James Zimmer
House of Pain Inc.
0
   |
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
As a fairly new player, I can easily see that a lot of this is focused on helping out us newbs, so I'd like to give my opinion:
1. Simpling naming conventions is generally a good thing. It's annoying to have to go to the compare tool every time I want to buy a module to figure out which one is best for my purposes. For example "Arbalest" doesn't tell me anything, and I would much prefer if I at least had a clue as to what distinguished the module by the name. That being said, if EVERYTHING in the game gets standardized, I think it will feel extremely dull. Maybe a better way to standardize it would be by module class. For example, long range artillery and autocannons could be called "extended barrel" modules while long range rockets and missiles could be called "long-burn" modules. You could also add a more stylized name to distinguish between T1 and T2 for each module class, as that would be easy to remember and make it feel a little less dull. For example you could have your long range T2 light missile launcher named something like this "Arbalest (tier) Long-Burn (specialty) Light Missile Launcher (module type)"
2. I like the idea of making modules specialized into different focus areas. It will give more variety to fits and allow players to specialize to what they want to do. It essentially allows you to enhance a trait without a stacking penalty. However, I think there are some weaknesses to how it is being implemented. The differences between the two Meta 1 missile launchers for example, is minuscule. I have to worry about it on the fitting screen, but after that, the first time it makes a difference is when the "Compact Light Missile Launcher" reloads, 9 minutes into the fight (assuming 0 skills and no overheat). My purchasing decision will be very simple: If I need the extra powergrid and CPU, I will go with the "Compact" version. If not, I will go with the cheapest available, because it really doesn't matter. More meaningful differences would be long-range with lower rate of fire vs. shorter range and higher rate of fire and maybe higher fitting requirements. I'm not talking about duplicating rockets, but I think it would be interesting to have to make the decision of whether you want a 20-25 km rapid fire light missile destroyer, or a 40+ km slow fire light missile destroyer (this may also require a buff to rocket launchers, so they remain a viable option).
3. I think it would be interesting to have these options continue into tier 2 modules rather than the single tier 2 module that's simply better at everything. |