Vote: Nanobots Dillema

[Highland Laddie]

Hullpoints each nanobot repairs is considerably increased, and nanobot capacity of all the ships is relatively decreased?

Can a player still repair their hull 3-5 full times (or more), but just require fewer bots now? If that is true...I don't really see what you've changed, aside from making Bots more efficient.

You'd probably want to decrease the amount of Bots that ships carry so that they can't repair more than 3x over, and I would also couple that with making Bots more expensive. Maybe buff their price by 4x or more?

I'm up for trying something different with it, though.

[Kazinsal]

Hullpoints each nanobot repairs is considerably increased, and nanobot capacity of all the ships is relatively decreased?

Can a player still repair their hull 3-5 full times (or more), but just require fewer bots now? If that is true...I don't really see what you've changed, aside from making Bots more efficient.

You'd probably want to decrease the amount of Bots that ships carry so that they can't repair more than 3x over, and I would also couple that with making Bots more expensive. Maybe buff their price by 4x or more?

I'm up for trying something different with it, though.

Your total effective repair stays the same, but the amount healed per nanobot is increased to balance efficiency and risk/reward.

---

Retired, permanently.

[bloogaL]

In practice, this would result in pilots having to pick between the risk of getting insta-killed by a mine

The concept is cool, but this wouldn't be. Mines are way too easy to use for them to be balanced instakill weapons on any VHFs. On top of that, if you change things so that someone is either going to drain themselves too quickly, or risk dying to a nuke, they're just going to shield run to negate the risk of dying to a nuke. That's no fun for anyone.

[Divine]

How this will be balanced the way of snub-repairs against capital class ships?
The way it is now, I can take a hit or two, repair that up and move on without the capital actually having seriously interrupted the fight that might have been going on snub vs snub.
With that change, a capital ship has yet another point on the list favouring it against fighting snubs.
It's bad already as it is. Don't make it even worse.

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=151485
Time left: (Permanent)

[Rodent]

In practice, this would result in pilots having to pick between the risk of getting insta-killed by a mine

The concept is cool, but this wouldn't be. Mines are way too easy to use for them to be balanced instakill weapons on any VHFs. On top of that, if you change things so that someone is either going to drain themselves too quickly, or risk dying to a nuke, they're just going to shield run to negate the risk of dying to a nuke. That's no fun for anyone.

You could argue that luck should be a factor in fights. I understand that you want to emphasise skill, but I find that sometimes getting lucky can be fun. Makes things unpredictable.

Voted in support.

[t0l]

What about shield batteries?

---

[Enkidu]

Completely for it; encouraging skillcurves is always a positive trend.

---

THE SYNDIC LEAGUES
(A co-operative of Rheinland's outlawed trade unions, determined to take the underworld for themselves.)

Information | Recruitment | Message Dump |
Feedback | Diplomatic channel

(Links pending redevelopment).

[Sath]

Unpredictable victories can be fun.Like the snub fight is pretty much decided as to who will win well in advance before the fight actually ends.But due to this change,if both the parties involved use the bots efficiently(sometimes they can be unlucky) the one who would actually seem to lose on paper,might surprise the opponent,with a nuke,here or there.

This surprise victories have existed even before,but with this implementation,the probability of such fights are more.So I am in favour of this...

PS:Also helps poor PvP'ers like me.

[Omi]

I'm sort-of with Yuri on this. I think it could be a good idea, but I'd prefer to see it trial-ran on the server for maybe a week or so so that people - not just myself - can actually gauge the impact of these changes for ourselves, rather than trying to 'theorise' what this might cause.

I mean, it's all very well to look at the proposal and go "hmm, yeah, this will make mine instakilling easier", but quite another thing to actually try it out and see just how easy it'd be to bump people off with mines and whether or not that feels better or worse than the current system.

EDIT: Voted for, but with the caveat that I'd really like to see a visible test period. Apparently Amit & co. have tested this at some point, which is fine, but I'd prefer to try out the changes for myself (as I'm sure many others would) before I gave a concrete yay or nay.

---

[Euca]

Amir, rather that going with polls and publicity trends I'd say make a few ships, gather a focus group, do preliminary testing and have a glimpse at how it would perform in practice. Do practical solutions with pragmatical approach, as I'd always say. Since I'm rusty in snubs and would be of no use in testing I can just fly a camera ship and record footage for those extra crispy publicity points.

I agree with Yuri. Lets test this out before it becomes a feature in Discovery.

---