What are the most important balance issues in the core?

[sono]

QUOTE (LANS @ Jan 30 2011, 06:01 PM) There is no need to separate int and fig boosters. Such an idea prevents some things you can currently do with ints - swapping ammo for fuel (or reverse), picking up fuel from destroyed enemies, getting reloads from friendlies who packed extra, etc. It also means that ints always carry 5 racks of ammo - this could be balanced by reducing clip size but then you have to consider reload time. You also eliminate all need for reloading fuel mid-fight with an int, which knocks out the need to time your reloads.

A better fix to accomplish the same goal is simply to reduce int fuel and speed, as was done in 1337core. Making a whole different booster class is only practical if you want to change the speed and acceleration ints boost at.

Did you read my post at all? The whole point is to remove the capabilty of interceptors to carry or pick up enough fuel to boost to the other end of the map, giving the interceptor a WELL-DEFINED, LIMITED RANGE OF OPERATIONS at full response time.

You'd have to make fuel sizes ridiculously small to accomplish that same goal resulting in impractical reload cycles affecting top speed.

Of course ammo is the one real issue that you have identified but i suppose we will have to live with a reduction of strip size until someone comes up with something truely genius (like a variable cargo slot space on different ships feature.)

[Elzam_]

Why are we trying to nerf ints? Do ints control the balance of power?

[sono]

QUOTE (Elzam V. Branstein @ Jan 30 2011, 07:17 PM) Why are we trying to nerf ints? Do ints control the balance of power?

I'm not trying to "nerf ints", the goal of my proposal is to change the dynamics of exp gameplay. An int will still perform exactly the same with this change; in fact, it will perform slightly better because the fuel no longer needs to be reloaded. It simply has a practical limit imposed on the effective range it can project that same performance to.

[Mastametz]

So why are you posting in the "What are the most important balance issues in the core" thread with your "proposal" that you say will have little to no effect on balance at all.

[sono]

QUOTE (Mastametz @ Jan 30 2011, 07:45 PM) So why are you posting in the "What are the most important balance issues in the core" thread with your "proposal" that you say will have little to no effect on balance at all.

Once again you show an amazing lack of insight. The fact that i am not trying to change the fighting power of the interceptor evidently has left you speechless, nevertheless you just HAD to post, didn't you?

The change will affect balance: It will change the balance between the different tech paths without taking away anyone's toys. EXP would have to push more ops - this affects gameplay, and therefore balance.

[Mastametz]

So you're not trying to nerf ints, you're not trying to buff ints, you're just trying to change the "dyamnics" of exp.
Who are you to decide that the dynamics of exp need to be changed? and why would you post that in here?
That's not "important balance issues", that's just you trying to change how exp works because you don't like it.

[sono]

QUOTE (Mastametz @ Jan 30 2011, 07:58 PM) So you're not trying to nerf ints, you're not trying to buff ints, you're just trying to change the "dyamnics" of exp.
Who are you to decide that the dynamics of exp need to be changed? and why would you post that in here?
That's not "important balance issues", that's just you trying to change how exp works because you don't like it.

It is IMHO an important balance issue because it changes the gameplay (i.e. dynamics of the game) of exp in a potentially fundamental way that will actually require more commanding skill and situational awareness instead of plain old quake in space style whoring for exp to be successful, eventually leading to any number of constantly proposed "exp nerfs" to become unneccessary. Oh don't say it, i know exactly what you just thought: Those changes are just to make the game appeal to noobs anyway. Well that is your opinion and you are entiteled to it. I, however, think we need to
*puts on sunglasses*
go deeper.

You have provided much amusement tonight; i am now going to bed, and i just hope the mods don't have to much work cleaning up the mess you made.

[Mastametz]

QUOTE (sono @ Jan 30 2011, 07:09 PM) leading to any number of constantly proposed "exp nerfs" to become unneccessary.

They are always necessary.
You could raise int sig to 1000%
remove pulse probes
remove htts

and people will still complain that exp is overpowered

it's a survival instinct
nobody likes to lose or get podded
and coming to terms with the fact that you could ever be wrong about anything or have anything to learn or improve on is infinitely difficult
therefor anything that kills you is evil and must be killed with fire
(not directed at you personally, just in general, but you're also included in that general)

[Jimen]

People are always going to complain about the whore ships, because in a game styled like Alleg, the ability to quickly and easily kill other players tends to spur versatility and is very difficult to balance against. For example, although mini does very poor damage against util hull, the ability to easily shred defending figs and nans means that ints aren't particularly worse at attacking util ships. Is it unbalanced? Don't know, don't really care. But you're going to hear whines about it till the end of time.

[Alien51]

I think most people want to nerf ints not because they get killed by them, but because they can't kill them.

Make them faster and weaker.