I am curious what the arguments are for the opposing view. I cant think of a single good argument. Hell I cant even think of a BAD argument!
I was arguing for diminishing returns in beta. The opposing arguments were many, loud, and full of vitriol. "Freedom!", "Its a sandbox. You play your way- I'll play my way. There is no problem so leave it alone.", and "Shut Up! Quit trying to screw up MY game." were the gist of the most common arguments I remember.
Yes, the exponential bonuses received through the linear stacking of sensor and engine ship components ruins the game- for me, and for many others. It obviates exploration, tactical scouting, and gives non-combat ships so great an advantage in mobility that they gain almost complete tactical immunity.
I don't even play GC3 anymore . I just prowl the forums in the hope that some remedy to these deficiencies will be worked into the game.
I'm worried that Stardock is still too shell shocked over the fallout of the Wheel fiasco to venture dealing with this festering issue.
A hardcap, like GC2, would be a cop out solution. I don't want that.
I've suggested this many times but they really truly need to make a "map size" variable into a lot of the techs.
Base = Map Size *X + Bonuses
Yes, base values for many game stats need to be scaled to map size or the game doesn't work right.
Suggestion: Along with diminishing returns on sensors and engines and scaling of vision, speed, and range to map size, add accuracy bonuses to sensors and evasion bonuses to thrusters. These don't have to scale symmetrically with the sensor or tactical speed bonuses.
Glad to find a thread to gripe on .