Info > Feedback and Suggestions
The damage system is flawed. Suggesting overhaul.
Dementio:
I do like the system as it is, because it works so well.
--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on September 24, 2014, 07:08:40 am ---
* Double mortar configs would be reasonable.
* Squids won't be invulnerable just by rebuilding armor between shots.
--- End quote ---
I don't think Muse wanted any double mortar config to be a viable choice.
Squids were never invulnerable just by rebuilding armor between shots. The armor rebuilds fast, but 1 engineer spamming a spanner at it won't make the squid invincible, especially not when you have to repair 4 engines, balloons and need to shoot the back gun. If you get 4 people with spanners on it then all your enemy has to do is ram the squid around a bit until it hits a wall and explodes. A squid needs to move, tanking won't save it.
--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on September 24, 2014, 07:08:40 am ---
--- Quote from: Dutch Vanya on September 24, 2014, 01:06:13 am ---"I want a light harassing gun/ surprisingly decent finisher that goes pew pew pew"
--- End quote ---
Banshee or Artemis? I think we both know what gun would you prefer.
--- End quote ---
On the side of a Squid or a Goldfish I would rather have a banshee, because artemis has slow turning arcs and no upper arc, mortar has little horizontal arcs slow projectile speed and is only close range, light flak has some arcs but arming time (even though it is a surprising amount of damage inside arming time) and the banshee trumps all, with only a little less damage. I wouldn't expect to kill a ship with one clip only with a side gun of a Goldfish or Squid. A Pyramidions side gun would follow a similar philosophy if no other damage type is desired. Also, a banshee has more hull dps than artemis, which means the banshee is a better finisher.
Some guns work better and sometimes they don't, but others might.
--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on September 24, 2014, 07:08:40 am ---The idea is to separate "hull" form "armor"
--- End quote ---
But why, why would there be armor that is not protecting the hull? I can understand why one would have very little damage go through the armor and hit the hull directly, but not such a huge amount. The icon for the armor is a shield, so I understand that it protects the armor and not be a seperate individual component that slightly changes damage multipliers.
--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on September 24, 2014, 07:08:40 am ---Example: armor DR is 50%. The ship takes 120 explosive damage. Armor absorbs 60 explosive damage and scales it by 0.3. Armor takes 30 hp damage. The remaining 60 explosive damage is going to the hull. After scaling hull takes 84 damage.
--- End quote ---
A heavy flak does 330 damage if it's direct hit and outside arming time. 150 direct damage when inside arming time. According to your system I can go all flak Spire and literally be killing everything left and right, because I will do a total damage of 2100 explosive damage (= 80 (L. Flak) * 3 *6 (L. Flak clip size) + 330 * 2) and according to your system with DR 50% it would result in 1470 damage to the hull, which should be enough to kill a Galleon without reloading any gun.
I suppose the armor works as it does to prevent such a thing to work, because all you would need for this Spire to work is to simply just shoot and ignore repairing and you win. Do you think that's balanced?
It was a nice idea, but I honestly don't think it is going to work too well.
Mezhu:
--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on September 24, 2014, 05:20:13 am ---..
And both banshee and light flak are failing in comparison to Hflak and mortar.
..
--- End quote ---
Banshee is soon to become more flexible by having one of its' damage types switched to Fire (effective vs balloon, hull)
Light Flak is an exceptionally good gun for mid-range setups. It deals damage per clip comparable to the Heavy Flak, while being easier to aim, with an extremely fast reload and a very decent projectile speed/arc. All the while not taking a heavy gun slot.
The current system is pretty legit. It makes you choose to either go for a disable approach, slowly denying the enemy ship of movement and retaliation options and eventually destroying it or for a direct dps approach, ripping the armor as fast as possible and then killing the enemy within a limited time window.
I'll agree that the extremely specialized ammo types rule out many gun combinations and can make the game harder to get into. I don't think normalizing all damage types would be a solution, however- the game would then be turned into an endless dogfighting grindfest with a much lower depth and skill requirement. What I think could help, though, is the implementation of more 'flexible' guns such as the new Banshee who do not excel at anything specific but can be effectively combined with more than just a couple of guns.
Van-Tuz:
--- Quote from: Dementio on September 24, 2014, 09:57:50 am ---I don't think Muse wanted any double mortar config to be a viable choice.
Squids were never invulnerable just by rebuilding armor between shots. The armor rebuilds fast, but 1 engineer spamming a spanner at it won't make the squid invincible, especially not when you have to repair 4 engines, balloons and need to shoot the back gun. If you get 4 people with spanners on it then all your enemy has to do is ram the squid around a bit until it hits a wall and explodes. A squid needs to move, tanking won't save it.
--- End quote ---
2 people spamming hull, 1 repairing central engines. Even captain can repair/shoot just by leaving throttle on. Saved me a dozen times.
--- Quote from: Dementio on September 24, 2014, 09:57:50 am ---
--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on September 24, 2014, 07:08:40 am ---
Banshee or Artemis? I think we both know what gun would you prefer.
--- End quote ---
On the side of a Squid or a Goldfish I would rather have a banshee, because artemis has slow turning arcs and no upper arc,
--- End quote ---
So are you saying that you'll trade disabling ability for a slightly better turn speed and slight up arc? News to me.
--- Quote from: Dementio on September 24, 2014, 09:57:50 am ---But why, why would there be armor that is not protecting the hull?
...
The icon for the armor is a shield, so I understand that it protects the armor and not be a seperate individual component that slightly changes damage multipliers.
--- End quote ---
The icon of a gun is a... gun. Guns shoot bullets and shields are useless against bullets.
The purpose of the splitting hull and armor is to eliminate the "time window" when you can damage the hull. Would you like, for example, Artemis that can't damage a gun 80% of the time? I won't.
Besides that i don't like that Hflak can oneclip any exposed hull.
--- Quote from: Dementio on September 24, 2014, 09:57:50 am ---
--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on September 24, 2014, 07:08:40 am ---Example: armor DR is 50%. The ship takes 120 explosive damage. Armor absorbs 60 explosive damage and scales it by 0.3. Armor takes 30 hp damage. The remaining 60 explosive damage is going to the hull. After scaling hull takes 84 damage.
--- End quote ---
A heavy flak does 330 damage if it's direct hit and outside arming time. 150 direct damage when inside arming time. According to your system I can go all flak Spire and literally be killing everything left and right, because I will do a total damage of 2100 explosive damage (= 80 (L. Flak) * 3 *6 (L. Flak clip size) + 330 * 2) and according to your system with DR 50% it would result in 1470 damage to the hull, which should be enough to kill a Galleon without reloading any gun.
I suppose the armor works as it does to prevent such a thing to work, because all you would need for this Spire to work is to simply just shoot and ignore repairing and you win. Do you think that's balanced?
--- End quote ---
I could say the same about current 2 gat+mortar combo.
Also, in case of Galleon with 80% DR on armor brute forcing won't work. In case of smaller, more manoeuvrable ships you'd have to land all the shots and not get your guns disabled by enemy fire.
In case of my suggestion i expect anti-hull guns damage toned down a little and hulls to receive a large health pool increase. Like a 2-3 times. To get some space between "we're fine" and "o'shi..."
Imagine:
--- Quote from: Canon Whitecandle on September 23, 2014, 10:32:20 pm ---
--- Quote from: sparklerfish on September 23, 2014, 01:13:12 pm ---What is the point of even having different guns if they don't do different things?
--- End quote ---
because it's much easier to just gatling down someone's hull (and therefore win) than it is to bungee-tow an enemy into a wall with a harpoon Junker. If other guns are made invalid by others accessibility then there's a problem.
--- End quote ---
Harpoon is a pretty bad example. Everyone, including devs, is aware that it's a broken gun and needs some sort of fix.
Light flak is paired with hades quite consistently since the rework of it, and banshees, while fairly underutilized, certainly have their place in builds as well.
redria:
While I disagree with a lot of the points made by Van-Tuz, I think he came up with some interesting ideas. I'd like to poke a couple of them for science.
Armor vs Hull -> Let armor be give a damage reduction modifier on hull, and let hull regenerate/be repairable.
My take on this would be to make the health of the armor affect how much damage transfers to the hull. For example, at 100% armor, 100% of damage goes into the armor. At 50% armor, 75% of damage goes into the armor. At 0.1% armor, 50% of damage goes into the armor. When the armor breaks, all damage goes into the hull.
This could even be scaled further to make it so armor protects you even better while still up, but it starts to give you decision spaces where switching to explosive sooner is a more viable tactic.
On top of this having slowly regenerating hull while out of combat, or possibly just *repair armor while armor is full repairs 2 points of permahull*. If you can't protect your hull by having armor, being able to regenerate from survived engagements would help significantly. It also helps remove situations where your ship is almost destroyed getting a kill, which almost guarantees you to die in the next engagement leaving your ally alone.
Would those break the game? I don't know. :) It just seems interesting as a point of conversation.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version