Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Hull and armor system overhaul

<< < (8/14) > >>

SirNotlag:
I don't like your system because it would make being an engineer a nightmare and a very boring job. In the current system an engineering crew could save the day by keeping components running and managing to get the armour back up in the nick of time allowing the ship to stay afloat.

In your system I don't see that happening if the armour goes down and the engineers get it back up is there really a point? The hull is still taking damage and the massive extra damage they sustained has probably already lost them the fight. You system focuses too much on the aggressive side and takes away from the engineers capabilities and effectiveness.

I feel your system would lead people to just flat out refuse to engineer because they wouldn't feel like they had any control on the outcomes of the fight like the gunners and pilots would.

Milevan Faent:
I just don't like the system because it means my Squid would be all but useless, no matter what. Either it gets slaughtered, or the damage it deals in the brief hit-and-run attacks I make is repaired between runs. Either way, I lose.

HamsterIV:
To derail this topic towards something interesting I would like to propose a rhetorical question:

Why aren't action movies all action?

With the budgets some of these movies have it is entirely possible to shoot 90 minute long Friedie Wong Video:
https://www.youtube.com/user/freddiew

Yet even the the most brain dead action movies insist on throwing in dialog and attempts at character development when they could just show more punching and blowing stuff up.

The reason is pacing. The human mind can only take so much intensity before it gets inured to the experience and treats it as white noise. The most interesting movies understand this and have peaks and valleys to the action to allow the human mind to better appreciate the action. The audience may only remember the peaks but without the valleys the whole experience would be lesser. See Graph:


This pacing is the reason for rechargeable shield and heath mechanics becoming so popular in FPS games since it was first introduced in Halo (I think). At the start of the encounter the shield is full and the player is relaxed as the shield drops from enemy fire the encounter becomes more intense due to impending failure state. Eventually some action restores the shield at which the player can relax a bit.

The shield mechanic accounts for an individual spike on the intensity graph but it can not accomplish the gradual rising of intensity. For that you need some way of raising the intensity between engagements. Single player games do this by increasing the enemy difficulty, but that is not an option in multi player games. Multi player games can do this through proximity to end state. Such as the Battle Field ticket system where there is a countdown to end game.

However considering how many GOI games end in 5-0 this isn't always the case. The perma hull mechanic is another way to create the rising intensity since the entering a brawl on 5% perma hull is a much riskier situation than entering a brawl at 100%.

RedRoach:
I'm not even going to ask about the Heavy Flak thing since you've taken to it harshly.


--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on October 07, 2014, 02:03:19 pm ---Whichever armor class Junker would have in my system it's supposed to be shown in the ship description. This information is easy to show and easy to understand.
On the other hand, a newbie captain may be completely misleaded. His learning is completely dependent on the other people. If his mistakes were noticed and were politely explained and he didn't took it as insult then good. But if not? What if he have all AI or other newbies on the crew? They would shoot and white marks would pop up showing that damage is dealt but in fact they would deal no damage at all. The current system is just counter-intuitive in this case.

--- End quote ---

But what if you have to unlock the ship description? Like the gun descriptions in your (admittedly far back) post?
And for me... I didn't learn from AIs or newbies. Hell, I didn't ask pilots what weapons did what. I actually looked it up first on the website  (you know, the one that links to the forums, the one you're viewing this on) to learn that piercing weps were really effective against armor, and explosions are a hull's worst enemy. Again, that feels like a tutorial issue, but for me, that wasn't a problem.

Unlike everyone else I'm going to just ask about the system and see if your idea could either replace /
combine with GoIO and not jepordize the game.

1.) How will the possibility of repairing the hull change gameplay tactically?

2.) With a armor of mortar-strip-possible, and a squishy hull, would the squid become flat out useless?
Or would it gain an insane speed buff or something?

3.) Utilizing high armor and hull (to my memory) and a bunch of heavy weapons that now become more useful in killing rather than disabling, what would happen to the galleon?

4.) Would repairing the hull be done with a completely different tool? Would people have to hit the current hull area? Or somewhere else? And would it be like the current system of whack and wait, or like the buff hammer, where people can all start smacking away but for low low hp?

5.) How would this add more focus to other weapons? As in change the current metas like gat-mortar? This adds power to all weapons, not just a select underpowered / underused few. Weapons I'm looking at include the artemis, banshee, H flak, carronades (both of them), hades, and flamer.

6.) Would damage taken from components go as a percentage into the hull while dealing some damage to components? Or would it still do full damage to the components before going to the armor / hull? And even then, would damage from broken components go to just the armor, or the hull / armor hybrid? This question is asked with burst rounds in mind, due to AoE capabilities.

7.) What happens to flame stacks? Do they do direct percentage damage to hull because they hit the armor? Or do the stacks do their own small little percentage damage to armor and flaming the armor does no damage to hull?

8.) What sort of tactical moves would be created besides retreat and repair? Please name 2 because I would like to see if these types of mindsets aren't already going through pilots' heads in similar scenarios in the current system. (btw, retreat and repair is already a given mindset, I usually retreat if the armor, guns and an engine or two are down, everything else damaged, and a pyramidion looming.)

9.) Sandstorms. Those things that whittle away everything on the ship. What do those do to the ship? Or is it suddenly possible to now get constant perma-damge from the sandstorm? (which would suck)

10.) What would be the use of piercing weapons if perma-damage can be pushed through armor anyway? (Galleons are a iffy response because piercing weapons would have been needed before this change in the first place)

11.) Would buff hammer add on a reduction on damage taken to the hull too? This is considered due to weapons piercing the armor regardless of it's state.

macmacnick:
...Imbalance and all the other horrible crap would happen. The way the current hull armor and permahull system is implemented works quite fine, does not need any changing whatsoever. Period. It allows for suspense, tactics and a change in dynamics if your ship has low permahull, such as squid tanking (The damn things can be near immortal with good engis and pilots, along with teamwork), collaboration with your ally to utilize the damaged ship in the best way possible, or even as a bait and distraction by using the ship as the bait, and the other ship(s) as the trap.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page