Change ints to have light hull. They're still the toughest single seated ship, just makes them a bit weaker.sambasti wrote:QUOTE (sambasti @ Mar 6 2009, 05:22 PM) The problem is the difference in an int and an sf miner attack.
A advanced stealth fighter attack looks something like this:
Sfs launch missles, miner looses sheilds
Sfs close in for the kill, figs leave d to attack the sfs that have now been eyed my miner or scouts
Scouts start nanning the miner. Sfs may or may not overpower the nans, either way, the sfs are dead in the next 10 seconds.
Here is a hvy int rush:
5-10 hvy ints boost into the sector.
Figs boost toward them, but barely scratch the hull, mini3 shreds the nans in the next 10 seconds.
Mini3 shreds the miner in the next 10 seconds, while the figs desperately try to destroy the hvy ints medium hull.
D is dead, miner is dead, and the ints would then proceed to do the same to miner #2 if it existed.
Now don't tell me if you had as many sfs as ints, you would succeed. You never will have as many sfs as ints, because like it was said above, no one knows how to fly an sf. However, getting people to go on an int rush is easy.
An Interceptor Poll
__________________________________________________________________________
Bump!
There seems to be considerable support for some nerf to ints. By far the most popular option is to increase the base signature of ints to 100% (the present value, I believe, is 75%).
There is presently some talk about whether IC is overpowered or not, including whether IC exp specifically is overpowered or not, and a change to exp in general would certainly have an impact on this issue. This fact, plus the general question of whether expansion perhaps needs a slight nerf, means that perhaps we should once again bring this issue to the forefront of CC discussion. Perhaps the next release of CC should include ints with 100% (base) sig? It's not an overwhelming nerf, but it might make a difference, and once it's seen how this works, discussion can take place on whether something else needs to be done (or whether this nerf needs to be un-done) for the subsequent release.
Does anyone have any new ideas? Any reason why this change might be a bad idea? Should another poll be started? What are your thoughts.
There seems to be considerable support for some nerf to ints. By far the most popular option is to increase the base signature of ints to 100% (the present value, I believe, is 75%).
There is presently some talk about whether IC is overpowered or not, including whether IC exp specifically is overpowered or not, and a change to exp in general would certainly have an impact on this issue. This fact, plus the general question of whether expansion perhaps needs a slight nerf, means that perhaps we should once again bring this issue to the forefront of CC discussion. Perhaps the next release of CC should include ints with 100% (base) sig? It's not an overwhelming nerf, but it might make a difference, and once it's seen how this works, discussion can take place on whether something else needs to be done (or whether this nerf needs to be un-done) for the subsequent release.
Does anyone have any new ideas? Any reason why this change might be a bad idea? Should another poll be started? What are your thoughts.
Last edited by Makida on Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is not a topic about IC or ungalvable bases -- only interceptors. I mentioned the IC issue because it is indirectly relevant, in that if ints in general are nerfed, this will impact IC exp as well, which is a topic of much discussion now. Nonetheless, that's not the primary issue at hand at all, in this thread. So, your only point at present is that you, personally, think exp should not be changed. You are, however, heavily outnumbered by people who think it should be changed, assuming the poll results are accurate and representative (of those who care either way). I mean, your opinion probably carries more weight than that of many less skilled players (such as myself 
), but still. >_>
), but still. >_>
Last edited by Makida on Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
CronoDroid
- Posts: 4606
- Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
- Contact:
Let me spell it out for you and other people who have no idea about Exp. HTTs suck. Exp's endgame sucks. They have three options for ending the game.
1. Stealth HTT. Extremely difficult and much more prone to failure than TP2'ing or SB'ing.
2. Force HTT/Bomb. This is the non-stealth option which sometimes includes pushing a con. Again, not a good endgame strategy. You need overwhelming whore power to make it succeed and the HTT/Bomber is very easy to kill. Trust me, I've tried it many times and it very rarely succeeds. I've lost a game with Rix Hvy Ints against Dreg Lt ints because I kept trying this strategy and it plainly is a very poor way of getting anything done.
3. Buy a different tech. Pretty simple here, you're not using Exp to win.
Therefore, Exp needs something to make up for their @#(!ty ass endgame. This is why ints are suitably powerful. But when you get adv tech in other techpaths, those ships become better. Yes, it costs more money, but regardless, you will have better ships. Figs with DF3 at better at defence and miner/con killing, can galv, kill caps, etc. You will not beat an Adv SF with Hunter3 in a fight with your Hvy Int if both pilots are equa, even with PP.
In conclusion, no. I'm sorry if the people supporting this have been whored by ints before but that is the game. Exp is for whoring. Tac and Sup are for winning.
1. Stealth HTT. Extremely difficult and much more prone to failure than TP2'ing or SB'ing.
2. Force HTT/Bomb. This is the non-stealth option which sometimes includes pushing a con. Again, not a good endgame strategy. You need overwhelming whore power to make it succeed and the HTT/Bomber is very easy to kill. Trust me, I've tried it many times and it very rarely succeeds. I've lost a game with Rix Hvy Ints against Dreg Lt ints because I kept trying this strategy and it plainly is a very poor way of getting anything done.
3. Buy a different tech. Pretty simple here, you're not using Exp to win.
Therefore, Exp needs something to make up for their @#(!ty ass endgame. This is why ints are suitably powerful. But when you get adv tech in other techpaths, those ships become better. Yes, it costs more money, but regardless, you will have better ships. Figs with DF3 at better at defence and miner/con killing, can galv, kill caps, etc. You will not beat an Adv SF with Hunter3 in a fight with your Hvy Int if both pilots are equa, even with PP.
In conclusion, no. I'm sorry if the people supporting this have been whored by ints before but that is the game. Exp is for whoring. Tac and Sup are for winning.
I voted for the sig increase, as it happens that with sig GAs some faction ints get so stealthy it's not even funny.. And it would affect their long range miner o capability.
Close range miner o would remain pretty much the same, if you're mining next to an enemy base with heavy ints, then you should lose your miner.
Giving ints a separate booster (hi acceleration, hi fuel consumption) is a good idea, but balancing the whole thing could take a while.
Close range miner o would remain pretty much the same, if you're mining next to an enemy base with heavy ints, then you should lose your miner.
Giving ints a separate booster (hi acceleration, hi fuel consumption) is a good idea, but balancing the whole thing could take a while.
What is wrong it with all the voobs wanting ints to get nerfed? It is obvious that the majority of people who voted in this poll have no clue. Crono already gave you a lesson on Exp-games over all. So I will give you a lesson about the minerkillingabilities of ints compared to figs or sfs.
1) Ints need to have the fuel to boost around, sfs are fast and figs/sfs can rip. If ints can't boost 2 sectors for a miner, expteams will lose every econwar. Remember that they need to push (walk) outposts as launchingpoints, not only to rip around cheap teles. So the fuelnerf is bull@#(!.
2) Increasing the sig of ints? What is this good for? Low sig only helps on htt defence (Htt is the weakest endgametech anyway) and on miner o. Both things, exp is weeker then other techpaths anyway.
Ints have the worst weapons against utility hull. They have the worst scanrange and can'T rip. This gives them enough nerfes on miner o.
They are very powerful on whoring though(i.e. intbombing), but not one of the suggested nerfs would change this. So get back into the game and stop screaming for nerfing everything that pods you, intfodder!
1) Ints need to have the fuel to boost around, sfs are fast and figs/sfs can rip. If ints can't boost 2 sectors for a miner, expteams will lose every econwar. Remember that they need to push (walk) outposts as launchingpoints, not only to rip around cheap teles. So the fuelnerf is bull@#(!.
2) Increasing the sig of ints? What is this good for? Low sig only helps on htt defence (Htt is the weakest endgametech anyway) and on miner o. Both things, exp is weeker then other techpaths anyway.
Ints have the worst weapons against utility hull. They have the worst scanrange and can'T rip. This gives them enough nerfes on miner o.
They are very powerful on whoring though(i.e. intbombing), but not one of the suggested nerfs would change this. So get back into the game and stop screaming for nerfing everything that pods you, intfodder!
Last edited by l1ngus on Fri May 01, 2009 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.