CC_11 Changelog

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:17 am

Jammer and Hunter are on the right track.

You can't do much on the int side. Ints need PPs to fight sfs. That at the same time gives the ability to eye drones etc. You can't reduce the duration, if you do the sf will run away before the int can kill it. All you can do is make it more expensive for int to get it, which is what CC11 did. There is just no solution to this right now.

On the scout side, the problem is the huge pp carrying capacity of the heavy scout which needs to be reduced. The actual scan range and duration is not much of a problem. The duration CAN be reduced, but that means splitting up the scout PPs and int PPs, which is fine but would be confusing. If there is demand for it, it can be done.

If heavy scout is meant to be a "combat scout" it just doesn't need improved cargo capacity. If you want to double up the prox capacity, that could be done without doing the same for probes and pps, which is currently ridiculous. Previously this was limited to Rix tac, so we considered it a special cheese/bonus of the otherwised crippled sfs. It's just stupid to crack this wide open and make it available to everyone.

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:41 am

Spunkmeyer wrote:QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Jan 25 2011, 07:17 PM) You can't do much on the int side. Ints need PPs to fight sfs.

Or DO they?

I mean, some have proposed doing away with PPs entirely. It's not that far beyond the pale.

What would we do if ints didnt mount pp? Camp alephs, for one. Another idea I've heard is that you can have a teammate fly a scout and drop the probes for you, the person who was explaining it to me was using this funny word that I can't remember ... bleamwork? Feamwork? No, that's not it. I'm afraid I forgot the word, but it had something to do with working together as a team.

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:59 am

By that logic, <insert ship name here> doesn't need to be able hurt <insert ship name here> one on one. Just have another <insert ship name here>. You know, bfleamwork.

Nah. Why would sfs be an exception to ints fight capability? So people would go sup every single time, in the hypothetical case that someone decides to go full tac?

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:45 am

Well, we're always looking for ways to perk tac. Maybe we shouldn't be. Ints are fun, stealths less so. But you got to admit, there's not a whole lot of reason to go pure tac, apart from, you know, sadomasochism. Not when sup and exp are not only more fun, but easier to win with.

It's kind of funny. When an exp team is fed up with stealth fighters, they get pulse probes. When a tac team is fed up with interceptors, they get an exp.

I'm fine with interceptors being able to rape everything in sight, but I also think stealth fighters should be able to excel at not being in sight. Why should ints be an exception to sf's stealth ability?

NightRychune · Post by **NightRychune** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:01 am

if tac fails because of pulse probes, well

sup doesn't have pulse probes

why doesn't tac always defeat sup?

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:03 am

Spunkmeyer wrote:QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Jan 26 2011, 05:59 AM) Nah. Why would sfs be an exception to ints fight capability? So people would go sup every single time, in the hypothetical case that someone decides to go full tac?

I'm much happier defending a miner in an int than I am in an enh fig, and this is without PPs. The slightly higher scan range of fighters isn't really that helpful. The SFs is well visible in it's attack run, and an int kills it much faster.

Shizoku · Post by **Shizoku** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:04 am

A gatt2, qf2 enh fig will shred a sf before the int even gets in range.

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:13 am

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Jan 25 2011, 10:45 PM) I'm fine with interceptors being able to rape everything in sight, but I also think stealth fighters should be able to excel at not being in sight. Why should ints be an exception to sf's stealth ability?

Problems is you are saying pp makes life hell for sfs vs an int. I don't believe that's the case at all. I've been on both sides of the equation plenty of times - now I'm no int whore but I know how to track the SFs missile and how to time the PP drop for maximum efficiency, yet I've never found it to be easy to score a kill vs an sf who knows what he is doing. The proper response to a PP drop, assuming you are not engaging at too close a range and at a head on angle to begin with, is to drop missiles and move off in a perpendicular direction. If the SF doesn't know this, it will die and deservedly so. If yes, it'll probably survive unless there is another enemy in the sector to worry about. Number of times I've lost to an int 1 on 1 in as SF is very very few, if I was hidden to begin with.

Adept, don't forget with scan range, a fighter will have almost 1K scan range. That's twice that of a heavy int, and when SFs are sighted, they are very vulnerable to QFs, and even dumbfires.

Cable · Post by **Cable** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:19 pm

DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Jan 18 2011, 07:29 PM) The Gauss changes came out of some conversations I had with Adept.

It was just something incredibly stupidly minor that I thought "Wow there's no way anyone who ever thought retard guns were stupid would oppose this change." and then I was wrong. Lesson learned of course

This is my problem - Stop making changes based on conversiation that do not back up by some need as expressed by data. My god man... Stop messing with @#(! because you can. DO it because there is some data to rpove out the change is needed and the communtuy agrees.

Put more notes as to why you are making the change. Back up your reason a litte more. How about putting out feelers first and get a discussion going on the change you propose before you make it. I mean liek a suggested change log. Then let people talk thru it. There are pretty smart people in here. That;s why it's a communuty core.

DasSmiter · Post by **DasSmiter** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:24 pm

Cable wrote:QUOTE (Cable @ Feb 3 2011, 10:19 AM) This is my problem - Stop making changes based on conversiation that do not back up by some need as expressed by data. My god man... Stop messing with @#(! because you can. DO it because there is some data to rpove out the change is needed and the communtuy agrees.

Put more notes as to why you are making the change. Back up your reason a litte more. How about putting out feelers first and get a discussion going on the change you propose before you make it. I mean liek a suggested change log. Then let people talk thru it. There are pretty smart people in here. That;s why it's a communuty core.

Figured I'd better hop on this before XT shows up to bash the general voobs again. Yes there are smart people here, but if you stop every 2 seconds to put up a poll about @#(! nothing ever gets done.

As for suggested changelog and stuff I had already considered doing

You talk about making changes based solely on real measurable data, but we have precious little of that. Win/loss isn't accurate enough to be the sole basis for changes. What else would you suggest we use? Win/loss and anecdotal tend to identify issues well enough and then things are generally left for the hypotheticals and number games to figure out.