Exactly! +5% per Interceptor Skill Bonus to cycle reduction on Salvagers!
Because any ship can fit a launcher.
Sorry the dscan idea not only messes up a lot of existing counters but in the end it doesn’t change the survivability.
CCP added bubble immunity to the other interceptors, which messed things up way worse.
They were all bubble immune before.
And before that nothing was. And before that, there were no bubbles.
You are always wrong. I’m still waiting for you to pay me for teaching you about piracy profits 
1 Like
Don’t talk to the co-head like that. Show some respect.
‘Just because somebody thinks that my Atron shouldn’t have a jump drive, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t use it for my playstyle.’ 
Alright, well, you think my idea is dumb and you did some handwaving. I disagree with you, but I see no common ground here left to explore.
They’re way too fast and agile (even with MWD running) to not have the ability to stop their MWD, and very few ships would have the speed AND the web range with which to diminish this speed/range tanking capability. If you fail to counter their speed tanking, very few ships/fleets can fight back and then they’re tackled in perpetuity - that’s not good. Truthfully even if, per my own idea, Heavy Scrams/scripted WDFGs could disable MWDs, it would still be problematic for the numerous (vast majority) of fleets that have neither. This isn’t a counter most fleets should be expected to have. It’s just not reasonable.
So I agree that the combat probe delay makes them impractical for use against detecting interceptors and that the warp speed of interceptors can go from insane to even more near instant-teleportation insane, but I have a hard time seeing how D-scan would make near-instant teleportation, which is already a thing, significantly worse. Having said that, I do agree that there are legit concerns wit this idea and that, those concerns aside, it doesn’t address fundamental balance issues either, so the idea is a dead end and better ideas have been raised anyway.
Really good brainstorming, though. Nice appetizer. Don’t stop with the ideas, Xeux.
You are out of line, young man!
In the past year I’ve agreed with you in almost every single thread you and I have both been on. Do you want to tell me again how I’m always wrong? The one recent thread we disagreed on was you advocating ‘weak gameplay’ and me frowning upon cowardice and you know it. Do you want me to pay you for ‘teaching me’ how to engage in ‘weak gameplay’? Ohhhhhh preying on inactive groups is sooooooo harddd. Really? Grow a spine, brush your teeth, then come talk to me 
(Pay me 1bn and I’ll reissue you a new man card to make up for the one I took away from you 
)
That’s right! 
. I’m just a mere, low-profile, nobody-has-ever-heard-of-me Co-Head today but… we’ll see what tomorrow brings… 
*egomania*
On a serious note: @Xeux I would very much appreciate your feedback on my CSM16 platform if you’d be kind enough to hop on my AeT Discord and go over the bulletins and let me know what you think in the discussion channels. Some ideas from this thread (and many others) are definitely making their way on there. You’ll also see some familiar faces already on the server. Warning: the platform is longer than the Star Wars trilogy
I come to the forums to troll people, not to get trolled. I never should have opened my mouth.
5 Likes
i think your missing something in that warp scrap immune. Warp scrams kill the mwd which leave ceptors dead in the water unless they are duel prop. Warp disrupturs do not do that
1 Like
Why wouldn’t anyone choose the version that CAN get caught in bubbles?
It just makes more sense to go with the flawed iteration of a ship class.
Hrrrrmmmm…
The problem with d-scan is that you have to sit there and mash the button like some kind of chump. It should function like an actual radar, alerting you instantly if something breaches the scan range you set. And when that happens, you can send out an active ping to get more detailed information, such as ship type, et cetera.
And your ship should be able to detect pings sent out by others.
2 Likes
Read both this thread and that other one that talked about nullification issues. Just throwing this out there:
- For fleet interceptors with nullification - remove the nullification attribute from the hull and create a low slot ‘nullification’ module. Make it have similar penalties to warp stabilizers (maybe not as pronounced - 10-15% penalty?). Makes the tackling of these frigates suffer a little in exchange for free passage through bubbles. It MAY (I haven’t played with the fittings) also get their align time closer to above 2 seconds (giving gankers a mild chance) as there is 1 low slot less to fit prop upgrades.
Effectively a nerf but with choices presented to pilots as to what they want to sacrifice and a milder nerf than other suggestions I’ve seen.
Nullification module only allowed for this class btw.
- Combat interceptors be given a mid slot ‘stabilizing’ MWD unique to their class. Similar stats but instead of a warp scrambler turning it off it will only cut it’s effectiveness by let’s say 50%. Makes scrambling something worthwhile but doesn’t completely cripple the combat ceptor. Feel free to adjust the numbers a little.
I really liked the assault frigate damage control as a unique, interesting and balanced mod that helped assault frigates fit in. I wouldn’t mind CCP taking similar approaches for these ship classes.
The issue I see is that these things already have so few slots, that adding any more modules will remove what little ability they have to fit a buffer (which is usually a shield extender). Of course, I’m going into this assuming a solo or very small engagement. With blobs, they probably don’t care how many interceptors get exploded, as long as they do their jobs…
1 Like
Sorry I may not have been clear - I was thinking for the combat ceptor that you REPLACE the standard MWD with the special one. Not an additional one.
Ah, that makes more sense.
They could also give interceptors a T3-style mechanic where you toggle the flight mode, like trading off speed and signature radius for scrambler immunity.
Yes that would also be another great way - I like those ‘modes’ that T3 cruisers and destroyers have.
we don’t need more gimmicky stuff, not MORE T3 mechanics.
Give them 30-50% immunity to webs, that way it ties in to the whole concept (speed) and gives them a fighting chance to make their speed and low sig work.
1 Like