Draco18s wrote:
Oh sure, but as generalist armor, it's not used.

Of course it's used, that's even one of the few ways to counter a whole destroyers kamikazes fleet.

Because 2% capping at 50% is huge. 50% is hardly significant. 33% more effective than the same number of 2% health modules.

50% of damage deal is huge. The amount of damage currently done is huge, and that's why weapons outpace so much defences. As you say, a single Tier 1 missile can do 120-140 missile. That means 3 missiles are enough to destroy a destroyer, knowing that a destroyer can get 14-15 weapon modules. Of course, in a 1vs1 battle, that percentage wouldn't have much effect, but in a big battle, that would simply decide whether you win or lose

False. Specialized defenses are 90 to 95% effective against tech parity weapons. 2% stackable damage reduction across the board doesn't even come close to that.

That doesn't come close against the same type of weapon, yes. But you have to get nearly as much specialized defences as weapons to get effective. Your module would be as effective against 10 weapons as against 100.

And try to compare 9 damage reduction modules and 9 flaks against 3 kinectics, 3 beams, and 3 missiles. The fact, is that if you put mixed specialized defences, you'll get killed if the ennemy fleet has one weapon, because your defences won't be enough efficient. If you put specialized defences, you'll get killed by the 2 other weapons. The damage reduction module would do great against mixed weapons, and not so bad against specialized (still 50%).

False. 2% health is 2% longer to kill (i.e. insignificant against missiles). 2% damage reduction is 2.0408% longer to kill (i.e. insignificant against missiles). You don't even achieve a 10% more efficient than the health module until 27% (i.e. 27% damage reduction is equivalent to 37% more health).



It is not that significantly better as to make all other options worthless.

If 27% damage reduction is equivalent to 37% more health, then, it's 37% more efficient (It's 37%/27%, not 37%-27%).

You've yet to show that it is both identical and unbalanced. Because it can't be both.

Comparing +2% health to -2% damage is unbalanced. The module idea is identical, and if applied correctly, the results should be identical.

What part of "it caps at 50%" did you miss in the original suggestion? I've had to use extreme numbers to show you that the module is not identical and yet you keep insisting that it is, but at the same time overpowered in comparison.

You're still talking about a number comparison, not the idea nor the calculus.

Existing defense modules are hard to balance.



I think the issue is that each one has its own issues and cannot be summed up as "they are too weak" or "they are too strong."



Firstly, Flak is using the wrong mechanics entirely. Ships can't protect each other, only one flak can intercept a given missile, and a missile can only be intercepted by a single flak. Unknown what the odds of success/failure actually are.

Secondly, no one knows for sure how Beams/Shields interact. The current assumption is that shields negate N damage of the beam's X to Y (N and X being the same, or within a very narrow range of each other). E.g. 30-33 damage, negate 30. If this is true, shields are too strong.

Thirdly, Kinetics armor is likely too powerful (and Kinetics damage is too low). Even with guns firing 4 times a phase, firing 5 bullets each, each bullet doing 2-4 damage. That's an average of 60 damage. A single tech 1 missile does 120-140.

I read someone's review that said that defences were useful in that order : flak > shield > deflector.

He was saying something like :

2 flaks can block 3 missiles

5 shield can block 6 beams

12 deflector can block 11 kinectics

That was based on his experience, and can have changed, but if that's true, and that Kinectics id doing the less damage, that means that weapons missiles, beams and kinectics are more unbalanced than defences. And maybe weapons should be changed more than defences.

PanH wrote:
But considering that the health module is already balanced with the specialized defences modules

Is it? I don't think anyone in this thread thinks so. I'm pretty sure it was described as a "trap option."

then, the module you're proposing should be too.

As they are mechanically different, due to the non-linear nature of the one, this statement is false.

And comparing +100% to -100% makes non-sense, as you did.

+2% HP == -2% Damage (stated by you)

Therefore

+100HP == -100% Damage (false)



In fact, I had to pull out the 100% comparison because you IGNORED the more rational comparison stating that "the math was irrelevant, they're identical."

So i have lost track of what we are actually talking about here, do you guys think the idea of defenses outpacing weapons (While still allowing them to do damage that is), would be a good idea or not?



And if not, then why? as i would love to hear your opinions and to continue the discussion.

I don´t really know...it´s fun to watch your fleet ripping through enemy´s defenses but at the same time you wish that the battle would have been a little bit more interesting

Ever watched Battlestar Galatica? (The newer series?)



That ship made it all the way to the last episode before she died, fighting to the last breath, i feel like ships in endless have a real problem in critical existence failure (Where 1 hp is the difference between a fully functioning ship and the entire thing blowing up).



Ships can still be ripped to pieces, but they need to be made out of more then a single pieces to be 'ripped'.

Yea it would be great to have ships to survive for hundreds of turns and I see your point when it comes to ships and their HPs.

But I don´t know if it would be functional as it might lead to battles which could last eternity as both sides would use repair/engineering/defensive cards to bolster their defenses even more (especially in multiplayer matches)

So I support the idea of making ships last longer in battle, but how to do that without creating game with immortal fleets clashing together endlessly...I don´t know

I am not sure either, perhaps a greater emphasis on the cards in battle an a greater control of things like formations might make it so that the right combination of your overall strategy would allow you to get more victory's vs an opponent who has geared his military in another way like a well defended fleet focusing on the short range beating a more offencive fleet with beams and missiles but lacking fleet cohesion. (Leading hp boosts and repair options to be good for buffs and extended repair for fleets, but leaving them weaker in a 5 turn battle.)

Draco18s wrote:
Is it? I don't think anyone in this thread thinks so. I'm pretty sure it was described as a "trap option."







As they are mechanically different, due to the non-linear nature of the one, this statement is false.







+2% HP == -2% Damage (stated by you)

Therefore

+100HP == -100% Damage (false)



In fact, I had to pull out the 100% comparison because you IGNORED the more rational comparison stating that "the math was irrelevant, they're identical."

First, you're the only one that said that the health module was a "trap option" in that thread, the thread is about defences modules. There's even some ways to use it quite efficiently, with the UE health bonus, some repairs, as shield-ships, etc.

What I'm saying about balance is that your module is completely overpowered : there would be no point in using specialized defences, when there's a module that protect from every attack with such a huge percentage. The effectiveness of health module has been decided by the devs so it's less efficient than specialized defences, but it's efficient against every attack (like what you proposed). That makes sense, else this would be the only option, and the only defence that we would make. If you want the game to be balanced, and not doing only one type of weapon nor module, then you won't make a module that get such better percentage than the others. Comparing +2%Hp to -2% damage (like you did, I never stated this, I stated that +100%HP = -50% Damage) is like comparing the effectiveness between a Tier 1 weapon and a Tier 5. That's why it's unbalanced. It's identical in his mechanism and gameplay, you're just taking numbers that are just too high to be balanced and compared with the current health module.

That's not a question about maths, or anything, you can add different ways of calculating, of saying it, still it would have the same effect, and wouldn't answer the issue, which is the efficency of defences modules.



To answer to Igncom1, I feel that the defences are currently so outpaced that they are useless, and obviously need a change.

PanH wrote:


To answer to Igncom1, I feel that the defences are currently so outpaced that they are useless, and obviously need a change.

It may be due to that the devs added leaky defenses to the game, as they used to be all (Full damage-No damage), but how would you suggest to alter them?



Possibly having them act the same as they do now but with additional perks or have them all reduce damage but in different ways for different strategys? or another way?

Maybe only kinetics and beams should be leaky. I mean, there is no way to partially block a missile. You either destroy it before it hits you, or it hits you. There is no other way.



Possibly defenses also boasting defense across multiple weapon types. Not missile defenses, as chaff is not effective against anything else, but kenetic and beam defesnes should boast both areas. It makes sense that the extra armor necessary to defend against kenetics would also defend against beams, albeit less effectivly, while the shields for defending agianst beams would also blunt, knock off course, or redirect kenetic rounds partially.

Well chaff can be used for anything you fire at incoming ordinance, but in essence chaff in the form of flack could potentially deflect or slow kinetic weapons and partially adsorb energy weapons like most matter.

Something like that could fix some of "insta destruction" of fleets but it also could make having different type of ships pointless

Igncom1 wrote:
Well chaff can be used for anything you fire at incoming ordinance, but in essence chaff in the form of flack could potentially deflect or slow kinetic weapons and partially adsorb energy weapons like most matter.

Well yeah but chaff would do hardly anything against projectile or energy weapons. The projectile weapons would be hardly affected, and the energy weapons would just melt it and keep on going.



"Zethoros

Something like that could fix some of "insta destruction" of fleets but it also could make having different type of ships pointless"



Well yeah, but only if conversion ratio from one type of defense to another is high. I would suggest 1/5, as that is much smaller than Galciv2's (in which I only ever built a general ship class), yet still significant enough to have an effect. Furthermore most ships in the game, that I've built, don't have more than 5 defenses of any one kind on them (dreadnoughts, specialized cruisers and battleships went over).

PanH wrote:
First, you're the only one that said that the health module was a "trap option" in that thread, the thread is about defences modules. There's even some ways to use it quite efficiently, with the UE health bonus, some repairs, as shield-ships, etc.

Oh sure, but as generalist armor, it's not used.

What I'm saying about balance is that your module is completely overpowered : there would be no point in using specialized defences, when there's a module that protect from every attack with such a huge percentage.

Because 2% capping at 50% is huge. 50% is hardly significant. 33% more effective than the same number of 2% health modules.

The effectiveness of health module has been decided by the devs so it's less efficient than specialized defences, but it's efficient against every attack (like what you proposed). That makes sense, else this would be the only option, and the only defence that we would make.

False. Specialized defenses are 90 to 95% effective against tech parity weapons. 2% stackable damage reduction across the board doesn't even come close to that.

If you want the game to be balanced, and not doing only one type of weapon nor module, then you won't make a module that get such better percentage than the others. Comparing +2%Hp to -2% damage (like you did, I never stated this, I stated that +100%HP = -50% Damage) is like comparing the effectiveness between a Tier 1 weapon and a Tier 5.

False. 2% health is 2% longer to kill (i.e. insignificant against missiles). 2% damage reduction is 2.0408% longer to kill (i.e. insignificant against missiles). You don't even achieve a 10% more efficient than the health module until 27% (i.e. 27% damage reduction is equivalent to 37% more health).



It is not that significantly better as to make all other options worthless.

That's why it's unbalanced. It's identical in his mechanism and gameplay,

You've yet to show that it is both identical and unbalanced. Because it can't be both.

you're just taking numbers that are just too high to be balanced and compared with the current health module.

What part of "it caps at 50%" did you miss in the original suggestion? I've had to use extreme numbers to show you that the module is not identical and yet you keep insisting that it is, but at the same time overpowered in comparison.

That's not a question about maths, or anything, you can add different ways of calculating, of saying it, still it would have the same effect, and wouldn't answer the issue, which is the efficency of defences modules.

Existing defense modules are hard to balance.



I think the issue is that each one has its own issues and cannot be summed up as "they are too weak" or "they are too strong."



Firstly, Flak is using the wrong mechanics entirely. Ships can't protect each other, only one flak can intercept a given missile, and a missile can only be intercepted by a single flak. Unknown what the odds of success/failure actually are.

Secondly, no one knows for sure how Beams/Shields interact. The current assumption is that shields negate N damage of the beam's X to Y (N and X being the same, or within a very narrow range of each other). E.g. 30-33 damage, negate 30. If this is true, shields are too strong.

Thirdly, Kinetics armor is likely too powerful (and Kinetics damage is too low). Even with guns firing 4 times a phase, firing 5 bullets each, each bullet doing 2-4 damage. That's an average of 60 damage. A single tech 1 missile does 120-140.

Draco18s wrote:
Thirdly, Kinetics armor is likely too powerful (and Kinetics damage is too low). Even with guns firing 4 times a phase, firing 5 bullets each, each bullet doing 2-4 damage. That's an average of 60 damage. A single tech 1 missile does 120-140.

That´s true kinectics do so little damage and they should be more powerful.

However does this result from players and AI stacking defense for kinectics and only little to none for missiles?

Draco18s wrote:
I'm...I'm sorry, did you not see my math?



Try comparing +100% health and -100% damage taken. Both are 100%, so both should do the same thing.



Right?



(Hint: the first is linear, the second is exponential)

Of course no, they shouldn't do the same things, as you say, linear and exponential is different. But considering that the health module is already balanced with the specialized defences modules, then, the module you're proposing should be too.

And comparing +100% to -100% makes non-sense, as you did. If you want to be logic, you have to compare +100% to -50% and so on.

PanH wrote:
The module idea is identical, and if applied correctly, the results should be identical.

This is fallacious statement. And because you refuse to see this, I cannot continue to debate this with you.

Similar ideas do not need to have identical results!

I would like to see the shields having some use. Shields should have some point value to blocking all types of damage. Not beam deflect. The Beam deflect should be part of the advanced armor. The Armor should be Kinetic blocking % and Beam deflection %. Armor is armor an option to a ship.

The Deflect should be changed to Hull structure or Alloy type (Adamantium x-3) giving the ship more structure points or HP.

Flak guns are not quite right. The advanced units should shot more than once. Plus the higher end Flak guns should help other ships in the fleet. Yes at some point making missile users suck. Missiles at the starting point are to powerful. As you gain more hull space you can equip some many guns missiles never land on their targets. End game missiles are obsolete anyways. Now I have made some large missile boats but I find using lots of small ships with lots of beams or guns works way better. Fleets size 11 plus 1 x Dreadnought and the rest Destroyers.

Igncom1 wrote:
The idea that this game should be a 'space opera' is kinda sidetracked when a fleet can't withstand the first burst of weapons.



So instead i would propose that defensive modules at the start of the game should work in an effective 1-3 ratio, allowing more peaceful and slower races to get a kick start into their game.



Mid-game however the dynamic should probably ship leading into a 1-1 ratio for kinetics, leaving both beams and missiles with a 1-2 ratio.



And then late game we could heavy a larger shift in defenses showing a 1-2 ratio for both kinetics and beams, allowing missiles to gain a 1-1 ration (Mimicking torpedo technology in real life).





But i would love to hear your thoughts on the matter!

The history of real war has new, surprising offenses being developed that provide dramatic victories and quick conquest followed by defensive advances that turn wars into static wars of attrition. Never sound they be in balance.

No, its backwards if you do that.



Common warfare method is, the enemy comes up with a new tech/weapon that gives them advantage and you then work to counter it or equal it.



Read the Lensman series for great fictional examples of it.