Sushi wrote:QUOTE (Sushi @ Feb 19 2009, 04:03 PM) 2) Add fuel capacity GAs to exp. After buying one (or both?), int fuel capacity would be equivalent to what it is now.
When I first considered this idea and posted about it there was no answer about whether a fuel capacity GA could be implemented. I assumed that it couldn't hence afterburners as an alternative.
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
I believe zone_core uses lt boost for this purpose.
No for 2 reasons.
First, Sup/Exp synergy which has already been mentioned.
Second, I don't see any performance tweaks to an int booster with no equivalent tweak for the int itself.
QUOTE (Randall Munroe)14.2: Turkey consumption rate of the average American in milligrams per minute[/quote]
Define Sup/Exp synergy please. Sup tech is not essential to exp and a sup is very very rarely bought to back the exp up and certainly not bought for the booster upgrades.
As for your second point, I don't understand what you're getting at I'm afraid.
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Feb 19 2009, 11:22 AM) When I first considered this idea and posted about it there was no answer about whether a fuel capacity GA could be implemented. I assumed that it couldn't hence afterburners as an alternative.
That would put a damper on the idea.
If fuel GAs aren't possible, I guess we could just have Afterburner 1/2/3 be an "extra-fuel" version of boost 1/2/3. Additionally, each level of afterburner would require the corresponding level of boost tech (so Afterburner 2 and 3 would require a sup and boost 2 and 3).
I am now assuming that it's possible for a booster to modify how quickly it burns fuel independent of other variables.
Sushi wrote:QUOTE (Sushi @ Feb 19 2009, 08:03 AM) 1) Lower default fuel capacity for all ints across the board. They still use normal booster set, but run out of gas faster.
2) Add fuel capacity GAs to exp. After buying one (or both?), int fuel capacity would be equivalent to what it is now.
#1 is the answer. But apparently no one has the balls to piss off all the interceptor lobbyists. When interceptors really are a short range fighter exp will be perfect.
#2 is a concession to the lobbyists that I could live with.
Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Feb 19 2009, 05:32 PM) Define Sup/Exp synergy please. Sup tech is not essential to exp and a sup is very very rarely bought to back the exp up and certainly not bought for the booster upgrades.
As for your second point, I don't understand what you're getting at I'm afraid.
What? People buy a sup all the time for the boosters. Boost 2/3 can make the difference between a tp2 dieing or your tech dieing.
$#@! that. Afterburners should teleport your int directly to your enemy at the cost of half your fuel.
cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Oct 16 2010, 02:48 AM) Interceptors are fun because without one, Drizzo would be physically incapable of entering a sector.
I like this idea, but I don't think interceptors should be able to mount Supremacy boosters. Esp. since afterburner 1 is supposed to be worse than Booster 1. But I think afterburners should also be shorter-range but higher-thrust than boosters, with the idea being that interceptors should not be long-range fighters, but effective short-range defenders. Afterburners should eat fuel much faster than boosters, so ints can't boost ten sectors away to kill a miner or something, but to compensate ints can be perhaps even a bit faster than they already are / have better acceleration, with afterburners.
Edit: Alternatively, I also like the idea of *not* developing a new type of booster for ints, but simply giving them less fuel, too. Though adding "afterburners" could be fun, and allow for greater flexibility.
Last edited by Makida on Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
