| Author |
[suggestion] Make ICC Composite Armor Swappable for Reactive Shielding |
Mylith
Grand Admiral
Faster than Light
Joined: July 19, 2011
Posts: 507
From: Hivarin, CD+36*15693
|  Posted: 2011-11-16 08:31
I like it too.
Defense mode is needed as well IMO. But all shields + defense mode? You'll be out of energy real fast.
_________________
http://twitter.com/DarkSpace7
|
Ravendark
Marshal
Sanity Assassins
Joined: July 01, 2010
Posts: 443
| Posted: 2011-11-16 08:38
i refuse to be the scout class! i will curse you to a virginity for the rest of your life!
on thte topic, yeah i like the idea. icc have more shields. +1. def mode loss -2.
also perhaps would be good to think about more armor and shield types for all factions. something to benifit specific syles to play, none to be better than all the rest but all uniqe. something to make easc player mode different even if they are in same ships.
like ugto have 3 types of armor...i say make them more.
-stealth armor
+ lowers sig or makes it undetectable at low speeds
- low hp
-nano armor
+ similar to kluth organic but with slower repair rate or something, just it has to be different in some way
- low hp, consumer very small amount of energy to regenerate
-crystal armor
+nearly deflects any damage from lasers and directs small precent of "damage" to energy
- fragile, low hp, longer repair rate.
and on the matter of shields how about heavy, medium and light?
-light
+fast recharge, low power consumption, resistance to kinetic
-low hp
-medium
+normal recharge, medium power consumption, medium hp
-heavy
+high hp, resistance to lasers
-power hog, slow recharge rate
then we can throw in stealth shield
+lowers sig while active
-low hp, high power consumption
and siege shield, ya know the god of all shields
+high hp, medium recharge
-energy eater monster
sieges would be good for their squishy atations. but since shields consume the majority of the power, firing wouldnt be a wise idea
and for the shiels sake, perhaps a 1 or 2 different reactors. im making this one up at the moment so it might need a bit work, but maybe:
-normal (nuclear or something..whateva)
+medium power output, long blast radius on death
-medium signature emission, if damaged by inf or emp it causes weapons to recharge slower, for the duration of its repair
-some wicked hi tech something generator
+hight energy output, high damage on death
-small blast radious, high signature emissions, if it gets damaged or destroyed by enemy inf or emp it causes meltdown with would damage or destroy the ship
-green peace reactor or something
+massive EMP damage on death, medium blast radious, no sig emissions, give small rate of fire boost.
-low energy output
_________________
|
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
| Posted: 2011-11-16 09:01
dutchman is being sarcastic, and im being reasonable. but you are being unhelpful defiance.
having all shields can make >certain< icc ships overpowered, by giving complete freedom over what kind of defenses (static armor or flexible shield) does the player want.
other ICC players will then learn (and improve) that configuration and in less than 1 week every ICC will be flying the same ship with same weapons and same defenses.
it sounds similar to the freedom of ship modding prevalent in the broken 1.483, so i say to armor<--->shield swapping.
P.S. - not being a troll, only an observer.
[ This Message was edited by: Compromisery on 2011-11-16 09:02 ]
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
Demigan
Vice Admiral
Joined: September 12, 2011
Posts: 88
| Posted: 2011-11-16 09:02
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-16 06:43, Compromisery wrote:
from DS perspective, this means that if the enemy has low but constant damaging ability, your shields can stand up to it, and if you are low on energy you can trust your armor for safety. UGTO and K'Luth do not have this flexibility, so they cannot sacrifice energy for defense and rely on doing more damage instead.
face it, one cannot argue or advocate this idea anymore
|
|
You can, which enemy has low damage output? UGTO is known for... hard defence and good firepower. Luth is known for... weak defence, MAYOR firepower
You actually say it yourself 'UTGO and k'luth do not have this flexibility, so they cannot sacrifice energy for defence and rely on doing more damage instead.'
Worse, you say that luth doesn't have it, but they have a faster regen then us! (allright, and weaker armour).
Yours sincerely,
Demigan.
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-11-16 09:32
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-16 06:43, Compromisery wrote:
face it, brutality and fluttershy. there is a reason why most ICC ships have a layer of armor below a layer of shielding.
having only shields, despite how many 'tradeoffs', can get unacceptable at times (combat dread turning faster than a beak or nymph, accelerating 2x as fast as a scout).
|
|
Don't know where you're getting your figures from, but that will never happen, not even loaded with 8x makkar. The Border Cruiser has I think 4 degrees more turn rate than a HC (I may be a little off, I can't check due to my gaming computer being dead and don't remember exactly). You need to fully load a BC with turn enh to match a Frigate, and it will never come close to the turn rate of a Scout. Loading a Combat Dread with turn enh will, at best, give it the maneuverability of a Cruiser. Lose the armor in addition to that and it would turn similar to a Destroyer.
Quote:
|
a comparison for this situation may be - why do rich (and middle-class) people EVERYWHERE in the world maintain both immovable money (land, house, cars, gold) as well as liquid money (bank balance and cash-at-hand)?
it gives them financial security from all types of hazards, if the global economy fails they got land, and if civil war takes place then they can go to other countries. |
|
.....Last I checked people with houses have them because they kinda need somewhere to live, and a vehicle of some type to get to and from work and wherever else they need to go without having to rely on public transportation. If the global economy fails then they can no longer pay the taxes, etc. on their land so they no longer have that either once it gets taken from them by the relevant authorities. But anyway, that has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand and I'm scratching my head at that particular comparison.
Quote:
|
from DS perspective, this means that if the enemy has low but constant damaging ability, your shields can stand up to it, and if you are low on energy you can trust your armor for safety. UGTO and K'Luth do not have this flexibility, so they cannot sacrifice energy for defense and rely on doing more damage instead.
face it, one cannot argue or advocate this idea anymore
|
|
Yeah, that's right, they don't have anything close to thi.....oh wait, UGTO can switch to ablative armor and be able to outrepair damage from whatever ICC ships happen to be attacking them when in the repair field of a SS or near a planet unless they happen to be outnumbered 5 or 6 to one, but that's obviously not an issue. I see Kluth players mentioning similar situations with having 4 Dreads attacking a shroom at a planet and running out of energy before it's even half dead, but that's obviously not an issue either.
I'm neither for nor against the idea of swapping armor for shields, I just felt like pointing out the flaws in this particular argument.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
NoBoDx
Grand Admiral
Joined: October 14, 2003
Posts: 784
From: Germany / NRW
| Posted: 2011-11-16 11:34
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-16 04:19, Demigan wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-16 01:42, NoBoDx wrote:
defense-mode was never intended for combat
afaik it was implemented, because shields couldn't be repaired from depots so the can rejoin combat faster
|
|
'pinging' was also not intended to allow you to see stealthed luthies, you want to remove that too and unbalance the game more?
|
|
exactly
not cause this unbalance the game, but because this is still some kind of bug-using (imho)
the same like beam-sweeping
_________________
The only good 'ooman is a dead 'ooman. An' da only fing better than a dead 'ooman'z a dyin' 'ooman who tell you where ter find 'is mates.
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2011-11-16 12:56
If you are worried about the ICC ships becoming too light and agile if they switch out armor for shields, the 'deflector plating' could be made to have the same mass as the composite armor.
So then you have the choice:
Composite armor:
+ more HP
+ no energy use
- very slow to repair
Deflector plating:
- less HP
- high energy use when recharging
+ repairs fairly quickly
_________________
|
Brutality
Marshal
Joined: May 25, 2009
Posts: 659
From: Alaska, USA
| Posted: 2011-11-16 14:30
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-16 12:56, Fluttershy wrote:
If you are worried about the ICC ships becoming too light and agile if they switch out armor for shields, the 'deflector plating' could be made to have the same mass as the composite armor.
So then you have the choice:
Composite armor:
+ more HP
+ no energy use
- very slow to repair
Deflector plating:
- less HP
- high energy use when recharging
+ repairs fairly quickly
|
|
yea, i wasn't thinking of maneuverability when i was thinking about this, more about being able to rotate more shield HP if the player desires. If you make the "deflector shield" have less HP than the armor, I think this would be a good trade off for the better maneuverability and the ability to rotate more shields 
_________________
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2011-11-16 15:43
If this gave ICC too many options, UGTO could get Light Armor that gives them better maneuverability, and K'Luth could get absorptive armor that converts damage into energy.
OK, maybe that's a bad idea... off topic anyhow 
_________________
|
Sauur
Chief Marshal
Praetorian Wolves
Joined: November 30, 2004
Posts: 475
| Posted: 2011-11-16 19:12
I read most of the comments to a point.
I quite like the concept. Though on your bigger ships running all shields you are going to have to sit pretty still to hold energy and a Siph offensive will quickly disable and destroy such ships ... theoretically.
However like the UGTO you can then put on whichever outfit to suit the event you wish to attend. (ie. faction orientated ships).
Seems like a simple and easy idea to implement, tweak and if no good discard.
+1
_________________
 [IMG]
|
Lithium
Chief Marshal
Joined: June 29, 2003
Posts: 109
| Posted: 2011-11-17 07:38
I think armors are not swappable for shields, and vice versa.
But I like this device. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpvq5wXeeos
_________________
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-11-17 16:34
whats the problem with having composite armor replaceable with reactive shields?
Yes give the manuverability bonus because the ship does have less mass.
Yes give the energy drain of reactive shields.
In total, the ship looses alot of defensive HP if it replaces composite with reactive. It SHOULD gain something in return.
Reactives for composite will give the ship more durability to either prolonged pecking, or a single powerful attack (it will be defenseless afterwords)
This will help define ICC. Long range, manuverable faction. It damn sure aint the defensive faction nowdays.
would be cool if all our ships are 5gu/sec faster than the other factions ships class per class as well, or slightly faster jumpdrive than ugto (not faster than kluth)
Would definatly need to be tested befor implementation. (dont forget that part people)
[ This Message was edited by: *XO*Defiance{CM7} on 2011-11-17 16:35 ]
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Lithium
Chief Marshal
Joined: June 29, 2003
Posts: 109
| Posted: 2011-11-17 17:08
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-17 16:34, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
whats the problem with having composite armor replaceable with reactive shields?
|
|
You can't replace your body with your arm.
_________________
|
Brutality
Marshal
Joined: May 25, 2009
Posts: 659
From: Alaska, USA
| Posted: 2011-11-17 17:20
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-17 17:08, Lithium wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-17 16:34, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
whats the problem with having composite armor replaceable with reactive shields?
|
|
You can't replace your body with your arm.
|
|
we already have a ship that is exactly like this, try out the border cruiser sometime. I'm also thinking that the deflector shield HP would need to be tweaked so its not OP.
_________________
|
*FTL*Soulless
Marshal
Joined: June 25, 2010
Posts: 787
From: Dres-Kona
| Posted: 2011-11-17 21:21
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-17 17:08, Lithium wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-17 16:34, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
whats the problem with having composite armor replaceable with reactive shields?
|
|
You can't replace your body with your arm.
|
|
What does that have to do with this topic?
Anyway It would not make ICC OP. With my BC set up i have actives over reactives can pull 24.2 Gus and get +16 defence, and can only take 4 stock siphon alphas before i am toast...a BC with same shield set up would take maybe 1.5 to 2 before it is killed. Now think what a siphon would do to a dessie with a similar shield set up, Not gonna be pretty.
So why not just make shields interchangeable with armor and vice versa.
_________________
We are Back from the shadows.
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
