| Author |
some new sugestions |
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
|  Posted: 2012-01-02 10:27
1) auto hull repair and damage control limitations - they should repair only hull.
automated repair devices on kluth ships and the support stations (especially ugto SS) are important contributors to endurance against stronger and numerically superior enemies. DC and AHR are supposed to repair hull, but their contribution to multiple layers of armor plates results in exponential benefits from ONE benefactor - an exploit of sorts in my view.
if these self-contained repair devices did not repair armor, then non-icc stations and kluth ships (especially their dreads) would not be able to single-handedly pwn fleets which should have won, even by tactical superiority.
also, both AHR and DC should be inactive while the hull is above 80%. this will make stations weak, after they have repelled a wave of attacks and received hull damage. by not being self-repaired to 100%, their endurance capability will be effectively reduced once they are hurt.
2) hull and armor strength ratios should be the same across all ship classes of a faction
the resilience of armor compared to the hull of a ship is skewed on the smallest and biggest ships.
EDIT:- http://i42.tinypic.com/2i2lxi.jpg (thx fattierob  )
the hull of scouts can stand much less damage than 2 plates of scout armor.
compare that with stations, whose hull can take more damage than 8 plates of station armor.
i suggest that the hull::armor ratio of all ships should be similar. tweaking armor strength, so that small ships have less overall armor, and large ships have slightly more overall armor, would smoothen the inportance of hull and armor across ship classes.
i also suggest that kluth should have more hull than armor, and icc should have more shields than hull.
3) icc should have more ships with only shields or armor
given the success of the stealthy border cruiser, i suggest that (with affirmation of dedicated icc) missile ships should have only armor, and ships like the heavy cruiser, combat destroyer and combat dread should have only shields
a shields-only layout would significantly increase the endurance of these no-power-issues warmachines, while armor-only layouts would give spare power for launching missiles.
4) there should be kluth ships which "can't" cloak
just for variety, the more advanced and specialised utilitarian ships (to whose primary purpose does not benefit from cloaking devices) should (with affirmation of dedicated kluth) have their cloaking devices removed. ships such as ultimate worker, advanced carrier, advanced drone, instars frigate, ganglia and stinger missileboats.
just for variety.
*the instars has an extensive EW system, whereas the scarab has an assault armament of torpedoes to complement it's powerful minefields. the scarab can lay mines, cloak, then decloak and attack ships which get damaged from it's minefield. the instars can only lay mines and destroy enemy mines.
the ganglia, arguably, has a defensive cannon loadout to augment it's medium range missiles. it is not a tactically viable close range fighter, and instead is better for supporting other ships at a range. without a cloak device, the awesome ganglias would need more care and consideration when a player is flying in it.
in stations, candidates for cloak-lessness should be both the colony and hive (ranged and non-combat support ships, with a predominantly defensive armament). the nest is meant to utilise cloak offensively, so it should keep it.
5) repair drones should replenish ammo then hull then armor, instead of ammo then hull&armor.
as pointed out in (1), a single device repairing as many as 10 objects (1 hull and upto 9 armor plates) at once leads to significant increase in survivability of most large ships. while it would be nice to prevent ships from being repaired while combat timer is active, it would defeat the purpose meant to be served by supply ships flying alongside the larger combat ships (good days they were).
6) armor and shield damage resistances should be tweaked again
ugto reflective and ablative armor should not provide excessive advantage against a single type of damage.
ablative armor should have reduced kinetic resistance in favour of some energy resistance (example- 35% kinetic resistance and 10-25% energy resistance), which would result in increased general defense to complement it's non-regenerative characteristic.
reflective armor should have reduced energy resistance in favour of increase in kinetic resistance (example- from 50 energy and -35 kinetic to 30-40 energy and -25 kinetic). this would make ugto ships less invulnerable to kluth ships utilising beam-heavy loadouts, while reducing (but in practice retaining) the penalty against projectile-heavy icc ships.
organic and chitinous armor do not need psi damage resistance, as it is not a common or practicable occurence for a kluth ship to be attacked by another kluth ship.
i suggest that organic armor should receive an increase in energy resistance, whereas chitinous armor should receive an increase in regeneration.
this would make chitinous armor a more "viable" alternative for a nerfed AHR, and make kluth ships generally stronger against beam-heavy combatants.
icc composite armor does not serve beyond a simple covering on shielded ships. i suggest that composite armor should receive a kinetic damage resistance (20-30%), balanced by slightly reduced hp and regeneration, to complement the ranged gunfighter nature of many icc attack ships.
i think icc shields are mostly fine. the auxilliary shield generator, i feel, should not use energy at all. it may be tactically more useful if it functioned as a self-contained shield generator which works on it's own power. just for variety.
7) ships should have less armor on arcs with greater firepower than other arcs, and vice versa.
i suggest that ships suffer an armor penalty on arcs on which most of their weapons are mounted. contrariwise, i suggest that ships should have an armor bonus on arcs which have less or no firepower at all.
the idea is, that the many mounts of weapons and beams will take up portions on the ship's hull, and therefore will not be covered by armor (or necessitate appropriate holes/outlets in armor plating). the more weapons on an arc, the less volume of armor which can be mounted on that arc.
this way, the player (when facing an enemy ship) will have to choose between more armored arcs versus more damaging arcs. this will affect assault ships, especially kluth ships, the most, as most of their ships have a forward armament. such ships should have 1 plate of armor (or shield) on fore arc atmost, and 2 (increase of 1 armor) armor plates on rear.
gunships will be slightly affected as most of them have a well-distributed damage potential on all arcs. they would keep their 2 armor plates on all arcs.
stations, missileboats, carriers, transports, bombers, most minelayers (all except scarab), stealth ships and all other utility ships should also have equal armoring on all arcs.
if this was implemented, players flying heavily armed and armored superdreads would be forced to expose their weak defenses as sacrifice for strong firepower.
on the other hand, agile ships dogfighting the assault ship would have to deal with greater armor as compensation for attacking from the ship's blind spot.
(this is the last suggestion.i hope ihelp the future)
[ This Message was edited by: Compromisery on 2012-01-03 09:48 ]
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2012-01-02 12:20
AHR and DC only repairing hull, well, why wasn't that done to begin with? With the upcoming removal of defense mode (increased shield regen is set to be moved to the 30 second out of combat timer) that would help to level the playing field between all 3 faction stations.
ICC ships having more shields than hull would require shield strength to be increased or hull strength to be reduced, the former I don't think UGTO and Kluth would want to see and the latter I don't think anyone would want to see.
HC having only shields would pretty effectively make the Border Cruiser obsolete, it would have the same maneuverability and defenses but greater firepower. ECM has been rendered useless with the nerf to it so the only purpose the BC would serve with that setup would be ECCM, which is something a Recon is better suited for. Combat Destroyer and Combat Dread with only shields would be something interesting though.
What's the difference between the Instars and Scarab aside from the hull size? They're both minelayers so why should the Instars lose it's cloak? I can see support ships losing it and getting more armor since they're not supposed to be in combat areas anyway aside from maybe the supply ships. Ganglia losing cloak would make it even more vulnerable than the ICC MD, but since it's missiles are nigh undetectable until the last second even with ECCM running it would be an equitable tradeoff. Stinger at least has the speed and maneuverability to dodge gunfire and with how fast it's JD recharges it would be able to avoid repeated point jumps. Why not stations too? It's not like cloak does a whole lot of good for them, some extra armor seems like it would be better.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2012-01-03 01:28
Just going to correct a few things, some of this stuff is balancing issues other devs can talk about.
Quote:
|
2) hull and armor strength ratios should be the same across all ship classes of a faction
|
|
They are. All factions use the same "base hull" so to say, so a k'luth cruiser has the same hp as a ugto cruiser has the same hp as an icc cruiser. This also applies to gadget levels.
Quote:
|
the resilience of armor compared to the hull of a ship is skewed on the smallest and biggest ships.
|
|
This is how it actually looks like (using ugto standard armor and ignoring resists). Remember that prestige gain is not calcuated on armor damage, which I believe is a factor to consider.
[ This Message was edited by: Fattierob on 2012-01-03 01:31 ]
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
