Armour is useless, Paradox

[Ediros]

Ever since Paradox changed armour into flat hp, they pretty much destroyed any reason to invest in it heavily.

It takes forever to heal anything with regenerative hull tissue. And shields are better since you don't have to go back after every fight.

However, the biggest problem are things that straight out ignore armour and shields, like Arc Emitters. Late game you can only increase armour and shields through repeatables, but not hull. So you end with a scenario where a battleship can kill everything including other battleships, but nothing else can really hurt it.

And since crises exist, I could only watch as my fleet was obliterated, while my battleships still charge forward even with carrier AI. Gale speed is straight out worst trait in the game in lategame.

Being able to deal massive hull damage and shield is way more important than armour and unless they change it into something useful, late game will be glass cannon only.

In fact, here are my two ideas:

A) Damage Threshold + Damage resistance route, based on Fallout 1/2.

Three damage types: Energy, Kinetic, Explosive

Damage threshold based on armour type, damage type and ship type.

So let's take a battleship and give it neutronium armour (total):

Energy: 60 DT + 40%
Kinetic: 100 DT + 80%
Missile: 80 DT + 60%

Corvettes benefit from it but not as much. So that there isn't a corvette spam. They have got evasion.

Energy: 12 DT + 10%
Kinetic: 25 DT + 20%
Missile: 20 DT + 15%

Repeatable tech would only increase DT and by bringing back hull hp increase we can avoid glass cannons battleships.

B)Rework Arc emitters and everything that ignores armour, so that battleships don't kill themselves with the same bloody weapon.

What do you think?

 

[LekkoBot]

If your battleships are s=using carrier ai with arc emitters your doing it wrong you want them to have the arty ai and let your corvettes swarm the enemy while your battleships stay back and snipe.

 

[tobias.mb]

Well, Armor worked as a % damage reduction in earlier versions. Since it was changed, I really doubt it gets changed back.
But I do agree, that Arc Emitters (and also Disruptors to some degree) are too strong in the late game; Especially against FEs those are almost mandatory. Hull repeatables (and easier access to crystal plating) would be a good start.

 

[Dementor4]

IIRC, there are weapons that ignore shields and there are weapons that ignore armor and shields, but there are no weapons that ignore armor but not shields.

 

[Kayden_II]

My idea would be a reference to "Star Trek: Enterprise" ( the one with Action-Archer, not Kirk ): Polarized Armour ( original: Polarized hull plating ). Basically, if your ship generates excess-energy ( due to better reactors or / and up to no demand at all for ( for example ) shields ) then said excess-energy should increase your Armour-HPs accordingly. Even armour-only-builds ( without any shields at all ) would be viable with that.

 

[Mastikator]

Before 2.0 armor was not ablative but offered damage reduction. It was awesome on battleships, especially since engine parts also went into the same slot as shields and armor. It actually lead to pretty much the same situation, only armor piercing weapons were used late game because anything else did so little damage.
The meta was the same too, in 1.9 anyway, big pile of battleships > everything else.

What I would personally like to see is more utility slots and options, rather than just which aspect you boost (speed or shields) instead have options to counter the enemy's counter. Like a hard-shield, a utility part that makes shields partially not ignoble, or the same for armor. Or a electronic counter-counter measure that reduces enemy point defense accuracy (allowing bombers/fighters and missiles to hit more reliably).

The game could be drastically more tactical with just a few extra options. But the options have to have a rock scissor paper dynamic which currently does not exist.

 

[OnyxAbussos]

Any damage reduction/resistance mechanic WILL, INHERENTLY, be borked as all get out. Players will stack it to death and be invincible.

Look at the BORG. It's their entire schtick, and it makes them "always invincible except for random plot devices."

 

[MK1980]

the regeneration tissue could use a buff. that component is pretty much a wasted slot, but could actually be useful if the numbers were brought to a reasonable level.

other than that i think armor is fine. it doesn't have be as good as shields. you put armor into the left over slots when you don't have the energy for another shield generator. plain and simple

 

[OnyxAbussos]

[[I have changed my mind, below. So if you're like "Fuck you," just know that a little further down I'm like "oops nvmnd."]]

[[My intent here isnt to lambast people. My hope is to share with you how I reached a place of real peace about this stuff in a way that made my experience of the game WAY more positive. There's joy over here.]]

Really, the problem isnt Armor or Arc Emitters.

The problem is players.
No matter how much tweaking and playtesting is done, something *will* have like an X>0.01% advantage over other things. And rather than making decisions based on RP and Flavor, y'all are determined to spam that advantage until there is nothing else, and then blame Paradox for it, arguing that you have no choice but to do that.

Game is clearly designed for RP more than winning. The problem that breaks the game isnt a lack of perfect perfect balance. The problem that breaks it is you insistence on playing to win.

Please consider playing a few rounds where you make decisions based on RP more than on advantage. If you're like me, you'll find that your experience is a lot more fun.

 

[grommile]

The problem that breaks it is you insistence on playing to win.

It is a strategy game; of course people play to win.

To expect anything else is not merely folly, but sheerest insanity.

 

[Astax]

this game doe snot seem to be interested in interesting META playstyles. They are just going with the totally flat complexity approach a-la Civ 6.

We could have had some interestign things with 90% evasion vs 90% armour damage reduction playstyles. Maybe ramp up Shild regen with reactive hsields to also have a build where sheilds regen 90% of incoming damage on the following tick. But hey, whatever. I am probably not going to even boot this game again. There are other strategy games out there, with more interesting game-play.

 

[SaintD]

Yeah it's 'balanced' to uselessness. It doesn't regenerate like shields, so it inherently has pitiful long term utility by comparison. This is then followed up with there being vastly more powerful armour busting multipliers available than there are against shields, often stacked up with hull damage multipliers as well.

And the counterbalance factor? Missiles ignore shields but not armour. Which is utterly lame and useless because missiles are hard countered by PD and are generally non-viable.

Ultimately, armour lasts a single fight, and gets the biggest multipliers stacked on it.

 

[grommile]

We could have had some interestign things with 90% evasion vs 90% armour damage reduction playstyles. Maybe ramp up Shild regen with reactive hsields to also have a build where sheilds regen 90% of incoming damage on the following tick.

As a former City of Heroes player, this is the part where I throw my head back, and laugh.

 

[sillyrobot]

As a former City of Heroes player, this is the part where I throw my head back, and laugh.

I played a bubble primary character in CoH until they nerfed bubbles. The primary difficulty was persuading everyone but healers that bubbles were useful. Healers saw the difference immediately the first time they compared fights with bubbles to fights without.

 

[OnyxAbussos]

Really, the only way Paradox can prevent ship-build cheese-spam is to get rid of the Ship Designer entirely.

Go the Civ route where you research unit types and leave it there. Like how Archers are low tech versions of Infantry. (Or whatever, it's been awhile).

Its *literally* the only way they can prevent you from ruining the game for yourself. Nobody wants that. So you do have a choice. You can choose not to ruin the game for yourself. You dont have to choose not to have fun.

 

[Hansatron]

As a former City of Heroes player, this is the part where I throw my head back, and laugh.

I will always upvote city of heroes references. Hopefully that city of titans project pans out soon...

This is then followed up with there being vastly more powerful armour busting multipliers available than there are against shields, often stacked up with hull damage multipliers as well

I don't know why this isn't more appreciated by players. The Neutron Launcher is perhaps the most horribly OP thing in combat. It has optimal target seeking (it has a tendency to focus fire weakened targets with exposed hull or armor where an anti shield weapon tends to disperse damage by trying to target shields) on top of the fact that weapons like it have crazy multipliers. (+75% vs hull?!)

Really, the only way Paradox can prevent ship-build cheese-spam is to get rid of the Ship Designer entirely.

Go the Civ route where you research unit types and leave it there. Like how Archers are low tech versions of Infantry. (Or whatever, it's been awhile).

Its *literally* the only way they can prevent you from ruining the game for yourself. Nobody wants that. So you do have a choice. You can choose not to ruin the game for yourself. You dont have to choose not to have fun.

Well, it would work better if they actually worked on their numbers. Some things are so obviously the best when that need not be true.
That may take time to work out what to set them to, but actually changing them is very fast. I have made many excel spreadsheets working on this problem, and you can definitely get better results than what we have now with relatively small adjustments.

 

[Nevars]

I disagree, it's prevent mono kinetic ship to be a thing so they are not useless lol :v

 

[methegrate]

Really, the only way Paradox can prevent ship-build cheese-spam is to get rid of the Ship Designer entirely.

Go the Civ route where you research unit types and leave it there. Like how Archers are low tech versions of Infantry. (Or whatever, it's been awhile).

Its *literally* the only way they can prevent you from ruining the game for yourself. Nobody wants that. So you do have a choice. You can choose not to ruin the game for yourself. You dont have to choose not to have fun.

Instead of that, personally, I would suggest that the game just needs a LOT more trade-offs and mutually exclusive choices.

@OnyxAbussos suggested that the problem is that people aren't role playing right, but I don't think that's true. There are lots and lots of strategy role playing games where, as the player, you try your best to build powerful characters and win. Those games don't work by just giving you everything and forcing players to intentionally nerf themselves and play below their abilities. Instead, they give you different options and character types with a range of skills and handicaps. The player then gets to try their hardest to make that character win within a given set of rules.

The difference between a fighter and a mage isn't just defined by what each can do (use big weapons, cast spells) but also by what each role can't do. A fighter has limited access to magic, if any. A mage can't equip that heavy armor, while a thief can use anything bigger than a short sword or bow. Every RPG is different in how it defines these exclusions, with some having them pre-set (like D&D) and others using skills points (like Divinity), but all of them follow the same rule: Your choices have consequences. Characters have amazing powers, but at the expense of leaving other amazing abilities behind.

Stellaris needs to do this. One of the reasons why every game flattens to the obvious, optimal routes is because every empire always has access to all the same choices. So in every game you always pick the same, optimal builds.

Limitations push back on that. Ethics should impose real, asymmetric opportunities and handicaps. Technology should absolutely involve real tradeoffs. (I know they think the deck of cards system does that, but after four years how have they not learned that empires tear through every tech?) So should traditions. Strategic resources should actually be strategic and rare.

You can have a terrific ship designer system as long as the player is trying to design ships around restrictions as well as options. If I have access to only certain technologies, fighting an enemy with a different tech base, designing around the strategic resources I have access to and doing so based on my ethics/character class, now I'm not just rubber stamping out another version of the same old optimal build.

 

[jmj281]

Ever since Paradox changed armour into flat hp, they pretty much destroyed any reason to invest in it heavily.

How so? If you see kinetics everywhere on opposing ships you slap armor on everything. It's like any other weapon in this regard. Changing armor to be DR or whatever else strikes me as trying to add depth to a system almost completely unable to have any. Yes, I am saying the naval combat in Stellaris has no depth. Switching components around certainly doesn't.

It takes forever to heal anything with regenerative hull tissue. And shields are better since you don't have to go back after every fight.

Hmm, I can't recall the last time I went back after a fight. Possibly waited at an opposing starbase to repair, sure. Going back? Why? Unless it's an extremely even fight odds are shields regening while moving isn't going to matter. If it's that even of a fight odds are you're not sending your doomstack at the other doomstack, winning and having much to press the attack with.

However, the biggest problem are things that straight out ignore armour and shields, like Arc Emitters. Late game you can only increase armour and shields through repeatables, but not hull. So you end with a scenario where a battleship can kill everything including other battleships, but nothing else can really hurt it.

Everything can equip Disrupters. Yes, you cannot tech spam to mitigate bypass weaponry, This is more a fault with repeatables though.

And since crises exist, I could only watch as my fleet was obliterated, while my battleships still charge forward even with carrier AI. Gale speed is straight out worst trait in the game in lategame.

Outrange them. Besides, Crisis don't really function well or at all anyway. Even if they did competing with them on FP is not difficult. Not unless you're jacking up Crisis strength through the roof. Even then it's very doable.

Being able to deal massive hull damage and shield is way more important than armour and unless they change it into something useful, late game will be glass cannon only.

A fair point. Yes, when FP values get very large everything turns into a glass cannon. Regardless of ship loadouts too. I don't think armor DR is a great solution. You end up swapping glass cannonery for impenetrable fortresses in space.

Stellaris needs to do this. One of the reasons why every game flattens to the obvious, optimal routes is because every empire always has access to all the same choices. So in every game you always pick the same, optimal builds.

Yup. A different way of putting this is pretty much everything gets represented as a generic number. More damage here or there, percentage modifiers on top of X, Y or Z. Spreadsheet simulator. There are not many active mechanics. It's difficult to find the various options compelling when they don't feel like they change anything. You have to force yourself into mentally constructing their relevance. When those options are utterly devoid of parity "roleplaying" or going for flavor often feels like you're artificially gimping yourself.

Balanced choices and flavor, RP potential, etc. should not be mutually exclusive.

 

[OnyxAbussos]

Instead of that, personally, I would suggest that the game just needs a LOT more trade-offs and mutually exclusive choices.

@OnyxAbussos suggested that the problem is that people aren't role playing right, but I don't think that's true. There are lots and lots of strategy role playing games where, as the player, you try your best to build powerful characters and win. Those games don't work by just giving you everything and forcing players to intentionally nerf themselves and play below their abilities. Instead, they give you different options and character types with a range of skills and handicaps. The player then gets to try their hardest to make that character win within a given set of rules.

The difference between a fighter and a mage isn't just defined by what each can do (use big weapons, cast spells) but also by what each role can't do. A fighter has limited access to magic, if any. A mage can't equip that heavy armor, while a thief can use anything bigger than a short sword or bow. Every RPG is different in how it defines these exclusions, with some having them pre-set (like D&D) and others using skills points (like Divinity), but all of them follow the same rule: Your choices have consequences. Characters have amazing powers, but at the expense of leaving other amazing abilities behind.

Stellaris needs to do this. One of the reasons why every game flattens to the obvious, optimal routes is because every empire always has access to all the same choices. So in every game you always pick the same, optimal builds.

Limitations push back on that. Ethics should impose real, asymmetric opportunities and handicaps. Technology should absolutely involve real tradeoffs. (I know they think the deck of cards system does that, but after four years how have they not learned that empires tear through every tech?) So should traditions. Strategic resources should actually be strategic and rare.

You can have a terrific ship designer system as long as the player is trying to design ships around restrictions as well as options. If I have access to only certain technologies, fighting an enemy with a different tech base, designing around the strategic resources I have access to and doing so based on my ethics/character class, now I'm not just rubber stamping out another version of the same old optimal build.

You've convinced me. I'm a convert.
I want this to be the thing.

Tone is genuine, in case the interwebs eat my tone.