Engineers was a mistake. They shouldn't be this catch-all bandaid to problems that haven't actually been resolved. It'd just be heading deeper down the rabbit hole that Engineers is.
__
It'd be more like sitting in a station and seeing 20+ variations of the Sidewinder, all supposedly from different years and makers, that all still look so similar that they might as well just be the same exact ship.
Personally, as Sylveria said, if I were out at Beagle Point with an Anaconda at the time of such a change, I'd embrace and live with it.
CMDRs have been making it to beagle point since before Engineers, remember? Including with Type-9s. It's more than possible to reach such locations (let alone 99.99% of the galaxy) without any Engineering.
Nobody with an Anaconda is going to have any real problems, except for an extreme few who intentionally seek out star systems out on the very fringe (so maybe 1% of 1% of 1% of explorers out there), and support can quite easily help such CMDRs out.
It would not be a big problem in the end at all. I guarantee, if it were to happen, the biggest complaint would be about how it takes longer to jump across the galaxy again, and even that argument would be invalid in the face of the Diamondback/Asp Explorer.
__
Sorta off-topic, but that's a myth. People have since taken video/screenshots of the Challenger landing gear, it folds and retracts into quite a small space underneath the rest of the engine pod. You can observe it for yourself. Sure, it's still kind of an odd design choice, but fact is Fdev *did* pay attention to these details when making the ship.
Just wish they had that same eye for consistent detail where balancing numbers is concerned.
__
You'll never encounter such a situation. Even if you're the 1% of the 1% of the 1% that goes to the very outer rim systems in the galaxy (which are *much* further out than Beagle Point is, since Beagle Point was reached by non-engineered ships like the Type 9), support *will* help you out.
I really wish that intentionally blowing oneself up wasn't treated by so many players as this short-cut to teleport across the galaxy, that kind of thing ruins so many people's perspectives...not that I have a good alternative in mind as of right now.
__
Not true, balance is not something that applies to only combat - far from it. It's true that most games just don't prioritize it though.
Okay, you can stop this antagonistic attitude right now. Players seeking to do their best at a game is not a bad thing, and it's only to be expected. Trying to shame, namecall, and divisely look down on people for doing their best is wrong.
The only way it'd be reiterating the existing problem is if it's done willy-nilly without establishing some sort of formula to follow, something that takes all the necessary variables and accounts for them accordingly. 'Uniqueness' will occur naturally, because all those variables can then be tweaked to one's liking. 'Physics' only matters insofar as consistency, and has little to do with 'uniqueness'. As for your perspective on internal space, sure, that can be improved too. I myself don't feel like size vs mass of modules is consistent or even believable much at all, there's no reason that can't be improved.
__
That's being more than a little disingenuous....
Okay, full stop. Blizzard hasn't ever TRIED to get this right.
Blizzard knows what they do best: making games look and feel pretty while telling a good story or two. They are *wizards* of their craft when it comes to that, they are VERY good at it; their creative departments are top-notch.
However, as can be observed with any of their games, they take a very laissez faire approach to balance. "If it feels cool and looks cool then it is cool" is about as far as they take tinkering with design and numbers. Sure, they pay lip service and show some attention to tweaking things around, but there's no formulaic approach to it and not even *close* to being done with any kind of scientific method.
There's every opportunity for Frontier to be different and prove themselves superior to Blizzard in this department.
Frontier =/= Blizzard. Just because 1 company doesn't get it right doesn't mean any other company can't.
I and many others besides Sylveria disagree directly about the Anaconda, and I in particular disagree with saying "nothing that matters" or that it's a 'personal axe to grind'. That's not a very compelling argument, you know?
The only reason to go any bigger than Anaconda is if you want more cargo space and thus to stay out for longer; having the most optional internal slots still makes it the most ideal for a task that requires lots of different optional internal slots.
It'd be fairer to call them fact-based opinions, but continue....
Who said the Anaconda was OP?
That's the point. It is a good choice for most things, there's not many compelling reasons to use a different ship. The mass thing is what takes it just a little too far.
Uh, doesn't this fly in the face of what you just said about the Anaconda being a 'solid ship choice for anything'? If you don't want homogenization, then you've got everything to gain by a balance update that applies consistent rules to *all* ships. Note that nothing about such a pass means giving all ships the same values, Fdev can tweak any and all variables to their liking to achieve the desired design vision they have for each of their ships. But they *ought* to be consistent and sensible about it.
Only if you take the Blizzard approach to balancing things, that is, just doing it by "feel" and not doing the numbercrunching work, which is admittedly a time-consuming task without an established consistent base.
Guess what - Blizzard is not perfect nor The Almighty. They are not even all that great, in my eyes, though I've enjoyed their single-player/PvE experiences quite a bit. I think you're placing way too much stock in their success and aren't looking at the whole picture there, there's a whole lotta flaws going on where Blizzard is concerned.
Not that you're alone, I think there's way too many game developers around the gaming world as a whole that look at other successful developers and, rather than do their own thing and seek to do the best they can at a given ideal, just copy what's already been done and take the same approaches. It's a real darn shame, if you ask me.
It's not about OCD, there's that disingenuity again.
The game is pretty good as-is, that is true. But it can be better and there's no reason to try obstructing it being improved upon.
One of DE's biggest mistakes with Warframe, and one of the most common complaints I see from its players, is that they don't improve upon what they've built so far - they keep moving on and piling on more quantity instead of working on the quality. To an extent, it's worked, but it's also starting to snowball with how many glaring flaws, inconsistencies, and jarring disjointedness there really is with the game.
Just like in Elite, their "PvP" mode is a joke that goes ignored by at least 99% of the community. And just like in Elite, any semblance of balance is made an even worse joke because of their modding system - Engineers is pretty bad, but boy howdy is Warframe's modding system hundreds of times worse.
I guarantee, if DE did not take their innovative approach to being an independent F2P game with freely tradeable 'premium' currency, there's no chance Warframe would enjoy its current popularity, because the quality is just not there.
And I'm personally quite scared that Fdev's already been trapping themselves with the same mindset.
I can't rep you right now, but it's my mission to change that ASAP. This post is the essence of logic.
