Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Armor Differentiation  (Read 11186 times)

Aleskander

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2012, 01:13:29 PM »

also who says the back has to have less armor?

I can see shipwrights saving resources by putting less armor on the front of an eagle since it's the easiest part to shield (the shield opens there)...

Mainly low-tech ships that rely heavily on armor, like the onslaught, which was designed mainly to attack from the front of the ship(most low-tech ships are from what I can see.
Logged

Okim

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
    • View Profile
    • Okim`s Modelling stuff
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2012, 04:51:52 AM »

How about having fixed angles that describe the amount of armour points assigned to a specific sector? Say - each 45 deg sector. The origin of angles is the center of the ship. In ship`s hull you can add just percentage values per sector. Here are some examples:

Onslaught



Odyssey

Dx

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2012, 06:04:04 AM »

Odyssey

That what I like. Ship art imply some weak spots, yet game engine places armor all around equally.

The "Armor Map" already in game, it is just default values do not have to be flat. Why not? Even AI can handle it.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 06:08:37 AM by Dx »
Logged

Tarran

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2012, 01:40:16 PM »

How about having fixed angles that describe the amount of armour points assigned to a specific sector? Say - each 45 deg sector. The origin of angles is the center of the ship. In ship`s hull you can add just percentage values per sector.
Not bad, but it doesn't allow enough flexibility in my opinion.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2012, 01:53:13 PM »

How about having fixed angles that describe the amount of armour points assigned to a specific sector? Say - each 45 deg sector. The origin of angles is the center of the ship. In ship`s hull you can add just percentage values per sector. Here are some examples:


How would you display that? Its no use to have different armor if the player can't see it. And to have every ship look like a sliced pizza in the HUD is no good.



Actual shields like those held by melee fighters are indeed type of 'armor' (carry on the side, turns with the arm, stop attacks from reaching the person), but not the same type of 'armor' that we're talking about that is used in game (wear on body, turns with the person, lessen or stop attacks that reach the person). Shields in this game are even further than 'armor' because they can be turned on and off, can be disabled by overloads, and impacts generate hard flux.

So I'd say no. 'Shields' are just 'shields'. A temporary barrier that behaves differently than armor.

That just made me realize how great the shield system in this game is, and how much it deserves the name  "shield"  - in analogy to medieval shields. Screw those boring Star Wars/Trek shields which can't much more then drop.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 02:01:08 PM by Gothars »
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Dx

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2012, 02:53:54 PM »

How would you display that?

Frankly, I see.

Color coded squares are fine. It is "Armor map"
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 02:55:30 PM by Dx »
Logged

GUNINANRUNIN

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
  • Let's do it!
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2012, 03:38:21 PM »

How would you display that?

Frankly, I see.

Color coded squares are fine. It is "Armor map"

Green to yellow to orange to red I guess a la MechWarrior 4? Not sure if that is satisfactory.

Logged
In short, if you throw a stone out of the rear window of your spaceship you will go faster.

Axiege

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 903
  • What a brave and loving name.
    • View Profile
    • My Youtube Channel
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2012, 11:46:47 AM »

This would be a good thing if it could be implemented well, and then there could be skills or actions that allow you to discover where a ship's weak-point is if it isn't so apparent.

ValkyriaL

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2145
  • The Guru of Capital Ships.
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2012, 05:01:49 PM »

I made a topic about this some time ago, Alex didn't like it, because ships, already have weak points as it is now, so why make those weak points even weaker? its a spaceship after all, not a tank.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2012, 05:08:59 PM »

This idea does come up a fair bit. The reason it's not in the game, well... let's take a look at what ships would be prime candidates for it, conceptually.

Anything with lots of front-facing firepower is a decent match at first glance. So, the Dominator, the Onslaught, maybe the Hammerhead/Eagle/Falcon. Perhaps a few other ships. Note that most of these (all the ones listed, at any rate) already have front shields. Combined with frontal-focused firepower and engines being in the back, it's already a great idea to flank them.

So, gameplay wise, what would this actually change? It'd either make the ships tougher from the front (which you could easily do within the existing framework by adjusting the shield stats) or make them even more vulnerable from the back (which isn't a good thing - they're already very vulnerable.

To top it off, ships aren't exactly like tanks. They're more like, well, ships. The nature of the combat means that hits to the back are at least as likely as hits to the front in anything other than a 1-1. A ship designer would probably go through great pains to make the engine section of a front-shielded ship as durable as possible - that's the Achilles heel of a large ship, after all.

The current system serves its role - rewarding surgical fire my making repeated hits to the same area more effective. Varying armor by location... well, I'm not going to say it would flat out be a bad thing. But at the same time, I don't see what compelling gameplay it brings to the table, and it does bring complexity. All this information would have to be conveyed to the player somehow.
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Aleskander

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2012, 09:15:07 PM »

Meh, I still think it's a good idea. Alex seems to balance ships by making them perform well all-around mostly, with a few exceptions. I would rather it be more focused on the playstyle of the player and how it interacts with the ship stats/loadout, but that would be very hard to balance. I see shipmakers as focusing on the strong aspects of a ship and going from there(so the onslaught would be more heavily armored in the front and less in the back, theoretically a good captain wouldn't let ships be hit from behind). I'd add another layer of tactics. To me that's a good thing, but I tend to lean towards the more complex games, and that's just opinion.

In the end it boils down to whatever Alex wants, seeing as he is the game developer
Logged

intothewildblueyonder

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2012, 09:55:59 AM »

I made a topic about this some time ago, Alex didn't like it, because ships, already have weak points as it is now, so why make those weak points even weaker? its a spaceship after all, not a tank.

Well I don't think that argument really works. Even in the analogy- Why would you NOT design a spaceship after a tank especially one meant for battle?

Even if you decided to make a pure exploration vehicle you would run into issue BY DESIGN that would create weak points if you did not reinforce the amour e.g airlocks, engines, fore of vehicle, and so on. Alright so maybe that's why ships have equal armor all around right- they simply have perfectly balanced everything? Well I guess although once you are designing something you might want to take into account what you are designing.

Lets look at the conquest or the onslaught - if you have, by design, a side of the ship that you have to turn toward the enemy and is the most likely to be hit. Why would you not armor that side of the ship?

Look at this in terms of game play-  a player in an onslaught is encouraged in combat to turn toward his engines in order to not take armor damage on the front. The question is why not simply have that armor in the front in order to encourage onslaught use as an onslaught. Remember it is a forward facing tank not a pirouetting conquest.

I personally do not particularly enjoy the way the current system works. Currently most forward facing ships, such as the hammerhead and enforcer, punish you for playing them as they should be played. You either wither lose all your forward armor or need to turn (painfully slowly).

The way this plays out feels very artificial and takes away from the way the game plays.


[edit] I suppose one could point to modern ships which have relatively thin armor when compared to their WWII era counterparts. This was due to the creation of the shaped charge, with it's armor penetrating abilities (20+ ft of steel), and missile based combat. The shaped charge makes it very expensive to kit out a full battle ship (although not a tank) and missile based combat means that it is not worthwhile, and counter effective, as mobility/agility/stealth/range are a more effective means of damage reduction.

Well from a gameplay perspective this type of combat isn't all that much fun. And, not how it goes down - we know where most of the damage is taken, battle to battle, and the weapons do not punch through armor in one hit. Take for example the onslaught the engine section can take just as much armor damage as the sides - even though it is less likely to be hit. This is a waste of resources and means that if you engage in combat again, in quick succession, guess which is only part of your ship to have alot of armor left. For pretty similar reasons I don't think it would make much sense lore-wise either.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 10:18:48 AM by intothewildblueyonder »
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2012, 10:19:04 AM »


Look at this in terms of game play-  a player in an onslaught is encouraged in combat to turn toward his engines in order to not take armor damage on the front. The question is why not simply have that armor in the front in order to encourage onslaught use as an onslaught. Remember it is a forward facing tank not a pirouetting conquest.

I personally do not particularly enjoy the way the current system works. Currently most forward facing ships, such as the hammerhead and enforcer, punish you for playing them as they should be played. You either wither lose all your forward armor or need to turn (painfully slowly).

The way this plays out feels very artificial and takes away from the way the game plays.

All lore questions aside - you seem to completely disregard shields in your argument here. If armor was the only line of defense I would agree with you, it would make no sense to have no extra armor on the side that is supposed to face the enemy. But with shields the side-turn technique you describe seems unnecessary, as long as you're not in deep trouble anyway. I don't feel particularly punished, actually I'm most likely to loose my rear armor in the mid-line ships.
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

intothewildblueyonder

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2012, 10:39:34 AM »

The way this plays out feels very artificial and takes away from the way the game plays.

Al lore questions aside - you seem to completely disregard shields in your argument here. If armor was the only line of defense I would agree with you, it would make no sense to have no extra armor on the side that is supposed to face the enemy. But with shields the side-turn technique you describe seems unnecessary, as long as you're not in deep trouble anyway. I don't feel particularly punished, actually I'm most likely to loose my rear armor in the mid-line ships.

As has been mentioned there are some inherent differences between shield (eg uses flux, renews, protects weapons, ) and armor defense (doesn't use flux, doesn't renew, weapons more vulnerable).  They require different weapon-types to counter.
If you use mid-line or high-tech ships your right this will not be an important of a factor in how they should play.

 But for low-tech ships which rely on their armor much more and have a side that must be faced toward the enemy with low mobility, you cannot make the same argument. Consider the enforcer almost every time I fight with it loses all its forward facing armor and very little of its rear while this may make for a strong ship all around it means that you main battle tactic requires you to shake back and forth between volleys to take advantage of otherwise unused armor. Also, consider what you should do against such a damaged ship - do you continue fighting it where the armor is destroyed or do you now break though all of the rear armor.there are some oddities to this situation for both ships they each must choose to use an otherwise useless tactic of either attacking a strong point or exposing a weakness.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Armor Differentiation
« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2012, 11:11:50 AM »

The way this plays out feels very artificial and takes away from the way the game plays.

Al lore questions aside - you seem to completely disregard shields in your argument here. If armor was the only line of defense I would agree with you, it would make no sense to have no extra armor on the side that is supposed to face the enemy. But with shields the side-turn technique you describe seems unnecessary, as long as you're not in deep trouble anyway. I don't feel particularly punished, actually I'm most likely to loose my rear armor in the mid-line ships.

As has been mentioned there are some inherent differences between shield (eg uses flux, renews, protects weapons, ) and armor defense (doesn't use flux, doesn't renew, weapons more vulnerable).  They require different weapon-types to counter.
If you use mid-line or high-tech ships your right this will not be an important of a factor in how they should play.

 But for low-tech ships which rely on their armor much more and have a side that must be faced toward the enemy with low mobility, you cannot make the same argument. Consider the enforcer almost every time I fight with it loses all its forward facing armor and very little of its rear while this may make for a strong ship all around it means that you main battle tactic requires you to shake back and forth between volleys to take advantage of otherwise unused armor. Also, consider what you should do against such a damaged ship - do you continue fighting it where the armor is destroyed or do you now break though all of the rear armor.there are some oddities to this situation for both ships they each must choose to use an otherwise useless tactic of either attacking a strong point or exposing a weakness.

Nice that you agree on mid-lines :)


For low-tech the shield argument applies somewhat less, right. But they have something different that makes it very desirable to only attack them from the back - a huge amount of forward facing firepower. The only time you willingly attack an Onslaught or Dominator from the front is if you are not mobile enough to get to its flank or back.
So, if a low-tech ship faces a fleet of small ships it's likely to loose its backwards armor first. In combat with big ships it will likely loose its frontal armor, and then the wiggling technique can be useful. But would that be different if the front armor were stronger? Sluggish opponents would still have no choice than to attack the front, so the front armor would still be the first thing to crumble against these opponents. And then, again, the wiggle technique would be useful, a bit less maybe. But now it would be relatively easy for small ships to destroy the back.

Overall you would only limit the tactical options you have if you face such a ship, and I don't think that's desirable.


The case of the Enforcer is btw a bit different, I don't consider it a real frontal-only ship with its omni shields and 2 sideways facing main turrets.
 
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.
Pages: 1 [2] 3