fun playing with the bugs.

Shadow_015
12-02-2006, 11:42 AM
I'll tell you again, the rebel strategy in FOC is to outmaneuver the enemy, not overpower the enemy. Besides, the Mon Cal will always defeat a Imperial Star Destroyer in combat because of the "boost shields" ability.



The rebels still have some advantages in the fighter department; The B-wings can lock s-foils, rendering the fighter virtually untouchable by laser fire and increasing the Incidence of bombing runs, A-wings are better than TIE Interceptors thanks to the "lure" ability and X-wings are faster than any TIE fighter (when using s-foils).



I agree with you here but I don't think giving Mon Cal's a hangar bay is the solution. Now THAT would cause balance problems like mass spamming X-wings and Y-wings.



What will giving the Mon Cal's a hangar bay solve? Tell me Specifically ...

The way it was discussed on Petroglyph's forums and stating that now the specs of the ISD are now better than the MonCal and make it more powerful than a MonCal, it throws the game off balance. I will say it again: in the original the ISD's ability was to be able to spawn a lot of fighters, while the MonCal had shields and both ships had the same armament.

Now, the ISD is more powerful as an individual ship and can spawn a lot of fighters, but the MonCal is untouched. That is unfair, because there is no boost whatsoever for a MonCal. I never said MonCals should be able to spawn unlimited fighters, I said they should get 2 squadrons of different fighter-types and once those die they will be replaced. This would not be spamming fighters, but it would make use of the 'direct-all fire' ability (for the Home One) and again balance the game as both capital ships now have fighters and they both have their special abilities (ISD is stronger, MC has strong shields and both have same armament).

In terms of fighters. Having S-foils is fine and all and it makes the fighters better, but not in combat mode. From what you are saying, it would take A LOT of micro-managing to handle the fighters and line them up for an attack-run on ISDs switching back and forth between S-foils. This should not be the way you would have to do it, their advantages should be natural - the S-foils are there for added speed ability with maneuvering around the map.

ImpElite
12-02-2006, 12:23 PM
wow, this guy has multi-post written all over him lol

wedge2211
12-02-2006, 12:27 PM
What about increasing the speed and turn rate of the Mon Calamari Cruisers instead of improving their weapons? As long as they can stay in the blind spot behind an ISD, it doesn't really matter how many guns they have...and that would be more in keeping with both the idea of the canon and balancing each side with relative advantages and disadvantages.

Shadow_015
12-02-2006, 01:41 PM
wow, this guy has multi-post written all over him lol

well i haven't figured out how to fit multiple quotes into one post so i have to reply individually since im new to this, so bear with me. Unless you'd like to give me some pointers and explain it to me?

wedge2211
12-02-2006, 02:42 PM
You can set up multiple quotes by typing in the BBcode manually in your post:

{quote="whoever you are quoting"}
paste whatever they said
{/quote}

...only you should use square brackets [] instead of curly braces {}, which I used so that the board won't actually turn the above code into a quote. ;)

Valter
12-02-2006, 03:12 PM
I totally agree with this. Finally someone who understands it. The bottom line is, The Consortium have totally thrown the game off-balance. And I definitely think the MonCals have been left behind.

Maybe nerfing the Consortium cruisers is the answer to the balance problems...

And Valter, you say the Rebels' strategy is to 'outmaneuver the enemy'. Well, that's very open ended considering the fact that you can do that with ALL sides. There's no special function which allows them to do that so the argument isn't very strong.

Actually, you can't outmaneuver the enemy with every side. The rebel cruisers are twice as fast as their Imperial counterparts for a reason. They are made for hit and run tactics not toe-to-toe slugging matches.

I agree that the Mon Cals are weaker than the Star Destroyers now that they are upgraded, but I don't think giving them a hangar bay is the answer. Maybe increase their rate of fire or increase their shield refresh rate. Maybe they don't need any changes, just nerf the Consortium. They do quite well against Star Destroyers anyway.

CabooseOMalley
12-02-2006, 04:33 PM
I'm looking forward to this patch, just hoping that there will be bug fixes aswell...

Oh, and Shadow_015,
I've watched all the RvB seasons, twice, and I've got to say that it's Tucker that says "Bow - Chicka - Bow - Wow" - NOT Caboose, he's the dumb one....

wedge2211
12-02-2006, 05:10 PM
There will be bug fixes, they just haven't presented a list.

TearsOfIsha
12-02-2006, 05:40 PM
Maybe nerfing the Consortium cruisers is the answer to the balance problems...


That's quite possible. Thing is, the rebels appear to have recieved the most nerfs, and there was a feeling that nothing was going to be toned down.

I certainly don't remember anything in the patch list that mentioned anything about the Keldabe being brought into line - there was even an upgrade for the Vengeance frigate.....


Actually, you can't outmaneuver the enemy with every side. The rebel cruisers are twice as fast as their Imperial counterparts for a reason. They are made for hit and run tactics not toe-to-toe slugging matches.


I really not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here. Taken literally, you point here makes no sense, as the pathfinding on Star Cruisers (particularly Home One) is awful - the very idea of describing them as 'made for hit and run tactics' is comical. They aren't. In this game, they're meant for shooting things.


I agree that the Mon Cals are weaker than the Star Destroyers now that they are upgraded, but I don't think giving them a hangar bay is the answer. Maybe increase their rate of fire or increase their shield refresh rate.

I must admit, I don't honestly see a hangar bay as being the answer. Home One needs buckets of guns (4 more turbolasers and 2 more Ion Cannons, placed evenly, would be excellent) and the basic MC80s need at least two more of turbos and Ions each. The Boost shield ability is pretty good as it is.

Shadow_015
12-02-2006, 05:47 PM
I'm looking forward to this patch, just hoping that there will be bug fixes aswell...

Oh, and Shadow_015,
I've watched all the RvB seasons, twice, and I've got to say that it's Tucker that says "Bow - Chicka - Bow - Wow" - NOT Caboose, he's the dumb one....

OH CRAP lol!!! Sorry! Yeah I totally mistyped that cos on another forum I have this other quote from Caboose. So I think when I was typing this one in I accidentally put it in wrong. I have the same quote on Gamespot but with Tucker's name on it - didn't catch it. Thanks!

jedi7000nathan
12-02-2006, 07:21 PM
plus this is a GAME NOT CANON, things have to be balanced otherwise the Empire and maybe the Consortium would kick everyone's butt no sweat. :vsd: :vsd: :vsd: :vsd: :vsd:


:vsd: The game is canon why would lucasarts create a non canon game :blast5: :vsd: and if they it is you won't findm here posting

ImpElite
12-02-2006, 07:49 PM
"and if they it is you won't findm here posting "

sorry dont' really understand what you're saying there.... :ears1:

Shadow_015
12-02-2006, 07:55 PM
"and if they it is you won't findm here posting "

sorry dont' really understand what you're saying there.... :ears1:

just to clarify, i believe he said 'and if it is you wont find me here posting'....

ImpElite
12-02-2006, 10:37 PM
oooh maybe that's it, thanks.

Valter
12-03-2006, 02:47 AM
I really not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here. Taken literally, you point here makes no sense, as the pathfinding on Star Cruisers (particularly Home One) is awful - the very idea of describing them as 'made for hit and run tactics' is comical. They aren't. In this game, they're meant for shooting things.


I apologize, I'll elaborate on that statement. Every rebel ship (except the Mon Cal's) is made for hit and run tactics; deal some damage, retreat and let the shields refresh, deal some more damage. Most of the rebel fighters have s-foils to increase their speed. Corvettes have the "boost speed" ability. The MC-30 is the fastest frigate in the game. The Alliance Assault frigate is faster than the Victory cruiser. My point is the rebels may not be more powerful than the other sides but they certainly are faster and that's a huge advantage in my opinion.

In a way every side has it's advantage in Space Combat. The Imperials are overpowering, the rebels have fast ships, and the Consortium...well the Consortium is just plain unbalanced and cheap.

I still say nerfing the Consortium will solve most of the balance issues with space battles.

wedge2211
12-03-2006, 11:08 AM
I certainly don't remember anything in the patch list that mentioned anything about the Keldabe being brought into line - there was even an upgrade for the Vengeance frigate.....
This is from the patch changelist:

Keldabe
Ion cannon shot volley decreased from 10 to 3 per round
Turbolaser shot volley decreased from 10 to 8 per round

ImpElite
12-03-2006, 11:52 AM
In a way every side has it's advantage in Space Combat. The Imperials are overpowering, the rebels have fast ships, and the Consortium...well the Consortium is just plain unbalanced and cheap.

I still say nerfing the Consortium will solve most of the balance issues with space battles.

..... UNBALANCED and CHEAP? Okay Imps, you're going down. :twogun: :twogun: :twogun: :twogun: :blast5: :blast5: :smash: :smash: :smash:

TearsOfIsha
12-04-2006, 05:36 AM
I apologize, I'll elaborate on that statement. Every rebel ship (except the Mon Cal's) is made for hit and run tactics; deal some damage, retreat and let the shields refresh, deal some more damage. Most of the rebel fighters have s-foils to increase their speed. Corvettes have the "boost speed" ability. The MC-30 is the fastest frigate in the game. The Alliance Assault frigate is faster than the Victory cruiser. My point is the rebels may not be more powerful than the other sides but they certainly are faster and that's a huge advantage in my opinion.

In a way every side has it's advantage in Space Combat. The Imperials are overpowering, the rebels have fast ships, and the Consortium...well the Consortium is just plain unbalanced and cheap.



The problem is, it may be a huge advantage in your opinion but it doesn't translate into specific advantages in the context of the space battles. Raw speed never wins anything - Especially considering the ranges of of some of the Imperial units (like ISDs and Broadsides). The MC30 also happens to have the worst defences in the game, but I agree - that particular ship is meant for hit'n'run, but not the whole fleet. The Assault Frigate may be faster than the Victory but it isn't fast *enough* to make much of a difference in the long run - The boost shields ability is far more useful to reinforce a capital ship under fire rather than refresh the shields after an attack.

The rebels are still restricted by population caps so they can't bring in more stuff to replace the other ships that are currently running rather than hitting, which translates into massive holes in their defense.

Bottom line is, a large number of the rebel ships are meant for hit and run but the entire fleet isn't. There just don't have the stats to work in that role.
And none of this is a good enough resaon to leave the Mon Cal behind.


I still say nerfing the Consortium will solve most of the balance issues with space battles.

Yeah, I agree here. Currently the only way to defeat them is through attrition or mass bomber strikes, which is boring.

This is from the patch changelist:

Ah, I didn't see that. Still, It's mainly that ridiculous shield drainer weapon that I was annoyed about - As far as I can tell *no* other ship in EaW has an ability that even approaches the sheer usefulness of that. Except for maybe the Eclipse, and that's one of a kind.

Valter
12-04-2006, 04:12 PM
The problem is, it may be a huge advantage in your opinion but it doesn't translate into specific advantages in the context of the space battles. Raw speed never wins anything - Especially considering the ranges of of some of the Imperial units (like ISDs and Broadsides). The MC30 also happens to have the worst defences in the game, but I agree - that particular ship is meant for hit'n'run, but not the whole fleet. The Assault Frigate may be faster than the Victory but it isn't fast *enough* to make much of a difference in the long run - The boost shields ability is far more useful to reinforce a capital ship under fire rather than refresh the shields after an attack.

Not every ship in the rebel fleet is made for hit and run, but a good majority can make use of this tactic. There are many ways to win with the rebellion. Support the Mon Cal's with ion cannon blasts from y-wings, destroy the hangar bays with MC-30's, bait the enemy into asteroid fields etc...

I understand speed isn't everything but it sure does help when things start to heat up in a battle.

The rebels are still restricted by population caps so they can't bring in more stuff to replace the other ships that are currently running rather than hitting, which translates into massive holes in their defense.


Hmmm... I didn't think about that.

Bottom line is, a large number of the rebel ships are meant for hit and run but the entire fleet isn't. There just don't have the stats to work in that role.
And none of this is a good enough resaon to leave the Mon Cal behind.

That's why I suggest increasing the Mon Cal's rate of fire or increasing the shield refresh rate to compensate for the Mon Cal's lack of speed.

darthcarth
12-04-2006, 09:48 PM
Or make it faster but you have to think the imperials pay 5k for thier ship and the rebels pay 4k for thiers you cant expect that they would be equal, and the person who said mon cals should have to more ion canons or turbos that would put them at odds with the K word ship and would leave the imperials far far behind.

Rust_Lord
12-04-2006, 11:42 PM
What about increasing the speed and turn rate of the Mon Calamari Cruisers instead of improving their weapons? As long as they can stay in the blind spot behind an ISD, it doesn't really matter how many guns they have...and that would be more in keeping with both the idea of the canon and balancing each side with relative advantages and disadvantages.

Quite a lively thread but some of this stuff has been done to death. Valter has a point regarding the rebs strategy and Wedge your 100% right with the above point, however, the MC already has the maneuverability (and a *slight* speed advantage) to get into an ISDs blind spot. Long ago I posted a test I did between the two. Nothing has changed. All an MC has to do is, like in the movies, get in close and you will out turn the ISD. This is why it is configured the way it is. You play into the ISDs hands if you sit back and slug it out. The argument that because the ISD now has slightly more HPs and firepower than an MC, the MC needs to be buffed is ridiculous. That will again make it better than the ISD which is not the way it should be, afterall, whether youre talking skirmish or GC an ISD is more expensive than an MC; with extra 700 credits in skirmish you could buy yourself a squadron of B-wings and with that you can knock out the ISDs hanger bay, a TL, engine, take your pick. Sure they will get cut down eventually by interceptors but the ISD will be destroyed.

If you want to add 2 TLs and 2 Ions to a MC expect to see the price increase by 1000. In canon the ISD has 60 TL and 60 Ion whereas the MC has 48 TL and 20 Ion...big difference, but until this patch comes into effect the MC actually has a firepower advantage. As stated in a previous post the ISD will have a very slight advantage now.

Just because the rebs didnt receive a whole heap of new stuff in space doesnt mean they got nerfed. This just shows they were already good and didnt need mass change. Both original factions just look pale because the ZC is so unbalanced and THAT is the main issue. I wrote before the Keldabe is getting nerfed, but thanks for the reference Wedge. I adjusted my xml and fought against it and dropping its ions and mass drivers makes a huge difference. It is still a behemoth that monsters MCs and ISDs but we stand a chance against them now. Still; two Keldabes will drain the shields of a lvl 5 station, something that would take some time for massed capital ships to achieve and as a result there should be a limit on these ships, a reduced effect of their special or an increase in cost.

I expected the ZC to be over powered as a marketing ploy so people will hear of this new uber faction and rush out and buy the game, then when people are annoyed with them a patch would simply fix that; however, the amount of bugs and the degree to which the ZC is overpowered could not be intentional. Has anyone noticed that the ZC get an extra cap ship? This I do not understand....have a look..
Ship......................Empire..............Reb. ..............ZC
Corvette...............Tartan..............Corvett e......Crusader
Frigate.................Acclam..............Neb B..........Int IV
Cruiser/Hvy Frig.......VSD.................Ass Frig.......Vengeance
Capital....................ISD................MC.. ............Keldabe

So what equivalent does the Aggressor have? So the ZC dont get a missile corvette, big deal. Wouldnt you prefer an extra capital ship option?

And one last thing about starfighters....Everything eats TIEs, Interceptors eat Xwings, Awings eat Interceptors, Star Vipers eat everything (but not as much as they used to)....Phantoms are faster than Awings and Defenders are the toughest fighters in the game but Phantoms are very expensive and fill a limited pop cap. Defenders are also horrendously expensive, fill a pop cap and when they are suppossed to be a fighter, their accuracy is crap.

TearsOfIsha
12-05-2006, 08:29 AM
Quite a lively thread but some of this stuff has been done to death. Valter has a point regarding the rebs strategy and Wedge your 100% right with the above point, however, the MC already has the maneuverability (and a *slight* speed advantage) to get into an ISDs blind spot. Long ago I posted a test I did between the two. Nothing has changed. All an MC has to do is, like in the movies, get in close and you will out turn the ISD. This is why it is configured the way it is.


The idea of higher maneverability being the strong point of the Mon Cal would work - but only if that higher maneuverability translated into a *specific* advantage. I couldn't give a toss whether the MC can run rings around the ISD when it simply can't kick out the same amount of damage and ends up being mauled. It's pointless. If Maneuverability means that the Mon Cal could kep outside of the ISD's fire then fair enough, I'm all for that, but the ISD's blind spot isn't anywhere near as large as you seem to think. As it is, they do well, no question about that (partially due to the fact that the Boost Shields ability is much more useful than tractor beams).


You play into the ISDs hands if you sit back and slug it out. The argument that because the ISD now has slightly more HPs and firepower than an MC, the MC needs to be buffed is ridiculous. That will again make it better than the ISD which is not the way it should be, afterall, whether youre talking skirmish or GC an ISD is more expensive than an MC; with extra 700 credits in skirmish you could buy yourself a squadron of B-wings and with that you can knock out the ISDs hanger bay, a TL, engine, take your pick. Sure they will get cut down eventually by interceptors but the ISD will be destroyed.


I'm getting sick of pointing this out - I can't just fill up the extra credits with more bombers because there is something that everyone here seems to be willfully forgetting - it means I have to spend more population on extra units. Accusing rebel players of asking for 'ridiculous buffing' of MCs while you are essentially asking for units that require less population to do more doesn't exactly make you sound like you want balance.

And let's not forget something else which is irritatingly vacant from these discussions. ISDs carry sh*tloads of fighters and bombers, whereas the Mon Cal doesn't. The Mon Cal takes up the same population yet cannot accomplish as many tasks as the ISD as it is.


If you want to add 2 TLs and 2 Ions to a MC expect to see the price increase by 1000. In canon the ISD has 60 TL and 60 Ion whereas the MC has 48 TL and 20 Ion...big difference, but until this patch comes into effect the MC actually has a firepower advantage. As stated in a previous post the ISD will have a very slight advantage now.


An extra 1000 credits would be a price I gladly pay. Credits don't have the same value as they once did with corruption being on the cards - population is far more valuable. Now, while spitting out fighters, the ISD also has an advantage as a cruiser.... for no real reason beyond previous performance. That's why everyone is asking for buffs.


Just because the rebs didnt receive a whole heap of new stuff in space doesnt mean they got nerfed. This just shows they were already good and didnt need mass change.


Quite correct. Thing is, the Rebels are supposed to have advantages in fighters while the Imperials rely more on cruisers.

Now the imperials have not only been given some excellent new fighter designs (which all but nullify any advantage the rebels had there - Imperials now can deploy both elite fighters than can accomplish stuff B-Wings and A-Wings can't *and* can deploy tonnes of cannon fodder *at the same time*) but their also getting upgrades to their cruisers too - so the rebels will literally be weak on both fronts. Yet you claim any cruiser buffs for the Rebels is ridiculous.

No it isn't. It's for balance.


Both original factions just look pale because the ZC is so unbalanced and THAT is the main issue. I wrote before the Keldabe is getting nerfed, but thanks for the reference Wedge. I adjusted my xml and fought against it and dropping its ions and mass drivers makes a huge difference. It is still a behemoth that monsters MCs and ISDs but we stand a chance against them now. Still; two Keldabes will drain the shields of a lvl 5 station, something that would take some time for massed capital ships to achieve and as a result there should be a limit on these ships, a reduced effect of their special or an increase in cost.


To be brutally honest, I don't even understand why the Keldabe is even in the game. It has more firepower than either other capital ship, and has an ability which dwarfs the Boost Shield ability on MCs. It just looks like some 15-year-old mod maker has stuck in the game because they thought it would be uber-r0xx0rss!!!!111.


I expected the ZC to be over powered as a marketing ploy so people will hear of this new uber faction and rush out and buy the game, then when people are annoyed with them a patch would simply fix that;


Yep. But it sounds like a sure fire way of p*ssing of the existing players of the game - which isn't really a clever idea considering it's an expansion pack. I preferred EaW before FoC came out.


however, the amount of bugs and the degree to which the ZC is overpowered could not be intentional. Has anyone noticed that the ZC get an extra cap ship? This I do not understand....have a look..
Ship......................Empire..............Reb. ..............ZC
Corvette...............Tartan..............Corvett e......Crusader
Frigate.................Acclam..............Neb B..........Int IV
Cruiser/Hvy Frig.......VSD.................Ass Frig.......Vengeance
Capital....................ISD................MC.. ............Keldabe

So what equivalent does the Aggressor have? So the ZC dont get a missile corvette, big deal. Wouldnt you prefer an extra capital ship option?


This is something I've noticed as well. I really don't understand what Petro were thinking. The argument that they don't have access to a missile cruiser doesn't work either - the ZC can easily just pirate Marauders and Broadsides no bother.

wedge2211
12-05-2006, 11:00 AM
And let's not forget something else which is irritatingly vacant from these discussions. ISDs carry sh*tloads of fighters and bombers, whereas the Mon Cal doesn't. The Mon Cal takes up the same population yet cannot accomplish as many tasks as the ISD as it is.
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the Imperial Star Destroyer and the Mon Calamari Cruiser are not supposed to be even. In terms of Star Wars lore, one ship is the workhorse of a Galactic Empire with vast resources at its disposal. It is designed to outgun and outclass anything except for the bigger Imperial Ships. In terms of game balance...we've come a long way from the days of WarCraft II, where each faction had the same units in different colors. That's why boosting the armament of the Mon Cal or giving the cruiser a hangar are poor and unimaginitive solutions to this percieved balance problem.

Ship......................Empire..............Reb. ..............ZC
Corvette...............Tartan..............Corvett e......Crusader
Frigate.................Acclam..............Neb B..........Int IV
Cruiser/Hvy Frig.......VSD.................Ass Frig.......Vengeance
Capital....................ISD................MC.. ............Keldabe
You've forgotten that the Rebellion actually has two corvette-class ships, and the gunship isn't half bad against capital ships. I've taken out improperly supported Star Destroyers (including Piett) with a two- to three-gunship wolfpack, using the boost engines ability to rocket into the ISD's blind spot and then pummel its engines and other hardpoints with shield-piercing concussion missiles. I remember a thread a while back about how incredibly effective gunship wolfpacks could be. That's the sort of thing the Rebels are supposed to be able to do to fight off Imperial capital ships--not field a ship that is the exact equivalent of the Star Destroyer. The way I look at it is this: it's the job of the Rebel gunships, missile cruisers, and bombers to take out Imperial capital ships, and the job of Rebel capital ships to keep the fighter-killers and corvette-killers off of the bombers and gunships. Once the Imperial capital ships are mauled, then you can move in with the Mon Cals and blast them out of space. But I like my ships coming back in one piece, so I try to keep each ship engaged with enemies it will be more likely to beat that throwing each ship against an adversary in the same class.

That's another thing people don't seem to be taking into account in this debate: it's very unlikely that battles will consist of one Mon Cal against one Star Destroyer. Both ships are likely to be part of a larger fleet.

Edit regarding the Aggressor: I wouldn't have any problems with this ship if its turbolasers were reduced to laser cannons, and its main weapon firing arc was reduced a bit. Then it would play a role like the ion frigates in Homeworld: devastatingly effective if you let it get into line, but if you can outmaneuver it, it's a sitting duck.

Shadow_015
12-05-2006, 11:01 AM
Responding to Tears of Isha:

Ya pretty much nailed what I was gonna say and what i've already said. I only hope the designers are tuning in and taking note of what is being said so the proper adjustments can be made.

And Valter, there's your answer to 'what advantages could there possibly be to adding a hangar for MonCals'. Tears of Isha pretty much nailed it for what I said before - since the ISD is stronger now and the Rebels are hindered by the population cap and don't have the same advantage as before, a Hangar is needed.

YertyL
12-05-2006, 12:34 PM
I'm getting sick of pointing this out - I can't just fill up the extra credits with more bombers because there is something that everyone here seems to be willfully forgetting - it means I have to spend more population on extra units. Accusing rebel players of asking for 'ridiculous buffing' of MCs while you are essentially asking for units that require less population to do more doesn't exactly make you sound like you want balance.

And let's not forget something else which is irritatingly vacant from these discussions. ISDs carry sh*tloads of fighters and bombers, whereas the Mon Cal doesn't. The Mon Cal takes up the same population yet cannot accomplish as many tasks as the ISD as it is.
Well, you shouldn't forget that the Rebels have a pop cap of 25 while an Imp has a pop cap of 20 - that's supposed to balance out the pop-cap free fighters



Now the imperials have not only been given some excellent new fighter designs (which all but nullify any advantage the rebels had there - Imperials now can deploy both elite fighters than can accomplish stuff B-Wings and A-Wings can't *and* can deploy tonnes of cannon fodder *at the same time*) but their also getting upgrades to their cruisers too - so the rebels will literally be weak on both fronts. Yet you claim any cruiser buffs for the Rebels is ridiculous.

No it isn't. It's for balance.



Still, an Imp player normally has to pay more money and pop cap (relatively, as they pay 1/20 of their cap instead of 1/25 ) for a fighter unit. The free fighters the Imps get are normally worse than their rebel counterparts, and the hangar bay of a cap ship can be destroyed relatively fast, rendering all fighters that have not yet been spawned obsolete.



You've forgotten that the Rebellion actually has two corvette-class ships, and the gunship isn't half bad against capital ships.
In that case I am truly wondering what's supposed to be the counter to gunships - I mean they own fighters, bombers, vettes, Broadsides and seemingly are even able to own cap ships - the hell?:¬:

ImpElite
12-05-2006, 01:26 PM
The way I look at it is this: it's the job of the Rebel gunships, missile cruisers, and bombers to take out Imperial capital ships, and the job of Rebel capital ships to keep the fighter-killers and corvette-killers off of the bombers and gunships. Once the Imperial capital ships are mauled, then you can move in with the Mon Cals and blast them out of space. But I like my ships coming back in one piece, so I try to keep each ship engaged with enemies it will be more likely to beat that throwing each ship against an adversary in the same class.

Edit regarding the Aggressor: I wouldn't have any problems with this ship if its turbolasers were reduced to laser cannons, and its main weapon firing arc was reduced a bit.


First paragraph, that's what I think it should be more like, and that's just the way I used my gunships! (once I built a fleet of gunships and sent it to an enemy planet in an online game, I dont' think he liked the 150 gunships I sent him lol)

Second paragraph, I wouldn't mind having it like that, except for the main weapon part maybe.

Good idea.

Shadow_015
12-05-2006, 07:43 PM
Well, you shouldn't forget that the Rebels have a pop cap of 25 while an Imp has a pop cap of 20 - that's supposed to balance out the pop-cap free fighters




Still, an Imp player normally has to pay more money and pop cap (relatively, as they pay 1/20 of their cap instead of 1/25 ) for a fighter unit. The free fighters the Imps get are normally worse than their rebel counterparts, and the hangar bay of a cap ship can be destroyed relatively fast, rendering all fighters that have not yet been spawned obsolete.


In that case I am truly wondering what's supposed to be the counter to gunships - I mean they own fighters, bombers, vettes, Broadsides and seemingly are even able to own cap ships - the hell?:¬:

Again, let's consider the fact that Imperials spew out fighters and bombers for FREE - which is normally about 3 squadrons per Capital Ship. This is FAR more than the Rebels could match in fighter strength if they had the same grade and amount of capital ships in the battle.

Think about it. 20 Pop. Cap would get you 5 ISDs, including 15 squadrons of fighters (if we are counting 1 ISD + 2 Squadrons of fighters and 1 bomber squadron). Therefore, the Rebels with a Pop. Cap of 25 would potentially have either 6 MonCals and 1 Fighter Squadron (through hyperspacing in) or 5 MonCals and 5 Fighter squadrons, a significant disadvantage in my eyes.

Therefore, with a now STRONGER ISD, and a significant advantage in fighter squadrons already, I believe there is an imbalance. Explain to me why if you don't agree cos it seems pretty clear to me. Let's also remember that the quantity of TIEs per unit cap (depending on the TIE model) is generally also higher than the equivalent Rebel fighters for that unit cap. e.g. 5 X-Wings, 7 TIE Fighters etc.

Also, (you will have seen us all arguing) that Rebel fighters are now distinctly worse than the Imperial equivalent. ISDs are now outfitted with TIE Interceptors and not TIE Fighters - and Interceptors are technically better than X-Wings. Plus, adding in the appearance of TIE Defenders and TIE Phantoms, it adds to the imbalance.

Finally, the counter to Gunships are Acclamators, Victories and any other capital ship. I don't find that they own capital ships, and fighters they only cause a certain amount of damage, but are nonetheless useful for support.

Rust_Lord
12-05-2006, 09:16 PM
Tears I can understand that you want a measurable or tangible advantage for the MC but why does it need an advantage at all? I like the inclusion of hangers in mods to all reb ships but the devs didnt put them in and we won't see them. Including them would make the reb ships much more expensive which would be a balance headache in itself. Valid arguments by both you and Shadow about the effectiveness of the MCs usefulness for its cap. Wen Shadow put it the way he did with the amount of fighters you get it does look bad but one could counter this by saying its cheaper and quicker to build than a MC plus at YertL pointed out the rebs get a bigger cap. Besides, has anyone played a serious game against a human where it degenerated into an all out capital ship brawl? The MC can't be the capital ship "par excellence" (behind the Keldabe ;P) because its simply not in keeping with canon. The ISD in this game is a shadow of what it should be. Im not bitching about it because I understand the reason behind it, but it certainly deserved to be better than the MC. The ships are almost equal so I dont understand the fuss. I listed the new HPs for the two, the ISD fires less pulses than an MC but does *slightly* more damage (MC ion:10, TL:28 / ISD ion: 12{was6!} TL:24). The damage difference is a puny **40** in favour of the ISD. And compare the two special abilities!! The boost shields basically recharges the MCs shields...one hell of an advantage. The fact is, if you get the jump on an ISD and hit it in the flank IT IS DEAD! I tested multiple ISDs vs multiple MCs and the MCs wipe the floor with the ISDs. In anything other than one on one the ISD will lose; even then if you know what you are doing with the MC you can still defeat the ISD comfortably. The only thing you have to worry about is bombers, which corvettes take care of easily, and as Wedge pointed out about gunships, this is the essence of the game....its not just about MCs vs ISDs. If you dont mix your forces you generally die. You might have to use more of your pop cap some time to defeat an enemy but you can make that up in other ways. Micro managing the right units at the right time can also turn the battle. These are things you just cant factor into stats. So the ISD gets fighters and bombers...its always a gamble for the ISD what to do with them. Should they make use of these units and throw them into battle or keep them local to defend the ISD? HHmm..A-wing lure ability anyone?

The Imperial uber fighters are useful but too expensive when they can still be slaughtered by a corvette. You only get three fighters per sqdn. To outnumber a rebel sqdn you would have to buy two, which would mean 2 pop cap and 750 for phantoms and 1600 for Defenders. I do think the rebels have lost the fighter edge with the roll out of interceptors. Lets face it, fighters have never been very good and as important as fighters are to the rebs they are now facing much deadlier opponents. The Xwing, is now the weakest standard fighter of the three factions. That is a bit harsh. Fair enough interceptors cost more but there was no cost increase to ships which carry fighters. I guess this just makes Awings and corvettes even more important. If there was to be improvements made to the rebs it should be to the starfighters. But I will say rebel starfighters are rather deadly when used en masse.

As for the Aggressor I dont mind it, even if it has TLs, because that makes it vulnerable to bombers. A couple of runs and its lost its special weapon and that is 4000 odd wasted. Both rebs and imps only get very weak, expensive but useful frigates and that is what I feel is odd. @ Wedge, no I didnt forget the gunship but I didnt include it since it has no real comparison in the other factions. Each faction seems to get its own extra ship of a different class, rebs get a corvette, imps get a frigate and zc get a cap ship. Thats the only way I can see it. The loss of a missile corvette for the ZC is made up for it seems by the Aggressor as well.

Valter
12-05-2006, 09:50 PM
Responding to Tears of Isha:

Ya pretty much nailed what I was gonna say and what i've already said. I only hope the designers are tuning in and taking note of what is being said so the proper adjustments can be made.

And Valter, there's your answer to 'what advantages could there possibly be to adding a hangar for MonCals'. Tears of Isha pretty much nailed it for what I said before - since the ISD is stronger now and the Rebels are hindered by the population cap and don't have the same advantage as before, a Hangar is needed.

Giving the Mon Cal's a hangar bay will not rebalance the game but will instead further damage the already non-existent balance of the game. Dozens of squadrons of X-wings and Y-wings with 5-6 Mon Cals? Yeah, that's a perfect balance solution...

(I would go into a long drawn out argument but Rust_Lord has already said what I would have said)

{TheChosenOne}
12-06-2006, 12:56 AM
Eh....I've read this thread and I seriously don't know what the gripe is about. The frustration should be for the stupidly imbalanced Consortium. I've never had a problem as Rebels when facing Imps. I pretty much can bet that most of you guys probably spam Mon Cal cruisers and leave no room for other ships which leaves you guys S.O.L. in a lot of fights. The key to winning as rebs isn't to spam Mon Cals as you would with ISD with Imps, you need to evenly distribute your fighters, frigates, corvettes, etc.

Rebs and Imps are fine and with the coming increase in the efficiency of the fighters of the Alliance it should prove to be more balanced Imp vs. Reb. I seriously can't see how many of you are have gripes about the Mon Cals.....they have an ability that boosts all their shields straight back up ffs.....

Consortium however.....is something completely different. I think the focus should be primarily on them more so on existing rebel and imperial space units. You also have to take into consideration ground combat which Consortium is also pretty imbalanced with.

TearsOfIsha
12-06-2006, 04:46 AM
Tears I can understand that you want a measurable or tangible advantage for the MC but why does it need an advantage at all?


That's simple. You're using the Mon Cal's maneuverability as justifcation for the ISD to be upgraded. If the Maneuverability provides no specific advantage then your argument for upgrades is meaningless. Should the ISd be made better because the Mon Cal has.... more engine nozzles? A funny MC commander voice? If it doesn't do anything then why do you need the upgrades in the first place?


I like the inclusion of hangers in mods to all reb ships but the devs didnt put them in and we won't see them. Including them would make the reb ships much more expensive which would be a balance headache in itself.


Hangars are Shadow's thing - I'm not a massive fan of them. I don't really want to change the MC's use in the fleet, but I do want it to remain competitive. At the mo, it's good against ISDs and pathetic against Keldabes. The way things are going it sounds like Petro are on a mssion to make the rebels generally pathetic. Great for canon, rubbish for gameplay.


Valid arguments by both you and Shadow about the effectiveness of the MCs usefulness for its cap. Wen Shadow put it the way he did with the amount of fighters you get it does look bad but one could counter this by saying its cheaper and quicker to build than a MC plus at YertL pointed out the rebs get a bigger cap.


My point is that the cap is not big enough. 5 population nets me 5 fighters or bombers. A single ISD will spit that out 3 times over without using any population other than it's own. Your point would have some grounding if rebel fighters were better than Imperial counterparts, as in EaW, but they are quite obviously not now. The X-Wing is worse than any other standard fighter in the game - so effectively I'm paying twice the poulation for a fighter which is nowhere near as effective.

That isn't balanced at all.


Besides, has anyone played a serious game against a human where it degenerated into an all out capital ship brawl? The MC can't be the capital ship "par excellence" (behind the Keldabe ;P) because its simply not in keeping with canon.


Two points:

It's a fact in many of the books (like the technical manuals and things) that, while the Mon Cal was smaller and less well armed than the ISD, it's superior maneverability, redundant shields and far better piloting made it almost equal to the ISD.

-and-

Don't start using canon as a main argument. If canon was being equally upheld X-Wings would be the rough equivalent of Star Vipers, B-Wings would have more firepower than tartans, A-Wings would be significantly faster than anything in space (Defender included) and Rebel commanders would have the option of calling down Turbolaser strikes if they thought it needed. All of this is simply not in FoC. You can't just pick and choose what canon you like and leave out the rest.


The ISD in this game is a shadow of what it should be. Im not bitching about it because I understand the reason behind it, but it certainly deserved to be better than the MC. The ships are almost equal so I dont understand the fuss.


If the ships are almost equal, why are *you* making fuss? In fact, why are you even asking for upgrades?


The boost shields basically recharges the MCs shields...one hell of an advantage.


Yes. That's intended to make up for less damage, less hitpoints and no hangar.


The fact is, if you get the jump on an ISD and hit it in the flank IT IS DEAD! I tested multiple ISDs vs multiple MCs and the MCs wipe the floor with the ISDs. In anything other than one on one the ISD will lose; even then if you know what you are doing with the MC you can still defeat the ISD comfortably. The only thing you have to worry about is bombers, which corvettes take care of easily, and as Wedge pointed out about gunships, this is the essence of the game....its not just about MCs vs ISDs. If you dont mix your forces you generally die.


I'm really nt sure what point you're trying to make here. That tactic you've just mentioned would simply not work - A Mon Cal would never be able to get into that postition unless all of the Space around it was totally empty, which is obviously quite rare. And it'll never manage to simply 'insta-kill' an ISD unless the thing is disabled by Ion Cannon. It's too heavily armoured for that.

To be honest it sounds like you expect ISDs to be able to take on whole fleets. That's fine - give it a population cost of 10 and it'll be alright. So far I would have to use a MC, enough X-Wings/A-Wings to hold back the Interceptors and Bombers (let's say 2-3) and plenty of gunships. That's about 9 population to handle a 4 population cruiser. Do you honestly expect me to take your argument seriously with stats like that?


You might have to use more of your pop cap some time to defeat an enemy but you can make that up in other ways. Micro managing the right units at the right time can also turn the battle. These are things you just cant factor into stats. So the ISD gets fighters and bombers...its always a gamble for the ISD what to do with them. Should they make use of these units and throw them into battle or keep them local to defend the ISD? HHmm..A-wing lure ability anyone?


You see, this is something I just don't get. There seems to be this weird belief amongst non-Rebel plyers that the Rebels have this mysterious advantage, but it's so nebulous that no-one can actaully say what it is. I'm supposed to defeat superior units that cost less using.... micromanagement? Are you saying that it *isn't* a gamble with Rebel ships? If I lose a squadron then my only response is to bring one in from Hyperspace that I've hopefully kept there - the Imperials simply get a free replacement however many times for better fighters.

Tactics have their place but trying to insinuate that Imperial players need better units to compete with rebel genius is the weakest argument I've ever heard. In fact, it's desperate.


The Imperial uber fighters are useful but too expensive when they can still be slaughtered by a corvette. You only get three fighters per sqdn. To outnumber a rebel sqdn you would have to buy two, which would mean 2 pop cap and 750 for phantoms and 1600 for Defenders.


I'm not getting your argument here - you're telling me to use tactics to win but now you're complaining you need to use tactics and micromanagement to use them effectively? They are that price because you're getting everything. The Defenders are great fighters that can easily double as a fighter and a bomber. When you back that up with whatever disposables your cruisers have spit out (and let's not forget Interceptors leave X-Wings trailing) surely you can see why you're having to pay through the nose for having the best of both worlds.


I do think the rebels have lost the fighter edge with the roll out of interceptors. Lets face it, fighters have never been very good and as important as fighters are to the rebs they are now facing much deadlier opponents. The Xwing, is now the weakest standard fighter of the three factions. That is a bit harsh. Fair enough interceptors cost more but there was no cost increase to ships which carry fighters. I guess this just makes Awings and corvettes even more important. If there was to be improvements made to the rebs it should be to the starfighters. But I will say rebel starfighters are rather deadly when used en masse.


Neither of these tactics you've mentioned here are even approaching canon - they are the exact opposite. Rebels did not send fighters en-masse. Rebels did not rely on Corvettes to handle fighters, And Rebels certainly did not have enough A-Wings to handle everything using them.
As I said before, if you're going to use Canon to support your argument, then it's *all* the canon, not just the bits beneficial to you.


As for the Aggressor I dont mind it, even if it has TLs, because that makes it vulnerable to bombers. A couple of runs and its lost its special weapon and that is 4000 odd wasted. Both rebs and imps only get very weak, expensive but useful frigates and that is what I feel is odd. @ Wedge, no I didnt forget the gunship but I didnt include it since it has no real comparison in the other factions. Each faction seems to get its own extra ship of a different class, rebs get a corvette, imps get a frigate and zc get a cap ship. Thats the only way I can see it. The loss of a missile corvette for the ZC is made up for it seems by the Aggressor as well.

Whatever. I've had enough of the ZC anyway. They've got no flavour - thay just get the biggest guns and the best upgrades for nowt. I'm guessing they were meant for new players.
I'm half-expecting the patch will have all manner of wonderful upgrades for the ZC - perhaps a Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch for Zann, it just allows him to kill verything on the map every 30 seconds? Maybe turbo-spinach for the Vengance which boosts it's already massive Hitpoints up to ISD level? How about inflatable Eclipses for ZC space stations - just deply them and voila! An instant superlaser platform! Whoo hoo!

*sigh*...

Shadow_015
12-06-2006, 06:27 AM
Eh....I've read this thread and I seriously don't know what the gripe is about. The frustration should be for the stupidly imbalanced Consortium. I've never had a problem as Rebels when facing Imps. I pretty much can bet that most of you guys probably spam Mon Cal cruisers and leave no room for other ships which leaves you guys S.O.L. in a lot of fights. The key to winning as rebs isn't to spam Mon Cals as you would with ISD with Imps, you need to evenly distribute your fighters, frigates, corvettes, etc.

Rebs and Imps are fine and with the coming increase in the efficiency of the fighters of the Alliance it should prove to be more balanced Imp vs. Reb. I seriously can't see how many of you are have gripes about the Mon Cals.....they have an ability that boosts all their shields straight back up ffs.....

Consortium however.....is something completely different. I think the focus should be primarily on them more so on existing rebel and imperial space units. You also have to take into consideration ground combat which Consortium is also pretty imbalanced with.

Nah we don't, we use all ships in the battle for the right roles - after all, it's nice to see a fully diverse Rebel Fleet in action. However, I can say that I have tried to use 6 Mon Cals in a battle with 1 Hero and it isn't very useful since there are no fighters (**back to fighters argument**).

We all hate the Consortium...that's a given already and we've closed that argument earlier - so now the argument shifts to this...

Giving the Mon Cal's a hangar bay will not rebalance the game but will instead further damage the already non-existent balance of the game. Dozens of squadrons of X-wings and Y-wings with 5-6 Mon Cals? Yeah, that's a perfect balance solution...

(I would go into a long drawn out argument but Rust_Lord has already said what I would have said)

There wouldn't be a significant number of Squadrons to match ISDs. Even if MonCals had 1 Squadron of replenishable A-Wings that would still be good enough to make the MonCal a bit more competitive without spamming fighters.

It's obvious that we won't agree on giving the MC a Hangar. That's fine. However, since i've already shown a gap between the support the ISD has (and we can also now see that its stronger) and the fact that MonCals have no support due to the fact that they have no hangar, I would like to introduce another option:

What if a MonCal got a laser cannon or something which allows it to deal with fighters at least a little bit. Since you guys would argue that would mean its better armed than an ISD maybe the developers could make it ineffective vs. Capital Ships? But at least something to make the MonCal hold its own if say at any point in time its by itself and say an ISD hyperspaces in with squadrons of fighters. A laser cannon or two would at least give it a minimal edge against fighters. Even if the MonCal got no weapon or armour boost, having one or two laser cannons to deal with fighters would make them tehnically equal with ISDs again.

If you guys also want to argue 'well then we should give an ISD a laser cannon as well' - i don't mind that, as long as you give a MonCal either a better one to deal with fighters, or two of the same strength at that. Though i'd still be satisfied if they both got equal strength cannons anyway.

The other thing I would certainly suggest (and i'm sure we all agree with this) is making the X-Wing much stronger.

Rust_Lord, you say that the ISD is a shadow of its true self in canon - well the same can be said about X-Wings. And since the ISD is at least getting somewhat of a boost, we need to give a boost to X-Wings. It's the most useless fighter in the game now. Why would you build X-Wings (which can only take on TIE Fighters and not Interceptors or better) when you can build A-Wings or B-Wings for fighter duty and capital ship runs. It needs to be better shielded and armed, and do more damage, if not made faster.


Two points:

It's a fact in many of the books (like the technical manuals and things) that, while the Mon Cal was smaller and less well armed than the ISD, it's superior maneverability, redundant shields and far better piloting made it almost equal to the ISD.

-and-

Don't start using canon as a main argument. If canon was being equally upheld X-Wings would be the rough equivalent of Star Vipers, B-Wings would have more firepower than tartans, A-Wings would be significantly faster than anything in space (Defender included) and Rebel commanders would have the option of calling down Turbolaser strikes if they thought it needed. All of this is simply not in FoC. You can't just pick and choose what canon you like and leave out the rest.

The fact is, if you get the jump on an ISD and hit it in the flank IT IS DEAD! I tested multiple ISDs vs multiple MCs and the MCs wipe the floor with the ISDs. In anything other than one on one the ISD will lose; even then if you know what you are doing with the MC you can still defeat the ISD comfortably.

I do see that MonCals are faster than ISDs - but that is only a marginal speed difference in my opinion. The fact of the matter is, when you start a space skirmish both Capital Ships start at opposite sides of the map and have to move towards each other. The speed advantage would only be significant if it was noticeable, but at the moment its a *slight* speed advantage and is still countered by the range of fire from the ISD.

Now, if the speed of a MonCal was changed to something closer (but not equal) to that of an MC Frigate, i'd be more willing to accept your argument. Either way, I do believe that the MonCal needs a speed boost; and giving it a much increased speed boost would liken it more to Tears' argument about its speed ability compared to an ISD in canon. THAT would translate into a recognizable and acknowledgeable ability/advantage in my opinion.

And again, I do agree with Tears' argument. If canon is included we must consider all factors, not the ones we agree with - so there is balance. Either by mentioning counters, disadvantages, or something at least...

its not just about MCs vs ISDs. If you dont mix your forces you generally die. You might have to use more of your pop cap some time to defeat an enemy but you can make that up in other ways.

Yeah we do understand that its not just about MCs vs ISDs. There's more to a battle than that. But it comes down to just a little bit more than that. There is the inclusion of fighters which the ISD has the advantage of. And that's where we are complaining since the ISD has better fighters the Rebel fighters should be upgraded, not nerfed; so the ones you do hyperspace in are actually useful.

Furthermore, 4 pop. cap spaces is a large investment for a unit: especially since Petroglyph have decided to keep the pop. caps at 20 and 25 respectively. These issues would be somewhat less of a problem if there was a larger pop. cap or simply none at all (but a larger, much larger pop. cap would be preferably even though its killer on a low spec system).

Therefore, since there is a low pop. cap I would at least like to get the satisfactory performance out of a unit for the amount of pop. cap and credits i'm spending on it.

Naso
12-06-2006, 08:27 AM
It's kinda weird that it's still about the mon cal vs the star destroyer after that argument seemed to be somewhat settled a few times. Isn't the big problem still the shieldless zc cruiser which can take out most of the weapons on one side of an isd or mc pretty easily?

Shadow_015
12-06-2006, 08:43 AM
It's kinda weird that it's still about the mon cal vs the star destroyer after that argument seemed to be somewhat settled a few times. Isn't the big problem still the shieldless zc cruiser which can take out most of the weapons on one side of an isd or mc pretty easily?

The argument has flared up again as the ISD is being upgraded in the patch. We won't even bother discussing ZC ships as they are so totally unbalanced...

YertyL
12-06-2006, 09:40 AM
OK, just a quick reminder for everyone:
When arguing about the ISDs "free fighters", please consider that an Imp player has to pay an additional 1900 credits for these fighters (Mon Cal 4000 Credits, ISD 5900 credits (in GC)) and these "free fighters" can be gone in 1 bombing run which disables the hangar bay.
Now if you compare an ISD without fighters, a Mon Cal IMO wins by far, considering that it has the far superior special ability and no shield hardpoint.
You wouldn't want a ship to be equal to one that costs 2/3 of it, would you?

IMO a Mon Cal with 2 squadrons of X-Wings/A-Wings and 2 bomber squadrons (wich still costs only 5020-5200 credits, thus less than an ISD) would easily win against an ISD, as the bombers could quickly disable hangar bay & shields, making the ISD a sitting duck (more or less :p )

The only valid argument I see is the pop cap one (imps can bring in 5 ISDs whereas a reb player can only bring in 5 MCs and 5 fighter/bomber squadrons), however because of the example mentioned above and the fact that it's the other way around with all non-cap craft (e.g. rebs can bring in 12 vettes /25 squads of fighters/bombers while an imp player can only bring in 10 vettes/20 fighter/bomber squads), I find that relatively balanced as well.

IMO rebs still have a slight advantage in space - but that's of course depending on the scenario

TearsOfIsha
12-06-2006, 05:53 PM
OK, just a quick reminder for everyone:
When arguing about the ISDs "free fighters", please consider that an Imp player has to pay an additional 1900 credits for these fighters (Mon Cal 4000 Credits, ISD 5900 credits (in GC)) and these "free fighters" can be gone in 1 bombing run which disables the hangar bay.



This point is meaningless. First of all, more credits doesn't really mean there is a need for changes. Jack the price up on the Mon Cal for all I care. I'd much rather pay lots for excellent fighters than simply do TIE-style tactics of making swarms.
When people are talking about free fighters, we obviously aren't meaning credit-free. We mean they don't cost any population - which in itself is an excellent advantage. And don't bother arguing about how they disappear if the hangar bay goes. That's just as daft as arguing the Keldabe's WTFPWNING shield leech is completely balanced since that can be taken out too. If you're using basic tactics that imperial players seem to be very fond of reminding us rebel players about, taking down the hangar isn't as easy as you make it out to be.


Now if you compare an ISD without fighters, a Mon Cal IMO wins by far, considering that it has the far superior special ability and no shield hardpoint.
You wouldn't want a ship to be equal to one that costs 2/3 of it, would you?


I fail to see what relevance this point has. The imperial players made the mistake in the first place of doing this - I pointed out the fighters are a massive advantage.


IMO a Mon Cal with 2 squadrons of X-Wings/A-Wings and 2 bomber squadrons (wich still costs only 5020-5200 credits, thus less than an ISD) would easily win against an ISD, as the bombers could quickly disable hangar bay & shields, making the ISD a sitting duck (more or less :p )


It would also mean that I'd forced to use twice the population of the ISD to combat it itself. Considering that I'm using twice the forces to take it down, I *should* be able to take it down easily. Or is that not balanced in your opinion? Shoudl I only ever be able to win if I outnumber them 2:1?

Give me a break.


The only valid argument I see is the pop cap one (imps can bring in 5 ISDs whereas a reb player can only bring in 5 MCs and 5 fighter/bomber squadrons), however because of the example mentioned above and the fact that it's the other way around with all non-cap craft (e.g. rebs can bring in 12 vettes /25 squads of fighters/bombers while an imp player can only bring in 10 vettes/20 fighter/bomber squads), I find that relatively balanced as well.


Look, if you're going to use spaz tactics like this then that's your business, but if you're not going to bring in cruiser support than that's your fault. Don't base requests for unit upgrades on simply the fact that you use weird fleets.

What in christ's name am I going to do with 25 fighters and 12 corvettes? How is that an advantage? 2 Keldabes and some StarVipers would eat them alive.


IMO rebs still have a slight advantage in space - but that's of course depending on the scenario

The rebels get to use incapable fighters combined with soon-to-be-outmoded cruisers. Slight advantage? What tosh.

Shadow_015
12-06-2006, 06:17 PM
OK, just a quick reminder for everyone:
When arguing about the ISDs "free fighters", please consider that an Imp player has to pay an additional 1900 credits for these fighters (Mon Cal 4000 Credits, ISD 5900 credits (in GC)) and these "free fighters" can be gone in 1 bombing run which disables the hangar bay.
Now if you compare an ISD without fighters, a Mon Cal IMO wins by far, considering that it has the far superior special ability and no shield hardpoint.
You wouldn't want a ship to be equal to one that costs 2/3 of it, would you?

Like Tears said, we are talking about 'free' fighters as in 'free' population cap. No matter if you pay for em upon building, the fact is there's an abundance of them being emitted from the hangar during the course of a battle.

And the point of fighters being destroyed in 1 bombing run - they replenish! So it isn't really a valid argument. Plus, taking down the Hangar of an ISD would mean taking down the shields first if you don't have bombers on hand. And bringing in bombers to take out the Hangar bay requires a pop. cap point (for 1 set- if that set can even destroy the Hangar in 1 run before being destroyed), something that the Imperials don't required because they get bombers for FREE.

I don't mind paying extra for a MonCal as long as its built adequately to at least marginally hold its own against an ISD AND its fighters and bombers.

We never said compare the ISD to the MonCal without fighters, it's not the same as if you are comparing the four major heroes (Ackbar, Piett, Thrawn, Zann) like they did on Gamespot because it's not that type of comparison. The entire reason we are making arguments is because the ISDs special ability was spawning fighters, and being at an armour-point disadvantage to the MC, and now its stronger than an MC armour-wise which negates the MC's advantage.

IMO a Mon Cal with 2 squadrons of X-Wings/A-Wings and 2 bomber squadrons (wich still costs only 5020-5200 credits, thus less than an ISD) would easily win against an ISD, as the bombers could quickly disable hangar bay & shields, making the ISD a sitting duck (more or less )

I don't recall anybody asking, including me, for that large an amount of fighters to complement a MonCal. That's even more fighters than an ISD gets. What I said was to get a minimum of 1 Squadron of A-Wings or 1 Squadron of X-Wings and 1 Squadron of Y-Wings (B-Wings for the Home One). This would mean that the MonCal is still at a singular disadvantage in battling an ISD if it uses its fighters wastefully. Since there is only one attack squadron you would have to use them wisely.

However, my other alternative is still the laser cannons, which doesn't cause imbalance if applied to both cruisers and would give the MonCal its edge, and at the same time preserve the overall superiority of the ISD.

The only valid argument I see is the pop cap one (imps can bring in 5 ISDs whereas a reb player can only bring in 5 MCs and 5 fighter/bomber squadrons), however because of the example mentioned above and the fact that it's the other way around with all non-cap craft (e.g. rebs can bring in 12 vettes /25 squads of fighters/bombers while an imp player can only bring in 10 vettes/20 fighter/bomber squads), I find that relatively balanced as well.

While an interesting comparison, I don't think anybody who knows what they are doing would use 25 fighters only or 12 Corvettes. You'd get slaughtered by the larger capital ships for the most part, and you can't really account that the enemy wouldn't bring in stronger ships against you once their pop. cap frees up.


By the way everyone, what are your thoughts about the laser cannon idea?

wedge2211
12-06-2006, 06:26 PM
Look, if you're going to use spaz tactics like this then that's your business, but if you're not going to bring in cruiser support than that's your fault. Don't base requests for unit upgrades on simply the fact that you use weird fleets.
As I pointed out before, in this game you're unlikely ever to see a battle with only Star Destroyers against only Calamari Cruisers. The two units can't be lifted out of their member fleets and counted against each other one on one. Depending on the makeup and tactical usage of their support fleets, TearsOfIsha might be right or YertyL might be right.

Here's a wacky idea: why don't you try the patch, or make the modifications in XML yourself, and try it out? And when I say "try it out," I don't mean, "pit a single Mon Cal against a single ISD and see who wins." Maybe this modification has a profound effect on game balance when other units are counted in as well.

Rust_Lord
12-07-2006, 01:05 AM
Wedge you are absolutely right. You really can’t judge the ships effect on the game overall by comparing them separately/against each other but you know you can compare the two against each other and this is why Tears and Shadow are so upset.

I have made the mods to the xmls and seen how it plays…I wrote about it elsewhere. It’s actually pretty good. Keldabes loose a lot of teeth by greatly reducing ion/MD ROF and combined with making MD a lot less accurate against fighters, they are not as well rounded anymore….the way a cap ship should be.

@ Tears: Some of your replies to quotes simply have little to do with what I or YertyL have said and more to do with twisting what is said to further your own agenda. You criticised YertyL about the illustration he gave about pop cap and call his *comparison* stupid tactics but you didn’t give any real or constructive answer for this or any example. You claim either you don’t understand, the point is not relevant or it’s retarded. You just dismiss what you disagree with. At least Shadow offers some ideas and discusses things rationally. Here’s a challenge...Quote me where I said the MCs maneuverability is its advantage and reason for it to be upgraded…You wont find it because all I said was the MC has the maneuverability to get into the ISDs blind spot, which it does. I’ve never advocated that as the reason to upgrade it in this or any other threads. When you’re given facts and figures you choose not to address them but have no answer. You have come on here and griped about how crap the rebs are how lame the MC is, while the MC is *still* stronger than an ISD and before we have got the patch to make the ISD stronger. And by stronger we mean 215 extra HPs spread out over 10 hardpoints and 40 more damage…yeah that is just SO POWERFUL! I prefer Empire in space but I think the MCs are great. I am not out just to make the Empire the most powerful faction, I want to see balance and fairness yet a game that still reflects the SW universe we know. If you can’t use the rebs effectively when the devs think they are good enough to leave as is then I suggest you give the game up. My argument has always been that the ISD has had less HPs and less firepower than the MC which I disagree with. No we can’t have this game totally reflect canon but we can try and keep some semblence of it and the players have posted numerous times before they would like to see the ISD made better. It’s a given that ISDs are the most powerful standard cap ships around in the SW universe (excluding SSDs and EU). That’s what made the rebs victory that much more courageous. There’s a lot of material out there but *none* of it says the MC is better. And you said it yourself the MC was almost equal to the ISD. That obviously means the ISD is better, so why complain when the game is changed to reflect this? It’s obvious you’re a big MC fan but you seem to want it to be clearly superior to the ISD for less cost!? Lay off the crack. Thanks for the prices YertyL; the cost of the two craft says it all and your reasoning is sound.

The fact is the MC has better stats than the ISD as far as maneuverability therefore this is an advantage (albeit a small one); it has twice the thrust and can react and change direction quicker. I am surprised Shadow if you bring in cap ships to slowly cruise across the game area...dont you scout? Hypering in cap ships behind an enemy force is a fave tactic of mine. It forces the enemy to break formation to deal with the it.

Here a quick reply to the things raised….hope you have a cup of coffee handy :P

*The MC is “good against ISDs but pathetic against Keldabes” = *Everything* is pathetic against Keldabes at the moment but the changes make it better. And if the MC is good against ISDs what the hell are you complaining about and wanting it buffed for?
*You say the pop cap isn’t big enough for the rebs? Then what pop cap do you think is reasonable? Should the rebs get extra pop cap that can only be filled by starfighters? Keep in mind if you raised it to 30 you would have 50% more cap than the Empire. Bye Bye balance.
*If you think the Xwing is now crap (which I agree) then buy Awings. They still shred Imp fighters.
*”A-Wings would be significantly faster than anything in space (Defender included)”= Bullcrap. Where are these stats from? The Awing has and speed of 120 and the Defender has 156. Even in XWA with ships toned down the defender was faster. The defenders speed has been cut in the patch and while disappointing its prolly fair.
*”If the ships are almost equal, why are *you* making fuss? In fact, why are you even asking for upgrades?” = Dood, the ISD advocates if I can call them that did not start this. Check the beginning of this thread. I stated the change in stats and then Shadow initially and then yourself wanted the MC buffed. Read your own posts again! We have discussed ISD upgrades in other threads and Petro have listened (AMEN)… Although the changes are very minimal.
*(on shield recharge) “Yes. That's intended to make up for less damage, less hitpoints and no hangar.” = *shakes head*… read the HPs and damage “advantage” above. I would have gladly traded these increases to get shield boost for the ISD. Then you would have something to really whinge about.
*”To be honest it sounds like you expect ISDs to be able to take on whole fleets.” = When I have said you can kill an ISD with one MC used correctly? Are you even reading my posts? Personally I would like to see that, and have even fewer ISDs in the game after all in the Imperial order of battle an ISD is equivalent to a line of ordinary cruisers itself; but this will never happen and I’m not fussed.
*”I'm supposed to defeat superior units that cost less using.... micromanagement?” = my point was a general point about the game, not specific to the rebel faction. And if you play the game I am sure you know that ISDs actually cost more than MCs and in skirmish Interceptors cost more than Xwings. Relax, you are not being victimized…they aren’t coming for you, its okay!
*”Tactics have their place but trying to insinuate that Imperial players need better units to compete with rebel genius is the weakest argument I've ever heard. In fact, it's desperate.” = I have never stated or insinuated this. You must be having delusions because I don’t know how you drew this conclusion from what I wrote. Tactics and MM applies to all sides, even the ZC.
*Your whole paragraph about what I said about the Imp uber fighters makes no sense. Again I don’t know how you thought I was complaining about needing to use tactics when using these fighters. Tactics were never mentioned. Someone was winging about Rebels getting 5 fighters per sdqn when Imps get 7. I was pointing out this is not true with the uber fighters and how much it would cost to outnumber a rebel sqdn…not to mention 2 sdqns are 1/10 of your total pop cap.
*”Rebels did not send fighters en-masse.” = They relied on fighters more than they did cap ships that’s for damn sure.
*As I said before, if you're going to use Canon to support your argument, then it's *all* the canon, not just the bits beneficial to you. = Hhmm gee then why do you think I want to see an improvement to the reb fighters?? I agree with you Shadow! Boost the Xwings shields. It’s okay in all other areas.
*Shadow I only bring in my cap ships on my side of the map if my star base is under siege. They are too slow to cross the map so I move faster units as far as I can until they engage the enemy then I bring the bigger ships in and in advantageous positions.

Shadow I liked your most recent post. Well argued especially this
“And the point of fighters being destroyed in 1 bombing run - they replenish! So it isn't really a valid argument. Plus, taking down the Hangar of an ISD would mean taking down the shields first if you don't have bombers on hand. And bringing in bombers to take out the Hangar bay requires a pop. cap point (for 1 set- if that set can even destroy the Hangar in 1 run before being destroyed), something that the Imperials don't required because they get bombers for FREE.”

It isn’t hard to take out a hanger bay but yes it’s going to use pop cap to do it. I still think that is why the rebs get a greater pop cap. You can either invest in a corvette or Awings that will intercept bombers, seeing as money is not an issue. You only have to worry about the interceptors but BOTH Awings and Corvettes have received a hefty speed boost in the patch. I would be making this count. They will out speed interceptors easily now and could pick off a bomber sqdn at will. It is a genuine problem the fighters replenish but while your Awing sdqn is keeping the spawned fighters busy the MC would get the shields on the MC down and take out its hanger…end of fighters.

Other than this, what would you like to see done to the ISD to make it more balanced then; reduced fighter/bomber cap/increase in price. Put forward some ideas please. Does it have to be an improvement to the MC?

Shadow I must admit I don’t like the laser cannon idea, I much prefer your hanger idea with a sdqn of Awings for the Mon Cal, say with 2 more in reserve. This has a potential to be overpowering tho because one Awing sqdn using its special could render *all* sqdns from the ISD ineffective by luring them away for long enough for the MC to paste the ISD. Still Id prefer to see Awings than Xwings coz 1 sdqn of Xwings would be useless against 2 x Int sqdns.

Shadow_015
12-07-2006, 11:50 AM
Okay, where do I start lol :roll1:.

Shadow I must admit I don’t like the laser cannon idea, I much prefer your hanger idea with a sdqn of Awings for the Mon Cal, say with 2 more in reserve. This has a potential to be overpowering tho because one Awing sqdn using its special could render *all* sqdns from the ISD ineffective by luring them away for long enough for the MC to paste the ISD. Still Id prefer to see Awings than Xwings coz 1 sdqn of Xwings would be useless against 2 x Int sqdns.

I was thinking about that...and yeah A-Wings do have a significant effect on other fighters. To counter this though, I was more thinking whether it would be wiser to randomise the complement of fighters that an MC gets either with each MC produced or with each new battle it engages in. The Home One would still definitely get B-Wings of course, along with an X-Wing squadron because B-Wings are Ackbar's babies. But for the rest it could be random, what do you think?

Thinking about the laser cannon idea again...it may not seem like a very attractive idea on the onset. But if you think about it further it may make sense aswell. The ISD wouldn't be at a disadvantage to the MC if both got at least 1 cannon placed in the middle of the cruiser halfway between the midpoint and the front - and having a laser cannon would also give both cruisers more of an edge vs. the Consortium. The cannon wouldn't have to be uber-powerful - but something along the lines of the MC Frigate. After all, it works well enough for the MC30 doesn't it?

The fact is the MC has better stats than the ISD as far as maneuverability therefore this is an advantage (albeit a small one); it has twice the thrust and can react and change direction quicker. I am surprised Shadow if you bring in cap ships to slowly cruise across the game area...dont you scout? Hypering in cap ships behind an enemy force is a fave tactic of mine. It forces the enemy to break formation to deal with the it.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. The way I meant to put it was in terms of a defensive tactical space battle in GC (in both EAW and FoC) and in skirmish where you naturally both start off on opposite sides and there are usually obstacles which do not allow u to hyper in that close to the enemy - and they usually come for you anyway.

Yeah I certainly do use scouting, but I wasn't really considering that. Nonetheless, it is a valid comparison since the scenario could very well happen. I also like using the blind spot ability, but my original tactic when doing scouting is to bring in either a corvette or fighters, fly to the enemy and bring in counters to each enemy ship depending on the positioning, that way there's a shielded force e.g. Neb-B against Corvettes would be put in between Corvettes and fighters, but within range of other smaller capital ships - MC's come in last. I definitely prefer bringing in small heroes for scouting though - Slave I, Falcon and Sundered Heart: those are the best.

Furthermore, I very much accept that an ISD is superior to an MC, and I am very much fine with that. The ISD is meant to be the most powerful ship around (next to the SSD and ESD) and that's why I also argue against the allegedly superior Kedalbe and Aggressor. They may have been stolen Imperial designs, but in the end he's a pirate and a gangster, and despite having money would not have produced the same quality ships as Imperials, or the same quantity - at least without anyone taking notice. It's similar to bootlegged DVDs - they may be surprisingly good but they still aren’t on the same level.

I am both an ISD and an MC fan - heck, the Acclamator, ISD, SSD and Venator are damn cool! However, I do raise these issues due to game balance and also because I have to admit - ever since X-Wing Alliance I have very much preferred to see MCs with Hangars. They are so much cooler and effective that way.

Anyway, enough of the rambling… I do realize the MC has a technical advantage to the ISD in terms of maneuverability. However, while it’s noticeable enough if you pay close attention, it still isn't significant enough to be cited as an all-out advantage if you catch my drift. It's no boost shields ability in my book.

What I suggest would be maybe improving the speed of the MC to make it more noticeable. If that would happen I’d be more willing to let the ISD improvements slide for game balance, as this would put the MC a bit more even. Now I’m not saying make it as fast as an MC Frigate, but I would appreciate a significant speed boost to more accurately reflect the maneuverability advantage of the MC over the ISD. Maybe a 40%-50% boost in speed in-between the MC's speed and the MC Frigate's speed?

I would also be very much willing to allow the price of an MC rise if this occured, since it would make the game more fair for Imperial players.

You say the pop cap isn’t big enough for the rebs? Then what pop cap do you think is reasonable? Should the rebs get extra pop cap that can only be filled by starfighters? Keep in mind if you raised it to 30 you would have 50% more cap than the Empire. Bye Bye balance.

Other than this, what would you like to see done to the ISD to make it more balanced then; reduced fighter/bomber cap/increase in price. Put forward some ideas please. Does it have to be an improvement to the MC?

Well that's a toughie to answer. There are options but it would get more complicated and everybody knows that. I'm fine with beefing out the ISD but only if you give the MC something else to compensate for it, even if it isn't making it exactly equal to the ISD. There are different ways to do it, i've mentioned two of them - boosting the maneuverability/speed of the MC, giving it a hangar, or a laser cannon. Any of those would give it a boost, and even if the designers wanted to boost an ISD further as long as it is proportional in the end then i'm fine with that.

In terms of pop. cap; increasing it for the Rebels isn't the solution, since it would make it unfair for Imperials as you stated, so I was kind of thinking if there was a way to decrease the pop. cap of specific units to kind of give the Rebels some kind of edge. I kind of thought of it like this:

Ammended Pop Caps for Specific Units:

Rebel Fighters: 1
Rebel Corvettes: 1
Nebulon-B Frigates: 2
Imperial Fighters: 1
Tartans: 1
Acclamators: 3
Victory's: 3
Assault Frigates: 3
MC30 Frigates: 3
etc.

Let's keep in mind that none of this is final, and I was only kind of brainstorming this.

The reason I would say make the Acclamator cost more than the Nebulon-B is because the Acclamator has fighters - that's my justification for it. This setup would somewhat upset the balance, but if you guys have any suggestions to tweak it please let me know.

I also think the MC Frigate should be kept at 3 because their effectiveness definitely renders them worthy of occupying 3 slots on the pop. cap as they are a very useful and devastating unit if used right. Of course the other units are too, but not to the same extent.

*”Rebels did not send fighters en-masse.” = They relied on fighters more than they did cap ships that’s for damn sure.

*As I said before, if you're going to use Canon to support your argument, then it's *all* the canon, not just the bits beneficial to you. = Hhmm gee then why do you think I want to see an improvement to the reb fighters?? I agree with you Shadow! Boost the Xwings shields. It’s okay in all other areas.

I sure as hell agree that the Rebel's strength is their fighters, which is why I think the balance should be restored to both what it is in canon, but also so that the Rebels still have their advantages - which definitely means boosting the X-Wing. I don't mind where it gets boosted as long as there's a boost - though I do not accept S-foil boosts for any fighters really because they are the least used, only for zipping across the map and initiating bombing runs. Though the base speed is the most important for that.

In any case, a boost to the X-Wing is a welcome development to me. I'm sure you guys have already looked on Petroglyph Forums...I don't see any changes being made to X-Wings? Anyone?

Finally, I won't reply to anything you said to Tears, that's between you two and I don't need to put my two cents in, so I won't :helm2:

TearsOfIsha
12-07-2006, 04:34 PM
RustLord, there's a lot here so I'll just answer your direct points.

It’s obvious you’re a big MC fan but you seem to want it to be clearly superior to the ISD for less cost!? Lay off the crack.


I'm not really sure where this came from - I've stated twice that the price of the Mon Cal should go up.


*The MC is “good against ISDs but pathetic against Keldabes” = *Everything* is pathetic against Keldabes at the moment but the changes make it better. And if the MC is good against ISDs what the hell are you complaining about and wanting it buffed for?


The situation that currently, the Mon Cal is a match for the ISD and dies horribly to a Keldabe. With the way things are going it'll die horribly to everything. I'm only asking for buffs to keep it competitive with the ISD - as much as you don't accept it, the MC is rapidly running out of advantages. Pretty soon it'll have less firepower and less hitpoints, on top of no hangar. All of this is apparently balanced by the fact that it's cheaper (which is meaningless - money is mainly a matter of time more than anything else), and it's got a boost shields ability (which is a valid point, and it is the only thing from stopping the MC from becoming the crusier version of the X-Wing - overpriced and rubbish against everything).

The only other thing is it's maneuverability, which as I said before, no-one seems to be able to pin down what precisely that is useful for (besides blind rushing).


*You say the pop cap isn’t big enough for the rebs? Then what pop cap do you think is reasonable? Should the rebs get extra pop cap that can only be filled by starfighters? Keep in mind if you raised it to 30 you would have 50% more cap than the Empire. Bye Bye balance.


I should have made this a little clearer. I'm not asking for an increase in Pop cap, I'm asking for the fighters which take up that popcap to be more useful. Currently I'm stuck with fighters which take up more population than there populationless imperial counterparts.... yet fall apart when they take them on.

It's completley canon for the Rebels to have less fighters - it's also completely canon for the Rebel starfighters to be stronger, as the imperials viewed fighters as harrasment agents at best.


*If you think the Xwing is now crap (which I agree) then buy Awings. They still shred Imp fighters.


That's a weak point. Simply using something else because the X-Wing is underpowered does not change the fact that the X-Wing is... underpowered.
Besides, the A-Wings were never the standard fighter of the Rebels.


*”A-Wings would be significantly faster than anything in space (Defender included)”= Bullcrap. Where are these stats from? The Awing has and speed of 120 and the Defender has 156. Even in XWA with ships toned down the defender was faster. The defenders speed has been cut in the patch and while disappointing its prolly fair.


The stats come from the Essential Guide to Vessels and Vehicles, published by Lucasarts. They state in Plain English that the A-Wing was faster.
I'm assuming your getting you info from the TIE Fighter game. It was faster in that due to balance reasons - the games are not good sources of canon. Just look at Battlefront 2 - apparently the V-Wings were the Republic's main bomber and the Republic Gunships were used as Space Shuttles. And standard battle droids didn't exist.
(And yes, I am aware of what it says on Wookiepedia. Aside from the fact that Wookiepedia has acquired a bit of a repuation for making articles based on literally anything (I saw an article once on a new legged MTT which was based on a bad drawing of a regular MTT in a comic), the situation is this - Open-Source Fansite vs. Canon Book. No contest.)


*”If the ships are almost equal, why are *you* making fuss? In fact, why are you even asking for upgrades?” = Dood, the ISD advocates if I can call them that did not start this. Check the beginning of this thread. I stated the change in stats and then Shadow initially and then yourself wanted the MC buffed. Read your own posts again! We have discussed ISD upgrades in other threads and Petro have listened (AMEN)… Although the changes are very minimal.


I think there's been some miscommunication there. As I said, I only want the MC to be buffed because it looks like it's going to be left behind. You may think it's better for whatever reason - I don't think it's a bad ship, but shortly the only thing that will make it useful is it's shield boost so it can be used as a meatshield - as it's guns and Hit points stop it from being a frontliner and the lack of hangar means that it's bad population value.


*(on shield recharge) “Yes. That's intended to make up for less damage, less hitpoints and no hangar.” = *shakes head*… read the HPs and damage “advantage” above. I would have gladly traded these increases to get shield boost for the ISD. Then you would have something to really whinge about.


Well that's because someone, somewhere, thought that shield boost and hangar on a single ship would be cheese. I agree with them.


*”To be honest it sounds like you expect ISDs to be able to take on whole fleets.” = When I have said you can kill an ISD with one MC used correctly? Are you even reading my posts? Personally I would like to see that, and have even fewer ISDs in the game after all in the Imperial order of battle an ISD is equivalent to a line of ordinary cruisers itself; but this will never happen and I’m not fussed.


Yes, thank you, I was reading your posts. Including this:

In anything other than one on one the ISD will lose; even then if you know what you are doing with the MC you can still defeat the ISD comfortably. The only thing you have to worry about is bombers, which corvettes take care of easily, and as Wedge pointed out about gunships, this is the essence of the game....its not just about MCs vs ISDs.

Forgive me, but this sounds like it's a bad thing that the ISD is outdone by a number of corvettes, fighters, and an MC - i.e. a fleet. If you meant something else then that isn't my fault, you shoudl have made it clearer.


*”I'm supposed to defeat superior units that cost less using.... micromanagement?” = my point was a general point about the game, not specific to the rebel faction. And if you play the game I am sure you know that ISDs actually cost more than MCs and in skirmish Interceptors cost more than Xwings. Relax, you are not being victimized…they aren’t coming for you, its okay!


You didn't make that clear. you appeared to be responding to mine and shadow's responses about the shortfalls of the MC with a bout of lessons on how to strutcure attacks against an ISD and it's fighters.


*”Tactics have their place but trying to insinuate that Imperial players need better units to compete with rebel genius is the weakest argument I've ever heard. In fact, it's desperate.” = I have never stated or insinuated this. You must be having delusions because I don’t know how you drew this conclusion from what I wrote. Tactics and MM applies to all sides, even the ZC.


*sigh* I got the hint from this:

You might have to use more of your pop cap some time to defeat an enemy but you can make that up in other ways. Micro managing the right units at the right time can also turn the battle. These are things you just cant factor into stats. So the ISD gets fighters and bombers...its always a gamble for the ISD what to do with them.

You started going on about how I need to use lots of population to defeat Imperials but apparently I have to make this up in other ways, i.e. using tactics. I not against using tactics but I don't think they should be used simply to keep afloat against a unfairly superior side.

These aren't delusions - these are from your post. If you made stuff clearer and more relevent then there would be no problems. Since when did the discussion turn to the need for overall tactics in EaW?


*Your whole paragraph about what I said about the Imp uber fighters makes no sense. Again I don’t know how you thought I was complaining about needing to use tactics when using these fighters. Tactics were never mentioned. Someone was winging about Rebels getting 5 fighters per sdqn when Imps get 7. I was pointing out this is not true with the uber fighters and how much it would cost to outnumber a rebel sqdn…not to mention 2 sdqns are 1/10 of your total pop cap.


Well, I wasn't that someone so I don't understand why you directed it at me in your response. I can't see into you mind, I don't know who you're talking to, and if you follow up a response specifically to me with this I'm going to assume you're talking to me.
I couldn't care less about outnumbering. What I thought you were getting at was that your elite fighters were expensive when you have the choice of using both Elites and Disposables. There bound to be expensive when you've got all that choice - the rebels don't have that.


*”Rebels did not send fighters en-masse.” = They relied on fighters more than they did cap ships that’s for damn sure.


I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here. What you've said is true but what does this have to do the effectiveness of the MC and X-Wings in EaW? My point was that the fighters need a buff more than the cruisers to, to be honest.
I didn't understand what you were saying either. Pretty much anything is effective en-masse - that doesn't fix the unit and it doesn't help the situation...


*As I said before, if you're going to use Canon to support your argument, then it's *all* the canon, not just the bits beneficial to you. = Hhmm gee then why do you think I want to see an improvement to the reb fighters?? I agree with you Shadow! Boost the Xwings shields. It’s okay in all other areas.


This came from the fact that you were using canon to support your argument for ISDs being more powerful than MCs... but then appeared to evaporate when the points about MC hangars, maneverability being a solid advantage and using fighters en-masse were raised. As I said, the canon argument works both ways.

Shadow, I have to admit, I don't really like the idea of the Laser Cannon or the Hangar. The problem is the Laser Cannons on Cruisers are a bit pants unless their mounted in banks like Corvettes. I'm not really sure if they'd have much of an effect - and their not really canon either.

The Hangar Bay is canon but.... it begs the question why don't the rest of the rebel ships have fighters? It just doesn't seem to fit with the rebels, what with bringing fighters in via hyperspace and whatnot.

Taking X-Wing boosts as a given, I think the best thing that could be done with the MC is to keep it's higher maneverability but make sure that actually equates to a boost. Perhaps allowing the MC to fly under and over Imperial ships so they can simply move to whatever position they need to get a good a shot.

Valter
12-07-2006, 05:48 PM
I realize this is kind of random but this is a patch thread and the Mon Calamari Cruiser debate seems to have hit a stalemate.

I hope Petro adds a choice for match-ups in galactic conquest. You know, Not a three-way battle but maybe just a two-way battle as a choice. I think it would be fun to have the classic Rebs vs. Empire or Consortium vs. Rebs or Empire. Just a thought...

I hope Petro reintroduces the "random events" option into Galactic Conquest as well. Galactic Conquest games just don't feel the same without them. What do you all think?

TearsOfIsha
12-07-2006, 07:35 PM
Yeah, pretty much. In any case, the patch readme has gone live now.

{TheChosenOne}
12-07-2006, 08:39 PM
It's a pity they didn't add an ally capability. That way if you're outmatched vs. the Consortium, the one reb team can match up and ally with the one Imp team.

Just some off topic, lol. :p

Anyway I think this Mon Cal debate is centered toward the fact that Consortium units are overpowered. Nerf the Consortium, don't buff the others.

Slocket
12-07-2006, 11:43 PM
I realize this is kind of random but this is a patch thread and the Mon Calamari Cruiser debate seems to have hit a stalemate.

I hope Petro adds a choice for match-ups in galactic conquest. You know, Not a three-way battle but maybe just a two-way battle as a choice. I think it would be fun to have the classic Rebs vs. Empire or Consortium vs. Rebs or Empire. Just a thought...

I hope Petro reintroduces the "random events" option into Galactic Conquest as well. Galactic Conquest games just don't feel the same without them. What do you all think?

I made one for the Equal Footing map GC. Empire vs Rebel only. I have only one starting planet for each, and pirates on other neutral worlds to slow down the land rush.

Many mods can be made, but until a decent patch is out...well we are all waiting before serious modding.

I myself have beefed up the X-Wing to make it worth something...gave it better shields about 25% and a higher refresh rate. I think it could use a pair of concusion missles to boot.

I see the Empire new fighters just run over the Rebels, and it is *not really fun* to play.

A boost to Rebel fighters would go a long way to help the Mon Cal problem verse the Empire ISD now stronger fighters to maintain some kind of balance.

Rust_Lord
12-08-2006, 01:32 AM
Point taken Valter. Yes thanks chaps (Shads and Tears) that was fun. I see there is a bit of miscommunication and I actually agree with you more than you might think. Its just among the cap ships, one is always going to 'come last'. Doesnt mean it is no good. I dont want the ISD to fall back into that position. If the MC gets upgraded..fine, as long as its price increases accordingly.

As for the Keldabe, the MC doesnt do too bad now but even if it received some Awings, they wont help against the Keldabe. It will get beaten as badly as it did before and its going to cost more. I havent looked at the stats for the Keldabes speed/agility. To boost the MCs speed is an idea although I wouldnt like to see it increase by much. What about a really short duration engine boost (im talking 3-5 secs) like the corvette but certainly not as fast. This way the MC can accelerate out of a tight spot or maneuver even quicker. Even for a cap ship they should be basically able to turn on the spot like they did in ROTJ. I appreciate your opinion about the ISD Shads but we all know the Keldabe will continue to be the best capital ship around now. Bring it on..the bigger they are the harder they fall.

As for buying Awings over Xwings...i know it doesnt solve anything but its the only solution available at present. It would be better for star base garrison fighters to upgrade to Awings when you reach the right tech level to counter the other fighters. As for the Xwing, they are supposed to be generally on par with the interceptor so increase their price to 550 in skirmish and give them a shield boost.

Shads I agree with you abut the random fighter issue. One sdqn of each X,Y and A for Mon Cals issued randomly would be good and fun, because you never know what you will receive and you will have to adjust accordingly; so it wont always be the advantage it could be. Yes Ackbar should get Bwings.

Shads you said: "I also like using the blind spot ability, but my original tactic when doing scouting is to bring in either a corvette or fighters, fly to the enemy and bring in counters to each enemy ship depending on the positioning, that way there's a shielded force e.g. Neb-B against Corvettes would be put in between Corvettes and fighters, but within range of other smaller capital ships - MC's come in last."
=without reigniting the pop cap debate this is what i was thinking as far as tactics and management-> force selection! I know its got more weight in skirmish but still valid in GC. Forget pop cap for a moment. What you deploy is most important. I know having corellian gunships taking out ISDs might seem incredible but this is the sort of David and Goliath struggle that made it all cool. I remember in the RPG the assault frigate and corellian gunships both had some nasty weapons that could mess up an ISD so I honestly dont mind getting mauled by those buggers. Getting taken down by a group of corellian corvettes is a different story. :P I really expected the Assault Frigate to pack alot more punch in this game...anyway, my point is if you can select the right ships and bring them in at the right time and position you can take out the enemy even if it takes you more cap. But if you can take out a couple of frigates early on in the game for eg and keep your forces relatively in tact then you have won an economic victory because the other player is going to have to spend credits on replacing those ships. This takes a big toll over time since you can buy more ships or upgrade. Choosing your fights (as much as you can) is at the heart of how the Alliance fought in SW and in this game. Thats why, I believe, they are faster. Death by a thousand cuts...hence why fighters were (should be) so important.

As for the MC-30 I think they could come down in price a tad...4000 in skirmish is a wad of cash for a fragile frigate. 3500 is still a hefty price becasue you only have to take your eyes off it for an instant, lose two hardpoints and they are useless, chewing up 3 pop cap to boot.

Valter
12-08-2006, 03:04 PM
Well, the patch notes are now finalized and I am impressed with the overall changes that will be included. I think there are some welcome changes for the Consortium (I think there should have been more nerfs to the Keldabe and Aggressor though). I have no objections to the rebel changes and finally the Imperial Star Destroyer will be as powerful as it should have been in the first place.

I agree with you Rust_Lord about the MC-30, such a fragile frigate should not be near the price range of a Mon Calamari Cruiser.

I do hope however that all of the bugs will be fixed. It would be a shame if a new patch was needed immediately after this one goes public...

TearsOfIsha
12-08-2006, 03:37 PM
I agree with you Rust_Lord about the MC-30, such a fragile frigate should not be near the price range of a Mon Calamari Cruiser.


I know it must sound like I'm disagreeing with Rust_Lord on EVERYTHING but I'm not sure it needs a price reduction. It's one of the few units in the Rebel arsenal that is lethal against both Fighters and Cruisers. I don't mind the increase in time between volleys - it's shooting 8 torpedoes at once - and the cluster bomb is still there (which was one of the few effective weapons against the Star Vipers). I think a heavy price should be required.

Daft Adidas
12-08-2006, 03:38 PM
This is a cool smily. :rifle:

TearsOfIsha
12-08-2006, 03:42 PM
This is a cool smily. :rifle:

Uh...... yes.....:nut

Daft Adidas
12-08-2006, 03:44 PM
sorry the smily was meant come up. Lol!

Daft Adidas
12-08-2006, 03:49 PM
this was what i was talking about, by the way how do you put quotes in ur text where it sez orinialy posted by whoever? :rifle1: :sniper9:

TearsOfIsha
12-08-2006, 04:01 PM
this was what i was talking about, by the way how do you put quotes in ur text where it sez orinialy posted by whoever? :rifle1: :sniper9:

You press the quote button, below the post :p

Shadow_015
12-08-2006, 04:02 PM
this was what i was talking about, by the way how do you put quotes in ur text where it sez orinialy posted by whoever? :rifle1: :sniper9:

Basically, you put a [, then you type QUOTE in capital letters. That is followed by an = sign and then you type the person's name correctly and put another ] facing the other way.

After that you paste in what they said.

Then behind the text you put another [, then a / and then you type QUOTE again and put a ]. That should do it....

Remember, this is for quoting multiple pieces of text. If you want to quote just one piece of text, then just press quote :)

Daft Adidas
12-08-2006, 04:12 PM
Thanks guys, is this on quick reply or advanced coz on quick it won't let me click the box. Why?

Daft Adidas
12-08-2006, 04:29 PM
You press the quote button, below the post Thanks, i get it now.

Shadow_015
12-08-2006, 08:08 PM
I realize this is kind of random but this is a patch thread and the Mon Calamari Cruiser debate seems to have hit a stalemate.

Technically it has, and it hasn't. We aren't really off-topic since we are talking about MCs and ISDs, but in terms of changes FOR the patch, so I think it's okay. Sure, this is a patch thread but let's face it - this thread would have died long ago were it not for our debate. This is also evident in the fact that there has been no real topic since you instigated this comment...so I say we continue this debate, but constructively.

Since we've now sort of hit a stalemate. Let's think of ways we can compromise and come up with some possible changes which we could possibly pitch towards one of the designers for a future patch.

Shadow, I have to admit, I don't really like the idea of the Laser Cannon or the Hangar. The problem is the Laser Cannons on Cruisers are a bit pants unless their mounted in banks like Corvettes. I'm not really sure if they'd have much of an effect - and their not really canon either.

Okay, I accept that the laser canon idea isn't a popular one so i'll drop that entirely. But I still maintain that the Hangar idea is good (and canon), and it doesn't necessarily distort game balance the way Rusty and I have discussed it. A random squadron each time would spice things up a bit. I have to admit, I kind of forgot what the armament of an MC was and i'm too lazy to look it up (i've had a long day - trust me) but I swear they had some laser cannons on em?

The Hangar Bay is canon but.... it begs the question why don't the rest of the rebel ships have fighters? It just doesn't seem to fit with the rebels, what with bringing fighters in via hyperspace and whatnot.

The Hangar bay is canon yes. If you included 1 or 2 random fighter squadrons (out of Rebels) it would be balanced and fair, and also canon since each MC had different complements of squadrons.

The rest of the Rebel ships don't have fighters because they weren't outfitted with fighters in canon. The Assault Frigate Mk II was meant as a space weapons platform and the Nebulon-B did carry fighters...but on extra racks which were outfitted to the undercarriage of the Frigate. It's state in EAW now is its original state - but i'm sure you already know that :P You already know about MC Frigates anyway and they are not canon so I won't speak about them.

Tears, I know you also think MCs should be buffed but how? I haven't really seen you mention anything significant in terms of the way they should be buffed. I've mentioned 3 methods sofar - laser cannons, hangar and speed. What are you specifically thinking of? I'm out of ideas so i'm definitely willing to listen to your suggestions :ears1:

Taking X-Wing boosts as a given, I think the best thing that could be done with the MC is to keep it's higher maneverability but make sure that actually equates to a boost. Perhaps allowing the MC to fly under and over Imperial ships so they can simply move to whatever position they need to get a good a shot.

Please elaborate on this. It's similar to what I said. My suggestion is to either change its cruising speed by 40-50% in-between its original speed and the MC30c's (what I said before), or to include something like the Corvettes have which is the boost engines ability - although it would be active for a much shorter duration with the same recharge time as the Corvette. And yes this is also agreeing with the point you made earlier Rusty.

Allowing the MC to fly over and under the ISD is an interesting idea, but I find it difficult to envision how that could be set by the designers and how you would pull that off in skirmish. For me, when I turn on the cinematic camera 7-8 times out of 10 there will be a few ships which are on a different 'altitude' level (technically not the right word but you know what I mean) than the others.

As for the MC-30 I think they could come down in price a tad...4000 in skirmish is a wad of cash for a fragile frigate. 3500 is still a hefty price becasue you only have to take your eyes off it for an instant, lose two hardpoints and they are useless, chewing up 3 pop cap to boot.

Totally read my mind there. I was thinking of the exact same price and I definitely agree. Along with your points about it I would also like to respond to Tears' comment about the Cluster Bomb. They may still be there, but the bombs only work in the range of the outer-most circle when the bombs have fully expanded - so the damage effect works only there and not inside or outside the arc of where the bombs explode. 3500 seems like a good price to me. They are a little more effective than Assault Frigates, but also weaker in armour, so the 500 extra is warranted. 4000 is too much.

Choosing your fights (as much as you can) is at the heart of how the Alliance fought in SW and in this game. Thats why, I believe, they are faster. Death by a thousand cuts...hence why fighters were (should be) so important.]

I agree. To be honest however, when you are in a cramped skirmish battle map, picking your fights becomes harder since there's nowhere to really go and you are fighting over both land and mining facilities. It may work for GC, but definitely not for skirmish in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Rust_Lord] As for buying Awings over Xwings...i know it doesnt solve anything but its the only solution available at present. It would be better for star base garrison fighters to upgrade to Awings when you reach the right tech level to counter the other fighters. As for the Xwing, they are supposed to be generally on par with the interceptor so increase their price to 550 in skirmish and give them a shield boost.

Agreed. I just hope that a designer is weighing in on this discussion. Otherwise i'll have to seek one out and inform him of the points :)

I myself have beefed up the X-Wing to make it worth something...gave it better shields about 25% and a higher refresh rate. I think it could use a pair of concusion missles to boot.

I see the Empire new fighters just run over the Rebels, and it is *not really fun* to play.

A boost to Rebel fighters would go a long way to help the Mon Cal problem verse the Empire ISD now stronger fighters to maintain some kind of balance.

Agreed there. Rebels definitely aren't fun to play in this way. I don't even play against the Consortium in skirmish anymore, or at all (I only play skirmish atm). I only play either as Imps vs. Rebs or as Rebs vs. Imps.

Though for the X-wings would recommend Proton Torpedoes instead of Concussion Missles however, as Protons were canon - the X-Wing had them and A-Wings were the ones with Concussion Missles.

On another note, I think I was the guy who made that comment about the 'more TIE fighters in comparison to Rebel fighters' comment. It was not fully argued, or poorly argued - so please disregard that comment, I apologize :).

Finally, here are my suggestions to end this argument and prevent another one flaring up to do justice for both sides:

1. Increase the speed of the MC (in one of the ways I mentioned before) or:
2. Give the MC a Hangar with 1 or 2 random fighter complements. Home One
would get B-Wings automatically and 1 other random fighter complement.
3. Keep the ISD stats - that's happenning anyway and i'm fine with that.
4. BOOST THE X-WING. A shield boost is definitely welcomed - by 25% at
least would be great.
5. NERF THE CONSORTIUM - that's happenning anyway, but I definitely
want to see a decline in mass-driver and special weapon effectiveness.
6. Change the MC Frigate's cost from 4000 to 3500.


If there is anything else please do not hesitate to add and voice your own opinions. Who knows, the constructiveness may actually lead to something... :spin:

ImpElite
12-08-2006, 09:04 PM
"NERF THE CONSORTIUM - that's happenning anyway"

What do you mean that's happeneing anyway? I hope nerf only means weaken not obliterate, I wouldn't like seeing my new fav faction go down the toilet, even if they were slightly weaker than the other two factions.

Valter
12-08-2006, 10:32 PM
Technically it has, and it hasn't. We aren't really off-topic since we are talking about MCs and ISDs, but in terms of changes FOR the patch, so I think it's okay. Sure, this is a patch thread but let's face it - this thread would have died long ago were it not for our debate. This is also evident in the fact that there has been no real topic since you instigated this comment...so I say we continue this debate, but constructively.

Since we've now sort of hit a stalemate. Let's think of ways we can compromise and come up with some possible changes which we could possibly pitch towards one of the designers for a future patch.


I apologize, I just figured the debate had hit a standstill but if you still want to discuss the issue then I have no objections, I have nothing better to do right now anyway...


Okay, I accept that the laser canon idea isn't a popular one so i'll drop that entirely. But I still maintain that the Hangar idea is good (and canon), and it doesn't necessarily distort game balance the way Rusty and I have discussed it. A random squadron each time would spice things up a bit. I have to admit, I kind of forgot what the armament of an MC was and i'm too lazy to look it up (i've had a long day - trust me) but I swear they had some laser cannons on em?


Well, I just checked Wookieepedia and the MC-80 (the design in EAW) has no laser cannons but does have a hangar bay. There many other ways to fix the balance issues in this game. One solution is strengthening the rebel starfighters, which would defeat the purpose of a hangar bay.
Actually, the boost in power to the B-wings and A-wings coupled with the nerfs to the StarVipers and TIE Defenders should be enough to put the Rebels back in front when it come to starfighter performance.


The Hangar bay is canon yes. If you included 1 or 2 random fighter squadrons (out of Rebels) it would be balanced and fair, and also canon since each MC had different complements of squadrons.

Canon? Yes. Necessary? No.

As I stated before the rebel fighters are getting some boosts while the Imperial and Consortium fighters are getting nerfed, thereby putting the Rebels ahead of the game in the starfighter department.

I maintain my standpoint on nerfing the Consortium cruisers. Instead of beefing up the Mon Cals why not nerf the Keldabes and Aggressors? I think this solution is far more practical in the long run because it would rebalance both the Consortium and the rebels at one time. Kill two birds with one stone...



Finally, here are my suggestions to end this argument and prevent another one flaring up to do justice for both sides:

1. Increase the speed of the MC (in one of the ways I mentioned before) or:
2. Give the MC a Hangar with a random fighter complement.
3. Keep the ISD stats - that's happenning anyway and i'm fine with that.
4. BOOST THE X-WING. A shield boost is definitely welcomed - by 25% at
least would be great.
5. NERF THE CONSORTIUM - that's happenning anyway, but I definitely
want to see a decline in mass-driver and special weapon effectiveness.
6. Change the MC Frigate's cost from 4000 to 3500.


If there is anything else please do not hesitate to add and voice your own opinions. Who knows, the constructiveness may actually lead to something... :spin:


Excellent suggestions but I don't think number 2 is necessary if the others are implemented.

To give the Mon Cals a hangar bay after increasing their speed, strengthening the X-wings and nerfing the Consortium would be a redundancy. I just think giving the Mon Cals a hangar bay would cause more problems than it would solve. Most likely it would force the game designers to give the Keldabe a hangar bay to balance out the Capital ships. The pop cap would have to be drastically increased for the Mon Cal which would defeat the purpose of giving it a hangar bay, if the Mon Cal's pop cap is not increased then the rebel player can hyperspace in multiple Mon Cals and mass spam fighters thereby destroying the game balance further. The fighters that the Mon Cal releases would have to be given a pop cap thereby defeating the purpose of a hangar bay again, and if the fighters don't take up pop cap in battle then buying fighters seperately would become unnecessary.

Don't you see? There are many other ways to solve the given balance problems without giving the Mon Cals a hangar bay.

I welcome any opinions or objections about my given suggestions...

Shadow_015
12-09-2006, 10:51 AM
I apologize, I just figured the debate had hit a standstill but if you still want to discuss the issue then I have no objections, I have nothing better to do right now anyway...

Yeah...we've got nothing to do anyway until the patch comes out lol!

Excellent suggestions but I don't think number 2 is necessary if the others are implemented.

To give the Mon Cals a hangar bay after increasing their speed, strengthening the X-wings and nerfing the Consortium would be a redundancy. I just think giving the Mon Cals a hangar bay would cause more problems than it would solve. Most likely it would force the game designers to give the Keldabe a hangar bay to balance out the Capital ships. The pop cap would have to be drastically increased for the Mon Cal which would defeat the purpose of giving it a hangar bay, if the Mon Cal's pop cap is not increased then the rebel player can hyperspace in multiple Mon Cals and mass spam fighters thereby destroying the game balance further. The fighters that the Mon Cal releases would have to be given a pop cap thereby defeating the purpose of a hangar bay again, and if the fighters don't take up pop cap in battle then buying fighters seperately would become unnecessary.

Don't you see? There are many other ways to solve the given balance problems without giving the Mon Cals a hangar bay.

I welcome any opinions or objections about my given suggestions...

1. I said OR at the back of my first point. So i'm happy with either. If a speed boost is given in one of those ways then i'll be happy enough.

2. Remember my post about the pop. cap comparison of ISDs and MCs and the point which ended up being Rebels were outnumbered in fighters 3-1? Well, increasing the MCs with a Hangar and giving Rebels 1 squadron each would mean:

Out of a Pop. Cap of 20 for Imps: they would get 5 ISDs along with 10 TIE Interceptor squadrons and 5 TIE Bomber Squadrons (at 2 Fighter and 1 Bomber squadrons per ISD).

Out of a Pop. Cap of 25 for Rebs: they would get 5 MonCals along with 5 Fighter squadrons taking up population cap, and 5 fighter/bomber squadrons randomly mixed from hangars which do not take up pop cap.

Final result = Imps 5 ISDs, 10 Fighters, 5 Bombers...Rebs 5 MonCals, 10 Mixed fighter/bomber squadrons.

This would be coupled with the ISD being superior with more firepower and armour like its upgrade in this patch, and the MC being a bit faster and having shields.

And let's remember this is hypothetical in comparison and usually fleets are mixed, so it always ends up differently, but if squadrons were compared rawly like that, thats how it would turn out. Plus other Frigates don't have squadrons for Rebels, only MonCal - so Imps are still favoured anyway.

I'd still say that's a more or less even balance which favours the ISD more-so. But if the MonCal only got a speed boost (though a bit more significantly, i'd be happy too).

Well, I just checked Wookieepedia and the MC-80 (the design in EAW) has no laser cannons but does have a hangar bay. There many other ways to fix the balance issues in this game. One solution is strengthening the rebel starfighters, which would defeat the purpose of a hangar bay.
Actually, the boost in power to the B-wings and A-wings coupled with the nerfs to the StarVipers and TIE Defenders should be enough to put the Rebels back in front when it come to starfighter performance.

We already said Rebel fighter boosts, and i'm happy with that and certainly hope its gonna happen for the X-Wings. However, a tiny speed boost for the MC is still warranted...

"NERF THE CONSORTIUM - that's happenning anyway"

What do you mean that's happeneing anyway? I hope nerf only means weaken not obliterate, I wouldn't like seeing my new fav faction go down the toilet, even if they were slightly weaker than the other two factions.

Of course they're not getting obliterated, but nerfing the Aggressors and Kedalbes like Valter suggested is fine by me :noel:. The ZC are already being downgraded somewhat in the patch as you will have already read...


Finally, I was playing skirmish yesterday and I was moving my MonCals towards the Repair satellite I set up after a battle. For 2 MonCals it was at 80% Hull Strength, full shields and 80% hard points for each hard point. However, the Repair Satellite was trying to heal it and it didn't do anything?

I had the Alliance and Ardent out, along with Home One (1 of its Ion Hardpoints was also damaged but the Satellite couldn't do anything). Is this some kind of glitch or is it supposed to happen? It says the Satellite fixes hardpoints but while it happened at the beginning, after the second battle nothing happened to my MonCals? Anybody know....?

Daft Adidas
12-09-2006, 10:59 AM
I don't know if u have already been talking about this but in space they shuld add a feature where the X Wings or Ties fight together in a squadron, no go off and do their own thing it wuld ne fun if u culd off with ur team and attack the Imperial Star Destroyer!

ImpElite
12-09-2006, 02:50 PM
erm, no idea what you just said...

Daft Adidas
12-09-2006, 02:59 PM
sorry made some big spelling and puncuation mistakes their, Fight in squads out in space

Valter
12-09-2006, 03:52 PM
1. I said OR at the back of my first point. So i'm happy with either. If a speed boost is given in one of those ways then i'll be happy enough.

A speed boost would be much easier to implement than a hangar bay.

2. Remember my post about the pop. cap comparison of ISDs and MCs and the point which ended up being Rebels were outnumbered in fighters 3-1? Well, increasing the MCs with a Hangar and giving Rebels 1 squadron each would mean:

Out of a Pop. Cap of 20 for Imps: they would get 5 ISDs along with 10 TIE Interceptor squadrons and 5 TIE Bomber Squadrons (at 2 Fighter and 1 Bomber squadrons per ISD).

Point taken but if the rebel fighters got a boost in firepower then it wouldn't matter if they were outnumbered by Imperial fighters. Quality over quantity was the Rebel philosophy anyway...

Out of a Pop. Cap of 25 for Rebs: they would get 5 MonCals along with 5 Fighter squadrons taking up population cap, and 5 fighter/bomber squadrons randomly mixed from hangars which do not take up pop cap.

Again, There are many other solutions to the given balance problems; The balance problem with starfighters could be easily remedied just by strengthening the Rebel starfighters, and the balance problem with the Capital ships could be solved with a simple speed boost to the MC's and a nerf to the Consortium Cruisers.

Final result = Imps 5 ISDs, 10 Fighters, 5 Bombers...Rebs 5 MonCals, 10 Mixed fighter/bomber squadrons.

Ok, then if the fighters that the Mon Cals release from their hangar bays are random then what if the Mon Cals released nothing but X-wings? The rebels would be screwed.

This would be coupled with the ISD being superior with more firepower and armour like its upgrade in this patch, and the MC being a bit faster and having shields.

If the MC was faster and had better shields then there would be no reason to add a hangar bay.


We already said Rebel fighter boosts, and i'm happy with that and certainly hope its gonna happen for the X-Wings. However, a tiny speed boost for the MC is still warranted...

Finally, we agree on something. :cheers:



Of course they're not getting obliterated, but nerfing the Aggressors and Kedalbes like Valter suggested is fine by me :noel:. The ZC are already being downgraded somewhat in the patch as you will have already read...

Yes, the Consortium is being downgraded slightly but the Aggressors are not included in the patch (Correct me If I'm wrong) therefore the Aggressors are still the almighty gods of space combat.

Nerf Consortium Capital ships, speed up Mon Cals and Strengthen Rebel fighters and all balance issues should be corrected.


Finally, I was playing skirmish yesterday and I was moving my MonCals towards the Repair satellite I set up after a battle. For 2 MonCals it was at 80% Hull Strength, full shields and 80% hard points for each hard point. However, the Repair Satellite was trying to heal it and it didn't do anything?

I had the Alliance and Ardent out, along with Home One (1 of its Ion Hardpoints was also damaged but the Satellite couldn't do anything). Is this some kind of glitch or is it supposed to happen? It says the Satellite fixes hardpoints but while it happened at the beginning, after the second battle nothing happened to my MonCals? Anybody know....?

I've had this happen to me as well while attempting to repair damaged Star Destroyers or MC's with repair platforms, it's definately a glitch. I hope this problem will be addressed in the patch.

wedge2211
12-09-2006, 04:20 PM
Again, There are many other solutions to the given balance problems; The balance problem with starfighters could be easily remedied just by strengthening the Rebel starfighters, and the balance problem with the Capital ships could be solved with a simple speed boost to the MC's and a nerf to the Consortium Cruisers.
Giving the Rebel fighters a bump might be the solution to both problems, and would be more in keeping with canon and other games like the X-Wing series, where squadrons of Rebel fighter-bombers would be sent to take out Imperial capital ships.

Shadow_015
12-09-2006, 05:18 PM
I've had this happen to me as well while attempting to repair damaged Star Destroyers or MC's with repair platforms, it's definately a glitch. I hope this problem will be addressed in the patch.

I am very much for giving X-Wings shield boosts. However, I did have another thought which also brings back my argument about X-Wings needing Torpedo launchers.

When I look at it, the Imperials have another advantage over the Rebels in terms of starfighters which I think should be addressed. If you look at it, the Imperials have the TIE Fighter, Interceptor, Bomber, Defender and Phantom.

Examining them closer reveals that the TIE Bomber, Defender AND Phantom can all shoot Proton Torpedoes. In comparison, the Rebels have 4 fighters: the X-Wing, the Y-Wing, the A-Wing and the B-Wing; and only two of these fighters can shoot Proton Torpedoes.

Now I agree with Tears, and I hope you all agree also that the Rebels were superior in space in terms of fighters and space pilot skill (not really factoring the addition of the TIE Defender, Elite Imp Pilots or experimental TIEs).

I therefore suggest that to counter this balance is to give the X-Wing Proton Torpedoes vs. Capital Ships and space installations. Also possibly giving the A-Wing Concussion Missles (but that's only conditional). This would match the Rebels with Imperials in terms of Proton Torpedo ability and also boost the X-Wing more. It wouldn't unbalance it with TIE Fighters because it had protons in canon + they are against capital ships + X-wings whooped TIE Fighters anyway.


Also, for Mon Calamari Cruisers. I think it is probably for the best to increase the speed. Though i'm not really sure whether it should be as an ability like the Corvettes, or as a n/a speed boost? What do you guys think?

The reason i'm confused is because when I match MCs to ISDs I come up with this (including patch upgrade).

ISD has stronger weapons/armour = MC has stronger and redundant shields.
ISD has 4 Turbos and 2 Ions = MC has 4 Turbos and 2 Ions
ISD has Tractor Beam ability = MC has Boost Shields ability
ISD has Hangar = MC has ?????

I don't believe the MC's current slight speed increase vs. ISD counts because it is not significant enough to be considered as either an ability or advantage.

That is the reason I was asking for a Hangar (but now speed boost) and why i'm kind of wondering whether or not it should be a Boost Engines ability instead of base-speed upgrade.

What do you guys think?

FunSolo
12-09-2006, 08:41 PM
lol, "agressor, the almighty god of space combat"... i was laughin so hard bout that sentence.. man.. get 1-2 bomber squads in there to take out the specialweapon and they are useless n doomed.
only thing overpowered at the consortium: the fighters in a 1on1. for real.. play against someone good, take your "almighty god" to try somthing and get screwed by isd's and bombers. ^^

PS: i second that idea with the hangar bay on mc's. canon and that way it can defend itself against bombingruns

Valter
12-09-2006, 10:36 PM
When I look at it, the Imperials have another advantage over the Rebels in terms of starfighters which I think should be addressed. If you look at it, the Imperials have the TIE Fighter, Interceptor, Bomber, Defender and Phantom.

Technically the TIE fighter and Interceptor are the same thing, the only difference between the two is that the Interceptor is slightly faster and can take a little more punishment than the standard TIE's.

Examining them closer reveals that the TIE Bomber, Defender AND Phantom can all shoot Proton Torpedoes. In comparison, the Rebels have 4 fighters: the X-Wing, the Y-Wing, the A-Wing and the B-Wing; and only two of these fighters can shoot Proton Torpedoes.

Actually, you are mistaken. The TIE Phantom lacks proton torpedoes, therefore the Rebels and Imperials are balanced in the fighter/bomber ratio. Besides, the rebel fighters outperform their Imperial counterparts anyway:
X-wings (S foils) > TIE Fighters
Y-wings (ion cannons) > TIE Bombers
A-wings ("lure" ability) > TIE Interceptors
B-wings (As a bomber) > TIE Defenders / TIE Defenders (As a fighter) > B-wings

I know some of you would disagree with me about B-wings being better bombers than TIE Defenders but let me explain. B-wings have s-foils which makes then harder targets to hit and damage. The s-foils also increase the frequency of the bombing runs the B-wings can make when attacking enemy cruisers. The only advantage that the Defender has over the B-wing is the "boost weapons" ability which severely diminishes the Defender's speed making it an easy target for corvettes.

Now I agree with Tears, and I hope you all agree also that the Rebels were superior in space in terms of fighters and space pilot skill (not really factoring the addition of the TIE Defender, Elite Imp Pilots or experimental TIEs).

I therefore suggest that to counter this balance is to give the X-Wing Proton Torpedoes vs. Capital Ships and space installations. Also possibly giving the A-Wing Concussion Missles (but that's only conditional). This would match the Rebels with Imperials in terms of Proton Torpedo ability and also boost the X-Wing more. It wouldn't unbalance it with TIE Fighters because it had protons in canon + they are against capital ships + X-wings whooped TIE Fighters anyway.

Giving proton torpedoes to X-wings would render Y-wings and B-wings completely useless. In this game the primary function of the X-wing is to counter enemy fighters not destroy capital ships. X-wings would have no weaknesses if given proton torpedoes since they could destroy Tartans without any difficulty and enemy fighters would be incapable of destroying them because of the S-foils ability.

Correct me If I'm wrong but aren't there 7 X-wings in a single squadron? Imagine 7 X-wings, each shooting one proton torpedo at a target; in one bombing run a single X-wing squadron could wipe out a HP on an enemy Capital ship. Now imagine 6 or 7 squadrons, with s-foils engaged, making a bombing run on different HP's; in one bombing run 7 squadrons (each heading for a different HP) of X-wings could cripple a Star Destroyer, and if the s-foils are engaged the TIE's would be incapable of even landing a single shot on the speedy X-wings. That's not balanced or fair.

PS: The rebel pilots were anything but elite. They were a bunch of simple folk just supporting a cause they believed in and were poorly trained compared to the elite Imperial pilots, who were trained at academies as opposed to being self-taught. By the way the TIE's were the ones doing the "whooping," take for example the Battle of Yavin where the best of the Rebel pilots had difficulty taking on a few TIE's (I believe the number of TIE's and X-wings were even in that particular battle as well).


Also, for Mon Calamari Cruisers. I think it is probably for the best to increase the speed. Though i'm not really sure whether it should be as an ability like the Corvettes, or as a n/a speed boost? What do you guys think?


I don't think they should be speed demons, a very slight increase in speed is all that is needed.

The reason i'm confused is because when I match MCs to ISDs I come up with this (including patch upgrade).

ISD has stronger weapons/armour = MC has stronger and redundant shields.
ISD has 4 Turbos and 2 Ions = MC has 4 Turbos and 2 Ions
ISD has Tractor Beam ability = MC has Boost Shields ability
ISD has Hangar = MC has ?????


You are underestimating the abilities of the Mon Calamari Cruiser, I'll go through a brief list of key advantages the MC has over the Imperial Star Destroyer:

The Imperial Star Destroyer has a shield hardpoint - MC doesn't

The fact that the MC lacks a shield generator HP really gives the MC a huge advantage over the Imperial Star Destroyer. If a few bombers can successfully take out the Imperial Star Destroyer's Shield HP then the MC could easily emerge victorious. The Imperials on the other hand can't utilize this strategy for obvious reasons.

The MC fires more turbolaser shots per round and in more frequent procession. The Mon Cal can outshoot the Star Destroyer which means it has yet another advantage over the Star Destroyer.

The MC is slightly faster. Not a great advantage but an advantage all the same.

The MC has it's weapons branched out, rendering any flanking maneuvers useless. As Rust_Lord so eloquently stated, if the Mon Cal moves into the Star Destroyer's blind spot then the Star Destroyer is doomed.

The MC also has stronger shields and a slightly faster shield refresh rate than the Star Destroyer allowing the MC to recover faster from previous attacks than the Imperial Star Destroyer.

The MC can turn quicker than a Star Destroyer, all the better to flank a Star Destroyer.

At this point (even with the stat increases for the Imperial Star Destroyer) the Mon Calamari Cruiser has a number of advantages over the Star Destroyer, some of the advantages are trivial but some are very significant and could mean the difference between victory or defeat.

I don't believe the MC's current slight speed increase vs. ISD counts because it is not significant enough to be considered as either an ability or advantage.

That is the reason I was asking for a Hangar (but now speed boost) and why i'm kind of wondering whether or not it should be a Boost Engines ability instead of base-speed upgrade.

At this point the MC and Star Destroyer are quite balanced against each other, Actually the MC has more balance issues against the Consortium Cruisers than against the Imperial Cruisers. In fact, the Mon Calamari Cruiser is defenseless against Keldabes and Aggressors; No amount of shield power can defend against Mass Driver cannons and the mega-cannons of the Aggressor.

Nerfing the Keldabes and Aggressors is the best course of action. Not only would nerfing the Keldabes and Aggressors balance out the Rebel Cruisers vs. Consortium Cruisers but it would also balance the Empire Cruisers vs. Consortium Cruisers. This is a solution that would require less time and energy for the designers at Petroglygh and therefore would take less time to be implemented into a future patch.

lol, "agressor, the almighty god of space combat"... i was laughin so hard bout that sentence.. man.. get 1-2 bomber squads in there to take out the specialweapon and they are useless n doomed.
only thing overpowered at the consortium: the fighters in a 1on1. for real.. play against someone good, take your "almighty god" to try somthing and get screwed by isd's and bombers. ^^

PS: i second that idea with the hangar bay on mc's. canon and that way it can defend itself against bombingruns


You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, the Aggressor IS a god in space combat, look at the facts, Aggressors...
- Have extremely strong shields.
- Have the highest HP health of any cruiser.
- Can use the "self-destruct" ability thereby taking everything down with it.
- Are practically unaffected by proton torpedoes. One proton torpedo does less than 5% HP damage to it's HP's. 6-7 bombing runs are required to destroy just one of it's HP's.
- Can wipe out a corvette with one blast from it's main cannon.
- Can move through asteroid fields without any difficulty.

By the way your strategy is rendered useless if crusaders are covering the Aggressor. Bombers are slow and can be picked off without any difficulty by corvettes and fighters before they even have a chance of attacking the Aggressor. Even if the main cannons are destroyed the Aggressor can still use it's "self-destruct" ability which has the potential of destroying half of your fleet.

ImpElite
12-09-2006, 11:01 PM
*small voice* Maybe this thread should be renamed to really long posts thread ;) lol

TearsOfIsha
12-10-2006, 05:54 AM
Technically the TIE fighter and Interceptor are the same thing, the only difference between the two is that the Interceptor is slightly faster and can take a little more punishment than the standard TIE's.

Actually, you are mistaken. The TIE Phantom lacks proton torpedoes, therefore the Rebels and Imperials are balanced in the fighter/bomber ratio. Besides, the rebel fighters outperform their Imperial counterparts anyway:
X-wings (S foils) > TIE Fighters
Y-wings (ion cannons) > TIE Bombers
A-wings ("lure" ability) > TIE Interceptors
B-wings (As a bomber) > TIE Defenders / TIE Defenders (As a fighter) > B-wings


This is a very odd way of comparing fighters. I totally agree with you that XWings are better than TIE/lns and Y-Wings are better than TIE Bombers, but you've compared completely different fighters later on.

Firstly, you yourself stated that Interceptors and lns were basically the same thing, so why are you also saying one's a lot better? Also, it's wrong to compare A-Wings to Interceptors - the A-Wing is the best fighter the rebels have, and should be compared to the TIE Defender.

I'm not against the idea of the TIE Defender so long as it has a heavy cost, as it's basically the best multi-role fighter in the game.

The B-Wing is the best bomber though, as it should be. They kick out a lot of firepower - in fact, they are the only effective weapons that I have against Keldabes.


I know some of you would disagree with me about B-wings being better bombers than TIE Defenders but let me explain. B-wings have s-foils which makes then harder targets to hit and damage. The s-foils also increase the frequency of the bombing runs the B-wings can make when attacking enemy cruisers. The only advantage that the Defender has over the B-wing is the "boost weapons" ability which severely diminishes the Defender's speed making it an easy target for corvettes.


uh, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Defenders are easy targets for corvettes anyway. A single Corellian Gunship can crush Defender sqauds in seconds - but that is true for any Corvette vs Fighter engagements.


Giving proton torpedoes to X-wings would render Y-wings and B-wings completely useless. In this game the primary function of the X-wing is to counter enemy fighters not destroy capital ships. X-wings would have no weaknesses if given proton torpedoes since they could destroy Tartans without any difficulty and enemy fighters would be incapable of destroying them because of the S-foils ability.

Correct me If I'm wrong but aren't there 7 X-wings in a single squadron? Imagine 7 X-wings, each shooting one proton torpedo at a target; in one bombing run a single X-wing squadron could wipe out a HP on an enemy Capital ship. Now imagine 6 or 7 squadrons, with s-foils engaged, making a bombing run on different HP's; in one bombing run 7 squadrons (each heading for a different HP) of X-wings could cripple a Star Destroyer, and if the s-foils are engaged the TIE's would be incapable of even landing a single shot on the speedy X-wings. That's not balanced or fair.


This is precisely why torpedoes are a bad idea for XWings. They would become StarVipers. Personally, I think a simple boost to their HP is all that's needed.


PS: The rebel pilots were anything but elite. They were a bunch of simple folk just supporting a cause they believed in and were poorly trained compared to the elite Imperial pilots, who were trained at academies as opposed to being self-taught. By the way the TIE's were the ones doing the "whooping," take for example the Battle of Yavin where the best of the Rebel pilots had difficulty taking on a few TIE's (I believe the number of TIE's and X-wings were even in that particular battle as well).


That may have been true at the start of the Civil War (i.e the time that EaW represents) but by the time we get to the period that FoC represents, Rebel Command's obsession with keeping it's pilots and troops alive had meant that a disproportinate amount of the rebel forces (compared to the Imperials) were *very* experienced, as they had survived loads of previous engagements, and the Empire's total brutatlity had meant a lot of their best TIE pilots had defected to the Rebels.
At the battle of Endor the Imperial pilots were totally dependant on superior numbers and the Emperor's Battle Meditation to keep up with the rebel pilots.
The Rebel pilots, at that stage, *were* elite.


You are underestimating the abilities of the Mon Calamari Cruiser, I'll go through a brief list of key advantages the MC has over the Imperial Star Destroyer:

<snip>

At this point (even with the stat increases for the Imperial Star Destroyer) the Mon Calamari Cruiser has a number of advantages over the Star Destroyer, some of the advantages are trivial but some are very significant and could mean the difference between victory or defeat.


You make some good points, but a few things to add -

The Mon Cals are supposed to have excellent shielding, that is one of their defining characteristics;

Can we stop trumpeting on about speed. If you can't pin down precisely why a characteristic equates to an advantage then don't mention it, becaue it's meaningless. All this talk about maneverability, speed and blind spots is not only extremely nebulous but is too dependant on outside factors as well - it's all very well saying that the Mon Cal can get into the ISDs blind spot really quickly but if there's no room to do it then that 'advantage' evaporates. That's a tactic, not a unit advantage.


At this point the MC and Star Destroyer are quite balanced against each other, Actually the MC has more balance issues against the Consortium Cruisers than against the Imperial Cruisers. In fact, the Mon Calamari Cruiser is defenseless against Keldabes and Aggressors; No amount of shield power can defend against Mass Driver cannons and the mega-cannons of the Aggressor.


I've yet to play against the upgraded ISD, but I agree about the ZC stuff. That shield leech weapon on the Keldabe appears to have been custom designed to pwn Mon Cals. It's pathetic.


Nerfing the Keldabes and Aggressors is the best course of action. Not only would nerfing the Keldabes and Aggressors balance out the Rebel Cruisers vs. Consortium Cruisers but it would also balance the Empire Cruisers vs. Consortium Cruisers. This is a solution that would require less time and energy for the designers at Petroglygh and therefore would take less time to be implemented into a future patch.


No, I don't agree with this. Nerfing ZC cruisers is a good course of action bu they are issues with other units that won't be fixed simply by nerfing the consortium.


You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, the Aggressor IS a god in space combat, look at the facts, Aggressors...
- Have extremely strong shields.
- Have the highest HP health of any cruiser.
- Can use the "self-destruct" ability thereby taking everything down with it.
- Are practically unaffected by proton torpedoes. One proton torpedo does less than 5% HP damage to it's HP's. 6-7 bombing runs are required to destroy just one of it's HP's.
- Can wipe out a corvette with one blast from it's main cannon.
- Can move through asteroid fields without any difficulty.

By the way your strategy is rendered useless if crusaders are covering the Aggressor. Bombers are slow and can be picked off without any difficulty by corvettes and fighters before they even have a chance of attacking the Aggressor. Even if the main cannons are destroyed the Aggressor can still use it's "self-destruct" ability which has the potential of destroying half of your fleet.

You're preaching to the converted here. I don't despise the Agressor as much as the Keldabe but I do think it was still overdone. Both ZC capital ships are needlessly better - they can be built anywhere, they can easily move through asteroids (I don't think Petro actually bothered to explain that boost) and their special abilities are off the scale. The Self - Destruct idea was *way* overdone. It basically means that whatever bombers you send to destroy the cruiser are forfeit.

Personally I think there should be massive disadvantages to the ZC self-destruct. Such as not being able to bring in any more cruisers to replace it, or their being a *huge* cost to replace it (c10000 or more). That'll make it a true weapon of desperation rather than the cheat it is at the moment.

YertyL
12-10-2006, 09:22 AM
OK, why why why do you folks all (or at least some of you) want
MC = ISD = Keldable ??? (in terms of balance)
Why does an MC need to be equal to an ISD 1on1 when these two are totally different ships?? An MC is a cap ship, an ISD is a cap ship/carrier.
Yes true, if an IMP brings in 5 ISDs these will defeat 5 Mon Cals and support, however a Rebel player can simply instead bring in 20.000+ credits worth of fighters/bombers which will tear the ISDs to shreds - something an imp player couldn't.
The Empire, the Rebellion and the ZC are different in play style, economy and pop cap - it's IMO foolish to make 1on1 comparisons between similar ships.
Would you say that the Rebs are underpowered because they can't build a Super-Mon-Calamari-Cruiser and the Empire can?
The only real balance issues IMO appear when a player can execute a strategy that is hardly or not at all counterable even at the same economical situation (e.g. if 1200 credits worth of X-Wings would own a Tartan) or if the same strat with one faction is simply "better" than with another faction (e.g. Starviper spam > X-Wing spam, although they cost exactly the same amount of credits and pop cap (at least in GC)).
The only real way to find out balance issues IMO is to really play a game (against a human opponent at best) instead of discussing artificially constructed examples or calculations.

ImpElite
12-10-2006, 09:39 AM
Erm, for those who can't seem to figure out how to beat an Aggressor without it delf destructing right next to you, send in bombers to blow up it's ENGINES, then the TurboLasers, and then the bottom Main cannon (the bottom fires the red ball of plasma or whatever it is), cuz on frigates (Alliance Assault Frigate MK II and Victory Star Destroyer) it's red ball will destroy one hardpoint at a time, if your shields are down it's Turbolasers will destroyer it faster than it's red ball can, if it's facing an Imperial Star Destroyer or a Mon Calamari Cruiser, it takes TWO shots from it's bottom cannon to destroy a hardpoint if I'm not mistaken (except for maybe Tractor Beam and Hangar), and once your shields are down it will, just like the frigates, destroy you faster than the bottom main cannon will.

Hope that helps all of you having trouble with Aggressors.

(<GASP> I made a long post! I'm becoming one of them!!!! lol)

TearsOfIsha
12-10-2006, 11:26 AM
Erm, for those who can't seem to figure out how to beat an Aggressor without it delf destructing right next to you, send in bombers to blow up it's ENGINES, then the TurboLasers, and then the bottom Main cannon (the bottom fires the red ball of plasma or whatever it is), cuz on frigates (Alliance Assault Frigate MK II and Victory Star Destroyer) it's red ball will destroy one hardpoint at a time, if your shields are down it's Turbolasers will destroyer it faster than it's red ball can, if it's facing an Imperial Star Destroyer or a Mon Calamari Cruiser, it takes TWO shots from it's bottom cannon to destroy a hardpoint if I'm not mistaken (except for maybe Tractor Beam and Hangar), and once your shields are down it will, just like the frigates, destroy you faster than the bottom main cannon will.

Hope that helps all of you having trouble with Aggressors.



No offense ImpElite, but what on earth are you on about here?

We're talking about how the Self-Destruct can wipe out tons of fighters at once... Which is what I thought you were talking about.

But's what's all this business about dealing with its cannons? That has nothing to do with it's self-destruct....

PoiuyWired
12-10-2006, 11:40 AM
Well, if you say Imp space units are unbalanced to Rebs, then think about land battle... and try to take down that raid team with that chubby tank and luke in one go.

TearsOfIsha
12-10-2006, 02:36 PM
Well, if you say Imp space units are unbalanced to Rebs, then think about land battle... and try to take down that raid team with that chubby tank and luke in one go.

The Tank is matched by some squads of Lancets. Luke is nothing compared to Vader.

If it was Yoda though....

Valter
12-10-2006, 05:45 PM
This is a very odd way of comparing fighters. I totally agree with you that XWings are better than TIE/lns and Y-Wings are better than TIE Bombers, but you've compared completely different fighters later on.

Firstly, you yourself stated that Interceptors and lns were basically the same thing, so why are you also saying one's a lot better? Also, it's wrong to compare A-Wings to Interceptors - the A-Wing is the best fighter the rebels have, and should be compared to the TIE Defender.

TIE Fighters and TIE Interceptors are practically the same thing in that they both have the same functions in space comat. A-wings and X-wings are also duplicates of each other as well, the only difference is that the A-wing is stronger while the X-wing is faster.

The TIE Interceptors and A-wings are the complete equivalents of each other (aside from the "lure" ability). Both have the same functions and capabilities in space combat; to destroy the enemy fighters, screen for bombers and to provide fighter support for the Capital ships.

A-wings and TIE Defenders are complete opposites, the A-wing functions as an anti-fighter while the Defender is a fighter/bomber hybrid. On the other hand the B-wing and Defender are basically the same thing, except the B-wing is faster (with s-foils) while the TIE Defender is stronger.

uh, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Defenders are easy targets for corvettes anyway. A single Corellian Gunship can crush Defender sqauds in seconds - but that is true for any Corvette vs Fighter engagements.


I apologize, I should have elaborated on that statement; When the TIE Defender's special ability, "boost weapon power," is activated the Defender's rate-of-fire is increased dramatically while it's speed is drastically reduced, rendering it completely helpless. The TIE Defender doesn't move very quickly when using it's special ability so it is an easy target for fighters and corvettes.

On the other hand the B-wing's special ability dramatically increases it's speed making it a difficult target to hit. The B-wing is also able to release proton torpedoes in quicker procession when using s-foils, which makes it an excellent bomber.

My point is Defenders are stronger while B-wings are faster. (I'm beginning to sound like a broken record arn't I?)

That may have been true at the start of the Civil War (i.e the time that EaW represents) but by the time we get to the period that FoC represents, Rebel Command's obsession with keeping it's pilots and troops alive had meant that a disproportinate amount of the rebel forces (compared to the Imperials) were *very* experienced, as they had survived loads of previous engagements, and the Empire's total brutatlity had meant a lot of their best TIE pilots had defected to the Rebels.
At the battle of Endor the Imperial pilots were totally dependant on superior numbers and the Emperor's Battle Meditation to keep up with the rebel pilots.
The Rebel pilots, at that stage, *were* elite.

I get all of my info from the movies and judging from the movies the Rebel pilots didn't seem so elite in my opinion. Even at the battle of Endor the battle was very one-sided in the Empire's favor until the Death Star and Executor were destroyed.

Although you could be right about the Rebels being elite, I don't read many of the Star Wars novels and so I can only speak from the movies' standpoint.

This is rather off topic, let's move on to more important matters...



The Mon Cals are supposed to have excellent shielding, that is one of their defining characteristics;

Can we stop trumpeting on about speed. If you can't pin down precisely why a characteristic equates to an advantage then don't mention it, becaue it's meaningless. All this talk about maneverability, speed and blind spots is not only extremely nebulous but is too dependant on outside factors as well - it's all very well saying that the Mon Cal can get into the ISDs blind spot really quickly but if there's no room to do it then that 'advantage' evaporates. That's a tactic, not a unit advantage.

Advantage - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advantage
Tactical - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tactical

Well, judging from the definitions of "advantage" and "tactical" I would say speed in EAW is not only a tactical benefit but also a unit advantage as it allows a quick retreat, increased maneuverability and serves as a direct catalyst for ambushes and sneak attacks. Speed may not directly destroy the enemy but it sure does help.

No, I don't agree with this. Nerfing ZC cruisers is a good course of action bu they are issues with other units that won't be fixed simply by nerfing the consortium.

Could you elaborate on this statement? What other issues are you refering to?


You're preaching to the converted here. I don't despise the Agressor as much as the Keldabe but I do think it was still overdone. Both ZC capital ships are needlessly better - they can be built anywhere, they can easily move through asteroids (I don't think Petro actually bothered to explain that boost) and their special abilities are off the scale. The Self - Destruct idea was *way* overdone. It basically means that whatever bombers you send to destroy the cruiser are forfeit.

Personally I think there should be massive disadvantages to the ZC self-destruct. Such as not being able to bring in any more cruisers to replace it, or their being a *huge* cost to replace it (c10000 or more). That'll make it a true weapon of desperation rather than the cheat it is at the moment.


I think the Aggressor should have restrictions on using it's "self-destruct" ability: for example, the Aggressor can only use it's ability as long as it's cannons are intact or as long as it's not too heavily damaged. It's not fair that the Consortium player can simply "self-destruct" the Aggressor seconds before it's destroyed.

Personally, I think Petro should completely rebalance the Keldabe's special ability from scratch, maybe even give it another ability. At least give it some restrictions, at this point there is no way to defend against the Keldabe's "shield-leeching" ability.

OK, why why why do you folks all (or at least some of you) want
MC = ISD = Keldable ??? (in terms of balance)
Why does an MC need to be equal to an ISD 1on1 when these two are totally different ships?? An MC is a cap ship, an ISD is a cap ship/carrier.
Yes true, if an IMP brings in 5 ISDs these will defeat 5 Mon Cals and support, however a Rebel player can simply instead bring in 20.000+ credits worth of fighters/bombers which will tear the ISDs to shreds - something an imp player couldn't.
The Empire, the Rebellion and the ZC are different in play style, economy and pop cap - it's IMO foolish to make 1on1 comparisons between similar ships.
Would you say that the Rebs are underpowered because they can't build a Super-Mon-Calamari-Cruiser and the Empire can?
The only real balance issues IMO appear when a player can execute a strategy that is hardly or not at all counterable even at the same economical situation (e.g. if 1200 credits worth of X-Wings would own a Tartan) or if the same strat with one faction is simply "better" than with another faction (e.g. Starviper spam > X-Wing spam, although they cost exactly the same amount of credits and pop cap (at least in GC)).
The only real way to find out balance issues IMO is to really play a game (against a human opponent at best) instead of discussing artificially constructed examples or calculations.

The Capital ships shouldn't be exact copies of each other but they should be balanced against each other. The Star Destroyer and MC are fairly balanced against one another but both pale in comparison to the Aggressor and Keldabe. I still say nerfing the Keldabe and Aggressor is the best solution.

wedge2211
12-10-2006, 09:35 PM
The Capital ships shouldn't be exact copies of each other but they should be balanced against each other.
Not necessarily--As YertyL and I have suggested, each unit of each particular type of each faction does not need to be completely balanced against one another, so long as each faction picks up a relative advantage somewhere else. For instance, do the Rebels really need to send Calamari Cruisers to go punch for punch against Imperial Star Destroyers when they have those shiny new MC-30 frigates to zip around the ISDs launching devastating volleys of torpedoes?

The Rebels' strength was never in fully engaging with Imperial forces (e.g., Hoth, Endor up until the Emperor died). It was in exploiting tactical weaknesses overlooked by the overconfident Empire (e.g. Yavin).

Shadow_015
12-10-2006, 10:40 PM
Not necessarily--As YertyL and I have suggested, each unit of each particular type of each faction does not need to be completely balanced against one another, so long as each faction picks up a relative advantage somewhere else. For instance, do the Rebels really need to send Calamari Cruisers to go punch for punch against Imperial Star Destroyers when they have those shiny new MC-30 frigates to zip around the ISDs launching devastating volleys of torpedoes?

The Rebels' strength was never in fully engaging with Imperial forces (e.g., Hoth, Endor up until the Emperor died). It was in exploiting tactical weaknesses overlooked by the overconfident Empire (e.g. Yavin).

I'm going to say the same thing I said on Petroglyph Forums, and that is...if you do not modify the MonCal, then at least make some modifications to the MC30 Frigate. It's powerful yet damn weak at the moment.

The cluster bombs explode in a ring, not a full sphere making it harder to effectively use that ability against fighters. Personally i've had numerous problems with that.

Take out the two Proton Torpedo tubes at the front, and you've got cannon fodder for a unit instead.

The shields and armour balance isn't the problem. The problem is that there are too few torpedo tubes. Don't get me wrong - the existing ones do a hell of a lot of damage, but are more vulnerable to bombers.

I am going to echo the suggestion of Squirrelx who proposed to increase the Torpedo tubes on the MC to 4 (or even 3), but to divide the current firepower between those 4 tubes instead of adding 2 more very effective tubes. That would keep balance, while making the MC30 a bit more useful.

Advantage - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advantage
Tactical - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tactical

Well, judging from the definitions of "advantage" and "tactical" I would say speed in EAW is not only a tactical benefit but also a unit advantage as it allows a quick retreat, increased maneuverability and serves as a direct catalyst for ambushes and sneak attacks. Speed may not directly destroy the enemy but it sure does help.

I need to stress this again, as Tears has done. The Speed advantage is not significant enough to be classified as an 'advantage'. Stating it allows a quick retreat is exaggerating it a bit. If you've used a MonCal which has just lost 3 weapon hardpoints against 2 ISDs and you want to get it out of there, it's not exactly 'click and its there' if ya catch my drift. Plus you have to factor in the ISD's superior range as a counter. Therefore it's not really an advantage, because its countered...

Trying to get an MC to quickly retreat after having battled with an ISD is hard because while the MC turns its back to run, the ISD's range allows it to continue hammering away at the MC. It's speed will let it retreat quicker than an ISD, but its certainly not 'quick' by normal unit speed standards.

Maneuverability...well I agree and I don't. It certainly is more maneuverable but since its speed is too slow, utilizing that maneuverability is certainly not easy. In fact, its an outright chore to even attempt to.

Sneak attacks...well I do disagree there. You can hyper in a MonCal behind an ISD but that isn't a unit advantage - you can do that with any unit. As far as sneak attacking goes in terms of flanking it; its not really possible (again, due to the MC's current speed). I've tried the flanking thing, and so far I have not had a battle where the ISD didn't spot me before I could 'sneak up' on it.

So yeah I see why you advocate a speed boost as an upgrade for the MC in a patch. But I do not see how you perceive the MCs current speed to be an advantage at present...

FunSolo
12-10-2006, 10:48 PM
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, the Aggressor IS a god in space combat, look at the facts, Aggressors...
- Have extremely strong shields.
- Have the highest HP health of any cruiser.
- Can use the "self-destruct" ability thereby taking everything down with it.
- Are practically unaffected by proton torpedoes. One proton torpedo does less than 5% HP damage to it's HP's. 6-7 bombing runs are required to destroy just one of it's HP's.
- Can wipe out a corvette with one blast from it's main cannon.
- Can move through asteroid fields without any difficulty.

By the way your strategy is rendered useless if crusaders are covering the Aggressor. Bombers are slow and can be picked off without any difficulty by corvettes and fighters before they even have a chance of attacking the Aggressor. Even if the main cannons are destroyed the Aggressor can still use it's "self-destruct" ability which has the potential of destroying half of your fleet.


sorry to say/write this, cause i dont wanna sound or be rude, but, man, look, u gotta be a complete noob or somthing, if u cant counter 1 aggressor with some crusader backup. the aggressor is totally f***** if u get 1-2 ships to the back of it, cause all the weapons arcs are to the front and its slow as hell. so just get in some smaller ships to deal with the crusaders, and that ship is done. maybe u lose some escort fighters or 1-3 hardpoints or maybe one of your ships, but well, u cant tell me there is no chance at all to counter it. so let me say this: blah. im not a geek whos reading up all the xml files to compare every piece to its so called counterparts. but its no fun at all if u nerf everything down till everything is totally equal. cause that will endup in a total loss of indivuality of each faction and that is (i repeat) no fun at all.

i know there are a lot of ppl who are really pi**ed off cause of the abilities the zc has, but ur discussing the things here like this faction is somthing like a ubergod.

things like the new rebs hero in his tank is bothering me more like everything else.

Valter
12-11-2006, 12:22 AM
sorry to say/write this, cause i dont wanna sound or be rude, but, man, look, u gotta be a complete noob or somthing, if u cant counter 1 aggressor with some crusader backup. the aggressor is totally f***** if u get 1-2 ships to the back of it, cause all the weapons arcs are to the front and its slow as hell. so just get in some smaller ships to deal with the crusaders, and that ship is done. maybe u lose some escort fighters or 1-3 hardpoints or maybe one of your ships, but well, u cant tell me there is no chance at all to counter it. so let me say this: blah. im not a geek whos reading up all the xml files to compare every piece to its so called counterparts. but its no fun at all if u nerf everything down till everything is totally equal. cause that will endup in a total loss of indivuality of each faction and that is (i repeat) no fun at all.

i know there are a lot of ppl who are really pi**ed off cause of the abilities the zc has, but ur discussing the things here like this faction is somthing like a ubergod.

things like the new rebs hero in his tank is bothering me more like everything else.

In the original EAW I was able to win a galactic conquest game on "hard" difficulty with no problems because there were virtually no significant balance issues. Now with FOC I have no problems with the Rebels vs. Empire but I do have some complaints about the overpowered Consortium, every single ship they have is better than it's Rebel/Imperial conunterpart. If I'm a noob for that then more than 90% of the FOC community are also noobs.

The strategies you posted are not very effective (I've tried them) because an Aggressor is almost never alone (unless the other player is just plain stupid). There is never just one crusader guarding an Aggressor, usually around 4-5 crusaders and 2-3 vengeance frigates is the staple defense of an Aggressor. It boils down to one thing, balance, which is completely absent from this game thus far. I'm not saying the Capital ships should be absolute duplicates of each other but they should be able to counter one another in some way, or at least have some weaknesses. The Consortium has too many strengths that have no counters; there is no capital ship that can match the Aggressor, the Consortium gets TWO capital ships, there is no defense against the "shield Leeching" ability and the hull of the Keldabe and Aggressor is almost unaffected by torpedoes and lasers. How can you call that balanced?


I am going to echo the suggestion of Squirrelx who proposed to increase the Torpedo tubes on the MC to 4 (or even 3), but to divide the current firepower between those 4 tubes instead of adding 2 more very effective tubes. That would keep balance, while making the MC30 a bit more useful.

I agree with you here, the MC-30 is very vulnerable at this point and some modifications should be made. I second this suggestion to increase the number of torpedo HP's on the MC-30.

I need to stress this again, as Tears has done. The Speed advantage is not significant enough to be classified as an 'advantage'. Stating it allows a quick retreat is exaggerating it a bit. If you've used a MonCal which has just lost 3 weapon hardpoints against 2 ISDs and you want to get it out of there, it's not exactly 'click and its there' if ya catch my drift. Plus you have to factor in the ISD's superior range as a counter. Therefore it's not really an advantage, because its countered...

Trying to get an MC to quickly retreat after having battled with an ISD is hard because while the MC turns its back to run, the ISD's range allows it to continue hammering away at the MC. It's speed will let it retreat quicker than an ISD, but its certainly not 'quick' by normal unit speed standards.

Maneuverability...well I agree and I don't. It certainly is more maneuverable but since its speed is too slow, utilizing that maneuverability is certainly not easy. In fact, its an outright chore to even attempt to.

Sneak attacks...well I do disagree there. You can hyper in a MonCal behind an ISD but that isn't a unit advantage - you can do that with any unit. As far as sneak attacking goes in terms of flanking it; its not really possible (again, due to the MC's current speed). I've tried the flanking thing, and so far I have not had a battle where the ISD didn't spot me before I could 'sneak up' on it.

So yeah I see why you advocate a speed boost as an upgrade for the MC in a patch. But I do not see how you perceive the MCs current speed to be an advantage at present...

Upon reading this post I now see your point. Perhaps I did exaggerate a little on the advantages of MC's speed. I withdraw my standpoint on the speed advantage. Even if you don't count speed as an advantage you can't deny the fact that the Mon Cal does have a number of advantages over the Imperial Star Destroyer: I'll reiterate the advantages I already posted -

The Imperial Star Destroyer has a shield hardpoint - MC doesn't

The fact that the MC lacks a shield generator HP really gives the MC a huge advantage over the Imperial Star Destroyer. If a few bombers can successfully take out the Imperial Star Destroyer's Shield HP then the MC could easily emerge victorious. The Imperials on the other hand can't utilize this strategy for obvious reasons.

The MC fires more turbolaser shots per round and in more frequent procession. The Mon Cal can outshoot the Star Destroyer which means it has yet another advantage over the Star Destroyer.

The MC has it's weapons branched out, rendering any flanking maneuvers useless.

The MC also has stronger shields and a slightly faster shield refresh rate than the Star Destroyer allowing the MC to recover faster from previous attacks than the Imperial Star Destroyer.

The MC can turn quicker than a Star Destroyer. A quicker turn can allow the MC to face enemy units that ambush it from the rear.

At this point (even with the stat increases for the Imperial Star Destroyer) the Mon Calamari Cruiser has a number of advantages over the Star Destroyer, some of the advantages are trivial but some are very significant and could mean the difference between victory or defeat.


Not necessarily--As YertyL and I have suggested, each unit of each particular type of each faction does not need to be completely balanced against one another, so long as each faction picks up a relative advantage somewhere else. For instance, do the Rebels really need to send Calamari Cruisers to go punch for punch against Imperial Star Destroyers when they have those shiny new MC-30 frigates to zip around the ISDs launching devastating volleys of torpedoes?

The Rebels' strength was never in fully engaging with Imperial forces (e.g., Hoth, Endor up until the Emperor died). It was in exploiting tactical weaknesses overlooked by the overconfident Empire (e.g. Yavin).

As I stated before, I have no problems with the balance between the Mon Cal/Imperial Star Destroyer. With that said I am concerned with the current balance problems between the Consortium Capital ships and the Rebel/Empire capital ships. At this point the MC and Imperial Star Destroyer are at a great disadvantage against the Consortium Capital Ships. Shouldn't the Rebel and Imperial Capital ships at least be able to put up a fight against the Consortium Capital ships?

On a side note I've stated on numerous occasions my opinion on the Consortium Cruisers and you all know I've been insistent on rebalancing them so now I have some suggestions to help balance these two Capital ships. I haven't spent much time trying to figure out how to balance them but here are some ideas I came up with -

Keldabe:
-Lower rate of fire on the turbolaser batteries.
-Rebalance special ability (example: make it's "shield Leeching" ability require a HP to activate it)
-Are two engine HP's necessary? I think only one is needed.

Implementing two out of these three of these changes should effectivally rebalance this capital ship.

Aggressor:
-Lower shields and shield refresh rating.
-Change it's turbolaser HP's to laser cannon HP's.
-Make it vulnerable to asteroids.
-Nerf the effect of it's "self-destruct" ability, or add some restrictions to using this ability.
-Weaken the shield generator's HP health.

Implementing two out of five of these five suggestions should balance this Capital ship.

Do any of you have any ideas on rebalancing the Consortium Cruisers? If you do I would like to read them.

FunSolo
12-11-2006, 06:10 AM
In the original EAW I was able to win a galactic conquest game on "hard" difficulty with no problems because there were virtually no significant balance issues. Now with FOC I have no problems with the Rebels vs. Empire but I do have some complaints about the overpowered Consortium, every single ship they have is better than it's Rebel/Imperial conunterpart. If I'm a noob for that then more than 90% of the FOC community are also noobs.

yup. thats how it is. but dont take this negative in any way, its just a matter of time. u all mastered the original game, but now things changed with the addon and ur whining cause ur tactics became useless. so what?


The strategies you posted are not very effective (I've tried them) because an Aggressor is almost never alone (unless the other player is just plain stupid). There is never just one crusader guarding an Aggressor, usually around 4-5 crusaders and 2-3 vengeance frigates is the staple defense of an Aggressor. It boils down to one thing, balance, which is completely absent from this game thus far. I'm not saying the Capital ships should be absolute duplicates of each other but they should be able to counter one another in some way, or at least have some weaknesses. The Consortium has too many strengths that have no counters; there is no capital ship that can match the Aggressor, the Consortium gets TWO capital ships, there is no defense against the "shield Leeching" ability and the hull of the Keldabe and Aggressor is almost unaffected by torpedoes and lasers. How can you call that balanced?


i never said my strategy is really good, maybe its really bad compared to earlier strategies of the vanilla eaw, but at least, i could counter attacks with it, okay, with heavy losses, but i managed it to win. and i was just trying to showup examples to mark the weakness. and u will always have problems against well mixed fleets. this is not only the effect of the ZC units. u will get the same result with a good rebel player with mon cal cap ships and, lets say, these new and nasty torp ships when they come with escort ships and fighters.
one bombing run of one torpship and u can say bye bye to the targeted hardpoint.



As I stated before, I have no problems with the balance between the Mon Cal/Imperial Star Destroyer. With that said I am concerned with the current balance problems between the Consortium Capital ships and the Rebel/Empire capital ships. At this point the MC and Imperial Star Destroyer are at a great disadvantage against the Consortium Capital Ships. Shouldn't the Rebel and Imperial Capital ships at least be able to put up a fight against the Consortium Capital ships?

On a side note I've stated on numerous occasions my opinion on the Consortium Cruisers and you all know I've been insistent on rebalancing them so now I have some suggestions to help balance these two Capital ships. I haven't spent much time trying to figure out how to balance them but here are some ideas I came up with -

Keldabe:
-Lower rate of fire on the turbolaser batteries.
-Rebalance special ability (example: make it's "shield Leeching" ability require a HP to activate it)
-Are two engine HP's necessary? I think only one is needed.

Implementing two out of these three of these changes should effectivally rebalance this capital ship.

Aggressor:
-Lower shields and shield refresh rating.
-Change it's turbolaser HP's to laser cannon HP's.
-Make it vulnerable to asteroids.
-Nerf the effect of it's "self-destruct" ability, or add some restrictions to using this ability.
-Weaken the shield generator's HP health.

Implementing two out of five of these five suggestions should balance this Capital ship.

Do any of you have any ideas on rebalancing the Consortium Cruisers? If you do I would like to read them.

i have a problem with your suggestions bout the ships here. cause u'd nerf the ships to the point where they r complete useless and against the factions philosophy.
i'd say, lets make them more expensive at least, or restrict the building of the ships to some level 5 station planets like kuat or whatever.

the problem is not that the ZC has 2 capitol ships. the one capitol ship is pretty useless without the other IMHO. the problem is that they r buildable everywhere and quite cheap.

TearsOfIsha
12-11-2006, 06:22 AM
i have a problem with your suggestions bout the ships here. cause u'd nerf the ships to the point where they r complete useless and against the factions philosophy.



Um, the ZC doesn't have a philosophy beyond the biggest most powerful stuff for the cheapest price. If they are nerfed to the point of being balanced than I hardly see how they'll be completely useless. Haven't you been listening?


the problem is not that the ZC has 2 capitol ships. the one capitol ship is pretty useless without the other IMHO. the problem is that they r buildable everywhere and quite cheap.

What would you know about problems if you think the Agressor is useless without the Kedalbe? Crikey, your tactics must be awful if you think you can't use an Agressor as it is...... maybe you should play Dune 2 instead?

FunSolo
12-11-2006, 06:41 AM
Um, the ZC doesn't have a philosophy beyond the biggest most powerful stuff for the cheapest price. If they are nerfed to the point of being balanced than I hardly see how they'll be completely useless. Haven't you been listening?


blah? :)
the faction got a philosophy. like every criminal genius has. keep in shadows, and when u attack somewhere, hit fast, hit hard. the only thing u ppl have a problem with is the special ability to blow up the cap ship in the last second.
am i wrong?


What would you know about problems if you think the Agressor is useless without the Kedalbe? Crikey, your tactics must be awful if you think you can't use an Agressor as it is...... maybe you should play Dune 2 instead?

look... if u knock down the special weapon it just has 4 TL banks, all to the front. and its manuverbility can be compared to a slug. the vengeance toned down against fighters, is the right direction when it comes to balance. but things like "exchange the TLs to Ls" will make this capitolship useless in a fight, cause just the special weapon isnt worth the money.
i may agree that the self destruct should be only available for the vengeance, since the explosion of a cap ship is way to massive and something that could be considered a superweapon to terrorise another player. but exchanging hardpoints or nerfing the health of the ship will make this ship useless and u will see the result in online matches; they will switch to keldabe ships as the main cap ship.

TearsOfIsha
12-11-2006, 09:10 AM
blah? :)
the faction got a philosophy. like every criminal genius has. keep in shadows, and when u attack somewhere, hit fast, hit hard. the only thing u ppl have a problem with is the special ability to blow up the cap ship in the last second.
am i wrong?



Yes, let's stick to the shadows, because that's where we can hide our 20-capital ship fleets and hordes of Hovertanks and Torpedo Artillery.....


look... if u knock down the special weapon it just has 4 TL banks, all to the front. and its manuverbility can be compared to a slug. the vengeance toned down against fighters, is the right direction when it comes to balance. but things like "exchange the TLs to Ls" will make this capitolship useless in a fight, cause just the special weapon isnt worth the money.
i may agree that the self destruct should be only available for the vengeance, since the explosion of a cap ship is way to massive and something that could be considered a superweapon to terrorise another player. but exchanging hardpoints or nerfing the health of the ship will make this ship useless and u will see the result in online matches;


Lets just stup and think for a second. Compare the Agressor to the Equivalent ship in the Rebel/Imperial fleets - the Marauder and the Broadside. The Agressor is meant for firepower. It already outdoes those in every single department except for sheer range.
Now lets add to the fact that it's capable of operating as a lightweight capital ship *and* it has it's self-destruct.

Nerfing it will only stop it from being grossly overpowered as it is.


they will switch to keldabe ships as the main cap ship.

And here's me thinking that's what they were supposed to do in the first place...

FunSolo
12-11-2006, 10:12 AM
but what bout the shield leeching then? if u take that away too (like some ppl here want it), wheres the advantage then?

TearsOfIsha
12-11-2006, 11:16 AM
but what bout the shield leeching then? if u take that away too (like some ppl here want it), wheres the advantage then?

What shield leeching? Are you arguing about the Agressor or the Keldabe?

:shakes head:

Valter
12-11-2006, 12:42 PM
yup. thats how it is. but dont take this negative in any way, its just a matter of time. u all mastered the original game, but now things changed with the addon and ur whining cause ur tactics became useless. so what?

So, 90+% of the EAW/FOC players are noobs and your just one master gamer among them? Have you ever played FOC on galactic conquest on "hard" difficulty against the Zann Consortium. It's impossible to win.



i never said my strategy is really good, maybe its really bad compared to earlier strategies of the vanilla eaw, but at least, i could counter attacks with it, okay, with heavy losses, but i managed it to win. and i was just trying to showup examples to mark the weakness. and u will always have problems against well mixed fleets. this is not only the effect of the ZC units. u will get the same result with a good rebel player with mon cal cap ships and, lets say, these new and nasty torp ships when they come with escort ships and fighters.
one bombing run of one torpship and u can say bye bye to the targeted hardpoint.

If your strategy isn't very good then why did you post it and play it up as a foolproof strategy and that I'm a noob for not implementing it successfully? If you can't back up your statement then don't make a statement at all. (Yes, I realize I wasn't able to back up my "speed statement," but unlike you I never made a personal attack on another person)

If the only way you can beat the Zann Consortium is with heavy losses then you yourself have just admitted that they are unbalanced. It should be possible to win without heavy losses.

You can't compare the MC-30 to the Aggressor and Keldabe, the MC-30 has numerous weaknesses to balance out this frigate's strengths; It has terribly weak armor, it is extremely vulnerable to bombers, knocking out it's engine HP is all that is neccessary to defeat it, it's very expensive which therefore balances out the number of MC-30's that are being used, without it's torpedo HP's the ship is finished. The Aggressor and Keldabe on the other hand have no weaknesses.


i have a problem with your suggestions bout the ships here. cause u'd nerf the ships to the point where they r complete useless and against the factions philosophy.
i'd say, lets make them more expensive at least, or restrict the building of the ships to some level 5 station planets like kuat or whatever.

You're right, balanced gameplay is no fun. *sarcasm*

the problem is not that the ZC has 2 capitol ships. the one capitol ship is pretty useless without the other IMHO. the problem is that they r buildable everywhere and quite cheap.


Right, because an invincible ship is nothing without another invincible ship at it's side. ;)

Are you seriously saying that the Keldabe and Aggressor are useless without teaming them up?! Can you back up your statement?

TearsOfIsha
12-11-2006, 01:30 PM
Are you seriously saying that the Keldabe and Aggressor are useless without teaming them up?! Can you back up your statement?

I'd rather he didn't, I'm almost afraid to read what sort of godforsaken tactics he's been using which have lead him to believe the Keldabe and Agressor are dependant on each other. I've been in a game where a single Keldabe outdid two Mon Cals - if that is 'useless', then I'd hate to see what he considers effective.

FunSolo
12-11-2006, 02:25 PM
So, 90+% of the EAW/FOC players are noobs and your just one master gamer among them? Have you ever played FOC on galactic conquest on "hard" difficulty against the Zann Consortium. It's impossible to win.


i never said that and i wont. as i said above, please dont take this word noob negative. depending on the releasedate, everyone is kinda noobish with the strategies of this addon, cause u cant use the tactics used against the other faction in vanilla eaw against this new faction. i personally think its not all balancing issues. or better.. i cant believe it. ive read the same comments in the early weeks after vanilla eaw got released. and now these ppl are turning against the add-on. got my point?



If your strategy isn't very good then why did you post it and play it up as a foolproof strategy and that I'm a noob for not implementing it successfully? If you can't back up your statement then don't make a statement at all. (Yes, I realize I wasn't able to back up my "speed statement," but unlike you I never made a personal attack on another person)


i just tried to show u that it is possible. plus i never attacked u or someone else personally. if i'd do **** like that u'd know it. u took lines as an offence where nothing like that was intended. so, sorry for whatever pissed u off.


If the only way you can beat the Zann Consortium is with heavy losses then you yourself have just admitted that they are unbalanced. It should be possible to win without heavy losses.

how u wanna compare that? every game turns out different and isnt like the one before, not even against the AI. wheres the limit?


You can't compare the MC-30 to the Aggressor and Keldabe, the MC-30 has numerous weaknesses to balance out this frigate's strengths; It has terribly weak armor, it is extremely vulnerable to bombers, knocking out it's engine HP is all that is neccessary to defeat it, it's very expensive which therefore balances out the number of MC-30's that are being used, without it's torpedo HP's the ship is finished. The Aggressor and Keldabe on the other hand have no weaknesses.


i came up with the mc 30s for one reason: those hit and run attacks. i heard some ppl talkin bout the aggressor beeing used to penetrate a player with the special weapon, till its bout to blowup, just to hit the selfdestruct. u can do kinda same with other sides. bring in some MC cruisers and then come up with a few mc-30s from the back and/or broadsides.. kinda same result. not that fast, but compareable IMHO.


You're right, balanced gameplay is no fun. *sarcasm*


missunderstood me..... again...


Right, because an invincible ship is nothing without another invincible ship at it's side. ;)

Are you seriously saying that the Keldabe and Aggressor are useless without teaming them up?! Can you back up your statement?

the aggressor without the keldabe, isnt really totally useless, but theyr at best when theyr both in frontline action. cause of the aggressors weird "turn-around-and-come-back"-unit-AI. at least thats my experience, f.e. when i attack a hp of a station with it.

Ps: sorry. if i cant make my point clear enough, dont hesitate to ask. aint my motherlanguage, but i try.

wedge2211
12-11-2006, 03:36 PM
You all need to learn to:

a) not put words in other people's mouths,
b) not argue past one another, and
c) not take a counterargument as an assault on your character.

I strongly suggest that you all take a moment to digest previous posts before immediately putting up a counterrant.

This topic has gone waaaaaay off subject anyways...perhaps it's time to split it or shut it down.

Valter
12-11-2006, 04:42 PM
missunderstood me..... again...


If I misunderstood you then I apologize.

"the aggressor without the keldabe, isnt really totally useless,"
"the one capitol ship is pretty useless without the other IMHO."

Don't post something if you don't really mean it. ;)

This topic has gone waaaaaay off subject anyways...perhaps it's time to split it or shut it down.

Actually, I've said pretty much everthing I needed to say in this debate so...I guess I'm done here. I need to get ready for my Calculous test anyway. :(

Shadow_015
12-11-2006, 05:04 PM
You all need to learn to:

a) not put words in other people's mouths,
b) not argue past one another, and
c) not take a counterargument as an assault on your character.

I strongly suggest that you all take a moment to digest previous posts before immediately putting up a counterrant.

This topic has gone waaaaaay off subject anyways...perhaps it's time to split it or shut it down.

I think its best that we don't argue with each other about whos strategy is best etc., and instead close off with each saying what we'd like in a new patch and why.

Shadow_015
12-11-2006, 05:58 PM
Actually, I've said pretty much everthing I needed to say in this debate so...I guess I'm done here. I need to get ready for my Calculous test anyway. :(

Calculous? lol that reminds me I need to do more studying for my SATs since i'm moving back over to the US soon :clap2: yay! School sucks in England (well at least it did for me lol), i'm glad I graduated and don't need to go anymore.

But anyway, enough about off-topic stuff. Everyone said what they wanted to say? My points are pretty much clear:

-Increase MC Speed (at least 20%)
-Double MC Frigates' Proton Torpedo tubes and divide current firepower between those.
-Increase X-Wing Shielding by at least 25%
-NERF Kedalbe and Aggressor, I would say make the shield leech ability weaker than the MonCal's shield recharge ability and make their ability recharge times equal.
-NERF Star Vipers (already being done, but you know...)
-[[Maybe]] decrease Nebulon-B Frigate's Pop. Cap cost from 3 to 2 because its the weakest of the Frigates...

By the way in case you guys didn't know, SAGEKING-PG just came on Petroglyph Forums and announced that the patch would be released mid-week, and by late wednesday at the latest. YAY! I was bursting with anticipation...still am lol!
-

Valter
12-11-2006, 09:26 PM
I just noticed that you didn't suggest adding a hangar bay to the Mon Calamari Cruiser. What changed your mind Shadow?

By the way, I agree with all of the balancing ideas you posted just now. (I don't think decreasing the Nebulon's pop cap is necessary though)

darthcarth
12-11-2006, 09:32 PM
Woaw slow down thier
THe first one is okay
The second one why is their even a rewason for this?
they dont need more sheilds they need to be a tad faster 25% more sheilds and tie interceptors would beable to punch through thier sheilds at all.
I agree with the next too
This doesnt need to happen they are better then aclamators and im prety sure interceptor 4s so their pop cap is what blances them.

Valter
12-11-2006, 10:09 PM
...Just when I thought the debate was over. :rolleyes:

Rust_Lord
12-11-2006, 11:50 PM
Finish the thread!? We are only getting started :P Just wait till we get our hands on the patch.

Some pretty good suggestions and points made here. I will put in my $10 worth…Since there is two main thrusts I divided this post into two areas.

Rebel Fighters and Balance
From my understanding of everyone’s unhappiness about the quality of rebel fighters, this has more of an impact in GC than skirmish where you have to buy the sdqns, whereas the Imps don’t. Would I be correct? (In skirmish the sqdns are roughly the same price so its not as critical.) YertyL made a good point about having the flexibilty to bring on more fighters than an Imperial force however I can understand a Rebel players point of view that this could be expensive and even if the Rebel force won, the victory could actually be a defeat economically. I guess it depends on how much you have in the bank but I generally dont like a 'meat grinder' strategy.

After having made all the changes to my own XMLs I played a GC with the rebs for the first time since the "update". As usual when I play the rebs I rarely buy fighters at all. Corvettes, Gunships and Marauders, I find, are still much more effective. Personally I think all corvettes are too effective and if they were made alot less effective against fighters, then fighters would have a role and a much bigger part in this game. One thing that annoys me with fighters is that if you lose half the sqdn then they are lost. Its just not cost effective. Why not have it so that once you buy a sdqn, even if it gets wiped out it will still replenish its losses after the battle provided you win or withdraw some of the force. At present I think rebel fighter sdqns are far too disposable. They would prolly have to be increased in price (slightly) otherwise you would have 50 sqdns in a fleet and just cycle through them knowing you are going to get them all back if you win; but really that is no different to having a cruiser with one hardpoint with 10% health left and getting it back to full health straight after the battle. Given the points raised by the apparent disparity between the number of sqdns a Rebel and an Imperial player can field the only other way to balance things is to improve the rebel fighters to such an extent that they can compete with or overcome these odds; if they can’t be better than Imp/ZC craft then they have to have the quantity. Now, if rebel fighters are substantially improved they are going to cost more (which is okay by me) but they will also have the same pop cap as imperial fighter sdqns (in skirmish) which could have imperial players crying foul when they get attacked by a swarm of nothing but buffed bombers and fighters (which can handle 3 to 1 odds). I will just say this about Rebs though in FoC and against the Corsortium. I play Empire over Rebs 80/20 of the time. The first GC in FoC I played (on medium) with them I took over the galaxy quicker than I did when playing with the Empire. I fought only 1 ZC space station, only because I wanted to. I destroyed every other station by using raid forces. This is the best and most important ability of the Rebel and, even if you don’t hold the planet for very long it can cause huge economic damage when a side has to take it back and rebuild. When you play as the Empire you don’t have this option and you have to grind through other factions military the hard way. All you have to do is make sure your raid fleet is led by the right hero.

I’m just putting this out there but I think the xwing/torpedo idea could work. Just make it so that torpedoes will not fire while s-foils ability is active and torps are in flight. Don’t buff the Xwing anymore so it is still not especially strong BUT it will be more dangerous and versatile. Xwings are really nothing special at the mom and they need a definite advantage. Oh yeah and at Yavin, I always thought the pilots there were those that they had on station and not necessarily their best. The DS was already closing in on them and they didn’t have time to call in better pilots; if they had they would have had reinforcements there to help. Vader’s sqdn on the other hand was probably among the very best in the Imperial Navy. This situation was rare however, since as the war went on, more and more reb pilots gained xp and suffered less casualties. I wrote on a thread before but forgot which one, that the Empire was spread out all over the galaxy. Many of its pilots were stationed where they saw no or very limited action. When they finally met the rebels they were still green while the rebs would (generally) be pretty experienced. The probability of dying for a reb would be higher overall as they see more frequent action but for each individual battle its going to be much less because of their experience compared to the Imps.

Anyway, back to the MC…what speed would you like then Shads? 50% increase from its current makes it as fast as a Neb-B? Is that about right? What about you Tears? You want something tangible, what do you think would be a speed to give the MC a definitive advantage in this area if the short burn boost wasn’t the option to take?

Shadow I agree strongly with dispersing the MC-30s torp tubes. Good idea. After the torp tubes are taken out I leave them alone. 2 laser cannons do little damage but tying up 3 pop cap is even more damaging. Just one thing; the ISD and the MC have the same range = 2000.

I agree with most of your suggestions except the Neb-B taking 2 cap. You could get away with that if you left the reb fighters pretty crap. The MC hangar could be done but it looks like that you don’t feel its necessary anymore.

THE ZC
I take it you have all seen the price increases for the ZC upgrades in skirmish? Some of them are HUGE. It will be a real investment and important decision when and whether to upgrade or not. I agree the Aggressor is a pig of a ship; still no Keldabe though. One thing that is annoying is that the ZC is the only faction that gets a capital ship in skirmish at Tech 4. The Imps get one yes but a) it’s a hero, b) its horrendously expensive and c) you cannot mass produce it.

I’ve said it before and ill say it again; all this crap about ZC ships being weak-armored is rubbish…The Aggressor has the same armour as an MC, Keldabe as an ISD, Int IVs have the same armor as an Assault Frig, not a Neb B which would be its equivalent! As for shielding the Aggressor has 200 points less than an MC/ISD but the Keldabe has 200 more and both have about the same refresh rate. Let’s compare their firepower too: Aggressors do same damage as an MC (60) and Keldabes do ISD damage (70). To put this into perspective, the Aggressors mondo weapon does 400 damage, its self destruct does 1500 damage and the plasma cannon on the ZC station does…6000. I’m not going to whinge I’m just putting these figures out there. I still think that with this patch the ZC isn’t going to be too bad BUT my gripe still exists and which happened last night, that when you take out their income in skirmish their must be a script to boost their income because they had no mines (and they took out all my mines after I got theirs) yet were able to bring on 3 frigates, 2 crusaders and 2 Vengeance almost at once when I couldn’t even afford one Interceptor squadron and I only had Vader and Fett…

Valter with the Keldabe I think you only need to nerf the shield leech ability. It’s lost a lot of teeth with its ions and mass drivers getting nerfed. As for the Aggressor, if anything is done, the special weapons should be a bit more on the fragile side. Such weapons wouldn’t have the armour they do and this gives it a nice weakness.
I have to disagree with darthcarth about the Int IVs though…I think they ar superior to both Acclamators and Neb Bs. 1) They are faster 2) They are better armoured 3) Their concussion missile launcher is really nasty and makes Int IV highly effective against starfighters and shielded craft. They fire more missiles than the Acclamator too, plus their special ability makes tem really nasty. Int IVs in a group can really make a mess of capital ships and starbases yet provide their own support.

Question: does anyone know if the self destruct ability affects ZC ships as well? It’s been a while since I’ve played it. If it doesn’t IT SHOULD!

And FunSolo, you do pretty damn good if English is your second language!

TearsOfIsha
12-12-2006, 06:34 AM
Finish the thread!? We are only getting started :P Just wait till we get our hands on the patch.

I’m just putting this out there but I think the xwing/torpedo idea could work. Just make it so that torpedoes will not fire while s-foils ability is active and torps are in flight. Don’t buff the Xwing anymore so it is still not especially strong BUT it will be more dangerous and versatile. Xwings are really nothing special at the mom and they need a definite advantage.


IMO Xwings need a boost to their HP and and a slight increase to damage. I don't like the torpedoes because it will not only render Y-Wings and B-Wings obsolete but it will also unbalance the X-Wing's role. the last thing I want is for my X-Wing to become the next StarViper.

Here's what I think the balance for Rebel Fighters should be -
X-Wing: Space superiority - handles non-defender TIEs and StarVipers
A-Wing: Dogfighter - capable of wiping out any fighter and is fast, but fairly pointless against cruisers
Y-Wing: Standard Bomber (I think the Y-Wing as it stands is fine)
B-Wing: Assault Bomber - a cruiser in fighter squad form


Oh yeah and at Yavin, I always thought the pilots there were those that they had on station and not necessarily their best. The DS was already closing in on them and they didn’t have time to call in better pilots; if they had they would have had reinforcements there to help. Vader’s sqdn on the other hand was probably among the very best in the Imperial Navy. This situation was rare however, since as the war went on, more and more reb pilots gained xp and suffered less casualties. I wrote on a thread before but forgot which one, that the Empire was spread out all over the galaxy. Many of its pilots were stationed where they saw no or very limited action. When they finally met the rebels they were still green while the rebs would (generally) be pretty experienced. The probability of dying for a reb would be higher overall as they see more frequent action but for each individual battle its going to be much less because of their experience compared to the Imps.


A bit off topic but....
Yeah, the rebel pilots weren't necessarily the best but none of them were incompetent. People like Red Leader and Biggs were former military pilots while Wedge was an ex-smuggler. And of course, Luke had no military experience but was known as a hot-sh1t pilot.

On the flipside, the Empire at the battle of Yavin were still obsessed with their 'absolute conformity' policy and hence the idea of 'best' imperial pilots wouldn't have really been measurable. The pilots on the DS were really considered the same as the rest of the Empire. Vader was probably the only notable pilot on the Imperial side - of course, he was one of the best in the Galaxy.


Anyway, back to the MC…what speed would you like then Shads? 50% increase from its current makes it as fast as a Neb-B? Is that about right? What about you Tears? You want something tangible, what do you think would be a speed to give the MC a definitive advantage in this area if the short burn boost wasn’t the option to take?


I've said until I'm blue in the face I couldn't care less about Raw speed. Really, the ability to fly under and over Imperial ships - that is, be able to get to any point in space regardless of what's in its way - would be the advantage it needs. Currently it has to spaz about trying to maneuver around obstacles etc.


Shadow I agree strongly with dispersing the MC-30s torp tubes. Good idea. After the torp tubes are taken out I leave them alone. 2 laser cannons do little damage but tying up 3 pop cap is even more damaging. Just one thing; the ISD and the MC have the same range = 2000.


I'm not against it. Personally, I think just increasing the HPs on the launchers and giving it a shield boost would be what's needed.


I agree with most of your suggestions except the Neb-B taking 2 cap. You could get away with that if you left the reb fighters pretty crap. The MC hangar could be done but it looks like that you don’t feel its necessary anymore.


I'm not really sure where this has come from - I reckon the Nebs are balanced as they are - sure, they don't have the firepower of the other basic cruisers but their shield boost makes them much tougher and they're great for holding battle lines and lending turbolaser support where needed.



I’ve said it before and ill say it again; all this crap about ZC ships being weak-armored is rubbish…The Aggressor has the same armour as an MC, Keldabe as an ISD, Int IVs have the same armor as an Assault Frig, not a Neb B which would be its equivalent! As for shielding the Aggressor has 200 points less than an MC/ISD but the Keldabe has 200 more and both have about the same refresh rate. Let’s compare their firepower too: Aggressors do same damage as an MC (60) and Keldabes do ISD damage (70). To put this into perspective, the Aggressors mondo weapon does 400 damage, its self destruct does 1500 damage and the plasma cannon on the ZC station does…6000. I’m not going to whinge I’m just putting these figures out there. I still think that with this patch the ZC isn’t going to be too bad BUT my gripe still exists and which happened last night, that when you take out their income in skirmish their must be a script to boost their income because they had no mines (and they took out all my mines after I got theirs) yet were able to bring on 3 frigates, 2 crusaders and 2 Vengeance almost at once when I couldn’t even afford one Interceptor squadron and I only had Vader and Fett…


Any argument that says the ZC are balanced currently is either not sensible or is being made by absolutely appalling players. What you've just said here highlights this.

I'm reserving judgement on the ZC until I get the patch. I'll see then whether they need more tweaks.


Question: does anyone know if the self destruct ability affects ZC ships as well? It’s been a while since I’ve played it. If it doesn’t IT SHOULD!


I would ordinarily say 'of course not' because that would be totally unbalanced and complete nonsense.... but then again, the same can be said of the ZCs abilities to fly in Asteroids, so I'd rather not know.

XkaOnslaught
12-12-2006, 07:00 AM
i am not sure if this has been mentioned before, but the b-wing's lock foils ability has its graphics reversed. the wings are currently not in parellel with the ship when i use lock foils, and when i unuse it, the wings are parrellel XD

shouldn't it be the other way round?

YertyL
12-12-2006, 07:38 AM
Rebel Fighters and Balance
From my understanding of everyone’s unhappiness about the quality of rebel fighters, this has more of an impact in GC than skirmish where you have to buy the sdqns, whereas the Imps don’t. Would I be correct? (In skirmish the sqdns are roughly the same price so its not as critical.) YertyL made a good point about having the flexibilty to bring on more fighters than an Imperial force however I can understand a Rebel players point of view that this could be expensive and even if the Rebel force won, the victory could actually be a defeat economically. I guess it depends on how much you have in the bank but I generally dont like a 'meat grinder' strategy.
Well, for the cost of 5 ISDs (29.000 credits in GC) you can buy quite a lot of fighters before it gets economically disadvantegeous. (1 ISD costs more than 10 fighter squads and 10 bomber squads together) - you will experience losses though, but I think it is often overlooked that fighters are relatively good for how cheap they are.

One thing that annoys me with fighters is that if you lose half the sqdn then they are lost. Its just not cost effective. Why not have it so that once you buy a sdqn, even if it gets wiped out it will still replenish its losses after the battle provided you win or withdraw some of the force. At present I think rebel fighter sdqns are far too disposable.
My thoughts as well :). It's funny that you can get far higher "military efficiencies" with the Empire than with the Rebs (at least I can) although the Empire is supposed to rely more on sacrificing cheap units.

The first GC in FoC I played (on medium) with them I took over the galaxy quicker than I did when playing with the Empire. I fought only 1 ZC space station, only because I wanted to. I destroyed every other station by using raid forces. This is the best and most important ability of the Rebel and, even if you don’t hold the planet for very long it can cause huge economic damage when a side has to take it back and rebuild. When you play as the Empire you don’t have this option and you have to grind through other factions military the hard way. All you have to do is make sure your raid fleet is led by the right hero.
True, but IMO also a bit sad - raid fleets should IMO be more like a sabotaging ability than a way to conquer planets - ATM however they are still strong enough to take out most planets (especially with the Gargantuan - how imba can you get? :( )


THE ZC
I take it you have all seen the price increases for the ZC upgrades in skirmish? Some of them are HUGE. It will be a real investment and important decision when and whether to upgrade or not. I agree the Aggressor is a pig of a ship; still no Keldabe though. One thing that is annoying is that the ZC is the only faction that gets a capital ship in skirmish at Tech 4. The Imps get one yes but a) it’s a hero, b) its horrendously expensive and c) you cannot mass produce it.

I’ve said it before and ill say it again; all this crap about ZC ships being weak-armored is rubbish…The Aggressor has the same armour as an MC, Keldabe as an ISD, Int IVs have the same armor as an Assault Frig, not a Neb B which would be its equivalent! As for shielding the Aggressor has 200 points less than an MC/ISD but the Keldabe has 200 more and both have about the same refresh rate. Let’s compare their firepower too: Aggressors do same damage as an MC (60) and Keldabes do ISD damage (70). To put this into perspective, the Aggressors mondo weapon does 400 damage, its self destruct does 1500 damage and the plasma cannon on the ZC station does…6000. I’m not going to whinge I’m just putting these figures out there. I still think that with this patch the ZC isn’t going to be too bad BUT my gripe still exists and which happened last night, that when you take out their income in skirmish their must be a script to boost their income because they had no mines (and they took out all my mines after I got theirs) yet were able to bring on 3 frigates, 2 crusaders and 2 Vengeance almost at once when I couldn’t even afford one Interceptor squadron and I only had Vader and Fett…

Good thing you actually looked into the XML for hard proof :p
I find it funny that in skirmish the ZC gets ships as fast (or faster) than the Rebellion/Empire.
In GC a ZC player at least mostly needs a space station one level higher than e.g. an IMP player for the "same" ship (level 3 for an Int IV, level 4 for a vengeance and lvl 5 for the Keldable)
Btw., IMO this makes it a bit more balanced that the ZC ships are generally stronger than their "counterparts" since they have higher build requirements.

Valter with the Keldabe I think you only need to nerf the shield leech ability. It’s lost a lot of teeth with its ions and mass drivers getting nerfed. As for the Aggressor, if anything is done, the special weapons should be a bit more on the fragile side. Such weapons wouldn’t have the armour they do and this gives it a nice weakness.
Totally agreed, shield leaching is just a god special, everything else could be OK after that patch.

I have to disagree with darthcarth about the Int IVs though…I think they ar superior to both Acclamators and Neb Bs. 1) They are faster 2) They are better armoured 3) Their concussion missile launcher is really nasty and makes Int IV highly effective against starfighters and shielded craft. They fire more missiles than the Acclamator too, plus their special ability makes tem really nasty. Int IVs in a group can really make a mess of capital ships and starbases yet provide their own support.
True, but like I mentioned earlier I find that Int IVs are somewhat harder to get ("rarer")than Accs and Neb Bs (at least when playing as ZC in GC).
I think part of the reason the ZC seems so unbalanced is that the ZC AI miracelously spawns vengeance frigates en masse on tech level 1.

And FunSolo, you do pretty damn good if English is your second language!
Hehe, technically English is my second language as well :p

ImpElite
12-12-2006, 09:38 AM
Holy cow, I don't have time to read these humungous posts.

Shadow_015
12-12-2006, 11:07 AM
Holy cow, I don't have time to read these humungous posts.

Then skim-read or...don't read?

Hehe, technically English is my second language as well

Looks like i'm part of the club. English is also my second language!

I just noticed that you didn't suggest adding a hangar bay to the Mon Calamari Cruiser. What changed your mind Shadow?

The reason I am not asking for a Hangar anymore is because:

1. There are only a handful of people who support the idea.

2. A speed boost is more realistic in terms of a being released in a patch. It merely requires a tweak on the MC's XML files. A Hangar would take more effort and I don't know if the designers would be willing to do that.

3. One of the two is adequate I guess, as long as the speed boost is more significant to make up for not having a hangar.

I still support the idea of Hangars, however i'm not holding my breath. I believe that a more realistic solution would be to:

1. Get rid of the Home One's shield generator hardpoint, or give it two shield hardpoints AND...

2. Give the Home One a hangar along with 1 A-Wing squadron and 1 B-Wing squadron.

That would put it on par with Thrawn and Piett, you wouldn't have to tweak the cannons whatsoever and I assume (and I say assume because I don't mess around with XMLs) that it would be less work and less of a balance issue if only Home One got the upgrades.

If MCs got no Hangar but the Home One did, I could live with that.

By the way, I agree with all of the balancing ideas you posted just now. (I don't think decreasing the Nebulon's pop cap is necessary though)

This doesnt need to happen they are better then aclamators and im prety sure interceptor 4s so their pop cap is what blances them.

I agree with most of your suggestions except the Neb-B taking 2 cap. You could get away with that if you left the reb fighters pretty crap. The MC hangar could be done but it looks like that you don’t feel its necessary anymore.

For MC Hangar you can just read above Rust :)

The reason I partly suggested it is because of the Hangar imbalances in terms of the ISD vs. MonCal (factoring in Pop. Cap). The way I saw it is that if Nebulon-B's were upgraded it would make them more feasible to bring in (instead of spending 500 more for an Assault Frigate) and would kind of make up for the population and firepower gap that the fighters create.

By the way darthcarth, as Rust already pointed out that Interceptor IV Frigates are stronger than Nebulon-B's or Acclamators. They're still my least favorite though :bounc5:

Anyway, back to the MC…what speed would you like then Shads? 50% increase from its current makes it as fast as a Neb-B? Is that about right? What about you Tears? You want something tangible, what do you think would be a speed to give the MC a definitive advantage in this area if the short burn boost wasn’t the option to take?

Shadow I agree strongly with dispersing the MC-30s torp tubes. Good idea. After the torp tubes are taken out I leave them alone. 2 laser cannons do little damage but tying up 3 pop cap is even more damaging. Just one thing; the ISD and the MC have the same range = 2000.

Yeah i'd say a speed increase on par with a Nebulon-B would be about right. I'd be happy with that. Either that, or a boost engines ability like Corvettes which is shorter and weaker.

And just for reference, don't MC30s have 1 laser cannon and 2 torpedo tubes instead of 2 torpedo tubes? I'm just wondering because you said two and i've now forgotten whether it was 1 or 2. Anybody know off-hand?

By the way in case any of you wanted to know this (you probably already do): if you lose both cannons, the best thing to do is make the MC30 fly through the middle of the battle while charging its cluster bombs, the comp usually switches firepower towards it, get between several enemy capitals or fighters and detonate them, making it an excellent diversion/cannon fodder for ur fleet. Well at least that's how it happens for me.

I didn't know ISDs and MCs have the same range (I don't do the XML modding thing :) ) but if an ISD is getting a firepower increase then a speed increase is still equal, don't you think?

FunSolo
12-12-2006, 11:24 AM
first of all, thanks ;)

but back to topic.
i think the shield boost for the fighters is a good decision for balance, but still, these tartans and corvettes are still a pain in the ass lol. especially when u play against the AI which will endup in masses of them in an assaultforce (at least in GC). would they be a bit less effective it would greatly improve the role of all the fighters. on the other hand that way the bombers would be nasty (more like they are atm). i dunno what would be best here, but right now fighters are pretty useless till u bring them in masses imho. i know they r capable to do good damage, but losing them fast is a pain.

yertl brought in a good point.
what bout if they raise the lvl requirements for the ships. wouldnt that be enough?
lets say give the ZC at lvl1 just regular pirate ships like the z-95 and stuff, and bring in the better fighters and so at lvl2 and so on. wouldnt that be a better idea instead of nerfing all their ships?

Shadow_015
12-12-2006, 12:17 PM
first of all, thanks ;)

but back to topic.
i think the shield boost for the fighters is a good decision for balance, but still, these tartans and corvettes are still a pain in the ass lol. especially when u play against the AI which will endup in masses of them in an assaultforce (at least in GC). would they be a bit less effective it would greatly improve the role of all the fighters. on the other hand that way the bombers would be nasty (more like they are atm). i dunno what would be best here, but right now fighters are pretty useless till u bring them in masses imho. i know they r capable to do good damage, but losing them fast is a pain.

yertl brought in a good point.
what bout if they raise the lvl requirements for the ships. wouldnt that be enough?
lets say give the ZC at lvl1 just regular pirate ships like the z-95 and stuff, and bring in the better fighters and so at lvl2 and so on. wouldnt that be a better idea instead of nerfing all their ships?

Ich bin auch Deutsch lol

Level requirements are a step. But if we look at the fact that its only a matter of time until you reach level 5, you still end up with the same problems we have now. Plus, what if you set tech starting level to 5? What happens then? It seems to me that we'd still be where we are now...

Wilfer88
12-12-2006, 04:37 PM
1 and a half month, soon 2. And still no patch. What are they doing??? This is unaccepteble for a game with alots of bugs. People get tired and play other games instead. (sorry for disturbing yor discussion, but this was the best patch thread i found)

Shadow_015
12-12-2006, 06:34 PM
SAGEKING-PG said a patch is coming out late tomorrow. It's stated on Petroglyph Forums...

XkaOnslaught
12-12-2006, 09:23 PM
patch or not, the game still looks good. its enough in my books :D

im only complaining about the b-wings ability being graphically reversed. it makes my screenshots QUALITY. D:

Rust_Lord
12-12-2006, 10:21 PM
Yeah Wilfer they did have a HUGE amount of changes and bug to fix...when they changed one thing it could have stuffed up something else :O

Tears, your breakdown of the reb fighters is exactly how I would like to see them too. I think the Bwings need attention too. They really should be flying tanks. i never noticed their graphics glitch before...

Thanks YertyL for the comparison of Fighters and ISD cost. I should have taken the time to calculate that. Only trouble is to put the value of an ISD in starfighters into battle would take about 20 pop cap.... (and its okay dood when you have dorks like me around to get the info out of the XMLs for ya ;P )

As for efficiencies and calculating losses, I guess poor TIE pilots dont count! How Imperial can you get :P

One other thing I noticed about the rebs was their dependence upon one unit for their upgrades and intelligence....C3PO and R2....If IG-88 sends them for extensive repairs the rebs lose a very important unit. And its not that hard to find a unit for a bounty hunter. The rebs could probably do with another unit for intel gathering.

I thought the MC-30 has 2 laser cannons???

I liked YertyLs idea about increasing tech levels but Shadow is right. It doesnt really fix the problem because once the ZC get to tech 5 they get a licence to beat the S&*t out of the other factions....the game shouldnt concentrate on ensuring the ZC dont get to tech 5. Reminds me of another game where you had to take a side down before they were too strong otherwise it was all over....damn memory....

FunSolo, I agree with you 100% about Corvettes. I touched on it in my last post. The amount of squadrons a few tartans can destroy in a short time when they boost their guns is incredible. My first GC with the Empire I saw how tough StarVipers were and resorted to massed tartan attacks..I only needed 3 or 4 and I slaughtered 30+ sqdns no problems. Corellian corvettes have double the guns of a tartan and crusaders have 11! :O If corvettes were not as good against fighters, but instead used as tough scouts then fighters would be more important for intercepting bombers so you would want to protect your fighters more for this reason.

XkaOnslaught
12-13-2006, 01:35 AM
for one the corvettes needs the ability to have a shorter time. having 11 laser cannons is no joke. looks like the crusader has turned into the Corellian corv in vanilla EAW. except it also has the ability to shoot down torps and missles as well. if petro wants to buff the ability to increase the rate of fire of the point defense, i think its only fitting they reduce the duration of the ability too. else the crusader would be kinda overpowered. especially of its 2 crus overlapping each other, wouldnt it turn into a barrier of sorts? a impenetrable barrier of a very limited time, ... ok. but for the current duration of the ability.. i think its gonna get a little ... interesting.

Linky Triforce
12-13-2006, 02:30 PM
So when is the patch suppose to go live?

I wouldn't mind some balancing for the Consortium vs. the Rebels and espicially the Empire, not to mention bug fixes heh

Wilfer88
12-14-2006, 04:26 PM
Downloading something now. It must be the patch.

wedge2211
12-14-2006, 04:30 PM
Here it is! (http://support.lucasarts.com/patches/EAWFOC1_1.htm)

mrsparkle
12-14-2006, 07:08 PM
What does this mean?

"Mobile Defense Units for all factions garrison cost"

Or this:

"Health increased from 1000 to 800"
Does that actually mean it's decreased from 1000 to 800, or increased from 800 to 1000?

Shadow_015
12-14-2006, 07:28 PM
What does this mean?

"Mobile Defense Units for all factions garrison cost"

Or this:

"Health increased from 1000 to 800"
Does that actually mean it's decreased from 1000 to 800, or increased from 800 to 1000?

MDU question I can't answer, but the Crusader's health has been decreased from 1000 to 800.

wedge2211
12-14-2006, 11:46 PM
I think the "garrison cost" refers to the number of transport slots the unit takes up, but I'm not positive.