[geoschmo]

This whole discussion just points up the complexity behind any little change. Everything affects everything else, and so on.

The engine damaging weapons were a powerful wepon. But, IMHO, not overpowering <b>UNTIL</b> the previous patch made weapons unable to fire once supply was gone.

This a seemingly minor change that was well and truely requested by a large number of people for various reasons. But it had the unintended consequence of making the Engine Destroying weapons very close to being an "Uber-Weapon".

Most people put no supply components on attack ships, prefering to concentrate thouse on support ships that will stay out of the way during combat. Because of this the ships supply is dependant on the supply capacity of the engines.

Before that change knocking out the engines meant the enemy was dead-in-the-water. Now they were just <b>DEAD</b>, cause they had no capability to fire back as well as not being able to move.

Plus, it was noticed that the other "Only" type components were not able to skip shields the way the engine only ones were.

You start out just trying to change one little thing that most people agree needs changed, and you end up cascading problems into other areas.

It's a very delicate process. I doubt we have seen the end of the changes in these areas. It will take some time to reach an equilibrium. Remember the early patch changes to Seekers/PDC? It seemed like every patch changed one or the other, or both.

My favorite part of taking away the shield skipping ability of the engine targetting weapons though is that it gives more incentive to use shileds. Shields were becomeing a bit out of vouge in the PBW games I have been playing lately. People don't bother because as soon as they put them on the other guy comes in with engine destroyers. This keeps that little factor in the air longer. It should result in more variety in ship design, which is what most people say they want to see.

Geoschmo

[ May 23, 2002, 20:35: Message edited by: geoschmo ]