Time limit is simple, do you know what is even more simple and easy to understand? Not having one, especially as it has some very strange rules when its on or off.
The complexity of the rules around it is a fair point, and is the main thing that's giving me pause here.
The point here is, because the dev doesnt know how to improve the AI, he is implementing a limitation in time. And he is doing it only because some people are abusing the AI and are playing a battle for 30 min and kiting *** of the AI. Because of them he is implementing something that will have a direct impact on my play style and how I play. If people want to abuse AI, let them. This is not a MMO where there is some player vs player competition, this is a offline single player game, you will not be able to prevent abusing mechanic (and if they do it for 40 min I dont see any problem with that), and trying to balance something like that with implementing very doubtful limitation is very bad in my book.
So it is bad, very bad. And if dev thought process is like this, I do not know what future arbitrary limitation will come if he can not balance some other mechanics.
The AI and the rules of the game are two parts of the same coin; expecting to have an arbitrarily good AI for *any given ruleset* is simply unrealistic. The two have to work together. Some mechanics, while a good idea in, say, a PvP game, are not something any (reasonably real-time) AI can handle, period. Aside from that, some mechanics the AI has problems with aren't an AI issue to begin with. For example, if you put a human player in a slower ship, they're going to get kited too, so that clearly isn't an AI problem. Of course, the AI could try some tactics to counter that (and it does), but ultimately it's an uphill battle because of the mechanics. Thus, the motivation for making mechanical changes to address the problem. You're welcome to question/disagree/dislike the actual mechanical chages, of course. My point here is that regardless of how you feel about the specific changes, it's definitely more a mechanics issue rather than an AI issue, and that further the two are much more intertwined than one might think. They have to work together to produce a good result.
As far as balance overall, the ideal is that the player trying to play the game optimally is able to have fun. Ultimately that's a large part of games (well, most games) - learning how to play, and improving. If, as you improve, you realize that your best options are un-fun (e.g. kite for 30 minutes), that's a big problem for a game's longevity and replay value. Of course, since we're talking about "fun", that's a subjective call to make.
>Destroyers and cruisers now have a peak effectiveness timer like frigates
Wow, this change is particularly awful. Forcing players to play with a timer on every battle. I'll definitely be modding this out every patch. All the combat changes in this patch are terrible, but I can't even remotely understand the mindset behind this and the change to energy weapon flux damage bonuses. Energy weapons were already strictly inferior and now they're just a total joke.
You're welcome to, of course, though I hope you'll give it a shot as-is. I suspect you'll find it's not nearly the issue it's made out to be, in terms of how it actually plays out. For the reasoning behind the changes, you might consider reading some of my prior responses in this thread - most of it is laid out there. If you still have some questions, please feel free to ask.
The customer? The guy who forked out fifteen bucks for the game and would like it to not be ruined? Please remember that the objective of a developer is not to make the game to their own precise interests, but to the interests of the many people who paid hard-earned money for a game they expect to become better, not worse.
Just on a general note, while I appreciate the support, and couldn't be doing this without it, that still doesn't ah, grant voting rights to customers. I listen to feedback, and am thankful for it (and have made many changes based on it in the past), but ultimately it's a question of what makes sense to me, and the direction I'd like to take the game in.
I will say that your post isn't... how can I put this. It doesn't give me much to work with, in terms of useful information. It kind of boils down to "everything is terrible", which is certainly an opinion you have a right to hold. On the other hand, it doesn't tell me anything about *why* you think so. Obviously I disagree (or I wouldn't have made the changes in the first place!), but if I'm to change my mind, simply knowing we disagree isn't particularly helpful. In general, saying *why* you don't like something is a million times more likely to produce results than simply saying you don't like it.
Also: everyone, please try to refrain from anything even shading into personal attacks on each other, before moderation action has to be taken. Flinging around stuff like "casuals" or "vocal minority" isn't helping matters any.
