The EXP problem
The point is not whether the ints can find the miners or not, because you don't need hardly any scan range to find miners in the first place. Para's point is about decreasing the effectiveness of ints outside their designed range. By reducing their range they might be able to boost in and kill a miner but that pilot is out of commission for awhile as he plods back home without fuel.
Last edited by mcwarren4 on Mon May 05, 2008 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What Allegiance needs is a little more cowbell. 
Note also that EXP not only need least money to get effective ships but also have He3 yield, He3 speed and Adv Miners so you can get even more cash and do it faster! Thats the thing that should change as well imo. Maybe those GAs should be moved to SY since it needs lots of cash?? And Adv Miners to Tac since SFs have hard time to defend miners?
Also, to lower sup cost to get usefull ship lower either GAs cost or figs weapons cost? Maybe merge missile damage and tracking into one GA?
How about creating other boosters for ints and figs? So both start with standard booster 1 and than both sup and exp have higher levels of specialised boosters for its ships which can not be used by other? Ints couldn't use salvaged boost2 from hunted figs anymore, which is quite often. And fighters wouldn't need zillion boosters researched before getting something usefull (for example figs booster 2 could be as effective for them as Hvy booster now). Increase of fighters top speed also could save Sup commander some money because boost 2 wouldn't be so important as it's now.
I totally agree interceptors scan range should be reduced as well as their fuel capacity. Also, as I suggested in other thread - remove ints ability to carry PPs, lower miniguns damage vs. shields and utility armor.
Also, to lower sup cost to get usefull ship lower either GAs cost or figs weapons cost? Maybe merge missile damage and tracking into one GA?
How about creating other boosters for ints and figs? So both start with standard booster 1 and than both sup and exp have higher levels of specialised boosters for its ships which can not be used by other? Ints couldn't use salvaged boost2 from hunted figs anymore, which is quite often. And fighters wouldn't need zillion boosters researched before getting something usefull (for example figs booster 2 could be as effective for them as Hvy booster now). Increase of fighters top speed also could save Sup commander some money because boost 2 wouldn't be so important as it's now.
I totally agree interceptors scan range should be reduced as well as their fuel capacity. Also, as I suggested in other thread - remove ints ability to carry PPs, lower miniguns damage vs. shields and utility armor.
Ill say this again. Look at guradian, THIS should be an int. Guardian is a thing which is meant for defence, nothing more. Interceptors should NOT be able to travel on their base speed. If they want to travel, they get lt booster. If they want to defend, they get booster.
Limiting fuel capacity will nerf ints both on defence and offence, since they will not be able to quickly move in the sector.
If you increase their fuel capacity by 2-3X and disallow them holding booster fuel in cargo (= they cannot reload their booster), will result in a mean machine on defence and a hopeless child outside its sector. Of course with sensor range reduction.
This way the contrast will be achieved, int has sufficient fuel to launch, boost to bomber, kill it, boost back to base, but absolutoly no chance to walk 2 sectors away (at comfortable 80 mps, which is 100 mps for fig, not so much higher) kill miner and boost back at insane speeds.
This will still allow ints to travel (lt boosters) but they will be comparable to figs when they travel - slow thrust and not such insane max speed. And their fuel capacity will allow them to go for a long time on lt boosters.
Limiting fuel capacity will nerf ints both on defence and offence, since they will not be able to quickly move in the sector.
If you increase their fuel capacity by 2-3X and disallow them holding booster fuel in cargo (= they cannot reload their booster), will result in a mean machine on defence and a hopeless child outside its sector. Of course with sensor range reduction.
This way the contrast will be achieved, int has sufficient fuel to launch, boost to bomber, kill it, boost back to base, but absolutoly no chance to walk 2 sectors away (at comfortable 80 mps, which is 100 mps for fig, not so much higher) kill miner and boost back at insane speeds.
This will still allow ints to travel (lt boosters) but they will be comparable to figs when they travel - slow thrust and not such insane max speed. And their fuel capacity will allow them to go for a long time on lt boosters.
Last edited by theTroy on Mon May 05, 2008 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thank you parci
Definitely what McWarren said... those nerfs would decrease their effectiveness outside their intended range, it would not make them completely ineffective.
Ints should not be *effective* at killing enemy miners... they should be capable of it. Right now, they are just as effective (if not more) than tac at tac's intended role.
Ints should not be *effective* at killing enemy miners... they should be capable of it. Right now, they are just as effective (if not more) than tac at tac's intended role.
-Paradigm2
Lyko, the idea is in game of equal competition.
Tell me why it is that squad games are almost entire exp vs exp affairs.
Its funny when you hear "we got screwed by the rocks" in a squad game, it really means "we had no good expansion rock."
It is simply fuzzy logic that BECAUSE tac and sup win games, exp must be in balance.
Tell me why it is that squad games are almost entire exp vs exp affairs.
Its funny when you hear "we got screwed by the rocks" in a squad game, it really means "we had no good expansion rock."
It is simply fuzzy logic that BECAUSE tac and sup win games, exp must be in balance.
-Paradigm2
+1 /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />Paradigm2 wrote:QUOTE (Paradigm2 @ May 5 2008, 05:43 PM) I've said it over and over again... make ints ineffective outside of a controlled sector. Make them dependent on your outposts and bases.
Limiting scan range and fuel capacity I think would make a huge difference.
It is really discouraging to see that an entire team of light ints can see a con almost in a sector (two away from their home), boost there and get there in time to kill it, and have enough fuel to get home.
Edit: And making those two simple nerfs will not limit the roles of ints as defensive ships. They will still be able to defend cons and miners, even far from their home (as their top speeds are not that low), and they will still keep the same amount of ammo.
The only thing it really stops are the ridiculous notion (which I use to my advantage all the time) that a single heavy int can boost across multiple sectors, eye a miner on its own, boost around in circles while killing the miner, and boost away. Its just stupid.
teamwork is cheese /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />takingarms1 wrote:QUOTE (takingarms1 @ May 5 2008, 07:21 PM) Can't an int scan range nerf going be effectively negated by having scouts coming along on miner/con hunts?
QUOTE I still think SUP costs should be revamped either way. That @#(! is too expensive, yo.[/quote]
i want seeker 3 to cost the same as df does, and require starbase or adv sup /cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="
" border="0" alt="cool.gif" />
@lyko
you forgot to finish your sentence:
".... on pickup games. On the realm of Sgs, the guy with the Exp rock wins, so nerf it!"
edit: damn, mp and para responded before i finished my response
you forgot to finish your sentence:
".... on pickup games. On the realm of Sgs, the guy with the Exp rock wins, so nerf it!"
edit: damn, mp and para responded before i finished my response
Last edited by Evincar on Mon May 05, 2008 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Classifiable up to Trolleomorphism.
The biggest reason that ints are most effective at killing miners is because the $#@!ING HE3 BUG. God damnit you can sit in base and watch the he3 dropping 2 sectors away with no probes in it, designate the rock, then boost there in about 30 seconds. You dont even need $#@!ing scouts, they're just helpful.
I have also mentioned what troy said reguarding fuel to noir, aaaand got laughed at. GL with that
Also mentioned taking pps away from exp and ints, and they tried that already. it makes it utterly useless against tac.
I have also mentioned what troy said reguarding fuel to noir, aaaand got laughed at. GL with that
Also mentioned taking pps away from exp and ints, and they tried that already. it makes it utterly useless against tac.
QUOTE Drizzo: ha ha good old chap
Drizzo: i am a brit
Drizzo: tut tut
Drizzo: wankarrrrrr
Drizzo: i only have sex whilst in the missionary position[/quote] Fas est et ab hoste doceri - Ovid
Drizzo: i am a brit
Drizzo: tut tut
Drizzo: wankarrrrrr
Drizzo: i only have sex whilst in the missionary position[/quote] Fas est et ab hoste doceri - Ovid
It gets into a question about how much of the tech tree we want to change. Nerfing fuel and scan range would be effective now, without making any changes to the rest of the tech tree.
There's a difference in opinion, some core makers seem to take the option of changing every single other tech to try to balance them with expansion (and still remain ineffective), while you could just choose to change expansion instead (omg, a nerf?!)
There's a difference in opinion, some core makers seem to take the option of changing every single other tech to try to balance them with expansion (and still remain ineffective), while you could just choose to change expansion instead (omg, a nerf?!)
-Paradigm2