Fed warpin vet ideas

posted on April 20th, 2011, 11:40 pm

silly says you, i think passives are interesting, and they reflect canon in some ways and serve the important purpose of discouraging spam of units like bugs. i think the passives could be implemented better, but they are still good imo.

Indeed, all my suggestion would do is make the passives still matter, yet be harder to mess up.

Instead of editing every single ship based on passives, you would use a base ordinance file for each races weapon types with the passives affecting the chance to hit ratios instead of the damage applied, that's less files to edit, thus easier to bug check and easier to edit/compile.

Then for passives that affect the hull such as ablatave armor, you just apply them to the hull directly as a boost to the direct value of that vessels hull, so rather than weapons doing more or less damage based on their total range (which makes little sense) all weapons do full value, just that the vessel's hull is much stronger and thus able to withstand the punishment better, but takes longer to repair (which is the whole point of ablatave armor)

Currently it is
+50 resistence against short range
-10 against long range
-20 reduction to hull repair rate

Lets test that stat.
Long/Med/Short range
Excel1 Galaxy and Ambas shoot a single salvo of ALL weapons. A single phaser/photon shot.

Excel1, 33 damage base, 36.3 AFTER the modifer is applied.
Galaxy 24 damage, same after modifer applied.
Ambas 37 damage, 18.5 AFTER modifer applied.

Now, this isn't the damage per second figure, just the damage for the opening volley.

That said it seems rather odd that with all weapons HITTING the galaxy AND ambasador both do LESS damage to a ship with ablative armor.

posted on April 20th, 2011, 11:49 pm

-10% damage would be from the vessel with Ablative Armor, not from the long ranged ship

posted on April 20th, 2011, 11:58 pm

-10% damage would be from the vessel with Ablative Armor, not from the long ranged ship

wait wut ?

So armor means doing LESS damage to a vessel ?

That makes zero sense.

So is it ?
+50 short range resistance
-10 damage TO long range
-20 repair rate

If so, that makes even less sense.

posted on April 21st, 2011, 12:39 pm

no it doesnt, passives dont just represent an intrinsic design of the ship (sometimes this is the case, but not always). it also reflects the fact that a ship with a passive will be tactically less sound to use against its counters.

so having ablative armour may make your ship slower, which means long range ships can easily stay at range and bombard you. of course this sort of intricate tactics cant be faithfully represented visually, so thats what the passives do, reflect tactics.

posted on April 21st, 2011, 11:36 pm

no it doesnt, passives dont just represent an intrinsic design of the ship (sometimes this is the case, but not always). it also reflects the fact that a ship with a passive will be tactically less sound to use against its counters.

so having ablative armour may make your ship slower, which means long range ships can easily stay at range and bombard you. of course this sort of intricate tactics cant be faithfully represented visually, so thats what the passives do, reflect tactics.

That should affect the chance to hit ratio then, not the damage received.

posted on April 21st, 2011, 11:57 pm

That should affect the chance to hit ratio then, not the damage received.

ablative armour means you do less damage to lr not lr does more damage to you. i was talking about tactics in general how the speed could possibly affect your combat effectiveness against lr.

another possible explanation among many: the armour is made of up a material that affects outgoing weapons, meaning they dont quite maintain strength over long range, doing slightly less damage to lr enemies.

the point is that all of these passives can be explained, but the bigger point is that nobody except u seems to care about it, speaking for myself, i put gameplay first, and passives have improved gameplay. explanations of passives dont make me happy, playing a fun game makes me happy.

posted on April 22nd, 2011, 12:02 am

The armor preventing the energy from focusing properly and dissipating faster could be supported by the only canon ships using it attacking from short-range.

[kainalu]

posted on April 22nd, 2011, 1:08 am

Last edited by kainalu on April 22nd, 2011, 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

I love the passives. They really do balance the game, and I actually like reading all the little descriptive tags on the weapons and such. There really was a lot of work and creativity put into all that, and I appreciate it. It goes a long way towards story and "character". I think it is awesome when a ship gains rank and picks up new passives and weapons. The passives explain how that veteran gained the extra power it now has.

posted on April 22nd, 2011, 1:23 am

ablative armour means you do less damage to lr not lr does more damage to you. i was talking about tactics in general how the speed could possibly affect your combat effectiveness against lr.

Indeed, the extra mass could affect your turn rate, it could even have properties that have an effect on the ability to ECCM and targeting sensors somehow, which would all mean a lower chance to hit, not lower damage done by a torpedo.

another possible explanation among many: the armour is made of up a material that affects outgoing weapons, meaning they dont quite maintain strength over long range, doing slightly less damage to lr enemies.

And if that enemy is not at distance, such as if it were in range of a short ranged vessel with ablatave armor, that entire line of thought is proven irrelvent. Even more so in the case of torpedo weaponory which either hits and does full damage or misses.

the point is that all of these passives can be explained

And I have refuted your explinations/

but the bigger point is that nobody except u seems to care about it, speaking for myself, i put gameplay first, and passives have improved gameplay. explanations of passives dont make me happy, playing a fun game makes me happy.

And what would be wrong with keeping the passives but making them make sense ?

All Im suggesting is a way to make the game even better while making minimal changes, especially since passives are ALLREADY broken.

posted on April 22nd, 2011, 1:42 am

Guys.... As riveting as this discussion is, can't we just agree to disagree?

posted on April 22nd, 2011, 2:50 am

Guys.... As riveting as this discussion is, can't we just agree to disagree?

this is flops man, calm discussion ? pfft.

posted on April 22nd, 2011, 11:54 am

And if that enemy is not at distance, such as if it were in range of a short ranged vessel with ablatave armor, that entire line of thought is proven irrelvent. Even more so in the case of torpedo weaponory which either hits and does full damage or misses.
And I have refuted your explinations/

you havnt refuted anything, you think you have, but you are mistaken. i never even said that these are the explanations the devs use, there is enough technobabble in star trek to explain passives easily.

really you are the only person who has a problem with the passives, nobody else seems to give a damn.

And what would be wrong with keeping the passives but making them make sense ?

you wanna keep the passives as they are and just change the tooltip explanations of why they have the effects? no you dont, you have made it clear you dont like the passives in many posts, your signature even says its, so dont try make it look like your position is less silly.

this is flops man, calm discussion ? pfft.

you dont like this community? then go away, trust me, we wont stop you leaving.

posted on April 22nd, 2011, 8:58 pm

No doubt he does this on purpose.

posted on April 22nd, 2011, 9:20 pm

No doubt he does this on purpose.

You're probably right.
And here's the big question:
It's painfully obvious that Tok`ra doesn't like the way the devs designed the gameplay-mechanisms (specifically passives) of FO so far; So why doesn't he design his own A2-Mod with ranking ships and his personal image of how a Star Trek - RTS should look like?
If he would do that and present it to everyone so we could test it, we would actually know what works better instead of being told how much Tok`ra is not happy with FO-balance 

posted on April 22nd, 2011, 9:22 pm

Haha yea i agree