<snippity snip>
My preferred change would be to allow shields to absorb damage relative to their current % remaining, as well as add some jitter/deflection (based on velocity vs. APV, for example) to what bleeds through, but otherwise treat bleed through damage normally. Pips could also be changed from increasing resistance, to increasing the size of the shield bubble, which would increase the value of that deflection and detonate explosives at a range beyond reach of the hull. Shield resistances and capacity could remain the same, but as the former would only apply to the shields themselves and the latter would self limiting by need to account for non-shield protection, many of the balance issues around these things would be mitigated.
This wouldn't require any additional interface complexity, would preserve shields an extremely potent defense, but would dramatically reduce the degree of all or nothing protection shielding currently provides. People would still need to take hull and module protection into account, but couldn't ignore shielding either, and since SYS pips wouldn't be a universally applicable defense, it would encourage more situational distribution of distributor power.
Right...in a nutshell, though, it'd be taking damage-absorption and turning into damage-resistance. I don't quite like that for many reasons.
One, it's disconcerting to start hearing sparks and such from taking hull damage right from the start of a fight; I think CMDRs *should* strive for strategy and loadouts that don't involve taking hull hits from the get-go.
Two, it would make each and every single combat riskier and more challenging -
which, while that by itself is not a bad thing, you'd have to reconsider the entire structure of everything to do with combat in the game: the way CNBs are laid out, the spread of target skill levels, the kinds of ships, the amount of kills one must get to progress in combat ranking, and so on and so forth.
Three, we already have damage-resistance-overinflation up the wazoo. I really think the game was far better off when we couldn't fiddle with resistances beyond purchasing different bulkheads; it kept weapon selection and trade-offs interesting - it was a case of well-measured 'rock-paper-scissors', not-quite-hard-counters that didn't outright nullify or bypass anything else. It's really ironic how Engineering has actually *reduced* the importance of the choices we make, as you sort-of describe yourself: nowadays, it's all about the raw MJ/hitpoints you can stack, with as high overall resistances as you can pack on as well, so what does it matter what weapon you pick (aside from PAs because reasons)?
Four, I feel people already do need to still take hull and module protection into account. I don't think the SYS pips thing ought to be as effective as it currently is, but I mean...only so many fish to fry at one time, y'know? Certainly, that should be kept as the ideal, to make players want to balance out both forms of defence and not neglect one or the other. (Also, I reckon part of the tendency to stick to 4-0-2 pips is just because it's a pain in the neck to constantly manage pip distribution...it really could be made a *little* easier, simpler even, but that's something that can be left to discuss down the road.)
Five, and this is my MoO2 background talking here, I think it's more interesting to have
some weapons that can do Phasing effects, or maybe something akin to Enveloping weapons from Moo2 (damage to all sides of a shield, not just the one pointed at you), than to - in a sense - turn
all weapons into shield-piercing stuff. Like these shard cannons; I'm not wholly set against the concept of them being able to go through shields, but...I think I'd rather they work more like PA's and absolute damage, in that it's not *all* 100% shield-piercing damage. I'm just not sure.
I'm not on a campaign (the very idea is absurd, as I don't believe that Frontier could be swayed from doing whatever it is they are going to do, nor do I ever expect my opinions to be mistaken for a majority opinion) and I have no other agenda than to speak my mind.
Also, I strongly feel that the PvP/PvE dichotomy shouldn't exist. Once AI and persistence are up to snuff, I shouldn't even be able to tell the difference between fighting CMDRs and NPCs. Right now, NPCs are simply fodder that line up to be shot or token window dressing, not entities that enrich the setting by behaving in a plausible manner. In the end, if it's good for PvE it must be good for PvP and vice versa, because everything should ultimately be playing by the same rules.
Hooo...well, I'm not sure that might ever be 100% achievable - certainly NOT possible in the current game with Engineering gimmicks abounding everywhere...but I agree with the general sentiment.
Problem is, the combat grind is set up with the idea in mind that NPCs are indeed fodder where quantity rather than quality is what matters for the purpose of progression. I think that's something that ought to change, too, but surely in a careful and thoughtful way.
I
definitely agree that combat, if done RIGHT, ought to present no dichotomy between PvE and PvP where loadouts and player decision-making is concerned - as you say, if everything is playing by the same rules, then it's good for everyone.
Whether something is gimmicky or not is neither here nor there.
The shield penetrating effects we have (other that reverberating cascade torpedoes) are largely ineffectual against any remotely prepared target; flechette launchers are flatly a waste of hardpoints against most of the vessels I fly and most of the vessels/pilots I'd consider a threat. Phasing sequence is only marginally more useful, mostly because it doesn't hurt mundane damage that much; a phasing laser is still a laser, but a flechette launcher against someone with good module protection is just confetti. As for absolute damage weapons, they are less of a counter to something than a gimmie because they don't have many meaningful trade-offs; the absolute damage is free, because most people who would chose PAs are going to take them anyway.
I do think combat gameplay in general would be better if shields didn't block all hull/module damage by default, not that I'm at all opposed to preparation being the deciding factor as often as not, but because I think it would add more tactical depth during actual combat, without undermining the benefits of wise loadout decisions.
Yeah, I think Fdev went a bit too far in the wrong direction with PA's. All they ever needed to do was increase base velocities of non-hitscan weapons across the board, PA's included in particular, and instead...we got PA's that magically can break several rules at the same time with every hit(thank you, Engineering...ugh...).
__
The noise related to the game content is often due to having too many changes too fast because the developer doesn't have the patience to allow the game to find equilibrium so they instead decide to force it. Too often those adjustments are in response to whining from users. So what's happened and continues to happen is this wild oscillation of balance because this or that person doesn't like an aspect of the game and want it changed so they feel better about it. That's fine to feel that way, but imagine someone saying "the corvette should be removed from the game" after you grinded to get to that level and buy that ship. Of course, those saying it have zero use for the corvette so they want that side of town burned to make room for their own type of lifestyle.
I feel like asking for a ship to be removed from the game is a wholly different conversation from addressing overinflation of hitpoint stacking, all the nonsense introduced/made worse by Engineering, and other stuff that is really pretty clearly
wonky.
If you and I were playing Chess, and I could say "well I spent the past week paying the barkeep a lot in shiny stones and numberkeeping scribbles, so I get to turn all my pawns into castles", you'd take the board and throw it and all the pieces in my face, because that's not fair at all to you. And well you should get angry, because you'd be in the right - it's NOT fair, it's not right, and no sane organizer of a Chess game would allow such shenaniganry to take place.
"Oh, but wait! You can just pay the barkeep too yourself-" Sure, and then at that point you cease to be playing Chess, and instead are playing to see who can come up with the most ludicrous shenanigans on a playing field that has ceases to be balanced, level, and fair - taking away everything that makes Chess an interesting game to begin with.
That's the Blizzard modus operandi in a nutshell right there, and it's a big fat mistake that is far too often repeated 'round the gaming world.
There's no fair compensation for it. You offer a perk for doing grind, people decide to take you up on it, you pay them. You don't later say "well, I know I paid you with gold, but I want the gold back and you can instead have this printed paper that I will call money, because gold is too valuable and imbalances the economy"
Sorry, but that's
exactly what you ought to say when you are dealing in weapons and game-breaking gimmicky shenanigans instead of 'gold' and 'printed paper'. And, it's funny because in a sense, what you say is part of why society migrated to using printed paper as a method of payment to begin with.
Think of this before creating the weapon, before initiating the grind to get it. Personally I've never, not once, been hit with it. I don't use it. I don't think I even have the ability to buy it. I think those who have played the right way to get there should be able to be there without making "there" less desirable. Bait and switch is a scam.
It's impossible to travel back in time, the last I checked. Being unable to do anything about a bad idea after it's been introduced is nonsense.
You don't see car manufacturers go, "Oh, there's this potentially life-threatening flaw in this brand new sexy car that millions have people have bought all over the world - ah, you know what though? You lot have all spent hard-earned time and money on these cars, go ahead and keep them, because who cares that you're threatening the lives of yourselves and the people around you?"
No, they step up, they admit their fault, they send out famously expensive and embarassing manufacturer recalls on each and every one of those vehicles, and by doing so they make the world a slightly better place with that much less life-threatening harm in it - which is worth infinitely more than any individual getting their knickers in a twist.
