Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex]

To me it always seemed like it also does its best to avoid direct reaper hits and in some way does know the difference between a hellbore and a railgun.

It does know, yes. And it's reasonable at tanking pure kinetic damage on armor. But when even a bit of HE gets mixed it, the decision gets much harder and it generally won't do it. (It considers the relative damage values too, of course, so incoming Gauss rounds aren't treated the same as a needler burst.)

AI starts reasonably armour tanking when it gets to high flux, when it should shield flicker right from get go.

Should it, though? My guess is that if it did, there'd be complaints about it taking unnecessary damage. And, it's a hard decision to make. Continuing a stalemate - get fluxed, back off, come back in, etc - is a "safe" option that gives the player the most time to make a difference. On the other hand, if it starts the "I'm losing armor and hitpoints, and may or may not be actually getting anything for it" clock right off the bat...

That said, it actually *will* armor-tank (and take some hull damage, as well) in some circumstances when flux is low and - IIRC? it thinks it can press an advantage, I honestly forget all the details here - and when its armor is high. And, indeed, this gets reported as a bug now and again!

[TaLaR]

@Draba
That's a build with ONLY kinetic weapon. AI will armor tank that. But no real build should be like this.

@Alex
AI doesn't seem to track actual projectiles though. For example, Hellbore has very few and it is fairly easy for player to block only them while mostly armor tanking HAC/Needler kinetic stream. I've never seen AI do this.

[Alex]

It does actually track high-damage projectiles individually, which includes the Hellbore. That might be a worthwhile case to look at, since that's potentially easier than trying to make the call for a mixed kinetic/HE stream. But it could be something where it's just not sure it could unfold the shields again in time, for example...

[Draba]

@Draba
That's a build with ONLY kinetic weapon. AI will armor tank that. But no real build should be like this.

The claim the 2 people I've quoted made was that AI dropping shields is always escape/overload avoidance (or some shield speed fluke/Onslaught magic).
Example is just there to show that's not true.

It does actually track high-damage projectiles individually, which includes the Hellbore.

Good to know, was starting to think I'm seeing a pattern where there is none.

[Locklave]

This whole does armor tanking exist in any form even it's not helpful/useful/optimal is a red herring.

With high armor shields can be dropped in the middle of a fight and weapons still work at full output.

The AI can't use it with existing mechanics. It's only helpful for Player piloted ships. That's what this was was about.

[Amoebka]

Turns out the solution to low-tech problem was to make new midline ships and pretend they are low-tech.

Fine with me. The less slow dumb bricks the game has, the better.

[ElPresidente]

I would like to not see High Tech dragged down because the whole "Low Tech" philosophy is just faulty by design and therefore unable to compete, though.

I propose giving low-tech higher EMP resistance and faster weapon/engine repair time and giving High tech the opposite (with AI/REDACTED ships being even more extreeme).

[Lucky33]

It is clear for a situation of Low Tech being kept "slow" it first needs either even stronger missile burst or strong disables for a target immobilization purposes. Former is self-explanatory, but latter means that Salamanders, HVD's and Sabots are all inadequate for the task as a component of any realistic weapon variant.

[TaLaR]

I'd like to see interruptible Burn Drive in action before asking for more low tech buffs.

If anything, issues with low tech at this point could be mostly resolved by AI changes (not saying it would be an easy thing to implement). Aggressive and actively armor-tanking low tech with interruptible Burn Drive could be a menace.

[Draba]

AI starts reasonably armour tanking when it gets to high flux, when it should shield flicker right from get go.

Should it, though? My guess is that if it did, there'd be complaints about it taking unnecessary damage. And, it's a hard decision to make. Continuing a stalemate - get fluxed, back off, come back in, etc - is a "safe" option that gives the player the most time to make a difference. On the other hand, if it starts the "I'm losing armor and hitpoints, and may or may not be actually getting anything for it" clock right off the bat...

One way to help with attrition could be to give low tech ships old impact mitigation's 90% max damage reduction in a hullmod ("Time-tested armor design" or the like).
Still gets smashed by big HE hits, but the aggression can be turned up a little.

I'd like to see interruptible Burn Drive in action before asking for more low tech buffs.

If anything, issues with low tech at this point could be mostly resolved by AI changes (not saying it would be an easy thing to implement). Aggressive and actively armor-tanking low tech with interruptible Burn Drive could be a menace.

I think Dominator and Enforcer could definitely use some help.
XIV Onslaught is very nice, my main gripe is that without omega weapons there is no M missile option that feels good.
With the TPCs+ballistics staying at range is strong, but then sabot/harpoon will be wasted and anni is meh. Maybe get reapers, they are flashy at least
Deciding factor for me is it'd be the only 7 burn ship in the fleet it goes in, so in the end I just take something else.

This whole does armor tanking exist in any form even it's not helpful/useful/optimal is a red herring.

With high armor shields can be dropped in the middle of a fight and weapons still work at full output.

The AI can't use it with existing mechanics. It's only helpful for Player piloted ships. That's what this was was about.

You wrote that current low tech design fundamentally can't work with the current AI, and that AI literally can't use armor to gain an offensive flux advantage.
AI can use armor, and the numbers can be massaged to make high armor+ballistics/missiles as strong as you want (see the 500000 armor example).
The shield-dropping behavior existing is important for the big picture. Not a red herring, and you brought up "AI literally can't trade armor for flux" to begin with.

[SafariJohn]

It might be worthwhile to implement a learning algorithm for armor tanking like there is for venting. Maybe compare armor/hull damage dealt vs taken?

[Locklave]

Not a red herring, and you brought up "AI literally can't trade armor for flux" to begin with.

I think you are conflating my arguments with other peoples. I argued that armor tanking can't be done by the AI because of it's limitations. Clearly I meant in a functional way, even if I didn't state that expressly. Those words "AI literally can't trade armor for flux" never came from me in this thread.

And it is a red herring if it has no meaningful impact on balance when combat with real ships takes place. You abandon your original argument to this armor tanking exists in a useless but it technically exists form because that was an argument you felt could be won. Unless Alex did some wizardry and found a way to make the AI armor tank in a way that doesn't make the forums lose their minds with "the dumb AI suicided my ship" threads then this element of the conversation is pointless.

If it did exist in a meaningful way then the low tech solutions would be easy(ier).

This is a mechanic used for retreating by the AI and it's trading armor to avoid overloads.

Me saying it trades armor for flux to avoid overloads. The complete opposite of what you just said.

Read the post history before posting and stop saying I said things I didn't. I didn't say anything hyperbolic, I didn't say low tech was useless. All things you claim I said. This time at least there is a direct quote of mine proving you wrong.

Generally speaking it's one thing to say, it's viable, it's another thing to ask is it desirable.

Me not saying low tech is useless.

At a certain point these accusations start to come across as lies.

[Draba]

You abandon your original argument to this armor tanking exists in a useless but it technically exists form because that was an argument you felt could be won.

My original argument:
- armor can be used to gain a flux advantage(either offensive or defensive), by dropping shields in combat
- the AI can handle this interaction. Said it right there it's not very good at it, but it does have the mechanics down
- armored things can definitely be made strong enough in the existing systems, no need to throw out the concept (that was the 500K example). Just have to find a good spot
That's where I started from, that's where I still am.


The full quotes with context, without the cuts you made.

You wrote that current low tech design fundamentally can't work with the current AI, and that AI literally can't use armor to gain an offensive flux advantage.
AI can use armor, and the numbers can be massaged to make high armor+ballistics/missiles as strong as you want (see the 500000 armor example).
The shield-dropping behavior existing is important for the big picture. Not a red herring, and you brought up "AI literally can't trade armor for flux" to begin with.

...but it definitely drops them to avoid hits that won't damage armor too much...

This is a mechanic used for retreating by the AI and it's trading armor to avoid overloads. It isn't used aggressively so bringing it up has nothing to do with my counter to your original incorrect statement.

Also if the Onslaught is your only example and it still rarely does it then you are still wrong because the AI doesn't armor tank. One single rare (possibly a case of the AI making bad choices because the Onslaught doesn't seem to understand how long it takes to re raise shields) exception doesn't make your incorrect statement correct.

Dunno why this has to be life or death, deny every mistake to the last.
You were wrong, happens to everyone.

[Delta_of_Isaire]

Observation: Energy weapons are most effective against poorly shielded targets, as very few of them do kinetic damage but plenty of them are effective against armor. Same holds for Ion damage: most effective when enemy shields are hard-fluxed or down completely. Which ships tend to have poor shields? Low-Tech. Which ships use energy/Ion weapons the most? High-Tech. So in a way, High-Tech is set up to counter Low-Tech. Conversely, High-Tech powerful shields combined with relatively poor armor makes them vulnerable to Kinetic damage. Which ships use Kinetic weapons the most? Low-Tech. So in a way, Low-Tech is set up to counter High-Tech.

In this perspective, High-Tech and Low-Tech are each other's counters. Midline comes in as a mix between the two, with diverse weapon mounts to use each damage type, but neither the best shields nor the best armor. That sounds like it might be sort-of-balanced.

One place where this balance might break down, I think, is the following. When a High-Tech ship attacks a Low-Tech ship of similar strength, it often happens that the Low-Tech ship needs to drop its shields and take some armor/hull damage, while the High-Tech ship can usually retreat to safety before its shields need to be dropped, thanks to better mobility. The result is an asymmetric situation where High-Tech can steadily whittle away at Low-Tech's non-renewable hitpoints without receiving non-renewable damage in return.

To stop this being a problem, Low-Tech needs tools that help it mitigate High-Tech's ability to kite with superior mobility. Burn drive could be one such tool. Burst kinetic damage from Needlers/Sabots and the like could be another. As could generally longer range of ballistics compared to energy weapons. But I wonder if in the current state of the game these advantages are sufficient to level the playing field. They might not be.

[Locklave]

Dunno why this has to be life or death, deny every mistake to the last.
You were wrong, happens to everyone.

I quote myself earlier saying the opposite of your what you claim "I literally said" and you still pretend to be correct. This isn't a misunderstanding anymore, you are a liar and I'm done with you.

The absurd irony in this quote above.