[Pax]

Originally posted by dumbluck:
All very good points, and I can't argue with any of them. Hell, I even thought of the negative maintenance=resource generation before I checked back here! And I very much like the idea of ship-specific mounts (ala mQNP). So that is the way it will go. Of coarse, now I have to dig into the mounts text file, that I don't even know the name of (tells ya how much I've played in THAT file, huh )

CompEnhancements.txt

And it shouldn't be too hard, just adapt the general format I gave an example of for the Engine-oriented mQNP mounts.

Of coarse, I was kinda fond of the crossover components that had other functions as well... Besides, it would have helped with the roleplaying... Hmmmmm... An idea is forming....

wait for it...

wait for it....

lost it. Oh well....

Here's one: just lower the % reduction for maintenance for each part. Maybe give 'em 3 levels, and make the reduction 1% per level per part. Then, even nine parts, all at level 3, is still only a 27% maintenance reduction. That's a workable range, if you go up ... um ... say 3% per ship level, in maintenance PENALY levels ... and borrow SJ's maintenance model from P&N (higher innate maintenance rates, with each ship getting a discounted rate, etc, etc).