A radical change - No combat items in internal compartments

[clinton]

I suggest a radical change, that would probably need to be beta tested, namely that there are no combat items in internal compartments, with the sole exception of the shield generator.

That means no SCBs, and no Hull Reinforcements.

Obviously, damage would have to be balanced at this point (I'll get to that latter) but ignoring that for the moment, what does this mean? It means that multi-role ships are truly multi-role, you can't just pack them with Hull Reinforcements and SCBs to make them combat ships.

If you want a combat ship, you'll have to get one.

The issue is that, currently large ships are ridiculously expensive, and their survivability against more agile (and often much cheaper insurance bill) foes is based on SCBs, which provide significant shield strength.

So to compensate for this, first, put all ships in the following classes:

• Small: Sidewinder, Eagle, Hauler, Adder, Imperial Eagle, Viper, Cobra Mk III, Viper Mk IV, Diamondback Scout
• Medium: Cobra Mk IV, Type-6 Transporter, Diamondback Explorer, Imperial Courier, Keelback, Asp Scout, Vulture, Asp Explorer
• Large: Federal Dropship, Type-7 Transporter, Federal Assault Ship, Imperial Clipper, Federal Gunship, Orca, Fer-de-Lance, Python, Type-9 Heavy
• Huge: Anaconda, Federal Corvette, Imperial Cutter

Also, increase the current weapon damage penalties like the following: Half damage against hull for each weapon class lower than hull class. That is:

• Large Weapon vs Huge Hull = 50% damage
• Medium Weapon vs Huge Hull = 25% damage
• Small Weapon vs Huge Hull = 12.5% damage
• Medium Weapon vs Large Hull = 50% damage
• Small Weapon vs Large Hull = 25% damage
• Small Weapon vs Medium Hull = 50% damage

So you effectively double a huge ships hull against large weapons, and quadruple against medium weapons. This is to compensate against losing the SCBs.

As this is a damage penalty, it also applies to reduce module damage.

What does this mean? Well, big ships are protected against small nuisance ships, which makes sense, an Anaconda hull costs 140 million credits, whereas the Sidewinder hull costs only ten thousand credits. The Anaconda is made out of advanced armor which small pulse lasers and multicannons bounce off, whereas the Sidewinder is made largely of scraps of metal and duct-tape.

The FDL really comes into it's own as a combat ship, and so it should, it's not cheap. Whereas currently it has trouble taking a SCB stacked Python, the FDL with it's huge mount will become the big ship killer, although it still has got weaker shields/hull than the cutters/conda/corvette, so they will be able to defend themselves.

Does this reduce ship customisation? Of course, but I feel like currently the level of ship customisation is too high and reducing variety, as the general approach is just to fill up on shield cells, and try to increase alpha damage to match that, no matter the ship. Without being able to put combat items in internals, you'll be limited to customising weapons and utilities, which are much more limited and will lead to some interesting design tradeoffs, as well as more diversity between ships.

I'd really like to see a test server set up with this approach, perhaps after Horizons goes live, but before the crafting expansion. I think with some balancing it would work quite well. The number of changes that have happened to SCBs and now Hull Reinforcements suggests to me that maybe they're not the right approach, and there's other ways to make combat interesting and balanced.

Any comments appreciated.

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

Comment: Post in the right forum.

Second comment: This is not consistent with the Elite philosophy. You may be playing the wrong game.

 

[AndrewMil]

Please log off and have no more ideas. Have a good day sir!

 

[faluc]

The bigger damage penalties of smaller weapons vs larger ships I would not mind at all.
However reducing outfitting choices is not something I want to see. We are our ships, the game needs more variety if anything, not less. Balancing the many outfitting options is admittedly not easy, but the solution is to have smart game designers work on it, not removing the options.

 

[Yokoshima]

Shields do not care what class of weapon is used on them, and all shields recharge at the same rate. Super-heavy and other un-agile ships rely on HRPs and SCBs as an alternative to evasive maneuvers (since they struggle in that department). So you would have to massively buff passive shield recharge (say 2-3%/s). That and that change would trash multirole ships. Not to mention it would hurt build diversity in this game. Probably other problems I haven't thought of.

 

[Chip Patton]

The FDL really comes into it's own as a combat ship, and so it should, it's not cheap. Whereas currently it has trouble taking a SCB stacked Python, the FDL with it's huge mount will become the big ship killer, although it still has got weaker shields/hull than the cutters/conda/corvette, so they will be able to defend themselves.

I was trying to stay objective until the above quoted section, and then it hit me what this is, a masked, "lets make FDL's OP" thread. You realize that Python (the FDL's big brother) is more expensive, and TWICE as expensive to outfit? The FDL is to Python as Vulture is to ASP. What' you're suggesting, actually is to penalize the high armor ships with smaller weapons in favor of the paper tank ships with huge weapons. This is a silly idea. With Bulkheads, Shields, ARP, Shield charges, Shield Boosters I can already effectively have 500% hp on my anaconda AND python (Your idea would nerf this to 30% effectiveness). Your idea puts the fighter classes (Viper, Vulture, and FDL) in a superior position to the tanky multi-purpose classes which is the antithesis to ship balance and effectively removes the combat effectiveness of anything but a Vulture or FDL. I say nay.

 

[clinton]

Shields do not care what class of weapon is used on them, and all shields recharge at the same rate. Super-heavy and other un-agile ships rely on HRPs and SCBs as an alternative to evasive maneuvers (since they struggle in that department). So you would have to massively buff passive shield recharge (say 2-3%/s). That and that change would trash multirole ships. Not to mention it would hurt build diversity in this game. Probably other problems I haven't thought of.

You could simply apply damage penalties to shields if required, but with the very thick hull for big ships (and resistance to module damage) they're have plenty of survivability anyway.

Of course the numbers need to be balanced.

I'm not sure how buffing shield recharge would trash multirole ships, but shield recharge has already been buffed in two ways in the beta, through bi-weave shields (they need to add B and A class versions though) and also through increased shield rebuild rate.

But yes, the idea is to push ships tankiness away from shields and towards hull, but not affect the balance overall. The reason is because Frontier have a detailed damage hit model, but it's not being exposed because it's hiding behind SCBs. If shields were weaker and hull (and modules) stronger you'd have more interesting and surprising things happening in battle as modules fail.

 

[Chip Patton]

But yes, the idea is to push ships tankiness away from shields and towards hull

No, absolutely not feasible. There is but one way to recover lost hull -- Kaching! -- at a spacedock. Which means if you have to -- KACHING! -- You did something wrong. Shields are free to recover. Credits are already hard enough to earn without grinding until you form raspberries on your lower body parts, this just makes it necessarily costly and makes recovering from a mistake in-combat impossible.

Maybe Horizons has a way to repair hull -- I don't know because I don't pay for betas, but I do know those who didn't buy Horizons shouldn't be punished by being sent through the game's grinder just to pay their repair bills after every fight. This change alone would extinguish all money-making possibilities from combat roles. It's simply, silly.

 

[Yokoshima]

You could simply apply damage penalties to shields if required, but with the very thick hull for big ships (and resistance to module damage) they're have plenty of survivability anyway.

Of course the numbers need to be balanced.

I'm not sure how buffing shield recharge would trash multirole ships, but shield recharge has already been buffed in two ways in the beta, through bi-weave shields (they need to add B and A class versions though) and also through increased shield rebuild rate.

But yes, the idea is to push ships tankiness away from shields and towards hull, but not affect the balance overall. The reason is because Frontier have a detailed damage hit model, but it's not being exposed because it's hiding behind SCBs. If shields were weaker and hull (and modules) stronger you'd have more interesting and surprising things happening in battle as modules fail.

If shields got damage reduction and base hulls got a massive, and I mean massive buff then the need for SCBs and HRPs may be lessened.
Also you misunderstood me, multirole ships rely on their internal slots for combat viability, as they have more their pure combat brethren, but worse stock combat attributes. For PvP people would still just leave ASAP once shields went down unless they make the PP invincible (especially in wing PvP) or they dramatically drop the rebuy of ships killed in PvP.
That and right now people have choices to make. If you are a miner, you sacrifice slots for mining gear. Same with trading, planetary landings, etc. But if HRPs and SCBs were removed people would not need to choose and variety would dwindle. And it would be an effective nerf to ships like the MK4.

 

[clinton]

I was trying to stay objective until the above quoted section, and then it hit me what this is, a masked, "lets make FDL's OP" thread. You realize that Python (the FDL's big brother) is more expensive, and TWICE as expensive to outfit? The FDL is to Python as Vulture is to ASP. What' you're suggesting, actually is to penalize the high armor ships with smaller weapons in favor of the paper tank ships with huge weapons. This is a silly idea. With Bulkheads, Shields, ARP, Shield charges, Shield Boosters I can already effectively have 500% hp on my anaconda AND python (Your idea would nerf this to 30% effectiveness). Your idea puts the fighter classes (Viper, Vulture, and FDL) in a superior position to the tanky multi-purpose classes which is the antithesis to ship balance and effectively removes the combat effectiveness of anything but a Vulture or FDL. I say nay.

Most of the FDL weapons would be at 1/4 damage against the Anaconda. Only the large plasma would do full damage. Whereas the Anaconda will have four full damage weapons against the FDL.

The high armor ships are actually supposed to be helped, because of the significant damage penalties to armor. This hurts the FDL because there are no damage penalties to shield, which the FDL relies on.

All else being equal, an FDL should find it difficult to take down even a trade focus Anaconda that has decent weapons. But all else being equal, it should have a good chance against a Python. This is because they're around the same price, but the Python has the flexibility to swap to a cargo build whereas the FDL doesn't.

It'll still be a close fight, again, all the medium weapons of the FDL will only be doing half damage to the Python hull, whereas the Python has three full damage weapons against the FDL, and the Python hull is thicker.

 

[Chip Patton]

Most of the FDL weapons would be at 1/4 damage against the Anaconda. Only the large plasma would do full damage. Whereas the Anaconda will have four full damage weapons against the FDL.

The high armor ships are actually supposed to be helped, because of the significant damage penalties to armor. This hurts the FDL because there are no damage penalties to shield, which the FDL relies on.

All else being equal, an FDL should find it difficult to take down even a trade focus Anaconda that has decent weapons. But all else being equal, it should have a good chance against a Python. This is because they're around the same price, but the Python has the flexibility to swap to a cargo build whereas the FDL doesn't.

It'll still be a close fight, again, all the medium weapons of the FDL will only be doing half damage to the Python hull, whereas the Python has three full damage weapons against the FDL, and the Python hull is thicker.

The FDL is not a tank, its not even a frigate. The Anaconda, if fit for it, is a tank, a borderline cruiser class ship. The Anaconda at only 30% combat effectiveness would make it LESS effective than the FDL because of its inability to even come close to keeping up with the maneuverability of the FDL. The anaconda is a tank, it has firepower, but it moves like a brick through sub-zero honey. Putting these two ships on equivocal defense and offense fields, means the anaconda is utterly useless. Your idea (again) would be the end of the Anaconda and Python.

 

[clinton]

If shields got damage reduction and base hulls got a massive, and I mean massive buff then the need for SCBs and HRPs may be lessened.
Also you misunderstood me, multirole ships rely on their internal slots for combat viability, as they have more their pure combat brethren, but worse stock combat attributes. For PvP people would still just leave ASAP once shields went down unless they make the PP invincible (especially in wing PvP) or they dramatically drop the rebuy of ships killed in PvP.
That and right now people have choices to make. If you are a miner, you sacrifice slots for mining gear. Same with trading, planetary landings, etc. But if HRPs and SCBs were removed people would not need to choose and variety would dwindle. And it would be an effective nerf to ships like the MK4.

Personally I don't think we should have a targetable power plant. It should be made a lot tougher at least. Also you should have multiple thrusters, to completely take out thrusters you'll have to take out all the engines (but of course take out both the rear thrusters and your opponent can only accelerate backwards ).

With thick resistant hulls on big ships, you may start doing things like popping out weapons and other things to slowly disable your opponent. But then your opponent might have the auto repair system fixing the damage.

There's also an argument to be made to not allow gimbals to target subcomponents. That would make sniping quite a bit more difficult and skill based.

There's lots of things you can do to balance the ships, but the idea is that:

(1) Ships have roles, you can't just outfit a general ship to perform as well as a specialist ship.
(2) More hull focus, less shield focus, to expose the module damage system (as long as it is appropriately balanced).

The FDL is not a tank. The Anaconda, if fit for it, is a tank. The Anaconda at only 30% combat effectiveness would make it LESS effective than the FDL because of its inability to even come close to keeping up with the maneuverability of the FDL. The anaconda is a tank, it has firepower, but it moves like a brick through sub-zero honey. Putting these two ships on equivocal defense and offense fields, means the anaconda is utterly useless. Your idea (again) would be the end of the Anaconda and Python.

If you give it effective hull much like the SCBs currently, and equivalent module damage resistance the Anaconda is actually more powerful than now as it's not vulnerable to an alpha strike taking down it's shields and rendering it's SCBs ineffective.

And that's exactly what I'm proposing.

 

[obliterator]

What does this mean? Well, big ships are protected against small nuisance ships, which makes sense, an Anaconda hull costs 140 million credits, whereas the Sidewinder hull costs only ten thousand credits. The Anaconda is made out of advanced armor which small pulse lasers and multicannons bounce off, whereas the Sidewinder is made largely of scraps of metal and duct-tape.

This is a terrible idea. Just because a ship is cheap doesn't mean it should be completely useless. There is are diminishing returns involved with having bigger ships, and this is by design. Having more credits should only take you so far.

The FDL really comes into it's own as a combat ship, and so it should, it's not cheap. Whereas currently it has trouble taking a SCB stacked Python, the FDL with it's huge mount will become the big ship killer, although it still has got weaker shields/hull than the cutters/conda/corvette, so they will be able to defend themselves.

Does this reduce ship customisation? Of course, but I feel like currently the level of ship customisation is too high and reducing variety, as the general approach is just to fill up on shield cells, and try to increase alpha damage to match that, no matter the ship. Without being able to put combat items in internals, you'll be limited to customising weapons and utilities, which are much more limited and will lead to some interesting design tradeoffs, as well as more diversity between ships.

Reducing customization options wont remove cookie cutter builds. There is a problem with shield cell banks, but removing them is not the answer. The answer is more customization, not less. For example, they could make hull reinforcment better, so that stacking shield cells feels like a trade-off. They could add weapons that are super effective against shields, but are very bad against hull, so that stacking shield cells will make you run a risk.
Also, I don't get how nerfing smaller ships would lead to "more diversity between ships".

 

[Chip Patton]

If you give it effective hull much like the SCBs currently, and equivalent module damage resistance the Anaconda is actually more powerful than now as it's not vulnerable to an alpha strike taking down it's shields and rendering it's SCBs ineffective.

And that's exactly what I'm proposing.

Do you know how much the Anaconda is to repair at 10% hull (hint: it's more than what the vulture is to replace)? I don't prefer to shell that out after every fight. Again you're putting the smaller fighters in the advantage because their repair bills will be astronomically less. And this again wouldn't buff the anaconda or python, they already have the ability to get twice what you are suggesting buffed to their overall hitpoints through internal compartments, this is how they compete with a FDL and Vulture who both nearly have no noteworthy internals and a power grid to show for it. Taking away these ships' internals even while buffing weapons and hull would cripple all multi-role ships. Let me be clear -- the internals trade-off is for maneuverability. Unless you're suggesting to make the conda and python as maneuverable as the FDL, this is a fail conversation on the merit of balance. As I said, taking away the +500% hp a conda gets with internals to nerf only 4 of the FDL's weapons against it by 50%, is just ridiculous, and becomes laughable when you consider the maneuverability differences. They would effectively be very pretty haulers.

You think the anacondas aren't balanced to the FDL already? Consider it costs OVER 500,000,000 to outfit one which outfitting alone is 50 times more than what you could possibly get a FDL to total (the python can go 2x what a FDL can in outfitting).

 

[obliterator]

Do Again you're putting the smaller fighters in the advantage because their repair bills will be astronomically less.

Their repair bill will be less, but it will take 4x more time than before to make any RES/CZ money when in a small ship, as most npcs don't use shield cells that often.

I think it would suck for absolutely everyone. Bigger bills for big ship owners, slower bounty hunting for small ships, a mix of both for medium ships, and a complete nerf for multi-purpose ships.

 

[Chip Patton]

Their repair bill will be less, but it will take 4x more time than before to make any RES/CZ money when in a small ship, as most npcs don't use shield cells that often.

I think it would suck for absolutely everyone. Bigger bills for big ship owners, slower bounty hunting for small ships, a mix of both for medium ships, and a complete nerf for multi-purpose ships.

You forget that the hunting in RES/CZ's will cost large ship owners more than they could make with this idea. If the operating cost is higher than income, what's the point of big ships except being garage ornaments?

 

[obliterator]

You forget that the hunting in RES/CZ's will cost large ship owners more than they could make with this idea. If the operating cost is higher than income, what's the point of big ships except being garage ornaments?

Small ships would be in no better position. Taking down bigger ships will simply become impossible with the damage nerf and removal of shield cells. Pretty hard to make an income if you can't take down anything.