This is a good idea. Implement a very basic version of it, then tweak as needed. I'm sort of with TRS in that I think there could be unforeseen consequences. I really wish we could implement things like this on the test server first.

You mean ships with more armor will be less susceptible to damage?

*shocked face*

:P

Okay, now that I got the sarcasm out of my system... Yes, I can kind of see your point - it would be nice for each ship to have tailored stats. But it's not really that big of a deal. The precise performance of hand-tailored ships might differ, but they wouldn't differ by very much. And like Strat says, it would be a lot easier to come up with those individual numbers if the OP were already in place to provide a baseline, and then tweak from there.

TRS, this is kind of like the turret change. It's one of those game balance changes that needs to happen to keep things new and exciting for vets. This change could single handedly make the SVG valuable as an interceptor with no changes to the SVG.

Implement something, balance it later. The second best decision today is better than the best decision tomorrow.

this is a pretty damn good idea (should start at 50%)

+1

+1, though I'd rather have it so damaging certain parts of the ship decrease jump capacity. But it's still a good idea.

"You mean ships with more armor will be less susceptible to damage?"

Yes Alice, but ships with equal armour would be equally susceptible to increases in the amount of energy required to get out of a sector, but many ships that have roughly equal armour do not have roughly equal turbo drain meaning you're going to have some undesirable/odd scenarios.

Would it be fun? Of course it would be fun. It would be fun in the same way that 3 people with proms taking on a superbus with plasma annihilators and a NiCad is fun - anything could happen. I'm with Strat with regards to putting this kind of thing on a test server before production.

No Savet, this is not a simple value tweak at all. A simple value tweak solution would be something like reducing the recharge rate of all powercells and proportionately reducing the drain of every blaster so that only turbo use was affected. That kind of thing I could support.

This is the introduction of a new mechanic entirely. And yes I know Samantha, if anyone is going to bring us new exciting ways to explode it's going to be you, but we can do this better.

So why not have it affect the turbo thrust rather than drain? Heavier ships tend to have higher turbo thrust values, so each 1% penalty will have similar effects as the "smaller" 1% penalty on a lighter ship.

Couple this with the longer jump-times and I don't see a problem. I see an awesome solution.

Dent.

It isn't quite that simple Dent because turbo acceleration is also a function of weight. Some ships have proportionately lower weight to compensate for being transports, they're intended to carry cargo.

In any case, there's only so far you can take the suggestion on a conceptual level, there needs to be some stats and specific ships tweaks proposed or for us to be able to work towards it on the test server

I'd rather not mess with turbo thrust. The idea is to only nerf running with minimal impact to combat itself. Short bursts of turbo during combat are useful to close distance or lob a flare/gauss faster or get out of a sandwich. Impacting the drain would make those maneuvers more costly at low health. Impacting the thrust would actually make them less effective.

TRS: I really don't understand your reservation.

Ships already have a per-ship turbo drain, which varies from 45 to 60.

If I understand the OP and fill in some blanks, this will scale linearly from 50% - 100% damge to double the value.

So, a greyhound at 75% damage will have 45 * 1.5 = 67.5 drain
An SCP at 75% damage will have 60*1.75=105 drain

Thus, the hound can still turbo 75% of the time (50/67.5), or an infiniturbo speed of above 180 m/s, giving it some chance of escaping under cover and still better speed than a moth; while the SCP can turbo less than half the time. Neither ship will have a real chance to flee from a dedicated pursuer, but the hound might just get away with enough skill difference or if the enemy also took significant damage.

Both ships would require 75% battery to initiate a jump, which in both cases would take 4.5 seconds of not using energy after getting to 3km.

Of course, the SCP can take a lot more damage before getting to 75%, but that is the whole point of driving around in a tank.

I agree that the thrust stats should be left alone, as they also affect combat (e.g. swarm dodging, more than drain does at least) and are part of a quite intricate balance, while the drain/battery changes mostly affect running away.

Savet: I disagree with the proposition that this negates the need for a decent Serco interceptor. Intercepting is not just about catching damaged ships, it is also about intercepting bombers, freighters etc.

(and I think we would all like location dependent damage, especially on bigger ships, but I think the space pony has been promised to someone already ;-))

Let's leave the SVG to its own thread.

"TRS: I really don't understand your reservation."

Reservation is the wrong word. I just don't think its a trivial or small change that everybody should just support unquestioningly. It needs more testing, what's wrong with that?

Also I should add that when games change mechanics like this it's rarely a simple matter of a tweak. It can be as big as a full re-balance.

I am always hesitant about changing the blanket combat mechanics of Vendetta merely because they are the most complete aspect of the game and they are enjoyable to so many as is.

For the record, I'm all for doing this kind of thing on the test server first so people can play with it and the devs can fine-tune it before going production.

I'm not sure anybody was saying it was a simple value tweak. I wasn't anyway. This would involve a little actual programming work to implement.

This is the best suggestion we've had in 5 years, probably even longer.

Agreed, +1