Here we go again Credit.. First I will discuss your OP you claim I haven't read.
I'm actually glad you posted my PM, so now everyone can clearly see your fallacy. I've already address your "Fighters furfill this argument, why you are wrong, and how Interceptors will add to the game" If you cant be brothered to actually read my arguments in the original post, then you're the one who is really just venting - not debating.
OK - You said this
No they don't, a fighter vs. a fighter will be equal. Fighters are significantly good at destroying ships, even capital ships leading many players to make purly all fighter SC for their carrier fleets because essentially as I mentioned you can only counter him by having more fighters then he does which if he is going for a pure SC-spam fleet and you aren't it makes it very difficult to counter fighters. With the addition of Interceptors Fighters will again be even more crucial to serve the role as Escort Fighters protecting bombers and dog-fighting Interceptors.
Fighters do very little damage to a cap as they are effective against light armor, not heavy. Lots of them can do damage. Enough ants can do damage to a human. Weight of numbers. It is BOMBERS that are the ones that do HEAVY damage.
No, they won't. Firstly Flak should counter all SC, regardless of if they are bombers/fighters/Interceptors. Also Interceptors will only be able to target bombers with impunity only if the bombers do not have their own fighter/Interceptor escort to get slaughtered which happens already anyway if bombers don't have fighter backup against enemy fighters. Bombers need escorts, is that something new? If you do escort them, then there is little difference with the addition of interceptors apart from now you need to tactically manage your ratios more. Which is a good thing.
Flak do more damage to fighters then bombers. Ergo they coutner fighters while fighters counter bombers, LRMs and other fighters.
No, it won't. The Interceptors will still be able to take out LRFs pretty decently, Interceptors will not be able to damage any ships larger than LRFs. Furthermore, everyone won't spam Interceptors because they can't damage large ships at all. Furthermore Fighters will still be able to defeat Interceptors in mass and if they mix in a few of their own Interceptors they will surely win.
So are you saying that they will have a 0% modifier vs caps? At the moment fighters are very low. You need 3+ fighters compared to bomber to do similar damage to a cap. If you are saying they will not have a 0% mod, then they are the same as fighters and therefore spamming them will have the same effect - they can kill a cap in sufficent numbers...
I played a game last night where I was going against [_] Tax in a 2v3 (my two allies were playing another [_] player). He had more fighters then me and had air superiority, even when I ended up with more physical carriers as I lacked the AM to replace the SC. The game was largely a stalemate with my egg leveling up under a repair cloud while I pumped out LF and LRMs and tried to kill his carriers. It wasn't his fighters that I was worried about killing my cap - it was the assailants or HCs!!! Due to tactics, I was able to last. An interceptor would not have made a difference as we would have both spammed them and ended up in the same situation...
This is a Straw Man Argument but in any event Yes, it would have helped. With interceptors included it would have ALL mattered on the ratio of Interceptors/Fighters/Bombers. If you had a higher ratio of intercepters then you would have won allowing some of your bombers to damage his carriers if you didn't you would have had to change your ratio, this is called adding tactics to the game. In this event YOU WERE BOTH CARRIER SPAMMING, in addition to letting players depend on the ratio, Interceptors would allow non-carrier spammers to use Interceptors to protect their ships. Should this not be an option?
How nice - you are now using my argument as part of your original post. I hope you gave suitable credit. I KNOW this was not there when I originally read it. The fact I wrote it as a reply is just trivial realities which should not get in the way of your calling me names!!!
Now onto your post
I'm actually in my University's Parliamentary Debate Team that competes on the APDA Northeast Circuit and in real debate you would have lost severe amount of speaker points for repeatedly dropping your opponents points multiple times and pretending catching me on a definition instead of talking about the real issues can actually win you the debate. We call you a first-year Novice - a crappy one too, one that probably never even made States in High School LD/Policy/or PFD debate.
You are 100% correct here. I didn't go to a US high school, therefore I COULD NOT make a States high school debating team. The flights alone would have been a real killer....
Everyone else, I believe actually that the Strike Craft stances actually helps more if Interceptors were in the game to enrich tactical options. With only the fighter, we still have the problem we have currently with everyone just using fighters and the only way to beat him is with more fighters.
WRONG WRONG WRONG. As has been said by many other people you can beat them with a balanced fleet
1) Caps abilities to improve your own SC or kill theirs
2) LF and HCs to target the carriers as fighters are less effective against them. Also LF has an upgrade to impact the AM needed to replace SC. And they are faster then carriers.
3) Flak can shoot them down - you just need more then 2 in your fleet
4) Your own fighters can shoot them down, or kill LRM or bombers effectively. Once they have killed their primary targets, they can work on other ones. They don't do it as well, but they will do it given enough time. Here in lies the issue with your argument. You give them infinite time to kill your ships without doing something about it
Something else that should have been asked a long time ago - how long have you been playing Sins for? How many MP games have you played? I would like to hear your street cred listed...
Oh, and finally
You called me a Judas. I am STILL waiting to explain how I betrayed you. Where is this back I am sniggering in. And by calling me a miserable hater, are you implying I am bad at it or just unhappy doing it? I await your next insult in bold and red telling me about your intellectual superiority.