Jump To Lightspeed Archive
Thread: A Suggestion: Turn the TIE Interceptor Into a Dedicated Gunfighter
Page 1 of 9
KaylBreinhar
Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:49 pm
#1
Am I the only one that thinks that the TIE Interceptor not having 4 projectile mounts is anathema? I mean, it was what made the damn thing FEARED. Before you decide to say "no" or flame me, hear me out.
1) I think the ship should have four projectile mounts but no missile mounts. This would free up room for a beefier reactor, better countermeasures, better boosters...everything to make the Interceptor a tried-and-true dogfighter. No missile mounts means that if you're dying to an Interceptor, it's because he's successfully keeping on your tail long enough to kill you, not because he can keep you centerlined long enough to lock you up. Missiles are the "easy" way to win a dogfight.
2) This would make the Interceptor a niche skill craft, as missile hounds still would have the Bomber to fall back on. You just might see squadrons make the Interceptor their de facto craft simply because flown correctly, a ship like this would be lethal.
3) Rebels get a 3p/2m ship with 50k more mass to play with in the X-Wing at Level III, which would undoubtedly give them a much easier time of levelling through Tier III missions. 1p/1m and 50k mass vs. 3p/2m and 100k mass? C'mon, Devs - that's like pitting a 0404 Marksman against a Master Rifleman.
And on a completely unrelated note: Make the Decimator 3p/3m. It's our best damn ship, and it's outclassed by a B-Wing in every category except mass.
1) I think the ship should have four projectile mounts but no missile mounts. This would free up room for a beefier reactor, better countermeasures, better boosters...everything to make the Interceptor a tried-and-true dogfighter. No missile mounts means that if you're dying to an Interceptor, it's because he's successfully keeping on your tail long enough to kill you, not because he can keep you centerlined long enough to lock you up. Missiles are the "easy" way to win a dogfight.
2) This would make the Interceptor a niche skill craft, as missile hounds still would have the Bomber to fall back on. You just might see squadrons make the Interceptor their de facto craft simply because flown correctly, a ship like this would be lethal.
3) Rebels get a 3p/2m ship with 50k more mass to play with in the X-Wing at Level III, which would undoubtedly give them a much easier time of levelling through Tier III missions. 1p/1m and 50k mass vs. 3p/2m and 100k mass? C'mon, Devs - that's like pitting a 0404 Marksman against a Master Rifleman.
And on a completely unrelated note: Make the Decimator 3p/3m. It's our best damn ship, and it's outclassed by a B-Wing in every category except mass.
Message Edited by KaylBreinhar on 10-31-2004 04:56 PM
GadonThek
Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:55 pm
#2
Im going to have to agree, the clue here is in the name: TIE Interceptor. The TIE Interceptor should be THE ship for dogfighting, but next to useless at everything else.
KaylBreinhar
Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:00 pm
#4
At the very least, a 3p/2m Interceptor with 90k mass and a 1p/3m TIE Bomber with the default mass would be acceptable.
Rebel-Yell
Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:04 pm
#5
i disagree....imps are lesser then rebs..thererfore we get better ships because we are simply BETTER
lmao (talkin from my die hard rebel point of view)
KaylBreinhar
Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:05 pm
#6
Rebel-Yell wrote:i disagree....imps are lesser then rebs..thererfore we get better ships because we are simply BETTERlmao (talkin from my die hard rebel point of view)
But even you have to agree that 1p/1m and 50k vs. 3p/2m and 100k at the same certification level is NOT parity.
ArianSix
Sun Oct 31, 2004 4:34 pm
#7
Yeah, I have no idea how all this happenned...
The Tie-Interceptor is supposed to be an awesome ship, but as it is it's easily outclassed by a fully loaded Z95 tier 1 starter.
50k mass is a joke. I've had to sacrifice tons of stuff and get the basic items all custom made in order to have a ship that works. By sacrifice, I mean I have no missile launchers, counter launchers, or droid interface. I also have a level 2 booster because that's the best I could fit before hitting the limit.
The Tie-Interceptor has 4 projectile mounts... how does this equate to 1? At the least, we consider each mount a pair and the ship should be equipped with 2 projectile mounts and the extra mass to accomodate another partical weapon, capacitor, and a larger reactor.
As it is, the imps are pretty much outclassed at every turn and our "superiority fighters" are a laughing stock.
-- A6
Zexc
Sun Oct 31, 2004 4:46 pm
#8
I just got my TIE intercepter and let me tell you , its just a another dam TIE fighter with more mass. The TIE bomber is a better dogfighter then the intercepter which makes no sense at all. They really need to increase the mass and weapon slots or move this to tier 2 and remove the tie/in(to many TIE fighter look-alikes) and add the TIE defender at tier 3.
TrekDude
Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:34 pm
#9
Guess what, Imperials are supposed to be outclassed ship for ship. You guys are suposed to have your strength in numbers, hence the ability to call in reinforcments. Plus you've had AT-STs on ground for the last year and a half to help you grind money, and sooner or later you'll most likely get monster capitol ships.
Though interceptors *should* be the most manuverable(not the fastest) ship. Are they not? I don't really know much about the Imperial ships in JTL.
Message Edited by TrekDude on 10-31-2004 04:39 PM
Palad
Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:11 pm
#11
TrekDude wrote:
Guess what, Imperials are supposed to be outclassed ship for ship. You guys are suposed to have your strength in numbers, hence the ability to call in reinforcments. Plus you've had AT-STs on ground for the last year and a half to help you grind money, and sooner or later you'll most likely get monster capitol ships.
Though interceptors *should* be the most manuverable(not the fastest) ship. Are they not? I don't really know much about the Imperial ships in JTL.
Message Edited by TrekDude on 10-31-2004 04:39 PM
Imperials SHOULD have numbers, but we dont.
We SHOULD, have a superior ground force with AT-AT's and AT-ST's that people run from in fear, but we dont.
We SHOULD have hordes of Tie fighters and tie bombers at our disposal, we dont.
We SHOULD have four mounts on a tie interceptor, and be able to make surface bombing runs with tie bombers, We cant.
Take your shoulds and put them in one hand, The do's in another, and see which one fills up first.
Balance before continuity, it has been done in every other aspect of this game, why not ships also.
GadonThek
Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:11 pm
#12
"Guess what, Imperials are supposed to be outclassed ship for ship."
In JTL TIEs have shields and hyperdrives, I think this is one of the few situations where balance has to win out over continuity.
Oh, and for your information, the Imperials are not meant to be outclassed ship-for-ship, they are suppost to be outclassed pilot-for-pilot. The standard TIE is a pile of junk, but the TIE Interceptor was DESIGNED to fight the X-Wing.
In JTL TIEs have shields and hyperdrives, I think this is one of the few situations where balance has to win out over continuity.
Oh, and for your information, the Imperials are not meant to be outclassed ship-for-ship, they are suppost to be outclassed pilot-for-pilot. The standard TIE is a pile of junk, but the TIE Interceptor was DESIGNED to fight the X-Wing.
Savageda
Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:16 pm
#13
"Guess what, Imperials are supposed to be outclassed ship for ship. You guys are suposed to have your strength in numbers, hence the ability to call in reinforcments. Plus you've had AT-STs on ground for the last year and a half to help you grind money, and sooner or later you'll most likely get monster capitol ships."
ATs have been nerfed for almost all of that year, and you'd be hard pressed to find an imperial-majority server.
So in short, you've lost your mind...and apparently you lost it quite awhile ago, since this is nothing new.
Page 1 of 9