Forums » Suggestions
Moldy,
i think that was refering to how fast ships moved not how long combat as a whole lasted.
anyway, i've been championing one or two hit cents for a while now, so i like the idea as a whole. but i do agree that there has to be a range in that medium and heavy fighters should take more punishmint than the ultra-lights.
i think that was refering to how fast ships moved not how long combat as a whole lasted.
anyway, i've been championing one or two hit cents for a while now, so i like the idea as a whole. but i do agree that there has to be a range in that medium and heavy fighters should take more punishmint than the ultra-lights.
If cents become a 2 hit kill, they'd have to go back to their original tiny size and thrust.
Somehow this has turned into a nerf the cent thread.
Which hey I'm all for as long as you nerf everything else as well.
..........
I kinda like things the way they are.
Which hey I'm all for as long as you nerf everything else as well.
..........
I kinda like things the way they are.
I agree, Kix, that I like things as they are now; also, Ghost, that would be EXACTLY the idea (old Cent but with nadda HP). Or, we can have a new ship that fits those stats (I really don't care which).
I am still for the drastic lowering of armor counts. Maybe smaller decrements than Shape suggested, but it would definitely help. It would also even out the playing field a bit since worse players could win by landing lucky shots more often (and I think that would be a good thing).
Basically, this comes back down to more variety in ships. Basically, all the ships are pretty much the same, just bigger or smaller. Small ships have less armor and less weapons, big ships have big armor and more weapons. There should be assault/interceptor ships that are very small and very fast but pack a punch. Essentially these would be a powerful weapon with an engine and a cockpit strapped onto it, and therefore wouldn't take much to take out but is a real threat to a large ship. This would encourage players to group up so that there is strength in numbers attacking a cap ship, and the cap ship would want several escort backups. Small fighters would make up for lack of armor with high speed and maneuverability (made possible by that very lack of armor weight) and larger gunboats/destroyers/battleships/carriers would make up for lack of speed/maneuverability with more armor and turrets.
Here's a real-world situation to consider, from World War II, that I think applies here. Battleships and carriers were slow, but heavily armored and had many guns. Torpedo bombers were equipped with just a couple powerful torpedos and essentially no armor. Nearly all of these were shot down by the AA guns on the ships, but when they scored a good hit it did serious damage. Most of the ship kills, though, were from fighter planes (again, practically no armor, so as to decrease weight and improve performance) who dive-bombed the ships who were busy shooting down torpedo bombers.
Cap ships could have big guns that are super powerful but limited in some way: Slow rate of fire, limited ammo, high energy drain. This would make these weapons effective against other large ships, but wasted on small fighters. They could also have the equivalent of AA guns: Smaller, fast-firing turret weapons (kind of like they have now) that are too weak to be effective against other cap ships, but ideal for shooting down small fighters. This would keep the thrill of strafing a cap ship with a squadron of tiny but fast, maneuverable fighters as you dodge the turrets and come in for the kill. The fighters could be similarly equipped with a powerful weapon that has extremely limited capacity or range and therefore ineffective in a dogfight but a threat to a cap ship. This would be in addition to a standard weapon for use against other fighters.
The obvious deterrent to everyone just holing up in a huge armored cap ship (other than I think it would be much more fun to fly a fighter) is economic. There needs to be a steeper price curve for big powerful ships. A cap ship should be very expensive and usually require the combined resources of many players to purchase. More expensive mid and high end ships would also be a suitable substitute for permadeath (which isn't very feasible in an MMORPG) and would make a bounty system more worthwhile. Granted, I haven't played in awhile, so I don't know what ship prices are like these days. Hopefully when the new economy is implemented there will be realistic supply and demand in materials that will limit the production of capital ships, which will also encourage more variety.
Meanwhile, for some interesting reading on armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_armour
Here's a real-world situation to consider, from World War II, that I think applies here. Battleships and carriers were slow, but heavily armored and had many guns. Torpedo bombers were equipped with just a couple powerful torpedos and essentially no armor. Nearly all of these were shot down by the AA guns on the ships, but when they scored a good hit it did serious damage. Most of the ship kills, though, were from fighter planes (again, practically no armor, so as to decrease weight and improve performance) who dive-bombed the ships who were busy shooting down torpedo bombers.
Cap ships could have big guns that are super powerful but limited in some way: Slow rate of fire, limited ammo, high energy drain. This would make these weapons effective against other large ships, but wasted on small fighters. They could also have the equivalent of AA guns: Smaller, fast-firing turret weapons (kind of like they have now) that are too weak to be effective against other cap ships, but ideal for shooting down small fighters. This would keep the thrill of strafing a cap ship with a squadron of tiny but fast, maneuverable fighters as you dodge the turrets and come in for the kill. The fighters could be similarly equipped with a powerful weapon that has extremely limited capacity or range and therefore ineffective in a dogfight but a threat to a cap ship. This would be in addition to a standard weapon for use against other fighters.
The obvious deterrent to everyone just holing up in a huge armored cap ship (other than I think it would be much more fun to fly a fighter) is economic. There needs to be a steeper price curve for big powerful ships. A cap ship should be very expensive and usually require the combined resources of many players to purchase. More expensive mid and high end ships would also be a suitable substitute for permadeath (which isn't very feasible in an MMORPG) and would make a bounty system more worthwhile. Granted, I haven't played in awhile, so I don't know what ship prices are like these days. Hopefully when the new economy is implemented there will be realistic supply and demand in materials that will limit the production of capital ships, which will also encourage more variety.
Meanwhile, for some interesting reading on armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_armour
I for one am opposed to the original suggestion.
I think things are fairly well balanced the way they are. 2 minutes isn't an inordinate amount of time to spend focused on killing another player. Lowering armor would also make things harder on newbies who have not yet grown eyes in the back of their head. Hit-and-run (a.k.a. "ganking") would become an even more effective tactic.
Perhaps one day we will see systems damage come into play, that could be a happy medium.
I think things are fairly well balanced the way they are. 2 minutes isn't an inordinate amount of time to spend focused on killing another player. Lowering armor would also make things harder on newbies who have not yet grown eyes in the back of their head. Hit-and-run (a.k.a. "ganking") would become an even more effective tactic.
Perhaps one day we will see systems damage come into play, that could be a happy medium.
Phaserlight:
2 minutes not an inordinate amount of time? In most FPS I know (and play), 10 seconds should usually decide the bout, and you can't deny the likeness of the two game types' combat styles.
I don't think new players would have an even harder time, except for when fighting difficult bots, because sometimes you just catch the odd bullet. Quite on the contrary, actually, as I already stated in my previous thread. Lucky shots might become even more important, evening out the playing field a bit more.
Prof. Chaos:
I'm unsure whether fighter craft should carry anti-capital ship weaponry, even if those are extremely close-range. The problem with a one hit, one kill weapon still exists.
The most logical thing is to have (comparatively) large ships that can carry lots of payload as the natural enemy of capital ships (besides capships designed for inter-capship combat).
2 minutes not an inordinate amount of time? In most FPS I know (and play), 10 seconds should usually decide the bout, and you can't deny the likeness of the two game types' combat styles.
I don't think new players would have an even harder time, except for when fighting difficult bots, because sometimes you just catch the odd bullet. Quite on the contrary, actually, as I already stated in my previous thread. Lucky shots might become even more important, evening out the playing field a bit more.
Prof. Chaos:
I'm unsure whether fighter craft should carry anti-capital ship weaponry, even if those are extremely close-range. The problem with a one hit, one kill weapon still exists.
The most logical thing is to have (comparatively) large ships that can carry lots of payload as the natural enemy of capital ships (besides capships designed for inter-capship combat).
I'm not suggesting one-hit one-kill of a cap ship with a fighter. Just something so that if a few fighters got past the AA, it could be trouble, maybe even decisive in the long run. Of course the weapon wouldn't be as powerful as the cap ship's main weapon, but big enough and cumbersome enough that it's impractical against other fighters. Kind of like using a shotgun to kill flies, and you only have a half dozen rounds, and you need those to kill a couple rabid dogs. Use the flyswatter on the flies, and the shotgun on the dogs.
Shorter engagement times would make combat more fun, would bring that "edge of the seat feeling" as Snax said. Location damage even on small ships would indeed make lucky shots a real factor (as they are in reality) and even more importantly would make precision important, so you can't just rely on luck. Also, if, say, the belly of the ship has more ammo and fewer essential vulnerable systems, that would make tactics interesting as you try to present that angle to the enemy when you aren't able to shoot for any reason.
Shorter engagement times would make combat more fun, would bring that "edge of the seat feeling" as Snax said. Location damage even on small ships would indeed make lucky shots a real factor (as they are in reality) and even more importantly would make precision important, so you can't just rely on luck. Also, if, say, the belly of the ship has more ammo and fewer essential vulnerable systems, that would make tactics interesting as you try to present that angle to the enemy when you aren't able to shoot for any reason.
I’m all for reducing the standard armor by about 70-80%. Anyone who wants a faster ship can keep the standard armor, or any ship can be equipped with up to two layers of armor to increase protection but reduce speed due to increased ship mass. The armor would not take any cargo or weapon space, or any weapon port, but would add significantly to the ship’s mass. Also, to compensate a bit for reduced armor, all ships (especially small ones) should benefit from a slightly increased top speed and acceleration rate. Different types of armor would have different qualities, and price and availability would be dependent on supply and demand of the proper materials in the new economy. I have come up with suggestions for seven basic types of armor that could work ingame, based on my limited knowledge of modern armor. In addition to armor, I still think eventually having a replenishable energy shield to supplement armor, which would only be replenished by being repaired for a small fee at a station.
Iron Plating:
Very cheap, heavy, weak.
Dependent on supply of iron.
Steel Plating:
Cheap, heavy, moderately weak.
Dependent on supply of iron.
Spaced Armor (spaced steel plates):
Cheap, light, moderately weak.
Dependent on supply of iron.
Composite Armor (layers of plastic and ceramics between steel plates and Kevlar): Expensive, mid-weight, strong.
Dependent on supply of iron and carbon.
Advanced Composite Armor (layers of plastic and boron carbide ceramics between steel plates and Dyneema):
Very expensive, mid-weight, very strong.
Dependent on supply of iron and carbon.
*Reactive armor can only be an outer layer*
Explosive Reactive Armor (layer of high explosives between steel plates and Kevlar):
Mid-price, light, moderately strong.
Dependent on supply of iron and carbon.
Electric Reactive Armor (two layers of copper and a high-power capacitor):
Mid-price, light, strong.
Dependent on supply of copper and draws power from main battery to achieve charge.
These are quick suggestions, open to revision and tweaking by anyone else’s ideas and opinions, which I would be interested to hear.
Iron Plating:
Very cheap, heavy, weak.
Dependent on supply of iron.
Steel Plating:
Cheap, heavy, moderately weak.
Dependent on supply of iron.
Spaced Armor (spaced steel plates):
Cheap, light, moderately weak.
Dependent on supply of iron.
Composite Armor (layers of plastic and ceramics between steel plates and Kevlar): Expensive, mid-weight, strong.
Dependent on supply of iron and carbon.
Advanced Composite Armor (layers of plastic and boron carbide ceramics between steel plates and Dyneema):
Very expensive, mid-weight, very strong.
Dependent on supply of iron and carbon.
*Reactive armor can only be an outer layer*
Explosive Reactive Armor (layer of high explosives between steel plates and Kevlar):
Mid-price, light, moderately strong.
Dependent on supply of iron and carbon.
Electric Reactive Armor (two layers of copper and a high-power capacitor):
Mid-price, light, strong.
Dependent on supply of copper and draws power from main battery to achieve charge.
These are quick suggestions, open to revision and tweaking by anyone else’s ideas and opinions, which I would be interested to hear.
In addition to the different types of armor to be put on ships, I would also like to suggest splitting the HP of ships, or adding in, an additional "structure" stat. Structure would be inherently much weaker than armor, seeing as how normally the frame of your ship shouldn't be taking damage, and would be the main factor in deciding if a ship is destroyed or not. This could lead into guns such as rails to be given a sort of "piercing" stat, allowing for more variety in fights(Of course, with the following scenario, rails would need to be toned down quite a bit).
Now, the lighter the ship, the less structure it has in comparison to the armor. Take Generic Light Fighter No. 1: It has good maneuverability, decent armor(for a lighter ship anyway- think something along the lines of the vult), and an extremely flimsy structure. Giving numerical values- the armor would be around 6k~8k, whereas the structure would be 500~1k. An energy weapon, such as the tachyon/neutron blaster would need to bake off the armor on the outside before being able to get to the inner structure- however, due to the high speeds of the railgun, it pierces through and does most of the damage directly to the frame of the ship.
Our railgun strikes Generic Light Fighter No. 1 for, say, 500 base damage. Since rails have a piercing attribute, it sheds 150 damage points onto the armor and hits the structure for 350. If No. 1 takes too many railgun hits- it's pretty much toast. However, to further complicate matters, armor would be able to hold the ship together without any structure to a point before the ship would start breaking up. Say, as an arbitrary number, if the structure is vaporized the ship can still fly until it's down to 80% armor. This way, you can't -just- use piercing weapons to score the quick kill on enemies such as capships and heavies- you'll have to bake off some armor as well.
And even further- I imagine both structure and armor would be able to be upgraded to resist certain types of damage, as well as being naturally resistant against certain types of damage as follows:
"Natural" or "Naked" armor would resist about 50% of EM damage- since it is metal after all. EM resistance could be upgraded using a Armor Magnetizing Kit.
EM damage primarily would come from tachyon and gravitron blasters, as well as the AGT. [I'm using outdated names because they're more familiar to me. Probs not going to change any time either soon.] However, tachys and gravy-guns would also deal a healthy amount of thermal damage- but not as much as a phased baster(fires superheated plasma).
Natural armor would only have a resist against thermal damage of 20~30%(numbers I'm pulling from nowhere, folks.) and one might be able to buy an armor cooling system to give a boost to thermal resistance.
Natural armor would also also be fairly strong against kinetic weapons- such as a flechette cannon, a railgun(remember that rails are piercing in this situation though, dealing damage almost directly to structure), or the explosion of a rocket or mine(this is both kinetic and thermal, whereas blasters are EM and thermal, mainly). To counteract kinetic damage, tempered plating could be fitted onto your ship.
Of course- any shmuck could fit numerous armor resistances on their light fighter to the point of not caring about damage and still being resonably maneuverable(I prefer to no-slots needed idea). This is why when you fit more armor resistance systems on, ships should become more massive at a not-quite-exponential rate. So if you were to fit a armor cooling system, you would gain 500 kilos in mass, but if you decided to fit another- you would gain 2000 kilos in mass for all the extra equipment that has to be put on to work around the first. And I wouldn't suggest putting a some tempered plating onto a light fighter- you'd knock up the mass to around an extra 9000 kilos.(Once again, rough numbers thrown in for the sake of illustration)
And so ends my overly long post on structure and armor hardening.
{EDIT} Misread the previous article. Changed EM to magnetic kit.
Now, the lighter the ship, the less structure it has in comparison to the armor. Take Generic Light Fighter No. 1: It has good maneuverability, decent armor(for a lighter ship anyway- think something along the lines of the vult), and an extremely flimsy structure. Giving numerical values- the armor would be around 6k~8k, whereas the structure would be 500~1k. An energy weapon, such as the tachyon/neutron blaster would need to bake off the armor on the outside before being able to get to the inner structure- however, due to the high speeds of the railgun, it pierces through and does most of the damage directly to the frame of the ship.
Our railgun strikes Generic Light Fighter No. 1 for, say, 500 base damage. Since rails have a piercing attribute, it sheds 150 damage points onto the armor and hits the structure for 350. If No. 1 takes too many railgun hits- it's pretty much toast. However, to further complicate matters, armor would be able to hold the ship together without any structure to a point before the ship would start breaking up. Say, as an arbitrary number, if the structure is vaporized the ship can still fly until it's down to 80% armor. This way, you can't -just- use piercing weapons to score the quick kill on enemies such as capships and heavies- you'll have to bake off some armor as well.
And even further- I imagine both structure and armor would be able to be upgraded to resist certain types of damage, as well as being naturally resistant against certain types of damage as follows:
"Natural" or "Naked" armor would resist about 50% of EM damage- since it is metal after all. EM resistance could be upgraded using a Armor Magnetizing Kit.
EM damage primarily would come from tachyon and gravitron blasters, as well as the AGT. [I'm using outdated names because they're more familiar to me. Probs not going to change any time either soon.] However, tachys and gravy-guns would also deal a healthy amount of thermal damage- but not as much as a phased baster(fires superheated plasma).
Natural armor would only have a resist against thermal damage of 20~30%(numbers I'm pulling from nowhere, folks.) and one might be able to buy an armor cooling system to give a boost to thermal resistance.
Natural armor would also also be fairly strong against kinetic weapons- such as a flechette cannon, a railgun(remember that rails are piercing in this situation though, dealing damage almost directly to structure), or the explosion of a rocket or mine(this is both kinetic and thermal, whereas blasters are EM and thermal, mainly). To counteract kinetic damage, tempered plating could be fitted onto your ship.
Of course- any shmuck could fit numerous armor resistances on their light fighter to the point of not caring about damage and still being resonably maneuverable(I prefer to no-slots needed idea). This is why when you fit more armor resistance systems on, ships should become more massive at a not-quite-exponential rate. So if you were to fit a armor cooling system, you would gain 500 kilos in mass, but if you decided to fit another- you would gain 2000 kilos in mass for all the extra equipment that has to be put on to work around the first. And I wouldn't suggest putting a some tempered plating onto a light fighter- you'd knock up the mass to around an extra 9000 kilos.(Once again, rough numbers thrown in for the sake of illustration)
And so ends my overly long post on structure and armor hardening.
{EDIT} Misread the previous article. Changed EM to magnetic kit.
Good post Steve, actually, a lot of good ideas in this thread.
I'm glad I'm not the only long-winded person on these boards. Some great ideas, there Scuba. I had only thought of splitting hit points in the futer between EM and kinetic energy when shields would be implemented, but I like the idea of structural damage and thermal energy damage. I also realize I didn't fully explain each type of armor I suggested, which is why you misread it. Electric Reactive Armor probably could absorb EM damage, but it's main purpose is kinetic energy weapons. An armor piercing round punctures the first of two layers of highly charged conductive material and touches it to the other, completing a circuit which then pours a massive charge of energy into the projectile, melting and potentially vaporizing it. Then it could take a few seconds to recharge from the battery.
Actually, my strength ratings only account for kinetic energy weapons, the stronger they are the more resistant they are to armor-piercing rounds. I’m not sure what role EM has, other than an EMP weapon, since it would be a simple matter of insulating the ship. In fact, energy could potentially be absorbed and recycled, making it not all that bad to be hit by an energy weapon, except for the heat.
The game already keeps track of heat with the mining system. This could be adapted to armor, and different types of armor would be effective up to a certain temperature at which they start taking damage at a rate determined by the type of armor and how much they are overheated. They would also cool at a certain rate that can be enhanced by gadgets such as a liquid cooling system or simply cooling fins attached to the ship. Only one liquid cooling system could be installed (where would you fit more than one?) but several could be developed of different effectiveness, and many fins could be installed, each adding the same amount of mass but each would help at a decreasing rate until it’s pointless to add more.
I suppose it would work to add unlimited layers of armor, but pointless after a point since your ship would weigh so much. If the first layer of a heavy armor weighs 50% of the ships initial mass, then each additional layer weighs 10% more than the previous layer. Any damage not absorbed by one layer would transfer to the next. To simplify this for the game, though, all armor could be treated as one cumulative layer, with each additional layer adding 80% less protection than the previous layer. Also, this would get expensive. Improvements to structural strength should be limited because of the limited space within the ship, and depending on the nature of the reinforcement they may or may not increase ship mass. I don’t agree, though that armor could hold together a ship by itself. Once the armor is gone, all damage applies directly to the structure until the ship melts or explodes.
Actually, my strength ratings only account for kinetic energy weapons, the stronger they are the more resistant they are to armor-piercing rounds. I’m not sure what role EM has, other than an EMP weapon, since it would be a simple matter of insulating the ship. In fact, energy could potentially be absorbed and recycled, making it not all that bad to be hit by an energy weapon, except for the heat.
The game already keeps track of heat with the mining system. This could be adapted to armor, and different types of armor would be effective up to a certain temperature at which they start taking damage at a rate determined by the type of armor and how much they are overheated. They would also cool at a certain rate that can be enhanced by gadgets such as a liquid cooling system or simply cooling fins attached to the ship. Only one liquid cooling system could be installed (where would you fit more than one?) but several could be developed of different effectiveness, and many fins could be installed, each adding the same amount of mass but each would help at a decreasing rate until it’s pointless to add more.
I suppose it would work to add unlimited layers of armor, but pointless after a point since your ship would weigh so much. If the first layer of a heavy armor weighs 50% of the ships initial mass, then each additional layer weighs 10% more than the previous layer. Any damage not absorbed by one layer would transfer to the next. To simplify this for the game, though, all armor could be treated as one cumulative layer, with each additional layer adding 80% less protection than the previous layer. Also, this would get expensive. Improvements to structural strength should be limited because of the limited space within the ship, and depending on the nature of the reinforcement they may or may not increase ship mass. I don’t agree, though that armor could hold together a ship by itself. Once the armor is gone, all damage applies directly to the structure until the ship melts or explodes.
Good posts on both Prof Chaos and Steve, I like the ideas.
Phaserlight:
A minute is a LOT of time, especially when the kill time is STILL a minute, even if you get the first strike.
First strike becomes much more powerful this way, But, for those that are prepared to jump into a fray, its not a weakness, its just different.
As far as new players, with bots having reduced armor, they should have no problem either, unless they go attack a queen which they should find satisfyingly difficult for the local bosses.
People don't mind difficult situations, they just need to be given a decent curve. And its challenges like that that will draw people in.
Phaserlight:
A minute is a LOT of time, especially when the kill time is STILL a minute, even if you get the first strike.
First strike becomes much more powerful this way, But, for those that are prepared to jump into a fray, its not a weakness, its just different.
As far as new players, with bots having reduced armor, they should have no problem either, unless they go attack a queen which they should find satisfyingly difficult for the local bosses.
People don't mind difficult situations, they just need to be given a decent curve. And its challenges like that that will draw people in.
I'm sorry, I wasn't precise enough. I meant that with an extremely high-damage, extremely close-range weapon, you offer pilots a way to get instant kills on fighters, not on cap ships.
And I don't like that idea. At least give people a (if only virtually existant) chance to react, but not take it away completely.
I know you said that it would be a waste to use it on fighters, but I hold against that the fact that the avalon (partially due to the absence of capital ships, but not solely) was primarily used against fighters, especially with the configuration called the 'insta-rag' (it fired an avalon torpedo at a previously deployed mine, hence why rags can't equip mines in the forward slot anymore). No more valk trouble. Of course, the rag was severely damaged after that (2-3%), but it still survived.
And the nuke wars in sector 9 are legend.
And I don't like that idea. At least give people a (if only virtually existant) chance to react, but not take it away completely.
I know you said that it would be a waste to use it on fighters, but I hold against that the fact that the avalon (partially due to the absence of capital ships, but not solely) was primarily used against fighters, especially with the configuration called the 'insta-rag' (it fired an avalon torpedo at a previously deployed mine, hence why rags can't equip mines in the forward slot anymore). No more valk trouble. Of course, the rag was severely damaged after that (2-3%), but it still survived.
And the nuke wars in sector 9 are legend.
I don’t agree, though that armor could hold together a ship by itself. Once the armor is gone, all damage applies directly to the structure until the ship melts or explodes.
I'm not sure whether or not these two sentences are related, would you mind clarifying? If they are not, ignore the following.
Certainly structure takes direct hits when armor is gone(and sometimes indirect hits when it's running low, but that may be a bit more complex), but I was stating that when the structure was gone the armor could keep hull integrity to a certain point; however, beyond that point the ship would break up and explode.
I'm not sure whether or not these two sentences are related, would you mind clarifying? If they are not, ignore the following.
Certainly structure takes direct hits when armor is gone(and sometimes indirect hits when it's running low, but that may be a bit more complex), but I was stating that when the structure was gone the armor could keep hull integrity to a certain point; however, beyond that point the ship would break up and explode.
Shape: I couldn't agree more about difficulty and challenges, but duration of combat has little to do with difficulty and everything to do with the learning curve.
I guess I'd better explain my position in somewhat more detail.
Splitting HP between damage types, distinguishing armor from structure, and varying damage effects based on hit location are all good ideas that I think warrant discussion. However these are all somewhat tangential ideas to the original suggestion, which was to drastically lower armor across the board, enabling quicker kills.1
Popping ships left and right can be fun (the 'Galaga' effect!) but this begs the question: fun for who and at what cost. Although many people compare this game to an FPS (reasonably so) the FAQ states that it is an MMORPG... we should keep that in mind when making these suggestions.
A newbie experiences the universe in a fundamentally different way than the seasoned veteran. They are learning everything for the first time by trial and error, and more often than not have no clue what's going on. A newbie recently asked on channel 100 "Is there a boo-doop sound effect in this game and what does it mean?"
There is precious little time to react in a surprise attack scenario. A good vet always maintains situational awareness, keeping an eye on the sector list and radar, so that when that first strike comes the vet will have a fairly good idea of A) where it is coming from B) what type of vessel/ordinance it could be and C) how to react. Even if the vet gets destroyed without catching a glimpse of the attacker at least he/she has a good mental model of what went down based on experience, and consequently how to avoid it next time.
A newbie on the other hand, will only see a flashing red screen and then an explosion. They probably never looked at the sector list, they may not even have a good grasp of how the radar works. Without the vet's situational awareness the newb most likely had no idea what just happened. Instant destruction with little or no explanation isn't a challenge, it's pure frustration. Ideally a newbie will learn from the experience and do better next time, but the more likely scenario is that they will become frustrated and quit. Newbies need time to learn how to react to their surroundings.
Already you can become space dust very quickly if you let your guard down. I remember a series of duels against a relatively inexperienced player who hadn't learned to boost out of the way after getting hit with a rocket to avoid the repeat shots. We fought three times and each time the duel lasted roughly 10 seconds. Many weapons already can destroy a fighter in 3-4 shots. Under the original suggestion these weapons would become one-hit kills, resulting in zero time to react after first strike. I am also diametrically opposed to the idea that making lucky stray shots the great "equalizer" is in any way shape or form a good thing. This is a game of skill, not luck.
Going back to the FPS scenario, I still hold to my argument that 2 minutes is not an unreasonable amount of time for two experienced players to face off, particularly if they are devoting their full attention to each other (WWI dogfights between aces often lasted hours). Remember it can still be over very quickly the second one lets his/her guard down.
Things currently are at a good balance. Fights between vets don't drag on for half an hour, they are over in a few minutes or less2, and newbies currently have a little time to react or at least get a look at their attacker before sucking vacuum. Reducing armor by 70-80% across the board might sound good on paper or from an armchair, but it would kill the learning curve for newbs while only saving vets a few minutes.
1Ironically enough, the former ideas would all be subject to de-emphasis under the scheme of the original suggestion.
2Particularly in a furball involving many pilots.
I guess I'd better explain my position in somewhat more detail.
Splitting HP between damage types, distinguishing armor from structure, and varying damage effects based on hit location are all good ideas that I think warrant discussion. However these are all somewhat tangential ideas to the original suggestion, which was to drastically lower armor across the board, enabling quicker kills.1
Popping ships left and right can be fun (the 'Galaga' effect!) but this begs the question: fun for who and at what cost. Although many people compare this game to an FPS (reasonably so) the FAQ states that it is an MMORPG... we should keep that in mind when making these suggestions.
A newbie experiences the universe in a fundamentally different way than the seasoned veteran. They are learning everything for the first time by trial and error, and more often than not have no clue what's going on. A newbie recently asked on channel 100 "Is there a boo-doop sound effect in this game and what does it mean?"
There is precious little time to react in a surprise attack scenario. A good vet always maintains situational awareness, keeping an eye on the sector list and radar, so that when that first strike comes the vet will have a fairly good idea of A) where it is coming from B) what type of vessel/ordinance it could be and C) how to react. Even if the vet gets destroyed without catching a glimpse of the attacker at least he/she has a good mental model of what went down based on experience, and consequently how to avoid it next time.
A newbie on the other hand, will only see a flashing red screen and then an explosion. They probably never looked at the sector list, they may not even have a good grasp of how the radar works. Without the vet's situational awareness the newb most likely had no idea what just happened. Instant destruction with little or no explanation isn't a challenge, it's pure frustration. Ideally a newbie will learn from the experience and do better next time, but the more likely scenario is that they will become frustrated and quit. Newbies need time to learn how to react to their surroundings.
Already you can become space dust very quickly if you let your guard down. I remember a series of duels against a relatively inexperienced player who hadn't learned to boost out of the way after getting hit with a rocket to avoid the repeat shots. We fought three times and each time the duel lasted roughly 10 seconds. Many weapons already can destroy a fighter in 3-4 shots. Under the original suggestion these weapons would become one-hit kills, resulting in zero time to react after first strike. I am also diametrically opposed to the idea that making lucky stray shots the great "equalizer" is in any way shape or form a good thing. This is a game of skill, not luck.
Going back to the FPS scenario, I still hold to my argument that 2 minutes is not an unreasonable amount of time for two experienced players to face off, particularly if they are devoting their full attention to each other (WWI dogfights between aces often lasted hours). Remember it can still be over very quickly the second one lets his/her guard down.
Things currently are at a good balance. Fights between vets don't drag on for half an hour, they are over in a few minutes or less2, and newbies currently have a little time to react or at least get a look at their attacker before sucking vacuum. Reducing armor by 70-80% across the board might sound good on paper or from an armchair, but it would kill the learning curve for newbs while only saving vets a few minutes.
1Ironically enough, the former ideas would all be subject to de-emphasis under the scheme of the original suggestion.
2Particularly in a furball involving many pilots.
I'd like to re-make a suggestion I haven't brought up in a while, but with a new twist:
We all know ships track damage to certain segments of the ship, since we can all see the little damage map turn colors in different areas when we get shot, right? This data doesn't *do* anything, though, since a cent will take X number of hits no matter where you shoot it (or what combination of panels you shoot).
What if we dispersed the current armor points between these "hit sections"? So, for example, a Wraith has 6 armor sections by my reckoning (the two side secttions, upper bow, lower bow, upper stern, lower stern). We split up the armor points between all these sections, and if any one section gets down to 0% health, the ship is destroyed (hull breach).
Suddenly, a Wraith goes from having 11000 armor to having 1833 armor per section. Seems a lot simpler to destroy it, doesn't it? One decent Jackhammer hit would do it it. Light fighters would become more desirable (even though they'd pretty much disintegrate after a few shots) because of their dodging power, while assaulting cap ships would become more of a science. The armor points could even be split up to allow "critical hit" locations such as the engines. Truly good pilots would be able to spin their ships constantly to present undamaged sections to hit, allowing them to take the current amount of damage, while lowering their ability to aim and fight.
An added bonus to this idea is that now that we've got equipment drops, it would be possible to map certain types of equipment to certain segments of the ship, so skilled pilots could, if they were accurate enough, contain damage to the cockpit so the weapons would be more likely to survive, or aim for the sides so the cargo bay would be untouched (assuming the ship's cargo bay was in the rear). On a Wraith, the chart of items in relation to their sections of the ship might go like this:
Upper Bow: Scanners, stealth suites, communications gear (future releases?)
Lower Bow: Scrap Metal
Port Side: Left side s-port weaponry
Starboard Side: Right side s-port weaponry
Upper Stern: Cargo, Scrap Metal
Lower Stern: Batteries, l-port weaponry
We all know ships track damage to certain segments of the ship, since we can all see the little damage map turn colors in different areas when we get shot, right? This data doesn't *do* anything, though, since a cent will take X number of hits no matter where you shoot it (or what combination of panels you shoot).
What if we dispersed the current armor points between these "hit sections"? So, for example, a Wraith has 6 armor sections by my reckoning (the two side secttions, upper bow, lower bow, upper stern, lower stern). We split up the armor points between all these sections, and if any one section gets down to 0% health, the ship is destroyed (hull breach).
Suddenly, a Wraith goes from having 11000 armor to having 1833 armor per section. Seems a lot simpler to destroy it, doesn't it? One decent Jackhammer hit would do it it. Light fighters would become more desirable (even though they'd pretty much disintegrate after a few shots) because of their dodging power, while assaulting cap ships would become more of a science. The armor points could even be split up to allow "critical hit" locations such as the engines. Truly good pilots would be able to spin their ships constantly to present undamaged sections to hit, allowing them to take the current amount of damage, while lowering their ability to aim and fight.
An added bonus to this idea is that now that we've got equipment drops, it would be possible to map certain types of equipment to certain segments of the ship, so skilled pilots could, if they were accurate enough, contain damage to the cockpit so the weapons would be more likely to survive, or aim for the sides so the cargo bay would be untouched (assuming the ship's cargo bay was in the rear). On a Wraith, the chart of items in relation to their sections of the ship might go like this:
Upper Bow: Scanners, stealth suites, communications gear (future releases?)
Lower Bow: Scrap Metal
Port Side: Left side s-port weaponry
Starboard Side: Right side s-port weaponry
Upper Stern: Cargo, Scrap Metal
Lower Stern: Batteries, l-port weaponry
Or make it 110 armor all around. THis would slow down fights,
110 armor? Slow down?
A particle of space dust would kill ya.
A particle of space dust would kill ya.