Weedman wrote:QUOTE (Weedman @ Jul 30 2007, 04:44 AM) you think need interceptors is useless. I am pissed off at you ib.
You shouldn't have to use the vc, you should have them automatically /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />
adam4 wrote:QUOTE (adam4 @ Jul 30 2007, 05:06 AM) Attack towers should be included, so that turrets know there will be towers. Also the Turrets attack my target should be included on the main list, IMO.
Attack towers is covered by the aleph is mined and droned, all those on the Maybe list are ones that I think should go in, but don't feel as strongly about.
I think I need to add Need Fighters for Rix SRing.
Last edited by IB_ on Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
slap wrote:QUOTE (slap @ Oct 7 2009, 01:28 AM) good point, I concede.
Attack fighters (fignan reminder)
Attack scouts (hit the nans, not the bomber)
Bomber/Capship waiting for turrets is fine, even if it's a repeat of I need turret gunners NOW!
Wait for signal I find to be useful for things like preparing to rush alephs, galv runs.
The two about nanites launching and ripping in are tactically important.
Attack rescue probe is useful against IC when you see pods floating somewhere other than toward an aleph, although a 'find rescue probe' would be better.
Found enemy miners also directs people *which* miner to attack, and is thus useful.
I use need teleport scout frequently to remind people to buy SR scouts as rix
Rescue probe reminders help a lot when playing as IC at the start of the game. I notice a big difference in the amount of probe requests I get.
All of the above should probably be included on the basic list
Attack fighters (fignan reminder)
Attack scouts (hit the nans, not the bomber)
Both of those count under attack nanites.
Bomber/Capship waiting for turrets
You already said it's a repeat.
Wait for signal
Form on my wing! Is an alt of that, it's also good for forming up to attack a bomber already in sector, so its multipurpose.
The two about nanites launching and ripping in are tactically important.
I think they are rarely used compared to need scouts, defend bombers and need repairs, lets bump them up to maybes.
Found enemy miners also directs people *which* miner to attack, and is thus useful.
I counted attack miners to cover that, which is shorter and to the point. Plus if you are miner hunting you will be checking the minimap and he drop and know exactly where they are. Maybe again.
IC/Rix only vcs
Yeah those are needed.
Oh and Attack rescue probe, should be common sense, you shouldn't have to remind people, or am I wrong?
slap wrote:QUOTE (slap @ Oct 7 2009, 01:28 AM) good point, I concede.
Just because they're duplicates doesn't mean they need to be removed. The goal I thought was to remove all the VCs that aren't useful, not the create the smallest VC list possible.
Wait for signal
Form on my wing! Is an alt of that, it's also good for forming up to attack a bomber already in sector, so its multipurpose.
Form on my wing! is not an alternate of "Wait for the signal to drop the tp2" or "Wait for the signal to sb the base" or "Wait for the signal to rush the aleph all together" or "Wait for the signal to launch from the base and decamp it"
Usually though, "skill" is used to covertly mean "match the game exactly to my level of competence." Anyone who is at all worse than me should fail utterly (and humorously!) and anyone better is clearly too caught up in the game and their opinions shouldn't count.
juckto wrote:QUOTE (juckto @ Jul 30 2007, 06:56 PM) Form on my wing! is not an alternate of "Wait for the signal to drop the tp2" or "Wait for the signal to sb the base" or "Wait for the signal to rush the aleph all together" or "Wait for the signal to launch from the base and decamp it"
It's never used for those things anyway, give me an example that comms actually use it for.
Go Go Go is however used for the last 3 repeatedly and the comm saying drop is the most common thing for the first.
Last edited by IB_ on Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
slap wrote:QUOTE (slap @ Oct 7 2009, 01:28 AM) good point, I concede.
Gappy wrote:QUOTE (Gappy @ Jul 30 2007, 06:34 PM) Just because they're duplicates doesn't mean they need to be removed. The goal I thought was to remove all the VCs that aren't useful, not the create the smallest VC list possible.
Generally I would say duplicates aren't useful. Thanks and Thanks for the lift. The second one really isn't needed.
A Smaller VC list means important VCs won't get lost in the sea of crap.
slap wrote:QUOTE (slap @ Oct 7 2009, 01:28 AM) good point, I concede.
i think it is ok to have some similar ones, they can be used to give emphasis (saying similar but different VCs, instead of the same one 6 times in a row)
