Good stuff. Informative, without waffling. I'd love to see the ability to see your teammates / squadies / wingmen / party, org mates in battle etc. So frustrating you can't keep track of everyone. Also need a NESW compass for marines so we can tell each other which direction we are covering / heading in. Cheers!
Well, for what it's worth your content is some of the best that's recently been uploaded. One thing about ballistic penetration: Maybe the thought is that trading a finite resource (ammo) for a finite resource (armor) is a balancing move that enables a more attrition based style of combat. I'm not opposed to shield penetration in principle - but I agree that a single shot from a Tarantula shouldn't be that crippling...
Some penetration is necessary to avoid stalemates and pointlessly wasting ammo while others duck away to recharge their shields, especially later in the PU in situations when ammo will be far less plentiful. Something like 5-20% penetration could work fine if the current hardpoint stat trends continue, so we won't be losing weapons or thrusters too easily; but ballistic weapons will still do gradual damage that will add up in a reasonable amount of time. As for shield faces, there could be more pronounced pros for quad or sextuple shields, like a noticeable increase in recharge rate and recharge delay speeds. We could have multiple variations of shields at all sizes that balance total hp, regen speeds, power consumption, em signatures, shield faces, penetration percentage, and any other important variables; then we could end up with the ability to customize shield setups based on our playstyles.
Refreshing to hear one of the big names in AC talking about balance with regard to the long view of the PU. Seems like far too many AC folks think that everything should hinge on AC balance. Much of what is perceived as being 'wrong' is actually because AC needs to be reworked.
I think you're misunderstanding their arguments then. Those "AC folk that think everything should hinge on AC balance" are saying the same things (go check which org he's in, and who the top of the leaderboards are) They simply use AC for proper flight testing and training, because the netcode in the PU isn't conducive to accurate or thorough feedback right now. The changes they ask for in AC, generally translate rather well to the PU. They complain missiles are over powered - do you want to be 1-shot by missiles in the universe? There's a plethora of other examples, but I can't be bothered listing them all here again now. Next time you read something from deedee, or braventooth, or baior, or nimrod, or arc_tander, or any of the guys that you're writing off as "AC Jocks" - stop and rethink what impact the things they're complaining about have in the PU.
CIG have said physical weapons having a reduced but still existing effect through shields is intended (idea I guess that the shield slows down the round), main differentiation between physical weapons and energy, energy doesn't penetrate shields but take them down first. I don't think hull armor and components being shielded by hull etc is working yet which is why projectiles and missiles tend to knock out systems very easily. Partial shield penetration by physical weapons won't be as OP once that's sorted. Might have to be scaled back from half~ to a lower value. Also physical weapons have a limited pool of ammo and it costs money to restore it, doesn't make a lot of sense for those drawbacks to not yield other advantages. Shields work differently in each sci-fi setting, in some they're impenetrable, in some they are better at stopping certain things than others and sometimes they absurdly have a frequency you somehow can't just detect and exploit... I think it makes sense for the shields to be a bubble of energy that interacts with other energy a lot more than physical projectiles.
Shoot, I knew I forgot something. imo: - energy weapons should be the standard and do normal damage against hull and shield - distortion should do bonus damage against shields - ballistics should be a bonus against armor -- if you have enough people to have some take ballistics and ammo, then they should do extra damage once the shields are down. You can't force a mixed ballistic + energy loadout because there are certain ships that are too small for that, because turrets aren't big enough for that, and because of exploration/long-range ships that can't rely on ammo.
I like the idea of that approach. Seems balanced and provides an incentive for ships to change to specialized weapons in group combat. I keep waiting to see if SC will incentivize the kind of strategic loadout decisions you see happening in EVE Online for fleet operations where ships take on roles based on their loadouts. As it stands, there's little incentive to do so. Everyone just mounts the highest DPS weapon they can fit.
Shields at some point are going to be an actual volume around you that gets hit instead of your ship, it's not currently, it's faked (it's a shader that extends and rounds the hull shape), as you said ship is split into parts and depending on what part of the ship gets hit that part of the shield takes damage and makes an effect.
Other way around - there's a separate .obj wavefront file that defines the shield shapes for ships, which is why guns get shot off the hornet instead of hitting the shields, and why the khartu al clips through the shield when it's in landed mode...
So Malogos do physical weapons do zero damage to shields and just pass 50%ish of their damage to the hull? What about energy do they pass zero of their damage to the hull until the shields are down? Also, I tried to figure out which shield the Sabre uses on the website but I can't find anything. Do you know which shield the Sabre has?
Check starcitizendb.com to see what loadouts ships currently have standard. Energy weapons deal no damage to the hull, until the shields are down. Physical weapons divide their damage between the shields, and the hull.
Strongly disagree with the assessment that the Glaive has the strongest shield, but the weakest. You have almost no shield recharge because your opponent can always hit the same shield facing since there is only one. On top of that, since your shields are not recharging since their constantly hit making the Glaive susceptible to missiles. Even size one missiles are a serious threat to disabling the Glaive. It's important to test the actual ship before boasting about the shield. Don't feel bad though, I thought the Glaive was initially shit because they never buffed the weapons, turns out CIG massively nerfed the shields on all ships. All the other parts I agree with.
I would say that this is YOUR approach to balancing, and as many of games have done it in the past. CIG obviously has other goals and is trying to achieve different balancing. Your whole premise is based on Sci-Fi approach to shields as it has been done MOSTLY in movies etc. STO for example has shields that have absorption and penetration rating. It is the same here, and it is great when balanced properly.Simply put, there will NEVER going to be any sort of EMshield that will completely block projectiles. It all stems from the physics aspects of it. It is easy for EM to influence metals and such, and it is near impossible to influence composites, ceramics etc.
best EVE gameplay video on youtube
;)
Hey mal, nice to see you sticking to your guns so to speak and still working on SC :)
Another banger. Keep em coming malogos.
Good stuff. Informative, without waffling. I'd love to see the ability to see your teammates / squadies / wingmen / party, org mates in battle etc. So frustrating you can't keep track of everyone. Also need a NESW compass for marines so we can tell each other which direction we are covering / heading in. Cheers!
Good stuff @malogos, couldn't agree more.
Well, for what it's worth your content is some of the best that's recently been uploaded.
One thing about ballistic penetration: Maybe the thought is that trading a finite resource (ammo) for a finite resource (armor) is a balancing move that enables a more attrition based style of combat. I'm not opposed to shield penetration in principle - but I agree that a single shot from a Tarantula shouldn't be that crippling...
Some penetration is necessary to avoid stalemates and pointlessly wasting ammo while others duck away to recharge their shields, especially later in the PU in situations when ammo will be far less plentiful. Something like 5-20% penetration could work fine if the current hardpoint stat trends continue, so we won't be losing weapons or thrusters too easily; but ballistic weapons will still do gradual damage that will add up in a reasonable amount of time. As for shield faces, there could be more pronounced pros for quad or sextuple shields, like a noticeable increase in recharge rate and recharge delay speeds. We could have multiple variations of shields at all sizes that balance total hp, regen speeds, power consumption, em signatures, shield faces, penetration percentage, and any other important variables; then we could end up with the ability to customize shield setups based on our playstyles.
Refreshing to hear one of the big names in AC talking about balance with regard to the long view of the PU. Seems like far too many AC folks think that everything should hinge on AC balance. Much of what is perceived as being 'wrong' is actually because AC needs to be reworked.
I think you're misunderstanding their arguments then. Those "AC folk that think everything should hinge on AC balance" are saying the same things (go check which org he's in, and who the top of the leaderboards are)
They simply use AC for proper flight testing and training, because the netcode in the PU isn't conducive to accurate or thorough feedback right now.
The changes they ask for in AC, generally translate rather well to the PU.
They complain missiles are over powered - do you want to be 1-shot by missiles in the universe?
There's a plethora of other examples, but I can't be bothered listing them all here again now.
Next time you read something from deedee, or braventooth, or baior, or nimrod, or arc_tander, or any of the guys that you're writing off as "AC Jocks" - stop and rethink what impact the things they're complaining about have in the PU.
Understood. One question though, do you think Arena Commander is fine as it currently exists to properly 'balance' ships?
CIG have said physical weapons having a reduced but still existing effect through shields is intended (idea I guess that the shield slows down the round), main differentiation between physical weapons and energy, energy doesn't penetrate shields but take them down first. I don't think hull armor and components being shielded by hull etc is working yet which is why projectiles and missiles tend to knock out systems very easily. Partial shield penetration by physical weapons won't be as OP once that's sorted. Might have to be scaled back from half~ to a lower value.
Also physical weapons have a limited pool of ammo and it costs money to restore it, doesn't make a lot of sense for those drawbacks to not yield other advantages.
Shields work differently in each sci-fi setting, in some they're impenetrable, in some they are better at stopping certain things than others and sometimes they absurdly have a frequency you somehow can't just detect and exploit... I think it makes sense for the shields to be a bubble of energy that interacts with other energy a lot more than physical projectiles.
what would you think of a rock paper scissors approach?
ballistics are good against s shield, Lazer good against armor etc.
Shoot, I knew I forgot something.
imo:
- energy weapons should be the standard and do normal damage against hull and shield
- distortion should do bonus damage against shields
- ballistics should be a bonus against armor -- if you have enough people to have some take ballistics and ammo, then they should do extra damage once the shields are down.
You can't force a mixed ballistic + energy loadout because there are certain ships that are too small for that, because turrets aren't big enough for that, and because of exploration/long-range ships that can't rely on ammo.
I like the idea of that approach. Seems balanced and provides an incentive for ships to change to specialized weapons in group combat. I keep waiting to see if SC will incentivize the kind of strategic loadout decisions you see happening in EVE Online for fleet operations where ships take on roles based on their loadouts. As it stands, there's little incentive to do so. Everyone just mounts the highest DPS weapon they can fit.
What about further dividing Ballistic into ammo types? Kinetic for anti shield, weak against hull, HE for anti armour, weak against shield, etc.?
We already actually have this.
Some of the gattling guns, and the Combine, have explosive rounds...
Good info again, out of interest what recording software are you using?
Plawclaw
thanks,never heard of that it looks good
Shields at some point are going to be an actual volume around you that gets hit instead of your ship, it's not currently, it's faked (it's a shader that extends and rounds the hull shape), as you said ship is split into parts and depending on what part of the ship gets hit that part of the shield takes damage and makes an effect.
Other way around - there's a separate .obj wavefront file that defines the shield shapes for ships, which is why guns get shot off the hornet instead of hitting the shields, and why the khartu al clips through the shield when it's in landed mode...
So Malogos do physical weapons do zero damage to shields and just pass 50%ish of their damage to the hull? What about energy do they pass zero of their damage to the hull until the shields are down? Also, I tried to figure out which shield the Sabre uses on the website but I can't find anything. Do you know which shield the Sabre has?
Check starcitizendb.com to see what loadouts ships currently have standard.
Energy weapons deal no damage to the hull, until the shields are down.
Physical weapons divide their damage between the shields, and the hull.
Peter Dolkens thank you sir
Strongly disagree with the assessment that the Glaive has the strongest shield, but the weakest. You have almost no shield recharge because your opponent can always hit the same shield facing since there is only one. On top of that, since your shields are not recharging since their constantly hit making the Glaive susceptible to missiles. Even size one missiles are a serious threat to disabling the Glaive.
It's important to test the actual ship before boasting about the shield. Don't feel bad though, I thought the Glaive was initially shit because they never buffed the weapons, turns out CIG massively nerfed the shields on all ships.
All the other parts I agree with.
I would say that this is YOUR approach to balancing, and as many of games have done it in the past.
CIG obviously has other goals and is trying to achieve different balancing.
Your whole premise is based on Sci-Fi approach to shields as it has been done MOSTLY in movies etc.
STO for example has shields that have absorption and penetration rating.
It is the same here, and it is great when balanced properly.Simply put, there will NEVER going to be any sort of EMshield that will completely block projectiles. It all stems from the physics aspects of it. It is easy for EM to influence metals and such, and it is near impossible to influence composites, ceramics etc.