The funny thing is that the same people who gave you a thumbs up are the same people saying any change would throw off the balance and completely ruin the game. Because if a slight change that would give a slight boost to combat ships in non-combat jobs would be as catastrophic as they claim, adding any new ships would do that 10 fold.
More optional options allowed in "military" compartments. Please.
- Thread starter Saint Ajora
- Start date
- Status
Point missed I feel.
For someone being very pedantic about the meaning of what a multi-role ship is, and then making making up what you think I wrote into a quote, s quite telling about how weak your arguments are... you have still not shown why your tossed together builkds would make much sense. or why the marjority of players would every use any of those builds of yours, since there are already several better ships to choose from for any of those activities.
Since about the bottom of page 1, actually.
I mean, i also think that a new ship, without new gameplay loops attached, does not add much more to the game. It would merely either be "the odd thing you could use, but you already have something better" or would replace an existing ship for the job. But at least it would not, like the suggestion of this thread, try to unify all ships to be even more similar.
So really, what the game needs are new things to do. New gameplay mechanics, which make other ships interesting choices to use.
And of course: a massive nerf of engineering. Which btw. would also strongly reduce the need of the military modules discussed here. It's not the base modules which made these changes necessary, but how much engineering you could stack up in multi-role ships (as defined by the game, not by a random definition picked somewhere else) and how much that has put them ahead of dedicated combat ships. But it might be asking too much to consider this for somebody not knowing and not caring for how things happened in the game and how we arrived at what we have now.
[Edit: And i just realize, you could see this as an attack at you, Serra, as i am quoting you. Let me assure you, i do not refer to you with the last statement. ]
Not at all, mate. All good points.Since about the bottom of page 1, actually.
I mean, i also think that a new ship, without new gameplay loops attached, does not add much more to the game. It would merely either be "the odd thing you could use, but you already have something better" or would replace an existing ship for the job. But at least it would not, like the suggestion of this thread, try to unify all ships to be even more similar.
So really, what the game needs are new things to do. New gameplay mechanics, which make other ships interesting choices to use.
And of course: a massive nerf of engineering. Which btw. would also strongly reduce the need of the military modules discussed here. It's not the base modules which made these changes necessary, but how much engineering you could stack up in multi-role ships (as defined by the game, not by a random definition picked somewhere else) and how much that has put them ahead of dedicated combat ships. But it might be asking too much to consider this for somebody not knowing and not caring for how things happened in the game and how we arrived at what we have now.
[Edit: And i just realize, you could see this as an attack at you, Serra, as i am quoting you. Let me assure you, i do not refer to you with the last statement. ]
I'm not being pedantic about it, I'm reciting the very definition of it.
One could also look at what I "quoted as a conversation between 2 different people. Again a little bit of critical thinking goes a long way. Those 5 ships as I said before were simply off the top of my head and not prime examples in anyway shape or form like you are claiming I said they are.
People would use builds SIMILIAR to those for the exact same reason others on your side have already outlined. "If some likes a ship they will find a use for it."
Bottom line is all of you have 0 arguments against this change other than fear and that shows with every comment. What you all can't seem to grasp is that I really don't have a pony in this race. 1 maybe 2 of my ships will change. I don't really benefit from this even if it were implemented.
Last edited:
Not really but sure, more is generally better.
Engineering is fine, maybe stronger debuffs other than +5% more mass for +60% increased output. That has always seemed a bit unbalanced to me. Definitely not a "massive" nerf though.
Like I said, pedantic, and obvious very selective when that is applied, when it suits your made up arguments, you go all out on illogical argumentations, that just about any sensible person would realise, hey, that is does not really make sense in this setting.
So you have no ponies in this race, and yet, here you are, posting one post after another, making up new panic argument,s that does not make sense. and you are the one who has nothign at stake here. That is the most pathetic excuse ever for making asuggestion that you can't give any good arguments why it would be a good change. I asked for 5 ships that would see a noticeably improvement to do things compared to today, and we basically got nothing, 5 builds where proiduced and they where basically all rubbish, for there are so many other ships that would do those tasks better. and here you are, saying that this would only affect 1-2 of YOUR ships... and you have no stake in this... cry me a river of pettiness, but this suggestion is bad, OBJECTIVELY BAD. anyone with working critical thinking can see that, they only neeed to read your replies to realise that this is a change not worth spending time on.
Last edited:
Only illogical to those who cannot see reason or think logically. And if you REALLY want to talk about who is being pedantic who was the one who got upset because they were SLIGHLY misquoted then went on to actually misquote themselves just now? The phrase you are referring to meant the same exact same thing and yet you accuse me of being pedantic.
Yeah, it's almost like I see a problem that needs to be addressed and not only speak up because it effects me negatively. I have given plenty of good reasons you just refuse to understand them and/or simply want to be combative. You asked for 5 examples, not 5 NOTABLE examples.
Which I did and you simply proved me right by saying they weren't game breaking at all. I even said they were off the top of my head. So thank you for proving me correct again.
Care to continue this fight or are you going to concede like the others who I got to contradict themselves in this post?
Last edited:
Or maybe it's you who refuse to understand the position of the players opposed to this suggestion, this is now 10 pages, you haven't had very many payers come out in support of your suggestion but plenty in opposition, so maybe you are wrong and they are right?
I don't think "the others" conceded. Nobody likes to talk to deaf ears...
(borked)
Last edited:
That's actually laughable. Or maybe it's the fact that NOBODY has given a valid excuse against it. It has been 100% fear of change.
Just curious, how much of that "opposition" has directly contradicted themselves? Kinda completely negates them being opposition.
Let's take a little more of a dive on this comment....
Just because a lot of people SAY something, means it right/correct. Is that what you are saying?
Not on its own. It's the fact that most of them tore your proposal into tiny little pieces that's the main reason.
If a hundred people just say you're wrong, who knows who's right. If a hundred people come along with very detailed arguments for why you're wrong, then maybe you should at least reconsider your style of argument and whether it's productive.
Thus far, your argument has primarily been couched in semantics(IE, what qualifies as 'military'), which is always going to make it difficult to conclusively 'win'.
The biggest issue you face, I believe, is the fact that many ships that have military slots are already quite powerful, and on the whole well balanced. You're basically arguing to buff these ships, which isn't ever going to be accepted.
If you had focused on the ships that really NEEDED it, you may have seen a a bit less opposition, but probably less attention, too, as most people don't really care if the dropship or beluga is underpowered.
Plenty of people have presented valid arguments against it, it's just that you aren't prepared to admit they are valid arguments, and no they haven't contradicted themselves, you seem to be reading a lot into responses that isn't actually there in support of a position that few other payers agree with. The fact that you start thowing around emotional gotchas like "laughable" tells us a lot. And no, no-one here is afraid of change, but change needs to make sense and not just be made for a single players misguided personal desires and demands!
This. I have a wall in my flat, which has superior understanding and conversation skills to what i experience from one person in this thread.
Don't forget to also use an arbitraty definition of "multi-role", instead of how it's defined in the thread. But in the end, you are completely right. I mean, when i look at things, the OP wants to put fuel tanks, AFRM, cargo racks and the fuel scoop into the military slots. Now let me see: SLFs for me seem to be a military tool. The scorpion SRV seems to be a military vehicle. The military might want to transport troops, so passenger modules also clearly are military tools. The military might have the need to repair damaged ships or recover cargo, so limpet controllers are also military equipment. The military might need information on a a planet they attack, so the detailed surface scanner clearly is military equipment.
Taking this logic to the end, soldiers need to eat and drink, so forks, spoons, potatoes and water are military equipment, right?
It is true that the games definition of "military modules" is weak. They were not selected due to RL logic, but to fix a balancing problem, without turning combat ships into "just another multi-role ship with more hull hardness or a few more hardpoints". The game design reasoning behind it is solid enough. So as long as no essential other parts, especially the root cause for this design decission, is being changed, this suggestion does not improve the game at all. It will merely weaken the profile of a number of ships, without adding something of adequate value.
Of course, the core of the issue, as so often, is engineering. Before engineers came around, nobody cared for multi-role ships (* ) stacking up some more HRPs. Thanks to combat ships generally having higher hull hardness, multi-role ships ( * ) were merely able to get close to the combat ships survivability in old times. This all changed with engineers and resist stacking. A multi-role ship ( * ) can easily use a number of its smaller compartments to stack up resists, resulting in much better damage mitigation. Which for some time resulted in most combat ships collecting dust. The noticeable exception of course being the FLD, which has more utility slots than most other medium ships (the Mamba came later) and thus was able to stack up so much resists and survivability on the shields. Now take a look at what we got and notice in surprise: the FDL at that time was the one combat ship which did not get these new module slots. [The addition on military slots on the Anaconda still is puzzling. It's an odditiy, it does not really make sense from a balancing point of view, but at least it was merely a few modules with the given limitation. I guess we just have to live with this ship being the true love of somebody on the team, resulting in it getting miracle upgrades, having a negative mass hull, etc. ]
So yes, in terms of RL-logic, the current implementation might not be perfect. But in terms of game mechanics, it improved things a lot. And the proposed change here might boost some ships, but also would hurt others a lot. We would pay a huge price for a rather small gain. It's just not a good trade and i would not want anything like this to happen. (The only way the given suggestion could ever make sense was, if engineering effects would be MASSIVELY nerfed. Until that happens such a change would just do more damage than it could ever help. )
*: As defined by the game, not a random definition picked from a source at own preference.
Last edited:
Yeap, no point to talk about it if the OP, completely disregarding any other opinion, still thinks unlocking military slots would be a good think.
So no, i did not concede.
Military slots should keep their current restrictions (at worst, they should be removed altogether before any thought to unlock them should arise)
IMO - military stuff (hrp, mrp, scb) should be allowed ONLY in military slots - eventually adding military slots to other ships if needed.
But having a Conda or a Corvette filled with hrp, mrp and scb seems a bit weird. As well as having a 3k shields FDL sporting 2SCB for some extra more shielding.
Yup. This one.
- Status