It's not balanced.

Without explosion damage and interference theres absolutely no reason why you wouldn't have a fleet of 100 stood directly on top of each other in a fleet fight. With them doing that would be suicidal. I know which I prefer.

its a headache to balance, because there are so many factors - and no two situation are similar.

I don't understand why detection was f* up so much...
Ok, i can kinda explain why: If they had called it "stealth" instead of "masking" and make you have a kind of defense penalty in exchange of beeing able to sneak upon a target, then all would have cried "eve ripoff".
Still doesn't explain why there have to be different detection and masking parameters on each robot and not just 1 or two bots in total that are stealthier then aothers, with a module that allows to counter that stealth, and not increasing your general viewing range exorbitant.

Robot collision instead of interference was probably not considered because of more coding required and almost non-existant pathfinding routines for npcs that would allow it. The given arguments about player griefing on alpha sounds like an lame excuse (even though i admit it would have required a solution)

and explosion damage - making it dependant on all those factor listed in my previous post - i don't understand why someone would come up with those artifical multiplicators, instead of just making robots explode for X damage with X radius, and only maybe grophos remaining ammo already materialized into their launchers causing secondary explosions...

It's not the server. Which is unfortunate because we would be able solve that...

Phantomburn wrote:

What is the ACUTUAL explosion damage calculation equation for radius of explosion and damage done?

thats the funny part of this topic. Because you don't know that really simple math there you don't know how much BS the rest of your post is.

oh, since i do not actually play, i can't tell you how it works, or why your FOTM mech builds are prone to explosion damage. Especially the logistics argument is really awesome...

edit:
btw, your cons are mostly pro-explosion damage arguments. New player can play the jihad role - doesn't need any extensions, just a yellow bot with plates. That goes one-in-one with giving them demobs.

being able to inflict heavy damage to the winning force is probably the best pro-explosion argument you can make - and again youre statement is based on limitless supply of robots and equip.

Phantomburn wrote:

Danil let me explain what's happening.  Older corps have amassed large amounts of everything.  They stockpile it.  Because they have billions of nic too.  So the nature cycle in a mmo when this happens is another step is added to make older corps have to participate in industrial endeavors.  For example

Adding new robots/modules T5.  This would force veteran player corps to put their industry back on the field.  Opening up opportunity for smaller corps to not only get Pvp but slow the snowballing effect.  And it would slow the overall relentless assault from pvpers.  Because they would have to grind for the better gear.  It also creates market flow as veteran corps would invest in the market to gain things they need like kernals, raw ores and other things.  But alas we can only dream about new content.

Works until new tech is hoarded to the same extent. If the only drawback to stronger equipment is higher production cost then adding new tech is actually making the issue worse.

It's easy to T4 fit most robots with minor drawbacks. Should it be that easy with T5? Wouldn't it give more value to lower tier equipment if players had to choose what's worth upgrading and what's not besides considering it's cost?

Jita wrote:

Ville has the right idea. Stockpiles only make a different when there is no power and money inflation. If new stuff were added then old stuff would be worth less and you would be required to do industry or fall behind.

Bomb diggity.