Discussion : How to improve game combat ?

[Keptick]

I think I am just going to record some combat. Instead of people talking about hypothetical decisions made by players based on changes we are discussing I will just show you guys. Specifically how one can change the number of weapons used instead of values for blocks in the game, and have drastic effects on ship longevity in combat.

We aren't getting anywhere by saying "players will do this, and that." Players already take the game in many directions / playstyles. They will continue to do so. The aim is to give "the norm" decent balancing and gameplay experiences.



I frankly will not even discuss changing shielding so drastically when there is a Hull HP system that is supposed to be the focus right now. When this major piece of the puzzle is implemented then we can start looking at balancing values. Otherwise we might have to do it twice or more times.

1) Editing shield values would take 10 seconds.
2) Read this http://starmadedock.net/threads/pro...-capacitor-values-would-be-a-good-thing.5823/.

I 100% agree with the first part of your post. And there's no discussion to be had. Just read that post I linked and you'll see why.

 

[jorgekorke]

And again, I just think small ships (100-150 mass) have way too fast turning speed, as in you can do a 360 (at least with my default sensitivity) in 1-2 seconds. I doubt the small invisible directional thrusts on a ship would be able to do such a thing. Elite dangerous is a very scientifically accurate game, and here the smallest ship (sidewinder) cannot do ridiculous 360s in a couple of seconds.

All fighters from Tachyon - The fringe do turn instantly the way you point them, while losing forward speed at the moment they do.
Fighters should turn EVEN FASTER then by now, by default. Because a fighter craft is only relevant if they are over 400 mass; hence why most of the major factions consider this range as a fighter. And thanks to the current turning rate system that punishes you for not making cubes, well-built fighters turns slowly.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

CyberTao we all know what was it like when missiles were slower. In fact, look at missile/pulse. By the time it actually hits your target you're either dead, or you killed it with your other weapons, and the missile only ruins the salvage with the enormous hole. Missiles should indeed be fast but I think the fastest missile should be the dumbfire (to be a tad bit easier to hit) and the sniper missile speed should only be double instead of triple (and the reload time as well). In this case I think about MechWarrior missile systems. Mainly they have 3 kinds of missiles: SRM (short-range missile) which pack more bang per missile but have less fuel so they have a short range. LRM (long-range missile) has a lot better range, but a lot less damage/missile (which is compensated by launching more missiles/volley which results in a lot bigger and heavier launchers) as the missile's weight is mostly fuel not the warhead. The third kind is the absolutely dumbfired rocket launcher which fires single missiles with relatively high speed but no tracking system whatsoever.

About the survival aspect: Almost every single asteroid you find can be used to craft a weapon or an offensive effect (overdrive, piercing, explosive, ion etc.) also only 1 type of ore needed for it, the rest is crystal circuits or meshes. However, for shielding, only 2 specific asteroid types can be used and both shield caps and rechargers need specific ores AND shard to produce. If we even look at advanced armor production cost (so many ingots omg) it's just as ridiculously high compared to offensive. Even if all asteroid types had the same spawn chance (which is clearly not the case) offense would still be a lot easier to make than defense. Even if the efficiency/block would be a lot better on shields and we wouldn't need 50K shield blocks and 5K weapon/effect blocks on a ship to be somewhat balanced.

 

[CyberTao]

About the survival aspect: Almost every single asteroid you find can be used to craft a weapon or an offensive effect (overdrive, piercing, explosive, ion etc.) also only 1 type of ore needed for it, the rest is crystal circuits or meshes. However, for shielding, only 2 specific asteroid types can be used and both shield caps and rechargers need specific ores AND shard to produce. If we even look at advanced armor production cost (so many ingots omg) it's just as ridiculously high compared to offensive. Even if all asteroid types had the same spawn chance (which is clearly not the case) offense would still be a lot easier to make than defense. Even if the efficiency/block would be a lot better on shields and we wouldn't need 50K shield blocks and 5K weapon/effect blocks on a ship to be somewhat balanced.

I've yet to get into the crafting, so I know nothing about the rarity of the ores and their impact on ship design, hence I tried to just speak of the numbers.

 

[aceface]

hypothetical decisions

look, I have had experience in terms of PVE and PVP in more or less all the shield changes;

history of shield changes over the past 1.5 years:

- first the shields were very powerful.
- then they were nerfed.
- then they were SUPER BUFFED.
- then they were nerfed to current shields.

The previous buff made 100 shield capacity ship now have 1000 shield capacity, 4000 shield capacity 40 000 etc. When I was playing myself pvp, survival, and non hypothetical things, I must say that I did have a lot fewer shield capacitators compared to now.

but still, my ships would anyway have a lot more shields vs weapon dps ratio than that of the current system (resulting in ships not instantly dying like they do quite often nowadays). Your ship can only supply so much power, and being a tank is actually a ship design.

The only criticism i have of the last shield system was that they were just too powerful in terms of their regen. The shield count tbh was fine, at least for the smaller ships.

 

[Snk]

I think I am just going to record some combat. Instead of people talking about hypothetical decisions made by players based on changes we are discussing I will just show you guys. Specifically how one can change the number of weapons used instead of values for blocks in the game, and have drastic effects on ship longevity in combat.

We aren't getting anywhere by saying "players will do this, and that." Players already take the game in many directions / playstyles. They will continue to do so. The aim is to give "the norm" decent balancing and gameplay experiences.



I frankly will not even discuss changing shielding so drastically when there is a Hull HP system that is supposed to be the focus right now. When this major piece of the puzzle is implemented then we can start looking at balancing values. Otherwise we might have to do it twice or more times.

I hate EvE, but I love your building style and how you seem to be the most meaningful contribute to any discussion about armor. Out of all the people participating on this discussion, you tend to be the only one who contributes meaningful evidence in regards to any HP discussion.

 

[Criss]

I hate EvE, but I love your building style and how you seem to be the most meaningful contribute to any discussion about armor. Out of all the people participating on this discussion, you tend to be the only one who contributes meaningful evidence in regards to any HP discussion.

Nothing about armor is really related to EVE in these discussions. It's just one of the main issues that I am seeing is that players use overtly large weaponry. Those weapons tear through armor easily. And instead of seeing that they blame the armor itself for not being able to withstand it. After seeing plenty of sci-fi, there are no ships I could take seriously if it's turret systems were 1/3 the ships size.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

There's only one way to enforce smaller guns: by drastically increasing weapon power consumption so ships simply couldn't sustain oversized guns.
However, like I mentioned, crafting weapons is a lot easier than crafting shielding and armor. Both by recource count and resource availability. So, on a survival environment, you'll have big guns a lot sooner than big shields. In fact, you'll mostly only have shields if you sell other stuff you crafted in a shop and buy shields from the credits. In a crafting only, no shops environment, it's even harder, since you don't even have that option, nor can you pay for repairing decayed stations to get your shields and armor from them. So, until you have a ship strong enough to battle pirates, you need to hunt those blue and orange asteroids...

 

[Panpiper]

Someone else and I both came to the conclusion that players would place less shield capacitors on their ships, get the same value in shield HP and then place more weapons on the ship.

Assume your ship currently has 50% in weapons and 50% in shields. If shields are doubled, you assert that people will have half as many shields and increase their weapons, so they would go for 75% in weapons and 25% in shields. However that only results in a 50% increase in firepower, whereas the one who did not change the ratio got a 100% increase in shields.

Now imagine the shields have been increased not by doubling, but by quadrupling. You reduce your shields to only 12.5% and increase your weapons to 87.5%. Your firepower has not even doubled, but the fellow who maintained the 50/50 ratio can take four times the fire. Not only is the fellow with the 'regular' shielding much more survivable, but you with your (relatively) lower shields have rendered yourself vulnerable to being killed by much smaller ships than what you are flying.

Increasing shielding will not result in a 'trivially' countered strategy.

 

[Criss]

Assume your ship currently has 50% in weapons and 50% in shields. If shields are doubled, you assert that people will have half as many shields and increase their weapons, so they would go for 75% in weapons and 25% in shields. However that only results in a 50% increase in firepower, whereas the one who did not change the ratio got a 100% increase in shields.

Now imagine the shields have been increased not by doubling, but by quadrupling. You reduce your shields to only 12.5% and increase your weapons to 87.5%. Your firepower has not even doubled, but the fellow who maintained the 50/50 ratio can take four times the fire. Not only is the fellow with the 'regular' shielding much more survivable, but you with your (relatively) lower shields have rendered yourself vulnerable to being killed by much smaller ships than what you are flying.

Increasing shielding will not result in a 'trivially' countered strategy.

Regardless to the math of this solution, I will redirect you to this thread, where my first response directly outlines my concerns and where I think the actual problem is.

http://starmadedock.net/threads/pro...values-would-be-a-good-thing.5823/#post-85154

I have noted that you already responded on the thread. One thing I saw you mention was a nerf to weapon damage. This has already been carried out to it's full extent. Calbiri stated weapons cannot be nerfed any further or the least-damaging weapon would not be able to break a single block. That is a reality that needs to continue. At this point it's not that we need to change values really, it's that we need to reduce the number of weapon blocks that people are using. At that point we might even have to reduce shield values so that shields can be taken out with the lowered weapon count.

 

[Panpiper]

Calbiri stated weapons cannot be nerfed any further or the least-damaging weapon would not be able to break a single block. That is a reality that needs to continue. At this point it's not that we need to change values really, it's that we need to reduce the number of weapon blocks that people are using.

I understand that there is already a mechanic in place that increases the energy cost of a weapon, the more such weapon groups are added to any given weapon computer. How about the same sort of mechanic being applied to each weapon increasing the energy cost the more blocks are used? The 'waffle' problem is already addressed (to some degree) by the increased energy cost of excessive groupings.

 

[Criss]

I understand that there is already a mechanic in place that increases the energy cost of a weapon, the more such weapon groups are added to any given weapon computer. How about the same sort of mechanic being applied to each weapon increasing the energy cost the more blocks are used? The 'waffle' problem is already addressed (to some degree) by the increased energy cost of excessive groupings.

I will be posting videos later today showing off some of the proposals I have in action. Of course we can change the values to systems and such already, (I believe). I'd like to throw in some visual representation of the impact of my proposal.