Ints + Pulse Probes

guitarism · Post by **guitarism** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:32 am

And on another note. I'd like to put forth the motion that everyone who posts in CC from now on NOT have their HEAD UP THEIR ASS. I'm getting really tired of having to explain every single bad idea to people. I'm sure alot of other people are too. So from now on, no more oxygen-deprived brain posts. kkthnxbye

Sealer · Post by **Sealer** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:50 pm

fuzzylunkin1 wrote:QUOTE (fuzzylunkin1 @ Feb 15 2009, 11:27 PM) I believe interceptors shouldn't be able to deploy pules probes because it would require more team work.

That's not a valid reason to nerf interceptors/exp.

fuzzylunkin1 · Post by **fuzzylunkin1** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:55 pm

I'm sorry you all just like to kill @#(!.

guitarism · Post by **guitarism** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:05 pm

No, we just don't like to see people screwing with perfectly good things that have been fine for quite awhile thank you.

When posting about core and gameplay changes, It helps to think it all the way through. Or bounce it off other players ingame first. Think back to the basic uses of the item/ship/idea and see if it's working like it was supposed. If it, and is being used in an extra inventive way, and you really CANT STAND it then think of a way to nerf JUST THAT ASPECT not the whole thing.

So in summary

1) Think about how the item was intended to be used
2) Think about how it's being used now. If they match completely, proceed to not worry about it.
3) If they don't match, think about why they aren't working the 'correct' way.
4) Think of a way to nerf/change ONLY that aspect.
5) Bounce your idea from #4 off a few close friends in game. If you don't have friends in game, don't post here.
6) Once you have them in agreement that it needs a change/is an interesting idea, THEN you can post in the dev forum. Please include reasoning for a need behind the change, the train of though of why it doesn't currently work etc. DO NOT post a poll with a simple tagline. Or in general, don't post polls until the discussion is already taking place.
7) Allow at least 12 hours of discussion (intelligent) between people other then yourself.
8) Profit

If we were to follow these steps, I wouldn't have to have an aneurysm every other time I pull up this particular forum. If you guys who post 'ideas' in here often will follow this, I will work on explaining my reasoning behind saying "no". Deal?

fuzzylunkin1 · Post by **fuzzylunkin1** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:30 pm

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Feb 16 2009, 08:00 AM) compare when a int sees a fig vs when a fig sees an int.
ints have no trouble finding miners, even in open space.

lack of teamwork should -> fail
an int shouldn't be a one man wonder ship

Thanks, madpeep.

DasSmiter · Post by **DasSmiter** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:34 pm

I'd rather see pp be a pp1 and pp2 item, with pp2 in adv exp. Decreasing the awesome of pp1 of course.

That way Exp still has defense against tac, but it's not longer an auto tac loses button (as it usually ends up being). Ideally I'd like to see pp1 = 3000 scan and 4 second life, and pp2 = 4500 scan and 5 second life.

Vlymoxyd · Post by **Vlymoxyd** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:17 pm

I like the idea of PP1 and PP2.

As for removing PPs from ints, I'd been in favor of that change on 1.25. Exp has been overpowered for a very long time but it'S getting fine now. Originally, I supported the idea of perking tac and sup since it was more popular than nerfing exp. But the result is that we now play a dumbed down version of allegiance(That is also hopefully more balanced). Exp being weak vs tac could be interesting if we wanted alleg to be a rock paper scissor game, but I personally perfer to have a game where all tech path can compete against each others.

Broodwich · Post by **Broodwich** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:30 pm

how does a fighter have trouble finding a miner?

WhiskeyGhost · Post by **WhiskeyGhost** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:08 pm

Broodwich wrote:QUOTE (Broodwich @ Feb 16 2009, 04:30 PM) how does a fighter have trouble finding a miner?

It doesn't, it just has a hell of a time getting anywhere near it without being spotted 2 sectors away because of it's gigantic bomber sized signature. And yes, you can offload missiles/shields, but your still 100% sig, and also running at half health with less cargo space.

________________________________________________________________________________
______________________
Lets be honest, ints have entirely too much stealth mobility for it's designated role. They have a base signature like that of a scout, and have the added benefit of getting up to 10%+10% less signature on top of that (62-ish percent base at the end).

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that fighters get their asses handed to them by Stealth Fighters too with Hunt 3, get spotted easily by them, and don't get the benefit of being able to pulse out their attackers without a scout? (Tip: Advanced Fighters still have less then 1000 scan range after Sup GA's, unless your faction has a scan range mod)

And anyone who says something about using better Countermeasures should be drawn, quartered, and shot repeatedly, since ints can use them just as well as any other ship.

Icky · Post by **Icky** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:51 pm

WhiskeyGhost wrote:QUOTE (WhiskeyGhost @ Feb 16 2009, 06:08 PM) Why hasn't anyone mentioned that fighters get their asses handed to them by Stealth Fighters too with Hunt 3, get spotted easily by them, and don't get the benefit of being able to pulse out their attackers without a scout? (Tip: Advanced Fighters still have less then 1000 scan range after Sup GA's, unless your faction has a scan range mod)

Because the int has to get within 400m of the SF to kill it. The fig can lob a few missiles, which will still track whether the SF loses eye or not. In an int vs an SF, unless the int is godly (i.e. sheff) and/or the SF is a total moron (i.e. Brood), it should be no contest without PPs or a scout to assist.