Shield vs Hull... Or?

[blue_pyro]

I apologize for adding a suggestion to this seemingly over bloated section of the forums but i really think the idea should be put out there(even if it's not accepted). But please feel free to reply with your own tweak/overhaul or criticisms toward this idea. I've been wondering; like many; why even try to produce or buy advanced/crystal hulls when they are still chewed through like paper as though they were regular hulls. Having shields should be a game mechanic but it makes typical blocks way more commonly used(even in large stations and ships). So here's the suggestion. Instead of having all hulls act as a paper background only used to hide the components of the ships... Why not have the blocks effect the shield's power loss. By this i mean the hauls that took the damage impact should effect how much shields are lost. Here's the key's/variables to the following formula in case someone wants to tweak it.
SL = shield loss; BT = block type(which is the health * armor of block hit)

SL = SL-(SL/BT); //simple right?

Do you guys think we should use something like this so that advanced hulls have some sort of value? This way factions can't wage wars so easily without being able to mass produce the necessary advanced hulls for the bigger ships. In my opinion this would open a whole new slew of strategies because the economy would greatly effect the choices a commander would make. This doesn't seem perfect to me but does seem like a better system then what we have now. If anyone doesn't understand please let me know so i can try to explain it better.
[DOUBLEPOST=1429821642,1429821359][/DOUBLEPOST]Actually let me add a new variable. BSL for base shield loss. so formula should look like this.
SL = BSL-(BSL/BT);

 

[CyberTao]

I recall hearing something similar to this before, was a while ago, but still been considered I think.

My only question is how well does it translate between Fighters and Titans? Fighters are most often the ships coated in Advanced Armour, because at their size, it can still make a difference (when fighting within their size range). It would make small ship battles very drawn out and boring.

Another concern is with nullifying damage. By lowering the damage to shields, you also reduce the amount of regen you need to completely ignore the damage taken (There has been some ships that focused on negating all damage from smaller ships).

Just a couple of my thoughts.

 

[blue_pyro]

Good points. Honestly i've always thought of smaller ships as bot controled flairs that are pesky in groups. But i can still understand what you mean. How about instead of increasing shields more then they are just use the formula but make it so that advanced hulls represent the max (what shields are able to do now) and lesser blocks just reduce the effectiveness. making shields "almost" pointless on ships that don't have good huls. and for that matter if there's budget concerns then you have to build your ships smart so that the good armor is in the important spots. and really if this isn't a good idea then shields just need to be turned down all together as well as damage.
[DOUBLEPOST=1429822517,1429822171][/DOUBLEPOST]well i mean unless someone comes up with something better but really there's gotta be something much better around the corner till someone comes up with something to fit perfectly.

 

[CyberTao]

The problem with hull being paper is related to the fact that weapons scale as you add more, and hull does not. Shields do scale though, which is why everyone relies on shields, rather than the static armoured hulls.

I would prefer to see Hull be a standalone choice for defenses, rather than just a modifier for shields.

 

[blue_pyro]

The problem with hull being paper is related to the fact that weapons scale as you add more, and hull does not. Shields do scale though, which is why everyone relies on shields, rather than the static armoured hulls.

I would prefer to see Hull be a standalone choice for defenses, rather than just a modifier for shields.

Then perhaps lower the attack value of weapons systems as well as shield values? But in a way that shields are still effective but require a good charge to keep up. And if you up the recharge on shields just a little bit then i'd imagine that defense would be very interesting as you would more likely use defense "supporter" turrets that would give extra recharge to your big ships' shields.
[DOUBLEPOST=1429823064,1429822891][/DOUBLEPOST]i could see this causing attacking units to be made of advanced hulls and defensive units using a mostly shields.

 

[CyberTao]

Then perhaps lower the attack value of weapons systems as well as shield values? But in a way that shields are still effective but require a good charge to keep up. And if you up the recharge on shields just a little bit then i'd imagine that defense would be very interesting as you would more likely use defense "supporter" turrets that would give extra recharge to your big ships' shields.

Lower damage was already suggested, but is unlikely to be done to the vanilla configs, mainly due to the possibility of a 2 block, 0 Damage weapon.

The proposed revamp for Hulls is the Shipwide Armour Migration system thingie. Basically, having more hull on your ship applies a reduction to damage for hull. Larger ships would get a larger reduction, because they would have more hull on them, and it creates a system were Armour can Scale.

 

[blue_pyro]

Lower damage was already suggested, but is unlikely to be done to the vanilla configs, mainly due to the possibility of a 2 block, 0 Damage weapon.

The proposed revamp for Hulls is the Shipwide Armour Migration system thingie. Basically, having more hull on your ship applies a reduction to damage for hull. Larger ships would get a larger reduction, because they would have more hull on them, and it creates a system were Armour can Scale.

then i suppose that this would make smaller ships just pure fodder. Well at least this sounds a lot better then what's used now. they could up the datatype of health and armor on blocks but i know why it's important to avoid that. It would cause smaller servers with less ram to have problems with memory. Sorry for rehashing something old. i did read up on this but didn't realize that there was already a temp solution. Must not have read deep enough. Anyway unless someone thinks this post has value to it am i able to delete it or request it to be deleted? i'd rather not clutter up the forums with something that's already been talked about in the same way.

 

[CyberTao]

then i suppose that this would make smaller ships just pure fodder. Well at least this sounds a lot better then what's used now. they could up the datatype of health and armor on blocks but i know why it's important to avoid that. It would cause smaller servers with less ram to have problems with memory. Sorry for rehashing something old. i did read up on this but didn't realize that there was already a temp solution. Must not have read deep enough. Anyway unless someone thinks this post has value to it am i able to delete it or request it to be deleted? i'd rather not clutter up the forums with something that's already been talked about in the same way.

Increasing the Data per block has a larger affect than some may thing, because that would be 1 or 2 more bytes per block, in a game where people build ships with millions of blocks. It makes quite the impact.

And I find it is better to leave suggestions alone, there is rarely a reason to delete a thread unless you are trying to hide something. Clutter is good, it gives people to go back and look at if they were considering a similar system.

 

[blue_pyro]

Increasing the Data per block has a larger affect than some may thing, because that would be 1 or 2 more bytes per block, in a game where people build ships with millions of blocks. It makes quite the impact.

And I find it is better to leave suggestions alone, there is rarely a reason to delete a thread unless you are trying to hide something. Clutter is good, it gives people to go back and look at if they were considering a similar system.

honestly as a beginner game dev i'd have to agree. I've already done some open world prototypes and i admit that there's a lot of hard work that goes into managing big open worlds both to servers and standalone games. Take the extra 1 or 2 bytes and multiply it by total blocks. which could easily be in the hundreds of millions if not billions. also you have to avoid forcing every block from doing calculations every frame. Even in the local area if every block was doing an extra calculation then a war of two or more factions dealing with millions of blocks is going to cause an intolerable bottleneck. only reason collision and movement is tolerable (with brakable blocks) is because of the voxels.

 

[NeonSturm]

Take the extra 1 or 2 bytes and multiply it by total blocks. which could easily be in the hundreds of millions if not billions. also you have to avoid forcing every block from doing calculations every frame. Even in the local area if every block was doing an extra calculation then a war of two or more factions dealing with millions of blocks is going to cause an intolerable bottleneck. only reason collision and movement is tolerable (with brakable blocks) is because of the voxels.

Logic?
It is also a difference if you use meta-data (don't have to be a grid like the blocks) or block-data.

Personally, I think a ship should not give 1/3 bytes for combat. Maybe small ships can afford that because it is small compared to their meta-data (per entity).


There is just ONE issue.

• Small ships may have 9x7y21z dimensions ~~160 blocks you can hit at side, ~64 at front/back.
• Big ships have 1000*500 blocks open to projectile hits => more than 500'000 blocks.
• (( This is just the SURFACE area ))

Want my suggestion?

• Disable per-block-damage.
• Enable per-1/32-shipSize-damage (depending on average ship dimensions).

Why?

• Huge performance gain if whole chunks are hit at once.
• Better balance
• 1/3 less RAM-usage since you need almost 1 Byte less per block (about 1/8 bit for a ship with size 65x30y100z)