Implemented Armor/Hull is Worse than Useless

[CyberTao]

Unless it's total weapon mass on the ship, not per-computer.

Except that all calculations are based on modules attached to a weapons computer, effects included. Effect modules add to the total weapon group as well. 100 master, 100 slaves and 50 modules create a weapon system of 250 blocks. I dunno, it just seems needlessly over complicated to choose creating a new system which would have to combine all computers over applying 2 existing systems, when the end effect will be the same (can't imagine PD being much fun to build if you had to make it a minimal of 10 blocks per 1:1 cannon though).

Larger ships can't turn as fast as smaller ships can maneuver. That's easily solvable. That's how it works in many games. If my dreadnought can hit the tiny frigate that isn't moving, it deserves to get completely wasted. Against another dreadnought it will only damage a portion of it's hull.

Turning speeds only factor in when ships get close, and most combat that I have seen, that wasn't versus AI, was done at a distance, where PD has more time to react, and you have a better chance of avoiding fire (AI is also less accurate). You also have to consider things like swarmers, which don't care about turn rate.

I also don't see how turn rate factors into my argument at all. After a certain point, missiles will do their full damage needed to maximize the crater. If it is tied to ship mass, you can get a ship what can fire dozens of swarmers or lockons that deal the maximum sized crater, obliterating small ships and chewing through large ships like it does now.


Not that it really matters. Your ideal is dropping the DPS per block once weapons exceed a certain % of the ship's mass. Mine involves controlling weapon size via power costs, with an ideal weapon size and no penalty for making Large logic arrays to fire them. Both restrict ship design to a certain extent, and will probably never be used. Best we can hope for is the ability to tweak it to be like so in the configs, or via modding.

 

[Criss]

Except that all calculations are based on modules attached to a weapons computer, effects included. Effect modules add to the total weapon group as well. 100 master, 100 slaves and 50 modules create a weapon system of 250 blocks. I dunno, it just seems needlessly over complicated to choose creating a new system which would have to combine all computers over applying 2 existing systems, when the end effect will be the same (can't imagine PD being much fun to build if you had to make it a minimal of 10 blocks per 1:1 cannon though).


Turning speeds only factor in when ships get close, and most combat that I have seen, that wasn't versus AI, was done at a distance, where PD has more time to react, and you have a better chance of avoiding fire (AI is also less accurate). You also have to consider things like swarmers, which don't care about turn rate.

I also don't see how turn rate factors into my argument at all. After a certain point, missiles will do their full damage needed to maximize the crater. If it is tied to ship mass, you can get a ship what can fire dozens of swarmers or lockons that deal the maximum sized crater, obliterating small ships and chewing through large ships like it does now.


Not that it really matters. Your ideal is dropping the DPS per block once weapons exceed a certain % of the ship's mass. Mine involves controlling weapon size via power costs, with an ideal weapon size and no penalty for making Large logic arrays to fire them. Both restrict ship design to a certain extent, and will probably never be used. Best we can hope for is the ability to tweak it to be like so in the configs, or via modding.

It's not that we want to restrict design at all. Having power constraints on ships currently doesn't really stop people from building what they want. It's that players should be forced to choose how effective individual systems should be on their ship. Physically they can place whatever they want. But it will come with a price. And if they really want a superweapon then they can get one at the cost of it's efficiency or damage per block.

Limiting systems with power doesn't do much considering players have mastered power gen inside and out. An experienced player has a major advantage over someone that has just started the game if they know nothing about power. If a system is limited because of it's own size however, then everyone has the same advantages and disadvantages. An experienced player, or new player will have the same result if they build similar sized vessels and weapon systems.

I'm pretty sure it get's exponentially harder to operate a weapon the larger it gets. Just like any real world system. Infrastructure and whatnot. It isn't restricted just because it costs more power. The system gets complex. It get's harder to maintain a system that spans an entire battleship in real life. That's why we have engineers and mechanics.

 

[HerrColonel]

Not if weapons can still wipe out massive chunks of a ship, which they can. The recent tournament on the Starside server proved that once shields go down, an entire ship can be destroyed by an similarly sized ship in one shot. You will probably see videos of that posted soon.

There is already the two first matchs posted =) but I know I was there (but did poorly ^^')
The HP system will come after the rail update I think, the devs said for long it was needed to prevent core drilling.
I personnaly like the way we can wreck large chunks of ship's blocks with appropriate weapons. Your opponent have shields (or like lecic said we see an interesting design using 1 layer of blocks outside hull to prevent missiles's radius on the main ship) designed to prevent this

 

[Gandrac]

I dont think that a flat absorption % or HP increase of hull blocks would be the solution.

Why not give ships a bonus % to damage absorption (for hull-blocks) based on their mass? This way it would be hard to damage a fully intact ship but easy to punch holes into an already damaged ship (blame it on structural integrity) or smaller craft.

To me, just having more layers of hull to protect a ship seems to be the wrong solution in a cube-based game, where 100 mass fighter-crafts already have a 1 meter thick armorplating.
[DOUBLEPOST=1424884121,1424883753][/DOUBLEPOST]

Your opponent have shields (or like lecic said we see an interesting design using 1 layer of blocks outside hull to prevent missiles's radius on the main ship) designed to prevent this

The thought of seeing lots and lots of "Bottle Ships" fighting against each other to prevent missle damage is funny and horrifying at the same time

 

[whooplaah]

It has been my experience that hull is merely decorative. If you want to defend your ship you put shields and shield regen on it. Once the shields are down, you are as good as dead. Servers I've seen require at least 10k shield to not be 1-shotted by pirates, and 5k shield regen if you plan to stay and fight. Weapons that deal this kind of damage usually core a ship a second or less after shields go down.

However, if we have to destroy 40% of a ship's mass to start killing it then we've blown away a large portion of the salvage.

I'd like to point out a theory of HP system:
Assume:
1 hull = 100 hp
1 cannon = 25 hp
1 cannon comp = 50 hp

An offensive ship: 2 cannon comp + 1000 cannon + 248 hull = 1250 blocks with 49,900 hp
A balanced ship: 2 cannon comp + 624 cannon + 624 hull = 1250 blocks with 78,100 hp
A defense ship: 2 cannon comp + 248 cannon + 1000 hull = 1250 blocks with 106,300 hp

This system plus having to destroy a % of hit points before coring means that:
hull will be more useful in prolonging ship life beyond shield collapse;
focusing on blasting hull will kill a ship, but focusing on a shield/power/weapon system will cripple it;
ships designed with higher weapon-module ratios will have overall lower HP, making them easier to destroy.

 

[Criss]

Before we get side tracked again, I would like to reiterate the fact that the health system will matter little if a missile can take out an entire enemy ship. Saw this happen in the Blood and steel tournament a few times and those ships were similarly sized. A straight health increase a bad idea. A fighter will have a hard time going up against another one if they are made of advanced hull. My fighters are fitted with the biggest guns I can put on their hull and it takes them a bit to dig into each other. I'm fairly positive the devs stated they cannot buff hull or nerf weapons any further at this point.

 

[Lecic]

Before we get side tracked again, I would like to reiterate the fact that the health system will matter little if a missile can take out an entire enemy ship. Saw this happen in the Blood and steel tournament a few times and those ships were similarly sized. A straight health increase a bad idea. A fighter will have a hard time going up against another one if they are made of advanced hull. My fighters are fitted with the biggest guns I can put on their hull and it takes them a bit to dig into each other. I'm fairly positive the devs stated they cannot buff hull or nerf weapons any further at this point.

Yeah, I personally was killed in one shot by TE's Pocket Rocket in B&S after my shields were low.

 

[Calbiri]

Armor blocks in the next patch will have increased health and armor rating, although not the 1000hp/90% armor that you mentioned, thats simply not possible given the games basic foundations (a block can hold data for up to 256 hp.) Additionally, ships will soon (not this patch though) be getting a shipwide HP and Armor value, in addition to the values they have on each individual block. This will bring the survivability of vessels into the same balance scale that weapons occupy.

 

[jstenholt]

So, is the turret/rail update going to the back-burner? I surely hope not.

 

[Criss]

So, is the turret/rail update going to the back-burner? I surely hope not.

No it should be the main focus of the next patch.

 

[jstenholt]

It's just that we have heard so painfully little about it, and I'm so excited for it.

 

[Criss]

Well we have hardly heard anything else, but that's what schema said is coming next.

 

[aceface]

they should be penalized for making ships into superweapons.

1+, ships will be more like they are in other scifi genres by having smaller weapons but more in the form of turrets.

 

[jayman38]

So, is the turret/rail update going to the back-burner? I surely hope not.

I don't think that it is on the back-burner at all, but I also do not think it will be in the next update. The devs have chimed in once or twice on the forums, telling us that a lot has to be done behind-the-scenes to how the game works, before the rail system can possibly be implemented, but it's definitely planned.

 

[Lecic]

I don't think that it is on the back-burner at all, but I also do not think it will be in the next update. The devs have chimed in once or twice on the forums, telling us that a lot has to be done behind-the-scenes to how the game works, before the rail system can possibly be implemented, but it's definitely planned.

Considering the devs have said multiple times that rails were coming in the next update, I think it'll just be a while until we get the next update, which will include rails.

 

[MacThule]

Armor blocks in the next patch will have increased health and armor rating, although not the 1000hp/90% armor that you mentioned, thats simply not possible given the games basic foundations (a block can hold data for up to 256 hp.) Additionally, ships will soon (not this patch though) be getting a shipwide HP and Armor value, in addition to the values they have on each individual block. This will bring the survivability of vessels into the same balance scale that weapons occupy.

That is very welcome news!
As always - thank you all for the hard work and dedication to your player base.