make it so. They're pretty easy to hit.
For example, Giga figs are a good size.
For that matter, I would say INCREASE int sizes. You pay a price for that massive hull. Things should be reversed... ints should always have bigger sizes than figs.
IRL, an F-15 or an F-14 (generally designed as interceptors) is quite big compared to a multi use fighter like an F-16 or F-18.
cc_02
I would still like to see figs go farther with higher top speed, and ints go shorter with lower top speed but much higher acceleration.
Edit: Just to muse: smaller fig size means ints have a harder time to hit, but missles would be unaffected? Apoc, can you explain a bit about what your goal for the change would be?
Edit: Just to muse: smaller fig size means ints have a harder time to hit, but missles would be unaffected? Apoc, can you explain a bit about what your goal for the change would be?
Last edited by BackTrak on Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Currently, myself and a few others think that IC figs are just too damn fat and easy to hit. It's really that simple. These days IC sup is never played cause IC exp is soo powerful but ideally I'd like to see all techpaths as viable choices. This would be a small perk to the fighter model making it smaller, and not such a huge target.
A few suggestions, more or less radical, mostly based on my general dislike for the fact that everybody who wants to win goes for exp and bombing is impossible against exp.
1: Drop Nan efficiently on ships a lot, increase bomber hull (I am tired of huge nan trains. Use multiple bombers and escorts!)
2: Drop mini damage against medium and utility hull.
3: Significantly increase INT signature so it's tac<sup<exp. The int is not a ship that should be hiding.
4: Move PP to sup (or tac).
5: Make ints small hull. They don't need that extra perk.
1: Drop Nan efficiently on ships a lot, increase bomber hull (I am tired of huge nan trains. Use multiple bombers and escorts!)
2: Drop mini damage against medium and utility hull.
3: Significantly increase INT signature so it's tac<sup<exp. The int is not a ship that should be hiding.
4: Move PP to sup (or tac).
5: Make ints small hull. They don't need that extra perk.
/Avalanche
Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those that do not understand it. (Mark Stanley, Freefall, 1999)
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
12/27/07 20:48:39: <Player in trouble> (all): Run its AVA
Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those that do not understand it. (Mark Stanley, Freefall, 1999)
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
12/27/07 20:48:39: <Player in trouble> (all): Run its AVA
Avalanche wrote:QUOTE (Avalanche @ Jun 20 2008, 11:08 AM) A few suggestions, more or less radical, mostly based on my general dislike for the fact that everybody who wants to win goes for exp and bombing is impossible against exp.
1: Drop Nan efficiently on ships a lot, increase bomber hull (I am tired of huge nan trains. Use multiple bombers and escorts!)
2: Drop mini damage against medium and utility hull.
3: Significantly increase INT signature so it's tac<sup<exp. The int is not a ship that should be hiding.
4: Move PP to sup (or tac).
5: Make ints small hull. They don't need that extra perk.
You could of summed all that up by saying "remove expansion"
No, I like expansion as a part of allegiance. I just feel that they are currently far out of line compared with the other tech paths. Currently expansion has no real weakness.
It's the reason I tossed out several suggestions for how to give EXP a weakness.
It could be that they can't as easily defend against bombers It could be that they have a hard time killing enemy cons and miners It could be that they are loud, blind and short range even if they are extremely powerful It could be that they do a lot of damage but the ships can't take a beating
Personally I like the idea of expansion as a defensive choice. But then ints shouldn't be so powerful outside their own sectors. They don't need pp and low sig in friendly sectors to be efficient.
Do you really feel that exp shouldn't have a weakness?
It's the reason I tossed out several suggestions for how to give EXP a weakness.
It could be that they can't as easily defend against bombers It could be that they have a hard time killing enemy cons and miners It could be that they are loud, blind and short range even if they are extremely powerful It could be that they do a lot of damage but the ships can't take a beating
Personally I like the idea of expansion as a defensive choice. But then ints shouldn't be so powerful outside their own sectors. They don't need pp and low sig in friendly sectors to be efficient.
Do you really feel that exp shouldn't have a weakness?
/Avalanche
Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those that do not understand it. (Mark Stanley, Freefall, 1999)
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
12/27/07 20:48:39: <Player in trouble> (all): Run its AVA
Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those that do not understand it. (Mark Stanley, Freefall, 1999)
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
12/27/07 20:48:39: <Player in trouble> (all): Run its AVA
Exp's main weakness is it doesn't have much of an end game tech. The HTT is pretty easy to defend against for a mid to large size team, and it can't clear teles or refs with impunity the way SBs and galves + hvy bbrs can. If you're not in a small game, then you're looking to multi-tech or get hvy bbrs anyway just finish it.
So, the ints may be uber, but no one ever won a war with air superiority alone.
So, the ints may be uber, but no one ever won a war with air superiority alone.