The EXP problem

[Paradigm2]

I think reducing fuel is more important than reducing scan range... I agree with Spidey.

[Kltplzyxm]

BTW: There is absolutely no reason why Bios ints should have the most fuel. 19?!!?!? WTF! No wonder I liked Bios int's so much. Just pick up ammo from your victim, get a little nan love on the side and you're one everlasting whoring machine.

I like Apochi's initial proposal. Drop/raise everything by 10%-20%. 10% less fuel, 10% less scan and 10% more sig. I think that's a great start.

[spideycw]

QUOTE (Clay_Pigeon @ May 5 2008, 06:13 PM) Setting the scan range to 100 is a splendid idea.

Who cares though since you don't need to see the miner to find and kill it really. Not to mention they can still boost 3 sectors and kill a miner they just need a scout or an rp or whatever.

i really think the answer is to make lt booster THE viable option for ints leaving their own sector. That way they can go far at reduced speed and can carry booster 1 or whatever when they need to swap

[javaswiller]

Make it so that the interceptor burns fuel much faster with booster ... something like 2K per tank. Make it so that mines and minepacks activate sooner and inflict more damage on an interceptor's hull, too.

[Grim_Reaper_4u]

QUOTE (Mr. Kltplzyxm @ May 6 2008, 12:23 AM) I like Apochi's initial proposal. Drop/raise everything by 10%-20%. 10% less fuel, 10% less scan and 10% more sig. I think that's a great start.

That equates to exactly 0 effect in the grand scheme of things /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> Upping sig won't harm them, slightly less scan won't harm them either since they know from the f3 "bug" where the miners are and they know where they go. 10% less fuel???? wow, and that means they can boost 90% of a sector full speed instead of 100% /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
a softhanded approach to Exp will not work, you need to rethink the role of ints and radically revise them. Yes the int whores will hate it cause you take away their do-it-all-for-nothing ship but it needs to be done.

[Lykourgos]

Radical revisions don't belong in the community core. Do it in GoD, write a new core- the point of the community core is to incrementally build something universally popular, starting with what we have.

[madpeople]

could do concept cores like i did for SY, just take a normal core, change something, let people play it and tell you if your change is a good/bad idea or if "it would work if you changed X".
it lets you try radical changes without denting a core's reputation /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

after exams are over and i've updated the capcore and had some feed back i could do the same for exp if someone else hasn't already done that.

[theTroy]

QUOTE (Grim_Reaper_4u @ May 6 2008, 12:28 AM) That equates to exactly 0 effect in the grand scheme of things /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> Upping sig won't harm them, slightly less scan won't harm them either since they know from the f3 "bug" where the miners are and they know where they go. 10% less fuel???? wow, and that means they can boost 90% of a sector full speed instead of 100% /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
a softhanded approach to Exp will not work, you need to rethink the role of ints and radically revise them. Yes the int whores will hate it cause you take away their do-it-all-for-nothing ship but it needs to be done.

This is one of my concerns.

When you lower the fuel capacity the ints will have to reload it more often, which will nerf them on defense. And the aim of this thread is to nerf them on the offense, while still having a nice defensive capability.

As I said above, why not allow them NOT to reload the fuel, so that they are very powerful on defence, but the TOTAL amount of fuel will be lower than if you take 4 racks of it along with you?


What I mean is :

Standard miner rushing int loadout: 2 ammo racks, 3 fuel racks. Allows you to boost about 3-4 sectors away. Resulting in total of 65 units of fuel. You can get to the miner at comfortable 80 mps, which is about 3-4 minutes per sector.

What I suggest :

Ints cannot mount booster fuel to resupply the booster. On the other hand instead of 15 units of it they carry 25-35 of it.
This will result in ints capable of getting into adjacent sector, killing miner and having to WALK back and not boost back. Combined with low base speed 40-50 mps, it will be a pain for them to go anywhere further than 1 sector away, or force into using the lt booster. 5 free cargo slots will allow them to have normal booster along with lt booster, and still carry sufficient amount of ammo and pps.

Moreover, forced to use ltboost will automatically increase their sig by 150%, hence there would be no need to nerf their base sig at all.



Thing about this method is that you are not nerfing them in a normal way, by just changing the percentages in tables. You are changing the principle, hence increasing the contrast between offense/defense. Whether if you just change them normally they will get nerfed both on defense and on offense.

[Grim_Reaper_4u]

QUOTE (Lykourgos @ May 6 2008, 10:41 AM) Radical revisions don't belong in the community core. Do it in GoD, write a new core- the point of the community core is to incrementally build something universally popular, starting with what we have.

Why not Lyk? If a majority of the community decides that ints are broken and that their role in the game should be revised then why shouldn't we radically change them? Using a different core won't work and you know it, RPS, EOR etc. all have some good ideas in them but none of them ever made it into DN. If we keep ints as they are and only nerf fuel/ammo/speed/sig incrementally then peeps will continue to use them the same way they always did and fail to grasp the new "role" for ints. On the other hand if we radically change them (after beta testing of course) then peeps will most likely accept and understand their new role more quickly.

I think most sane people here agree that ints are too strong in everything that matters (except killing cap ships), maybe it's time to make them more like ww2 interceptors : short range bomber killers.

interceptor definition :

QUOTE Design
There are two types of interceptors, emphasizing different aspects of performance. Point defense interceptors were the first type, designed to take off and climb as quickly as possible to the attacking aircraft's altitude. This was a necessity in the era of limited radar range, which meant defenders had very short warning times before having to engage the enemy. Area defense interceptors are larger designs intended to protect a much larger area from attack. These were important only during the Cold War, when the US and USSR needed to provide a defense over their respective large land areas.

Both types of aircraft sacrifice performance in the air superiority fighter role (ie fighting enemy fighter aircraft) by tuning their performance for either fast climbs or high speeds, respectively. The result is that interceptors often look very impressive on paper, typically outrunning, outclimbing and outgunning less specialized fighter designs. Yet they tend to fare poorly in combat against those same "less capable" designs due to limited maneuverability.[/quote]

Given the small distances in Alleg our ints are more Point defense ints.

Exp is meant to counter Sup and Tac especially BOMBERS. Ints should not outmanouvre figs and should not be able to find SF. Essentially a nice example of an interceptor is a Belters interceptor, fast, sturdy, flies like a brick but can stop a bomber in its tracks. Historically interceptors don't have the "legs" for long range combat or even prolonged short range combat. You see @#(! close to your base, you start, you boost, you kill it and go back home. It's not meant to fly all the way to Teheran from Andrews, kill Migs, shoot pigs, shoot the ayatollah in the ass and fly back home in time for supper

The current role of Exp is totally $#@!ed up vis-a-vis Sup and Tac and it's time to change it /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

[takingarms1]

If you nerf interceptors that badly nobody is going to want to play this core. You will be competing against DN, remember. The fuel nerf I think is the safest way to go, but it does recall the days of A+ core and it didn't go over so well at the time.

I would also suggest increasing fighter's top speed. That would enhance the figs role as the "be everywhere" ship.

If you haven't noticed, I'm a fan of the "perk other paths" rather than "nerf ints" strategy. My reasoning is that ints are fun precisely because they are fast and manuverable. If you take those things away from it, you take away from the fun of the game. It seems to me that taking fun out of the game, even in the name of balance, is a bad idea.

That said, the fuel nerf isn't so bad, since rarely do I ever run out of fuel in an int except when I'm 2 sectors from base.