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....
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.
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....
This is a very odd way of comparing fighters. I totally agree with you that XWings are better than TIE/lns and Y-Wings are better than TIE Bombers, but you've compared completely different fighters later on.
Firstly, you yourself stated that Interceptors and lns were basically the same thing, so why are you also saying one's a lot better? Also, it's wrong to compare A-Wings to Interceptors - the A-Wing is the best fighter the rebels have, and should be compared to the TIE Defender.
TIE Fighters and TIE Interceptors are practically the same thing in that they both have the same functions in space comat. A-wings and X-wings are also duplicates of each other as well, the only difference is that the A-wing is stronger while the X-wing is faster.
The TIE Interceptors and A-wings are the complete equivalents of each other (aside from the "lure" ability). Both have the same functions and capabilities in space combat; to destroy the enemy fighters, screen for bombers and to provide fighter support for the Capital ships.
A-wings and TIE Defenders are complete opposites, the A-wing functions as an anti-fighter while the Defender is a fighter/bomber hybrid. On the other hand the B-wing and Defender are basically the same thing, except the B-wing is faster (with s-foils) while the TIE Defender is stronger.
uh, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Defenders are easy targets for corvettes anyway. A single Corellian Gunship can crush Defender sqauds in seconds - but that is true for any Corvette vs Fighter engagements.
I apologize, I should have elaborated on that statement; When the TIE Defender's special ability, "boost weapon power," is activated the Defender's rate-of-fire is increased dramatically while it's speed is drastically reduced, rendering it completely helpless. The TIE Defender doesn't move very quickly when using it's special ability so it is an easy target for fighters and corvettes.
On the other hand the B-wing's special ability dramatically increases it's speed making it a difficult target to hit. The B-wing is also able to release proton torpedoes in quicker procession when using s-foils, which makes it an excellent bomber.
My point is Defenders are stronger while B-wings are faster. (I'm beginning to sound like a broken record arn't I?)
That may have been true at the start of the Civil War (i.e the time that EaW represents) but by the time we get to the period that FoC represents, Rebel Command's obsession with keeping it's pilots and troops alive had meant that a disproportinate amount of the rebel forces (compared to the Imperials) were *very* experienced, as they had survived loads of previous engagements, and the Empire's total brutatlity had meant a lot of their best TIE pilots had defected to the Rebels.
At the battle of Endor the Imperial pilots were totally dependant on superior numbers and the Emperor's Battle Meditation to keep up with the rebel pilots.
The Rebel pilots, at that stage, *were* elite.
I get all of my info from the movies and judging from the movies the Rebel pilots didn't seem so elite in my opinion. Even at the battle of Endor the battle was very one-sided in the Empire's favor until the Death Star and Executor were destroyed.
Although you could be right about the Rebels being elite, I don't read many of the Star Wars novels and so I can only speak from the movies' standpoint.
This is rather off topic, let's move on to more important matters...
The Mon Cals are supposed to have excellent shielding, that is one of their defining characteristics;
Can we stop trumpeting on about speed. If you can't pin down precisely why a characteristic equates to an advantage then don't mention it, becaue it's meaningless. All this talk about maneverability, speed and blind spots is not only extremely nebulous but is too dependant on outside factors as well - it's all very well saying that the Mon Cal can get into the ISDs blind spot really quickly but if there's no room to do it then that 'advantage' evaporates. That's a tactic, not a unit advantage.
Advantage -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advantage)
Tactical -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tactical)
Well, judging from the definitions of "advantage" and "tactical" I would say speed in EAW is not only a tactical benefit but also a unit advantage as it allows a quick retreat, increased maneuverability and serves as a direct catalyst for ambushes and sneak attacks. Speed may not directly destroy the enemy but it sure does help.
No, I don't agree with this. Nerfing ZC cruisers is a good course of action bu they are issues with other units that won't be fixed simply by nerfing the consortium.
Could you elaborate on this statement? What other issues are you refering to?
You're preaching to the converted here. I don't despise the Agressor as much as the Keldabe but I do think it was still overdone. Both ZC capital ships are needlessly better - they can be built anywhere, they can easily move through asteroids (I don't think Petro actually bothered to explain that boost) and their special abilities are off the scale. The Self - Destruct idea was *way* overdone. It basically means that whatever bombers you send to destroy the cruiser are forfeit.
Personally I think there should be massive disadvantages to the ZC self-destruct. Such as not being able to bring in any more cruisers to replace it, or their being a *huge* cost to replace it (c10000 or more). That'll make it a true weapon of desperation rather than the cheat it is at the moment.
I think the Aggressor should have restrictions on using it's "self-destruct" ability: for example, the Aggressor can only use it's ability as long as it's cannons are intact or as long as it's not too heavily damaged. It's not fair that the Consortium player can simply "self-destruct" the Aggressor seconds before it's destroyed.
Personally, I think Petro should completely rebalance the Keldabe's special ability from scratch, maybe even give it another ability. At least give it some restrictions, at this point there is no way to defend against the Keldabe's "shield-leeching" ability.
OK, why why why do you folks all (or at least some of you) want
MC = ISD = Keldable ??? (in terms of balance)
Why does an MC need to be equal to an ISD 1on1 when these two are totally different ships?? An MC is a cap ship, an ISD is a cap ship/carrier.
Yes true, if an IMP brings in 5 ISDs these will defeat 5 Mon Cals and support, however a Rebel player can simply instead bring in 20.000+ credits worth of fighters/bombers which will tear the ISDs to shreds - something an imp player couldn't.
The Empire, the Rebellion and the ZC are different in play style, economy and pop cap - it's IMO foolish to make 1on1 comparisons between similar ships.
Would you say that the Rebs are underpowered because they can't build a Super-Mon-Calamari-Cruiser and the Empire can?
The only real balance issues IMO appear when a player can execute a strategy that is hardly or not at all counterable even at the same economical situation (e.g. if 1200 credits worth of X-Wings would own a Tartan) or if the same strat with one faction is simply "better" than with another faction (e.g. Starviper spam > X-Wing spam, although they cost exactly the same amount of credits and pop cap (at least in GC)).
The only real way to find out balance issues IMO is to really play a game (against a human opponent at best) instead of discussing artificially constructed examples or calculations.
The Capital ships shouldn't be exact copies of each other but they should be balanced against each other. The Star Destroyer and MC are fairly balanced against one another but both pale in comparison to the Aggressor and Keldabe. I still say nerfing the Keldabe and Aggressor is the best solution.
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).
Not necessarily--As YertyL and I have suggested, each unit of each particular type of each faction does not need to be completely balanced against one another, so long as each faction picks up a relative advantage somewhere else. For instance, do the Rebels really need to send Calamari Cruisers to go punch for punch against Imperial Star Destroyers when they have those shiny new MC-30 frigates to zip around the ISDs launching devastating volleys of torpedoes?
The Rebels' strength was never in fully engaging with Imperial forces (e.g., Hoth, Endor up until the Emperor died). It was in exploiting tactical weaknesses overlooked by the overconfident Empire (e.g. Yavin).
I'm going to say the same thing I said on Petroglyph Forums, and that is...if you do not modify the MonCal, then at least make some modifications to the MC30 Frigate. It's powerful yet damn weak at the moment.
The cluster bombs explode in a ring, not a full sphere making it harder to effectively use that ability against fighters. Personally i've had numerous problems with that.
Take out the two Proton Torpedo tubes at the front, and you've got cannon fodder for a unit instead.
The shields and armour balance isn't the problem. The problem is that there are too few torpedo tubes. Don't get me wrong - the existing ones do a hell of a lot of damage, but are more vulnerable to bombers.
I am going to echo the suggestion of Squirrelx who proposed to increase the Torpedo tubes on the MC to 4 (or even 3), but to divide the current firepower between those 4 tubes instead of adding 2 more very effective tubes. That would keep balance, while making the MC30 a bit more useful.
Advantage -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advantage)
Tactical -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tactical)
Well, judging from the definitions of "advantage" and "tactical" I would say speed in EAW is not only a tactical benefit but also a unit advantage as it allows a quick retreat, increased maneuverability and serves as a direct catalyst for ambushes and sneak attacks. Speed may not directly destroy the enemy but it sure does help.
I need to stress this again, as Tears has done. The Speed advantage is not significant enough to be classified as an 'advantage'. Stating it allows a quick retreat is exaggerating it a bit. If you've used a MonCal which has just lost 3 weapon hardpoints against 2 ISDs and you want to get it out of there, it's not exactly 'click and its there' if ya catch my drift. Plus you have to factor in the ISD's superior range as a counter. Therefore it's not really an advantage, because its countered...
Trying to get an MC to quickly retreat after having battled with an ISD is hard because while the MC turns its back to run, the ISD's range allows it to continue hammering away at the MC. It's speed will let it retreat quicker than an ISD, but its certainly not 'quick' by normal unit speed standards.
Maneuverability...well I agree and I don't. It certainly is more maneuverable but since its speed is too slow, utilizing that maneuverability is certainly not easy. In fact, its an outright chore to even attempt to.
Sneak attacks...well I do disagree there. You can hyper in a MonCal behind an ISD but that isn't a unit advantage - you can do that with any unit. As far as sneak attacking goes in terms of flanking it; its not really possible (again, due to the MC's current speed). I've tried the flanking thing, and so far I have not had a battle where the ISD didn't spot me before I could 'sneak up' on it.
So yeah I see why you advocate a speed boost as an upgrade for the MC in a patch. But I do not see how you perceive the MCs current speed to be an advantage at present...
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.
sorry to say/write this, cause i dont wanna sound or be rude, but, man, look, u gotta be a complete noob or somthing, if u cant counter 1 aggressor with some crusader backup. the aggressor is totally f***** if u get 1-2 ships to the back of it, cause all the weapons arcs are to the front and its slow as hell. so just get in some smaller ships to deal with the crusaders, and that ship is done. maybe u lose some escort fighters or 1-3 hardpoints or maybe one of your ships, but well, u cant tell me there is no chance at all to counter it. so let me say this: blah. im not a geek whos reading up all the xml files to compare every piece to its so called counterparts. but its no fun at all if u nerf everything down till everything is totally equal. cause that will endup in a total loss of indivuality of each faction and that is (i repeat) no fun at all.
i know there are a lot of ppl who are really pi**ed off cause of the abilities the zc has, but ur discussing the things here like this faction is somthing like a ubergod.
things like the new rebs hero in his tank is bothering me more like everything else.
In the original EAW I was able to win a galactic conquest game on "hard" difficulty with no problems because there were virtually no significant balance issues. Now with FOC I have no problems with the Rebels vs. Empire but I do have some complaints about the overpowered Consortium, every single ship they have is better than it's Rebel/Imperial conunterpart. If I'm a noob for that then more than 90% of the FOC community are also noobs.
The strategies you posted are not very effective (I've tried them) because an Aggressor is almost never alone (unless the other player is just plain stupid). There is never just one crusader guarding an Aggressor, usually around 4-5 crusaders and 2-3 vengeance frigates is the staple defense of an Aggressor. It boils down to one thing, balance, which is completely absent from this game thus far. I'm not saying the Capital ships should be absolute duplicates of each other but they should be able to counter one another in some way, or at least have some weaknesses. The Consortium has too many strengths that have no counters; there is no capital ship that can match the Aggressor, the Consortium gets TWO capital ships, there is no defense against the "shield Leeching" ability and the hull of the Keldabe and Aggressor is almost unaffected by torpedoes and lasers. How can you call that balanced?
I am going to echo the suggestion of Squirrelx who proposed to increase the Torpedo tubes on the MC to 4 (or even 3), but to divide the current firepower between those 4 tubes instead of adding 2 more very effective tubes. That would keep balance, while making the MC30 a bit more useful.
I agree with you here, the MC-30 is very vulnerable at this point and some modifications should be made. I second this suggestion to increase the number of torpedo HP's on the MC-30.
I need to stress this again, as Tears has done. The Speed advantage is not significant enough to be classified as an 'advantage'. Stating it allows a quick retreat is exaggerating it a bit. If you've used a MonCal which has just lost 3 weapon hardpoints against 2 ISDs and you want to get it out of there, it's not exactly 'click and its there' if ya catch my drift. Plus you have to factor in the ISD's superior range as a counter. Therefore it's not really an advantage, because its countered...
Trying to get an MC to quickly retreat after having battled with an ISD is hard because while the MC turns its back to run, the ISD's range allows it to continue hammering away at the MC. It's speed will let it retreat quicker than an ISD, but its certainly not 'quick' by normal unit speed standards.
Maneuverability...well I agree and I don't. It certainly is more maneuverable but since its speed is too slow, utilizing that maneuverability is certainly not easy. In fact, its an outright chore to even attempt to.
Sneak attacks...well I do disagree there. You can hyper in a MonCal behind an ISD but that isn't a unit advantage - you can do that with any unit. As far as sneak attacking goes in terms of flanking it; its not really possible (again, due to the MC's current speed). I've tried the flanking thing, and so far I have not had a battle where the ISD didn't spot me before I could 'sneak up' on it.
So yeah I see why you advocate a speed boost as an upgrade for the MC in a patch. But I do not see how you perceive the MCs current speed to be an advantage at present...
Upon reading this post I now see your point. Perhaps I did exaggerate a little on the advantages of MC's speed. I withdraw my standpoint on the speed advantage. Even if you don't count speed as an advantage you can't deny the fact that the Mon Cal does have a number of advantages over the Imperial Star Destroyer: I'll reiterate the advantages I already posted -
The Imperial Star Destroyer has a shield hardpoint - MC doesn't
The fact that the MC lacks a shield generator HP really gives the MC a huge advantage over the Imperial Star Destroyer. If a few bombers can successfully take out the Imperial Star Destroyer's Shield HP then the MC could easily emerge victorious. The Imperials on the other hand can't utilize this strategy for obvious reasons.
The MC fires more turbolaser shots per round and in more frequent procession. The Mon Cal can outshoot the Star Destroyer which means it has yet another advantage over the Star Destroyer.
The MC has it's weapons branched out, rendering any flanking maneuvers useless.
The MC also has stronger shields and a slightly faster shield refresh rate than the Star Destroyer allowing the MC to recover faster from previous attacks than the Imperial Star Destroyer.
The MC can turn quicker than a Star Destroyer. A quicker turn can allow the MC to face enemy units that ambush it from the rear.
At this point (even with the stat increases for the Imperial Star Destroyer) the Mon Calamari Cruiser has a number of advantages over the Star Destroyer, some of the advantages are trivial but some are very significant and could mean the difference between victory or defeat.
Not necessarily--As YertyL and I have suggested, each unit of each particular type of each faction does not need to be completely balanced against one another, so long as each faction picks up a relative advantage somewhere else. For instance, do the Rebels really need to send Calamari Cruisers to go punch for punch against Imperial Star Destroyers when they have those shiny new MC-30 frigates to zip around the ISDs launching devastating volleys of torpedoes?
The Rebels' strength was never in fully engaging with Imperial forces (e.g., Hoth, Endor up until the Emperor died). It was in exploiting tactical weaknesses overlooked by the overconfident Empire (e.g. Yavin).
As I stated before, I have no problems with the balance between the Mon Cal/Imperial Star Destroyer. With that said I am concerned with the current balance problems between the Consortium Capital ships and the Rebel/Empire capital ships. At this point the MC and Imperial Star Destroyer are at a great disadvantage against the Consortium Capital Ships. Shouldn't the Rebel and Imperial Capital ships at least be able to put up a fight against the Consortium Capital ships?
On a side note I've stated on numerous occasions my opinion on the Consortium Cruisers and you all know I've been insistent on rebalancing them so now I have some suggestions to help balance these two Capital ships. I haven't spent much time trying to figure out how to balance them but here are some ideas I came up with -
Keldabe:
-Lower rate of fire on the turbolaser batteries.
-Rebalance special ability (example: make it's "shield Leeching" ability require a HP to activate it)
-Are two engine HP's necessary? I think only one is needed.
Implementing two out of these three of these changes should effectivally rebalance this capital ship.
Aggressor:
-Lower shields and shield refresh rating.
-Change it's turbolaser HP's to laser cannon HP's.
-Make it vulnerable to asteroids.
-Nerf the effect of it's "self-destruct" ability, or add some restrictions to using this ability.
-Weaken the shield generator's HP health.
Implementing two out of five of these five suggestions should balance this Capital ship.
Do any of you have any ideas on rebalancing the Consortium Cruisers? If you do I would like to read them.
In the original EAW I was able to win a galactic conquest game on "hard" difficulty with no problems because there were virtually no significant balance issues. Now with FOC I have no problems with the Rebels vs. Empire but I do have some complaints about the overpowered Consortium, every single ship they have is better than it's Rebel/Imperial conunterpart. If I'm a noob for that then more than 90% of the FOC community are also noobs.
yup. thats how it is. but dont take this negative in any way, its just a matter of time. u all mastered the original game, but now things changed with the addon and ur whining cause ur tactics became useless. so what?
The strategies you posted are not very effective (I've tried them) because an Aggressor is almost never alone (unless the other player is just plain stupid). There is never just one crusader guarding an Aggressor, usually around 4-5 crusaders and 2-3 vengeance frigates is the staple defense of an Aggressor. It boils down to one thing, balance, which is completely absent from this game thus far. I'm not saying the Capital ships should be absolute duplicates of each other but they should be able to counter one another in some way, or at least have some weaknesses. The Consortium has too many strengths that have no counters; there is no capital ship that can match the Aggressor, the Consortium gets TWO capital ships, there is no defense against the "shield Leeching" ability and the hull of the Keldabe and Aggressor is almost unaffected by torpedoes and lasers. How can you call that balanced?
i never said my strategy is really good, maybe its really bad compared to earlier strategies of the vanilla eaw, but at least, i could counter attacks with it, okay, with heavy losses, but i managed it to win. and i was just trying to showup examples to mark the weakness. and u will always have problems against well mixed fleets. this is not only the effect of the ZC units. u will get the same result with a good rebel player with mon cal cap ships and, lets say, these new and nasty torp ships when they come with escort ships and fighters.
one bombing run of one torpship and u can say bye bye to the targeted hardpoint.
As I stated before, I have no problems with the balance between the Mon Cal/Imperial Star Destroyer. With that said I am concerned with the current balance problems between the Consortium Capital ships and the Rebel/Empire capital ships. At this point the MC and Imperial Star Destroyer are at a great disadvantage against the Consortium Capital Ships. Shouldn't the Rebel and Imperial Capital ships at least be able to put up a fight against the Consortium Capital ships?
On a side note I've stated on numerous occasions my opinion on the Consortium Cruisers and you all know I've been insistent on rebalancing them so now I have some suggestions to help balance these two Capital ships. I haven't spent much time trying to figure out how to balance them but here are some ideas I came up with -
Keldabe:
-Lower rate of fire on the turbolaser batteries.
-Rebalance special ability (example: make it's "shield Leeching" ability require a HP to activate it)
-Are two engine HP's necessary? I think only one is needed.
Implementing two out of these three of these changes should effectivally rebalance this capital ship.
Aggressor:
-Lower shields and shield refresh rating.
-Change it's turbolaser HP's to laser cannon HP's.
-Make it vulnerable to asteroids.
-Nerf the effect of it's "self-destruct" ability, or add some restrictions to using this ability.
-Weaken the shield generator's HP health.
Implementing two out of five of these five suggestions should balance this Capital ship.
Do any of you have any ideas on rebalancing the Consortium Cruisers? If you do I would like to read them.
i have a problem with your suggestions bout the ships here. cause u'd nerf the ships to the point where they r complete useless and against the factions philosophy.
i'd say, lets make them more expensive at least, or restrict the building of the ships to some level 5 station planets like kuat or whatever.
the problem is not that the ZC has 2 capitol ships. the one capitol ship is pretty useless without the other IMHO. the problem is that they r buildable everywhere and quite cheap.
i have a problem with your suggestions bout the ships here. cause u'd nerf the ships to the point where they r complete useless and against the factions philosophy.
Um, the ZC doesn't have a philosophy beyond the biggest most powerful stuff for the cheapest price. If they are nerfed to the point of being balanced than I hardly see how they'll be completely useless. Haven't you been listening?
the problem is not that the ZC has 2 capitol ships. the one capitol ship is pretty useless without the other IMHO. the problem is that they r buildable everywhere and quite cheap.
What would you know about problems if you think the Agressor is useless without the Kedalbe? Crikey, your tactics must be awful if you think you can't use an Agressor as it is...... maybe you should play Dune 2 instead?
Um, the ZC doesn't have a philosophy beyond the biggest most powerful stuff for the cheapest price. If they are nerfed to the point of being balanced than I hardly see how they'll be completely useless. Haven't you been listening?
blah? :)
the faction got a philosophy. like every criminal genius has. keep in shadows, and when u attack somewhere, hit fast, hit hard. the only thing u ppl have a problem with is the special ability to blow up the cap ship in the last second.
am i wrong?
What would you know about problems if you think the Agressor is useless without the Kedalbe? Crikey, your tactics must be awful if you think you can't use an Agressor as it is...... maybe you should play Dune 2 instead?
look... if u knock down the special weapon it just has 4 TL banks, all to the front. and its manuverbility can be compared to a slug. the vengeance toned down against fighters, is the right direction when it comes to balance. but things like "exchange the TLs to Ls" will make this capitolship useless in a fight, cause just the special weapon isnt worth the money.
i may agree that the self destruct should be only available for the vengeance, since the explosion of a cap ship is way to massive and something that could be considered a superweapon to terrorise another player. but exchanging hardpoints or nerfing the health of the ship will make this ship useless and u will see the result in online matches; they will switch to keldabe ships as the main cap ship.
blah? :)
the faction got a philosophy. like every criminal genius has. keep in shadows, and when u attack somewhere, hit fast, hit hard. the only thing u ppl have a problem with is the special ability to blow up the cap ship in the last second.
am i wrong?
Yes, let's stick to the shadows, because that's where we can hide our 20-capital ship fleets and hordes of Hovertanks and Torpedo Artillery.....
look... if u knock down the special weapon it just has 4 TL banks, all to the front. and its manuverbility can be compared to a slug. the vengeance toned down against fighters, is the right direction when it comes to balance. but things like "exchange the TLs to Ls" will make this capitolship useless in a fight, cause just the special weapon isnt worth the money.
i may agree that the self destruct should be only available for the vengeance, since the explosion of a cap ship is way to massive and something that could be considered a superweapon to terrorise another player. but exchanging hardpoints or nerfing the health of the ship will make this ship useless and u will see the result in online matches;
Lets just stup and think for a second. Compare the Agressor to the Equivalent ship in the Rebel/Imperial fleets - the Marauder and the Broadside. The Agressor is meant for firepower. It already outdoes those in every single department except for sheer range.
Now lets add to the fact that it's capable of operating as a lightweight capital ship *and* it has it's self-destruct.
Nerfing it will only stop it from being grossly overpowered as it is.
they will switch to keldabe ships as the main cap ship.
And here's me thinking that's what they were supposed to do in the first place...
but what bout the shield leeching then? if u take that away too (like some ppl here want it), wheres the advantage then?
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:
yup. thats how it is. but dont take this negative in any way, its just a matter of time. u all mastered the original game, but now things changed with the addon and ur whining cause ur tactics became useless. so what?
So, 90+% of the EAW/FOC players are noobs and your just one master gamer among them? Have you ever played FOC on galactic conquest on "hard" difficulty against the Zann Consortium. It's impossible to win.
i never said my strategy is really good, maybe its really bad compared to earlier strategies of the vanilla eaw, but at least, i could counter attacks with it, okay, with heavy losses, but i managed it to win. and i was just trying to showup examples to mark the weakness. and u will always have problems against well mixed fleets. this is not only the effect of the ZC units. u will get the same result with a good rebel player with mon cal cap ships and, lets say, these new and nasty torp ships when they come with escort ships and fighters.
one bombing run of one torpship and u can say bye bye to the targeted hardpoint.
If your strategy isn't very good then why did you post it and play it up as a foolproof strategy and that I'm a noob for not implementing it successfully? If you can't back up your statement then don't make a statement at all. (Yes, I realize I wasn't able to back up my "speed statement," but unlike you I never made a personal attack on another person)
If the only way you can beat the Zann Consortium is with heavy losses then you yourself have just admitted that they are unbalanced. It should be possible to win without heavy losses.
You can't compare the MC-30 to the Aggressor and Keldabe, the MC-30 has numerous weaknesses to balance out this frigate's strengths; It has terribly weak armor, it is extremely vulnerable to bombers, knocking out it's engine HP is all that is neccessary to defeat it, it's very expensive which therefore balances out the number of MC-30's that are being used, without it's torpedo HP's the ship is finished. The Aggressor and Keldabe on the other hand have no weaknesses.
i have a problem with your suggestions bout the ships here. cause u'd nerf the ships to the point where they r complete useless and against the factions philosophy.
i'd say, lets make them more expensive at least, or restrict the building of the ships to some level 5 station planets like kuat or whatever.
You're right, balanced gameplay is no fun. *sarcasm*
the problem is not that the ZC has 2 capitol ships. the one capitol ship is pretty useless without the other IMHO. the problem is that they r buildable everywhere and quite cheap.
Right, because an invincible ship is nothing without another invincible ship at it's side. ;)
Are you seriously saying that the Keldabe and Aggressor are useless without teaming them up?! Can you back up your statement?
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.
So, 90+% of the EAW/FOC players are noobs and your just one master gamer among them? Have you ever played FOC on galactic conquest on "hard" difficulty against the Zann Consortium. It's impossible to win.
i never said that and i wont. as i said above, please dont take this word noob negative. depending on the releasedate, everyone is kinda noobish with the strategies of this addon, cause u cant use the tactics used against the other faction in vanilla eaw against this new faction. i personally think its not all balancing issues. or better.. i cant believe it. ive read the same comments in the early weeks after vanilla eaw got released. and now these ppl are turning against the add-on. got my point?
If your strategy isn't very good then why did you post it and play it up as a foolproof strategy and that I'm a noob for not implementing it successfully? If you can't back up your statement then don't make a statement at all. (Yes, I realize I wasn't able to back up my "speed statement," but unlike you I never made a personal attack on another person)
i just tried to show u that it is possible. plus i never attacked u or someone else personally. if i'd do **** like that u'd know it. u took lines as an offence where nothing like that was intended. so, sorry for whatever pissed u off.
If the only way you can beat the Zann Consortium is with heavy losses then you yourself have just admitted that they are unbalanced. It should be possible to win without heavy losses.
how u wanna compare that? every game turns out different and isnt like the one before, not even against the AI. wheres the limit?
You can't compare the MC-30 to the Aggressor and Keldabe, the MC-30 has numerous weaknesses to balance out this frigate's strengths; It has terribly weak armor, it is extremely vulnerable to bombers, knocking out it's engine HP is all that is neccessary to defeat it, it's very expensive which therefore balances out the number of MC-30's that are being used, without it's torpedo HP's the ship is finished. The Aggressor and Keldabe on the other hand have no weaknesses.
i came up with the mc 30s for one reason: those hit and run attacks. i heard some ppl talkin bout the aggressor beeing used to penetrate a player with the special weapon, till its bout to blowup, just to hit the selfdestruct. u can do kinda same with other sides. bring in some MC cruisers and then come up with a few mc-30s from the back and/or broadsides.. kinda same result. not that fast, but compareable IMHO.
You're right, balanced gameplay is no fun. *sarcasm*
missunderstood me..... again...
Right, because an invincible ship is nothing without another invincible ship at it's side. ;)
Are you seriously saying that the Keldabe and Aggressor are useless without teaming them up?! Can you back up your statement?
the aggressor without the keldabe, isnt really totally useless, but theyr at best when theyr both in frontline action. cause of the aggressors weird "turn-around-and-come-back"-unit-AI. at least thats my experience, f.e. when i attack a hp of a station with it.
Ps: sorry. if i cant make my point clear enough, dont hesitate to ask. aint my motherlanguage, but i try.
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.
missunderstood me..... again...
If I misunderstood you then I apologize.
"the aggressor without the keldabe, isnt really totally useless,"
"the one capitol ship is pretty useless without the other IMHO."
Don't post something if you don't really mean it. ;)
This topic has gone waaaaaay off subject anyways...perhaps it's time to split it or shut it down.
Actually, I've said pretty much everthing I needed to say in this debate so...I guess I'm done here. I need to get ready for my Calculous test anyway. :(
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.
Actually, I've said pretty much everthing I needed to say in this debate so...I guess I'm done here. I need to get ready for my Calculous test anyway. :(
Calculous? lol that reminds me I need to do more studying for my SATs since i'm moving back over to the US soon :clap2: yay! School sucks in England (well at least it did for me lol), i'm glad I graduated and don't need to go anymore.
But anyway, enough about off-topic stuff. Everyone said what they wanted to say? My points are pretty much clear:
-Increase MC Speed (at least 20%)
-Double MC Frigates' Proton Torpedo tubes and divide current firepower between those.
-Increase X-Wing Shielding by at least 25%
-NERF Kedalbe and Aggressor, I would say make the shield leech ability weaker than the MonCal's shield recharge ability and make their ability recharge times equal.
-NERF Star Vipers (already being done, but you know...)
-[[Maybe]] decrease Nebulon-B Frigate's Pop. Cap cost from 3 to 2 because its the weakest of the Frigates...
By the way in case you guys didn't know, SAGEKING-PG just came on Petroglyph Forums and announced that the patch would be released mid-week, and by late wednesday at the latest. YAY! I was bursting with anticipation...still am lol!
-
I just noticed that you didn't suggest adding a hangar bay to the Mon Calamari Cruiser. What changed your mind Shadow?
By the way, I agree with all of the balancing ideas you posted just now. (I don't think decreasing the Nebulon's pop cap is necessary though)
Woaw slow down thier
THe first one is okay
The second one why is their even a rewason for this?
they dont need more sheilds they need to be a tad faster 25% more sheilds and tie interceptors would beable to punch through thier sheilds at all.
I agree with the next too
This doesnt need to happen they are better then aclamators and im prety sure interceptor 4s so their pop cap is what blances them.
...Just when I thought the debate was over. :rolleyes:
Finish the thread!? We are only getting started :P Just wait till we get our hands on the patch.
Some pretty good suggestions and points made here. I will put in my $10 worth…Since there is two main thrusts I divided this post into two areas.
Rebel Fighters and Balance
From my understanding of everyone’s unhappiness about the quality of rebel fighters, this has more of an impact in GC than skirmish where you have to buy the sdqns, whereas the Imps don’t. Would I be correct? (In skirmish the sqdns are roughly the same price so its not as critical.) YertyL made a good point about having the flexibilty to bring on more fighters than an Imperial force however I can understand a Rebel players point of view that this could be expensive and even if the Rebel force won, the victory could actually be a defeat economically. I guess it depends on how much you have in the bank but I generally dont like a 'meat grinder' strategy.
After having made all the changes to my own XMLs I played a GC with the rebs for the first time since the "update". As usual when I play the rebs I rarely buy fighters at all. Corvettes, Gunships and Marauders, I find, are still much more effective. Personally I think all corvettes are too effective and if they were made alot less effective against fighters, then fighters would have a role and a much bigger part in this game. One thing that annoys me with fighters is that if you lose half the sqdn then they are lost. Its just not cost effective. Why not have it so that once you buy a sdqn, even if it gets wiped out it will still replenish its losses after the battle provided you win or withdraw some of the force. At present I think rebel fighter sdqns are far too disposable. They would prolly have to be increased in price (slightly) otherwise you would have 50 sqdns in a fleet and just cycle through them knowing you are going to get them all back if you win; but really that is no different to having a cruiser with one hardpoint with 10% health left and getting it back to full health straight after the battle. Given the points raised by the apparent disparity between the number of sqdns a Rebel and an Imperial player can field the only other way to balance things is to improve the rebel fighters to such an extent that they can compete with or overcome these odds; if they can’t be better than Imp/ZC craft then they have to have the quantity. Now, if rebel fighters are substantially improved they are going to cost more (which is okay by me) but they will also have the same pop cap as imperial fighter sdqns (in skirmish) which could have imperial players crying foul when they get attacked by a swarm of nothing but buffed bombers and fighters (which can handle 3 to 1 odds). I will just say this about Rebs though in FoC and against the Corsortium. I play Empire over Rebs 80/20 of the time. The first GC in FoC I played (on medium) with them I took over the galaxy quicker than I did when playing with the Empire. I fought only 1 ZC space station, only because I wanted to. I destroyed every other station by using raid forces. This is the best and most important ability of the Rebel and, even if you don’t hold the planet for very long it can cause huge economic damage when a side has to take it back and rebuild. When you play as the Empire you don’t have this option and you have to grind through other factions military the hard way. All you have to do is make sure your raid fleet is led by the right hero.
I’m just putting this out there but I think the xwing/torpedo idea could work. Just make it so that torpedoes will not fire while s-foils ability is active and torps are in flight. Don’t buff the Xwing anymore so it is still not especially strong BUT it will be more dangerous and versatile. Xwings are really nothing special at the mom and they need a definite advantage. Oh yeah and at Yavin, I always thought the pilots there were those that they had on station and not necessarily their best. The DS was already closing in on them and they didn’t have time to call in better pilots; if they had they would have had reinforcements there to help. Vader’s sqdn on the other hand was probably among the very best in the Imperial Navy. This situation was rare however, since as the war went on, more and more reb pilots gained xp and suffered less casualties. I wrote on a thread before but forgot which one, that the Empire was spread out all over the galaxy. Many of its pilots were stationed where they saw no or very limited action. When they finally met the rebels they were still green while the rebs would (generally) be pretty experienced. The probability of dying for a reb would be higher overall as they see more frequent action but for each individual battle its going to be much less because of their experience compared to the Imps.
Anyway, back to the MC…what speed would you like then Shads? 50% increase from its current makes it as fast as a Neb-B? Is that about right? What about you Tears? You want something tangible, what do you think would be a speed to give the MC a definitive advantage in this area if the short burn boost wasn’t the option to take?
Shadow I agree strongly with dispersing the MC-30s torp tubes. Good idea. After the torp tubes are taken out I leave them alone. 2 laser cannons do little damage but tying up 3 pop cap is even more damaging. Just one thing; the ISD and the MC have the same range = 2000.
I agree with most of your suggestions except the Neb-B taking 2 cap. You could get away with that if you left the reb fighters pretty crap. The MC hangar could be done but it looks like that you don’t feel its necessary anymore.
THE ZC
I take it you have all seen the price increases for the ZC upgrades in skirmish? Some of them are HUGE. It will be a real investment and important decision when and whether to upgrade or not. I agree the Aggressor is a pig of a ship; still no Keldabe though. One thing that is annoying is that the ZC is the only faction that gets a capital ship in skirmish at Tech 4. The Imps get one yes but a) it’s a hero, b) its horrendously expensive and c) you cannot mass produce it.
I’ve said it before and ill say it again; all this crap about ZC ships being weak-armored is rubbish…The Aggressor has the same armour as an MC, Keldabe as an ISD, Int IVs have the same armor as an Assault Frig, not a Neb B which would be its equivalent! As for shielding the Aggressor has 200 points less than an MC/ISD but the Keldabe has 200 more and both have about the same refresh rate. Let’s compare their firepower too: Aggressors do same damage as an MC (60) and Keldabes do ISD damage (70). To put this into perspective, the Aggressors mondo weapon does 400 damage, its self destruct does 1500 damage and the plasma cannon on the ZC station does…6000. I’m not going to whinge I’m just putting these figures out there. I still think that with this patch the ZC isn’t going to be too bad BUT my gripe still exists and which happened last night, that when you take out their income in skirmish their must be a script to boost their income because they had no mines (and they took out all my mines after I got theirs) yet were able to bring on 3 frigates, 2 crusaders and 2 Vengeance almost at once when I couldn’t even afford one Interceptor squadron and I only had Vader and Fett…
Valter with the Keldabe I think you only need to nerf the shield leech ability. It’s lost a lot of teeth with its ions and mass drivers getting nerfed. As for the Aggressor, if anything is done, the special weapons should be a bit more on the fragile side. Such weapons wouldn’t have the armour they do and this gives it a nice weakness.
I have to disagree with darthcarth about the Int IVs though…I think they ar superior to both Acclamators and Neb Bs. 1) They are faster 2) They are better armoured 3) Their concussion missile launcher is really nasty and makes Int IV highly effective against starfighters and shielded craft. They fire more missiles than the Acclamator too, plus their special ability makes tem really nasty. Int IVs in a group can really make a mess of capital ships and starbases yet provide their own support.
Question: does anyone know if the self destruct ability affects ZC ships as well? It’s been a while since I’ve played it. If it doesn’t IT SHOULD!
And FunSolo, you do pretty damn good if English is your second language!
Finish the thread!? We are only getting started :P Just wait till we get our hands on the patch.
I’m just putting this out there but I think the xwing/torpedo idea could work. Just make it so that torpedoes will not fire while s-foils ability is active and torps are in flight. Don’t buff the Xwing anymore so it is still not especially strong BUT it will be more dangerous and versatile. Xwings are really nothing special at the mom and they need a definite advantage.
IMO Xwings need a boost to their HP and and a slight increase to damage. I don't like the torpedoes because it will not only render Y-Wings and B-Wings obsolete but it will also unbalance the X-Wing's role. the last thing I want is for my X-Wing to become the next StarViper.
Here's what I think the balance for Rebel Fighters should be -
X-Wing: Space superiority - handles non-defender TIEs and StarVipers
A-Wing: Dogfighter - capable of wiping out any fighter and is fast, but fairly pointless against cruisers
Y-Wing: Standard Bomber (I think the Y-Wing as it stands is fine)
B-Wing: Assault Bomber - a cruiser in fighter squad form
Oh yeah and at Yavin, I always thought the pilots there were those that they had on station and not necessarily their best. The DS was already closing in on them and they didn’t have time to call in better pilots; if they had they would have had reinforcements there to help. Vader’s sqdn on the other hand was probably among the very best in the Imperial Navy. This situation was rare however, since as the war went on, more and more reb pilots gained xp and suffered less casualties. I wrote on a thread before but forgot which one, that the Empire was spread out all over the galaxy. Many of its pilots were stationed where they saw no or very limited action. When they finally met the rebels they were still green while the rebs would (generally) be pretty experienced. The probability of dying for a reb would be higher overall as they see more frequent action but for each individual battle its going to be much less because of their experience compared to the Imps.
A bit off topic but....
Yeah, the rebel pilots weren't necessarily the best but none of them were incompetent. People like Red Leader and Biggs were former military pilots while Wedge was an ex-smuggler. And of course, Luke had no military experience but was known as a hot-sh1t pilot.
On the flipside, the Empire at the battle of Yavin were still obsessed with their 'absolute conformity' policy and hence the idea of 'best' imperial pilots wouldn't have really been measurable. The pilots on the DS were really considered the same as the rest of the Empire. Vader was probably the only notable pilot on the Imperial side - of course, he was one of the best in the Galaxy.
Anyway, back to the MC…what speed would you like then Shads? 50% increase from its current makes it as fast as a Neb-B? Is that about right? What about you Tears? You want something tangible, what do you think would be a speed to give the MC a definitive advantage in this area if the short burn boost wasn’t the option to take?
I've said until I'm blue in the face I couldn't care less about Raw speed. Really, the ability to fly under and over Imperial ships - that is, be able to get to any point in space regardless of what's in its way - would be the advantage it needs. Currently it has to spaz about trying to maneuver around obstacles etc.
Shadow I agree strongly with dispersing the MC-30s torp tubes. Good idea. After the torp tubes are taken out I leave them alone. 2 laser cannons do little damage but tying up 3 pop cap is even more damaging. Just one thing; the ISD and the MC have the same range = 2000.
I'm not against it. Personally, I think just increasing the HPs on the launchers and giving it a shield boost would be what's needed.
I agree with most of your suggestions except the Neb-B taking 2 cap. You could get away with that if you left the reb fighters pretty crap. The MC hangar could be done but it looks like that you don’t feel its necessary anymore.
I'm not really sure where this has come from - I reckon the Nebs are balanced as they are - sure, they don't have the firepower of the other basic cruisers but their shield boost makes them much tougher and they're great for holding battle lines and lending turbolaser support where needed.
I’ve said it before and ill say it again; all this crap about ZC ships being weak-armored is rubbish…The Aggressor has the same armour as an MC, Keldabe as an ISD, Int IVs have the same armor as an Assault Frig, not a Neb B which would be its equivalent! As for shielding the Aggressor has 200 points less than an MC/ISD but the Keldabe has 200 more and both have about the same refresh rate. Let’s compare their firepower too: Aggressors do same damage as an MC (60) and Keldabes do ISD damage (70). To put this into perspective, the Aggressors mondo weapon does 400 damage, its self destruct does 1500 damage and the plasma cannon on the ZC station does…6000. I’m not going to whinge I’m just putting these figures out there. I still think that with this patch the ZC isn’t going to be too bad BUT my gripe still exists and which happened last night, that when you take out their income in skirmish their must be a script to boost their income because they had no mines (and they took out all my mines after I got theirs) yet were able to bring on 3 frigates, 2 crusaders and 2 Vengeance almost at once when I couldn’t even afford one Interceptor squadron and I only had Vader and Fett…
Any argument that says the ZC are balanced currently is either not sensible or is being made by absolutely appalling players. What you've just said here highlights this.
I'm reserving judgement on the ZC until I get the patch. I'll see then whether they need more tweaks.
Question: does anyone know if the self destruct ability affects ZC ships as well? It’s been a while since I’ve played it. If it doesn’t IT SHOULD!
I would ordinarily say 'of course not' because that would be totally unbalanced and complete nonsense.... but then again, the same can be said of the ZCs abilities to fly in Asteroids, so I'd rather not know.
i am not sure if this has been mentioned before, but the b-wing's lock foils ability has its graphics reversed. the wings are currently not in parellel with the ship when i use lock foils, and when i unuse it, the wings are parrellel XD
shouldn't it be the other way round?
Rebel Fighters and Balance
From my understanding of everyone’s unhappiness about the quality of rebel fighters, this has more of an impact in GC than skirmish where you have to buy the sdqns, whereas the Imps don’t. Would I be correct? (In skirmish the sqdns are roughly the same price so its not as critical.) YertyL made a good point about having the flexibilty to bring on more fighters than an Imperial force however I can understand a Rebel players point of view that this could be expensive and even if the Rebel force won, the victory could actually be a defeat economically. I guess it depends on how much you have in the bank but I generally dont like a 'meat grinder' strategy.
Well, for the cost of 5 ISDs (29.000 credits in GC) you can buy quite a lot of fighters before it gets economically disadvantegeous. (1 ISD costs more than 10 fighter squads and 10 bomber squads together) - you will experience losses though, but I think it is often overlooked that fighters are relatively good for how cheap they are.
One thing that annoys me with fighters is that if you lose half the sqdn then they are lost. Its just not cost effective. Why not have it so that once you buy a sdqn, even if it gets wiped out it will still replenish its losses after the battle provided you win or withdraw some of the force. At present I think rebel fighter sdqns are far too disposable.
My thoughts as well :). It's funny that you can get far higher "military efficiencies" with the Empire than with the Rebs (at least I can) although the Empire is supposed to rely more on sacrificing cheap units.
The first GC in FoC I played (on medium) with them I took over the galaxy quicker than I did when playing with the Empire. I fought only 1 ZC space station, only because I wanted to. I destroyed every other station by using raid forces. This is the best and most important ability of the Rebel and, even if you don’t hold the planet for very long it can cause huge economic damage when a side has to take it back and rebuild. When you play as the Empire you don’t have this option and you have to grind through other factions military the hard way. All you have to do is make sure your raid fleet is led by the right hero.
True, but IMO also a bit sad - raid fleets should IMO be more like a sabotaging ability than a way to conquer planets - ATM however they are still strong enough to take out most planets (especially with the Gargantuan - how imba can you get? :( )
THE ZC
I take it you have all seen the price increases for the ZC upgrades in skirmish? Some of them are HUGE. It will be a real investment and important decision when and whether to upgrade or not. I agree the Aggressor is a pig of a ship; still no Keldabe though. One thing that is annoying is that the ZC is the only faction that gets a capital ship in skirmish at Tech 4. The Imps get one yes but a) it’s a hero, b) its horrendously expensive and c) you cannot mass produce it.
I’ve said it before and ill say it again; all this crap about ZC ships being weak-armored is rubbish…The Aggressor has the same armour as an MC, Keldabe as an ISD, Int IVs have the same armor as an Assault Frig, not a Neb B which would be its equivalent! As for shielding the Aggressor has 200 points less than an MC/ISD but the Keldabe has 200 more and both have about the same refresh rate. Let’s compare their firepower too: Aggressors do same damage as an MC (60) and Keldabes do ISD damage (70). To put this into perspective, the Aggressors mondo weapon does 400 damage, its self destruct does 1500 damage and the plasma cannon on the ZC station does…6000. I’m not going to whinge I’m just putting these figures out there. I still think that with this patch the ZC isn’t going to be too bad BUT my gripe still exists and which happened last night, that when you take out their income in skirmish their must be a script to boost their income because they had no mines (and they took out all my mines after I got theirs) yet were able to bring on 3 frigates, 2 crusaders and 2 Vengeance almost at once when I couldn’t even afford one Interceptor squadron and I only had Vader and Fett…
Good thing you actually looked into the XML for hard proof :p
I find it funny that in skirmish the ZC gets ships as fast (or faster) than the Rebellion/Empire.
In GC a ZC player at least mostly needs a space station one level higher than e.g. an IMP player for the "same" ship (level 3 for an Int IV, level 4 for a vengeance and lvl 5 for the Keldable)
Btw., IMO this makes it a bit more balanced that the ZC ships are generally stronger than their "counterparts" since they have higher build requirements.
Valter with the Keldabe I think you only need to nerf the shield leech ability. It’s lost a lot of teeth with its ions and mass drivers getting nerfed. As for the Aggressor, if anything is done, the special weapons should be a bit more on the fragile side. Such weapons wouldn’t have the armour they do and this gives it a nice weakness.
Totally agreed, shield leaching is just a god special, everything else could be OK after that patch.
I have to disagree with darthcarth about the Int IVs though…I think they ar superior to both Acclamators and Neb Bs. 1) They are faster 2) They are better armoured 3) Their concussion missile launcher is really nasty and makes Int IV highly effective against starfighters and shielded craft. They fire more missiles than the Acclamator too, plus their special ability makes tem really nasty. Int IVs in a group can really make a mess of capital ships and starbases yet provide their own support.
True, but like I mentioned earlier I find that Int IVs are somewhat harder to get ("rarer")than Accs and Neb Bs (at least when playing as ZC in GC).
I think part of the reason the ZC seems so unbalanced is that the ZC AI miracelously spawns vengeance frigates en masse on tech level 1.
And FunSolo, you do pretty damn good if English is your second language!
Hehe, technically English is my second language as well :p
Holy cow, I don't have time to read these humungous posts.
Holy cow, I don't have time to read these humungous posts.
Then skim-read or...don't read?
Hehe, technically English is my second language as well
Looks like i'm part of the club. English is also my second language!
I just noticed that you didn't suggest adding a hangar bay to the Mon Calamari Cruiser. What changed your mind Shadow?
The reason I am not asking for a Hangar anymore is because:
1. There are only a handful of people who support the idea.
2. A speed boost is more realistic in terms of a being released in a patch. It merely requires a tweak on the MC's XML files. A Hangar would take more effort and I don't know if the designers would be willing to do that.
3. One of the two is adequate I guess, as long as the speed boost is more significant to make up for not having a hangar.
I still support the idea of Hangars, however i'm not holding my breath. I believe that a more realistic solution would be to:
1. Get rid of the Home One's shield generator hardpoint, or give it two shield hardpoints AND...
2. Give the Home One a hangar along with 1 A-Wing squadron and 1 B-Wing squadron.
That would put it on par with Thrawn and Piett, you wouldn't have to tweak the cannons whatsoever and I assume (and I say assume because I don't mess around with XMLs) that it would be less work and less of a balance issue if only Home One got the upgrades.
If MCs got no Hangar but the Home One did, I could live with that.
By the way, I agree with all of the balancing ideas you posted just now. (I don't think decreasing the Nebulon's pop cap is necessary though)
This doesnt need to happen they are better then aclamators and im prety sure interceptor 4s so their pop cap is what blances them.
I agree with most of your suggestions except the Neb-B taking 2 cap. You could get away with that if you left the reb fighters pretty crap. The MC hangar could be done but it looks like that you don’t feel its necessary anymore.
For MC Hangar you can just read above Rust :)
The reason I partly suggested it is because of the Hangar imbalances in terms of the ISD vs. MonCal (factoring in Pop. Cap). The way I saw it is that if Nebulon-B's were upgraded it would make them more feasible to bring in (instead of spending 500 more for an Assault Frigate) and would kind of make up for the population and firepower gap that the fighters create.
By the way darthcarth, as Rust already pointed out that Interceptor IV Frigates are stronger than Nebulon-B's or Acclamators. They're still my least favorite though :bounc5:
Anyway, back to the MC…what speed would you like then Shads? 50% increase from its current makes it as fast as a Neb-B? Is that about right? What about you Tears? You want something tangible, what do you think would be a speed to give the MC a definitive advantage in this area if the short burn boost wasn’t the option to take?
Shadow I agree strongly with dispersing the MC-30s torp tubes. Good idea. After the torp tubes are taken out I leave them alone. 2 laser cannons do little damage but tying up 3 pop cap is even more damaging. Just one thing; the ISD and the MC have the same range = 2000.
Yeah i'd say a speed increase on par with a Nebulon-B would be about right. I'd be happy with that. Either that, or a boost engines ability like Corvettes which is shorter and weaker.
And just for reference, don't MC30s have 1 laser cannon and 2 torpedo tubes instead of 2 torpedo tubes? I'm just wondering because you said two and i've now forgotten whether it was 1 or 2. Anybody know off-hand?
By the way in case any of you wanted to know this (you probably already do): if you lose both cannons, the best thing to do is make the MC30 fly through the middle of the battle while charging its cluster bombs, the comp usually switches firepower towards it, get between several enemy capitals or fighters and detonate them, making it an excellent diversion/cannon fodder for ur fleet. Well at least that's how it happens for me.
I didn't know ISDs and MCs have the same range (I don't do the XML modding thing :) ) but if an ISD is getting a firepower increase then a speed increase is still equal, don't you think?
first of all, thanks ;)
but back to topic.
i think the shield boost for the fighters is a good decision for balance, but still, these tartans and corvettes are still a pain in the ass lol. especially when u play against the AI which will endup in masses of them in an assaultforce (at least in GC). would they be a bit less effective it would greatly improve the role of all the fighters. on the other hand that way the bombers would be nasty (more like they are atm). i dunno what would be best here, but right now fighters are pretty useless till u bring them in masses imho. i know they r capable to do good damage, but losing them fast is a pain.
yertl brought in a good point.
what bout if they raise the lvl requirements for the ships. wouldnt that be enough?
lets say give the ZC at lvl1 just regular pirate ships like the z-95 and stuff, and bring in the better fighters and so at lvl2 and so on. wouldnt that be a better idea instead of nerfing all their ships?
first of all, thanks ;)
but back to topic.
i think the shield boost for the fighters is a good decision for balance, but still, these tartans and corvettes are still a pain in the ass lol. especially when u play against the AI which will endup in masses of them in an assaultforce (at least in GC). would they be a bit less effective it would greatly improve the role of all the fighters. on the other hand that way the bombers would be nasty (more like they are atm). i dunno what would be best here, but right now fighters are pretty useless till u bring them in masses imho. i know they r capable to do good damage, but losing them fast is a pain.
yertl brought in a good point.
what bout if they raise the lvl requirements for the ships. wouldnt that be enough?
lets say give the ZC at lvl1 just regular pirate ships like the z-95 and stuff, and bring in the better fighters and so at lvl2 and so on. wouldnt that be a better idea instead of nerfing all their ships?
Ich bin auch Deutsch lol
Level requirements are a step. But if we look at the fact that its only a matter of time until you reach level 5, you still end up with the same problems we have now. Plus, what if you set tech starting level to 5? What happens then? It seems to me that we'd still be where we are now...
1 and a half month, soon 2. And still no patch. What are they doing??? This is unaccepteble for a game with alots of bugs. People get tired and play other games instead. (sorry for disturbing yor discussion, but this was the best patch thread i found)
SAGEKING-PG said a patch is coming out late tomorrow. It's stated on Petroglyph Forums...
patch or not, the game still looks good. its enough in my books :D
im only complaining about the b-wings ability being graphically reversed. it makes my screenshots QUALITY. D:
Yeah Wilfer they did have a HUGE amount of changes and bug to fix...when they changed one thing it could have stuffed up something else :O
Tears, your breakdown of the reb fighters is exactly how I would like to see them too. I think the Bwings need attention too. They really should be flying tanks. i never noticed their graphics glitch before...
Thanks YertyL for the comparison of Fighters and ISD cost. I should have taken the time to calculate that. Only trouble is to put the value of an ISD in starfighters into battle would take about 20 pop cap.... (and its okay dood when you have dorks like me around to get the info out of the XMLs for ya ;P )
As for efficiencies and calculating losses, I guess poor TIE pilots dont count! How Imperial can you get :P
One other thing I noticed about the rebs was their dependence upon one unit for their upgrades and intelligence....C3PO and R2....If IG-88 sends them for extensive repairs the rebs lose a very important unit. And its not that hard to find a unit for a bounty hunter. The rebs could probably do with another unit for intel gathering.
I thought the MC-30 has 2 laser cannons???
I liked YertyLs idea about increasing tech levels but Shadow is right. It doesnt really fix the problem because once the ZC get to tech 5 they get a licence to beat the S&*t out of the other factions....the game shouldnt concentrate on ensuring the ZC dont get to tech 5. Reminds me of another game where you had to take a side down before they were too strong otherwise it was all over....damn memory....
FunSolo, I agree with you 100% about Corvettes. I touched on it in my last post. The amount of squadrons a few tartans can destroy in a short time when they boost their guns is incredible. My first GC with the Empire I saw how tough StarVipers were and resorted to massed tartan attacks..I only needed 3 or 4 and I slaughtered 30+ sqdns no problems. Corellian corvettes have double the guns of a tartan and crusaders have 11! :O If corvettes were not as good against fighters, but instead used as tough scouts then fighters would be more important for intercepting bombers so you would want to protect your fighters more for this reason.
for one the corvettes needs the ability to have a shorter time. having 11 laser cannons is no joke. looks like the crusader has turned into the Corellian corv in vanilla EAW. except it also has the ability to shoot down torps and missles as well. if petro wants to buff the ability to increase the rate of fire of the point defense, i think its only fitting they reduce the duration of the ability too. else the crusader would be kinda overpowered. especially of its 2 crus overlapping each other, wouldnt it turn into a barrier of sorts? a impenetrable barrier of a very limited time, ... ok. but for the current duration of the ability.. i think its gonna get a little ... interesting.
So when is the patch suppose to go live?
I wouldn't mind some balancing for the Consortium vs. the Rebels and espicially the Empire, not to mention bug fixes heh
Downloading something now. It must be the patch.
What does this mean?
"Mobile Defense Units for all factions garrison cost"
Or this:
"Health increased from 1000 to 800"
Does that actually mean it's decreased from 1000 to 800, or increased from 800 to 1000?
What does this mean?
"Mobile Defense Units for all factions garrison cost"
Or this:
"Health increased from 1000 to 800"
Does that actually mean it's decreased from 1000 to 800, or increased from 800 to 1000?
MDU question I can't answer, but the Crusader's health has been decreased from 1000 to 800.
I think the "garrison cost" refers to the number of transport slots the unit takes up, but I'm not positive.