I'm not a fan of totally removing the armor system. Some way to reward high damage shots vs high rof, low damage shots is nifty (though the game is laking something that directly go the other way).
The armor system as proposed at the start of the thread doesn't reward high damage vs high rof, 25% reduction is 25% reduction no matter how many shots it comes from.
As for something that goes the other way... Protector Starships do, but the AI doesn't have that mechanic. Laser Gatlings would basically be immune to Protector Starships because they fire so many shots that most would get through (and the blocked ones would be blocking trivial DPS vs blocking a fortress attack).
True. However, the thing to note is that we don't have to have low damage values be more effected by armor. Suppose, instead, that it is not the rapid-mini attacks that deal less damage, but rather all attacks, except for the armor piercing attacks, placed on Bombers, antiarmor, sniper, and a handful of other specilists, intended as anti armor. There is no reason, at all, to copy Starcraft, or any other game's armor system, if it does not add to the game. Rapid-fire attacks do not need to be less effective innately than slow, powerful attacks, because, if you do that, then Armor is a minor stat, with no major effect on the game, and with a handful of exceptions, anything with really heavy damage will still counter it.
I still don't see how it's necessary for one in every 20 shots to completely miss when instead you could make it so every shot does 1/20th the damage. I mean, if it were something like a meter you could see fill up that shows you when you'd miss your next shot, that's still just overcomplicating the combat.
To avoid streaks. Its not overcomplicating it, its under the hood, and invisible to the player. You will tend to get that many hits and misses anyway, but this prevents streaks which end the game due to bad luck.
Exactly why I suggest less random random numbers. Saying we have always used true random, hence we should always use true random, is circular reasoning, and not at all a valid reason to reject it. Unless you support and want streaks of good or bad rolls, and don't care about / enjoy them punishing players, or the effect is, as said, noted in advance, you should NOT be using True random. (or best true random you can generate)
One reason I like "true random" (or rather, independent "rolls" randomness) for when probability is listed is because if it says 20%, it means 20% chance for, in this case, each shot, regardless of what the recent shots were like. If you make it "less random" by trying to avoid "streaks", then sometimes that listed probability will be flat out wrong (it would have a much greater or much less than 20% chance if many of the last N shots were a streak of missing or hitting, respectively).
Now one way this can be avoided is to not list probability exactly. Maybe like "about 20%" or "~20%", or "not very likely", "somewhat likely", "very likely", or something like this. When you don't list (or claim to list) an exact probability for a shot to hit, you don't have to worry about any potential difference in per shot chances vs. long term expected hit rate.
Another way would be to show the "long term" probability (based on the formula, which would remain constant for a set of stats for the attacker and defender) AND the probability of the next shot (which would vary each shot based on recent history by whatever algorithm the "de-streakifier" uses)
Note, "true random" does not have to mean uniform distribution. There are other distributions out there that have independent events but do have a higher chance of returning something "closer" to the average, like Gaussian.
The interesting part of this, is that you can say that the 20% chance to hit is still a 20% chance to hit. one out of 5 attacks will hit, garenteed. Sure, individular attacks wont, but the player doesn't need to know that, and won't care, unless specifically number-crunshing, and consulting the wiki. (which, ideally, never happens in a game)
I object, seriously, to your saying, You cannot fix problem A because I prefer changing it into problem B. You cannot fix problem B, because I am changing it into Problem A.
If, in game, you discovered, that, for every 40 shots fired, 2-3 would hit, every, single, time, that it may in fact not matter significantly whether or not it is exactly 5% chance for every single attack? Or, are you going to be focusing on controling your bombers, and directing them to attack the space tanks? If the former, well, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.
If with pure random, you get a bad streak and die, you notice it, and complain.
If you use Pseudo-random, and fail to get a bad streak, and instead loose because you set off 4 T4 counter attack Guard posts, which swarm your planets, and it is clearly your fault for being less than careful, well, I do believe you will not be worried about random numbers, because they are not really a factor.
Yes, Psueduo random will flux the 20% chance up and down, depending on previous rolls. This will go all the way to 100% or 0%, in some cases. However, it will only go up if you miss, making future misses less likely, then, if streaking, impossible. And if you hit, chance of hit will go down. And, over 20 attacks, you will genereally get 4 hits, +- maybe 1 or 2. And that is fine, makes sense, gives you a stable damage output, and, hence, any failure to have enough Dakka to kill the rare spacetanks with heavy shielding, will be your fault for lack of a counter, not the RNG.
~Also, as a note, I think one problem with the Armor distribution, as is (Ignoring the Tech Level Comparision Disaster) is that
~Bombers should be unarmored, Have Armor Piercing, NOT high damage.
~Fighers lack Piercing. Unarmored.
~Frigates are Armored, deal extra to Fighter-types.
Hence, Only hardend targets, which are legitimately hardened, will have armor, (Not, every single unit tends to have armor, even if not really hardened) and hence will be countered by bombers, anti-armor, and anything else for anti-armor duty.
