Interceptor aleph nerf

Adaven · Post by **Adaven** » Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:39 am

KILL BONUS IS CHEATING FACE THE FACTS!1!

minigun · Post by **minigun** » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:05 am

Although interceptor would mean, scramble and intercept any inbound threat, it doesn't really fit in allegiance solely for that purpose. If you go expansion route, you still need offensive capabilities. I would hate to leave my heavy interceptor with mini3 in the garrison and take out my gat1 fig to go kill a miner. Carefully nerf it if you have to.

ryujin · Post by **ryujin** » Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:24 am

NO NO NO wtf. cost of a fuel to enter an aleph? might as well just remove exp. imagining going miner O to a next door sector. 1 fuel to go in, one fuel to go out. or you "blow up" wtf.... there is no way you can make this a hard core change without literally destroying allegiance as it is known at all.

make a core if you want to try new crazy ideas.

ryujin · Post by **ryujin** » Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:25 am

seriously, if you want to do this, then you might as well give ints 8 cargo spots.

ryujin · Post by **ryujin** » Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:25 am

imagine a scout going in and out of an alpeh. int literally can not chase them

Shizoku · Post by **Shizoku** » Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:08 am

Seriously bad idea.

QUOTE giving interceptors ripcord ability at a fuel cost[/quote]

This I like though

Radulfr · Post by **Radulfr** » Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:33 am

minigun wrote:QUOTE (minigun @ Feb 21 2018, 09:05 PM) Although interceptor would mean, scramble and intercept any inbound threat, it doesn't really fit in allegiance solely for that purpose. If you go expansion route, you still need offensive capabilities. I would hate to leave my heavy interceptor with mini3 in the garrison and take out my gat1 fig to go kill a miner.

That's exactly what I would like to see though. Commanders can go exp first to get a mining boost and get good defensive capabilities. If they want to attack, they can push ops, or make bomb runs. If they want to kill miners far away, they should buy a sup or, better, a tac. (A carrier could also be an option). One sector away should still be very possible, you just lack one fuel. Traveling home isn't really an issue (just pod on a rock and get home faster than before).
It would make ints/figs very different beasts. Arguably, they already are, but not enough as the constant balancing back and forth proves.

LANS wrote:QUOTE (LANS)Considering only the current fuel bar makes this change touch a lot more than just effective range. If I'm in an int, chasing someone through an aleph, I'd need to stop, reload, and then proceed. This change absolutely kills the ability of ints to chase through an aleph.

Alright, being in the process of reloading fuel, could be counted as having a full fuel bar already. That still leaves you having to reload on the other side, which is fine in my book though. It doesn't make camping any easier, as you can't boost with prox anyway. Other than that, the slow down is intended.

Whatever though, not going to happen if no one likes it.

Aeropagitica · Post by **Aeropagitica** » Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:19 am

It seems to extreme. I agree it would kill Expansion unless you offered up a new expansion craft. Otherwise, Supremacy and Tactical, having both (to a greater or lesser degree) both offensive and defensive capabilities will greatly out-benefit the mining and defensive benefits of Expansion. You would have to offset it by making Ints indomitable on defense...since that's basically the only game they'd have.

LANS · Post by **LANS** » Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:31 am

Radulfr wrote:QUOTE (Radulfr @ Feb 22 2018, 02:33 AM) Alright, being in the process of reloading fuel, could be counted as having a full fuel bar already. That still leaves you having to reload on the other side, which is fine in my book though. It doesn't make camping any easier, as you can't boost with prox anyway. Other than that, the slow down is intended.

I do kinda like it, I'm more concerned with adding complex mechanics when they can have the same gameplay effect without as much user complexity. I'm much more a fan of a game being hard in terms of strategy and "muscle memory" skill (eg: aim) than a game that's hard on the basis of memorizing arbitrary mechsnics that are easy to execute.

I think this style of change would be very effective at improving into/fig differentiation.

It would give more use for carriers, and/or more early game con pushes, and provide new use cases for the upgraded carrier (mid-late offensive int support).

Edit: you still haven't solved the early game irrelevancy of light int factions with the fuel change. Would be hard enough to defend a con two sectors out in light ints. Three sector pushes would be nearly impossible, as would early miner pressure.

Radulfr · Post by **Radulfr** » Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:01 pm

LANS wrote:QUOTE (LANS @ Feb 23 2018, 12:31 AM) I do kinda like it

Cool, taking into account the reactions on Discord, the number of people carefully optimistic about the idea is actually almost the same as those hating it. For suggesting a nerf to everyone's favourite toy, that is not bad at all.

LANS wrote:QUOTE (LANS @ Feb 23 2018, 12:31 AM) Edit: you still haven't solved the early game irrelevancy of light int factions with the fuel change. Would be hard enough to defend a con two sectors out in light ints. Three sector pushes would be nearly impossible, as would early miner pressure.

Good point, early game is a bit problematic, as it's all about getting places. I think a good solution would be to balance those factions by slightly increasing their starting money, or nerf basic fighters.

You are right though, this needs a core designed with the mechanic in mind.
While I can't/don't know how to add a new value to current cores without rendering old cores useless, what I can do, is enable the mechanic only for specific cores.

So, let me know if you want it for your core or want to make a new one with it.