LithiumMongoose wrote:There was an old game called Pax Imperia that was MOO-like cept it had starlanes (with no off-roading) and nice RTS ship combat. Dunno if any of you remember it. Any rate in that game there was a choice with shields. There were two seperate lines you could climb in the tech tree: at the very top, the best "shield" was something like "5000 life and very fast in-combat life-regen", and the best "deflector" was something like "always on, nullifies 90% of all incoming damage". The key was you had your choice, and a ship could only mount one or the other, not both, even if you researched both. Either way it went on top of armor. I thought it was a cool idea having both and letting the user pick, might want to consider it.
Great suggestion LM!
That would be great for giving people a choice as to what they prefer.
Impaler wrote:Ranos: That Shield Calculation is way way to complex in my opinion, your giving shields MORE stats then the Armor and you havent even included any kind of Recharge rate yet.
What does it matter if the calculations for damage are more complex than armor? If you reduce shields to a single calculation, you have only single options as to how they work.
Impaler wrote:Lithium Mongoose: I like this idea and have been thinking of something along these lines inwhich shields have several differnt types each with reduce damage to the underlying armor in some differnt, simple and unique way. As tecnology improves each shield family improves (X incresses).
Right off the top of my head
1) Flat subtract X amount of damage from each attack
2) Absorb all Damage to a Pool of X points
3) Reduce each attack by X%
4) Completly delfects X% of all attacks randomly
5) Completly negate the first X number of attacks each turn (in a real time system their would be a "cool down time" after an attack is stoped afterwhich the shield is esentialy down, better shields have shorter cooldown)
6) Negate the first X damage recived each turn (in real time the shield is continusly regenerating up to a total of X with regeneration being % based)
I'm skipping ahead quickly to prove my point and then I'll come back. I added numbers to each system so I can address it easier. I'm also basing my responses to these off of your armor system, not mine.
1) With this system, lets say there is a weapon (the type of weapon doesn't matter, I'm trying to simplify my explainations so I won't be considering resistance) that does 100 damage. You have a shield that absorbs 30 and armor with thickness of 5. That means the internals take 65 damage and both armor and shields are basically useless. If all damage isn't stopped by one or the other, then there isn't a point to them. Ooooh, they knock off some damage before being done to the internals, big deal.
2) This is the only shield system that would have any viability with using your armor system, but it still has the same drawbacks as I stated in my last post.
3) This system is basically the same as the first but with a percentage instead of a set ammount. It has the same problems as the first.
4) Without having HP on shields, like it seems you don't want since it would add another calculation to shields, this is exactly the same as the previous system it just has a different name.
5) This system is the worst since it would take only some of the attacks coming at you and once it reached it's limit, it is useless until it "cools down." This is basically the same as number 2, it just has an instant recharge after a few seconds. It also sounds really stupid because it doesn't matter whether somebody attacks you with X number of attacks with a 1 damage weapon or a 100 damage weapon. It blocks the same number regardless of the damage.
6) This is better than the last one because it actually uses damage instead of attacks but the rest of it is the same.
Each of the above systems, by themselves, would result in one calculation unless shields always have hp that they can run out of. Then all but the second system would have two calculations. Adding resistances to shields puts in the third calculation because the leftover damage has to be converted back to it's raw form to allow for proper calculation with armor.
It all depends on which way you think shields would work.
Impaler wrote:This realy sounds quite demeaning, I do not have a "problem" because I proposed a differnt math system that aproatches armor in a completly differnt manor then your proposal. Repeatedly stating how your system works as if it were a fact I don't understand is not going to get us anyware.
I did not mean it to be demeaning and I apologize if that is how it came across. I meant it as a problem with the system, not with you personally. You have also repeatedly stated how your system works, you just say it in different ways the same as I do. We do that in hopes that the other person will better understand our system and like it.
Impaler wrote:I dont like this aproatch for Armor, it makes armor just second bar or Health for your ship with "Deflection" esentialy being the Armor's Armor. First you loss your shield HP, then you loss your Armor HP, then you loss your Internal HP. Thats quite boring in my opinion and redundant as well.
That is how armor has been in all other games but usually without the deflection. MOO3 is the only game I know of that uses deflection. You seem to want the ship to have a single health bar with shields and armor being nothing more than damage reducers. This makes, IMO, for quick, boring and tacticless battles. All that matters as, Zpock said, is who has the bigger guns and who fires first.
Losing shield, then armor and then internal HP is one way of doing it. The other is using shields as a damage reducer but with HP so they run out.
Impaler wrote:Here we can see why its not possible to borrow numbers from one system and plug them into another system as differnt assumptions are made. When you multiply damage by 1.25 you cause the ship to recieve extra damage from this attack. If an unarmored ship has no armor then presumably it has no resistence modifier and we would multiply by 1.00 and the ship would paradoxicly take less damage. You would need to stick to Modifers below 100% in your system to avoid these situation.
Using the same numbers you did changed how the weapon worked yes and I thought of that after I posted. I should have flipped them so your 1.25 became my 0.8. That would have worked correctly. If the ship has no armor then it has no deflection either and therefore recieves exactly the same ammount of damage. The only thing I can think of that would make you think it would take less damage would be the deflection value.
I would not need to stick with numbers below 100. In my system, if armor resistance is > 100, damage to the armor is increased. If resistance is < 100, damage is decreased. It is just the flip of your system where > 100 is a decrease and < 100 is an increase.
Impaler wrote:This is a rather gauling strawman argument. I have already explained how craming the numbers from my example into your system is inapropriate both because of mechanics and balance. You then go on to say that a ship with 1 armor point under my system would be weaker then one with 50 under your system. Besides the fact that your ignoring cost and seem to have casualy given your ship 50 times more armor then its oponent you havent state what kind of weapon their being attacked by, if its a weapon doing 1 damage my ship would be involnorable and yours would die in 100 attacks (asuming no deflection on your ship because you havent stated it has any).
Nowhere in that paragraph did I take numbers from your system and put them into mine. Where did you get that from? Your system would
be weaker. I didn't put all of the details in there and I still don't want to have to put the details in there. Let me put make a detailed explaination so you understand me better:
Armor thickness 1 (which reduces damage by 1), armor has 200% resistance to energy, internal hp 50, energy weapon does 80 damage. BOOM! your ship blows up.
Armor thickness 1 (which gives it 50 armor HP), armor has 50% resistance to energy, armor has deflection value of 1, internal hp 50, energy weapon does 80 damage. BOOM! my ship still has 11 Armor HP and all Internal HP left and can last for 2 more rounds.
Does that make better sense? If you need me to show the math thenI will. That is why yours would be weaker than mine. And if a weapon did only 1 or 2 damage, both of our ships would be able to last forever.
Impaler wrote:Thus go on to make utterly unfounded assumptions on how long a ship will live which in highly dependent on the quantity of internal HP in both system.
I clearly stated that both have 50 internal HP. Hopefully my above explaination will show you the difference.
Impaler wrote:Additional Strawman arguments are being made here because I dont actualy HAVE a shield proposal, I only layed out a plan for Armor.
Not a full blown calculations and mechanics and everything system but you did say this:
Impaler wrote:Health Points for Shields though could be interesting and we should explore that option more.
What ever we use for Armor we should not use for Shields and visa versa, Ranos's calculations seem far more apropriate for shields in my opinion as they involve Health Points that can be depleted thus coresponding to good old "Shields are colapsing CapIn"
From that, I made the assumption that you wanted shields to work in that manner. I also clearly stated "(If I understood you correctly Impaler)" and apparently I was wrong.
You also call my arguements "strawman arguements" which I am assuming means they have no substance.
You do go on in your next post to talk about different system of how shields would work and I have already reviewed that above.
Impaler wrote:And to point out Rano's latest shield equations look much to complex, shields shouldnt have more then 2 or 3 critical numbers determining how they work.
Give me a good reason why shields shouldn't have more complex equations. Is it just because you don't like it? Do you think it would be too confusing for the player? What is the reason?
Impaler wrote:Any speculation on how long something is going to last in combat is rediculus when we know for a fact that any of these systems can and will be balanced to give ships the desired combat endurance.
Granted, but with your system, armor thickness would need to be a massive number or weapons would have to do less than 100 damage or internal HP would need to be a huge number. People like things that seem well balanced and rational. I would find it ridiculous to have armor with thickness of 100 especially if I didn't know what that thickness was. Is it inches, feet, centimeters, meters or some other measurement? It would be boring for weapons to do no more than 50 damage mostly since that is a low number in most games I've played so it would seem like I was doing no damage. To have a huge ammount of HP for internals would be confusing. Why is the number so high? Are all internal system armor plated? I would see it as internal systems being stronger than armor.
Impaler wrote:I am quite aware of that and I INTENDED it that way, I believe that creates the best tactical and strategicaly intersting battle.
There would be no tactics or strategy involved. All that would matter would be who shoots first and who has the bigger guns. Unless you can explain your system in a vast ammount of detail including how much damage a ship could take and how damage would be dealt and any other details you can think of, then I won't be able to like your system.
Impaler wrote:If you haven't played Moo1 please go and do so it works much as I have described yet is very balanced and battle is in my opinon much better then anything that came afterwards.
MOO1 had a very simple battle setup with no tactics or strategy. It was at most 6 stacks of ships per side and maybe a planet. Whoever had the most ships with the biggest guns is who won. There was no manuevering of the fleets or anything. If that is the kind of battles you want, then go play MOO1. Most people here are looking for something more complex.
Impaler wrote:As for ignoring the rest of your post, I only responded to the portion I wish to raise an issue with, I dont do a line by line quotation and comentary like many other people on these boards do.
When you ignore a point somebody makes, it seems like you are sidestepping around an issue that you can't explain. I go line by line so people don't feel like I was ignoring them and I usually have a point to make about everything somebody says.