You may have caught an earlier thread of mine - the subject there is the same here, but this is a different approach.
So, the complaint is that currently, there is no reason not to use a shield on your ship when you have the resources available. There's also little reason to armour your ship at the expense of a more powerful shield. I find this to be backwards.
Let's go over some key differences between armour and shield health:
Damage to shields is regenerated quickly
Shields degrade in a linear fashion under fire
Damage to hull is repaired very slowly
Hull damage can impair the function of your ship (Weapon/component loss)
In other words, you are unable to recover from hull damage for as long as you're in combat, and can suffer degraded performance when it occurs. Those components that can be destroyed by hull damage are invulnerable so long as the shields have more than 0 hit-points. So, there's no reason to prioritise armour/hull HP to the same degree as shields. This means in PvP combat, as well as 1v1 against an AI ship, it's a game of whose shields go down first.
The suggestion is to make armour much more valuable. This can come in several forms, the first being to simply increase armour blocks' health by several factors. If one is to be incentivised to choose strong, but irrecoverable hull health over weaker, but easily recoverable shield health, the gap between what they offer in those terms must be much wider. The protection - weight ratio is also currently skewed in shields' favour so armour (particularly trinium) ought to be made lighter.
To compensate for these changes, weapons' damage output should be increased. The end result means shields will go down quicker allowing those performance-degrading shots to get through more often, while armour underneath will compensate for an otherwise weaker hull's durability.
Suggestion
Morbo513
You may have caught an earlier thread of mine - the subject there is the same here, but this is a different approach.
So, the complaint is that currently, there is no reason not to use a shield on your ship when you have the resources available. There's also little reason to armour your ship at the expense of a more powerful shield. I find this to be backwards.
Let's go over some key differences between armour and shield health:
Damage to shields is regenerated quickly
Shields degrade in a linear fashion under fire
Damage to hull is repaired very slowly
Hull damage can impair the function of your ship (Weapon/component loss)
In other words, you are unable to recover from hull damage for as long as you're in combat, and can suffer degraded performance when it occurs. Those components that can be destroyed by hull damage are invulnerable so long as the shields have more than 0 hit-points. So, there's no reason to prioritise armour/hull HP to the same degree as shields. This means in PvP combat, as well as 1v1 against an AI ship, it's a game of whose shields go down first.
The suggestion is to make armour much more valuable. This can come in several forms, the first being to simply increase armour blocks' health by several factors. If one is to be incentivised to choose strong, but irrecoverable hull health over weaker, but easily recoverable shield health, the gap between what they offer in those terms must be much wider. The protection - weight ratio is also currently skewed in shields' favour so armour (particularly trinium) ought to be made lighter.
To compensate for these changes, weapons' damage output should be increased. The end result means shields will go down quicker allowing those performance-degrading shots to get through more often, while armour underneath will compensate for an otherwise weaker hull's durability.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
7 answers to this suggestion
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now