| Author |
[suggestion] Make ICC Composite Armor Swappable for Reactive Shielding |
Brutality
Marshal
Joined: May 25, 2009
Posts: 659
From: Alaska, USA
|  Posted: 2011-11-18 00:18
Quote:
|
So why not just make shields interchangeable with armor and vice versa.
|
|
I don't think it would be the best idea to be able to put composite armor on the outer layer. we will turn into ugto 
I think it would be best if the shields that were put in to swap for armor were their own gadget so they could be adjusted independently from outer shielding. That would make it easier to balance.
what do the devs think of all this?
[ This Message was edited by: Brutality on 2011-11-18 00:21 ]
_________________
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-11-18 06:08
you saying the border cruiser is not ballanced?
i think interchanging shields for armor is just fine
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Demigan
Vice Admiral
Joined: September 12, 2011
Posts: 88
| Posted: 2011-11-18 06:50
Swapping armour for shields has advantages and disadvantages.
I think it will be a good addition, UTGO can actually swap armour to be better prepared vs a specific faction, ICC will not be as versatile as that, but you can choose between trade-offs
Armour means less energy drain, less visibility but also less speed and manoeuvrability.
shields mean more energy drain, more visibility, but also higher speed and manoeuvrability. They have the added advantage that you can switch your shields around.
Depending on the role you wish to play, you can choose for different shield/armour setups. For a stealth operation, you want more armour, as you don't want to go high speeds anyway, and it keeps down visibility and energy consumption. It's also safer if you want to fly with shields off to lower visibility even more
If you choose for long-range engagements, proper shield management can lengthen survivability in combat scenario's. The cost is that the higher energy drain will force you to have to quit combat quicker. A bigger cost is that Luth has added damage vs shields, why they have added damage beats me.
Yours sincerely,
Demigan.
_________________
|
Brutality
Marshal
Joined: May 25, 2009
Posts: 659
From: Alaska, USA
| Posted: 2011-11-18 14:10
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-18 06:08, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
you saying the border cruiser is not ballanced?
i think interchanging shields for armor is just fine
|
|
id just rather not see ICC turn into an armor faction
_________________
|
jimjimjaroo
Grand Admiral
Joined: March 06, 2009
Posts: 308
From: Michigan, USA
| Posted: 2011-11-18 14:44
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-18 14:10, Brutality wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-18 06:08, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
you saying the border cruiser is not ballanced?
i think interchanging shields for armor is just fine
|
|
id just rather not see ICC turn into an armor faction
|
|
then lets just make it where you can only change the composite armor you originally had back and forth.
_________________
|
seyyah
Grand Admiral
Joined: April 01, 2010
Posts: 46
| Posted: 2011-11-18 15:11
nothing will come out just for talking on this... devs are to do this and i think they dont think to implement something like this... because "ICC's the long range faction" with no attack and low defence power... if we remove our armors too i dont think we can manage to last long in battles.
now about the ships HC is the best balanced ship atm we have in ICC in terms of energy usage, defence, manueverabilty and firepower. but if you try to run it while def mode on it drains its energy faster than other crusier and if you turn you aramors to shield you wont even need def mode to drain your energy. just move forward.
_________________
former Roukanken
|
Incinarator
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 24, 2010
Posts: 237
| Posted: 2011-11-18 15:37
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-18 15:11, seyyah wrote:
nothing will come out just for talking on this... devs are to do this and i think they dont think to implement something like this... because "ICC's the long range faction" with no attack and low defence power... if we remove our armors too i dont think we can manage to last long in battles.
now about the ships HC is the best balanced ship atm we have in ICC in terms of energy usage, defence, manueverabilty and firepower. but if you try to run it while def mode on it drains its energy faster than other crusier and if you turn you aramors to shield you wont even need def mode to drain your energy. just move forward.
|
|
We have to talk about it for the devs to know about it. Swapping out armor would result in higher manuverability. Swapping out armor would replace a slow regenerating high health defense with a quick regenerating low hp defense, perfect for extended combat. BC has became the best ship due to it's manouverability; the armor on the HC slows it down, and we can't have slow ICC ships. Well of course doing anything with defense mode on should drain your energy. So what if moving drains energy? Shields are energy hogs and if we are going to swap out armor for more shields we have to pay the price; it's not a big deal.
[ This Message was edited by: Incinarator |SoT| on 2011-11-18 15:38 ]
_________________
I be rebuilding your planets!
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-11-18 16:42
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-18 14:10, Brutality wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-18 06:08, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
you saying the border cruiser is not ballanced?
i think interchanging shields for armor is just fine
|
|
id just rather not see ICC turn into an armor faction
|
|
but, we can get more people into, and staying ICC if there was a way to dumb down the ship controles. Changing all shields for armor would make for a slower ship with more energy. It would also eliminate the headache of having to rotate shields for new playrs. (always did find it quite contrary that ICC ships can focus one arc on a enemy for longer than the other two factions, but also has the best coverage of weapons per arc. LOLs)
Then people could slowly break into true ICC combat style by switching to all shields.
ps.
the border cruiser can travel full speed and not loose energy. (@ whoever said HC would bleed energy with full shields)
[ This Message was edited by: *XO*Defiance{CM7} on 2011-11-18 16:44 ]
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-11-18 20:47
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-18 14:10, Brutality wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-18 06:08, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
you saying the border cruiser is not ballanced?
i think interchanging shields for armor is just fine
|
|
id just rather not see ICC turn into an armor faction
|
|
Composite armor has only 75% of the HP of UGTO Standard armor but has the same weight. Active shields have 80% of the HP of composite armor, but regenerate a lot faster and have almost no weight.
Anyone remember how utterly horrid the Strike Cruiser layout with no shields and all armor was from the few days it was in beta like that? I can't see anyone wanting to go all armor.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2011-11-18 21:34
Quote:
| On 2011-11-18 20:47, Talien wrote:
I can't see anyone wanting to go all armor.
|
|
You said Active shields have 80% of the HP of Composite armor.
But what about REactive shields? That's what we are talking about here.
If not reactive shields, a type of shield that resembles it, so that only the two are interchangeable.
_________________
|
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
| Posted: 2011-11-18 22:43
reactive shields have almost half the hp of actives.
so, -standard armor is 100%
-composite is 75%
-active is 60%
-and reactive is 30~40%
how sad.
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
Brutality
Marshal
Joined: May 25, 2009
Posts: 659
From: Alaska, USA
| Posted: 2011-11-19 02:23
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-18 22:43, Compromisery wrote:
reactive shields have almost half the hp of actives.
so, -standard armor is 100%
-composite is 75%
-active is 60%
-and reactive is 30~40%
how sad.
|
|
that's why I'm thinking we would need a third type of shield that can be replaced only with the armor. This would make things a lot easier to balance, and make the player choose between more energy consumption, more combat endurance, and speed vs less energy consumption but more defense. 
_________________
|
Demigan
Vice Admiral
Joined: September 12, 2011
Posts: 88
| Posted: 2011-11-19 03:54
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-19 02:23, Brutality wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-18 22:43, Compromisery wrote:
reactive shields have almost half the hp of actives.
so, -standard armor is 100%
-composite is 75%
-active is 60%
-and reactive is 30~40%
how sad.
|
|
that's why I'm thinking we would need a third type of shield that can be replaced only with the armor. This would make things a lot easier to balance, and make the player choose between more energy consumption, more combat endurance, and speed vs less energy consumption but more defense.
|
|
Give me one good reason why they shouldn't just allow you to choose between reactive and active shields instead of a new type of shield.
Think of doubling your base energy drain by adding active shields, you would be running around with a CONSTANT energy drain that would be equal to about 50% of defence mode! The entire reason why the BC is so good is because it has loads of shields, AND it's weapon systems are limited and energy efficient enough to withstand it. It's trade off is that it deals low damage each round.
Any other cruiser, be it strike, heavy or you name it, would burn energy faster then you've ever seen, they wouldn't be able to keep in spirit with the ICC rule for long-term engagements. It would force people to be far more tactical, instead of space-barring, they would need to fire the right weapon at the right time to be as energy efficient as possible. +1 for the tactical ICC players.
I hope you can see that this would NOT mean that everyone gravitates towards one and the same ship layout. People would choose their own configuration depending on the role they want to play and the skill they think they have. You could even see strange tactics like charging the inner shields to full, turning them off and then using them as a supply.
Oh, and a few days ago a strike cruiser shot me with a full alpha for fun, then I turned my shields off and he shot me again for fun from the same range and position. He dealt EXACTLY the same damage vs my armour and my shields, so ICC armour and active shields are the exact same strength.
Yours sincerely,
Demigan
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-11-19 04:03
Active shields have some resistance to kinetic and energy damage. I don't remember the exact number though, but that's why you don't notice much difference.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Brutality
Marshal
Joined: May 25, 2009
Posts: 659
From: Alaska, USA
| Posted: 2011-11-19 04:31
Quote:
|
Give me one good reason why they shouldn't just allow you to choose between reactive and active shields instead of a new type of shield.
Think of doubling your base energy drain by adding active shields, you would be running around with a CONSTANT energy drain that would be equal to about 50% of defence mode! The entire reason why the BC is so good is because it has loads of shields, AND it's weapon systems are limited and energy efficient enough to withstand it. It's trade off is that it deals low damage each round.
Any other cruiser, be it strike, heavy or you name it, would burn energy faster then you've ever seen, they wouldn't be able to keep in spirit with the ICC rule for long-term engagements. It would force people to be far more tactical, instead of space-barring, they would need to fire the right weapon at the right time to be as energy efficient as possible. +1 for the tactical ICC players.
I hope you can see that this would NOT mean that everyone gravitates towards one and the same ship layout. People would choose their own configuration depending on the role they want to play and the skill they think they have. You could even see strange tactics like charging the inner shields to full, turning them off and then using them as a supply.
Oh, and a few days ago a strike cruiser shot me with a full alpha for fun, then I turned my shields off and he shot me again for fun from the same range and position. He dealt EXACTLY the same damage vs my armour and my shields, so ICC armour and active shields are the exact same strength.
Yours sincerely,
Demigan
|
|
you have a very good point here, and I can see exactly what your saying. I think this would be the easiest way to implement it, but I don't know how well it would balance if you get what I mean. Only way to know would be to test it, and who knows if that will ever happen,
Quote:
|
Active shields have some resistance to kinetic and energy damage. I don't remember the exact number though, but that's why you don't notice much difference.
|
|
yea isn't the resistance like 6% or something? Don't take that number as fact, I just remember hearing something along these lines when the dev team was tweaking reactive shields
[ This Message was edited by: Brutality on 2011-11-19 04:36 ]
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
