A simple solution for Hull Mechanics

[lman94]

why didn\'t I think of this before! a separate armor value that applies to AMCs! capping the damage would work for the current ships, but as I have said, it might just lead to shotgun ships. now, a cap is likely easier to implement, and if it is a choice between a cap and nothing, I would choose the cap. however, a separate armor value would solve the original problem without leading to shotgun ships.

now, if this is what is used, what problems might this system cause, and what should the new values be? my first thought was something close to faction blocks, as they are very hard to kill. they have 99% armor. I think maybe something like 95% for hardened hull might be better, and 80% for regular hull. the value for regular hull will of course need to allow starting ships to damage them, but not necessarily hardened hull.

so, what do you think. please I would like you to find any holes in my idea so that we can fix them (holes like \"that\'s stupid\" and \"that won\'t work\" however are not welcome, as they do not help improve anything, and aren\'t holes in the first place anyway)

edit: and somthing else, whatever is used, I think plex-glass should have the same mechanic.

 

[McDili]

This is indeed an alternate solution. Before I go forward, I just want to re-iterate, shotgun ships are already the most viable pattern. You get better DPS and penetration in the current game when you build multiple cannons, compared to just having one or two big cannons. My proposal doesn\'t change that, it should lead people to use missiles more than AMC\'s once they burn the shields down(Provided that missiles get a well-deserved boost in viability)



Now moving forward, I\'ll address your suggestion. Having armor rating solely for AMC\'s is essentially the polar opposite of my proposal. I focused on a fixed maximum damage without changing armor rating, where you suggest a new armor rating just for AMC\'s, without having a fixed damage output.

I\'ll do you one better, just have missiles ignore armor rating. That way armor rating only affects AMC\'s, and it\'s modular so that when new weapons are introduced to the game, armor rating will come into play unless otherwise intended. It\'s just a simpler solution than having two separate armor ratings.



That\'s just a good suggestion by itself, it works with or without my proposal. Since armor rating is modifiable currently by the servers themselves, they could essentially determine their armor rating and then have missiles ignore it, which would create a similar balance and depth that my proposal tries to achieve, albeit within the confines of a server that chooses to use these options.

But that also makes for a less than consistent experience between servers, and only marginal changes in the default game.

I like server\'s having options, but I also think it\'s important that there are consistent properties that aren\'t modifiable by servers just to ensure that in community discussion, we\'re all talking about the same game here.



My proposal would achieve some balance and depth of combat goals within the core of the game, while your suggestion succeeds in those goals only on participating servers. That essentially is the only difference when you compare the results. Personally I favor my proposal, because it achieves balance in the default game, and if servers don\'t like it, they can change the armor ratings of hull. Whereas in your suggestion, the default game may remain unbalanced, except on certain servers. It comes down to flexibility I guess.



I hope you appreciate my feedback, and I also appreciate yours.

Finally, I\'m open to discuss your suggestion further, but I do want to keep this thread centered on the original post. So if you want to discuss further, post your suggestion in its own forums and I\'ll give more detailed feedback there.

 

[lman94]

but I will still reply to this last post

I did think of making missiles ignore armor, but that would change the balance of missiles, something I didn\'t want to do (in hindsight missiles needed a boost anyway but oh well)

as far as your idea being more consistent between servers, you seem to be arguing that this is because it is default, as if mine wouldn\'t be. not saying it is, but that is what it looks like. by and large, servers don\'t mess with settings to much. they usually change the things that are obviously unbalanced, like speed and the cost of recipes. however, a setting that makes the game more balanced usually get\'s left alone.

I agree that missiles ignoring armor is more simple and allows new weapons to be added more easily. I will be using that in my new thread.

thankyou for the feedback, I do appreciate it.

in any case, what do you think about plex-glass getting treated the same as hull. I would hate to see an end to glass domes, viewing platforms, and realistic looking cockpits just because glass is weak (yes I know it is somewhat ironic).

 

[towerbilder]

i think the consept is a good idea. but it is over eplaned more or less amc will be most efective wen up agenst sheelds and iner workings of ships. but misiles will have a better use and will take out hull better and amc will not do such a good job with hull.

in the way i undersatnd it but i spent some time before this post to think this over. yes it will add a balance to the game but the outcome is more likely to knock more out of balance. let alone lots of peaple will need to remake ships makeing some of us mad about this change. wethis this change is worth the risk of bad that will folow or if its a idea not worth the time it got is above me.

i will say the idea is good, for its to ad balance but the way sugested needs refinement. sorry about lack of caps my shift key is mising as resalt of a battle i was in in starmade as well as other keys.

 

[McDili]

No worries about your keys missing, I understand it just fine bud.



I\'m not sure I agree that this concept is over-planned. The mechanic I\'m suggesting is already in the game, it exists between missiles vs shields. So the players already have experience with this mechanic. So I\'d say it\'s actually pretty simple.



I don\'t see how the outcome could knock out balance in other avenues of the game. You will have to explain to me what balances become imbalanced as a result of my proposal, so I can understand your perspective better.



I\'m not really concerned about how players feel about having to re-design some of their ships based on this change. The game is in Alpha, and every player knows that. As such, every player knows that things are bound to change very drastically. So I don\'t think this is a problem.



I\'m open to constructive criticism about the structure of my post. Personally I feel it is clear and concise, but if you disagree that\'s fine. Tell me why, and what I could do to make my proposal more clear and better convey my proposal and I will consider your feedback.

 

[McDili]

To address plex glass, I have no immediate interest in plex glass sharing the properties of hull.



Plex glass is purely aesthetic, it takes up mass and provides no function. It is just nice to look through. I think if you use plex glass, it makes your ship look nice in exchange for less protection.



Your plex glass probably won\'t get shot if it isn\'t in the line of sight to your ship-core. Now, the fact that drilling to the core is defacto tactic right now is another major detriment to balance and depth of combat, but that is a discussion for another thread haha.



But yeah, I don\'t see a problem with plex glass atm.

 

[lman94]

behaves like hull. it is actually stronger than regular hull. to make hull strong and plex-glass weak would lead to either people targeting cockpits to blind players, or cockpits being buried in hull, using graphics glitches to see.

in other words, is plex-glass gets left behind, it will not be used because it is weak, leaving ascetics for those who care more about form than function. I can not see any reason not to continue treating plex-glass like hull, but I do see reasons to do so.

 

[McDili]

Oh wow I was not aware that plex-glass had these properties.



I mean I suppose if plex-glass is meant to be as strong as regular hull, then it only makes sense that plex-glass play the same role as regular hull in my proposal.

 

[lman94]

 

[Giegue]

I have no feedback for this thread.

There is no better way to implement this than stated in the OP\'s proposal, the mechanics already exist and it means hardened hulls won\'t be useless anchors anymore.

Plus it could mean ships now have to account for the design for the hull and add another dimension to good ship design. No longer can ships just look pretty to hide their cube ship like interior designs as the outside now needs to be designed effectively.



Great work on this one McDilli you have my support!

 

[lman94]

since, as I have said, AMCs that do damage above the cap would be considered a complete waste, people would be more likely to use many small guns instead of a few big ones.

one solution to this was the subject of my thread on the subject, but since I do prefer this idea anyway, I haven\'t given up on it.

this idea is that small weapons would get a lower cap, i.e. AMCs that do

 

[McDili]

You could just have like 2-4 big guns and they would punch through in a couple shots.



However, you have caused me to think about how this would affect designing very large AMC\'s.



My proposal works in the iteration of the current game, but I also find myself supporting this thread: http://star-made.org/content/my-take-new-amc-system



And if it came down to it, I would prefer this person\'s AMC proposal to go in prior to considering my own proposal here for hull, but his proposal balances out AMC\'s in a really cool way that not only adds depth to combat, but also seems really really fun and validates having large groupings of AMC\'s without making them, and I quote \"Mutant Sniper Miniguns.\"



Both proposals achieve the goal of adding depth and balance, but my proposal is less fun. His proposal makes having 1 massive singular AMC grouping turn into an AoE penetrating cannon that has a low fire rate to balance itself, turn into a really good time. And Iman, it also addresses your concern about players using nothing but shotgun ships.

I\'d encourage you to go post your feedback on his thread. It\'s just so juicy.

 

[lman94]

I have been following this thread, and I think there are some good ideas there.

and I agree that in a game, the most important part is that it is fun.

so, we will see how that thread goes. hopefully it works, but just in case, if it ends in disaster, I will revive this one.

see everyone on the other thread.

Lman

 

[NullForceOmega]

Okay, I think the real problem here is that Schema and by extension the community have some simple facts backwards.

1) Anti-matter requires matter to interact with so it should be flatly usesless against shields (shielding is an energy barrier) and should rip gaping irradiated holes in hull and all solid blocks.

2) Missiles (I hate them, useless in any even vaugely relistic space simulation) should actually be amazing for hammering down shields, but weak against hull (armor evolves to protect against known threats, hull should be optimised by design to disperse impact and shock)

3) Starmade desperately needs energy weapons (actually the most viable space weapon possible with our current knowledge) lasers, particle beams, ion cannon, plasma projectors something to serve as a middle of the road choice

Okay, rant over tear me to pieces now.

 

[McDili]

Truth is, I don\'t know anything about all that.



I just want combat to be more fun haha.

 

[NullForceOmega]

Actually, from a mechanical standpoint, what should probably happen, is the missile effect against shields and the amc shield hammer should be switched, that way we really get a distinctive role for the weapons and the armor. Also, I would kill alot of people to get Schema to institute lasers or plasma weapons as starting gear.

 

[Stakhanov]

Realistically , missiles would be stopped by point defense lasers. Antimatter cannons would simply vaporize the solar system they\'re fired in. Stop arguing realism !

Energy weapons also happen to be the antithesis of that. Purely a soft sci-fi product.

 

[NullForceOmega]

Sorry, I\'m not going to let that drop. Energy weapons are real NOW, the U.S. Airforce is fielding anti-missile lasers with ranges in excess of 1000 miles. Naval destroyers are being fitted with railguns, not those pathetic imitations you see on youtube, real multi-gigawatt asynchronus linear accelerators. The U.S. army WILL be fielding the M1-A3 Abrahms main battle tank fielding a 12 mile per second railgun firing a 50 lb. cermet dart within the next 5 years. The only reason we don\'t have field grade plasma weaponry is treaty limitations on size and grade of weapon systems. Particle beam weponry is from the damn 60s a small scale collector array and laser ionisation discharge system was successfully tested in the 80s. Do not tell me energy weapons are products of soft SF when you have not done any research. And wiki and it\'s associated sites are a miserable joke of a social experiment, so don\'t you dare quote me something other than a scientific journal with peer review or a military periodical. the worst part is all of ths information is non-classified and can be found by anyone who has the willingness to look.

End rant, please continue your previously schedueled discussion of hull mechanics.

 

[John Sheridan]

The solution to this thread is make AMC\'s not pinpoint, but instead, reduce their allowable \"pointing angle\" to be say 25 degrees, so your entire cannon armada does not precisely pinpoint on your recticle, but if your ship is wide/tall enough, fires around it due to inability for the outer AMC\'s to angle towards your recticle fully.

Now your ship will punish more blocks, not just pound one block with 5000 damage (what a waste).

MCdilli\'s info about keeping your cannons behind each other avoids this wastage scenario (he says). I\'ll def keep it in mind in future

 

[NullForceOmega]

Having AMCs fire in a purely or partially linear fashion would be a very interesting adjustment, I can see it helping somewhat, but the core problem is not the AMC, the problem is that hull is not an adequate defensive measure, even when piled several layers deep, hull and hardened hull are woefully inadequate. I would like to see more thought-out suggestions on that.

My non-rant 2 cents: damage dissipation, hull could attempt to transfer carrythrough damage to adjacent hull blocks, dispersing incoming shots by evening out the damage across all adjacent blocks. This would act far more like real-world armor, in that it functions by distibuting force across the whole plate, and would require weapons to deplete all the HP of adjacent hull blocks. Thoughts?