Finally a post about Logi Bro fits that is intelligent, articulate and not just the standard QQ from Kitten Excrement Mercs that lack all the attributes that allow seeing a solution in whatever the restrictions that CCP (or random game developer) has handed them.

Now if we can get CCP/Shanghai to decide that the players should get ganked for being successful we might get vehicles that are junk. The ones coming in 1.7 are promised to be paper hulks by the Devs themselves. Hopefully they are busy screwing those up so the rest of won't have to all run scout suits and resolve battles with slap fights.

Thought experiment....

Why don't we just have one suit with empty slots and just fill it with what we want if that is the case? Which is kind of what is happening with everybody just picking the same hyper versatile suits.

I"m not for taking the light weapon slot at all, they need that light weapon slot, but you do have to understand how large versatility invalidates niche by making the other suits more restricted because if everything is open and flexible the most flexible suit is literally thy best suit. A counter to this would then make the other suits super restricted and specialized.

If versatility is a bonus for a particular line of suits, then all other suits have to receive gimmicky special items only they can use (like heavy weapons for sentinels) for the game to expand at all.

Essentially, what you are saying is that suit "A" can be anything, can do anything because they have the most slots/cpu/pg to do so which is part of game design so tough luck other suits. Why aren't the other suits given this flexibility if this is where we are going? Why have niche at all then when one suit can lean far enough into them without having to spec into the suits for the niche?

we cant just have one suit with empty slots becuase it would invalidate the entire foundation of suit design, pretty much rendering specialisations moot.

i suggest you read the first post, becuase it seems you missed some bits, like the part where i state the only option is to lessen the SP investment in suits, increase their reliance on specialisation (aka suit abilities and restricted slot layout) removing their individual versatility and distributing it over multiple suits.

that reduces a single specs versatility and creates a situation where the best option is to spec into multiple suits rather then use a single suit for everything.


so no "tough luck" isnt what im saying, im saying the EXACTLY oposit of what you thought i was.

The one suit with empty slots was to point out why the current balance is bad design in a game with options, I don't actually support it.

Also reducing the cost of the other suits would not fix the glaring issue of hyper versatility and its effect on niche roles.

the specialised suits with modules is literally the core the game is built around, to change it is to make a compeltly different game. aka not dust514, the solution to that is go play a different game built around a different core.

redusing the cost of other suits and reducing the overal versatility in individual suits spreading the out to multiple suits not only fixes the issue at hand but is the ONLY solution. what your assentially saying with yoru statement is that removing versatility doesnt remove versatility.... wich is well a contradiction because of course it does. the reduced cost is to ensure its easyer to spec into another suit then to try to overstep the bounds of the one your using wich is the glue that cements the solution into place

step one, reduce individual versatility and create more specilisations to replace what you took out

step two, reduce cost to make sure people have a reason to distribute SP into multiple suits rather then a single suit becuase right now even with a reduction of versatility the SP boundry is so high the population will be forced to overstep a suits intended role even if its not suited to what they are doing just because the game prevents you from doing otherwise.

your reading comprehension needs work, since not once is isk ever mentioned, so why you assume the balance involves isk is beyond me.