lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Patch Balance Thread at Petro
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 12-08-2006, 04:01 PM   #81
TearsOfIsha
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Idoit
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?
You press the quote button, below the post
TearsOfIsha is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-08-2006, 04:02 PM   #82
Shadow_015
Rookie
 
Shadow_015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England (For Now)
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Idoit
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?
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


---
All I Can Do Is Be Me, Whoever That Is. - Dillain

Every Song Ends, But Is That Any Reason Not To Enjoy The Music?

"Bow Chicka Bow Wow" - Tucker, RvB
Shadow_015 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-08-2006, 04:12 PM   #83
Daft Adidas
Full of Lies
 
Daft Adidas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Metri Border
Posts: 1,138
Thanks guys, is this on quick reply or advanced coz on quick it won't let me click the box. Why?

Daft Adidas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-08-2006, 04:29 PM   #84
Daft Adidas
Full of Lies
 
Daft Adidas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Metri Border
Posts: 1,138
Quote:
You press the quote button, below the post
Thanks, i get it now.

Daft Adidas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-08-2006, 08:08 PM   #85
Shadow_015
Rookie
 
Shadow_015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England (For Now)
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TearsOfIsha
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TearsOfIsha
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by TearsOfIsha
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
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.

[QUOTE=Rust_Lord] 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:
Originally Posted by 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slocket
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...


---
All I Can Do Is Be Me, Whoever That Is. - Dillain

Every Song Ends, But Is That Any Reason Not To Enjoy The Music?

"Bow Chicka Bow Wow" - Tucker, RvB

Last edited by Shadow_015; 12-08-2006 at 08:22 PM.
Shadow_015 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-08-2006, 09:04 PM   #86
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
"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.


ex-UEAW Mod Team Mapper.


ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-08-2006, 10:32 PM   #87
Valter
Rookie
 
Valter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Standing behind you!
Posts: 199
Quote:
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...


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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...



Quote:
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...
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...


"You will pay the price for your lack of vision!" - Palpatine
Valter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2006, 10:51 AM   #88
Shadow_015
Rookie
 
Shadow_015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England (For Now)
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpElite
"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 . 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....?


---
All I Can Do Is Be Me, Whoever That Is. - Dillain

Every Song Ends, But Is That Any Reason Not To Enjoy The Music?

"Bow Chicka Bow Wow" - Tucker, RvB
Shadow_015 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2006, 10:59 AM   #89
Daft Adidas
Full of Lies
 
Daft Adidas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Metri Border
Posts: 1,138
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!

Daft Adidas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2006, 02:50 PM   #90
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
erm, no idea what you just said...


ex-UEAW Mod Team Mapper.


ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2006, 02:59 PM   #91
Daft Adidas
Full of Lies
 
Daft Adidas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Metri Border
Posts: 1,138
sorry made some big spelling and puncuation mistakes their, Fight in squads out in space

Daft Adidas is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2006, 03:52 PM   #92
Valter
Rookie
 
Valter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Standing behind you!
Posts: 199
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
Of course they're not getting obliterated, but nerfing the Aggressors and Kedalbes like Valter suggested is fine by me . 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.

Quote:
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.


"You will pay the price for your lack of vision!" - Palpatine
Valter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2006, 04:20 PM   #93
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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.


wedge2211 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2006, 05:18 PM   #94
Shadow_015
Rookie
 
Shadow_015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England (For Now)
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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?


---
All I Can Do Is Be Me, Whoever That Is. - Dillain

Every Song Ends, But Is That Any Reason Not To Enjoy The Music?

"Bow Chicka Bow Wow" - Tucker, RvB

Last edited by Shadow_015; 12-09-2006 at 05:31 PM.
Shadow_015 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2006, 08:41 PM   #95
FunSolo
Junior Member
 
FunSolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: germany
Posts: 317
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
FunSolo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2006, 10:36 PM   #96
Valter
Rookie
 
Valter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Standing behind you!
Posts: 199
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


"You will pay the price for your lack of vision!" - Palpatine

Last edited by Valter; 12-10-2006 at 01:36 AM.
Valter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2006, 11:01 PM   #97
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
*small voice* Maybe this thread should be renamed to really long posts thread lol


ex-UEAW Mod Team Mapper.


ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-10-2006, 05:54 AM   #98
TearsOfIsha
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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:



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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
TearsOfIsha is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-10-2006, 09:22 AM   #99
YertyL
Junior Member
 
YertyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 390
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.
YertyL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-10-2006, 09:39 AM   #100
ImpElite
Junior Member
 
ImpElite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
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.

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


ex-UEAW Mod Team Mapper.


ImpElite is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-10-2006, 11:26 AM   #101
TearsOfIsha
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpElite
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....
TearsOfIsha is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-10-2006, 11:40 AM   #102
PoiuyWired
Unregistered User
 
PoiuyWired's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,503
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.
PoiuyWired is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-10-2006, 02:36 PM   #103
TearsOfIsha
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoiuyWired
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....
TearsOfIsha is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-10-2006, 05:45 PM   #104
Valter
Rookie
 
Valter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Standing behind you!
Posts: 199
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?)

Quote:
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...



Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


"You will pay the price for your lack of vision!" - Palpatine

Last edited by Valter; 12-10-2006 at 07:17 PM.
Valter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-10-2006, 09:35 PM   #105
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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).


wedge2211 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-10-2006, 10:40 PM   #106
Shadow_015
Rookie
 
Shadow_015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England (For Now)
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge2211
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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...


---
All I Can Do Is Be Me, Whoever That Is. - Dillain

Every Song Ends, But Is That Any Reason Not To Enjoy The Music?

"Bow Chicka Bow Wow" - Tucker, RvB

Last edited by Shadow_015; 12-10-2006 at 10:56 PM.
Shadow_015 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-10-2006, 10:48 PM   #107
FunSolo
Junior Member
 
FunSolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: germany
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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.
FunSolo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 12:22 AM   #108
Valter
Rookie
 
Valter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Standing behind you!
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunSolo
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


"You will pay the price for your lack of vision!" - Palpatine

Last edited by Valter; 12-11-2006 at 01:30 AM.
Valter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 06:10 AM   #109
FunSolo
Junior Member
 
FunSolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: germany
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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?

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.
FunSolo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 06:22 AM   #110
TearsOfIsha
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunSolo

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?

Quote:
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?
TearsOfIsha is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 06:41 AM   #111
FunSolo
Junior Member
 
FunSolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: germany
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by TearsOfIsha
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?

Quote:
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.
FunSolo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 09:10 AM   #112
TearsOfIsha
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunSolo
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.....

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...
TearsOfIsha is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 10:12 AM   #113
FunSolo
Junior Member
 
FunSolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: germany
Posts: 317
but what bout the shield leeching then? if u take that away too (like some ppl here want it), wheres the advantage then?
FunSolo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 11:16 AM   #114
TearsOfIsha
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunSolo
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:
TearsOfIsha is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 12:42 PM   #115
Valter
Rookie
 
Valter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Standing behind you!
Posts: 199
Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.


Quote:
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*

Quote:
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?


"You will pay the price for your lack of vision!" - Palpatine

Last edited by Valter; 12-11-2006 at 12:55 PM.
Valter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 01:30 PM   #116
TearsOfIsha
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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.
TearsOfIsha is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 02:25 PM   #117
FunSolo
Junior Member
 
FunSolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: germany
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valter
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?


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
You're right, balanced gameplay is no fun. *sarcasm*
missunderstood me..... again...

Quote:
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.

Last edited by FunSolo; 12-11-2006 at 02:45 PM.
FunSolo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 03:36 PM   #118
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
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.


wedge2211 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 04:42 PM   #119
Valter
Rookie
 
Valter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Standing behind you!
Posts: 199
Quote:
missunderstood me..... again...
If I misunderstood you then I apologize.

Quote:
"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.

Quote:
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.


"You will pay the price for your lack of vision!" - Palpatine

Last edited by Valter; 12-11-2006 at 04:57 PM.
Valter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-11-2006, 05:04 PM   #120
Shadow_015
Rookie
 
Shadow_015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England (For Now)
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge2211
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.


---
All I Can Do Is Be Me, Whoever That Is. - Dillain

Every Song Ends, But Is That Any Reason Not To Enjoy The Music?

"Bow Chicka Bow Wow" - Tucker, RvB
Shadow_015 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Empire At War > EaW General Discussion > Forces of Corruption > Patch Balance Thread at Petro

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:09 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.