Hull and armor system overhaul

[Imagine]

I'm not sure how many more times you can ask a question which almost everyone has responded to be saying that, basically, you're simplifying gameplay and not actually taking how matches play out, without it getting old.

Personally I just wonder what this infatuation with TTK is, a term which, in all my years of gaming, I have never heard of.

Anyways, in terms of your... inquiries, I'm not going to answer either with yes or no because it's a pretty obvious bait to strengthen your arguments without the willingness to actually consider what the counter-arguments are.

[Dementio]

But hey, at least i've  got some straightforward answers that proved my points:
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

But you always have to fight. Your ally can't carry the team.
Exploiting the enemies permanent damage is sometimes difficult and sometimes not at all, it depends (eg.: from what angle you meet your enemy), that's just how it is.

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.

I can't see how your system changes how the game plays once a ship sustained permanent damage, especially not if there is no definite way of repairing the hull. Could I not repair my hull from time to time in the middle of combat like I can repair the armor? Can I not fully repair my hull during the duration between "end of engagement 1" and "start of engagement 2"? The damaged ship might not be damaged at all anymore, by the time both teams meet each other again, how does your system make it "easier"?

The team with the damaged ship is always presented with a choice. If it engages it might lose due to one ship being damaged already or it retreats to get a better engagement in which the damaged ship may not even get its armor destroyed at all.

[macmacnick]

All ships having the same time to kill or the ability to repair Perma hull makes the game horribly bland, and the Crazy king matches that go on for long enough already would go on for an eternity if this was implemented, literally.


And seriously, what's up with this "Time to Kill" Fetish of yours?

[Van-Tuz]

without the willingness to actually consider what the counter-arguments are.

All the "counter-arguments" i hear are the same sentences repeated over and over again. Most of my answers were just ignored. Like now. You just ignored 90% of my previous post.

*sigh* okay starting over again.
C-A #1: Making hull always vulnerable would take away "teamwork"
Answer:

• In my system holding explosive barrage until armor is stripped would be a valid way of working in a team. However, sometimes it would be wise not to. This would actually require more skill from gunner because he would need to adapt to situation instead of relying on the "shoot only when red" definitive answer.
• Armor would still be a valuable part (especially on heavy ships) and every possible way of working as a team around it would stay in place.

C-A #2: Making hull repairable would eliminate its influence on the next battle
Answer:

• The repair speed won't be fast. But other team would have to act quickly to exploit it. The exact numbers are discussable.
• In the current system to exploit the permanent damage you need to break trough armor. In some cases (Galleon) it's so difficult that 90% of the battle it's not giving any advantage.

C-A#3: Ships would die quicker.
Answer: They're not. Increasing the hull health pool would decrease the damage/ hull hp ratio of explosive weapons. That should increase the time needed for hull destruction. Currently this ratio is so high because explosive weapons need to operate in a very small time window.

The other counter-arguments (unless i have missed something) are just "i don't want it to change". That's just a Baby duck syndrome

=================================
Now it's time for a counter-offensive move. I would make a quick recap of the current system's flaws.
The current "shoot only when red" system is:

• Very punishing for newcomers. The game has lost a lot of new captains and gunners because of that.
• Limits the skill ceiling for explosive weapons by presenting only one valid option.
• Makes exploiting hull damage much more difficult than it should.
• As a result of previous point it limits the number of tactical choices. (Examples were presented earlier) 

Do you have anything to say in its defence?

[redria]

Do you have anything to say in its defence?

It gives me a way to fight back and validates the efforts of the pilot, gunners, and engineers.

In any situation if my crew can keep the armor up just long enough to sneak around a corner and out of sight, or if I disable their piercing weapon (s), then I can escape no matter what my permahull is at. If you remove the capability of armor to completely protect the permahull, then last-ditch engineer, pilot, and gunner efforts can't succeed because you lose health no matter what you do.

With your modifications, a heavily damaged ship is a dead ship. I win a battle and have 2 choices - hide in a corner of the map to repair my permahull, or enter a fight knowing I have literally no way to prevent death.
Currently a heavily damaged ship can be used successfully (and almost nothing is more exciting than nursing your 1% health ship through a match) with the recognition that it is open to exploitation. Armor is very easy to break, and with no way to repair permahull you can expect the next engagement to go badly (but it isn't as guaranteed).

Nothing is worse than feeling helpless. In the current system you can always escape through skills and excellent play. The proposed changes here would take away that capability and leave damaged ships feeling helpless.

Consider - you are an engineer rebuilding the armor. You finish rebuilding it and hit it with your mallet. Would you rather know that you just bought your ship several seconds of immunity from permanent damage, or would you rather watch your permahull continue to drop despite the effort you just put in?

[Dementio]

Would rams/terrain still do any significant damage with your new system?

In the current system to exploit the permanent damage you need to break trough armor. In some cases (Galleon) it's so difficult that 90% of the battle it's not giving any advantage.

Destroying a Galleon's armor is supposed to be difficult. Destroying armor never really gives any ship an advantage, only the ability to kill. Do you want to kill them and risk being shot by them?

The repair speed won't be fast. But other team would have to act quickly to exploit it.

The other team might not even have a chance to exploit it at all, if the enemy team quick on the draw and picks them off 1by1 at the spawn directly, while they mindlessly rush in to get the chance to exploit. If they don't rush in like that or the enemy team just moves back a bit, there is a high chance that all the effort of getting hull damage has brought nothing at all since it is getting repaired, bit by bit.
Basically, there is a very high chance that exploiting hull damage will be nigh impossible and just plain pointless. If this is positive or negative is debatable.

The current "shoot only when red" system is:

• Very punishing for newcomers. The game has lost a lot of new captains and gunners because of that.
• Limits the skill ceiling for explosive weapons by presenting only one valid option.
• Makes exploiting hull damage much more difficult than it should.
• As a result of previous point it limits the number of tactical choices. (Examples were presented earlier) 

Yes it is punishing if you refuse to understand the basics. They might not be explained well enough though in the tutorials at the moment. But if the hull can be repaired and armor stays and continues to take little to no damage, while also absorbing a relatively big amount of hull damage on certain ships that choose to have the most DR.
Your suggestion is in contrast very punishing for the own ship. If the hull engineer shoots the guns, he can't shoot the gun because the hull will get damage, even when the armor is up. In the current system your armor takes damage, but not your hull and on a dodge ship you can, at some points, afford this damage.
This might make the life of an engineer a tiny bit more stressful, just an assumption though.

It may limit the skill ceiling, but I can't see how your system "unlimits" it. Shooting while the armor is up is more of a desperate move to get a kill quickly before bad stuff happens.
You can't see how much armor damage the enemy ship took, so it, to me, sounds less like "adapting" and more like "being desperate". Especially since destroying the armor is still a viable option, why would I risk not killing it during the armor break?

Disagree on point 3. In the current system there will always be hull damage to be exploited, until the ship does die.
In your system, the "repairable hull" is actually the exploitable part, because you won't die that easily if you just camp in a corner for 2 minutes and then be back at full health.

Your system introduces a new tactic: "Camp in a corner for 2 minutes to be back at full health".


Edit: Redria and I are hiveminding on how to exploit a repairable hull.

[Omniraptor]

A good solution to non-regenerating health is powerup spawns (like halo:ce had), but they would be next to impossible to work into the game in terms of theme and aesthetics.

[Milevan Faent]

A good solution to non-regenerating health is powerup spawns (like halo:ce had), but they would be next to impossible to work into the game in terms of theme and aesthetics.

*cough*co-ophaspowerupspawns*cough*

[Van-Tuz]

With your modifications, a heavily damaged ship is a dead ship. I win a battle and have 2 choices - hide in a corner of the map to repair my permahull, or enter a fight knowing I have literally no way to prevent death.
Currently a heavily damaged ship can be used successfully...

That's the intended behaviour from the beginning. Taking hull damage is supposed to make you easier target next time. That's a handicap for a losing team to make matches more even. But currently it's not quite exploitable. Many people here (including me) said that a ship with a damaged hull isn't an easy target. That means the intended feature is not working or working not effectively enough.

1) Would rams/terrain still do any significant damage with your new system?

2) The other team might not even have a chance to exploit it at all, if the enemy team quick on the draw and picks them off 1by1 at the spawn directly, while they mindlessly rush in to get the chance to exploit.

3) Your suggestion is in contrast very punishing for the own ship. If the hull engineer shoots the guns, he can't shoot the gun because the hull will get damage, even when the armor is up.

4) It may limit the skill ceiling, but I can't see how your system "unlimits" it. Shooting while the armor is up is more of a desperate move to get a kill quickly before bad stuff happens.
You can't see how much armor damage the enemy ship took, so it, to me, sounds less like "adapting" and more like "being desperate". Especially since destroying the armor is still a viable option, why would I risk not killing it during the armor break?

5) If they don't rush in like that or the enemy team just moves back a bit, there is a high chance that all the effort of getting hull damage has brought nothing at all since it is getting repaired, bit by bit.
...
In your system, the "repairable hull" is actually the exploitable part, because you won't die that easily if you just camp in a corner for 2 minutes and then be back at full health.
Your system introduces a new tactic: "Camp in a corner for 2 minutes to be back at full health".

1) Sure. I don't see a reason why not. But with increased hull health ships would be able to take a few more hits.
2) That situation is much more likely to happen in the current system. You just don't have enough time in 2 v 1 to break trough armor and exploit hull. With the ability to exploit hull right from the start it would be easier.
3) Same situation with the current system. Engineer can't shoot the gun when trying to keep armor repaired.
4) Actually you can. When ships take hull damage they do show visual damage. The ability to find out the enemy hull's status and knowing when it's easier to make a finishing blow ignoring the armor would become the parts of the gunner "skill"
5) The key word is "bit by bit". The repairs are supposed to take time. Sometimes it would force players to retreat instead of proceeding to spawncamp. And sometimes you just won't have a time to completely repair. When you need to hold the captured point for example.

The exact amount of time needed to repair the hull is not strictly defined and could be tweaked.

[macmacnick]

You're interpreting it all wrong. It works, you must be more cautious when you are damaged. If you are the damaged ship, you take a risk entering any engagement, and are the higher priority target. Your views on gameplay are flawed as sometimes the objective is to disable and not to immediately kill, as disabling makes it easier to defeat the enemy, giving the weapons enough time to strip armor off and reveal their hull, and then allowing for the kill.

[RedRoach]

I think I'm hearing something saying that newcomers are having difficulties. I'm not trying to be mean, but it really is just what it sounds like, that people who just picked up the game can't manage to grasp the concept of "flee before destruction" or "use your allies" or "use ammo the right way".

For me, in particular, when I started, it wasn't really like that. I guess I could see if you see big white marks when shooting the galleon with a mortar it does mislead you, but then again, I decided to read before I play on the forums and figured that sort of stuff out.

The main argument is that armor specialties should be spread out, not by taking away weapon capabilities, but by taking away armor resistance. If you feel the need, use this, because I can't change it and am occupied.

[Wundsalz]

C-A #1: Making hull always vulnerable would take away "teamwork"
Answer:
In my system holding explosive barrage until armor is stripped would be a valid way of working in a team. However, sometimes it would be wise not to. This would actually require more skill from gunner because he would need to adapt to situation instead of relying on the "shoot only when red" definitive answer.

Actually I do believe most explosive weapons in GoI are a good example for a game mechanic thats easy to pick up, but hard to master. The main purpose of explosive weapons is to inflict permanent damage on enemy ships, so you want to hit with them while the armor is down. That's why we hear the phrase "SHOOT only when the armor is down" so often. However this request is a very dumbed down version of how explosive weapons are handled properly. What you really want is to HIT the enemies hull when the armor is down. The difference between these two statements is where players can improve their skill and situational awareness. Due to the travel time of the projectiles it's usually required to shoot explosive weapons before the armor is actually destroyed. Estimating the right time to shoot involves a lot of variables (e.g. The targets ship type, the targets hull and armor state, the targets and your own ships position and movement, the performance of your own and your partners hull-striping weapons...) and hence requires a lot of experience and coordination with your team to master.
Allowing explosive damage to inflict hull damage all the time would severely lessen the importance of well timed shots and hence dull down a well established and well working game mechanic.

[Terrkas]

It looks like you want to make the game more intuitive for new players. But with your new system, you will probably confuse them. Many novices allready prefer only explosive damage ships, when they are captain. I guess it is because the gun says "good vs hull" and with your system they would be able to kill easily pyras, squids, mobulas, spires and goldfishes with double mortar on their pyras. They will probably take even more time to learn, that an exposed hull is better for them to finish off heavy armored ships, what a galleon and a junker would be.

[Van-Tuz]

Actually I do believe most explosive weapons in GoI are a good example for a game mechanic thats easy to pick up, but hard to master.
...
What you really want is to HIT the enemies hull when the armor is down. The difference between these two statements is where players can improve their skill and situational awareness. Due to the travel time of the projectiles it's usually required to shoot explosive weapons before the armor is actually destroyed.
...
Allowing explosive damage to inflict hull damage all the time would severely lessen the importance of well timed shots and hence dull down a well established and well working game mechanic.

I'm not convinced.
Mortars and hwachas are used at point blank range and have more than enough ammo to allow for some mistakes.
Hflak is no more difficult to use than another long range guns like Mercury field gun.

It would "lessen the importance" of this top gunners' "skill" only because it would not be the only one. This trick would stay as it is and would allow to deal maximum damage. But there would be more tactical tricks to learn.

It looks like you want to make the game more intuitive for new players. But with your new system, you will probably confuse them. Many novices allready prefer only explosive damage ships, when they are captain. I guess it is because the gun says "good vs hull" and with your system they would be able to kill easily pyras, squids, mobulas, spires and goldfishes with double mortar on their pyras. They will probably take even more time to learn, that an exposed hull is better for them to finish off heavy armored ships, what a galleon and a junker would be.

I think it would be better than a situation when said newbie can't kill anyone at all. Much better.
Besides, after having troubles with killing a Junker, newbie may want to know why and see a "heavy armor" note. After that he may think of bringing an armor-piercing gun himself. This process would be much more "natural" learning process than a note saying "you MUST bring gatling gun" and new players would feel clever and rewarded.

[Alistair MacBain]

Ever shot a Hflak at longer ranges? 1k+?
I doubt it if you call it as easy as a merc ...
Bullet speed, bullet drop ... Hflak is much harde rto shoot.

And I still cant agree that this system is more rewarding or obvious.
Its much easier to realize that a piercing gun is needed than to figure out which ships have light and which ships have heavy armor ...