Sal Awat
Emphatically Unaffiliated Industries
4
   |
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sigras wrote:seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?! It's not like people omni-tank or anything . . .  In fact if youre going to be stuck to one damage type, Kinetic isnt a bad way to go, it only makes you suck against T2 gallente ships which ATM are lulz terrible. Also, the nighthawk is fine, extra shield HP, extra resists, same DPS better lock range, more PG, higher sensor strength.
One of the biggest points about the missile weapon system in general is selectable damage types. That's one of their maybe two advantages over (most) guns. Take that away, and they're not nearly as good.
The nighthawk is NOT fine, either, because it's slot layout is... Why? Why does it have only five medslots? Claymore has more PG than the NH, too, as a note.[/quote]
My point is that selectable damage isnt an advantage, it makes no difference in 99% of PvP situations because even if you do find that they have a hole in a particular damage type, the extra DPS you might gain by switching to that damage type is negated by the 10 second reload time where you were doing no damage at all.
The one case where this may not be true is in large cap ship fights where the cap ships can simply refit to resist the damage type youre doing, but like I said, thats an edge case and really, if your up against that tactic, you'd better have an ace in the hole anyway.
Edit:
All that being said, yes, i agree its weird for a matari ship to have more mids than a caldari ship of the same class.[/quote]
That's a hell of an edge case mate. Especially since in that case, any sub-cap can too.
Furthermore, if its the case that there's no ADVANTAGE to selectable damage type (due to the prevalence of "Omni-tanking"), then clearly there's no harm in leaving the option open with a selectable damage friendly bonus, right?
This is a sandbox. Its a game about choices. Just because the choice "Do I change ammo types for better damage in the long run?" always comes out one way right now for some people, doesn't mean that its fine to take away or unduly penalize making that decision in the affirmative any more in one case, than another. THAT's contrary to the very essence of the sandbox.
Furthermore:
If there is no advantage to the player having a general missile damage buff for all missiles, then would it not be the case that there would be no compelling reason for unduly limiting the ammo choice of a missile boat into a single damage type vs. letting them use any?
Or if there is an advantage, and this advantage is reserved for every missile hull EXCEPT the hulls that have the greatest claim to it; then it seems there is some sort of schizophrenic design principal application going on here?
There has been a shift at lower tiers of at least loosening the restriction on selectable [damage] on the more expensive ship hulls; i'm looking at you Hookbill, and you Navy Osprey. I'm looking at the Caracal as well.
The Cerberus at least had a shade of a justification for (not that I think its terribly valid) of being too fast. I'm pretty sure the Nighthawk isn't going to zipping around the battlefield like a ninny. Which is apparently problematic with missile ships. Seems like a poorly thought out Band-Aid fix; but I'm not there to take into account all of the factors that go into the implementation decision, so I'll let that one slip by.
But this one seems Ridiculous(TM). Its a brick. The Amarr have a brick, and its fully Unpenalized Selectable OmniDamage(USOD) compatible. The Minmatar have an explosion in a girder factory, which is, alas, also USOD compatible! What's is so threatening in a line of ships with signature radii that are approaching that of a relative small moon that deserves to be consistently denied this privelege, whilst others have, to my recollection, never been restricted into a damage type in their missile use by hull bonuses? Gentlemen? Anything? Why is there not an equivalence of applied principles across the board?
I'm not trying to make personal attacks, I'm trying to get my mind around the fact the inconsistency exists. There are two contradictory lines of thought going on here, and they only seem to be getting stumbled across at certain historical times.
For Amarr/Minnie Missile boats:
Selectable damage is a splendid thing! This hull needs to be USOD friendly!
For Caldari:
Selectable damage is bad! Your enemy knowing what you will use Compelling Gameplay(TM).
I'm not so annoyed that its happening to just the Caldari either. Its the fact that two contradictory principles are being applied in two instances of the same general implementation decision, which in the end leads to making a decision FOR THE PLAYER, right in the hull.
The continued prevalence of Phoenix Syndrome is just.... irritating. Please, really THINK about this. Its a bur in the side of ALOT of quite a few people, even just going from those that actually post on the forums. Having choices is good. Having choices essentially made for you by game mechanics where precedent exists elsewhere for the type of restriction not to apply, is not so good. And I think trying to lend credence to it to the degree you are with the HAC and Command Ship rebalances while maintaining the inconsistency of application across the board does not bode well.
And +1 to where's my Eagle tracking bonus? WTB ability to hit things that are moving thank you.
Edit: Hate it when the forums eat a post. |