A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron

Krsqk · #1 July 12th, 2003, 07:09 AM

I think he was asking why you would want to take away their advantage.

Fyron · #2 July 12th, 2003, 07:14 AM

Because it is an unfair, unbalancing, illogical, unrealistic advantage.

teal · #3 July 12th, 2003, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krsqk:
My favorite fix is to make it a mount (even one with +100% to hit). That way (at least in SE4), you have to decide between big damage and total accuracy.

That's not a fix. Anyone in their right mind would take 100% hit chance over big damage (unless in a situation where the big damage guns hit quite a bit, which as a talsiman player fighting only at maximum weapon range is not bloody likely). Althought I suppose it does weaken the talisman somewhat.

Krsqk · #4 July 12th, 2003, 07:34 AM

What it does is take away the biggest advantage of large ships--the ability to far out-damage small ships. A BB can equal the damage of two LCs with less tonnage and lower cost. The big numbers also help 1) chew through emissive/crystalline armor effects, and 2) wear down enemy ships faster. Add the talisman, and it's even more uneven. This way, the BB would be more equivalent to the two LCs--it would probably even be 1 combat MP slower. It's almost like having a "big little" ship.

[edit]And if the weapons are the standard APB/PPB (which attenuate with range), a choice between 100% hit at max range/minimal damage and 60-70% hit at closer range/max damage/multiplied damage isn't so clear. It takes a lot of unmounted APB hits to destroy a BB.

[ July 12, 2003, 06:45: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Q · #5 July 12th, 2003, 07:36 AM

Why not just increase the size of the talisman to 100, 200kT or whatever you feel "balanced"? Why not increse the cost of the racial trait religious? IMHO there will never be a general concensus over balance especially if it comes to racial technologies. So I believe we should use the simple solutions to balance the game as we individually like it. But we already had this discussion for the allegiance subverter.

Phoenix-D · #6 July 12th, 2003, 08:23 AM

"Because it is an unfair, unbalancing, illogical, unrealistic advantage"

Everything except unrealistic you can argue for. But when we're running around in ships that don't eat, and run the engines off the same stuff they SHOOT, I thing realism is already getting stretched a bit.

Fyron · #7 July 12th, 2003, 09:04 AM

I (and everyone else) can certainly argue about the realism.