It's been three years, we've seen the results, and I'm not in favor. Ultimately things unfolded pretty much as I expected they would with combat going more quickly (not fun), newbies having less of a chance to participate and be useful (not conducive to new players learning to pvp), and a layer of strategy being completely gutted from the game.
I can't seriously be the only one who feels like the "fights take too long" argument is a holdover from 2009, can I? I can't remember the last time I was involved in a fight that lasted longer than 20 minutes, and honestly I thoroughly enjoyed the 3 hour long furballs of old. We talk and talk and talk about player retention and not having stuff to do, but then I keep hearing that people don't want to log on and get roped into a long fight. Like.. if you don't want the thing to actually go on for some time, what is the point?
I know I'm rambling and not really going point by point. I can't be bothered to anymore, so I'll just say here that if it can be coded in, b/b trading between ship classes of similar size is probably coming back. Here are some of my more passionate dissertations on the matter from back when I had the energy for it:
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid1653003
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid1653198
And a bit from Joe that I totally side with.
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid1653268
Why do nanobots still exist, and why haven't we moved them into the base hull of ships instead?
Since 2015? Don't know. Since before that? b/b trading actually added another layer of dynamism to group fights. I'm not sure what the obsession with regression to simpler mechanics is.
This will hurt new players the most as you will always target the person that dodges the worst. At least now you will often ignore newbies and go for vets because of their aim, with the bot sharing you’re essentially draining nanobots of the entire group so you go for the easiest player.
Edit: Also, how does it prolong fights? The only thing it prolongs is the first kill after which everyone starts dropping quickly because they’re low on nanobots from sharing.
[Antonio noises]
In all seriousness, Haste made the same argument. I disagree. I believe it hurt.
To be less of a dick and elaborate a little more, I'm very well aware that in theory, on paper, doing this hurts newbies and causes them to be focused more because they're bot farms.
In practice, something completely different used to be the case, and while I'm not super clear on why, I do know it was better for them. Perhaps its psychological. The idea that they're not totally helpless and on their own, that once they're dry, GG, everything is pointless. Maybe it's because people more commonly focused one target until they were dead, causing that kill to take longer, allowing them more time to participate. I'm honestly not sure.
I certainly do know that aces doing away with the honor system in favor of maximum efficiency did the server's health no favors.
Back in the day of nanobot trade there was more to picking targets. You could go for their top gunners to deny chance to shoot or go at their worse dodgers to burn nanobot supply.
Nowaday its simply targeting their best gunners first and removing them from the fight as soon as possible with no way for the opposing force to counter it but to do the same and hope to kill your top gunner first.
Id say things have been brutally simplified and as someone who usually is first target unless flying alts I don't really enjoy it much.
Downside to nanobot trading is the fact capitals can feed snubs with nanobots and that makes capitals involving themselves in snub brawls really cancerous.
What I would consider best is if cap and snub ships use different kind of nanobot so that won't happen. Then we get the extra tactics of snubs without the penalty of cap interference.
P.s. I'm throughoutly against removal of regens and having them added to hull for snubs.
(09-15-2018, 04:10 PM)Valdez's PDA Wrote: [ -> ]Downside to nanobot trading is the fact capitals can feed snubs with nanobots and that makes capitals involving themselves in snub brawls really cancerous.
As I said in the first post, it'd be hooked to disallow this from happening.
It really seems like many people are only looking at it from the perspective of pure VHF vs VHF brawling. I think it would make things interesting in a mixed fleet fight with bombers/vhfs/LFs/SHFs and gbs/cruisers sharing bots from similar sized ships, it adds an additional layer of strategic depth and might give some underused classes more utility.
(09-15-2018, 03:59 PM)Durandal Wrote: [ -> ]Since 2015? Don't know. Since before that? b/b trading actually added another layer of dynamism to group fights. I'm not sure what the obsession with regression to simpler mechanics is.
You can't be serious that constant "I trade bots to the targeted ally so I can flee to get more bots" was fine and dandy.
Yes I can.
Though I was never big on the fleeing to restock bit. I don't recall us removing cruise disruptors or making lanes unkillable though.