More firing speed = more shots = more damage output
Wider arcs = more weapon uptime on the move = more damage output.
I think those guys are right, you know very little about how weapons work in this game. Or you're a bored Sunday night troll.
Both are equally possible at this point.
Larger arcs mean more ships can do higher damage yes. Larger arcs mean that some of the under performing ships can now perform slightly better. Maybe there should be a diminishing return on damage for the dbb suggestion maybe not, some one should use their own brain and come up with a counter buff that is still in the spirit of the op. I shouldn't have to do all the thinking, else why would I even talk to you guys.
Higher firing rate equals more damage yes bit depending on the weapon may just improve dps and not spike damage. The dual cannons currently have the same listed dps with different damage values. This is due to the firing rate of the dual cannon being twice as fast as the heavy cannons. Altho I don't tend to see alot of dual cannon builds, may be wrong about their usefulness don't tend to use them myself
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
My contribution is this: proposing a new system of bonuses that benefits everyone is pointless power creep. It only has meaning if it benefits certain types of builds and not others (such as buffing rainbows while not buffing matched, as my counterproposal to improe the style-specific tac consoles would have done).
And also this: When using the same styles of weapons, energy-matched loadouts with energy-specific tac consoles are superior to mixed/rainbow loadouts with style-specific tac consoles. Your arguments have been consistently ignoring that point and you have been consistently claiming that it does not matter.
Because what you have ignored is that rainbow boats were not the focus of this suggestion. Rainbow boats are bad the mechanics behind them being bad have nothing to to with weapons and everything to do with tac consoles. Since my suggestion had nothing to do with tac consoles or even every types your argument is out of place.
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
ummm tac consoles effect the weapons, its all the same thing. Which game are you playing... you didn't click the wrong button on the never winter forums or something did you ?
Yes they do. But then its a given youll have them, and that they will most likely be matches to your weapons so what point is there in mentioning them? Their existance or buffs would not affect the bonus system in suggesting
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Larger arcs mean more ships can do higher damage yes. Larger arcs mean that some of the under performing ships can now perform slightly better. Maybe there should be a diminishing return on damage for the dbb suggestion maybe not, some one should use their own brain and come up with a counter buff that is still in the spirit of the op. I shouldn't have to do all the thinking, else why would I even talk to you guys.
Higher firing rate equals more damage yes bit depending on the weapon may just improve dps and not spike damage. The dual cannons currently have the same listed dps with different damage values. This is due to the firing rate of the dual cannon being twice as fast as the heavy cannons. Altho I don't tend to see alot of dual cannon builds, may be wrong about their usefulness don't tend to use them myself
Yeah, that underperforming ship now performs better, but it's also improving every other ship that is better than it as well, provided the same loadout. You're not improving anything, you're moving the goal post farther away, moving everyone else forward the same distance, then saying "look, you've gotten closer!" when really they're no better off than when they started.
We don't need to offer you a counter-buff, because our argument isn't that the buffs are insufficient. Our argument is the buff isn't needed and has no point.
Your proposal as stated... ignores the basic reality that those things DO matter. It's all one integrated system.
If you're NOT trying to boost rainbows without boosting matched, then this proposal is trying to boost EVERYONE, and there is simply no point in doing that.
And boosting only some people creates imbalance. Not everything has to be all or nothing true. But then some times there isn't anything wrong with all or nothing.
You see to be of the position that rainbow boats should be viable, maybe they should, but since my suggestion is targeted toward everyone you take issue.
Would it some how be more palatable to you if it was raindow boat only buffs?
And while its impossible to tell what kind of boost you would realm get since we have no test platform to tell us how this would interact with the rest of the system, we can't say for sure everyone would get the same level of boost.
And again I was never married to the actual bonus, only that it would be nice if we had a real reason to go all beam or mix beam and cannon or what not that actually had differential benefits with out one way being flat out superior
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Yeah, that underperforming ship now performs better, but it's also improving every other ship that is better than it as well, provided the same loadout. You're not improving anything, you're moving the goal post farther away, moving everyone else forward the same distance, then saying "look, you've gotten closer!" when really they're no better off than when they started.
We don't need to offer you a counter-buff, because our argument isn't that the buffs are insufficient. Our argument is the buff isn't needed and has no point.
Well a good counter proposal would have included the deficiencies in my op and enhanced it or altered it to cover the deficiencies.
I get that you don't agree with the op, but you don't need to keep telling me that if you aren't going to either add to the idea to make it better in your mind, or propose one of your own in the same vein as my op.
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
And boosting only some people creates imbalance. Not everything has to be all or nothing true. But then some times there isn't anything wrong with all or nothing.
You see to be of the position that rainbow boats should be viable, maybe they should, but since my suggestion is targeted toward everyone you take issue.
Would it some how be more palatable to you if it was raindow boat only buffs?
And while its impossible to tell what kind of boost you would realm get since we have no test platform to tell us how this would interact with the rest of the system, we can't say for sure everyone would get the same level of boost.
And again I was never married to the actual bonus, only that it would be nice if we had a real reason to go all beam or mix beam and cannon or what not that actually had differential benefits with out one way being flat out superior
The reason why no one mixes beams and cannons has nothing to do with them not doing enough damage, it's skill synergy. If you're using all beams, you use FAW and BO, all cannons you use CRF and CSV.
Going beams AND cannons means your FAW is now only affecting your beams, and CSV is now only affecting your cannons. It's very ineffective.
The reason why no one mixes beams and cannons has nothing to do with them not doing enough damage, it's skill synergy. If you're using all beams, you use FAW and BO, all cannons you use CRF and CSV.
Going beams AND cannons means your FAW is now only affecting your beams, and CSV is now only affecting your cannons. It's very ineffective.
Sorry I meant to add the word types in there, my auto correct is having a seizure with all the abbreviations in using.
That should have said beam types and cannon types.
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
"we can't say for sure everyone would get the same level of boost" - yes, we can, because I was referring to different builds using the same styles of weapons. Every six-single-beam ship would get the same boost under your proposal.
"only that it would be nice if we had a real reason to go all beam or mix beam and cannon or what not that actually had differential benefits with out one way being flat out superior" - we already do, and most people already do it, because this maximizes the benefits of using Beam Fire at Will and Beam overload (if you choose beams) or Cannon Scatter Volley and Cannon Rapid Fire (if you choose cannons). Almost every thread in the shipyard section of the forums addresses this point, it's considered obvious and basic, and the few threads in which it is not mentioned is because the original poster is already doing it. I personally never mix beams and cannons on the same ship for precisely this reason.
As for my perceived lean toward rainbow builds - not at all. I couldn't honestly care less one way or the other. Despite your statements to the contrary, though, that was the only logical reason I could see why you would be pursuing this proposal.
Again obviously any ships with similar load outs benefit the same. What about the ship with 4 beams and 4 torpedo's.
Or the one with 3 dbbs 3 arrays and 2 torpedo's.
We know how that works now by not how it would work with the bonuses.
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Well a good counter proposal would have included the deficiencies in my op and enhanced it or altered it to cover the deficiencies.
I get that you don't agree with the op, but you don't need to keep telling me that if you aren't going to either add to the idea to make it better in your mind, or propose one of your own in the same vein as my op.
We all have pointed the deficiencies several times, and you have hand-waved away every one of them under the reason "that doesn't matter", when it very much does matter.
Here's my counter-proposal: Take the entirety of your suggestion, every bit of it, and throw it in the trash can.
We all have pointed the deficiencies several times, and you have hand-waved away every one of them under the reason "that doesn't matter", when it very much does matter.
Here's my counter-proposal: Take the entirety of your suggestion, every bit of it, and throw it in the trash can.
It is not needed. Period.
Very well, I acknowledge that you don't agree and think the idea is worthless thank you for your contribution
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
The reason that the idea is worthless is because it is based on a flawed concept. You're trying to encourage people to use all beams or all cannons? Guess what? Everyone pretty much already does (aside from maybe setting aside some slots for torpedoes). Any ship that is using a mixture of beams and cannons... is fundamentally flawed, even without this proposal.
Taking that one step further... a buff that applies to everyone is not a buff at all.
The point was to encourage the choice between all of one type or a mix.
Many of the examples given have focused on the current norm of going all arrays, and you really cant go all cannons under my suggestion as turrets get different bonuses.
So yes all arrays would get a buff but would that outweigh having the buff from the dbbs? Or some torpedoes (over the standard 2)
I will and have admitted the suggested buffs leave room for improvement.
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Oh... wait. You're proposing different buffs for turrets vs. cannons? And different for singles vs. dual beams?
That brings up some massive balance issues, actually. There's already a perceived imbalance in favor of beams, and your proposal admittedly tilts things even farther in that direction?
That's an even WORSE idea than what I was thinking you were trying to say for the last 50+ posts.
Singles and turrets behave differently from duals. The general game balance is that the greater the firing arc the lower the damage.
My thinking was that since turrets and singles already have large arcs and can be equipped on any ship then they should get either a flat damage bonus or a fire rate bonus to bring them closer to what beams can do.
Also I have tried to be civil but if you are going to keep adding abuse into your responses I do t feel I wil have to goi g forward.
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
That would never happen. The single beam enthusiasts would scream if the buff was scaled such that having 8 single beams was equal to having no more than 5 of any other weapon type (and you cannot reasonably slot more than 5 of any other type on one ship, since all other energy weapons except turrets are locked to forward only).... and everyone else would scream if the single-beamers got their way.
And in the meantime, the imbalance would cause everyone who min/maxes to have to shift in favor of one particular type of build even more than they already do.
Well there are only afew ships that can even have 5 of the other weapons types and the bonus to those was different.
Also sacrificing the ability to have any other weapon equipped is something I was aiming to make an actual sacrifice, the whole idea of the bonuses was to make you look at those 8 beams and actually have to decide if it was worth it for your build. Yes it would still be good, but then adding those torps/mines/dbb may be just as good for you.
No it wont be good for everyone but then nothing really is. If it were we would all have the same ship with the same weapons.
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Except that's precisely what your proposal would encourage - eight-slot cruisers running all-single-beam builds. The only variety would be in the particular cruisers being used, their other equipment, and the energy types and mods on the weapons.
So in your mind a 7% damage bonus would out weigh say a 225 degree arc on your dbbs or a torpedo going off every 2 seconds.
This is where a bonus I didn't think of could be suggested. What would make a tempting alternative.
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
If anything, there should be a modest buff for using different weapon types. Maybe have the first of each weapon types you use take less power or something.
Any incremental bonus that is based on having no more than four or five of something is going to be inherently imbalanced compared to something you can have eight of... either the single beam bonus is going to have to be so underpowered that you NEED eight, or so overpowered that everyone is going to want to use that.
Both would vastly upset game balance AND the community.
Besides, we don't need to tempt players to build ships like what you seem to want. They're already doing it.
No they are either forgoing efficiency for flavor or going with one of the cookie cutter builds that's popular at the moment.
On most ships that can support it 8 beams is superior to almost anything else you can do with that ship.
I haven't seen a 4 single cannon 4 turret cruiser in a while, not saying there aren't any just haven't seen them.
But you know what I bore with this. Obviously my original hope for this is gone, if there was a good discussion to be had here it wont happen now. Too many negative posts. Oh well.
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
If anything, there should be a modest buff for using different weapon types. Maybe have the first of each weapon types you use take less power or something.
Energy types are best kept uniform though.
You mean having arrays and beam banks would lessen the drain on your weapons power as opposed to all arrays?
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
And yet your proposal would either destroy the eight-beam cruiser build or make it the only viable build.
I disagree that it's the superior thing you can do with such a ship... but that's beside the point. It depends on a lot of other factors, but I actually do not have any of my ships set up as pure single beam ships (unless you count omnis). The 4 cannon 4 turret cruiser you mentioned is an intriguing idea, actually; why do you think you aren't seeing them? Is it possibly due to beam vs. cannon balance issues?
Not sure, maybe its omnis being available. If you go AP your rear arc can be all omni beams.
Single cannons were always sort of lack luster and I really only say it start to pop up with the elachi set, and again with the hirogen set
Then when they changes how turn rate buffs were calculated anything that could make good use out of a cannon build made better use from dbb and omnis
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Not sure, maybe its omnis being available. If you go AP your rear arc can be all omni beams.
Single cannons were always sort of lack luster and I really only say it start to pop up with the elachi set, and again with the hirogen set
Then when they changes how turn rate buffs were calculated anything that could make good use out of a cannon build made better use from dbb and omnis
You can't go All omni on the aft slots. The most Omni banks you can have on a ship is 2: the Ancient Omni AP beam and the Level 15 R&D beam, save for the KCB which is omnidirectional and considered a "beam" as for firing type, but isn't considered a beam for anything else.
And really, if you're gonna make full use of all Omni on your aft slots, that'll have to AP energy thanks to the ancient being only available in that type.
You can't go All omni on the aft slots. The most Omni banks you can have on a ship is 2: the Ancient Omni AP beam and the Level 15 R&D beam, save for the KCB which is omnidirectional and considered a "beam" as for firing type, but isn't considered a beam for anything else.
And really, if you're gonna make full use of all Omni on your aft slots, that'll have to AP energy thanks to the ancient being only available in that type.
If you have 2 ancients and upgrade 1 you can equip both.
So 3 AP Omnis and a kcb.
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
I feel like right now running 3 or 4 (all slots) of +energy weapon crit and damage is basically absolutely required to be competitive.
If they made that bonus inherent it would let tac consoles be more INTERESTING than "if you're not running all vulnerability locators you're foolish".
Maybe they could reduce the number of tac consoles, get rid of straight +dam ones of all flavors (including "effective +dam like crit severity) in favor of letting people choose for things like +range, +firing arc or situational modifiers like +flanking damage or reducing weapon power use.
I feel like right now running 3 or 4 (all slots) of +energy weapon crit and damage is basically absolutely required to be competitive.
If they made that bonus inherent it would let tac consoles be more INTERESTING than "if you're not running all vulnerability locators you're foolish".
Maybe they could reduce the number of tac consoles, get rid of straight +dam ones of all flavors (including "effective +dam like crit severity) in favor of letting people choose for things like +range, +firing arc or situational modifiers like +flanking damage or reducing weapon power use.
So instead of a bonus for simply having arrays you get the tax console bonus, or something like it on the arrays. Hmmm I do like that. Harder to balance tho given how they designed consoles.
As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Comments
Larger arcs mean more ships can do higher damage yes. Larger arcs mean that some of the under performing ships can now perform slightly better. Maybe there should be a diminishing return on damage for the dbb suggestion maybe not, some one should use their own brain and come up with a counter buff that is still in the spirit of the op. I shouldn't have to do all the thinking, else why would I even talk to you guys.
Higher firing rate equals more damage yes bit depending on the weapon may just improve dps and not spike damage. The dual cannons currently have the same listed dps with different damage values. This is due to the firing rate of the dual cannon being twice as fast as the heavy cannons. Altho I don't tend to see alot of dual cannon builds, may be wrong about their usefulness don't tend to use them myself
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
He is, but whenever he does you cup your hands over your ears and start going "LALALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"
Because what you have ignored is that rainbow boats were not the focus of this suggestion. Rainbow boats are bad the mechanics behind them being bad have nothing to to with weapons and everything to do with tac consoles. Since my suggestion had nothing to do with tac consoles or even every types your argument is out of place.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
Yes they do. But then its a given youll have them, and that they will most likely be matches to your weapons so what point is there in mentioning them? Their existance or buffs would not affect the bonus system in suggesting
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
Yeah, that underperforming ship now performs better, but it's also improving every other ship that is better than it as well, provided the same loadout. You're not improving anything, you're moving the goal post farther away, moving everyone else forward the same distance, then saying "look, you've gotten closer!" when really they're no better off than when they started.
We don't need to offer you a counter-buff, because our argument isn't that the buffs are insufficient. Our argument is the buff isn't needed and has no point.
And boosting only some people creates imbalance. Not everything has to be all or nothing true. But then some times there isn't anything wrong with all or nothing.
You see to be of the position that rainbow boats should be viable, maybe they should, but since my suggestion is targeted toward everyone you take issue.
Would it some how be more palatable to you if it was raindow boat only buffs?
And while its impossible to tell what kind of boost you would realm get since we have no test platform to tell us how this would interact with the rest of the system, we can't say for sure everyone would get the same level of boost.
And again I was never married to the actual bonus, only that it would be nice if we had a real reason to go all beam or mix beam and cannon or what not that actually had differential benefits with out one way being flat out superior
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
Well a good counter proposal would have included the deficiencies in my op and enhanced it or altered it to cover the deficiencies.
I get that you don't agree with the op, but you don't need to keep telling me that if you aren't going to either add to the idea to make it better in your mind, or propose one of your own in the same vein as my op.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
The reason why no one mixes beams and cannons has nothing to do with them not doing enough damage, it's skill synergy. If you're using all beams, you use FAW and BO, all cannons you use CRF and CSV.
Going beams AND cannons means your FAW is now only affecting your beams, and CSV is now only affecting your cannons. It's very ineffective.
Sorry I meant to add the word types in there, my auto correct is having a seizure with all the abbreviations in using.
That should have said beam types and cannon types.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
Again obviously any ships with similar load outs benefit the same. What about the ship with 4 beams and 4 torpedo's.
Or the one with 3 dbbs 3 arrays and 2 torpedo's.
We know how that works now by not how it would work with the bonuses.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
We all have pointed the deficiencies several times, and you have hand-waved away every one of them under the reason "that doesn't matter", when it very much does matter.
Here's my counter-proposal: Take the entirety of your suggestion, every bit of it, and throw it in the trash can.
It is not needed. Period.
Very well, I acknowledge that you don't agree and think the idea is worthless thank you for your contribution
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
The point was to encourage the choice between all of one type or a mix.
Many of the examples given have focused on the current norm of going all arrays, and you really cant go all cannons under my suggestion as turrets get different bonuses.
So yes all arrays would get a buff but would that outweigh having the buff from the dbbs? Or some torpedoes (over the standard 2)
I will and have admitted the suggested buffs leave room for improvement.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
Singles and turrets behave differently from duals. The general game balance is that the greater the firing arc the lower the damage.
My thinking was that since turrets and singles already have large arcs and can be equipped on any ship then they should get either a flat damage bonus or a fire rate bonus to bring them closer to what beams can do.
Also I have tried to be civil but if you are going to keep adding abuse into your responses I do t feel I wil have to goi g forward.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
The point is the trade off, more damage maybe, but still a limited arc or still less damage overall.
And with my original suggested bonus to beams it would max out at 7% damage assuming the out of my **** numbers were kept.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
Well there are only afew ships that can even have 5 of the other weapons types and the bonus to those was different.
Also sacrificing the ability to have any other weapon equipped is something I was aiming to make an actual sacrifice, the whole idea of the bonuses was to make you look at those 8 beams and actually have to decide if it was worth it for your build. Yes it would still be good, but then adding those torps/mines/dbb may be just as good for you.
No it wont be good for everyone but then nothing really is. If it were we would all have the same ship with the same weapons.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
So in your mind a 7% damage bonus would out weigh say a 225 degree arc on your dbbs or a torpedo going off every 2 seconds.
This is where a bonus I didn't think of could be suggested. What would make a tempting alternative.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
Energy types are best kept uniform though.
No they are either forgoing efficiency for flavor or going with one of the cookie cutter builds that's popular at the moment.
On most ships that can support it 8 beams is superior to almost anything else you can do with that ship.
I haven't seen a 4 single cannon 4 turret cruiser in a while, not saying there aren't any just haven't seen them.
But you know what I bore with this. Obviously my original hope for this is gone, if there was a good discussion to be had here it wont happen now. Too many negative posts. Oh well.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
You mean having arrays and beam banks would lessen the drain on your weapons power as opposed to all arrays?
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
Not sure, maybe its omnis being available. If you go AP your rear arc can be all omni beams.
Single cannons were always sort of lack luster and I really only say it start to pop up with the elachi set, and again with the hirogen set
Then when they changes how turn rate buffs were calculated anything that could make good use out of a cannon build made better use from dbb and omnis
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
You can't go All omni on the aft slots. The most Omni banks you can have on a ship is 2: the Ancient Omni AP beam and the Level 15 R&D beam, save for the KCB which is omnidirectional and considered a "beam" as for firing type, but isn't considered a beam for anything else.
And really, if you're gonna make full use of all Omni on your aft slots, that'll have to AP energy thanks to the ancient being only available in that type.
Yeah. Or having a mix of single, double and heavy cannons.
If you have 2 ancients and upgrade 1 you can equip both.
So 3 AP Omnis and a kcb.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
Interesting, but could that actually make enough of an improvement to be worth it?
Maybe that would be a better thing for a like type bonus
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
I have my doubts on that and I haven't heard of it, got some proof there?
I feel like right now running 3 or 4 (all slots) of +energy weapon crit and damage is basically absolutely required to be competitive.
If they made that bonus inherent it would let tac consoles be more INTERESTING than "if you're not running all vulnerability locators you're foolish".
Maybe they could reduce the number of tac consoles, get rid of straight +dam ones of all flavors (including "effective +dam like crit severity) in favor of letting people choose for things like +range, +firing arc or situational modifiers like +flanking damage or reducing weapon power use.
If it is letting you do that you should bug report it as its not intended.
I'm at work on my phone so no. Hmm look me up on the gateway @disposeable I think the chatacter jojo has that setup.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
So instead of a bonus for simply having arrays you get the tax console bonus, or something like it on the arrays. Hmmm I do like that. Harder to balance tho given how they designed consoles.
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus