Print

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

[Wyvern]

So, one of the things that pushes me, at least, to go for a shield-tank-y ship in the current game is the high supply costs + CR recovery; I don't want to have to pay for CR recovery and repairs - and, if I use (for example) an Apogee instead of some mid or low tech ship, I don't have to.

Tossing this idea out for discussion, then: What if armor got repaired between battles, instantly and for free?  What if that's between engagements?  What if armor repairs are just very fast & cheap?

In terms of any single fight, this doesn't change the balance between low tech and high tech - but it'd mean that armor tanking didn't cost any more than shield tanking does, and make me, at least, much more likely to consider using low tech ships, and much more likely to consider investing in, say, skills that boost armor strength.

[firstattak1]

I actually like this idea. It would esspecially help with phase ships, as there is almost no way to pilot one and not get hit at least once.

[Gothars]

Instantly and for free seems too much, since armor tanking already has some advantages over shield tanking (no flux use, needs no attention, smaller target area).

But I agree that armor reconstruction could be done more efficiently. Maybe don't repair it after hull, repair hull and armor at the same time with half the speed. That would already help a lot, since armor is so essential in protecting (the freshly repaired) hull.

[Thaago]

I don't really like this, but I see where you are coming from... maybe it should just be that the difference in cost to deploy be more significant? Ie you can use your shield tank and not take armor damage and pay X for cr, or use your more armor tank and pay Y to deploy, with Y < X. So if the expected repair cost is less than X-Y, then it would make more sense to deploy the armor tank.

[xenoargh]

maybe it should just be that the difference in cost to deploy be more significant?

We're already reading lots of whining about "hanger queens" and suchlike.  If the difference is made wider, we may as well make Low Tech free to deploy.  That might actually be interesting, though- make them free, make Mid as cheap as Low Tech is now.  It'd help with a few ships.

That said, right now, armored Low Tech is already cheaper on CR, but there aren't very many good reasons to bother with chain fights because of the costs of taking any damage at all, so it's pushed people towards High Tech and shield tanks, naturally enough. 

Note that I'm not saying that this doesn't mean that players can't make Low Tech work; the Lasher still rocks, the Hound's pretty darn useful as a freighter that can also fight and as an interceptor.

But I think that cost differentials as well as sheer power largely favor High Tech a bit too much, and making Low Tech free might just make them worthwhile, since they could be the chasers and harassers par excellence.

There are plenty of solutions to this, though. Some of the low / Mid Tech frigates might use a buff to make them effective enough in the middle between these gulfs in costs. 

For example, I think the Vigilance needs more Flux Dissipation (100-200) and the Brawler needs a much tighter turn radius, so that it can actually be somewhat useful.  The Shuttle really should be a bit faster, at least 50-75 SU, so that it's actually good for something (interception) rather than just being weak at everything like it is now.  If Mid worked well enough that it wasn't a joke and Low Tech was free to deploy, it might finally feel a bit more balanced than it does atm.

[Thaago]

Huh - weird to see that you think mid doesn't work! In my mind they are stronger than in .54. I also find the Brawler to be an incredibly powerful frigate when part of an escort - destroyer level armament. Fails without other friendlies around to watch its back, but otherwise pretty tough.

[xenoargh]

It's not that they don't work, I just feel like they're the weakest place on the balance curve atm.

I'd rather have a Lasher and a Hound vs. a Vigilance and a Brawler; while both can work, I feel like the former is quite a bit more powerful overall.

[Wyvern]

I don't really like this, but I see where you are coming from... maybe it should just be that the difference in cost to deploy be more significant? Ie you can use your shield tank and not take armor damage and pay X for cr, or use your more armor tank and pay Y to deploy, with Y < X. So if the expected repair cost is less than X-Y, then it would make more sense to deploy the armor tank.

Hm... You know what we actually need?  A battle summary that tells you what all of the supply costs will be.  Right now, it's very hard to judge how much armor repairs are actually costing you, and all but impossible to do any kind of direct comparison between supply cost of deploying a high tech ship versus supply cost of deploying a low tech ship and repairing its armor.

So I'd also like to suggest a battle summary screen that has, for each ship deployed, how much CR it lost (over all engagements), the supply cost & time to replenish that CR, and right next to that, the supply cost & time to repair hull & armor damage (that the ship sustained during this battle).

[xenoargh]

Yeah, about the only way to study it is to look at the deep math, and we don't even have that, as it's not totally clear how time effects repairing each cell of the armor. 

I agree that it would be nice to get some sort of summary like that- should be reasonably easy to pull the numbers back from the reduction in CR + damage and present it.  Largely this would just serve as a research tool, though; if we had the formulae, we could mod up something that would spit back the numbers fairly easily.

[Megas]

I'd rather have a Lasher and a Hound vs. a Vigilance and a Brawler; while both can work, I feel like the former is quite a bit more powerful overall.

I would rather have a Lasher and Brawler for fighting.  Both can kite and kill things much bigger than them.  Only problem with Brawler is it has difficulty shooting down fighters with Heavy Mauler/HVD.  Hound is good for killing non-combat ready ships, capturing points, hauling loot, and as a sacrifice for boarding.  Vigilance is a missile boat, and weak without missiles.