Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change"

[Emperor Tekagi]

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...

I will just sign this. Just throwing the idea out is all nice but it should be thought about closely before even considering implementing it. Mind you people will look extremely closely at the dev's work after the recent.. eh things.

[Ace Razgriz]

Voted no because I don't want to see things like Lhotses and Guardians having the same amount of regens in a fight. Snubs are fine as is...

---

[thisDerius]

A change like that would be good, but we wouldnt know until we try.
Suggestion: Make a backup of the current setting and try the new one for a while. If it does not work, just return the original.

---

[FallenKnight]

@Haste,
Wouldn't it be a better idea to simply:
1 - reduce the number of nanobots to correspond directly to how many times the ship can repair itself - 2-3 times/2-3 nanobots.
2 - increase the nanobot healing from 600 points [no armor] to 60'000 symbolic number [consider 1]
3 - give 2 nanobots to all LF's and HF's [which means 2 repairs] and 3 to VHFs [3 repairs]

In this way a Guardian [from your example] can carry 3 nanobots only and repair 3 times its full hp, which would be the same as now but the new transparency would reveal the exact repairs left on the ships in battle. Also in this way the player will have to think carefully when to activate the repairs and control how much repair to be done. [For example a player with a VHF with 3 repairs can restore 3 times its integrity but if its at 50% and pops the nanobot he will restore the remaining 50% and lose 1 full repair, leaving him with 2.]

---

Discovery Bridges[Feedback] Baron Piett[Biography]

[sasapinjic]

@Haste,
Wouldn't it be a better idea to simply:
1 - reduce the number of nanobots to correspond directly to how many times the ship can repair itself - 2-3 times/2-3 nanobots.
2 - increase the nanobot healing from 600 points [no armor] to 60'000 symbolic number [consider 1]
3 - give 2 nanobots to all LF's and HF's [which means 2 repairs] and 3 to VHFs [3 repairs]

In this way a Guardian [from your example] can carry 3 nanobots only and repair 3 times its full hp, which would be the same as now but the new transparency would reveal the exact repairs left on the ships in battle. Also in this way the player will have to think carefully when to activate the repairs and control how much repair to be done. [For example a player with a VHF with 3 repairs can restore 3 times its integrity but if its at 50% and pops the nanobot he will restore the remaining 50% and lose 1 full repair, leaving him with 2.]

In that case , NPC will have to be nerfed not to carry and bits , because it is so easy to kill NPC snub in middle of pvp and take its ( at least 1 ) bits to fully repair it self.

---

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,
Wouldn't it be a better idea to simply:

how is this more simple

edit: also stop whining about tracking missiles and other stuff that was killing an actual pvp and was good only for single player

---

[Haste]

@Haste,
Wouldn't it be a better idea to simply:
1 - reduce the number of nanobots to correspond directly to how many times the ship can repair itself - 2-3 times/2-3 nanobots.
2 - increase the nanobot healing from 600 points [no armor] to 60'000 symbolic number [consider 1]
3 - give 2 nanobots to all LF's and HF's [which means 2 repairs] and 3 to VHFs [3 repairs]

I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea, but I wouldn't describe it as simple because every other ship (class) would have to get a reduced number of regens as well. That, and the NPC-related issues make this a more complex approach to the same "problem". It would also make snubs objectively worse as you would have to repair at an extremely low amount of hull to efficiently use nanobots. This can be seen as either good or bad, depending on your PoV.

In all likelihood, point 3 would be the other way around. HFs and LFs would get more repairs as they currently get more nanobots-per-armor than VHFs already.

Oh, and I did unfortunately use the wrong repair amount in the OP. It's 600 instead of 400. This means that ships would likely get three repairs, and the numbers would be very slightly different. Doesn't change the subject of the poll much, though.

[Internity]

edit: also stop whining about tracking missiles and other stuff that was killing an actual pvp and was good only for single player

IT WAS KILLING AN ACTUAL PVP?! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

[FallenKnight]

@Haste, My idea of points 1-3 was meant to be taken as one proposal, not separated points. I am aware it might take some time [a lot of time] for the necessary changes in the files but once they are done - the new system would be better and simple solution compared to the current one. You see someone with 128 b/b and you are unaware how many times can they repair - you have to pay attention from time to time [being distracted]. It would be far more simple way to scan an enemy - see they have 2 repairs and know that once they repair the hull twice [no matter at what point] - they are going down.

NPCs should have no b/b - that would automatically clear the abuse issues.

It would also make snubs objectively worse as you would have to repair at an extremely low amount of hull to efficiently use nanobots. This can be seen as either good or bad, depending on your PoV.

Your point is noted but in this way - every player can decide when to repair. A lot of vets can survive at 10% hp for a lot of time and would benefit greatly from this new system, while new players would pop repair sooner, out of fear not to die. To know the exact moment to repair would depend on your skill and understanding of the battle situation which will only make engagements more fun and definitely...not taking so much time.

I don't want to sound like I am forcing my idea - I just thought about this since a lot of time and found the right time to share it. If you are planning to "change" in any way the b/b system then perhaps it would be more reasonable to overhaul it, instead to fix it. Sometimes to bring something new would be better than fixing something not working right.

---

Discovery Bridges[Feedback] Baron Piett[Biography]

[Shiki]

edit: also stop whining about tracking missiles and other stuff that was killing an actual pvp and was good only for single player

IT WAS KILLING AN ACTUAL PVP?! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

i do, and i hope missiles will be put back in way more restricted role comparing to what they were.

---