Please don't as this actually makes dogfights tactical and gives smaller a ships a fighting chance against the Goliaths. That said, additional armour should afford extra protection to vulnerable modules
FD, please remove power plant and thrusters headshots !!!
- Thread starter Yank31
- Start date
The Anaconda has a very exposed PP, and even then, shooting it from the front does very, very little compared to shooting it from directly above or from behind and below. Very few ships are so vulnerable.
I do agree that armor should reduce penetration somewhat.
My issue isn't with targeting sub-systems, it's setting up a computer to do it for you and let it do all the work as you squeeze the trigger as fast as possible. It should be left up to the pilot's skill level to target sensitive areas like the cargo hatch or power systems.
Likewise, my skill as a pilot will be keeping those sensitive areas out of your line of fire. Then there is a dogfight and not a computer assisted massacre every single time.
Thank you for that information. I spend hours in combat zones fighting Pythons wondering why I don't do that much damage against the power plant. I just couldn't figure out where it is. That made destroying Anacondas easier than destroying Pythons for me.
Yes, very, very subtle. Thanks for that information.
I guess it's part of the fun for some players to find out this things. I find it a bit annoying to be left without good information about the choices I have to make in-game. Without a lot of testing that sometimes isn't easy (trying to find the components, test, find the other component…) I can't make a good decision what to use. Glad that the forum had helpful people that are willing to share their knowledge.
Regarding sub-system targeting. I play mostly solo, so my comments are based on fights against NPCs. I think it's a good game play mechanic and I enjoy it.
The only thing I would change is the way armor works. It should offer better protection for the sub-systems.
The protection provided by the armor might even be be higher than the hull integrity. I think this would add to the game. CMDRs could choose between shield set ups with shield booster and/or shield cells or go for more energy to the weapons and using armor for protection. Aiming for the weak parts of the enemy ship would still be the way to go, but armor would become useful.
Currently I get the impression that armor is completely useless since shields offer better protection (no damage at all) and I can always run from an NPC (ok, not always - trying to run with a T-7 while getting attacked by a Elite NPC Imp Clipper is a bad idea) and Players will probably always aim for the power-plant - so why should I use armor?
I agree that not every ship has that gapingly large vulnerability, but it's still a bit silly really. I mean a laser shot to the front would have to pass through how many meters of bulkheads, armour and other ship components to hit the PP of a Conda? It's kind of nonsensical and it makes taking them down far too easy for my taste.
I agree with the majority of people who want bulkhead upgrades to offer SS protection though, it makes quite a lot of sense. The damage to subsystems should be reduced by the same percentage that it does to hull. Afterall, I'm sure the designers of those ships didn't stand around and say "Ohh make sure you leave a hole cut out of the military grade composite, because that's where the power plant is, and people need to shoot that"
I think thats an interesting aspect. Removing subsystem targeting from gimbals could be very good for gameplay and reward high skill players. It would give a real incentive to prefer fixed weapons if you know how to aim.
I'm a little confused how the OP lost his thrusters while face tanking, PP I would understand (in my experience the second best angle to attack a python's PP is a little above the plane of the ship from in front, personally it think the python's PP should be moved
back slightly)
Because it is a ship's main thrusters that are targeted when attacking it's drive i would make sense to disable only the main thrusters when the drives go out but that would leave no way to destroy the maneuvering thrusters (unless each one was added as a sub-system which would be a mess, though it would make for some very interesting game play).
My suggestion would be to increase the toughness of ships drives but cause the main thrusters to cease functioning at say 25% while all other thrusters stop at 0%.
For PP maybe a pilot could disable their PP before it hits 0% to keep their ship from exploding when it does (emergency shut-down) the ship could give a warning at 5 or 10% to give players a chance to do this.
I would also approve of the aforementioned increase in the protection offered to internal subsystems by an armoured/reinforced hull.
Regards,
Yarsunas
back slightly)
Because it is a ship's main thrusters that are targeted when attacking it's drive i would make sense to disable only the main thrusters when the drives go out but that would leave no way to destroy the maneuvering thrusters (unless each one was added as a sub-system which would be a mess, though it would make for some very interesting game play).
My suggestion would be to increase the toughness of ships drives but cause the main thrusters to cease functioning at say 25% while all other thrusters stop at 0%.
For PP maybe a pilot could disable their PP before it hits 0% to keep their ship from exploding when it does (emergency shut-down) the ship could give a warning at 5 or 10% to give players a chance to do this.
I would also approve of the aforementioned increase in the protection offered to internal subsystems by an armoured/reinforced hull.
Regards,
Yarsunas
Last edited:
Don't do that. Stay behind your target (in it's blind spot) and aim for vital subsystems.
I'll be brief this time:
- Remove power plant kills entirely.
- Armour and hull packages should make all modules tougher, too, not just the hull.
- The hitboxes for all modules should be massively reduced and the angles from which they can be damage should be small and specific. On most ships you can just select the power plant and plink away from almost any angle and still damage it. Hitting a module should only be possible from very specific angles - thrusters only from directly behind (shooting into the exhaust nozzle, not from the side), power plant only directly where the shot would have the shortest path through the hull (e.g. 90° angle at the very spot). Two ships being face to face should not be able to damage each other's power plant or thrusters.
- Remove power plant kills entirely.
- Armour and hull packages should make all modules tougher, too, not just the hull.
- The hitboxes for all modules should be massively reduced and the angles from which they can be damage should be small and specific. On most ships you can just select the power plant and plink away from almost any angle and still damage it. Hitting a module should only be possible from very specific angles - thrusters only from directly behind (shooting into the exhaust nozzle, not from the side), power plant only directly where the shot would have the shortest path through the hull (e.g. 90° angle at the very spot). Two ships being face to face should not be able to damage each other's power plant or thrusters.
This would completely kill gimbals for me. In CZ I need to sub-target ships FSD and power distributor to make sure their PP doesn't blow to fire form other ships losing me this kill. In more general terms because there is no way to manually nudge the aim on gimbals this would cause it to be impossable for players to target subsystems with gimbals making them only useful against smaller ships and generally a non-option for outfitting.
maybe giving gimbals a further decreased precision when targeting sub-systems would be acceptable.
I use the power plant target to great effect when facing anything bigger than a clipper. You can generally get in tight below the engines and the target explodes with sometimes upward of 40% hull left.
But I do think its a bit daft. Lets apply star trek logic here. Power plant destroyed = warp core breach. The general course of action on the TV is eject the core and run on emergency power and I think it would be a very good idea to introduce emergency power into the game. The emergency power core could provide maybe half the power output of the full core and only give you 3 pips to play with. It would add an extra element to the fight.
Can't help but think of Star Trek 2 and the fight between the enterprise and the reliant. Enterprise takes a beating resorts to emergency power and uses tatics to escape and finally win the battle
But I do think its a bit daft. Lets apply star trek logic here. Power plant destroyed = warp core breach. The general course of action on the TV is eject the core and run on emergency power and I think it would be a very good idea to introduce emergency power into the game. The emergency power core could provide maybe half the power output of the full core and only give you 3 pips to play with. It would add an extra element to the fight.
Can't help but think of Star Trek 2 and the fight between the enterprise and the reliant. Enterprise takes a beating resorts to emergency power and uses tatics to escape and finally win the battle
I agree with everything except removing PP kills entirely. I think if they did the second and third of your suggestions it would make PP kills (and thruster disability) a lot tougher anyway, which is the only step that I think needs to be taken.
Out of interest, the "Power Plant" is still the weak spot of many earth bound combat machines. Take the American M1 Tank..............you can pound away on it all day with many forms of tank and RPG fire.........it will shrug it all off......but if you drop a few flames around the engine intakes.......it's done.............the trick is getting close enough to one to do it......but, even real war machines have their weak spots........If part of your machine needs to "breath", such as an IC Engine or to get rid of heat........then enclosing it in feet of armour, ain't gonna do it.........so...maybe this is right as it is?
Me too... (I'm the OP).
I may not always agree with you but +1 rep in this post.
I think there is some merit to the idea that some modules should be harder to hit than others, or have more layers of bulkhead protection. Weapons, for instance, should be relatively easy to take out compared to core modules. I also like the idea that finding the right angles should matter. If you shoot at a ships drives from head on, the chance of doing them damage should be minimal. Ok yes you penetrate the hull, but there are a number of other modules you could and should hit and damage before you get as far as the thrusters. So you can keep external hull penetration as is, but have misplaced shots more likely to do only hull (exterior surface or interior bulkhead both counting as 'hull') or to damage modules other than the one targeted (this probably happens already, but since we only see the number for the targeted module, we don't necessarily notice when we're aggressors).
As an aside, a pythons weak spot does appear to be it's thrusters. B class for that is probably a decent option.
I'd also like to see the cost benefit of armour change. Ideally for it's price and weight I'd like it to be more effective. Currently it doesn't appear to make sense to run with a lower spec shield and superior armour to free up power for weapons. Indeed the opposite is true - pumping as much power into shield and shield boosters and SCB as you can and skimping on weapons seems (on anecdotal evidence) to be more prevalent. Both approaches should be viable, I think.
As an aside, a pythons weak spot does appear to be it's thrusters. B class for that is probably a decent option.
I'd also like to see the cost benefit of armour change. Ideally for it's price and weight I'd like it to be more effective. Currently it doesn't appear to make sense to run with a lower spec shield and superior armour to free up power for weapons. Indeed the opposite is true - pumping as much power into shield and shield boosters and SCB as you can and skimping on weapons seems (on anecdotal evidence) to be more prevalent. Both approaches should be viable, I think.
That would be kinda boring, however see my idea above about emergency shut-down for PP.
It shouldn't make them tougher but rather harder to damage through the hull
While a "massive" reduction would probably be too much reducing the effectiveness of sub-optimal firing angles while maintaining the effectiveness of optimal ones might be a good idea I'm just not sure how this would be achieved technically (maybe reduce the effectiveness of armour penetration but also reduce the health of internal sub-systems)
Regards,
Yarsunas
I think he was right on point and I gave him rep because of it.
You basically made a series of stupid decisions which led inevitably to your destruction. Kind of like headbutting a rhino. Rather than taking it like an adult and learning from your mistakes in order to become a more accomplished commander you're on the forums whining about it, trying to get FD to change a game mechanic that your stupidity fell foul of. This is the equivalent of then blaming the rhino because you chose to headbutt it.
It's a perfect analogy.
Not sure what you think these ships are made of, but most of the volume is certainly empty space, and I'd expect many of the weapons at our disposal to punch holes straight through them and hit ships 2km behind the target, let alone damage internal components from less than perfect angle.
My FDL has roughly similar mass and volume to an Airbus A380. I own small arms that could penetrate all the way through one side of an A380 and out the other. Obviously ED ships are better protected and use more advanced materials, but many people seem to think they are just bricks of metal with small spaces for internals hollowed out.
I see nothing wrong with high penetration weapons being able to damage internals, to at least some degree, from almost any angle.