Affinity wrote:
I don't find them dumb or flat.....I'd say there's just enough level of complexity. Missiles act very very differently from beam, and beam from kinetics. Missiles fire first, and do a lot of damage, but flak is the most efficient defense. Beams are a great all around weapon, but have the lowest damage potential. Kinetics are hard to use, because they are effective only in melee, but they are difficult to defend against and can do massive damage. I think these differences are great, and with the retrofit mechanic large scale fleet engagements can become very interesting. These proposed changes would flatten most of these very unique characteristics for each weapon type



I don't know why they want to change all the weapons to the same damage formula.....it will make it easier to understand but much much much more boring. Not to mention giving the range option for all weapon types would simply make there be virtually no difference between the weapon types. The ONLY difference would be which defense type counters each weapon. So actually, I feel like these changes would actually make the game MORE flat, whereas now there are interesting, subtle mechanics to the weapon types that you can exploit.

Nasarog wrote:
I kinda of agree with you. Igncom1 is right too. I wish they'd keep the way it works now, only modify it.

Foraven wrote:
I don't share that view. The current gameplay only make us fiddle with the ratio of each weapon and defense types, the range of what we can really do with our designs is rather limited. I'm thrilled with the idea that each weapon types may have long, medium and short ranged versions; that way we will be able to focus on 1 or 2 weapon research and not be forced to have all 3. I like to have more toys to try...

kgptzac wrote:
All looks good except the instant kill module. I think it's against common sense to have a piece of game mechanic to allow instant kill.

Foraven wrote:
I don't share that view. The current gameplay only make us fiddle with the ratio of each weapon and defense types, the range of what we can really do with our designs is rather limited. I'm thrilled with the idea that each weapon types may have long, medium and short ranged versions; that way we will be able to focus on 1 or 2 weapon research and not be forced to have all 3. I like to have more toys to try...

Foraven wrote:
I don't share that view. The current gameplay only make us fiddle with the ratio of each weapon and defense types, the range of what we can really do with our designs is rather limited. I'm thrilled with the idea that each weapon types may have long, medium and short ranged versions; that way we will be able to focus on 1 or 2 weapon research and not be forced to have all 3. I like to have more toys to try...

Nasarog wrote:
Well, if each weapon type has 3 versions to it, then they would have to program the A.I. to contend with 9 possible variables vs. the current 3.

whosdriving wrote:
I think we are going to need to be able to have more ship designs. i mean i run out as it is, with all these extra options we are definetly going to need more than 10 slots

Igncom1 wrote:
Indeed, the ability to expand out the ship types box to include a vast amount of space for various ship designs and ones seen to be used by your enemy's would be cool.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
We will definitely need more than 10 slots.



Perhaps if they add boarding to the game, than, like Igncom said, there could be slots for where an enemy design would go if you had taken control of it.

Prof._von_Calamity wrote:
I strongly agree with all three of you. Even at present, the hard cap of only 10 concurrent designs is a problem; there is no need for it to be so arbitrarily limited, and the lack of a greater scope does harm to player choice. With the expansion, it's going to be "problem-squared" if the cap is not raised by a significant amount (e.g., 21 or more; each row in the Available Ship Designs box is wide enough for 7 designs). Heck, the UI already has a nonfunctional vertical scrollbar for that box; let's make it work, shall we?

Meedoc wrote:


Rational

.

The_Doctor wrote:
Great stuff, but all I can say (AGAIN, since beta and release and for ages now ) is:



Please[/size] give us the ability to have more than the measly 10 ship designs at once! What with new special slots, fighters and bombers and invasion options coming, there's no way a measly 10 designs is going to be sensible - and to be honest, it should never have been limited like this in the first place.





Come on, there are scroll-bars in all the menus (ship designs, build bar, build queue, fleets) so the size of the list isn't an issue, but to be artificially limited to 10 ship designs at once is a real pain for the more creative amongst us who wish to have specialised ships and fleets of differing compositions. I suspect all you need to do is edit a game setting (that sadly isn't in the XML, even though the localisation references it for the 'maximum designs reached' message) that will uncap it from 10.[/QUOTE]





Igncom1 brought this up earlier. I agree, 150% lol



I have trouble as it is with 10 slots, Because I have 4 strategy types of ships that I use.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Igncom1 brought this up earlier. I agree, 150% lol



I have trouble as it is with 10 slots, Because I have 4 strategy types of ships that I use.

iblise wrote:
Mod away, simple matter of changing 10 to whatever number you desire

Meedoc wrote:
Defense Property



TYPE: Kinetic, Laser or Missile

LEVEL: 1, 2 or 3

DEFENSE: Defense level of the module

EVADE: Certain modules have a negative evasion score because they make the ship heavier.

WEIGHT: Tonnage used by the module

COST : Industry cost of the module

Esperologist wrote:
Wait... Evade is reduced by particularly heavy modules... so that means the module has a high Tonnage... so why not just make Evade dependent on Weight?