Summary:
Make Point Defense Turrets a viable alternative to Shield Boosters
Long Version:
Point Defenses could use a pretty huge reworking, and the game overall could benefit from this. Given the many repercussions of the changes I think would be worth considering, it would have to come as part of a wider combat revamp that looked at weapon damage, shields, and hull armor. Point Defenses are in an odd place. They're a fantastically hard counter to missiles, but the use cases for players equipping Point Defenses are pretty limited - missiles, limpets, and the odd torpedo.
For ship defense, the choice between a Shield Booster and a Point Defense Turret should be an interesting one.
Essentially, I'd like to see Point Defenses try to destroy any and all incoming projectiles - not only missiles, torpedoes, and limpets, but also plasma, cannon rounds, and even multicannon fire. This shouldn't be as hard a counter as Point Defense currently is to missiles; likely some increased jitter or something would have to be introduced. Obviously, faster projectiles would be harder to shoot down, and lasers and railguns would be immune.
Slower projectile weapons (cannons, plasma) should have their ammo pools increased, and also damage might be increased some to compensate for the relative performance loss vs lasers, flak, and multicannons. Railguns would find a higher reward for their drawbacks, which I think is needed. Ultimately, a change like this should only take place within a wider-scale combat revamp, looking not only at weapons, but also shields and armor.
Ideally, there would be a new UI element where you could adjust your Point Defenses priority levels for different known threats - limpets, missiles, plasma fire, etc. A trader would place a high priority on shooting down limpets for example, preferring to tank a hit than lose cargo, while a shield-focused PvP pilot might set theirs to prioritize plasma over cannon shots. A player could de-prioritize (or fully disable defense attempts against) multicannons or flak, and make sure their Point Defense knows to first target the torpedo hidden in a swarm of Packhounds.
Changes in this line would make some competition for the defensive role of the Shield Booster. Shield Boosters remain a solid all-around and passive defensive option, while Point Defense would be a more specialized (not working against lasers and rails) and active (needing ship orientation in regards to the threat) option, but better at its specific task. The placement of potential Point Defenses on a ship would be a major consideration in a fight, and so new importance would be given to both defensive and offensive combat maneuvering.
It's a change that makes Point Defenses more consistent in their in-universe functionality. It creates greater choice and competition in defensive utility slots. It doesn't excessively penalize lower-skilled players, in that it doesn't majorly (or at all) affect lower-skillcap weapons like lasers and multicannons. It adds a new compelling layer of complexity to advanced combat maneuvering.
Make Point Defense Turrets a viable alternative to Shield Boosters
Long Version:
Point Defenses could use a pretty huge reworking, and the game overall could benefit from this. Given the many repercussions of the changes I think would be worth considering, it would have to come as part of a wider combat revamp that looked at weapon damage, shields, and hull armor. Point Defenses are in an odd place. They're a fantastically hard counter to missiles, but the use cases for players equipping Point Defenses are pretty limited - missiles, limpets, and the odd torpedo.
For ship defense, the choice between a Shield Booster and a Point Defense Turret should be an interesting one.
Essentially, I'd like to see Point Defenses try to destroy any and all incoming projectiles - not only missiles, torpedoes, and limpets, but also plasma, cannon rounds, and even multicannon fire. This shouldn't be as hard a counter as Point Defense currently is to missiles; likely some increased jitter or something would have to be introduced. Obviously, faster projectiles would be harder to shoot down, and lasers and railguns would be immune.
Slower projectile weapons (cannons, plasma) should have their ammo pools increased, and also damage might be increased some to compensate for the relative performance loss vs lasers, flak, and multicannons. Railguns would find a higher reward for their drawbacks, which I think is needed. Ultimately, a change like this should only take place within a wider-scale combat revamp, looking not only at weapons, but also shields and armor.
Ideally, there would be a new UI element where you could adjust your Point Defenses priority levels for different known threats - limpets, missiles, plasma fire, etc. A trader would place a high priority on shooting down limpets for example, preferring to tank a hit than lose cargo, while a shield-focused PvP pilot might set theirs to prioritize plasma over cannon shots. A player could de-prioritize (or fully disable defense attempts against) multicannons or flak, and make sure their Point Defense knows to first target the torpedo hidden in a swarm of Packhounds.
Changes in this line would make some competition for the defensive role of the Shield Booster. Shield Boosters remain a solid all-around and passive defensive option, while Point Defense would be a more specialized (not working against lasers and rails) and active (needing ship orientation in regards to the threat) option, but better at its specific task. The placement of potential Point Defenses on a ship would be a major consideration in a fight, and so new importance would be given to both defensive and offensive combat maneuvering.
It's a change that makes Point Defenses more consistent in their in-universe functionality. It creates greater choice and competition in defensive utility slots. It doesn't excessively penalize lower-skilled players, in that it doesn't majorly (or at all) affect lower-skillcap weapons like lasers and multicannons. It adds a new compelling layer of complexity to advanced combat maneuvering.
Last edited:
