+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Discovery Mod Balance (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=31)
+---- Thread: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" (/showthread.php?tid=149570)
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Haste - 04-20-2017
(04-14-2017, 09:01 PM)Internity Wrote: What new stuff?! They removed all the missiles and torpedoes from this game and then they promised to re-add them back to their normal and logic state. They did not do as promised.
(04-15-2017, 04:40 PM)Internity Wrote: Yes, exactly. They threw that Firestalker into our eyes to make us all shut up.
One nerfed missile won't bring the summer!
(04-15-2017, 05:06 PM)Internity Wrote: No, not until they ***** bring the damn missiles back.
(04-16-2017, 11:15 AM)Internity Wrote: removing important and strategic content like missiles and torpedoes.
Because we have a new way of thinking where this original equipment makes no sense nowadays.
(04-18-2017, 06:05 PM)Internity Wrote: I think that we need the tracking fighter missiles/torpedoes back first.
(04-20-2017, 12:01 AM)Internity Wrote: I want those fighter tracking missiles/torpedoes back as they were months and years ago!
We get it. After a couple hundred posts about missiles I believe you've made it clear how you feel about every single change to this mod... That isn't reintroducing a million types of missiles.
I'd like to note that the change proposed in this thread does not make the reintroduction/improvement of (fighter) missiles more or less likely. Both are potentially very quick and easy changes to make to the game and could be easily done. Doing one does not rule out the other.
(04-19-2017, 11:15 PM)aerelm Wrote:The original intention behind giving some ships more hull and less nanos or less hull and more nanos was to make certain ships more prone to instakills while others more tanky. Granted, that's not really the case unless the pilot is rather careless and doesn't regen in time, so in other words, it was a veiled attempt to add nano use into "skill-tree", so people who were actually familiar with the armor grading of the particular ship they were flying at the time could keep an eye on when to regen (rather than the standardized "regen at 2/3 hull" we had before that), while less experienced pilots could be disposed of more quickly and turned into nanofarms for those who actually push a (group)fight forward. You might say it was somewhat of an elitist move, but sounded like a good idea at the time.
I'm obviously aware of these things. At the same time, I have heard many players request changes to weapons like Mini Razors and Nuclear Mines (hell, I even remember having a discussion about nerfing one or both of these with both you and Blodo years ago) to make instakills less likely as newer players tend to be more of a hindrance to a group than a boon as they provide enemies with regens. That, and it's very hard to have fun / a good time as a newer player if you're blown up fifteen seconds into a fight. So this argument goes both ways. I believe that, all in all, this change will make very little difference to the skill cap of snub combat, though. It is a very minor change by design.
It's really just an attempt to slightly "modernize" the game by making the "health bar" HUD element more meaningful. Empty it twice and your opponent is out of regens. It's intuitive and simple, and the balance effects are minimal if not entirely non-existent.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Wesker - 04-20-2017
(04-19-2017, 07:23 PM)Auzari Wrote: >>>removing the reward of trapping someone into doing something stupid so you get their regens
stop that
P much this
Even if it is only 10% slapping more armor on and making insta kills less likely isnt appealing. Giving ships with insane handling like the nyx more armor doesnt appeal. That being said, for other VHFs the idea doesnt sound harmful.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Kaze - 04-20-2017
![[Image: seal-of-approval-meme.jpg]](http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2013/10/seal-of-approval-meme.jpg)
<3
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Internity - 04-20-2017
Hi Haste !
Sorry for repeating myself so many times but I actually thought that nobody cares about my posts and opinions
Plus that I was told that many times.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Traxit - 04-20-2017
(04-20-2017, 01:54 PM)Wesker Wrote:(04-19-2017, 07:23 PM)Auzari Wrote: >>>removing the reward of trapping someone into doing something stupid so you get their regens
stop that
P much this
Even if it is only 10% slapping more armor on and making insta kills less likely isnt appealing. Giving ships with insane handling like the nyx more armor doesnt appeal. That being said, for other VHFs the idea doesnt sound harmful.
I can only see one scenario where giving ships (like the Nyx) more armor that can give a bad result, which is duels, but then again your ship also gains some armor in the end so it's the same thing in the end. Sure it also prolongs duels and gives the faster ship more opportunities to clutch but so do you so it all boils down to the consistency of skill.
This balancing change is aimed for changes outside of conn.
I think I agree with @"Omicega" about what he said about people who voted no. They don't get what this change does when the change is aimed to make the fight more skill-based and not luck-based. And to those complaining about the removal of instakills;
1) Most ships will still get killed to two Nuclear Mines/Mini-Razors, except ships with more than 13,600 hull. And to that, I say @Haste buff MR/Nukes.
2) Instakills are c a n c e r. Instakills may be rewarding for the party that does it but not for the other player and it completely shuts down the player leaving him feeling all kinds of negative stuff. You might think that's what you get for getting careless but instakills mostly come when most unexpected, and I'm sure that's what any victim of an instakill will say.
If I've followed Haste's statements over these years, his intentions were to remove instakills anyways.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Corile - 04-20-2017
Quote:Instakills are c a n c e r.
If someone's bad, what difference does it make if I kill him in 15 minutes while remaining on +50% reload or 7 seconds with a nuke, other than saving us both time? Aside from the obvious which is making it impossible for him to run and combat dock while under fire because for some reason in this game you can thrust 70K without dying to a single snub.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Traxit - 04-20-2017
(04-20-2017, 03:59 PM)Corile Wrote:Quote:Instakills are c a n c e r.
If someone's bad, what difference does it make if I kill him in 15 minutes while remaining on +50% reload or 7 seconds with a nuke, other than saving us both time? Aside from the obvious which is making it impossible for him to run and combat dock while under fire because for some reason in this game you can thrust 70K without dying to a single snub.
If someone is bad then you should deal with him easy peasy and not 15 minutes, and while my statements above are against instakills, I don't disapprove of them in all situations. Nukes will still be high-damaging nukes and so will Mini Razors. What I exactly disapprove is keeping ships so easily instakillable such as the ones having less than 11000 hull. A tiny mistake can cost your own blue and that's not the system that Freelancer should have. Especially after all the armor upgrades, preventing ships getting killed under a second in the first place.
If you instakilled a ship that had 75% hull then that's not a problem. Only the ease of doing it because of the ship being so fragile in the first place.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - SeaFalcon - 04-20-2017
I honestly don't see why you would spent time on this over other aspects that need changing.
Why not simply adjust some problematic ships that actually need some help instead of redoing the whole system.
I got a feeling the balance devs are looking far too much for major overhauls instead of simply fixing the things that need fixing.
The whole auxiliary weapon update was garbage if I can say so. Oh and it gave all the VHFs a change to nuke + MR someone, so why start trying to fix instant kills now after you mess the whole fighter system up? Also why did the balance devs talk about nerfing nukes and/or the MR and then thought it would be a good idea to put both on a ship-class that was already overused according to most of the community?
I really don't know what goes on in these balance devs heads anymore...
At least there are these heavy fighters like the Loki, totally worth using, just to mention an example I guess or was it 'fixed' already?
Edit: Voted no since you can spent what little time is put into balancing to better use.
No one is waiting to reajust themselves to another pvp overhaul and get used to different stats once more.
Also keep in mind that if you do this, you will have to account for current HP and bot HP in an accumulated fashion.
It really isn't just as easy to say, everyone can refill fully twice and buff armor to not be instant kills.
A whole lot of ships are going to be either buffed or nerfed by adjusting this. Unless you have a proper way to account for ship models that are easy to hit and ships that are more mobile than others...
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - R.I.P. - 04-20-2017
No, just no.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Backo - 04-20-2017
@Chuba supports this idea as well.