Forums » Suggestions
As it currently stands, one may fight until they are at 0% and then speed off as if their ship had sustained no damage at all. On the one hand, we play VO with the game 4 underfunded Devs can give us, not the game we'd like to have--and there's a RP explanation in there somewhere with damage really relating to exterior armor that's an 'all or nothing' kind of deal. On the other hand, it's LESS FUN and makes NO SENSE.
A first strike shouldn't be something from which one cannot recover, but it should give some advantage. It would also help balance some currently broken/less than ideal scenarios: Prom vs. Valk and the supposedly awesome PvP reward ADV rails come to mind.
Would the following implementation approach be easier to implement?
For every X% of damage done to a ship, the ship's thrust, speed, turbo speed, and turbo thrust would all suffer a fractional reduction. 1% reduction per 1% of damage would be too crippling, while 0.1% reduction per 1% of damage would be pointless. I'll toss out that a 1/4% reduction per 1% of damage would be workable as a starting point.
Thus, if I land the first hit on a ship with a thrust of 100N and do 10% damage in the process, the pilot would find his ship handling as if it had a thrust of 97.5N; the same % reduction would be applied to speed, turbo speed, and turbo thrust. Weapons fire and vision would remain the same, but the ability to move and run would be hampered.
Yes, it would be nice to be able to harm turbo by shooting the engine jets, or whatever, but this approach should be easier to implement and easier to tweak in terms of balance.
A first strike shouldn't be something from which one cannot recover, but it should give some advantage. It would also help balance some currently broken/less than ideal scenarios: Prom vs. Valk and the supposedly awesome PvP reward ADV rails come to mind.
Would the following implementation approach be easier to implement?
For every X% of damage done to a ship, the ship's thrust, speed, turbo speed, and turbo thrust would all suffer a fractional reduction. 1% reduction per 1% of damage would be too crippling, while 0.1% reduction per 1% of damage would be pointless. I'll toss out that a 1/4% reduction per 1% of damage would be workable as a starting point.
Thus, if I land the first hit on a ship with a thrust of 100N and do 10% damage in the process, the pilot would find his ship handling as if it had a thrust of 97.5N; the same % reduction would be applied to speed, turbo speed, and turbo thrust. Weapons fire and vision would remain the same, but the ability to move and run would be hampered.
Yes, it would be nice to be able to harm turbo by shooting the engine jets, or whatever, but this approach should be easier to implement and easier to tweak in terms of balance.
No, Because you can't just put an arbitrary percentage reduction over ships for damage percentage - for obvious reasons.
A skyprom has 21,000 armour - you have to do way more damage to a skyprom to remove a percentage point of armour than say a vulture, and when you do the skyprom is not going to notice the thrust reduction as much in combat as a vulture is. Current ships are balanced around the idea that more armour = more base weight = more base thrust to compensate and deliver a basic level of maneuverability.
So ultimately it's going to favour ships with more armour over ships with less. This will then require balance tweaking, which requires a whole ton of math and updates to get the intricacies worked out AND on top of this to sell it to the whiney community.
The model is way too simplistic, all these arbitrary damage models are far too simplistic to balance up right. Something should be done in the area of damage realism but Inc. will know what the best way to achieve it is.
A skyprom has 21,000 armour - you have to do way more damage to a skyprom to remove a percentage point of armour than say a vulture, and when you do the skyprom is not going to notice the thrust reduction as much in combat as a vulture is. Current ships are balanced around the idea that more armour = more base weight = more base thrust to compensate and deliver a basic level of maneuverability.
So ultimately it's going to favour ships with more armour over ships with less. This will then require balance tweaking, which requires a whole ton of math and updates to get the intricacies worked out AND on top of this to sell it to the whiney community.
The model is way too simplistic, all these arbitrary damage models are far too simplistic to balance up right. Something should be done in the area of damage realism but Inc. will know what the best way to achieve it is.
" it's going to favour ships with more armour over ships with less."
You are using up all the "u"s I see. What are you going to do if you draw the "Q", hmm? That's a 10 point loss, very bad form.
The ships with less armor are typically harder to hit. That's where the balance lies. I don't think it's necessary to argue about the specific stats because, as TRS says, Inc. will know how to tweak it.
+1 to OP
You are using up all the "u"s I see. What are you going to do if you draw the "Q", hmm? That's a 10 point loss, very bad form.
The ships with less armor are typically harder to hit. That's where the balance lies. I don't think it's necessary to argue about the specific stats because, as TRS says, Inc. will know how to tweak it.
+1 to OP
/me facepalms
Whistler I have no idea how you made guide, it's like you don't even play this game:
"The ships with less armor are typically harder to hit. That's where the balance lies. "
You have got to be kidding me!
Whistler I have no idea how you made guide, it's like you don't even play this game:
"The ships with less armor are typically harder to hit. That's where the balance lies. "
You have got to be kidding me!
TRS, did you paint a room without adequate ventilation or something?
Sorry TRS, I have to go with the OP here. Also, I too have no idea how Whistler was made a guide... I suspect Incarnate was exceedingly drunk.
+1 to the OP.
+1 to the OP.
FFS. Can we have a discussion without immediately going to personal attacks? If you disagree with me but are unable to put together a counterargument, just say so.
I put together a counterargument and you interpret it as a 1+, there's nothing personal about it, but sure, if you guys want to see CrazySpence cry exceedingly as skyproms get an unimaginable buff beyond belief let's all go with lecter!
Okay so maybe I want to see that a little bit, but I stand by original post - The model is too simplistic.
Okay so maybe I want to see that a little bit, but I stand by original post - The model is too simplistic.
Your comprehension is lacking. I didn't interpret your argument as a 1+ or even a +1. You are not the OP. Calling into question how I "made guide" was an unnecessary personal attack. I have no more input into how the devs tweak the game than anyone else and am free to have an opinion - even a stupid one. Being a guide is immaterial to the conversation.
You could have said "I think you are wrong Whistler, because if a Prom lands a hit on a Vult, the Vult could well lose the only advantage it had and would immediately fall prey to the Prom." Which is roughly what you said in your initial post, and then I would have pointed out that I was appreciating the concept, but not the stats - as evidenced by my agreement with you that Inc would know what the best way to achieve it is. Instead, you chose to /facepalm and insult, without adding anything to the discussion. Isn't it possible to agree that the concept of "Fractionally-Proportionate Performance Reduction" is good, and then kick around ideas for how this might be achieved without getting all hyperbolic?
/edit: I see you added a last sentence. So all this and we were actually closer to agreeing than not.
You could have said "I think you are wrong Whistler, because if a Prom lands a hit on a Vult, the Vult could well lose the only advantage it had and would immediately fall prey to the Prom." Which is roughly what you said in your initial post, and then I would have pointed out that I was appreciating the concept, but not the stats - as evidenced by my agreement with you that Inc would know what the best way to achieve it is. Instead, you chose to /facepalm and insult, without adding anything to the discussion. Isn't it possible to agree that the concept of "Fractionally-Proportionate Performance Reduction" is good, and then kick around ideas for how this might be achieved without getting all hyperbolic?
/edit: I see you added a last sentence. So all this and we were actually closer to agreeing than not.
Just my opinion, but the "heavies won't notice it as much" hypothesis doesn't hold water:
1% is 1%. Whether it's on a SkyProm or a CorVult makes no difference. This should be common sense, no?
"But, Phase... heavies have more mass and therefore the thrust reduction doesn't count for as much"
Wrong: heavies may have more mass, but they also have more thrust. Therefore, a 1% reduction in thrust on a heavy would actually be taking away more Newtons of force than a 1% reduction in thrust on a light. We're talking percentages here; a 1% reduction in thrust carries the same penalty-weight regardless of thrust-to-mass ratio. The fact that heavies also tend to have more armor doesn't change how the proposed penalty would affect the overall light versus heavy balance compared to today's build.
The balance between heavy/light ships would be no different than it is now, unless you take into account which class of ships are more likely to score the first hit(s) and score more damage more quickly. Even then, I don't think there would be a huge difference from the balance we have now, as with no performance reduction the last shot counts for just as much as the first. There might even be a slight psychological edge granted pilots with very little hull remaining now; they are more likely to "play it safe" by conserving what little armor they have remaining. Going any further than this is probably too difficult to do without getting lost in hopeless semantics.
All this being said, I don't like the original suggestion: I actually think it's more fun to come back from a 98% deficit in armor and win a duel as an underdog. Having performance hits on top of losing health would be too psychologically crushing; I could no longer "pace" myself in a duel versus an opponent. All the emphasis would be on scoring the first hit.
edit: in a furball there is already a definite disadvantage to being at low health, namely: you have giant sparks, flames, and smoke coming out of your ship. You are practically wearing a sign that says "Attention pilots! Shoot here!"
1% is 1%. Whether it's on a SkyProm or a CorVult makes no difference. This should be common sense, no?
"But, Phase... heavies have more mass and therefore the thrust reduction doesn't count for as much"
Wrong: heavies may have more mass, but they also have more thrust. Therefore, a 1% reduction in thrust on a heavy would actually be taking away more Newtons of force than a 1% reduction in thrust on a light. We're talking percentages here; a 1% reduction in thrust carries the same penalty-weight regardless of thrust-to-mass ratio. The fact that heavies also tend to have more armor doesn't change how the proposed penalty would affect the overall light versus heavy balance compared to today's build.
The balance between heavy/light ships would be no different than it is now, unless you take into account which class of ships are more likely to score the first hit(s) and score more damage more quickly. Even then, I don't think there would be a huge difference from the balance we have now, as with no performance reduction the last shot counts for just as much as the first. There might even be a slight psychological edge granted pilots with very little hull remaining now; they are more likely to "play it safe" by conserving what little armor they have remaining. Going any further than this is probably too difficult to do without getting lost in hopeless semantics.
All this being said, I don't like the original suggestion: I actually think it's more fun to come back from a 98% deficit in armor and win a duel as an underdog. Having performance hits on top of losing health would be too psychologically crushing; I could no longer "pace" myself in a duel versus an opponent. All the emphasis would be on scoring the first hit.
edit: in a furball there is already a definite disadvantage to being at low health, namely: you have giant sparks, flames, and smoke coming out of your ship. You are practically wearing a sign that says "Attention pilots! Shoot here!"
I'd agree with the overall idea of the op, though I suspect it might take a lot of work to get the balance right. I also have no idea how it might impact pvp against laggy players so something that would need a lot of testing before putting into the game.
"1% is 1%. Whether it's on a SkyProm or a CorVult makes no difference. This should be common sense, no?"
No Phaserlight, it's incorrect - 1% of damage on a skyprom is NOT the same as 1% of damage on a vulture. So if we dock 0.25% of thrust off a vulture for 1% damage and the same for the skyprom, it's going to come out massively ahead every time.
Say for instance a skyprom and a vulture charge at each other, they have two sunflares each, both pilots impact the other with both sunflares.
The vulture has taken about 20% off its health, and the skyprom has only taken like 6-9% or something. Both ships have landed equal damage in real terms on the other ship, but the skyprom is only being docked 1.5%-2.25% thrust and the vulture is docked 5% thrust. Again, thats with the same amount of damage being done.
If you're going to say "yeah but it's balanced because vultures are harder to hit than proms", look at the valkryie - which is harder to hit than anything and still has 11k armour
So either I'm seriously misunderstanding the OP, or you are all 1+'ing a terribly imbalanced and far too simplistic model. It needs to go back to the drawing board.
No Phaserlight, it's incorrect - 1% of damage on a skyprom is NOT the same as 1% of damage on a vulture. So if we dock 0.25% of thrust off a vulture for 1% damage and the same for the skyprom, it's going to come out massively ahead every time.
Say for instance a skyprom and a vulture charge at each other, they have two sunflares each, both pilots impact the other with both sunflares.
The vulture has taken about 20% off its health, and the skyprom has only taken like 6-9% or something. Both ships have landed equal damage in real terms on the other ship, but the skyprom is only being docked 1.5%-2.25% thrust and the vulture is docked 5% thrust. Again, thats with the same amount of damage being done.
If you're going to say "yeah but it's balanced because vultures are harder to hit than proms", look at the valkryie - which is harder to hit than anything and still has 11k armour
So either I'm seriously misunderstanding the OP, or you are all 1+'ing a terribly imbalanced and far too simplistic model. It needs to go back to the drawing board.
Oh silly me, go and disregard that last post. I keep forgetting that threads need less constructive feedback and more apologies.
Sorry Whistler :(
Sorry Whistler :(
Sigh. Your sarcasm is hardly constructive.
It's hard to believe we ever accomplish anything on these boards.
Oh wait.
It's hard to believe we ever accomplish anything on these boards.
Oh wait.
You're right tarenty, it isn't construtive.
Sorry tarenty :(
Sorry tarenty :(
I confess that I hadn't considered a furball. A damaged ship would be toast.
We haven't accomplished anything since TRS decided to disagree with everyone.
Youre right, Kierky, we haven't.
Sorry Kierky :(
Sorry Everyone :(
Sorry Kierky :(
Sorry Everyone :(
TRS, I think you're getting percentages confused with absolute values.
Consider this:
F = ma
a = F/m
a(SkyProm) = F(SkyProm) / m(SkyProm)
a(SkyProm) = 500 / 1000 = 0.5 AU (Acceleration Units; I know these values are made up)
a(Valk) = F(Valk) / m(Valk)
a(Valk) = 300 / 400 = 0.75 AU
Compare the two accelerations:
a(Valk) / a(SkyProm) = 0.75 AU / 0.5 AU = 1.5
Now, let's a apply a 1% penalty to the thrust (Force) of each:
a(SkyProm 4% dmg) = 495 / 1000 = 0.4950 AU
a(Valk 4% dmg) = 297 / 400 = 0.7425 AU
Compare the two accelerations:
a(Valk 4% dmg) / a(SkyProm 4% dmg) = 0.7425 AU / 0.4950 AU = 1.5
This is all elementary algebra.
You are essentially making the argument that this suggestion would benefit the SkyProm more than the Valkyrie (or other light ships) because a single weapon hit will inflict a greater % damage on the Valk than the Prom. While it's true a flare will tend to inflict a greater % damage on a light ship than a heavy, this is already true today and has nothing to do with the OP's suggestion.
I have to continually watch for biases in my thinking; there are many aspects to this game I have little experience with, and it's easy to minimize their importance unless I am careful.
Consider this:
F = ma
a = F/m
a(SkyProm) = F(SkyProm) / m(SkyProm)
a(SkyProm) = 500 / 1000 = 0.5 AU (Acceleration Units; I know these values are made up)
a(Valk) = F(Valk) / m(Valk)
a(Valk) = 300 / 400 = 0.75 AU
Compare the two accelerations:
a(Valk) / a(SkyProm) = 0.75 AU / 0.5 AU = 1.5
Now, let's a apply a 1% penalty to the thrust (Force) of each:
a(SkyProm 4% dmg) = 495 / 1000 = 0.4950 AU
a(Valk 4% dmg) = 297 / 400 = 0.7425 AU
Compare the two accelerations:
a(Valk 4% dmg) / a(SkyProm 4% dmg) = 0.7425 AU / 0.4950 AU = 1.5
This is all elementary algebra.
You are essentially making the argument that this suggestion would benefit the SkyProm more than the Valkyrie (or other light ships) because a single weapon hit will inflict a greater % damage on the Valk than the Prom. While it's true a flare will tend to inflict a greater % damage on a light ship than a heavy, this is already true today and has nothing to do with the OP's suggestion.
I have to continually watch for biases in my thinking; there are many aspects to this game I have little experience with, and it's easy to minimize their importance unless I am careful.
-1 to OP. Makes even less sense than all-or-nothing from engineering perspective.
I'd like to see some improvements in that area.
We already have "sections" in ships, those that get colored in the small ship rendering in your HUD: Front, rear, sides, top, bottom. Best option would be tie to associate each section to some subsystem:
-Front: Jump Engine
-Rear: Turbo engine
-Top/Bt/Sides: Strafe engine (non-turbo) OR weapons, per ship layout.
Those already exist. And seems that they already work. Example, a ship takes 12 shots in one section to explode, or 16 shots spread over different sections. Can someone confirm, maybe Incarnate?
Next tie that to 3-tiers:
-40% damage=33% efficiency reduction
-70% damage=66% efficiency reduction
-90%=Subsystem lost. One more shot there and ship explodes, as it reaches the Power Cell.
The last step is missing, but for me that's where the best fun is: Subsystem disabling...
I'd like to see some improvements in that area.
We already have "sections" in ships, those that get colored in the small ship rendering in your HUD: Front, rear, sides, top, bottom. Best option would be tie to associate each section to some subsystem:
-Front: Jump Engine
-Rear: Turbo engine
-Top/Bt/Sides: Strafe engine (non-turbo) OR weapons, per ship layout.
Those already exist. And seems that they already work. Example, a ship takes 12 shots in one section to explode, or 16 shots spread over different sections. Can someone confirm, maybe Incarnate?
Next tie that to 3-tiers:
-40% damage=33% efficiency reduction
-70% damage=66% efficiency reduction
-90%=Subsystem lost. One more shot there and ship explodes, as it reaches the Power Cell.
The last step is missing, but for me that's where the best fun is: Subsystem disabling...