Re: Bigger--not always better

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
> 
> > Am I the only one who doesn't have a hatred of A batteries?

Hatred? No. They're just a bit too good compared to the other beam 
batteries.

[Snip]

> There's a downside to everything, though:
> - You have to redo nearly all designs

So? It's not hard to make new FT designs, you know. If the new designs 
mean more variation in the game - since you suddenly see more than one 
type of beam weapons, for example - I'm all for it.

No matter how FT is changed to give a better balance between weapons, 
ship classes etc old designs will have to be re-done.

> - It uses fractional units

Not a big problem IMO.

> - It screws up the balance wrt other weapons

Not "screws up". It _improves_ the balance wrt other weapons. It makes
the
Pulse Torp a bit better (the original mass 3 A battery is almost as good
(measured in damage/weapon mass) as the Pulse Torp against level-3
screens, and better against all other targets). 

As for the other weapon - well, railguns are the worst balance problem
in
the game anyway, and the efficiency of one-shot or area weapons like
Wave
Guns or Submunition packs is pretty hard to compare in this way (...how
much damage does a Wave Gun shot inflict? Depends on how many targets it
strikes...). 

> - It screws up the balance, period. (Since you can now mount typically

> less weapons, fights last longer)

I don't think "longer games" = "Worse game balance", though...

> - Do you really want to draw 41 little C's on an optimised mass 
> 100 superdreddie?

If you do, I'll be very happy blasting you to pieces with long range A 
battery fire. It'll take me a while, of course. 

Oerjan Ohlson

"Life is like a sewer.
 What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
 -Hen3ry