Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change"

[Norael]

Remove nanobots as a whole.

Create fighter sized repair ships, or simply fighter sized tools.

Change ships base armor to what they are + nanobots total.

Honestly nanobots have no reason to exist after that point.

Also stop making quality of life changes for snubs when they're currently the monarchs of the mod while capitals slide around in the filth.

EDIT: Also:

as ships like the Liberator would nearly double their armor rating if they follow the same "formula". Even though their total HP wouldn't change, this would make them much stronger against Mini Razors and Nukes.

As if not being instantly killed by a massive radius explosion that can be set off by disruptors is an issue.

[Omi]

People voting no either haven't read the OP correctly (like Nyx) and think it's doing something other than what Haste specifically said it would do, or must have some very interesting reasons to oppose this change. I look forward to seeing the crowd of half-assed justifications get trod out eventually.

---

[sasapinjic]

I vote Yes to this idea , but i would rather for snubs to get buff to hull and nerf to shield to reduce shield running tactic and make subs less "fine" , because other classes are not "fine" against snubs.
Lets say double hull strength and half shield strength , for example .
That will give snub pilots more hull life when under heavy fire , and at same time reduce exploit of shield running .

---

Spoiler

welcome to Loberty
^ where you can get Freelancer ISO , in emergency

These two spoilers were too big so now they're both one ~Champ

[Backo]

I voted yes because Haste is my friend and we gotta circlejerk. Now he owes me a favor, a favor which would be fixing the Auxiliary slot on Sabre as someone screwed it up again and made it upside down.

Don't see why standardizing the amount of times a ship can repair is bad in any way.

p.s. I'm serious about the Aux slot though, please fix it.

---

Republic of the Sword and Sun

[Antonio]

This is nothing more than standardization of hull to bots ratio within the class. Same happened with capital ship guns and no harm was done. It doesn't change PvP in any way except the tiny things Haste mentioned, I don't see a reason not to put it in.

[sasapinjic]

One more plus , changing bits to hull will save pilot from " i fail to press bits button in time death" !

---

Spoiler

welcome to Loberty
^ where you can get Freelancer ISO , in emergency

These two spoilers were too big so now they're both one ~Champ

[Shiki]

@Haste
Since i logged the account, you have my vote.

---

[aerelm]

A little disclaimer on the top of the post: I'm not suggesting anything, it's just a little insight to one "balance variable" which, looking at this thread, might not have been obvious enough. So it's basically "something to consider when voting on this proposal" sort of post.

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 personally prefer how the "regen threshold" varies between different grades of ship in each class, while some might find it annoying, confusing, or useless. The point is, without little balance touches like this, "Skill" will basically boil down to aim, while toying with certain stats such as this one, would include a flavor of "situational awareness" into the mix, and would in turn mean more skill-oriented dogfights past the point of "how many shots you can hit in any given time".

[Toris (Old Account)]

After a longer thinking, I voted no.

Such a change, as pointed out in Cons by @Haste, would influence Heavy Fighters and make them in disadvantage if pushed against VHF. Strenght of HF lays in Nanos (and agility) and we can agree on that. There are factions in Kusari which are forced to rely on HF due to lack of VHF alternative - the reasons already stated by players doing their stuff in Kusari through years.

Focusing on technical aspects, such a change wouldn't make an issue in case of Kusari-Kusari engagements and make them deadly and fast skirmishes of Heavy Fighters - and many people would love it actually. The problem would arise if any Kusari faction using Heavy Fighters would try to clash other factions whose main staple is VHF.

[Internity]

I voted no because I do not want further unnecessary changes to fighters.
I want those fighter tracking missiles/torpedoes back as they were months and years ago! Get those things back. Firestalker's current stats is a joke, even less ammunition than before.
Bring back fighter missile slot and torpedo slot.

---

LNS Ithaca