An Interceptor Poll

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:55 pm

After posting in the thread about int signatures, I thought it might be nice to have a poll that includes several options for ways interceptors can be changed. I personally think interceptors should be nerfed a bit, but even if they were, there are several possible ways of doing that, and some could be more balanced/balance-able than others.

It's multiple choice, so I hope people vote for all choices they like, if they think more than one should be implemented. If they like any of them.

Also, I'm not an expert on ints, so sorry if it's a bit presumptuous of me to make this poll, but I am genuinely interested in what most people think.

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:49 am

Perk.

Andon · Post by **Andon** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:52 am

either increse base signature or decrease fuel. I voted for both, but only one should really be done

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:35 am

I wish you'd voted for just one, then.

But ah well.

I included the perk option because I wanted the poll to be as ridiculously un-biased as possible. However, you're mad! Mad!

Shizoku · Post by **Shizoku** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:53 am

There's nothing wrong with ints the way they are now, why the $#@! would you change them?

sambasti · Post by **sambasti** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:03 am

Shizoku wrote:QUOTE (Shizoku @ Mar 3 2009, 11:53 PM) There's nothing wrong with ints the way they are now, why the $#@! would you change them?

Because there is nothing wrong with them now. They are the perfect all around ship. They aren't supposed to be.

And don't tell me an sf will kill an int, because any half way intelligent int pilot will follow the missles/bullets and find the sf.

juckto · Post by **juckto** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:55 am

And any fully intelligent int pilot will ignore the sf. Hunters don't tend to hit things doing 200mps.

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:02 am

sambasti wrote:QUOTE (sambasti @ Mar 3 2009, 09:03 PM) Because there is nothing wrong with them now. They are the perfect all around ship. They aren't supposed to be.

And don't tell me an sf will kill an int, because any half way intelligent int pilot will follow the missles/bullets and find the sf.

If that's a half way intelligent int pilot, then it's tigerfish driving the SF.

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:02 am

Shizoku wrote:QUOTE (Shizoku @ Mar 3 2009, 11:53 PM) There's nothing wrong with ints the way they are now, why the $#@! would you change them?

Well I did specifically include a "Change Nothing" option, as the very first one on the poll, no less. >_> Obviously, some people think that there IS something wrong (in terms of gameplay balance) with the int. These people may be wrong, but perhaps your position is not as obvious or unquestionable as you believe it to be!

To answer the actual question ("why the $#@! would you change them?") from my personal perspective and opinion, I think right now they are too flexible: They should be short-range ships, primarily useful for defence; but instead, while they do excel at this, they are also excellent offensive ships, useful for killing miners, flooding enemy sectors to clear the path for attacks and camp a base, and so on. I think they're so popular that expansion is seen as the "default" tech path, superior to tac and sup, while ideally the paths should be balanced, and interceptors should not be the one really really strong do-everything ship. (Actually, the fighter should be the mediocre "do-everything" ship, the int should be the "strong-for-defence-worse-than-a-fig-for-everything-else" ship, and the SF should be the "best-at-attacking-miners" ship).

Sealer · Post by **Sealer** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:17 am

Why is the option to reduce int ammo even there? Whoever voted this, please start playing Exp.