As for the dual boxing argument, is that exploit widely in use with current repair limpets? If no, I highly doubt ammo restock limpets would really be any different. Dual boxing to get that extra pip from the multicrew has been demonstrated, but I'm doubtful that anyone seriously bothers to do that on regular basis either.
Feature Idea: Ammunition Restock Limpets / Ammo Stock Module
- Thread starter sandkid
- Start date
You got me - synthesis is apparently for reloads as described by the game.
Turns out mining lasers are for mining, too...yet nobody uses them if they're trying to improve their style of gameplay.
Turns out we have chaff launchers and point defense...so we don't need mines or other defensive countermeasures.
You'll love this one: lasers can do damage! And don't need ammunition! We don't need multicannons or gauss cannons or railguns or other weapons - we don't need them, we already have lasers. Where were you when some idiot proposed a new weapon type!? What were you thinking!? We don't need that. What a waste of developer resources. Clearly the forum community failed in its duty to screen useless and unneeded feature ideas like these and many others. Elite is clearly worse off with SLFs, new enemy types like Thargoid Scouts, new ships, and foolish new textures and graphics.
Still doesn't account for the fact the mechanic doesn't exist for wing usage.
Nor that it is hardly exploitable when compared to already existing features of similar scope.
Nor that 'not needed' is a lame excuse when there are many 'not needed' features that have been added and are planned to be added.
I have to be honest here, I've never understood why people target feature suggestions that add to the game - I mean, if it created bad balance (such as synthesis ammo boosting does and engineering), I get it. That's why shifting stuff around for Power Play is so touchy...you're screwing with folk's existing gameplay. But new features?
It's not like I'm proposing the removal of synthesis, or even its obsoleting. I'm proposing an alternative approach geared towards wing gameplay for reloading and ammunition longevity. Any feature that incorporates wing gameplay (like the existing support limpets or engineering modifications) inherently affects single-player play, but none of the existing (or proposed feature here) affect it negatively.
I get where you're going with this - and full disclosure, I'm a big fan of 'the trinity' in gameplay design. That said, it's important to remember what Elite is and is not:
Elite: Dangerous is principally a Space Flight Simulator
All of its features, from Power Play to Thargoids, missions to mining, are designed with the simulator - the piloting of a starship and using its capabilities - at the center. This is why building wing gameplay mechanics or Squadron mechanics can be tricky: creating a Squadron UI for the purposes of communication and team building has nothing to do with flying a spaceship. Yet if we get hung up on that fact, we'd not have much of a multiplayer game.
Relative to 'the trinity', building that into a flight simulator is doable but requires great care in balancing. Suppose this feature is implemented:
- We can now refuel, rearm, and almost entirely repair a fellow ship in distress or need
- For the most part, we can do this for ourselves, too (refuel requiring preparation or a fuel scoop - a true 'distress' scenario and you're SoL)
Traditionally, Elite has been built with solo commanders in mind first - Elite: Dangerous is a departure from that model. One of the greatest hurdles for Frontier as they develop this game is keeping that crowd in mind. Fleet Carriers make no sense to a solo commander and would, at best, represent an ornamental achievement. The same goes for squadrons and multi-crew, as well as the supporting limpet controllers. It doesn't make any logical sense, but I still wonder if Repair Limpets shouldn't be usable on yourself for the sake of building up that support role in a multiplayer game.
I don't want to see Elite move in a direction where the 'trinity' is necessary to complete certain aspects of gameplay, but it bears mentioning we have technically already paved the road there: Thargoid Interceptors are not balanced for solo commanders. Can they be solo'd? Of course, with great care and skill. But they are principally designed with multiplayer in mind - team work. Same goes for the support limpets, SLFs, and other multi-crew designated features. Can you use ECM as a solo commander? Yes, absolutely - but a gunner can use it much more effectively as they can focus on defense while you focus on piloting.
So I say all that to say this: I think the trinity has a place in Elite, but that place is very minor and serves more as a tactical option for team building rather than a tactical necessity for goal completion. Until we see major features implemented (like fleet carriers or squadron wars or what have you) that are multiplayer oriented, it's hard to say what the future of this iteration of Elite looks like beyond the flight sim. Until then, every feature I propose (or provide discourse on) is viewed from the lens of 'how does this benefit the flight simulator'...because that's what Elite is.
I suppose I should clarify my thinking on this. I am not suggesting that Elite adopt a trinity model. I am suggesting that game designers that are thoughtful about pve and pvp combat make a sincere effort to balance buffs, debuffs, heals, dots, etc. I don't think FDEV really have a handle on this relative to so many mmos and single player rpgs. The vast imbalances and lack of debuff clearance mechanics point to this. The huge swings in engineered modules, their functions and crafting costs point to this as well. Patching new modules into this system will always have unintended consequences, and the community essentially serves as alpha testers both through beta and live builds.
As a side note, it is interesting to see that Thargoid scouts seem to follow trinity models with berserkers, healers and marauders. This creates a very mild prioritization in scout kill sequencing (kill that healer first bro), but there is no apparent ai flight alterations between the variants (they don't appear to protect the Regen scouts).
I hope they hire more than an srv ai programmer for ED2.0.
Not entirely true - when implementing any change to any product, you ideally need to consider how it may affect the existing product. Providing FD do not allow the mechanic to allow existing synthesised ammo benefits to persist when the rearm effect is applied and limit how the rearm affect is applied there is little or no risk of the "power creep" you seem to be scared of.
FD already have synthesis as a benchmark for the end-effect, thus it should be relatively easy to mitigate any power creep concerns.
The Thargoids are apparently a form of insectoid race with seemingly bio-engineered ships thus having focused roles for specific Thargoid instances along the lines you mentioned is not entirely surprising nor is their general tactics - Just think about Ants and Bees/Wasps.
I'm not. I'm using it as an example of comprehensive thinking about adding modules/weapons/skills. This game is too old to have a deep theorycrafted purposeful rework of those elements. I take your point and will retire from this thread though - I don't want to derail it.
Ah, I see - so, more of a general discourse on how poorly balanced certain features in Elite are at the moment. I can agree with that for the most part. Overall, I think engineering is a neat idea and I don't oppose it creating large gains on 'stock modules'. I think the a lot of the issue of engineering (and balancing of effects vs mitigation) is along the lines you've already said: Frontier isn't critically thinking about balance (especially not in PvP) and basically using the playerbase as a guinea pigs, which tends to light more fires than put out the ones started by poor balancing...lol