Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Hull and armor system overhaul

<< < (3/14) > >>

Van-Tuz:
Please answer a few questions. Some of them almost rhetorical, some are related to basic knowledge but trust me, they're all important for the discussion.

* How much time does it take to kill an exposed hull with mortar? Assuming that gunner is competent.
* How much time does it take for a destroyed team to engage into battle after the last ship was destroyed?
* How much damage your ship is supposed to take for you to recognise a "bad" and "really bad" battle situations? Assuming that's you're not outnumbered.
* How much time does it take to perform all necessary repairs to return to a "good" condition from that states? Assuming that your engineers are competent.
* How does your damaged (by 50%) hull changes your tactical and strategic behaviour?
I shall answer these questions myself after seeing some answers from my opponents. Otherwise it would be (again) a discussion about my skill level.

Mezhu:
There's no definite answer to any of these questions as they are extremely abstract and generic.
1. How much time a mortar takes to kill an exposed ship? It depends on range, ammo being used on mortar, mortar being buffed or not, evasive movement of enemy pilot, your own ship's movement, reaction, tools and coordination of enemy engineers. If you're shooting an average crew at point blank range with a greased buffed mortar it will take 2 seconds. If you're shooting a highly skilled and well organized crew it's not unlikely you won't do any perma damage at all.
2. That depends on the team itself. Were they fighting away from their spawn? Will they choose to spawn closeby? Will the ship to have died first try to spawn as close as possible in an attempt to assist its' ally? Is the enemy team chasing the surviving ship into your team's spawn or are they retreating?
3. None at all. An experienced pilot can tell when he can't earn anything from a situation before the first shot has landed against his own ship. Certain ships perform at certain ranges or need to approach the enemy from specific angles to be effective. Certain ships aren't built around killing an enemy at all. Certain ships are almost absolutely countered by others. All ships are unable to perform 1v2 (assuming equal skill level and non-shit builds on both sides)- so being able to recognize your ally either dying or being controlled means you have to consider an escape option beforehand.
4. What does that even mean? Since you mostly complain about gatling/mortar I'll assume that's what you specifically are wondering about. A broken hull takes varying time to fix depending on ship and crew but a pyra is able to get his hull rebuilt, fixed and even rebuffed in almost no time time with enough people who know their shit participating. A junker not as much, but breaking the junker's hull is an achievement by itself and should be rewarding. Galleon neither, but it can soak up a ton of permadamage before dying so it's perfectly viable. If more parts are disabled the time obviously increases but there's no average answer to cover all possible scenarios.
5. A damaged hull simply means you have to change your priorities and look into engagements more carefully. You can have the other ship try to act as a meatshield assuming that's viable. You can avoid head to head engagements until you see a chance (a flank, a disabled target, a target whose guns are reloading, a ship out of its' effective range, a ship that's just bumped into something etc). You can shift your goals from killing the other ship to doing as much damage as possible before dying so that you put him at a disadvantage at the next fight. In a few circumstances, mostly in CK matches but not only, a very valid option might be to commit suicide simply to respawn with a fresh hull.

Instead of trying to prove the current system problematic try adapting to it instead. As you keep playing and if you're willing to learn you'll notice people doing stuff that render all the above questions and ideas silly. Yes the game is hard to learn and master but that's what makes it rewarding and enjoyable.

Sammy B. T.:

--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on September 29, 2014, 01:45:08 pm ---
--- Quote from: Sammy B. T. on September 29, 2014, 12:48:32 pm ---This requirement of having to hold the explosive for offensive or avoid/disable the explosive for defense greatly increases the teamwork aspect of the game.
...
You also incorrectly state that the state of the hull doesn't matter. It most certainly does. Armor doesn't last forever and against good enemies you can expect it to go down quickly once engaged in direct combat.

--- End quote ---
These teamwork aspects aren't going anywhere. But they would be less mandatory. Experienced teams would still hold the mortar fire until the armor is stripped to deal 2x more damage. But inexperienced teams would not be punished so hard for the imperfect performance. They would deal less damage but would still deal it.
Besides, i think that the situation with 5% hull Galeon should not be normal. It was very thrilling for me but i bet it was frustrating for my opponents to not being able to kill my barely duct-taped ship.
--- End quote ---

It is majorly game altering to go from needing to wait for armor breaks to kind of wanting to. Making it so that basically any weapon combination can work for a team is great for individual based games like your average fps. However it takes away from the team work based dynamic. Yes you do loads better in your average fps if you are on a team, using team working and theory crafting which guns you bring. However its not as necessary.



--- Quote ---Example: you're on a Junker against a Spire and something else. No matter how much Spire's teammate bitten off your hull you'll still die from a single charged Hflak shot once your armor go down.
Does it really matter how many time pass between armor going down and hull going down under mortar fire: 2.5 or 3 seconds. Your tactics and combat actions aren't changing.  Your survival is dependent on your luck more than on your skill.
I think the possibility of evading combat to repair critically damaged hull opens up much more strategic choices. Currently you have no other choice but to engage in combat.
--- End quote ---

The Junker is a horrible example for this as it has the lowest perma hull in the game as a balance to its high armor, maneuvering, and weapons. Without tar barrel, all things being equal it can't really escape anything, damage systems being irrelevant. However there are plenty of things you can do to alter your tactics to prevent Hflaky death. Balloon blocking, dodging (the junker is a great dodger), calling extra engineers to hull, buffs, tar or just outright killing. So basically in your scenario I am not strategically limited and if I wasn't, it isn't from the damage system.


--- Quote ---How much time does it take to kill an exposed hull with mortar? Assuming that gunner is competent.

--- End quote ---
Assuming 100% accuracy, unbuffed mortar using normal rounds and discounting air time delay (the mortars begin hitting the moment armor is down

Pyramidion 700 perma
6 shots, 2.75 seconds
Squid 850 Perma
7 shots, 3.3 seconds
Junker 500 perma
4 shots, 1.65 seconds
Goldfish 1100 perma
9 shots, 4.4 seconds
Galleon 1400 perma
12 shots 6.05 seconds
Spire 750 perma
6 shots, 2.75 seconds
Mobula 700 perma
6 shots, 2.75 seconds

A lot of assumptions here, especially the 100% accuracy, the mortar is a hard gun to shoot when the enemy is popping hydro for one of those mythical escapes that apparently never happen.


--- Quote ---How much time does it take for a destroyed team to engage into battle after the last ship was destroyed?

--- End quote ---

Dozens of variables, most of them having to do with map and how close one is to spawns. You can generally expect at least 30 seconds though.


--- Quote ---How much damage your ship is supposed to take for you to recognise a "bad" and "really bad" battle situations? Assuming that's you're not outnumbered.

--- End quote ---

None. This is whats the most stressful part of being a captain. The split second an egagement begins you have to run a big equation in your mind comparing who began the egagement, the amount of time it takes for a ship to react to the engagement and then how long before a ship wins the engagement (kills, achieve better positioning, disable etc) and captain tricks to fudge these numbers (balloon blocking, escape tools, cover, ally, etc). Armor break is not the definitive "you've lost" moment, sometimes is too late and sometimes its too early.


--- Quote ---How much time does it take to perform all necessary repairs to return to a "good" condition from that states? Assuming that your engineers are competent.
--- End quote ---

Since escape point is varaible, ship damage is variable. Some ships like a galleon can tank all day with downed components  (I've gone minutes without the main thruster of a galleon) Others ships like squids and junkers need their components up and running and thus need to escape before those go down. Waaaay to many variable to consider.


--- Quote ---How does your damaged (by 50%) hull changes your tactical and strategic behaviour?

--- End quote ---

"Whats your perma?"
"Full, you?"
"About 50, you take lead?"
"Sure"

Changes how much I'll request a hull engineer to watch hull vs shoot weapons, esepcially relevant on junkers and galleons.

Also that equation I mentioned earlier is great effected by this.



--------------

And as typing mezhu responded and basically said the same thing, damn. Now I look like a copy cat. Esepcially on point 3.

Alistair MacBain:
How much time does it take to kill an exposed hull with mortar? Assuming that gunner is competent.
How much time does it take for a destroyed team to engage into battle after the last ship was destroyed?
How much damage your ship is supposed to take for you to recognise a "bad" and "really bad" battle situations? Assuming that's you're not outnumbered.
How much time does it take to perform all necessary repairs to return to a "good" condition from that states? Assuming that your engineers are competent.
How does your damaged (by 50%) hull changes your tactical and strategic behaviour?

1. Dependant on alot of factors. the ship you fly, the state of your ship (permahull), the positions of your engineers, the movement of your captain and the enemy captain ...
A pyra can be killed in one clip without any chance assuming 100% accuracy on the hull and not one hit closeby and no evasion on the receiving end. A squid or goldfish can survive more than one armordown if the engineers are fast enough.
2. Depends on the map, the spawn they choose the position of the fight and their way of approaching. It can take no time or a long time. Thats sth youve got to take into account. When you fight inside the enemy spawn you have to count on your enemy spawning closeby and killing you right after the engage was won.
3. Dependant on ship, actual position, skill etc etc no time or alot. Its hard to judge. A clearly bad situations like an enemy in your back is easy to judge as "holy crap im dead". A straight forward engage with both ships with gunarcs can take longer to decide as of who gets the gun superiority. For example 2 goldys facing each other, one with a hcarro and one with a hwacha. If the hwacha hits first and correct youre fine. If the carro gets the first disable the situations turns to really bad.
4. Dependant on crew and the coordination within the crew aka are they used to each other to the point they know blind who does what ... barely any time.
5. Depending on ship not alot to alot. A Goldy with half perma gives me headaches and needs a crew to be onspot with its tanking or it dies in the first armorbreak. A galleon with half perma isnt that much of a worry. I know that the guns have to hit correct to save me anyway. Similiar for a spire ... But i admit i fly on strange and kinda unusual spires.

Van-Tuz:
Okay, here's a recap:
* 2 of 3 people are evading to give me straightforward answers like they're in the court and i an the judge.
* 2 of 3 people are possessing an inhuman calculations capabilities. Average human can only make brief assumptions here. Throw in 4 human factors per crew too. Sure, you could classify the situation but i doubt anyone is capable to precisely tell the result.
* Captains and crew skills are halved when the hull is on full health. I might start thinking that the awkward movie trope, where a hero absolutely needs to take a few punches before he could start fighting back, is actually true.
* I should have asked some of the questions in other way.
But hey, at least i've  got some straightforward answers that proved my points:
Taking 50% hull damage decreases your TTK only by 0.8-3 seconds. (1.68 seconds average) Throw in greased rounds for a better effect.
Taking 50% hull damage doesn't change anything major in your behaviour. Sure, you'll fly more carefully but still you don't have any choice but to fight.
Exploiting the enemy's permanent damage is difficult


--- Quote from: Mezhu on September 30, 2014, 10:16:53 am ---Yes the game is hard to learn and master but that's what makes it rewarding and enjoyable.

--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: Sammy B. T. on September 30, 2014, 10:53:58 am ---It is majorly game altering to go from needing to wait for armor breaks to kind of wanting to. Making it so that basically any weapon combination can work for a team is great for individual based games like your average fps. However it takes away from the team work based dynamic.
--- End quote ---
There's a catch: "work" and "work effectively" are 2 significantly different things.

Easy to learn, hard to master.
This is the design paradigm used by many good games. It is implies that a game should be easily accessible and have a room to grow.
Imagine you've got a powder monkey on your team. He occupies mortar and shoots continuously dealing little to no damage. The result: you lose, everyone frustrated.
Why is it happening? Because the game isn't asking you to play as team. It punishes you for not doing so.


The other facet here is choice vs calculations
I won't make a wall of text describing the difference between the two of these. Just watch this video.
In a game choice is always more engaging for a player than a calculation.

Here's an example for you:  Your ship was destroyed and you're moving towards your ally. But when you almost arrived your teammate was destroyed too. What's your actions? Only one: run. By the time you'll engage enemies would be completely repaired and this is a logical calculation to regroup and attack together.
Now, imagine the same situation but if it's a CP game, not a deathmatch. You may want to move forward to block the point. Or wait for your ally. You're making a choice.
Calculations are engaging only the first time. Next time you'll know the correct answer and just execute it. Choices are always engaging.

My system can allow for a choice to be made in the first situation. In my system exploiting hull damage would be much easier and if know that one of the ships has sustained heavy damage you may consciously choose to take a risk. You may easily kill damaged ship and turn it into 1 v 1 battle. The other team would also be presented with a choice: retreat to repair hull damage or risk to lose one ship if you decide to exploit it.
"To be or not to be" that question weren't so engaging if it would've had a definitive answer.

Now give me straightforward answers to these 2 questions:
* Would it be better for a game if it would stimulate players instead of punishing them?
* Do you want to have more opportunities to make a meaningful choice in the game?No more "depending on..." please. Just "Yes" or "no"

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page