Author Topic: Hull and armor system overhaul  (Read 13336 times)

Offline Van-Tuz

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • 10 
    • 15
    • 16 
    • View Profile
Re: Hull and armor system overhaul
« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2014, 01:22:34 pm »
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)
That's not a reason to not discuss this. Otherwise you could just go in every thread in this section and post the same message.

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.
How? Why? Care to explain. With numbers.
The quantity of people saying "no" doesn't matter for me. The "quality" is. If a person can't back his statement with logical explanation then all his ranting matters not to me. And it doesn't matter how big his numbers under the avatar.
This is also a serious thread. I'm not suggesting guns shooting lazorz here.

One more thing: i tend to take every statement about psychological side of changes with a grain of salt. Humans have a strong defensive mechanism called "Impriting". It makes us very clingy to all old things. "Users generally prefer systems similar to those they learned on and dislike unfamiliar systems."

I have asked a question:
is the absolute protection really necessary to provide satisfaction?
Example 1:
Current system: Hwacha barrage deals 80% damage to the hull. Your hull have 50% You have rebuilt the armor and wasn't killed. You have retreated form battle.
My system: Hwacha barrage deals 45% damage to the hull. Your hull have 35% You have rebuilt the armor and wasn't killed. Hull took 15% damage. You have retreated form battle.

How major is the difference? In both cases engineer has saved the ship right before the killing blow. So the engineer should be satisfied in both cases. Sure, taking no damage is a bit better but still.
Now, let's look at it from the other side of a barrel.

Example 2: Goldfish in 1 v 1 fight against other Goldfish. The second one is critically damaged and disabled. G1 strips G2's armor with a side gatling then turns to finish it with Hwacha.
Current system: G2's engineers furiously whacking the hardpoint, rebuilding armor right before the barrage. Hull takes no damage and it could be repeated indefinitely.
My system: G2's engineers furiously whacking the hardpoint, rebuilding armor right before the barrage but some damage bleeds trough. Eventually G2 would be killed.

The question: Why a combined efforts of 3 people from the first Goldfish should be completely nullified? Why should they be frustrated?

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.
That example just proves that exploiting the hull damage is very difficult and there's not too much difference between a new ship and the one that was a hair away from death. I think critical hull condition should make the ship very, very vulnerable.

Why will this not work?
...
 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.
Do you think the current situation "just assume the best position and wait until they come to us" is better? I think no. Waiting game is boring to play and boring to watch. Besides, spawncamping would be much harder because campers would lose a chunk of hull with each fight and won't be able to repair it quickly enough.

Offline Nidh

  • Member
  • Salutes: 16
    • [GwTh]
    • 21
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Hull and armor system overhaul
« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2014, 01:34:36 pm »
"I think critical hull condition should make the ship very, very vulnerable."

A ship with 5% permahull IS very, very vulnerable, especially if the other team recognizes that it is on low health and focuses fire on it. Your system would make it less vulnerable if the Galleon was given the chance to repair.

"Do you think the current situation 'just assume the best position and wait until they come to us' is better?"

By "current situation" I'm assuming that's the kind of matches you face a lot of the time. I don't face those matches very often in pub games. They are more common in higher level games, but they have a huge weakness. If the enemy is sitting and waiting, they are extremely vulnerable to a bait and switch flanking maneuver that I find very satisfying to pull off. "Boring to play and boring to watch" is an opinion and is not a valid argument. I find flanking and tactically outwitting camping teams very fun to play AND watch.

"spawncamping would be much harder"

I have never been spawn camped in this game, except in Duel, but that map has weird spawns anyway.

"campers would lose a chunk of hull with each fight and won't be able to repair it quickly enough."

That sounds like permahull that can't be repaired to me.

"Current system: G2's engineers furiously whacking the hardpoint, rebuilding armor right before the barrage. Hull takes no damage and it could be repeated indefinitely.
My system: G2's engineers furiously whacking the hardpoint, rebuilding armor right before the barrage but some damage bleeds trough. Eventually G2 would be killed"

You forget that the armor takes damage from the hwacha as well, and that it cannot be sustained indefinitely. In the current system, G2 would be killed eventually as well.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 01:44:43 pm by Nidh »

Offline GeoRmr

  • Member
  • Salutes: 178
    • [Rydr]
    • 45 
    • 1
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Storm Ryders
Re: Hull and armor system overhaul
« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2014, 01:52:03 pm »
Quote
"How? Why? Care to explain. With numbers."

Enough people have done that already.

Quote
"...And it doesn't matter how big his numbers under the avatar."

Quote
One more thing: i tend to take every statement about psychological side of changes with a grain of salt. Humans have a strong defensive mechanism called "Impriting". It makes us very clingy to all old things. "Users generally prefer systems similar to those they learned on and dislike unfamiliar systems."

I apologise for whatever perceived gravitas my levels added to the last post, but now that you mention it: Yes, I've played this game a lot, I enjoy this game. You want to drastically change the game that I enjoy for no good reason - I don't want you to do that, because I'm quite happy playing the game as it is. (I think the changes you suggest sound shit, and I wouldn't want to play this game with the adjustments you're suggesting) Sure change is good - if its to fix something broken. Change for the sake of change is always shit, if you support it you should probably consider a career in politics.

Do I really need to back that statement up with numbers? I hope you can grasp the concept.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 02:05:01 pm by GeoRmr »

Offline RedRoach

  • Member
  • Salutes: 23
    • 11
    • View Profile
Re: Hull and armor system overhaul
« Reply #63 on: October 11, 2014, 04:33:29 pm »
Edit: This is  weird place to put an edit, I know.. but...


<-------
And it doesn't matter how big his numbers under the avatar.
End of Edit:

One more thing: i tend to take every statement about psychological side of changes with a grain of salt. Humans have a strong defensive mechanism called "Impriting". It makes us very clingy to all old things. "Users generally prefer systems similar to those they learned on and dislike unfamiliar systems."

Yeah... about regenerating health... ah.. I'm very certain that also pops onto the very same concept you're pushing... ahem FPS games...

Current system: Hwacha barrage deals 80% damage to the hull. Your hull have 50% You have rebuilt the armor and wasn't killed. You have retreated form battle.
My system: Hwacha barrage deals 45% damage to the hull. Your hull have 35% You have rebuilt the armor and wasn't killed. Hull took 15% damage. You have retreated form battle.

Let me point out that a ship in your system would be either above 50% at all times, or be dead at all times. But that's not what I'm confused about. How does a ship take 80% damage (note a hellova lot of missiles hitting the ship) and NOT take any hull damage? Which, with current multipliers, probbably take it down to 35-30% range? For your system, I understand "Armor is all-holy and almighty god of defense" but whyyyy would a ship's crew fire a hwacha barrage AT THAT MOMENT? Everyone can see the "Ship A's armor is destroyed!" marker in their top right, and to my knowledge, three engines whacking with spanners takes about 3-4 rounds of whacking, not to mention with two and a third gunner firing back it's usually 4-3. In my opinion, that's more than enough time to decide "FIRE!" is a good idea or not, and even then, you can see when their armor is repaired, allowing you to instantly halt the barrage and wait a few secodns for side gun armor strip magic, and then badamaboom with the remainder of weapon or a whole new clip. And in the last scenario, let us not forget: Hwacha barrages still can do some damage towards the armor & hull with the damage, meaning there's still the chance the ship can be seriously damaged before turning the other guns, which maybe just enough to finish it off. My feeling is that you can't point the heavy gun of the Goldfish like the death-ray of The Lord. Heavy use, yeas, but there's a reason no ship has just one gun. And with the assumption that base-armor near destruction is around 50%, and taking into account current multipliers (which would make an assumed average of about 75%, maths class!) that would mean that the ship would take a crap-ton more than 15 damage. Approximately 26-25%. Which would definitely put it into the dooms-day range. If, it weren't repaired back to full by a kite-around through all the sandstorms and buildings. *ahem previous post*

Now, let's look at it from the other side of a barrel.

Example 2: Goldfish in 1 v 1 fight against other Goldfish. The second one is critically damaged and disabled. G1 strips G2's armor with a side gatling then turns to finish it with Hwacha.
Current system: G2's engineers furiously whacking the hardpoint, rebuilding armor right before the barrage. Hull takes no damage and it could be repeated indefinitely.
My system: G2's engineers furiously whacking the hardpoint, rebuilding armor right before the barrage but some damage bleeds trough. Eventually G2 would be killed.

The question: Why a combined efforts of 3 people from the first Goldfish should be completely nullified? Why should they be frustrated?

I hope by critically damaged you mean by 25% or so, because above that is "Heavily damaged". Critically is the point where you sweat every time you see a ship. And for me, that's 25%. Assuming a Hwacha still has an unchanged 1.3 modifier when smacking the armor for such limited time, that's a large amount of damage. Repeat to my first response to first example for armor whacking time, and that's a large amount of boom. How the hell you'd not get a single rocket to scratch their hull in time is beyond me. And, following YOUR logic of "You can keep up with the other ships if they try to repair" which shouldn't have been changed in the current system, a follow-up barrage can easily whittle away at them. Completely nullified? NONONONO! Somewhat nullified? Yes. If it were completely nullified, should they be frustrated? In my opinion, that would be so, but it would be justified as a bad attack. Because the only natural scenario is a ship blowing straight past another one or breaking cover, and the former is human error, the latter is tactical.

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.
That example just proves that exploiting the hull damage is very difficult and there's not too much difference between a new ship and the one that was a hair away from death. I think critical hull condition should make the ship very, very vulnerable.

BUT- BUT- FIVE PERCENT- MERC PIERCE- HWACHA BARRAGE-

Seriously though, you can't pop the armor quick enough for a 5% hull repair? Kite around to either the front or back with light guns, and hell, with just two gats you could probably get any remaining hull to crumble with just that. *ahem junker broadside build ahem*  Heavy weapons could still be fired, doing some damage to the armor and potentially pushing it enough to get right on up to the last 5%. And in addition, any ship with less than 5% has to play the caution game in the current system. The chance of a scenario like this where a galleon happens upon a goldfish intentionally? . With your system, the caution game would be replaced with the flight game. Again, highly unlikely that a galleon could outrun a goldfish. After killing a goldfish, and flying away? And in most maps if one isn't looking for a fight they could easily avoid their enemies? Quite the valid option indeed.
Why will this not work?
...
 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.
Do you think the current situation "just assume the best position and wait until they come to us" is better? I think no. Waiting game is boring to play and boring to watch. Besides, spawncamping would be much harder because campers would lose a chunk of hull with each fight and won't be able to repair it quickly enough.

"Just assume the best position and wait until they come to us" is actually the base of CP. Which... depending of the skill of both teams, could either make or break a team. Imagine a vet team against a bad team. Bad team can't quite get that kill, but the vets are repairing while obliterating them. Sure, you've put a timer on their lifespan, but that timer still isn't very short. After they die, the bad team goes in. Surprise, they can't hold out at all against the vets. Their hull can barely scrape by a single fight, but with the new update, they're ultimately doomed. Doesn't really change much there. This ignores any potential hidden tactics that I don't know about because assuming the best position and waiting would be how I play.

Waiting game is boring to watch? Weeeeeelllll then, let me introduce you to the sniper!
In seriousness though... people will do that to keep themselves out of harm and win at the same time, to the point of pilots grabbing donuts and beers mid-match. I will use this again if you bring up wait times again.

You are damn right spawncamping would be so much harder when campers lose a chunk of their hull. What you don't take into account is what happens when they swap in and out. Imagine, if you will, a gat-mortar pyramidion team. Both spawncamp, and the kill-limit is about 20 or so, so the match just drags. The non-camp team manages to scrap up a pyramidion to about 60% perma. No biggie. Fly away hile your teammate still gets the drop on unsuspecting spawns. Then, when he's back to 80%+, he replaces his teammate. Every system is exploitable, it's just that some seem easier to exploit than others. Armor exploit? Problem, because you have to need some loss of repairs to do that. Hull exploit? Fly around, dodge fights, and boom, you can get back in.

Now to push a question of my own.

How would your system affect players? As in, "How will a new player feel that this system is easier than before?", and "How will a veteran player, who's well versed in tactics and skill, be changed by this system"? I feel that it cuts the current divide deeper by making veteran players who know piercing weapons still remove armor quickly can now use both pierce and explosive at opportune, while players who still do a "shoot all the things" logic will be troubled like before, and the health of every battle is recharged slightly, extending fights like these?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 04:55:55 pm by RedRoach »

Offline Wundsalz

  • Member
  • Salutes: 72
    • [Rydr]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Hull and armor system overhaul
« Reply #64 on: October 12, 2014, 08:59:18 am »
How major is the difference? In both cases engineer has saved the ship right before the killing blow. So the engineer should be satisfied in both cases. Sure, taking no damage is a bit better but still.
Now, let's look at it from the other side of a barrel.
In your system the engineer could say "Haha! I've just whacked the hull with my mallet - you now need to hit us 6 times with the morter instead of 4 times to kill us - take that!"
In the current system the engineer could say "Haha! I've just rebuild the armor and now the enemy needs to use a hull-striping weapon against us before he can harm us. This has probably bought us enough time to secure the kill ourselves"
The latter is way more satisfying for the engineer as he made a qualitative difference rather than a pure quantitative one as in the first statement. Whether or not the repairs of the engineers have got more or less the same actual effect when it comes to buying time for the ship isn't even most important. The feeling is. Stripped hulls put the entire crew into a dramatic state - everyone knows that shit is about to hit the fan now and the priorities for the tasks each crew member has to fulfill shifts for a moment. Not only does this state help to build up excitement, but it also contributes to building up team-spirit (focused repairs 'n stuff). You know, these "Well I've got no idea how we've survived this, but somehow we did. Good job everyone, we rock!"-moments.
In your system this dramaturgical element of rapid state-shifts would be eliminated and replaced by a pure attrition system. Sure, the main engineer will still make a difference by keeping the hull clocking during his repair cycles, but I don't see how it can create the same excitement as the state-shift in the current system.

Example 2: Goldfish in 1 v 1 fight against other Goldfish. The second one is critically damaged and disabled. G1 strips G2's armor with a side gatling then turns to finish it with Hwacha.
Current system: G2's engineers furiously whacking the hardpoint, rebuilding armor right before the barrage. Hull takes no damage and it could be repeated indefinitely.
This is exactly the kind of bullshit-statement I've referred to two posts earlier.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2014, 09:02:27 am by Wundsalz »

Offline Alistair MacBain

  • Member
  • Salutes: 23
    • [GwTh]
    • 22 
    • 45
    • 19 
    • View Profile
Re: Hull and armor system overhaul
« Reply #65 on: October 12, 2014, 09:35:02 am »
A Goldfish is not meant to be the killship.
Its a support ship that provides distraction and disable on an enemy. It destroys balloons and takes enemies out of the fight. It disables whole ships with one hwacha barrage.
Its the bigger brother of the squid. It provides distraction for the enemy. Has a bigger gun but less mobility. And it can survive longer.

Offline Wundsalz

  • Member
  • Salutes: 72
    • [Rydr]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Hull and armor system overhaul
« Reply #66 on: October 12, 2014, 10:13:09 am »
A Goldfish is not meant to be the killship.
Its a support ship that provides distraction and disable on an enemy. It destroys balloons and takes enemies out of the fight. It disables whole ships with one hwacha barrage.
Its the bigger brother of the squid. It provides distraction for the enemy. Has a bigger gun but less mobility. And it can survive longer.

Still in the described situation Goldie 1 shouldn't have a problem to secure the kill. Even if the maneuver is poorly executed.

Offline Crafeksterty

  • Member
  • Salutes: 73
    • [GwTh]
    • 17 
    • 28
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Hull and armor system overhaul
« Reply #67 on: October 12, 2014, 10:31:12 am »
I think were forgetting the gameplay Value of having armor as opposed to constant damage.

The thing about armor is that it rewards not being damaged at all. For the whole time you got shot at and recieved damage to your armor, and not your perma, you are actually untouched.
Why? Because this game holds huge easy to hit ships. Armor forgives that aspect with making it OK to be hit.

Its a wind up before getting killed. And learning to notice and play against different armors makes shooting more smart, instead of just... shoot.
So with armor, the game makes sure you will not live on forever with permahull being unrepairable. That is going to make ships die eventually guranteed.

With every ship, the armor is always a windup before you are in any real danger. Its the ships surviveability as a target. The permahull is the ships lastability.
With this change, you have a blurred lines in what guns are most effective (between armor damage weapons versus explosive) and a blurred lines between what really you should be worried about.

Offline HamsterIV

  • Member
  • Salutes: 328
    • 10 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Monkey Dev
Re: Hull and armor system overhaul
« Reply #68 on: October 13, 2014, 05:16:52 pm »
While it is fun to play arm chair game designer, the changes Van Tuz suggests would constitute an entirely new game. Combine this thread with the other threads he has created proposing drastic changes, and I think there are enough new ideas to make a new Airship Combat game that has nothing to do with Guns of Icarus.

If he is right his new game would be bigger than Gun of Icarus and those that doubted him will all have to eat crow. If he is wrong then nobody will care about the new game and we can keep enjoying Guns of Icarus.

The bar to enter the game development field is lower than it has ever been in human history. The Indie version of Unity 3D is free to publish with as are a wide variety of 3d and 2d art tools (Blender and Gimp). The big limiting factor to game development is time and expertise; Van Tuz seems to lack neither. So I request Van Tuz make his masterpiece of an Air Ship Battle Game and show these new game dynamics in action.