I'm pretty sure that players have been carefully placing advanced armor in select, high value areas since the armor mass and armor HP updates cam out.
The feature lancake displayed would warrant for better placement of armour plates in more areas. Currently there is no need for that since all-or-nothing (an actual naval armour scheme, google it.) is more efficient.I'm pretty sure that players have been carefully placing advanced armor in select, high value areas since the armor mass and armor HP updates cam out.
My personal experience says otherwise but to each their own.The feature lancake displayed would warrant for better placement of armour plates in more areas. Currently there is no need for that since all-or-nothing (an actual naval armour scheme, google it.) is more efficient.
...which is why big ships aren't competitive, which in turn kills diversity.not really, you only need about 1/4 of the mass of a large ship in smaller ships to kill it
Optimizing big ships is way harder than optimizing small ships, even if using several different small ship types. And as soon as you meet an opponent who knows what he's doing, the richer one wins, no matter if it's big ship versus bigger ship or big fleet versus bigger fleet.so if anything its more for building better ships than your enemy, not just larger ships because each smaller ships needs to be well built so you can start to get away with using smaller fleets to destroy larger ships.
No, the small ships don't even have to be very well built or controlled. Small ships are inherently better than big ships with equal total mass.Total mass matters, but because we don't only have one type of weapon, one type of ship, the tables can be turned against bigger ships by good control of smaller well-built ships.
Additionally, on a quantitious scale the skill of build for ship is mutiplied, so shitty ships will form shittier fleets, good ships will form better fleets. It is crucial that smaller ships are built better to balance the mass difference between it and the larger adversary.
Nope, that's how they should be, that's how they are in the movies too. They just kinda sit there and shoot each other with turrets. But that's freaking boring. You don't see a Star Destroyer pull fancy maneuvers do you?So big ships are bad because they were heavily nerfed because big ship haters complained. This doesn't explain the hate against big ships in the first place.
Actually, an important part of the "1/4" or "1/3" statements is the oft-forgotten ending to it- a large ship DESIGNED to take on small ships can handle its weight in them and then some. What's good at taking on small ships? Well, for starters, not swarmers. They're slow and they tend to group up on a single target at a time. Lots of turrets and very heavy shielding with high regen or very thick armor is how you take on small ships. Shields are probably a better choice, simply because it can take a while to take down a big drone swarm, and if you're facing armor piercing drones, you will have a bad time....which is why big ships aren't competitive, which in turn kills diversity.
I'll just show up with my semi-auto missile carrier(cloaking not included. Free refills): and drill though their ship until something breaks. I hope the warheads get a rework with the new explosion mechanics too.There's a a good amount of things bigger ships are better at. Tanking, either with layers of armour (good look doing anything with a non augmented power tank using drone against a few layers of advanced armour with the passives up), or with shield recharge (devout a few million to shield recharge and again, not really much smaller ships can do without properly focusing their firepower). Bigger ships are also inherently better with missiles as well, were with beam slaves the lack of maneuverability isn't really that much a detriment if you have a the bulk of your fleet up close to keep your enemy occupied. Station busting with your giant doom weapons (which, until aircraft carriers supplanted them was the main thing battleships were used for). If you want to go the drone swarm route they're superior too, especially since as well as sheer numbers storage wise they're in a better position to provide support fire.
There's also the issue of manpower. Currently if you want to use players to main your fleets you're not going to be able to field that many ships, and AI controlled ships have plenty of short comings at the moment. And in the future once crews etc are implemented we don't know what kind of limitations there will be on how many (or how many quality crew members assuming that's a factor) you can field. Simply put bigger ships can allow a smaller number of people to field more firepower.
Now what you can't do is just turn up with the biggest stick and call it a day. Bigger ships are always going to be vulnerable to groups of smaller ships without proper support, kinda like how actual wet navy's worked, and how every fictional space navy just about worked. The issue of who has the biggest fleet will always be a factor, but as the game improves (and even now tbh) ruling out the advantage well designed and operated ships work would be a mistake.
Don't have turrets the same grouping-up-on-single-target problem?What's good at taking on small ships? Well, for starters, not swarmers. They're slow and they tend to group up on a single target at a time. Lots of turrets and very heavy shielding with high regen or very thick armor is how you take on small ships.
Yes, but cannons and lockons are much faster traveling. They can quickly kill one and move on to the next. Also, on larger ships, where turrets can be a hundred, two hundred meters or more away from eachother, they often target different drones. Having your front and rear turrets target randomly and your middle turrets target at selected means you can take out 3x as many drones.Don't have turrets the same grouping up on single target problem?
Yes, internal bulkheads!Like this,
Left has only armor on the outside of the reactor
Right has that too but also sheets inside. Makes it less block efficient but also less blocks die from random explosions.
View attachment 31603
You say "everyone using them" like it's a bad thing.I'm going to wait and see how it's implemented to decide. I wouldn't mind a having a choice between the standard low yield reactors we have now and a higher yield yet more dangerous reactor.
I could see having a standard +2 million safe reactor and a few pockets of highly armored and carefully spaced internal reactors that go into meltdown when hit.
Plus depending on the energy yield of the new reactors, they may represent a smaller target then we expect, and it adds a fun cinematic (though arguably less fun in a game) sci-fi trope of hitting a reactor and messing up or vaporising a capital ship.
To be honest, if they're too dangerous, no one will use them and if they're too safe, everyone will use them, something in between would add another interesting decision point to a ship design.
a tangent on that thought, should respawning cost resources?snip