The EXP problem

Grim_Reaper_4u · Post by **Grim_Reaper_4u** » Sun May 18, 2008 1:48 pm

apochboi wrote:QUOTE (apochboi @ May 18 2008, 11:56 AM) Edit: Im through responding to grims retarded posts.

You obviously weren't around for the Spunky-Noir wars or you wouldn't think it was so retarded /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Drizzo · Post by **Drizzo** » Sun May 18, 2008 4:52 pm

Increase seeker 2 damage.

WhiskeyGhost · Post by **WhiskeyGhost** » Sun May 18, 2008 6:04 pm

Ooh, a strange thought that just came to mind, leave seeker alone but perk Quickfire towards medium based hulls (so there isn't a 15% dmg penalty) while either lowering by 10% more, or retaining their 50% dmg penalty to ship shields (so bombers aren't easy to spam them on until after you drop it's shields. Dumbfire should still remain much better option against bombers since they do a lot more damage per rack via overall efficiency and hit anyways). If necessary, lower their CM resistance by 5% as well.

Then it would make quickfire look more appealing and seeker more geared towards fighter to fighter/scout combat.

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Sun May 18, 2008 6:09 pm

Give me a 35 kb, a hvy int, and a martini, and I will overboost the miner and pod myself on a rock.

Grzegt · Post by **Grzegt** » Mon May 19, 2008 7:50 am

Drizzo wrote:QUOTE (Drizzo @ May 18 2008, 06:52 PM) Increase seeker 2 damage.

Sure, and don't forget to nerf QF2 damage. /doh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":doh:" border="0" alt="doh.gif" />

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Mon May 19, 2008 10:30 am

Paradigm2 wrote:QUOTE (Paradigm2 @ May 17 2008, 05:38 PM) There were many complex issues that went into the the switch, but ints were nerfed FAR before people started running to DN.

Ok, you're right. There were more issues than just nerfing ints. Still, nerfing ints was one of the big issues that a lot of people complained about.

QUOTE Saying that nerfing ints will make the core "not fun" is simply erroneous. I think you may find that a slight nerf to ints may in the macro make games more fun and increased enjoyment. If the nerf does not change what the interceptor flies like, fundamentally, it will not decrease its fun factor. I can agree changing hull types might actually fundamentally change the interceptor -- nerfing fuel will not.[/quote]

I agree, and I'm actually in favor of the fuel nerf. My post was directed to the more radical changes like making ins lt hull or making them fly like bricks. If those things were implemented, it would take some of the fun out of the game at least for me, and I don't think I'm the only one.

IB_ · Post by **IB_** » Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 pm

How about reducing the light ints clip, if its reloading all the time it would reduce the danger of it.

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Mon May 19, 2008 10:10 pm

i don't think anyone has any problem with how much fire power ints have.

the issue people have with them is that they can boost sectors away, kill something, and then boost back

IB_ · Post by **IB_** » Mon May 19, 2008 10:34 pm

If they have to carry more ammo they have less fuel.

WhiskeyGhost · Post by **WhiskeyGhost** » Mon May 19, 2008 11:04 pm

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ May 19 2008, 05:10 PM) i don't think anyone has any problem with how much fire power ints have.

the issue people have with them is that they can boost sectors away, kill something, and then boost back

That, and probably the oddly low signature they have. It's basically the same signature a scout has, if it doesn't have shields or missiles loaded. You'd think signature wouldn't matter for a ship your slapping tons of armor and firepower onto for 'defensive' usage.