Free Allegiance Forums

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Oct 21 2009, 07:53 AM) I'm not as young as I used to be but all I remember is Psy saying something about them "always" being a choice then referencing the fact they are a choice in DN. Not sure how always and DN got in same sentence (assuming I remember this correctly) but since you are too lazy to look this up I will be too lazy as well

Psych wanted it to be a choice, and I looked back. It was virtually always a choice in DN, and when Psych and I talked about it, that was the change he wanted. Not sure why they weren't a choice, since I know I thought that was what we were changing: making a choice between medshield lxies and normal lxies.

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Oct 21 2009, 09:27 AM) I am not aware of this having been said anywhere

please see here and here

good enough?

Psychosis wrote:QUOTE (Psychosis @ Oct 21 2009, 06:26 PM) please see here and here

good enough?

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Oct 21 2009, 10:53 AM) I would LOVE to see where anyone on CC said anything close to this.

I'm not as young as I used to be but all I remember is Psy saying something about them "always" being a choice then referencing the fact they are a choice in DN. Not sure how always and DN got in same sentence (assuming I remember this correctly) but since you are too lazy to look this up I will be too lazy as well

You seem to be confusing your thoughts for the community cores thoughts. So now because you think heavy ints should have 4 mini guns and post the thought - we should do it?

i.
dont.
think.
so.

I've corrected the changelist in the first post. Go read it again if you still have questions.

Also, the thread has been pruned of off-topic posts.

Regarding the (now pruned) galv argument: I don't see us giving any ship dual galvs right now, especially after we've just gone through the trouble of making capships tougher against figs.

Whenever I talked about it I always assumed it would be a choice ala DN. I might have said something to that effect on IRC or in the CCDev forums, maybe I'll check em later for it. I don't see any reason why this had to be a replacement and not a choice, it's not like people were complaining about inf cloak sfs and so we had to come up with a new reason to pay 500$ for an adv sf or anything.

Also who deleted my earlier post?

Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ Oct 21 2009, 07:38 PM) Also, the thread has been pruned of off-topic posts.

Xeretov: Canadian dictator.

And I'm sure he will delete this the second he sees it.

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Oct 21 2009, 04:37 PM) You seem to be confusing your thoughts for the community cores thoughts. So now because you think heavy ints should have 4 mini guns and post the thought - we should do it?

I don't think the issue is whether or not we wanted med shield SFs, but whether or not we wanted them in addition to the infinite cloak SFs. I believe, and this is just my belief mind, that based on comments by Psych and Das, as well as my own experiences, that a significant (though probably not majority) of voters believed we were choosing whether or not giga teams should have two lxy sfs available, one with med shield, one with infinite cloak.

It is also my belief that in light of this, we should either revote for CC_08 or simply have two lxy sfs available, ala DN.

Also I don't think this is a big enough issue to merit a CC_07 recall. Giga tac is only rarely played on main at reasonable hours, and when it comes right down to it giga tac still has a lxy ship.

You will all live with a lxy medium shield sf I am sure.

Your confusion is noted and in the future things will be more clear.

Thanks for your work CC guys! I am looking foward to flying with these changes, and playing with more caps, and TF Tac

Can't wait to comm a game with these changes. Looking quite interesting. Reduced hunt per rack on lx sfs and no inf cloak seems like a very smart move.