Free Allegiance Forums

Andon wrote:QUOTE (Andon @ May 6 2008, 03:35 PM) The issue is that reducing medium collision damage would mean that interceptors would never be damaged by rams

The point is, it isnt a needed thing /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

apochboi wrote:QUOTE (apochboi @ May 6 2008, 04:16 PM) Yes we could remove damage done when medium hull rams into an asteroid, but it would change the game dynamics too much I think

It might however make Exp teams think twice before all rushing out to attack miners or cons. The "ram-a-rock-pick-me-up" when perfected is faster than using figs to rip home, which was never the intention of Exp i assume. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> It also gives sup teams an opportunity to bomb if they see the whole exp team out gunning for their miners.

edit: hehehe I caught you before you edited it /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

muwhahaha

A poll is good only when it produces results that can be interpreted correctly. Delete the thread and actually think the poll options through.

TB

how can the results not be interpreted correctly?

10.5% want no change to ints
25.7% say don't change fuel, of those 60% said to change their scan range instead

26% said they don't want exp to change at all, which tells us 74% of people do, of those who do want change:
21% want fuel to be changed and nothing else
7% want scan range changed and nothing else
36% want both fuel and scan range changed
36% want both fuel, scan range and something else changed

which means 72% of people who want something changed want fuel and scan range to be changed (half also want something else changed)

of all the people who want something to be changed, everyone wants some change to ints to happen, not just some change to some other part of exp

the poll was deliberately constructed so as much information on people's decisions is apparent.

I said it and I say it again:

make ints unable to pick up pods.

They do not have the ability to rip, so they should not have the ability to rip pods home.

Frooster wrote:QUOTE (Frooster @ May 6 2008, 06:06 PM) I said it and I say it again:

make ints unable to pick up pods.

They do not have the ability to rip, so they should not have the ability to rip pods home.

Code change, unless you give ints the same flag as life pods have, which wouldnt make for a good game.

apochboi wrote:QUOTE (apochboi @ May 6 2008, 06:12 PM) Code change, unless you give ints the same flag as life pods have, which wouldnt make for a good game.

you mean un-checking the "Rescue" flag in ICE won't stop player ships from being able to pickup pods?

mad I think you should get a slightly less tiny sample size before quoting percentages like that

turns out more than 15 people play this game

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ May 6 2008, 01:01 PM) the poll was deliberately constructed so as much information on people's decisions is apparent.

The poll is fundamentally flawed because it is too complex and as stated many people did not vote in it for this reason, and as Lyk stated your sample size is ridiculously small. Not to mention that creating a core based on polling is a ludicrous idea.