[JLS]

Originally posted by QBrigid:

I think the armor skipping weapons are fine as they are. My concern is the fact that Temporals or Crystallites can stack the Armor to there benifit. When the needed help that se4 v1.84 upgrade can give in this area is ignored then this is a concearn to me.

Your original post is an interesting one with players adding to your subject as it applies to Armor stacking and the less then effective means to combat Armor Skipping races when you are for example a Psychic Player.

PTF (PsychoTechFreak) mentioned concerns that the access allowed for a moder to utilize total component load options availed in v1.84 may be used too liberally at the current AIC Version. That having limitation on the way AIC Armor is currently available to the Players is just not fun. (Many Players and I agree to many aspects of PsychoTechFreak post)

Furthermore QB, you are incorperating the PTF Posts into your observation that armor skipping weapons are effective against armor and this is true; however, adding Armor load restriction is not how to defuse your dilemma. You will find in-game avenues to counter Armor Skipping weapons and you may have to look outside the Psychic tech tree for your resolution.

Originally posted by JLS:

How do AIC players feel about this. Is there any friendly advice from AIC players on Leaky Armor to be introduced as a replacement or addition for PvKs armor style?

Reply by QBrigid:
“Nope. I like the derection and Posts that you and Fyron discussed about SJ's leaky armor for UNLIMITIED internal support armor and the new AIC Exterior Hull Plating that would be LIMITED to the amount of HULLS a ship has “

If one was to say that the (scaled, Plate Armor) designed by PvK and introduced in Proportions is ABSOLUTELY THE BEST armor in the se4 pre Adamant genertation, would you believe this to be true? You must consider this when you design your Ships and bases, because it is the best and (PvKs Plate Armor) is the TUFFEST to penetrate in se4.

Originally posted by QBrigid:

What are you going to do about total mine fields. PTF suggested 500/field. That would be to much are you going to keep them at 100?

What of the robo mining values. What some has suggested is (((way))) to high. You should keep them at the present values.

Do not foget the FQM Ancient Ruins thing Oleg mentioned. Are you going to reduce the Astroids in FQM?

The WP Computers. Do they really need so many levels?

WP Computer advancement can be best answered by referring to Fyrons earlier post on that subject. “The best value is chosen when UNITS engage in combat”. Yes many levels are important as the game progresses.
- - -

Other then to make the FQM port feasible and then applying the FQM recent Version updates when time allows. I will not alter Fyron FQM MOD. Fyron does have the feel on the FQM Players pulse, also to mention Fyrons desire and ability to perform with the FQM Players wishes in mind.
This may sound rude. If a game that generates less Asteroids is desired, then choose a map option that has less Asteroids generated.

---

In regards to increased Robo-Minning efficiency numbers. AIC will continue to enjoy the modest Economic complement that Mining operations may yield; However, AIC will not become a mining operatives game, outside the benefits already enjoyed by FQM’s asteroid mining and planet conVersion contributions to se4.

- - -

With respect to total Mines placed in a minefield. AIC will follow Tampa Bay Gamers advice that will limit all Players to 50 mines per sector field. With this direction AIC will be able to reduce the AI Players anti-mine abilities. Based on SJ's advice, the over all reduced effectiveness of the v4.11 Minesweeper Component will be applied for a 50/fld balance.

[ May 06, 2004, 16:41: Message edited by: JLS ]