Pilots of True Potential
Posted - 2008.07.07 03:33:00 - [212
I think the biggest issue with damps is less about their strength and more about their operating RANGE. It doesnt bother me how many ships an ECM spec ship can take out of the fight, thats the ecm's job, and honestly i'm fine with that, what bothers me about damps is thier range
We're looking at an ewar who's best asset in my book (and to a gall type fleet especially) is the reduction in the targets locking range, edging enemy fleets closer to Shorter range weapon platforms.
Damps need either a range increase on their own,and/or preferably, a role bonus to damp type ships of 80-100% optimal range on dampeners.
The only comparison to ECM i will make here is what i concider the switch at birth problem between these 2 modules. In my estimation an EWAR module only make the Ewar ship viable if it can somehow operate outside its effect range.
ECM which breaks the target should have had a lower range then Damps that only lower Targeting range (or targeting speed, which is generally more useful WITH ecm ships.
My example, if ECM had a total optimal operating range of 80k (double in many cases a damps optimal) will ECM suffer alot? They may be in range of more ships with ranged weapons, however breaking that lock completely puts that ecm ship outside its effect range (2k range same thing)
A dampener with the same optimal allows it to operate outside its operational range of the effect, added range only helps, Lower range as it is now, put it Inside its effects operational range, and thus voids the effect.
I really have no problem with ECM operating at its current range, although a lowering of its range could facilitate an increase in its strength, which i would be happy with aswell.
However Dampeners should operate at a comparable range, since its effect is range and is range dependant.
In closing atleast on a dampener spec'ed ship a dampeners Optimal range should be around 80-100k or better. once the range issue is fixed, all the attempts to take dampeners off non specced ships will make more sense, and i belive be complete while allowing specced ships to operate in their role.
Posted - 2008.08.14 05:11:00 - [213
Good software is as much responding to feedback as it is the result of design. By feedback I do not necessarily mean listening to us gamers whine - there are more objective metrics.
The nerfbat being applied to RSD's was sensible, because I think we all agree a "must have" module is not game enriching.
However I now note that I never see the Maulus or Celestis in game - Both these craft are of course Tech I RSD bonused. There are two possible conclusions to why. Firstly players are irational or secondly they fulfill no useful function.
It might be sensible to tweak RSD ship bonuses and then use the objective metric I refer to - count the bonused ships in play (you should have the tools to do this ?). If the numbers increase to a point where heterogeneity is increased - then you have succeded if evry Incursus Vexor is replaced by Maulus Celestis then the nerf bat needs re-applying.
I don't expect the design team to lay out their methodology for us - this is after all a game, a little mystery is fun but I think the treatment of RSDs smacks of response to whining without due regard to consequences or analysis of outcomes.
All in all a great game - I am staggered that a project of such complexity works with such a low level of crashes.