Bonus Ship Ommission File

[Draco18s]

It's intuitive because the damage reduction can be displayed right on the unit's information bar

We've already got too much information in the unit information bar.  As evidenced by an earlier conversation.  Or two.  Or three

and because it's a fairly simple system, in spite of the fact that it's not linear (we're using a linear system now, it's not working that well).

A linear system works just fine when the numbers are anything other than "0" and "infinity."

Which we don't have.

[Wingflier]

We've already got too much information in the unit information bar.  As evidenced by an earlier conversation.  Or two.  Or three

This may be true, but with the proposed system your actually REMOVING hull types and hull multipliers, which is a large part of the bar, and replacing it with something is already shown:  Armor, armor piercing, and damage.  There would be one new category - damage reduction, but that considering that you're removing a lot more categories in the process, it seems like a net benefit to me.

[keith.lamothe]

1) What would be the overall game effect if you literally just upped and tossed Armor and AP out of it tomorrow?  Do you foresee any significant issues?

Certain units would be rendered deadweight, specifically the zenith polarizer and the armor rotter.

Aside from certain very-armor-related units, no, I think it would be fine.  The game has enough complexity without it at this point.  Not that I want to totally remove it with no compensating changes at all.

2) At this point in time, what game design function(s) do you see the hull multiplier system performing?  I know what it's DOING, but what is the purpose of why it's there from your design perspectives?

Differentiating units.  Mental exercise: "if hull types and modifiers were removed, what would make the fighter different from the bomber?"  Not saying you or anyone is suggesting that, just a way of understanding what we want from it.

[Draco18s]

We've already got too much information in the unit information bar.  As evidenced by an earlier conversation.  Or two.  Or three

This may be true, but with the proposed system your actually REMOVING hull types and hull multipliers, which is a large part of the bar, and replacing it with something is already shown:  Armor, armor piercing, and damage.  There would be one new category - damage reduction, but that considering that you're removing a lot more categories in the process, it seems like a net benefit to me.

So your system is two pronged: the removal of hull types and multipliers with a tweak to how armor is calculated in the damage determination function.

And I, and others, don't like half of that statement.

[KDR_11k]

The hull types are a substitute for combat physics since AI War's physics are simpler than Pokemon. There are no things like e.g. specific homing weapons (everything homes), no accuracy loss (everything hits), no time to aim your gun (if you're in range and reloaded you fire), no firing arcs (everything can aim in 360°), no friendly fire or friendly collision (everything except spire beams shoots through everything), no cover, no terrain and possibly many more things you could think of.

[keith.lamothe]

The hull types are a substitute for combat physics since AI War's physics are simpler than Pokemon. There are no things like e.g. specific homing weapons (everything homes), no accuracy loss (everything hits), no time to aim your gun (if you're in range and reloaded you fire), no firing arcs (everything can aim in 360°), no friendly fire or friendly collision (everything except spire beams shoots through everything), no cover, no terrain and possibly many more things you could think of.

Yea, it stands in for all that stuff we could do with about 1/100th the number of ships and 10x as much player desire to micro

Which would make a decent tactical game, I think, just not a good fit in a wide-scope strategy game.

[KDR_11k]

Yeah, this is more like, say, when Advance Wars tells you that your infantry unit will do 19% damage to that tank. It does not say that because it has calculated the trajectories of the bullets or the properties of RPG shells against sloped composite armor, it says that because it's programmed that "a full strength infantry unit does 19% damage to a tank".

Remove hull types and you have a pile of DPS machines.

[Toranth]

The whole mechanic is an example of how something is basically ok as long as you don't know too much about it

Yay sausages!

[KDR_11k]

Basically without hull modifiers the bomber would just need massive raw damage output to deal with those ultraheavies. Normally that could be counterbalanced by making the shots dumbfire and low rate but since you can dispatch 96 bombers the low rate doesn't do that much (just frustrates if they waste their shots on something wrong) and dumbfire doesn't work with AI War. Also bombers would suddenly counter all starships instead of just the ultraheavies while frigates would need to be turned into starships to avoid being gunned to bits by fighters (also their missiles would need to be fairly weak so they can't intercept bombers). If you use armor to force bomber use then anti-armor ships would turn into bomber-likes and your ultra heavies just get screwed. Also planetary armor inhibitor.

[Wanderer]

Thanks Keith.  I really just wanted to clarify the developer intent for the multi-hull and multipliers.

Does anyone here think the removal of the Armor Rotter, the Polarizer, and Armor completely would detract from the game?  I personally don't, it'd just require some HP adjustment due to the loss of some of the Effective HP.  Two less ship types out of the volume in the base game will not significantly damage the gameplay, I don't believe, and it would remove an element completely from the discussion.

Rip it out, then come back to the rest of this about hull types and the like.  Too many variables, some of them utterly inconsequential.  If that mechanic is eventually desired again, it can be reintroduced once hull types are soundly squared.

[Hearteater]

We can fix hull types without touching armor.  No need to rip it out I don't think, unless the intention is to remove it permanently.

[Volatar]

A bunch of other types will have to get adjustments if you remove armor. The swarm types generally have lots of armor piercing that will no longer help them swarm and kill big targets. Things like Raiders and Youngling Vultures. Also the planetary armor boosters and inhibitors will be gone, removing two great things from the trader and removing an entire AI type.

[Cinth]

Hey now!!! Don't be messin' wit' my Armor Inhibitors. The absolute best thing in game for dealing with shields.

[Wanderer]

We can fix hull types without touching armor.  No need to rip it out I don't think, unless the intention is to remove it permanently.

Basically, yes, unless and until we (errrr.... they rather.  Must remember it's NOT my game...) find a reason to bring it back in a completely different incarnation.

Armor Inhibitor from the trader is moot.  Most ships don't come with enough armor to really make a difference.  Armor Booster ends up the same way.  Most defensive components have so much armor that they're a straight 80%. 

Regarding swarmers and the like, if it's a straight DPS to HP without armor there, the swarmers and others won't NEED AP, all they'll need is a bit of tweak.

[TechSY730]

For those proposing to just remove armor (for now), how will the "anti-swarmer" effect of armor be emulated? Right now, thanks to armor, 200 base damage (0 AP) every second is not the same as 2000 base damage (0 AP) every 10 seconds. Against a target with no armor, yes, the net DPS is the same. But against armored targets, without armor-peircing (or at least enough of it) or armor rotting, them the less damage more times a second will have less DPS per second. Armor works as a way differentiate high base damage, low rate and low base damage, high rate DPS effects in a way that HP alone is agnostic to.


It could be argued though that these two cases should be equal, that there shouldn't be something to punish low damage, high ROF, where all else being equal, base DPS is the same. I would not agree with that (I think it brings in an interesting dynamic), but one could say that this effect isn't needed.


Oh, and even with the very low armor values we have, high cap ships tend to have so little per shot base damage that even that small amount of armor tends to really influence their effectiveness (one of the few cases where armor does count in the current balance)