I think you've hit people's concerns spot on. They - nope, I'll own this one! - I find it hard to imagine a role for Capital Ships that wouldn't make them unattractive for the majority who got into this game because basically it is a solo game - (grouping is optional and flexible) or have them end up either too powerful ("I will rule the Universe") or too weak ("Capital Ship in sight - launch Fulcrum Torpedo")From post: 121207, Topic: tid=7616, author=AnFiach wrote:Bah, lost my reply.
Basically, you are forcing Cap Ships to be a certain way because it fits your argument rather than acknowledging that larger ships can be added without making them super ships. You are not alone in your hostility toward the idea which I believe is founded in fear of how they can be poorly implemented (and we all agree it would be a game breaker of done improperly). I am compelled (forgive me) by my own nature to point out the logical flaws in your argument. AA was not necessary because there is combat in EM under those rules, as is the desire to change Excals a moot point when you can play Legends to have faster reload times. Follow my logic? Don't tell someone to go play something else because they say they want to see X feature in X game.
Cap ships need escorts, in MP they need player escorts, or military frames could only be available in SP. Heck, the Navy doesn't need to offer contracts, they have their own ships..... We don't need to move product en mass? Why not? Merchants want to do whatever is cost effective and profitable and that means moving lots of product, especially for miners. Don't place restrictions on other players.
I have faith that Vice will come to the right conclusion (right for the game). Which ever position that will be, we'll have to wait and see.
An addition to the game needs to be attractive to a goodly proportion of the players or else the processing and resource overheads won't be justified.
If it's a glorified transport, who will use it?
If it's a battleship, who will it fight?
If it's a fighter carrier, who will it carry?
What about the implications for refuelling, making money and the sort of contracts it can do.
I can see why controlling such a big ship is attractive - I persevered with BattleCruiser Millenium Edition for a loooong time, but it required a whole different game to keep it provisioned, fueled and repaired
I'm not against cap ships as such, just very very worried about what they would do to the game dynamic, even with a genius like Vice at the helm!
My comment about persuading Vice to create a cap ship sandbox sim wasn't facetious or sarcastic - I am serious - Vice is very responsive and if there is a good case made for it being a commercial goer, I am sure he would consider it. Perhaps as an extension to AA, if not a game of it's own
I would have to disagree with your examples of "don't say go play something else"; excals were only changed because a majority made a very good case over a prolonged period for why the changes made would improve game play for all. I don't want faster reload, just a bit more flexibility because I think that having experienced the slower reload, as it is it went too far the other way. AA obviously was necessary because the combat rules in EM and the combat opportunities in EM didn't cut it for combat addicts - it isn't challenging enough; proof is the number of people who bought it on Day 1
So although I can't see a role for cap ships and I am worried about them upsetting the balance of the game, don't stop arguing for them - but you must be prepared to give some powerful reasons rather than just I'd like to play with one (and again, I am not saying that sarcastically - exceptional changes require exception reasons, to paraphrase the science proof addage!)
I like the current Excal reload time. It forced me to develop new tactics.
Voltron, okay. But that idea ruined Gatchaman and would probably ruin Evochron too.
