A simple solution for Hull Mechanics

[refirendum]

i would like to add to deleter\'s idea of hull types that each hull should have a weight penalty. normal hull, no penalty, hardened, 3x weight of a norm hull block, sh-hull, 3x weight of a hardened hull block. balance can be played with later to get better values, but this is roughly what i\'d think would be appropriate, making hardened and super-hardened completely illogical and impractical for small ships (because their mass would become so much heavier that they\'d become a slow-moving lump of indestructictible debris to swat away with the tail of your small frigate since with all that hull, they\'d have to have so many thrusters to even move that their weapons would do little to no damage at all or the weapons would be exposed and easy to destroy with just a few hits of regular low-damage guns.) and possible superlight hull would have 20hp and 20% armor but weigh as little as 20% of the weight of normal hull for stealth-ships. this would be as expensive as hardened hull, but for a different reason.

 

[War Dog]

Decrease the mass of all hull types to 0.1.So 10 hull = 1 mass.

That way you can layer hull; For smaller ships this would improve aesthetic possibilities without burdening them and on larger ships, 10X400 hull HP > 1X30-ish shields on a mass:resilience ratio.

That being said, a better repair system would be required to maintain ships (I posted one http://star-made.org/content/making-repairing-more-useful).

I wouldn\'t be averse to increasing the HP/Armor of hulls.and/or decreasing the cost.

 

[McDili]

The post of mine that you are responding too was not in response to you, it was in response to the person that suggested changing stats.

 

[McDili]

This is great feedback by the way, this is going to make for really good discussion and theory, so thanks for that.



So right now my idea covers AMC and Missiles. Disintegrators would fill the same role as missiles in my proposal, I feel like they already do in the current game anyway.



But to address new weapon additions in the game: First we should assume that new weapons in the game will fill new mechanical roles.

Because of the way we make things more powerful, by grouping them up, it would be redundant to have a cannon that\'s better in every way to the AMC, for instance. New weapons will have to function in a way that they provide unique benefits apart from the other existing weapons. I hope that makes sense.

Secondly, when new weapons are introduced, there should also be a way to combat those weapons. So IF(And when) new weapons are put into the game, then that might call for new defensive blocks. But, just as new weapons should fill unique roles, so should the new defense blocks. Defense blocks don\'t have to be Hull either, could be a new type of shield, it could be something completely new and creative. The new weapons don\'t necessarily have to follow the same mechanical pattern, though it would make for some consistency, but as long as there are balanced and depth-oriented mechanics, it doesn\'t really matter.



I just want to note, that my proposal here only mechanically affects AMC\'s and Hull when AMC\'s are being used against hull. The viability of missiles comes at the expense of less effective AMC\'s vs Hull, but missiles don\'t actually change.



You may have to go into more detail here about \"Hull Leveling.\" It sounds very similar to the mass-related hull-strength solution with a different twist. If I\'m reading this correctly, you are saying Hulls should function in the way that AMC\'s do for instance, where the more you group them the more strength they get.

Now you may need to go into more detail if I\'ve misunderstood what you\'re trying to suggest, but if it is how I perceive it to be, then as long as you have the entire outer shell of hull connected, then 1m thin layers of hull will be strong based on how many hull blocks it\'s connected too.

It\'s essentially the same problem that comes with the mass-related hull-strength solution. However, I\'m still afraid that I\'m missing something here from your suggestion, so if I am I\'m sorry.. but I\'d like you to try to explain it to me in more detail if that\'s okay.

 

[killerdude8]

Weaken AMC\'s against hull? Terrible, Terrible idea, Missiles suck too bad to effectivley replace AMC\'s against hull, Infact AMC\'s should never change, as they are the most basic weapon. When we get more weapons, obviously they will be strong/weak against shields and hulls. But AMC\'s should never change.

Rather than hindering our Offence, Beef up the defence.

 

[McDili]

Is it a \"terrible\" idea because you\'re used to playing the game the way it is now?



New weapons having strengths and weakness against shield/hull is fine, but if AMC\'s stay the same, nobody will use the new weapons. Because where other weapons have strengths and weaknesses, AMC\'s aren\'t weak against anything. They are strong vs everything. It\'s a simple issue of balance.



Now I think everyone would agree that missiles, excluding the d1000, are sub-par right now. But that\'s only half the reason nobody uses them. The other half of the reason is because, in comparison to AMC\'s, they are less effective. Why are they less effective in comparison? Because AMC\'s beat shields and Hull better than missiles.



So logically I have to disagree with you. I don\'t think the argument \"AMC\'s should never change because they\'re basic\" is sufficient enough to warrant keeping AMC\'s strong vs everything.



But if you truly feel that AMC\'s being strong against everything is a good thing, I encourage you to come up with a more detailed and justifiable argument on how it contributes to the depth and balance of combat in StarMade.



And thanks for the feedback!

 

[HadrasVorshoth]

This kind of also makes sense with Science!

Anti-matter cannons would likely cause by colliding anti-matter with matter, causing the release of virtual photons, which could be energised to become actual laser fire. Now, EM radiation of sufficient energy and frequency such as light could overload a shield generator, since it\'s generally agreed that force fields are in fact fields. So, AMCs would make sense to be good against shields based on British science schooling, and hulls can concievably have been designed to dampen AMC photon transmission struck against them upon collision, but missiles are of course explosions and explosives make sense to be something that can breach physical barriers.

 

[Freudonym]

I agree with everything you have been saying, AMCs are too good at everything, they need to be only good at one thing. I kinda had a silly idea that won\'t ever be implemented, but here goes anyway: making AMCs inaccurate, but keeping the power, that way it can tear through shields and hull but won\'t be accurate enough to land strikes against the core. another thing would be to completely fix the \"locking\" missile systems because they don\'t work and make them the prefered choice for hull dammage.

 

[killerdude8]

We shouldn\'t nerf AMC\'s, Against Anything, they are the Universal weapon in the game, The jack of all trades. All we need to do is buff up hulls and Missiles, As right now both suck too bad to be worth using.



I mean seriously, Hulls are beyond useless, Why? Cause they can\'t survive anything past a moth fart.

 

[McDili]

I\'m glad you came back with a more constructive feedback.



You should go into more detail about how you want hulls and missiles buffed, because just saying they need to be buffed, well everyone here agree\'s that both Hull and Missiles should be more useful. But how?

Do you prefer stat boosts, or mechanical changes?



I\'m pretty much open to any discussion on mechanical changes, but if you prefer stat boosts, I\'d encourage you to read most of the debate on the thread before suggesting something like that, as I\'ve already responded to many different stat-related changes suggested here before.

 

[McDili]

Yeah making AMC\'s inaccurate by giving them spread would solve our problem, but that opens up a much larger can of worms and bleeds into the argument of Skill vs Luck. And in most cases, people, including myself, prefer a more skill-based environment rather than luck.



As for the locking system, I am working on a proposal for missiles right now, it\'s not completed yet as I have a lot of testing to do, but currently I think d1000\'s are fine, if not still a bit too slow even with relative speed. I think heat seekers should only go after hostile targets. And finally, I think that SD-BB\'s should lock on to your target, rather than the reticule, and I also think it should lock on instantly.



But I digress, the missile discussion is for another thread altogether, baby steps

 

[killerdude8]

By Mechnaical changes I assume you mean their physcial placement affects their Stats, In which case, I don\'t see working for Hulls, The only thing that makes sense, Is a Stat buff. More Health and slightly better Armour rating, etc..

Besides, The only reason why AMC\'s seem op is by comparison to everything else available, or lackthereof.

 

[McDili]

Sorry, I must not have been clear enough by what I meant when I said mechanical.



To start, an example of a \'mechanic\' is how missiles, despite their damage rating, do a fixed amount of damage against shields no matter what. There\'s also a mechanic in place that seems to allow a proportional amount of missiles bust through a shield in quick succession, though I\'m not sure about the full details on that one.

Anyway, the proposal I have suggested in the OP is a mechanical change, because it doesn\'t change the stats of hull or AMC\'s, but rather it changes how they function in a certain situation, this one being when AMC projectiles collide with hull, the AMC projectiles do a fixed amount of damage.



I\'m concerned that you haven\'t read my past responses to your suggestion of buffing HP and Armor on Hull. Others before you have suggested the same thing in this thread, so since you missed it I\'ll explain it again here. (Think I\'m going to update the OP so I can just refer them to that instead from now on)

If you buff the HP and armor of Hull, you will only exaggerate the problems we have now. Missiles DO need to get more useful, but not in the damage they do, as their damage is fine currently. But if you increase the stats on HP and Armor of hull, then while you do decrease the effectiveness of AMC\'s, you also decrease the effectiveness of Missiles. Which means people will still not use missiles. As long as AMC\'s are able to one-shot hull-blocks, Missiles will pale in comparison to them, because AMC projectile speed is much faster.

Not to mention, it doesn\'t completely solve the problem. Even though it will make AMC\'s less effective, there will still come a point where AMC\'s treat hull like paper, and the stat boost will not matter.



So as you can see, a stat change doesn\'t solve our problem, it only exaggerates it and makes it worse in some cases.

 

[killerdude8]

I suppose, Its all coming together now.

 

[omelet]

it was actually stated much clearer by refirendum in the following post. I just wanted to expand on the idea of having say 5 levels of hulls, each increased in mass per block and armor/HP stats (perhaps refined in a factory). And i was saying it could work with the idea you put forth, but not as a substitution. Or it could work to fix the problem you mentioned regarding the strengthened hulls being effective against both missiles and amc by just making the strengthening of hull stats very effective against amc, but missiles would have a fixed damage against hulls as they do with shields, but a higher fixed damage value.

 

[McDili]

The idea here isn\'t bad. I actually agree that if you have new blocks with higher HP and Armor, that work alongside the mechanic I suggested and have their own consequences, in this case more mass, then it actually doesn\'t cause any issues as long as missiles have another mechanic where they ignore armor.



There is only one issue I have regarding simplicity.

Do we really need 5 types of hull? Maybe a third type won\'t be too bad, but just to re-iterate, it would be like having a new block, that was named \"Better Anti-Matter Cannon\" and just did everything better than normal AMC\'s, and functioned the same way. Sure you have more mass with it, and sure it balances out, but it doesn\'t make the gameplay more interesting. It means you need more power and thrusters I guess, but things like that don\'t typically have any tangible affect on the depth and balance of combat.



Now, I\'m ALL FOR having new blocks in the game that provide defense. But I think that, just like weapons, they should provide a mechanically different way to defend yourself than hull and shield. The cloaker is an existing example of a defensive block, it doesn\'t negate damage from you, but hides you from sight as long as you aren\'t attacking. More blocks that are functionally different but achieve the same end are great.



An example of a defense block that doesn\'t exist could be something like a chaff discharge, that diverts incoming missiles away from their original target.

New blocks are good, but only if they do different things. To put it simply, variety makes the game more interesting and depth-oriented. Having a lot of redundancy is just dull.



Thanks again for the feedback, this is very good discussion.

 

[omelet]

The reason I suggest so many levels of hull strength (and perhaps more, why not), is to provide a mechanic where the hulls strength has a variety of options. The idea is to make it so that mass-per-block versus stats among the levels are such that the levels are balanced among each other and would be advantageous in one application vs another, probably based on the size of the ship.

This would equate to the levelling you do with block count for AMCs for instance. You may choose the block count and arrangement based on the size of the ship you make. I am just suggesting there could be options for hulls as well.

 

[lazarus78]

A hull block with 10,000 HP and 90% armor would need at LEAST 100,000 damage to one shot it. Not many manuverable ships could handle a well formed hull with stats like that.

With the current hardened hulls, putting a core in a 10 block thick casing. 10x200=2000 HP worth of blocks with 50% armor means you need to dish out a total ove 4000 damage to reach the core. That really just shows hulls are underpowered, not that weapons are overpowered.

There are about 16 different ores and 5 tiers of each. What will they be used for, if not in part for more stronger hulls?

If adding more forms of defence is only exaggerating the problem, then please tell every MMO or RPG out there they are doing it wrong for having many different and stronger armor sets.

 

[CrusaderDeleters]

... and shields is that it gives a hellishly shitty choice of weaponry for killing to your opponent. Not only that, but it doesn\'t throw off the balance of small ships. Small ships = less thrusters = slower. Not to mention the fact that, how is a mother ship supposed to be slaughtered by a single fighter?

Also, missiles are more useful. I\'d sooner just gang up their damage/speed/radius. If you have multiple arrays of guns, almost all the time, unless you\'re aiming at space, only one block will be damaged. Try it. Just aim an array of AMCs at a ship and just fire at the ship. One, if you\'re lucky, two, blocks will only be destroyed. Missiles cause more AOE damage, and will cause more of the blocks to be destroyed.

 

[McDili]

That\'s a fair point, and I agree that variety in hull would be nice too.



You gave me an idea. You\'re aware of how you can allocate percentages to AMC\'s, like trading damage for reload, etc. What if you could do that for hull? There would have to be some sort of Hull CPU I guess, but what if you could change the percentages of your two Hull Stats? Armor Rating and HP. And then you\'d have a Mass stat, that isn\'t able to be modified directly, but only changes in response to your Armor Rating and HP. In this way if you increase HP and AR, your mass increases dramatically. This would create even \'more\' variety, and also allow you to really customize our hull. And then if it ran directly alongside my proposal, it would work even better.



However, there is one caveat to that idea. We already have two types of hull, so I wonder if there\'s a way we can incorporate this idea into the existing hull without making it redundant.