Just checked out their forums.
Oh ****.
Man, I have no idea how they got their ideas of balance.
I feel sickened, literally sick, about how the balance is.
Was daydreaming at work today about playing it more tonight, then checked those forums, and the idiocy in how (un)balanced it is andhow "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" still exists today.
Seriously, it is like someone who never played a single game of MOO (# of your choice) made these games. MOO 1 and 2 have different philosophies in game design (1 is streamlined and fast paced, II is complex and slow), but they at least agreed that if something costs % percent, it really needs a % percent benefit.
Case in point, if armor costs % of your ship space, it gives you an extra % in HP. If something gives a flat bonus, it needs a flat cost.
Flat values are better for it gives "larger" ships more flexibility and/or allows them to equip modules smaller ships cannot. This fact is necessary to compensate for larger ships costing more. For this reason, %modules are rare, and only really used if you can only have so many slots in a "slot" so may desire the increase in % as opposed to flat amounts (for example, if you can get only one type of hull, then having a hull that provides an increased % over the base is desirable).
...But in this game, modules give a flat bonus always, but cost a % space...so why would you ever want a larger more costly hull again?...
I can go on. The most accurate weapon overall (beams) is the one most able to overcome defenses? The least powerful weapons aside from alpha (missiles) is the most easily countered? The least accurate weapon in 80% of battles (kinetics) aren't more efficient?
*yawn*
Back to MOO (1)
