Free Allegiance Forums

The Starcraft analogy was aimed at unit to unit combat.
But the building differences could be implemented as well using build times, con stats, and etc.

The balance pattern is slightly similar but what matters are the units' function in relation to opposing units. In that aspect Starcraft and C&C are entirely different.

How about we double an interceptor's fuel consumption and buff minigun damage

Mastametz wrote:QUOTE (Mastametz @ Jan 31 2011, 01:59 PM) How about we double an interceptor's fuel consumption and buff minigun damage

Ints would become the "tanks" of Allegiance... Lets try to move Ints closer to being interceptors.

Alien51 wrote:QUOTE (Alien51 @ Jan 31 2011, 06:48 PM) The Starcraft analogy was aimed at unit to unit combat.
But the building differences could be implemented as well using build times, con stats, and etc.

The balance pattern is slightly similar but what matters are the units' function in relation to opposing units. In that aspect Starcraft and C&C are entirely different.

So the unit to unit combat was at what you were going for.. oh boy.

So you say they're completely different? Because StarCraft Heavily uses RPS and C&C didn't follow it so closely?

Alien51 wrote:QUOTE (Alien51 @ Jan 31 2011, 07:01 PM) Ints would become the "tanks" of Allegiance... Lets try to move Ints closer to being interceptors.

What's the definition of interceptor?" a fast maneuverable fighter plane "
What's the definition of Fighter? "Fighters are small, fast, and maneuverable"

SO you're trying to make fighters the "tanks" of alleg but failing to realise that both craft are meant to be light.

TL:DR? You're contradicting yourself a little here. Just because in your head, "interceptor" means a fragile thing which shoves off its load and runs away again (which is really what a fighter does currently, abiet slowly) doesn't mean it should be.

If you want to make interceptors a shorter range ship (which I think they should be, more dependent on carrier support or a base) they would need to be buffed in a dogfighting sense; A similarly teched fighter should not ever have any chance of beating an int in a straight-up 1v1.

Mastametz wrote:QUOTE (Mastametz @ Jan 31 2011, 08:25 PM) If you want to make interceptors a shorter range ship (which I think they should be, more dependent on carrier support or a base) they would need to be buffed in a dogfighting sense; A similarly teched fighter should not ever have any chance of beating an int in a straight-up 1v1.

Oh I agree, I've said many times (or at least once on the forum) that if alleg supported it, I would opt for ints to have superior firepower, less hull, more speed and less fuel. Meaning they would go faster, dodge better, shoot @#(! dead faster, but run out of steam faster too.

The trouble with that is again the attack on miners, how fast / much fuel is right to change so much of the interceptor?

Mastametz wrote:QUOTE (Mastametz @ Jan 31 2011, 12:25 PM) If you want to make interceptors a shorter range ship (which I think they should be, more dependent on carrier support or a base) they would need to be buffed in a dogfighting sense; A similarly teched fighter should not ever have any chance of beating an int in a straight-up 1v1.

You are probably correct; good point. However, unfortunately, due to the limitations of the core engine - unless i am mistaken, correct me - it is not possible to make ints a shorter range ship unless you mess up their booster (i.e. ridiculously small bottles requiring a reload like every 10sec)
I'm not sure i want that..

Double their fuel consumption, double their sig, buff minigun damage 20% and increase int hull 20%

If you make ints hit even HARDER, even if you nerf the range, exp will basically be un-bombable.

Carrier bomb