Bonus Ship Ommission File

[Wanderer]

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.

I'm afraid this actually is one of my personal arguments against continuing to allow armor to exist.  A good portion of the reason the low cap ships are so much more valued is because cap for cap, a low cap ship does more damage.  It might be nice for autocannons or laser gatlings to not simply be 'oh, good, the AI has cannon fodder!' ships, and actually get some play on both sides of the fence.

The armor mechanic has been a long standing problem in most balancing scenarios precisely because it's so out of whack right now.  I dunno about you, but when something is that problematic, I yank the blinking thing.  Of course that does mean I'm resurfacing my pool next summer so I do realize there's a price for that action (sad but true).

If the community truly misses the armor mechanic, it could be reintroduced in a measured method that will attempt to reduce unintended insanity.

[Faulty Logic]

I see no reason to yank armor entirely. I fail to see any benefit, and a number of units would be affected.

Hardened ffs, armored golems, armor ships, armor rotters, polarizers, anti-armor, autocannons would all need immediate attention upon the removal, for instance.

I think high-cap ships in general could use a buff, but think that armored targets should remain as their counter.

[Draco18s]

Just FYI, the armor mechanic is a sound mechanic.

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~mmj29/temp/findTriangle4.swf

That program I wrote uses similar rules to AI War, only without hull types (and my minimum damage is 5%, not 20%).  If it doesn't complete inside 30 seconds, refresh and start it over (it should complete in about 10, but sometimes doesn't, due to some outlier units which in that version of the code hadn't been weeded out yet).

[TechSY730]

The armor mechanic has been a long standing problem in most balancing scenarios precisely because it's so out of whack right now.  I dunno about you, but when something is that problematic, I yank the blinking thing.
[...]
If the community truly misses the armor mechanic, it could be reintroduced in a measured method that will attempt to reduce unintended insanity.

That's basically what one of Keith's proposals was, make most units have no armor, but a few units would still have armor (and those few units would have enough to make a difference), thus making armor something "special" as a bonus for some ship types, like armor rotting or radar dampening, and make the most visible form of overall durability, HP, the only "general purpose" durability tool.

EDIT: While this wouldn't be my first choice, I do feel it is a reasonable compromise between the two sides of "make armor more important" and "remove armor".

[rabican]

My suggestion(not that anyone would want to read YARAS- yet another ridiculous armor system ) : Armor system to similiar to what tome uses.

Armor consists of two values, Armor and Armor maximum migitation %

Examples on how system would work in practice:

100 shot damage vs100 armor 100% migitation = 0 damage

100 vs 100(50%) = 50 damage

100 vs 100 000(25%) = 75 damage

Clear enough?  This would allow for further differentiation between units and different roles for the units based on armor. Low armor ,high migitation would be excellent against small damage per shot ships. While extreme armor , low -middish migitation would be basically reduce set % regardless of the amount damage of the shot.  Or extreme armor, (95% migitation), where you basically absolutely want armorpiercing.

Armor piercing would have to be changed a bit too. Instead of flat number (this imo is the worst part of current armor system, lowish number values here for edxample infiltrators and gatlings bascially mean that these unit suck against anything but unarmored things) to  reduction of MIGITATION value.  This would allow even low numbers of armor piercing to be  effective in some cases(for example in previous case of 95% armor migitation, armor piercing value of 5 would double the damage done).


Pros :

Value of armor could increase
More differentiation between ship types
APR wouldn't be such a mess (currently practically only useful APR is maximum number)
Sudden senility attack, sure i had more

Cons :
1 more value(although techincally not true, currently the migitation value is just flat 80% )
maybe bit less intiutive( although in current version you have to slog through the forusm to get the info on 80% max )

System could be used theoretically the replace whole multipliers thing but i won't actually suggest that as that would be too much pain in the nether regions.


Some specific mechanics that might need to be adjusted:

Armor rotting : Probably better if this reduced the migitation value, by very low amounts , say 1 per mark for armor rotter and the effect removed from most other ships that have it.
Armor inhibitor : As is.
Armor booster : Woud be better if this affected migitation or both. And not 3X amount, flat increase, say 25% to both, or something akin to that, maximum amount for this effect might be needed).
Polarizing: Not sure if it would need any change.

Imo the biggest issue with current system is low values of APR especially on swarmer type ships, mainly laser gatling and infiltrator, as their damage is cut to 1/5 against most targets or some dps increase so they are at least good vs unarmored targets.

[Diazo]

I can't find the post to quote, it's from 3 or 4 pages ago, but it asked the question:

What is the purpose of armor?

I'm seeing lots of suggested formulas and systems being thrown around, but I have not actually seen this question answered.

Now, for me the design purpose (so not necessarily as currently implemented) is to differentiate weapons from light to heavy.

Light being high ROF, high DPS but no armor piercing so best against light, unarmored stuff. Heavy being slow ROF, lower DPS but with armor piercing.

This results in lighter weapons having a higher effective DPS against unarmored targets with heavier weapons having a higher effective DPS against armored targets.

The problem is that the Attack Multiplier system in place walks all over this and kind of reduces its impact on the game.

Now, if armor was applied before the attack multiplier that would be a different story, it would increase the importance of armor at the expense of reducing the impact of attack multipliers.

So, before we get into trying to hash out formulas, what do we want armor to do exactly? And should armor be applied before or after the attack multiplier?

D.

[ZaneWolfe]

Back on the ACTUAL ORIGINAL POST TOPIC, I have to say I would enjoy a Bonus Ship Omission file.  There are some bonus ships I just HATE seeing no matter which side gets them. Not  because they are particularly OP or UP, but rather just because I cant stand their mechanics. Spire Gravity Drains, and anything called Youngling. While I enjoy a great deal else from the Neinzul expansion, like Enclave Starships, I HATE younglings. As for SGD, I feel that is self explanatory.

[HitmanN]

Not  because they are particularly OP or UP, but rather just because I cant stand their mechanics.

I would imagine the mechanics would be the reason for most omissions. Instead of ship omission, why not just continue with mechanic omission. The lobby already has toggles in the Ships tab that turn off stuff based on their mechanic or role. If those aren't enough, why don't we just see what more toggles might be wanted. There's plenty of room for more toggles in there.

[Hearteater]

While I enjoy a great deal else from the Neinzul expansion, like Enclave Starships, I HATE younglings.

Younglings?  Really?  I'm assuming you mean on the AI side, since a player can just not pick them, and Ship Hack around an ARS with them.  But on the AI side, Younglings are incredibly terrible.  Pointless almost.  I can't think of a ship class that is more inconsequential for the AI.

As for the ship omissions file, I'm against it just because I don't really feel its a good road to go down.  Why not a Guard Post omission file, and I can pick Brutal Guard Posts too!  Why, pretty soon, there isn't much of a game left.  Certainly not one that can be balanced.

[TechSY730]

But on the AI side, Younglings are incredibly terrible.  Pointless almost.  I can't think of a ship class that is more inconsequential for the AI.

Primarily because the AI is really, really bad with managing them. They try to retreat them, even though they are in large part "suicide style" ships, they often times will not use regen chambers (which is one case where they should retreat), even if one is nearby or even on the same planet, other times, they will try to use regen chambers in stupid ways.

However, if you get a wave comprising of mostly younglings, you can start feeling the hurt some, especially because the AI gets a 50% bonus to their numbers in waves.

[chemical_art]

While I enjoy a great deal else from the Neinzul expansion, like Enclave Starships, I HATE younglings.

Younglings remind me of buggy aliens. Tough yet short lived, and in an almost infinite stream.

Master the zerg in you and then you will master the younglings.

[Hearteater]

Grav Turrets own Younglings.  Upgrade to Mark II and you can almost completely ignore them.  Go to Mark III and it is just cruel.

[keith.lamothe]

Master the zerg in you and then you will master the younglings.

If there's zerg in you then more fundamental problems need to be dealt with first

[ZaneWolfe]

I don't have an issue using them, they are just completely opposite of how I play. I try and keep things alive rather than throw countless numbers suiciding  against my enemies until I attrition them to death. I find that if I need quickly spawning units, typically for a sudden defense fleet, I can just build drones or swarmer types for those kind of emergencies. Or better yet, plan smarter and don't have that happen in the first place...
against this AI? yeah right... damn thing cheats I swear...

As for the AI having them, I find that a few grav turrets and they are nothing but fodder. And if its on one of my choke point worlds, or darkness forbid my homeworlds, they are typically even more pointless since I try and get a Radar Jammer MKII on those. I would rather the AI send something interest, IE a threat to me, rather than unlocking something that is just going to be soaking up a few shots without doing much else.

[KDR_11k]

I find them a bit too much micro to use, I keep my docks on autobuild but that doesn't work with younglings, you have to take them and shove them into storage quickly after they're built. Regen chambers may keep them alive but they don't keep 'em topped up and I don't want to send units out at half health. Isn't the only way to heal them to 100% manually to stuff them into a MkII transport? Well that thing costs a lot of knowledge and having that be a requirement for getting full use out of one of your bonus units feels problematic. That's why I suggested sticking a storage bay on the enclave starship, so you can build them all up and throw a full health wave at the AI just like the AI does to you.

That makes me think, how effective are youngling waves when cross planet waves are enabled?