Put simply, the Falcon's abilities are designed like an interceptor/fast fighter, whereas its speed and maneuverability are designed as worse versions of the bombers. (This is actually why I think the "Fighter" for First Order should really be the Spec Ops fighter, and the "FO" model should be the interceptor, but whatever.) The ships that focus on speed tend to have "defensive" abilities that are simply extreme bursts of speed (afterburner), and higher base speeds and maneuverability. Slave I features the sonic charge and ion weapon special abilities, again making it somewhat more offensively oriented. The Hyena and TIE bombers are functionally identical, featuring the multi-missile special ability (which hews more offensively), and the ECM as their main defensive ability. Light Side ships are somewhat slow, but still decently nimble. The ARC-170 (which I think is a little slower than the X-wing) is designed similarly to the Y-wing (tail gunner, and astromech for repairs)
Y-Wings feature both the Ion turret, and the Astromech for repairs. You can see a kind of unity of design for other, slower ships. It also lacks a defensive ability that makes any sense, given how it plays otherwise. It doesn't need to be as maneuverable as an interceptor, but it and Slave I both need to be a LITTLE more maneuverable. I think the Falcon - either one, really - right now is just not all that fun to play, and is poorly thought out in terms of its in-game design. Well, yeah, but the post does raise a valid point.
0 kommentar(er)
