Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Hull and armor system overhaul

<< < (12/14) > >>

Van-Tuz:
I see. I have replied to that post but it looks like i've slightly misunderstood it.
Basically, you'd like the engineer to provide absolute protection to the ship, am i right?
In that case i'd like to ask you: is the absolute protection really necessary to provide satisfaction?
In my system medium armor allows the hull to take 2x more damage. Heavy armor allows to take 3.5x more damage. With this numbers keeping armor repaired provides the ship with substantial boost to its survivability. I think this gives engineer's job a lot of importance.
Also, with the increased hull hp pool ships won't die in seconds after armor break. So if main engineer was distracted (needed to shoot for example) when armor was broken, he would have more time to go back and rebuild. Again, it would forgive mistakes a bit more.


--- Quote from: redria on October 10, 2014, 04:43:10 pm ---Some of the resistance you are meeting comes from the tone you take in many of your posts, stemming from experiences you have had that many on here have not had, or disagree with. It is hard to calmly enter a discussion when you start off by denying that a tactic regularly used by many posters here doesn't currently exist (retreat).
--- End quote ---
That wasn't actually denial.
What is "retreat" currently: You hide behind a corner then turn around and go back to fight fully repaired. It requires very little time and full repair could even be done in battle if enemy has eased the pressure a little. That's why i don't really consider it a proper "retreat"
When you need to really break off the fight and require a lot more time to repair then it's much closer to "retreat" as i see it.


--- Quote from: redria on October 10, 2014, 04:43:10 pm ---Additionally, I guarantee that a weakened ship could and would hide for as long as it took to heal up before entering another engagement. There are no time limits, no outside factor urging players to engage. A weakened ship has nothing to lose by hiding for 30 minutes (okay, even just 5).
--- End quote ---
In the CP game this is not a problem at all. In the DM... Ideally some kind of detection and intercept system need to be made to limit the mobility of fast ships but i can't think of a good one for now. Such system can benefit the game in its current state too.
-----------
Many complains are about repairing the hull. But i don't want to drop this bit of a system.
1) Ships would become prone to wearing down.
2) You won't have any choice but to fight no matter how badly your hull damaged.
3) You won't have a reason to make a "long retreat". Only short ones behind a corner.
I hope my motives are clear. I don't want a Squid equipped with a light flak to slowly and painfully wear your ship down.

In the meantime i can suggest 2 solutions:
1) Hybrid system where you can repair only 50% of taken hull damage. I don't like it much this because the possibility of wearing down still exists and becomes even more painful.
2) Material pool system. You have a supply of "spare parts" to repair 40% of the hull. Then you need to replenish it at the specific point. (1 in the centre for DM and 2 at team spawns for CP) so your enemy would know where to catch you. That one is different from the system where you pick up the hull hp directly. (it was suggested somewhere here but i can't find it now)

Wundsalz:

--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on October 11, 2014, 05:54:14 am ---I see. I have replied to that post but it looks like i've slightly misunderstood it.
Basically, you'd like the engineer to provide absolute protection to the ship, am i right?

--- End quote ---
I think you're missing the point. Currently an engineer can buy the ship another few seconds of hull-invulnerability by repairing the hull and applying a mallet whack. These rebuilds can be decisive in outgunning situations or when fleeing the scene. It's quite satisfying as a main engineer to save the day by rebuilding the armor just before the impact of the killing blow which can often turn the tide of an entire engagement.
Your system would lacks the clear cut between tension (stripped hull-armor while shots rain in) and relief (bought a couple of seconds after the rebuild) and replace it with a attrition mechanic. Sure hull maintenance will probably still be an important job for the main engineer, but those dramatic moments where multiple crew members rush to the hull to patch it up asap in order to make a qualitative difference would be gone.
Currently a striped hull puts the entire ship into a different state, forcing  crew members to act entirely differently than a second ago when the hull was up. It's a good mechanic to build up tension and to mix things up. The game would lack this element with your system.


--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on October 11, 2014, 05:54:14 am ---In my system medium armor allows the hull to take 2x more damage. Heavy armor allows to take 3.5x more damage. With this numbers keeping armor repaired provides the ship with substantial boost to its survivability. I think this gives engineer's job a lot of importance.

--- End quote ---
how so?


--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on October 11, 2014, 05:54:14 am ---What is "retreat" currently: You hide behind a corner then turn around and go back to fight fully repaired. It requires very little time and full repair could even be done in battle if enemy has eased the pressure a little. That's why i don't really consider it a proper "retreat"

--- End quote ---
It is impossible to outrepair damage while the enemy points guns into your direction and is in an effective range to use them. This is true for both, battle situations and when trying to shake an enemy tailing you during a retreat. Retreats are usually used to regroup with your ally and to initiate an entirely new positioning of your ships. It's a fundamentally different maneuver to dodging a couple of shots behind the next best cover.


--- Quote from: Van-Tuz on October 11, 2014, 05:54:14 am ---
--- Quote from: redria on October 10, 2014, 04:43:10 pm ---Additionally, I guarantee that a weakened ship could and would hide for as long as it took to heal up before entering another engagement. There are no time limits, no outside factor urging players to engage. A weakened ship has nothing to lose by hiding for 30 minutes (okay, even just 5).
--- End quote ---
In the CP game this is not a problem at all. In the DM... Ideally some kind of detection and intercept system need to be made to limit the mobility of fast ships but i can't think of a good one for now. Such system can benefit the game in its current state too.

--- End quote ---
In there current system there's nothing to gain by hiding for prolonged times. This problem is exclusive for your system.

GeoRmr:
I've been monitoring this thread for a while now, and I'm surprised (and slightly disgusted) at how people are discussing this as if the extremely remote possibility that muse would consider implementing a complete redesign of game mechanics would ever actually happen.
(They barely have enough time to give us more maps)

P.S. Its a terrible idea that would completely screw up game balance. (Maybe you can tell by the number of positive responses that agree with it in the thread? Heck, even Milevan doesn't like it.)

Edit: Before everyone tells me to chill out because - its just an idea-
Can we get a mod to move this to the pit? The continued discussion of things like this in a serious board sometimes makes Awkm do strange things to the game.

GeoRmr:

--- Quote from: HamsterIV on October 09, 2014, 08:01:15 pm ---I feel a bit of the rage Milevan expressed every time I see this thread. I have refrained from doing a similar angry post on several occasions because I do not want to feed the OP's ego.

--- End quote ---

Sorry Hamster, I gave in. The repeated bumping with huge walls of text pushed me too far.

Nidh:
What exactly are the problems you're trying to solve? Inconsistent ttk, and tactical options?

Problem: Inconsistent ttk
Solution: All weapons deal direct damage to hull (reduced by armor), larger hp pools, permahull repairable.

Thoughts: Well, if all weapons could get damage past armor then the repairable permahull and larger hp pools would definitely be a must. But I don't see how that's much different from a single large hp bar that you can apply a debuff to (breaking the armor).

Why is this bad? There is nothing to gain from damaging your enemy because if they get away they can tank, repair to full, and be even harder to kill then they would be with the current system. I recall the first example you gave was the galleon surviving on 5% permahull. I can't see how this would be any different except that it would now be even more likely that the galleon will survive.

Problem: Limited Tactical Options
Solution: Repairable Permahull to allow for retreating.

Thoughts: Retreating is already used a lot. Captains who know what they're doing will rotate out the aggressor of the team if one of them has taken too much damage. I know that's not the kind of retreat you're talking about though. You want to have periods of downtime where the ship fully repairs and re-analyses the situation before returning to battle.

Why will this not work? In the proposed system, the only way to take advantage of damaging a ship, you must act quickly and keep up the pressure. Instead of creating more tactical options, this system will only create one: "kill them before they get away" Good captains who adapt to this new system will not give any ship the option to retreat and will hunt down and kill the opposing team. They have to, or any advantage they hand in the engagement will be lost. This means that the only "repairing to full" will be done by the team that hunted down and killed the other team and are just waiting on re spawns. Retreat can only be afforded by the victor, in the proposed system.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page