Grim_Reaper_4u wrote:QUOTE (Grim_Reaper_4u @ May 12 2008, 11:38 PM) Apo I'll bet you a case of beer that if we copy a giga lux int's EXACT performance characteristics into the IC heavy int then TB will never notice it playing IC. He doesn't like the ripping and lead indicator but wtf does that have to do with it's int capabilities? He was bitching about how they suck hull wise when they got a whole 12 points less hull /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roll:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" /> I don't mind peeps discussing whether ints needs to be nerfed or not but it would be nice if they got their facts straight before they made silly remarks /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
I'm pretty sure I'd notice the 1/3rd fuel nerf, annoying dot flying across my screen, and the attempted rips everytime I hit "B->P". My facts are straight, and technically yours are too because you still haven't stated ONE fact. Get out of this thread troll.
TB
spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Nov 28 2008, 02:50 PM) All the retards are contained in one squad mostly (System X)
Picobozo wrote:QUOTE (Picobozo @ May 13 2008, 10:07 AM) You know, I never understood why a supposedly defensive ship like the interceptor has medium hull. It is supposed to have good firepower, stripped down (no missiles/mines), accelerates and tops out faster then any other ship while being more maneuverable, yet all other small ships which are supposed to be clunkier and slower have a much weaker hull?
Can we at least experiment with making Interceptors light hull? Would the universe implode?
You would see less super vets rush to a miner guarded by 2 or 3 figs and a nan and successfully kill all of them with the miner (if there is any ammo left). I think that might be the goal here. Force a side to actually use teamwork and hunt miners in packs like Stealth fighters (whose primary purpose is miner killing).
Should one of the focus's of this core be to reduce individuality while promoting teamwork? Discuss?
The same old arguments are going to arise from the armor class of ints (like "They are supposed to have tougher armor to make up for a lack of shields" and such despite them having health that is already higher to compensate for it). Light hull would be interesting, but it'd be a two sided change, making ints less durable, but also everything else more effective against them as well (like skycaps, gat, AC, Miniguns, and even Quickfires as well).
I personally think the teamwork aspect should be promoted as well, even if it's only 2-3 people to do things.
Rand0m_Numb3r wrote:QUOTE (Rand0m_Numb3r @ Aug 9 2007, 12:27 AM)CURSES I HAVE BEEN DEFEATED!
Lt hull would be too light. You would then be bit slapping ints before they got in range with pretty much anything
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.
Which was why I was toying with the idea that you make them smaller and slightly harder to hit. There's no need to go to extremes and say that it would be "light" hull. Just reduce it a tad and see what happens.
Freeza wrote:QUOTE (Freeza @ May 14 2008, 05:36 AM) Ints should be stronger, not weaker. Perk minigun damage vs utl hull.
Yeah and to top it all off give them the ability to mount AB so you can use them as PT bombers too /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roll:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" /> /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />
TheBored wrote:QUOTE (TheBored @ May 12 2008, 04:47 PM) I just think that the nerf should come in the form of buffs to Sup and Tac.
TB
I would be interested to hear the CC dev's opinion on this direction. I don't remember the history of the tech paths through the different 'popular' cores so I don't know how ints became so dominant in all aspects of the game. Was this because ints were given perks or the other tech paths were given nerfs? I know its most likely that it was a combination of the two but which was the more dominant line of direction (sup and tac nerf or exp perk)? I fear that continuing to make all paths more powerful would take much of the strategy out of the game. Sort of like how XRM missles were added to sup. Its extremely rare now to see a skillful and timely tp2 drop for SRM AB. XRM tech has wiped the skill factor out of what was once an endgame strategy that required skill to execute. I understand why XRM was implemented, but its just an example as to why continually making all tech paths more powerful to balance things can be a dangerous direction to go in. You wind up with a 'win button tech' in every tech path and ships that can all kill each other within 2 seconds. I guess everyone might have more fun when it takes less skill to do things but at what point does Allegiance become something more like an arcade game rather than a strategy/FPS combo?
TL:DR but about ints. They do a little too much damage to Cap ships. If they were nurfed vs caps then if your enemy went EXP you go caps and they would be screwed unless they double tech which would only be win for everyone.
EXP > SUP > SYD > EXP (in a very loose sort of way as they all have ups and downs)
TAC is equally good/bad vs all imo.
Edit: Also I take INTs to be a very good defensive unit, thats what they should be to make good game play. Figs good at assualt AND defence (supremacy!!!) and CAPs for brute force.
i.e INTs be kept the same, they are already blind and fast and hard as nails. FIGs are better at getting around when the team is working together (small rip people!) and CAP ships already kick mucho asso. Just lower the INTs damage to cap ships and you've sorted this problem.
Last edited by Dorjan on Wed May 14, 2008 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I decided to relive the days gone by in my new blog.
---
Remember, what I say is IMO always. If I say that something sucks, it actually means "I think it sucks" OK?
spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ May 13 2008, 08:29 PM) Lt hull would be too light. You would then be bit slapping ints before they got in range with pretty much anything
I don't think that would be the case. Your thinking one v one where both people see each other and are arena fighting. The int is stealthy (unless it's decided to up their sig), it can slip in behind a fig and whack it before the fig can even turn around.
I think it's time to introduce some thinking and strategy back into the game. This face to face slugfest stuff has been prevalent for a long time. Again, I was advocating a play test of light hull on ints. At first everybody who has played the game for a while will bitch and whine because the win button takes more presses before it works like it used to. But 3 mini3's on a ship is still friggin dangerous.
Also, does light hull reduce mass making them quicker and more maneuverable? Does it also mean that a single heavy int can't ram a bomber full speed and take out half it's hull anymore? I think there are opportunities here to make them both more fun to fly, and less of a natural balance problem.
Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Pain is Temporary. Allegiance is forever.
Grim_Reaper_4u wrote:QUOTE (Grim_Reaper_4u @ May 14 2008, 03:41 AM) Yeah and to top it all off give them the ability to mount AB so you can use them as PT bombers too /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roll:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" /> /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />
