Jump to content

Welcome to the Forum!

The best place to exchange builds and ideas! Vote for the best ideas and suggestions here.

Join the Avorion Discord!

Connect with other passionate players and talk about the latest news.
Discord

DLC Avorion Into the Rift Out Now!

Now available on Steam!
Steam
  • 0

Integrity Field Generator Change Proposal


SageThe13th
 Share

Suggestion

Let me start off by saying that I don't think the change to the integrity generator block that occurred recently was a bad thing.  That being say I still think the system could use some improvement.

 

Mechanically my proposed change is to make it so that integrity generators provide greater protection as material quality increases.  So Titanium would provide 5x protection, Naonite would provide 10x, Trinium would provide 20x, and starting with Xanion you can turn the whole ship into one giant mass of HP like in the old system.  The reason for doing it this way so that the player has to earn the extra freedom granted by not having small bits of your ship falling off all the time.  This throws aesthetic builders a bone, but also makes managing a fleet less of a hassle.  If you could imagine having say three to four ships all of which have little detailing blocks on them and having jump between said ships in order to replace parts.  With this system you eventually don't have to deal with it.  After all is not the point of improving technology so that life gets easier?  People who like the idea of their ships being able to be torn into pieces still have the option of using the lower protection level generators in their ship designs.  I wouldn't say the system is perfect.  But, it does give all players more options, which I think is a pretty valuable thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 answers to this suggestion

Recommended Posts

  • 0
...Mechanically my proposed change is to make it so that integrity generators provide greater protection as material quality increases.  So Titanium would provide 5x protection, Naonite would provide 10x, Trinium would provide 20x, and starting with Xanion you can turn the whole ship into one giant mass of HP like in the old system.  The reason for doing it this way so that the player has to earn the extra freedom granted by not having small bits of your ship falling off all the time.  This throws aesthetic builders a bone, but also makes managing a fleet less of a hassle...

 

Agreed. Integrity generators should scale well with material used, for the reasons you've stated. The fact that it doesn't feels like a glaring omission.

 

Lol.  No one even looked at this.  Guess it's not a problem then.

 

I can think of a couple reasons why nobody replied:

  1. [*]The forums seem busy and not everyone can read every new topic, let alone bother to reply. Playing Avorion is more fun than replying to forum topics and incredibly distracting. ;)

[*]Perhaps readers agreed with you, but had nothing constructive to say?

[*]There were other threads either started on the subject of integrity fields, or which brought them up with suggestions. For example, there was the Integrity fields topic in the Gameplay Discussion area and the How do you make a well armoured ship that isnt a cube? topic in the General Discussion area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Integrity field needs to apply to turrets the way it used to. I spent the last 45 minutes setting up my turrets, then the first fight I got in I lost like 7 of them. I dont even know if I recovered them or not, but the big issue is now I get to dig though 200 turrets to try and find them and set them up again. This is not fun game play. I had a full avorion ship with avorion integrity fields that apparenty covered the turrets. Collision damage was even off. Realism is not always fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Or, even better idea...what if there was a block that locked the turret down. In effect, giving the turret the same benefit as the old integrity shield, but at the cost of materials and mass. You could mount the turrets on them. Basically, the turrets would be anchored to the ships core, and be the last things to die.

 

Edit: I just took the same ship to kill the guardian and I lost no turrets. So I guess the issue is the rail gunners knocking turrets off. Maybe I ran into a buggy or overpowered rail gunner that did so much damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I completely support this proposal! Personally, I build "cubic" ships (and I even came from your other thread regarding the "cube-meta") but I see no reason that integrity field generator blocks shouldn't have this type of functionality when it's properly "locked" away under a better material (and xanion sounds fine to me, as you rush for titanium to get your integrity field generators, and then to naonite to get shields, and then trinium to get hangers (and to make everything a LOAD lighter) whereas there isn't really anything you "get" at the xanion level in that same manner).

 

Additionally, I think it'd also be interesting if the quantity/volume of the integrity field generator somehow had some sort of relationship to the usage, but I'm not really sure what it might be. Currently I toss one unit cubes (or, in some instances for ease of balancing, two by two by one unit rectangles) in the smallest amount I can to fully cover my ship, and then I completely forget about it until I tear down my ship to rebuild it in a new material, or I re-design it to function differently.

 

It could be that the more integrity field generator blocks you have in volume, the higher the bonus they'd give. And then higher quality materials would give an innately better bonus for the same volume. Additionally, at a certain point (when your bonus hits the "total ship value" point, and you have enough volume of integrity field generator blocks to hit that for the entire ship) you'd get the full-ship-health-bar setup. It'd certainly give me a reason to place larger integrity field generator blocks, but ideally it'd be balanced so that it'd be highly impractical (except perhaps from us "cube-meta" people) to do this until you hit the trinium or xanion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I completely support this proposal! Personally, I build "cubic" ships (and I even came from your other thread regarding the "cube-meta") but I see no reason that integrity field generator blocks shouldn't have this type of functionality when it's properly "locked" away under a better material (and xanion sounds fine to me, as you rush for titanium to get your integrity field generators, and then to naonite to get shields, and then trinium to get hangers (and to make everything a LOAD lighter) whereas there isn't really anything you "get" at the xanion level in that same manner).

 

Additionally, I think it'd also be interesting if the quantity/volume of the integrity field generator somehow had some sort of relationship to the usage, but I'm not really sure what it might be. Currently I toss one unit cubes (or, in some instances for ease of balancing, two by two by one unit rectangles) in the smallest amount I can to fully cover my ship, and then I completely forget about it until I tear down my ship to rebuild it in a new material, or I re-design it to function differently.

 

It could be that the more integrity field generator blocks you have in volume, the higher the bonus they'd give. And then higher quality materials would give an innately better bonus for the same volume. Additionally, at a certain point (when your bonus hits the "total ship value" point, and you have enough volume of integrity field generator blocks to hit that for the entire ship) you'd get the full-ship-health-bar setup. It'd certainly give me a reason to place larger integrity field generator blocks, but ideally it'd be balanced so that it'd be highly impractical (except perhaps from us "cube-meta" people) to do this until you hit the trinium or xanion.

 

You bring up some good points.  I need to give this more thought.  Ideally the all Hp model and the local damage model would have trade offs making both useful but not equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

You bring up some good points.  I need to give this more thought.  Ideally the all Hp model and the local damage model would have trade offs making both useful but not equivalent.

 

Another thought might be that we keep your original suggested change that better materials will have better block durability multipliers (up to xanion which then removes the multiplier in favor of giving blocks unlimited health, and the only health indicator that matters is the ship's health bar).

 

The volume of the integrity field generator block, though, would affect the size of the field (with a small multiplier based upon the material). A small integrity field generator block would produce a smaller field in comparison to a larger integrity field generator block. As in, it might be more block-efficient to place ten small integrity field generator blocks spread around the craft in a pattern that covers everything, but a single larger integrity field generator block (likely requiring more volume compared to the smaller integrity field generator block array), placed roughly in the middle of the craft, would then cover it in the entirety.

 

The two problems I see to this are first it then makes more sense in most craft to build one large integrity field generator block (or perhaps two large integrity field generator blocks if you want to make sure to have a redundant system) which is a lot more secure compared to a few smaller integrity field generator blocks spread throughout the ship. But this isn't the full scope of the problem because the second problem negates it.

 

The second problem is that, when you reach xanion and have a full ship health bar in place of block health, railguns become greatly less effective (unless I've entirely mistaken how railguns handle the current integrity field generator mechanic, as I have yet to do more than use them a bit in passing as I favor lasers). This issue also means that aiming for a ship's weak spots no longer works as a method of disabling them, as weak spots are now as strong as strong spots.

 

Therefore, it might make sense to have weapons be able to have a modifier, similar to shield penetration, that is integrity field generator penetration. Ideally they'd be mutually exclusive (this then gives a reason to have more than a single type of mass-produced super-turret, and to have to explore to find another turret factor that makes them) and just as rare as shield penetration turrets.

 

That would solve the second problem (if you really want to aim for weak systems, find/make turrets that penetrate a ship's integrity field generator). It also could be considered to solve the first problem as railguns with that trait would be perfect for digging away into ships that store their integrity field generator mega-block deep in their cores. And other weapons with the integrity field generator penetration trait would be able to slowly dig it out (but more likely you'd be more interested in just doing full ship health bar damage at that point).

 

Realistically, by the time you're at xanion there really wouldn't be a need to keep the local damage to blocks model. It certainly makes sense that it'd be an earlier-game thing, and is thusly replaced later game by the full ship health bar damage model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Its really not a problem though. Since IFG blocks operate on base HP values of blocks, and higher-tier materials provide linear increase in HP value, IFG already give better performance for better materials. Depending on the particular ship build, you already can come to the point where its much easier to break the ship as a whole, than to cause any substantial damage to particular systems.

 

Personally I think, that IFGs do provide enough benefit for detailed builds. Losing some small blocks doesn't influence performance. Restoring these blocks worth pretty much nothing, and as far as it seems, you can enter the Build mode of a ship anywhere in the sector, and replacement requires only one click. This situation is nowhere near as severe as to even call it a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Its really not a problem though. Since IFG blocks operate on base HP values of blocks, and higher-tier materials provide linear increase in HP value, IFG already give better performance for better materials. Depending on the particular ship build, you already can come to the point where its much easier to break the ship as a whole, than to cause any substantial damage to particular systems.

 

Personally I think, that IFGs do provide enough benefit for detailed builds. Losing some small blocks doesn't influence performance. Restoring these blocks worth pretty much nothing, and as far as it seems, you can enter the Build mode of a ship anywhere in the sector, and replacement requires only one click. This situation is nowhere near as severe as to even call it a problem.

 

You raise a good point.  I'll have to run some numbers and see about that.  In fact there's a good chance the devs already did the math and that's why IFGs work the way they do now.  After all they saw fit to make smaller ships be more efficient firepower wise in order to counter the losses they suffer in battle reducing the fleet's DPS over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

This is a very good idea. Reverting the change will allow 'cool' looking ships to operate on equal footing to boring borg box ships.

 

I think the general gameplay forum has a better discussion on it. The gist is that ships with odd curves, warp nacelles, or whatever else you think looks 'cool' are going to have greater surface area that needs to be armored while some of the armor provides less effective protection than that on a borg cube because it's less likely, but not unlikely, to be hit. Building weaker armor in those spots would leave the ship with 'weak spots' and those are easily exploited by real players. It would also require more IFGs to cover the greater area.

 

People will build and use 'awesome looking' ships if you make shape not matter. So revert the IFG and make shape not matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

This is a very good idea. Reverting the change will allow 'cool' looking ships to operate on equal footing to boring borg box ships.

 

I think the general gameplay forum has a better discussion on it. The gist is that ships with odd curves, warp nacelles, or whatever else you think looks 'cool' are going to have greater surface area that needs to be armored while some of the armor provides less effective protection than that on a borg cube because it's less likely, but not unlikely, to be hit. Building weaker armor in those spots would leave the ship with 'weak spots' and those are easily exploited by real players. It would also require more IFGs to cover the greater area.

 

People will build and use 'awesome looking' ships if you make shape not matter. So revert the IFG and make shape not matter.

 

Well, I want the old IFGs to unlock at higher tiers because competitive play will probably occur mostly at Avorion tier and the cube meta you are worried about will possibly only effect competitive servers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think that the flaw on current IFG is that they do nothing at addressing relative weakness of blocks (Try to use corners to "smooth" any design and, unless you scale the whole ship up, they will be destroyed easily anyways)... It just scales it up, on top of making collisions EXTREMELY deadly. They should operate as HP normalizers and subentity creators.

 

- The blocks affected by an IFG should all behave as a single HP pool that gets destroyed as a single entity, no artificial scaling up.

 

- On a collision, the max HP lost should be the one from the pool affected by the nearest IFG. ATM fully IFG protected ships are instakilled by a ramming maneuver with a ship with a dedicated ram WITHOUT IFG protection. In PvP this will be abused beyond imagination (Specially with velocity control module on). Players should have more control over this.

 

- The volume protected by an IFG shouldn't be a sphere centered into the block itself, should be a cubic volume with the generating IFG in the center of one of its faces (So an IFG block protects other blocks IN FRONT of it, instead of all around it). The length of the sides should be proportional to the IFG volume. That way ship creators could get better control of which parts they want to protect WITHOUT compromising more HP than they want for the sake of weak block protection.

 

With a system like this:

 

- Collision vulnerability can be fine tuned by the ship creators in a better way.

 

- Possition of Thrusters (or purely aesthetic elements) will not be influenced by battle performance, just by aesthetic preferences, as they can be put into the surface and still enjoy the protection of a shared HP pool with healthier blocks like armor.

 

- Offers the possibility to create "envelopes" thick enough to prevent the "phasing bullet" problem that currently is so common. When a bullet "goes through" (because of lag) your external hull and kills a weak component that, in theory, was protected by armor.

 

- Material dependence could be as simple as with Turrets (Blocks of higher material than the IFG will not be protected by it... Or the IFG couldn't be installed if a material it has to protect is of higher Tier), or more complex, like bonuses to protected volume and/or bonuses to overall HP (Similar as how they behave now... But to a lesser extent).

 

- Sadly, implementing this would be complex as damage resolution should be swaped from a direct block HP reduction to a "splash" effect were damage is proportionally shared between blocks based on their max HP so all blocks "protected" by the same IFG reach 0% HP at the same time. This is more CPU intensive than the current scaling approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
I think that the flaw on current IFG is that they do nothing at addressing relative weakness of blocks

*sigh*

This it exactly what IFGs are addressing. In fact, its the only thing they're designed to address, and do. A small 1x1x1 Block under an IFG influence has the durability of 2x1x5 Block of the same type.

 

(Try to use corners to "smooth" any design and, unless you scale the whole ship up, they will be destroyed easily anyways)

I see no problem. Two Corners (tetra+penta) or two Edges with dimensions A can be combined to form a Block of same dimensions A. The volume stays the same. I don't see how a destruction of a block is a severe issues to address. For one, it allows smaller, more maneuverable ships to exploit specific locations on the enemy ship when its shields are down, instead of always being forced to wither down the entire ship HP pool.

 

It just scales it up, on top of making collisions EXTREMELY deadly. They should operate as HP normalizers and subentity creators.

IFGs increase the damage required to break the blocks. That includes collisions. They do not introduce any negative factors into collisions whatsoever. Scaling your ship up only increases your resistance to collision damage by making your ship more massive, which reduces the ratio of damage the ship has to endure in relation to the entity it is colliding with.

 

- The blocks affected by an IFG should all behave as a single HP pool that gets destroyed as a single entity, no artificial scaling up.
A ship fully enveloped in a single IFG has 10 times more HPs in blocks that in its own ship HPs. You want that to result in all blocks becoming entirely invincible. I don't see a valid reason for it.

 

On a collision, the max HP lost should be the one from the pool affected by the nearest IFG. ATM fully IFG protected ships are instakilled by a ramming maneuver with a ship with a dedicated ram WITHOUT IFG protection. In PvP this will be abused beyond imagination (Specially with velocity control module on). Players should have more control over this.
It has nothing to do with IFGs. A dedicated ram provides massive amount of general ship HP. If your ship HP are expended by collision, you're dead. Whether is with no IFGs, current IFGs or your proposed IFGs - doesn't matter.

 

IFGs has already been providing invulnerability to the affected blocks before, it apparently has caused some concerns or issues, and Koonschi has changed them to be what they are now in response. I highly doubt he's going to reconsider and revert them, not even speaking about turning them into some ridiculous, counter-intuitive mess. People should stop complaining and learn to avoid collisions instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
This it exactly what IFGs are addressing. In fact, its the only thing they're designed to address, and do. A small 1x1x1 Block under an IFG influence has the durability of 2x1x5 Block of the same type.

 

And that do not change at all the fact that the armor block next to it... Has around 8 times as much HP as the corner... That's why IFG current implementation only masks the problem, do not fix it. I will highlight again the important part of the phrase you chose to ignore:

 

[...]current IFG is that they do nothing at addressing RELATIVE weakness of blocks[...]

 

I see no problem. Two Corners (tetra+penta) or two Edges with dimensions A can be combined to form a Block of same dimensions A. The volume stays the same. I don't see how a destruction of a block is a severe issues to address. For one, it allows smaller, more maneuverable ships to exploit specific locations on the enemy ship when its shields are down, instead of always being forced to wither down the entire ship HP pool.

 

With the remarkable difference that you are splitting the same volume HP between 4 blocks... Which measn that to trigger a block destruction you require 1/4 the damage... It's preaty simple, have you tried to smooth whatever ship you have... Expose it to fire WITHOUT any IFG and then proceed to replace the "nice" corners with equivalent blocks?

 

IFGs increase the damage required to break the blocks. That includes collisions. They do not introduce any negative factors into collisions whatsoever.

 

Erm... Have you checked what REALLY happens on a collision in a given section WITH and without current IFG? Please do so... Put in simple words... A collision that affects 1/10th of the volume of a ship is instant death with IFG... Meanwhile, without it... Just results in 10% of the volume lost (even less... Because when the colliding blocks break, the ship usually slides, slowing down thus making the following bumps less damaging)... But do not trust what I write... Simply test it... But be sure that you keep your Galaxy with collision damage on... Obviously if you remove this factor, you simply can't see the fatal flaw this implementation will show when players exploit it.

 

A ship fully enveloped in a single IFG has 10 times more HPs in blocks that in its own ship HPs. You want that to result in all blocks becoming entirely invincible. I don't see a valid reason for it.

 

I think I didn't explain correctly... Let me put a simple example with just 2 blocks. 1 Armor block (10 hp) plus a thruster block (1 hp) BOTH protected by IFG:

 

- Current system: the Armor blocks requires 100 damage to become destroyed and the thruster block requires 10 hp. Focused fire or damage on a this zone is able to trigger 10 times the damage on the rest of the ship this blocks are "worth for".

 

- My proposal: THE ENTIRE PACK of Armor + Thruster require 11 points of damage to become destroyed... The ammount of damage received and overall effect DO NOT change the effective HP of the zone and it becomes impossible to destroy a complete ship just by focusing damage on a single spot.

 

I hope I was clearer with the numerical explanation... There is no HP alteration nor extra vulnetability on a certain zone... The IFGs I propose are just a quality of life so THE WAY A GIVEN ZONE IS SPLIT INTO BLOCKS, do not make it extra weak or force the player to constantly have to replace small parts by simple grazing shots in combat.

 

not even speaking about turning them into some ridiculous, counter-intuitive mess.

 

Thanks for the condescendent tone... But I think you aren't reading what I was proposing... I hope the rest of this forum users pay more attention to what's written before going around fabricating arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
And that do not change at all the fact that the armor block next to it... Has around 8 times as much HP as the corner... That's why IFG current implementation only masks the problem, do not fix it. I will highlight again the important part of the phrase you chose to ignore:

 

[...]current IFG is that they do nothing at addressing RELATIVE weakness of blocks[...]

Yeah, that because it has around 8 times the volume of a corner. There's no RELATIVE weakness present - the durability is directly proportional to the volume. Edges and Corners simply allow to cover larger surface with lower amount of armor, or can be used to smooth the geometry between the larger blocks (in which case destroying them exposes nothing). An Edge of double the height relative to the surface is just as good as a Block. If you can't adjust you building method to the basic laws of geometry, then you should not consider yourself a good builder.

 

With the remarkable difference that you are splitting the same volume HP between 4 blocks... Which measn that to trigger a block destruction you require 1/4 the damage... It's preaty simple, have you tried to smooth whatever ship you have... Expose it to fire WITHOUT any IFG and then proceed to replace the "nice" corners with equivalent blocks?
That's what I do, except that there's no reason not to use IFG's when you get to Titanium. The important distinction here, is that I do not shake for every penny and a little pile of resources spent on repairs. Internal components worth VASTLY more, and protecting them is what you should be building for. Armor worth 12,5 times less, than a shield generator of the equivalent size, so no, I don't give a rats ass about my armor or hull being destroyed.

 

Erm... Have you checked what REALLY happens on a collision in a given section WITH and without current IFG? Please do so... Put in simple words... A collision that affects 1/10th of the volume of a ship is instant death with IFG... Meanwhile, without it... Just results in 10% of the volume lost (even less... Because when the colliding blocks break, the ship usually slides, slowing down thus making the following bumps less damaging)... But do not trust what I write... Simply test it... But be sure that you keep your Galaxy with collision damage on... Obviously if you remove this factor, you simply can't see the fatal flaw this implementation will show when players exploit it.

False. There's no such thing as "collision affecting 1/10th of the ship". Collision damage to the ship is calculated as a sum of masses of two objects colliding, multiplied by a product vector of their combined momentum including turning, with a more massive objects taking lesser portion of the resulting damage. There's only two cases, where collision can be lethal - either your ship HP is expended, or your root block is destroyed. The IFG blocks simply help you to avoid the second variant - they do not group blocks in any way and do not affect their behavior, only increase their durability. Losing blocks in collision does not reduce the damage to the ship, because ship HP damage is calculated and subtracted first.

 

Valid testing requires using the same ship against the same target object on the same speed from the same direction. I did it, and you clearly did not. I've played Avorion on maximum difficulty and with full collision damage from the first minute up to the 250+ hours I've played so far.

 

I think I didn't explain correctly... Let me put a simple example with just 2 blocks. 1 Armor block (10 hp) plus a thruster block (1 hp) BOTH protected by IFG:
I got it the first time. It doesn't mean that proposal is justified. It seems to be aimed at two things: protecting vulnerable blocks from being deliberately destroyed, and preventing the need to replace the destroyed blocks. First is a problem for the lame. Second is a problem for the petty. Neither justify the insane complexity of the proposed system.

 

Thanks for the condescendent tone... But I think you aren't reading what I was proposing... I hope the rest of this forum users pay more attention to what's written before going around fabricating arguments.
I attack ideas, not people. If you want a good example of someone being condescending, read your own post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

not even speaking about turning them into some ridiculous, counter-intuitive mess.

 

Thanks for the condescendent tone... But I think you aren't reading what I was proposing... I hope the rest of this forum users pay more attention to what's written before going around fabricating arguments.

 

Thanks for the condescendent tone... But I think you aren't reading what I was proposing... I hope the rest of this forum users pay more attention to what's written before going around fabricating arguments.
I attack ideas, not people. If you want a good example of someone being condescending, read your own post.

 

I've been reading this and no one's being condescending.  If you're getting frustrated to the point where you automatically read the other poster's tone has hostile take a break.

 

How is the system counter intuitive?  IGF increase block health.  Eventually the Hp of each block in equal to the Hp of the ship.  How progression is counter intuitive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
I've been reading this and no one's being condescending.  If you're getting frustrated to the point where you automatically read the other poster's tone has hostile take a break.
Let me clarify, just for the sake of argument - oreganor's post is littered with remarks and questions, that seem to try diminishing my character is such a way, as if I don't know what I'm talking about and writing my opinion on his proposal just for the lulz. Here they are:

 

I will highlight again the important part of the phrase you chose to ignore:
Apparently, I deliberately ignore parts of the post.

 

It's preaty simple, have you tried to smooth whatever ship you have... Expose it to fire WITHOUT any IFG and then proceed to replace the "nice" corners with equivalent blocks?
Apparently, I also write long factual notes on properties of sloped blocks, while myself too lazy to use them and build ships by simply stacking bricks.

 

Erm... Have you checked what REALLY happens on a collision in a given section WITH and without current IFG? Please do so...

Apparently, I also write elaborate posts on the topic, that I has no idea about and didn't done any prior research.

 

But do not trust what I write... Simply test it... But be sure that you keep your Galaxy with collision damage on... Obviously if you remove this factor, you simply can't see the fatal flaw this implementation will show when players exploit it.
Apparently, I also play without collision damage, and do comments on collision mechanics without any experience.

 

I hope the rest of this forum users pay more attention to what's written before going around fabricating arguments.
Damn, he totally busted me!

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm much more frustrated over the abusive three-dot punctuation, than over what anyone assumes or pretends to know about me.

 

How is the system counter intuitive?  IGF increase block health.  Eventually the Hp of each block in equal to the Hp of the ship.  How progression is counter intuitive?
I'm talking about the proposed mechanics, not the current state.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I've been reading this and no one's being condescending.  If you're getting frustrated to the point where you automatically read the other poster's tone has hostile take a break.
Let me clarify, just for the sake of argument - oreganor's post is littered with remarks and questions, that seem to try diminishing my character is such a way, as if I don't know what I'm talking about and writing my opinion on his proposal just for the lulz. Here they are:

 

I will highlight again the important part of the phrase you chose to ignore:
Apparently, I deliberately ignore parts of the post.

 

It's preaty simple, have you tried to smooth whatever ship you have... Expose it to fire WITHOUT any IFG and then proceed to replace the "nice" corners with equivalent blocks?
Apparently, I also write long factual notes on properties of sloped blocks, while myself too lazy to use them and build ships by simply stacking bricks.

 

Erm... Have you checked what REALLY happens on a collision in a given section WITH and without current IFG? Please do so...

Apparently, I also write elaborate posts on the topic, that I has no idea about and didn't done any prior research.

 

But do not trust what I write... Simply test it... But be sure that you keep your Galaxy with collision damage on... Obviously if you remove this factor, you simply can't see the fatal flaw this implementation will show when players exploit it.
Apparently, I also play without collision damage, and do comments on collision mechanics without any experience.

 

I hope the rest of this forum users pay more attention to what's written before going around fabricating arguments.
Damn, he totally busted me!

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm much more frustrated over the abusive three-dot punctuation, than over what anyone assumes or pretends to know about me.

 

How is the system counter intuitive?  IGF increase block health.  Eventually the Hp of each block in equal to the Hp of the ship.  How progression is counter intuitive?
I'm talking about the proposed mechanics, not the current state.

 

Please don't waste posts pointing out that people on the internet are jerks.  Stick to the topic at hand.  Again, I'm just reading your posts as a neutral observer yet you two seem to be getting worked up over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Please don't waste posts pointing out that people on the internet are jerks.  Stick to the topic at hand.  Again, I'm just reading your posts as a neutral observer yet you two seem to be getting worked up over it.

 

Sage is right. Please don't let your emotions and commitment take the upper head over having a respectful discussion. If you don't agree with something that is totally fine, but don't make things personal. Just take a break and come back later with a cool head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Sage is right. Please don't let your emotions and commitment take the upper head over having a respectful discussion. If you don't agree with something that is totally fine, but don't make things personal. Just take a break and come back later with a cool head.

I don't really have anything to say at this point. Let the hypocrisy thrive and prosper, I guess.

Also, I'm far too old to be subjected to emotions over text on the internet. You're free to point out where it seemed to be the case, for future reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think the proposed mechanic just compounds a problem of a flawed system.

 

Having mats just be straight up then the one underneath it really limits the game but that's not what we are talking about here.

 

 

This is what I believe integrity field generators should be.

 

When IFG is placed according to its mass and the ships mass a certain amount of energy is permanently allocated to it that allows mechanics to repair broken off parts.

 

This solves both sides problems.

On one hand it makes it so cube ships arnt the only viable option.

 

And on the other it keeps a really nice aspect of the game intact I mean why have destroy-able ships if you arn't going to destroy them?

 

I also IFG need a bit more then this tho, they would also according to their mass reduce or completely negate collision damage. :IE I have a large integrity field generator and I bump into an asteroid at a rather slow speed the damage is completely absorbed and negated. But let’s say you have a small integrity field generator and you smash into a space station. The integrity field generator is overwhelmed and only able to reduce a certain percentage of the damage taken.

 

And keeping inline with its current style once placed a new UI should become available that enables the player to use energy according to the integrity field generators mass (smaller mass = less effective) to increase the entire ships HP. This new HP is equally distributed among each block regardless of size. This in the end lets the player choose if its worth a boat load of more energy to stop their small detail bits from falling off or just to let it repair over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...