teamwork ideal

[Slawkenbergius]

My reading of Slawkenbergius' post is that because you can't even opt out of combat, the test for lobbying Frontier is whether it makes the game better for everyone - from those that put up with combat to those that want nothing but to be the most powerful combatant in the galaxy.

You pretty much got it, though I wouldn't go as far as to say everyone. It's subjective as to what system you'd prefer, so to a certain extent majority rules, though as your post implies, to a much greater extent Frontier and David Braben rule.

OK, so if there exists *any* benefit to groups by individuals specialising in specific weapon types or ship types then you'd be unhappy with that as a design? I think it would be a tall order for the developers to make such a symmetric (and probably boring) game.

No. I don't believe that you can take a general concept like that, and say that if it applies here, then it must apply everywhere. To me, that's just rhetoric, and I'm not really one to go in for that. Specifically I don't like healing, and I already feel like there may be too many shield buffs available in the game.

As part of the design, you've got auto-healing already, plus you can buy more expensive shields, and extra shield generator modules, and a shield cell bank... I'm concerned that it will be quite tedious to get through shields as it is, though playtesting will probably sort that out fairly quickly. Adding shield-boosting would only aggravate the problem for me, in a way that specialising in weapons (effectively speeding up the tempo of battles) doesn't.

 

[JohnStabler]

You pretty much got it, though I wouldn't go as far as to say everyone. It's subjective as to what system you'd prefer, so to a certain extent majority rules, though as your post implies, to a much greater extent Frontier and David Braben rule.



No. I don't believe that you can take a general concept like that, and say that if it applies here, then it must apply everywhere. To me, that's just rhetoric, and I'm not really one to go in for that. Specifically I don't like healing, and I already feel like there may be too many shield buffs available in the game.

As part of the design, you've got auto-healing already, plus you can buy more expensive shields, and extra shield generator modules, and a shield cell bank... I'm concerned that it will be quite tedious to get through shields as it is, though playtesting will probably sort that out fairly quickly. Adding shield-boosting would only aggravate the problem for me, in a way that specialising in weapons (effectively speeding up the tempo of battles) doesn't.

I wasn't appealing to a general concept, but the consequences of it, just as you were appealing to them i.e. players will be "forced" to specialise. There's nothing wrong in using analogies to highlight inconsistencies in arguments.

If it's the case of just special pleading for shields then at least admit it. If you just don't like shields then feel free to say so, but there's no reason to come up with some ad hoc rationalisation for it (because that would be rhetorical).

 

[Slawkenbergius]

I wasn't appealing to a general concept, but the consequences of it, just as you were appealing to them i.e. players will be "forced" to specialise. There's nothing wrong in using analogies to highlight inconsistencies in arguments.

If it's the case of just special pleading for shields then at least admit it. If you just don't like shields then feel free to say so, but there's no reason to come up with some ad hoc rationalisation for it (because that would be rhetorical).

Frankly, I'm not going to engage in rhetoric. If you want to argue the point, fine, but if you're going to argue the argument, I can't be bothered.

In the way you view the argument, yes I'm 'pleading' a special case for shields. However, I don't share your view of the argument.