Nanning the miner is certainly the most important part, but if someone doesn't show up with a fig or three to get rid of the ints, the miner's still probably going to die. Yes, it's typically a bad idea to dogfight ints in a fig, but a sup team can't spend the ENTIRE game running from the ints; at least once or twice they're gonna need to pod some ints, and that's when QF comes in. Granted, it's rare enough that unless you're going to go break a camp or something, it's usually better to pack DFs for the drone/bomber instead.fuzzylunkin1 wrote:QUOTE (fuzzylunkin1 @ Dec 22 2009, 10:11 AM) I don't think it would be practical to hope for that sort of situation. Obviously you should be nanning the miner instead.
Flying corkscrew
To be completely honest I advocate the use of dumbfires in all situations, unless you know for certain that there's nothing left to do but (as sheff puts it) "piss around in a fig while your commander gets end-game tech"
That is the only time I would say use QFs. That and miner D.
I learned a really really hard lesson at the hands of someone else by underestimating quickfires. Otherwise I'd still be saying seekers rawk.
That is the only time I would say use QFs. That and miner D.
I learned a really really hard lesson at the hands of someone else by underestimating quickfires. Otherwise I'd still be saying seekers rawk.
cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Oct 16 2010, 02:48 AM) Interceptors are fun because without one, Drizzo would be physically incapable of entering a sector.
That's what I meant. Looks like I fail at english badly todayspideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Dec 22 2009, 07:18 PM) Personally adept I think there is no better missile for shooting people who are running away from you than dumbfires
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
I have tested in some DM's that for dogfights especially int vs fig that quickfire is much better then seeker or DF's, the only time I would use QF's though is in a fig when im going for dogfighting, otherwise it's all about dumbs and waiting for the right time, seekers are for when in a scout by providing that extra punch when scout dogfighting and although some people advocate using QF's while nanning on bomb run's I find that a seeker (or even dumbfire) can work just as well and pack that extra punch especially for those people who come in to ram the bomber head on.
Also vs SF's I prefer seeker's because if an sf manages to lose eye the missile still follows until it gets spoofed or hits giving that extra time to follow it and find the SF while QF's can get spammed quickly and also reach the target more quickly which doesn't help if you need to build some speed to get to the SF.
QF's are for dogfighting, much better then other missiles because even though they have crappy damage, most of that crappy damage is likely to land unlike the lots of damage done by seekers or dumbs which is very unlikely to land and in Dogfights the chances are you better of sticking to QF's. (and in Conquest games you must ask yourself wtf are you dogfighting in a fig when you can be out killing miners)
Also vs SF's I prefer seeker's because if an sf manages to lose eye the missile still follows until it gets spoofed or hits giving that extra time to follow it and find the SF while QF's can get spammed quickly and also reach the target more quickly which doesn't help if you need to build some speed to get to the SF.
QF's are for dogfighting, much better then other missiles because even though they have crappy damage, most of that crappy damage is likely to land unlike the lots of damage done by seekers or dumbs which is very unlikely to land and in Dogfights the chances are you better of sticking to QF's. (and in Conquest games you must ask yourself wtf are you dogfighting in a fig when you can be out killing miners)
I suppose miner/con D is the acceptable ansver.HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Dec 22 2009, 07:47 PM) (and in Conquest games you must ask yourself wtf are you dogfighting in a fig when you can be out killing miners)
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
Why don't all you muppets get MRM 3. Why would anyone want to use QF over there baffles me
I'm sorry I don't remember any of it. For you the day spideycw graced your squad with utter destruction was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Sunday
Idanmel wrote:QUOTE (Idanmel @ Mar 19 2012, 05:54 AM) I am ashamed for all the drama I caused, I have much to learn on how to behave when things don't go my way.
My apologies.
That. Whenever I'm on miner D or con D (except as belters, of course) and the enemy int actually engages my fig, I just draw him away from the miner and laugh. It's doubly funny when they pod me and taunt me for sucking... as the full miner docks at the op.HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Dec 22 2009, 09:52 AM) Then one must ask the opposing team on Offense wtf are they dogfighting instead of killing nans and then miner/con
But I can definitely see them engaging you as Belters, since all figs are potentially nans and it's only a few seconds to switch.
Don't find fault, find a remedy; anybody can complain.
Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Apr 1 2009, 09:35 PM) But I don't read the forums I only post.
