New hp system breaks combat, doesn't "make it better"

[shadowulf]

The HP update, now that I understand it, works fine, even with the systems shutting down. I have been testing prototypes and even did a large two ship battle. The thing I find could be changed is the systems that are damaged should shut down, and not every single. In my large ship fight, a much smaller ship beat me, not by killing my structure HP, but by destroying my weapon computers. (Granted that ship was a beast built by Mr. FURB)

 

[Harbinger_OF_Cthulhu]

In space there is no gravity, so there is also no structural integrity. Objects CAN NOT fall apart because they are loosely connected together

You know this is actually incorrect.
[DOUBLEPOST=1436469156,1436466781][/DOUBLEPOST]Yes sorry armor blocks add 5 hp, insignificant, upping that value might be good... But let me get to my main point...

My point about the core not being useful isn't that I think core drilling is fun, it's in fact my way of saying that with this update you lose the feeling of disabling a ship by shooting the most valuable part of said ship, the core. Example; If you shot the nuclear power core of a navy ship that ship would be dead doesn't matter how much of the structure had taken damage before, period.

You all talk about realism and that's very unrealistic... Since these are flying ships in space using "thrusters" there has to be a "core" a high priority target located in the ship. Now I'm not saying make all weapons lock on to it, which would reproduce the dreaded "core drilling" tactic as so many of you hate it. But if you do manage to hit the core that should kill the ship, or severely cripple it. Because right now if I shoot out the front half of a ship it is just as valuable as shooting off the back half or top or bottom. (I know what you fan boys will say, "But if there are more systems in the back or top then that's where its a better place to shoot, blah blah blah.) That's my point exactly its not about hitting critical structures, outside of computers of course, it's just about doing massive damage.

The inclusion of a new "core" block would actually force you to study the enemy ships even more if you want to end a fight quickly,outside of computer destruction of course, fan boys... The idea of a core is like a nuclear power plant core. If you hit that then "GG m8". But that isn't a thing anymore, I believe there should be "hyper critical" blocks that once destroyed should reduce the combat efficiency of a ship severly, outside of the current effects of "user system" failures due to computer destruction. This could be a "core" block, not as we know it now, but a new core that all the ships power is run through or something. This block should be required, by a simple structure check before a ship can fly.

Let me reiterate, IT WOULD NOT BE THE CORE THAT WE KNOW CURRENTLY, it would be a new block whose sole purpose would allow the ship to utilize its power regen value, maybe by allowing the power regen to actually trigger or something like that. This could be implemented through having to link the power reactor blocks to this core. We could even implement a system that for every power regen value of like 5 million another core would have to be used. This idea could also be implemented in power capacity, including power cap brackets for additional power cap cores. This would allow for even more precision execution of ships if you know their structural weaknesses. Then you fan boys can get your cockpits implemented and have your system computers linked to the cockpit block not the core block. And also making it more realistic in the same vain. Think about it...
[DOUBLEPOST=1436470003][/DOUBLEPOST]Also the idea of the missiles and ai systems targeting the ships center of mass (CoM) is bad and should not be used. I know it was used in conjunction with the old core system. Which allows the ai or missiles to just be targeting the CoM and not have to "see" the ship, ultimately helping with coding. I'm not sure exactly how to fix this or how then to optimize functionality via the code for the game. But I due believe it would help combat if we moved away from the CoM targeting system.

 

[Aynslei]

But let me get to my main point...
My point about the core not being useful isn't that I think core drilling is fun

You and maybe 2-3 other people may think this, but its dead and will not be a thing, don't say something breaks combat just because you enjoy being able to kill one block and win.

 

[Harbinger_OF_Cthulhu]

You and maybe 2-3 other people may think this, but its dead and will not be a thing, don't say something breaks combat just because you enjoy being able to kill one block and win.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying... I'm saying I don't necessarily like the idea of core drilling, however there is something to be said about critical blocks and usefulness. Did you bother to read my entire essay? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you didn't. Just as you ignorantly told me to not speak out about something because I don't like it, I'm going to say to you, don't say anything to someone when you don't bother to attempt to understand that person's point.

 

[Aynslei]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying... I'm saying I don't necessarily like the idea of core drilling, however there is something to be said about critical blocks and usefulness. Did you bother to read my entire essay? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you didn't. Just as you ignorantly told me to not speak out about something because I don't like it, I'm going to say to you, don't say anything to someone when you don't bother to attempt to understand that person's point.

Oh I read it, I think you mis-understood me. I said don't complain about breaking combat when you want aka core drilling 2.0.

 

[Lecic]

Also the idea of the missiles and ai systems targeting the ships center of mass (CoM) is bad and should not be used. I know it was used in conjunction with the old core system. Which allows the ai or missiles to just be targeting the CoM and not have to "see" the ship, ultimately helping with coding. I'm not sure exactly how to fix this or how then to optimize functionality via the code for the game. But I due believe it would help combat if we moved away from the CoM targeting system.

You do realize we're switching to AI targetting specific systems in the future, right?

 

[Harbinger_OF_Cthulhu]

You do realize we're switching to AI targetting specific systems in the future, right?

Agreeing with that, I guess.
[DOUBLEPOST=1436477791,1436477242][/DOUBLEPOST]

Oh I read it, I think you mis-understood me. I said don't complain about breaking combat when you want aka core drilling 2.0.

I'm not, I'm asking for a similar system to what is already in place for weapons and other such systems. Would you argue that you should retain functionality of a weapon system if its associated computer is destroyed? I don't know, maybe you would from what you're saying. I would say no, you shouldn't retain functionality of those systems. Because of this I don't see why this is such a radical idea to apply this very same concept to other aspects of the ship's core functionality. I'm not saying the ship should immediately over heat if these "core functionality" blocks are destroyed I'm saying that the ship should just lose associated functionality every time one of these blocks does get destroyed. Which could be in conjunction with losing arbitrary mass amounts. ( In fact the hp system could even still be in effect with is).

 

[Aynslei]

I cant agree with tying power into a computer system, that would be a block that would be required for every single ship and would function to completely disable ships upon its destruction much like the core drilling of old. Considering that the system you are talking about doesn't really act like anything other than core drilling I cant support it.

 

[Lecic]

I'm not, I'm asking for a similar system to what is already in place for weapons and other such systems. Would you argue that you should retain functionality of a weapon system if its associated computer is destroyed? I don't know, maybe you would from what you're saying. I would say no, you shouldn't retain functionality of those systems. Because of this I don't see why this is such a radical idea to apply this very same concept to other aspects of the ship's core functionality. I'm not saying the ship should immediately over heat if these "core functionality" blocks are destroyed I'm saying that the ship should just lose associated functionality every time one of these blocks does get destroyed. Which could be in conjunction with losing arbitrary mass amounts. ( In fact the hp system could even still be in effect with is).

You're asking for a system that is functionally the same as the core. A block that, if lost, means you're pretty much out of the battle.

 

[Fireshock]

Upping armor block's structural HP would make "weak spots" even less weak because they would be holding less % of ship's structural HP in them. So you are contradicting yourself right there.

I do agree that ships should still have 1 super weak spot that needs to be protected at all costs. But definitely NOT as weak as ship cores were before. Actualy we allready have that, control rooms. Wherever player puts all of his computers, you manage to shot that room and most of his ship is useless. There's your incentive to study people's ships.

You all talk about realism and that's very unrealistic... Since these are flying ships in space using "thrusters" there has to be a "core" a high priority target located in the ship.

Nope, core does not have to be there. That's just a cool part of colorfull imagination of scifi fantasy. Used to make unknowing users feel like systems actualy have some real mechanisms of functioning when in reality they do not.
Does any of turbojet, rocket or ion engines from real life have a "Core" ???
No they do not. There are physical engines and some of them need power and/or fuel storage inside a craft and that's it.
Don't start telling me that each craft has to have some sort of center/heart to it because that's exactly what control room that I mentioned earlyer is.... and it's allready implemented.

 

[Harbinger_OF_Cthulhu]

You're asking for a system that is functionally the same as the core. A block that, if lost, means you're pretty much out of the battle.

I literally said it was a core...

Currently if this was introduced the targeting system would not find the "core" block it would just aim for CoM. If it changes to target systems it still would not target the computer but the system.

There was a reason why tankers in WWII and even today (but to a lesser degree with the introduction of highly effective H.E.A.T. rounds) would shoot for known locations on enemy tanks that housed fuel or ammunition. This is because a critical hit there would neutralize the enemy with out causing catastrophic damage to the entire tank. This isn't seen in Starmade, but you can still compare a ship to a tank. It has shields and armor to protect it, but now it always has an arbitrary structure hp system that needs to be dealt with be fore the ship is neutralized. So the real world example would be a tank that had invincible crew members and even if you shoot its engine, as long as there was more than 1% of the engine left and the remaining tank had more than 55% of its "structure' not including armor of course, would still drive around just fine. No critical damage, ever. It's like having a decentralized brain/ decentralized nervous system, and makes sense when it comes to biological organism but not so much when in regards to ships. With this introduced in SM it does not support any modicum of realism, it may be a slight step in the right direction. And I'm going to be honest, core drilling makes more sense. (Not that I don't understand the math behind the hp system or that I don't see how it works.) But I think it isn't at all appropriate for a game such as Starmade, if they are attempting to introduce realism, which is why there should be critical blocks that hold most of a system's functionality.

 

[Aynslei]

All I hear is "I want core drilling" and then I just don't care any more. Its why threads like this don't go any where.

 

[Lecic]

This isn't seen in Starmade, but you can still compare a ship to a tank. It has shields and armor to protect it, but now it always has an arbitrary structure hp system that needs to be dealt with be fore the ship is neutralized.

Um... the bridge? You know, the place where all the computers are kept? There's your central target. Who cares if the ship doesn't actually DIE until ~55% block loss? It's worthless if you destroy all the computers anyway.

 

[Harbinger_OF_Cthulhu]

Upping armor block's structural HP would make "weak spots" even less weak because they would be holding less % of ship's structural HP in them. So you are contradicting yourself right there.

I do agree that ships should still have 1 super weak spot that needs to be protected at all costs. But definitely NOT as weak as ship cores were before. Actualy we allready have that, control rooms. Wherever player puts all of his computers, you manage to shot that room and most of his ship is useless. There's your incentive to study people's ships.


Nope, core does not have to be there. That's just a cool part of colorfull imagination of scifi fantasy. Used to make unknowing users feel like systems actualy have some real mechanisms of functioning when in reality they do not.
Does any of turbojet, rocket or ion engines from real life have a "Core" ???
No they do not. There are physical engines and some of them need power and/or fuel storage inside a craft and that's it.
Don't start telling me that each craft has to have some sort of center/heart to it because that's exactly what control room that I mentioned earlyer is.... and it's allready implemented.

1.) No, not necessarily.

2.) You saying a core is a figment of scifi fanticy is actually wrong, as you have to have a core room for all contemporary naval nuclear vessels, that means they exist in real life currently. (Also I would assume due to energy demands that space craft in the near future will utilize some form of a nuclear reactor for power which would draw similarities to this game or other scifi ideas) A control room in which all sensitive computers for all ship's systems are housed Is actually something that does not exist, however the name "control room" does, but its for logistical purposes and only houses personnel functionality role. And this concept of a control room actually isn't in any way shape or form demanded in Starmade, the player gets to chose where they want their system computers. If they put them in a centralized "control room" so be it, but it isn't mandated.

3.) Look some bisected images of the propulsion systems you listed. Then understand those are only the propulsion systems not the thing that runs them. If the computer running any of those was destroyed they would critically malfunction quite rapidly. In fact even if a small pressure gauge malfunctions inside any of those propulsion systems there are large chances of critical malfunctions. And you fail to realize, even though you said it, that all of these systems run off of some form of energy base (fuel) of which is house in some location which is redistributed by a computer (if we are speaking in contemporary terms). Thus the notion of having a computer tied to not only propulsion systems but also main energy systems would seen quite practical.

 

[Lecic]

Core based combat isn't fun. That's why it got removed. Please stop trying to get it added back in.

 

[Winterhome]

"I want instant kills"

nothanks

 

[Harbinger_OF_Cthulhu]

All I hear is "I want core drilling" and then I just don't care any more. Its why threads like this don't go any where.

Um... the bridge? You know, the place where all the computers are kept? There's your central target. Who cares if the ship doesn't actually DIE until ~55% block loss? It's worthless if you destroy all the computers anyway.

Core based combat isn't fun. That's why it got removed. Please stop trying to get it added back in.

Then they should remove computers connected to weapon systems as that's core drilling too.... And no I'm not going to stop asking for critical blocks to be implemented in the functionality of a ship as I feel they would enhance not only the game depth but also the creation and planning it would take to make your ship. Why get so defensive over that concept?
[DOUBLEPOST=1436482261,1436482130][/DOUBLEPOST]

"I want instant kills"

nothanks

You are a troll. That much is obvious. This will be the first and last time I respond to you. I did not say I want insta kills. I do, however, feel that critical blocks would be a benefit to the game, mechanics wise and with player creation complexity.

 

[Winterhome]

So being part of the 90% of the community that disagrees makes me a troll. Riiiight.

 

[Lecic]

Then they should remove computers connected to weapon systems as that's core drilling too....

A ship can have numerous weapons. Losing one doesn't instantly put you out of the fight. You can even repair your weapons by placing down a new computer and relinking the systems.

 

[Harbinger_OF_Cthulhu]

A ship can have numerous weapons. Losing one doesn't instantly put you out of the fight. You can even repair your weapons by placing down a new computer and relinking the systems.

That shouldn't even be viable.