CC14 Preview

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:50 am

Treasures at "normal" is where treasures at "high" should be
and "normal" should be like half that

Post by **Raveen** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:31 am

DonKarnage wrote:QUOTE (DonKarnage @ Mar 23 2012, 02:34 AM) So I'm not the only one that thinks interceptors should be lightly armored, but very fast, maneuverable, and fuel efficient?
I'm trying to think of any other games out there that ever had a unit combining speed, toughness, and raw firepower.

sadly, because Don and Alien have a similar view, it's automatically bad for the game, and flames will soon follow this post.

Personally I'd like to see something like that. But not in CC because it's way beyond the remit of CC (essentially a balancing exercise based on 1.25 and DN). There have been some radical shakeups in CC but the underlying fundamentals of the game have stayed the same. Ish.

If you think that your concept is a good one then start a new core. A guiding design principal would be a sensible thing to set out first and then start work. Maybe limit yourselves to the original 3 or 4 factions to make life easier.

Either way it's not a discussion for this forum.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:46 am

I can see why the int has formed up like it is, in the larger mix of the Allegiance battlefield.

Alleg bombers are much like the Flying Fortress of WW-II. Two AC cannons put out serious firepower with good accuracy, and before mini 3 heavy ints an interceptor has to stand up to this for quite a few seconds.

So... the fast moving interceptor also has to be an armoured brick. Sadly this leaves it such a winning combination of traits that it easily ends up dominating the game. We also can't cut it's range so much that it would be left in a purely defencive role, as that would leave it unable to do offence.

Now if interceptors were defensive ships that always came with different ships for offence that could work, but this again is something for a totally different core.

I guess in theory we could have the armoured, short legged defence ship, and a light hull, high fuel load version for offence. Defence and assault versions, if you will.

DonKarnage · Post by **DonKarnage** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:49 am

Would there be any harm in one ship tech actually unlocking 2 or more ship designs?
For example, you research interceptors, it unlocks a short range variant that's a bit sluggish but made to survive, and a long range variant with lighter hull and mass, a 15s ripcord, and better fuel efficiency.

That's just a rough idea btw, don't take it literally.

Alien51 · Post by **Alien51** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:47 pm

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Mar 23 2012, 04:31 AM) If you think that your concept is a good one then start a new core.

Lol don't tempt me to waste my time.

qqmwoarplox · Post by **qqmwoarplox** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:06 pm

Alien51 wrote:QUOTE (Alien51 @ Mar 23 2012, 09:47 AM) Lol don't tempt me to waste my time.

life has no meaning anyways, anything you do including eat, @#(!, $#@!, study, live , breath is a waste of time.

Alien51 · Post by **Alien51** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:28 pm

qqqqqq wrote:QUOTE (qqqqqq @ Mar 23 2012, 03:06 PM) life has no meaning anyways, anything you do including eat, @#(!, $#@!, study, live , breath is a waste of time.

So you believe. Others believe differently.

No way to prove either way; but I'd rather live as though my life had meaning. Makes for a happier and more productive life.

qqmwoarplox · Post by **qqmwoarplox** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:58 pm

Alien51 wrote:QUOTE (Alien51 @ Mar 23 2012, 06:28 PM) So you believe. Others believe differently.

No way to prove either way; but I'd rather live as though my life had meaning. Makes for a happier and more productive life.

You making a new core perhaps wont make you happier and wont be productive

but it will make us laugh really hard thus you should condemn yourself for the greater good for we're many and you're one.

Alien51 · Post by **Alien51** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:38 am

qqqqqq wrote:QUOTE (qqqqqq @ Mar 23 2012, 07:58 PM) You making a new core perhaps wont make you happier and wont be productive

but it will make us laugh really hard thus you should condemn yourself for the greater good for we're many and you're one.

Who are you anyhow? Why forum names don't match in game names is stupid.

Bard · Post by **Bard** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:38 am

Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Mar 21 2012, 08:44 PM) Spunky's bizarre eccentricities

I realize you've already demoted yourself from "Masta"metz to "Sherriff" Metz, but the idiocy inherent in this statement indicates to me that you ought to downgrade again, from Sherriff to "Derputy".