Originally
posted by
Rockman:
Stonewalling was too strong.
I think you'll find there are many that disagreed with that.
Originally
posted by
Rockman:
To properly address the problem of stonewalling, you need to make killruns take longer, or make it less important whether or not someone gets online. You did the opposite.
"problem of stonewalling"? how is it a problem?
Killruns taking longer is something that's in the works; we've repeated this many times.
Originally
posted by
Rockman:
MBR has never been a mainline strategy, and you've chosen to weaken it rather than strengthen it. Doesn't make sense to me.
We haven't chosen to make it weaker; we've simply not really considered it as a strategy; we've never focused on full-set MBR in any way.
Originally
posted by
Rockman:
... making stonewalling more powerful, but not making it easier to get online to stonewall, you've increased the power of FSs even further...
Slowing KR's, as I've stated dozens of times, is something that we have in the works; it's just back-logged along with all the other post-Dec2011 changes.
Originally
posted by
Rockman:
Simple suggestions such as decreasing the DR timer in Express from 24 hours to 6 hours, or getting rid of offensive allies in primary have been ignored.
This has *not* been ignored; but DR time is currently hardcoded, so it's not something I can change quickly without coding; and, as I think I've stated 100 times or so, we've currently put on hold any changes while I redo the back-end of EE for forum-game integration purposes. It's been on the list of things to-do for longer than you've been talking about it, but it's not been a huge portion.
Originally
posted by
Rockman:
I don't want MBR to be the most powerful strategy, I just want it to be viable.
Sure, but you make suggestions almost the the exclusion of any other strategy; MBR is not something we've ever really considered, and we're not going to make a track-change on it any time soon, there's a lot of other things worth worrying about; if we *happen* to make it better or worse, that's just a product of whatever other things we had in mind.
Originally
posted by
Rockman:
Getting retalled is more profitable than not getting retalled. And that's a problem. But rather than make it possible to bounce retals (and thus make midfeeding an option), you choose to keep the offensive modifiers out of whack, when the ability to stockpile up cash and then buy jets makes it already difficult enough to bounce retals and grabs, without the extra offensive ally and the planned strike bonus.
This is not something we've had time to address; once again, we've stated a number of times that we'll address offensive allies in solo servers, but not until after our other back-end & front-end changes are done.
Originally
posted by
Rockman:
A simple way to make midfeeding a bit easier would be to prevent offensive allies from helping on planned strikes. And I've made that suggestion.
That's a possibility; there's a number of other possibilities too; but PS balance has been less of a concern than integrating the game+forum, which is what I've been working on for the last like 8 months -- keep in mind this is a hobby for all of us, and we don't have infinite time.
Originally
posted by
Rockman:
What I would prefer is for Qzjul and Pang to listen to some people who understand the basic game mechanics.
We do; however, many of the people I talk to who understand the basic game mechanics disagree with you on a number of points. Some of your suggestions are good.
But the biggest thing you seem to forget is that your personal priorities for the game sometimes are different than other players and ours as admins; most of these things you suggest aren't *hugely* critical; the FS overpowered bit is one probably the most concerning, but again, we have ideas in the works for that -- on hold primarily because of my back-end changes & pangs front-end changes.