Theodemir wrote:
I agree with the above, and add that the whole ship combat tech shouldn't be set up as it is. Far too linear, boring and easy. It's the one aspect of this game that is really simple unlike balancing economies, happiness, diplomacy, 'the rest of the game'.



Reflective plating in-game despite saying reflects 'energy' only adds hp to the ship. Simple enough change, it also absorbs EM energy! Lasers will be less effective till they penetrate it and to a lesser degree, kinetic and thermal energy also have a reduced affect on ship integrity. 'Energy' shields unable to block kinetic or thermal energy?! Some crappy shields then. Can I have Asgard ships plzzzz



But more to the point, should defensive tech outpace weapon tech? No it shouldn't unless you researched the defensive tech exclusively.

I agree. Besides, apart from your choices in research, you can always design your ships the way you want: "Should I add a missile launcher or a shield?... Argh! I don't have space for the engine!"

I honestly don't see the point where better defense techs would stop rush races or tip of the entire balance.

After all every player uses mostly the same technologies and by now battles tend to be over before the long range phase ends. Increasing the effectiveness of defense would imho just drag out the battles over a longer period, allowing the fleets to get closer and kinetic and beam weapons having their prime phases.

Even the lesser effectiveness of kinetic defense seems somewhat reasonable, as kinetics seldom get to their respective phase.



I personally used mostly the beam glass cannon approach. It always worked like a charm. I havn't played with the newest versions though, so maybe things changed up until now.



Nevertheless, I mostly see better defenses dragging out battles. With the retreat option it might make for a lot of nice situations, where fleets fire, retreat, recover and then go back to battle after a while.

In addition: There are three weapon types. Putting enough defense against everything on a ship doesn't seem possible. So better defenses might even result in more interesting ships designs. Different factions using different weapons, requiring different measures to deal with.

Or the other way around. You have an enemy whos defenses are almost impenetrable to one kind of damage, so better go and produce some other types of ships with an emphasis on weapons they can't defend as well against.



So for me:

Better defenses = More interesting game in a lot of ways



Edit:

Seperating defense from offense in the tech tree actually seems quiet interesting. Maybe crosslink the weapon techs with the respective defense techs. You know how to shoot with it, so you have an easier way of researching a way to defend against it and vice versa

FYI: the lack of getting to the mid-range phase is not a problem of Flak being ineffective against missiles.



It's a lack of "proper" ship design (that is, a mix of defenses).

Draco18s wrote:
FYI: the lack of getting to the mid-range phase is not a problem of Flak being ineffective against missiles.



It's a lack of "proper" ship design (that is, a mix of defenses).

I have no trouble getting to the mid-range phase, but trouble getting to melee phase inordinate to use my kinetics before we annihilate each-other!



The main cause is the specialization of defenses, causing them to be worthless to me in a drawn-out war.

Igncom1 wrote:
specialization

Ah ha. So it's not that they're not good enough it's that they're too good at one thing.



Pornomancer* vs. Jack of All Trades issue.



*Joke from a roleplaying game system where it was possible to have 50 dice to persuading someone to have sex with you (it could have been any specialization, but that one was funny), where the "average character" had only 8 to 14 dice in any given task they were skilled at (with a graduate degree! E.g. Einstein has 16 dice in Mathematics and Physics).

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!

What if there was a generalist armor of "reduce all incoming damage by 25%" (after other armor; 1 per ship)? It'd be "less effective" than filling up with specialist armor (which is largely 100% protection against 1 of 3 types).



But offered as an alternative to the three special armors it could play a significant role.



Alternatively, 2% damage reduction, stackable (allowing 24% reduction for the same weight as the above module, likely a harcap on the maximum reduction, e.g 50%).

i like the above idea, its like the damage control module from eve online. i think something like that would definitly help get ships to survive past the long/mid range phases

I like the idea of Defensive systems outpacing offensive ones. For too many reasons to list. It just makes good sense.

Draco18s wrote:
What if there was a generalist armor of "reduce all incoming damage by 25%" (after other armor; 1 per ship)? It'd be "less effective" than filling up with specialist armor (which is largely 100% protection against 1 of 3 types).



But offered as an alternative to the three special armors it could play a significant role.



Alternatively, 2% damage reduction, stackable (allowing 24% reduction for the same weight as the above module, likely a harcap on the maximum reduction, e.g 50%).

You're talking about health module : they're protecting you against every attack. Well they don't protect you, but it's like it was. Even if it's glitched (the Health bonus that needs Titanium is the best, even when you have upper tech).

Aslo, shield, deflector and flak are NOT currently at 1-1 to attack. They are already weaker than them, making fleets of destroyers kamikazes weapons only still the best. Against AI, it's the best, and against a MP, well, there's some ways to beat a destroyer fleet, but that often need better tech, or another destroyer fleet. I find that defences are mostly useless currently.

I would agree that offense is currently too strong compared to defense possibilities. Not (only) because of the "space opera feeling" but because building glass cannon is so effective it takes a lot away from the depth of ship design.

PanH wrote:
You're talking about health module : they're protecting you against every attack. Well they don't protect you, but it's like it was. Even if it's glitched (the Health bonus that needs Titanium is the best, even when you have upper tech).

Aslo, shield, deflector and flak are NOT currently at 1-1 to attack. They are already weaker than them, making fleets of destroyers kamikazes weapons only still the best. Against AI, it's the best, and against a MP, well, there's some ways to beat a destroyer fleet, but that often need better tech, or another destroyer fleet. I find that defences are mostly useless currently.

+2% health is not the same as -2% damage. The effect isn't noticable until many of them are stacked:



35 modules each. 600 base health. Missiles do 120-140 damage. Takes 4.6 on average, no modules.



+70% health

7.8 missiles to destroy (70% more: no surprise)



-70% damage

15.4 missiles to destroy (337% more) <-- most efficient



And using both (total 70%):



+35% hp, -35% damage

9.6 missiles to destroy (208% more)

You're just arguing about the way to do it, and on how many percent it would be efficient. But there's no use of adding modules that reduce global damage knowing there's health module, that's not the same way you calculate it, but there's the same aim. Of course, lowering damage is more efficient, but that's the aim of the rock paper scissors gameplay.

You're proving nothing with your calculus.

PanH wrote:
You're just arguing about the way to do it, and on how many percent it would be efficient. But there's no use of adding modules that reduce global damage knowing there's health module, that's not the same way you calculate it, but there's the same aim. Of course, lowering damage is more efficient, but that's the aim of the rock paper scissors gameplay.

You're proving nothing with your calculus.

So my method offers a better result than the current method, but my method is invalid because it's the same thing?



I am confused.

PanH wrote:
Aslo, shield, deflector and flak are NOT currently at 1-1 to attack.

I also never stated that defense tech was 1-1 with weapon tech.

Draco18s wrote:
So my method offers a better result than the current method, but my method is invalid because it's the same thing?



I am confused.







I also never stated that defense tech was 1-1 with weapon tech.

What you propose has basically the same gameplay effect as the health module. There is no need to add another thing that does the same from the other side of the calculation. The effectiveness of the +% Healt is a pure balance issue

Mermel wrote:
What you propose has basically the same gameplay effect as the health module.

That's irrelevant. If the +Health module isn't effective enough, then it's a trap choice, then it should be removed. It doesn't matter if both modules are filling the same gameplay area, if it's not useful then it is not doing its job.



Remember: this is all about choice in ship design and I'm proposing another choice. If it ends up replacing the existing module because the existing one needs to be removed (because no amount of tweaking will make it a valid choice) then so be it.



Essentially this isn't about gameplay it's about mechanics because the mechanics aren't giving the gameplay enough life, and therefore the mechanics need to change. I am offering a mechanical difference in order to solve this problem, just as all the other suggestions in this thread are trying to do.



Changing the gameplay would be to do something like add formations, or tactics to combat.

Draco18s wrote:
That's irrelevant. If the +Health module isn't effective enough, then it's a trap choice, then it should be removed. It doesn't matter if both modules are filling the same gameplay area, if it's not useful then it is not doing its job.



Remember: this is all about choice in ship design and I'm proposing another choice. If it ends up replacing the existing module because the existing one needs to be removed (because no amount of tweaking will make it a valid choice) then so be it.



Essentially this isn't about gameplay it's about mechanics because the mechanics aren't giving the gameplay enough life, and therefore the mechanics need to change. I am offering a mechanical difference in order to solve this problem, just as all the other suggestions in this thread are trying to do.



Changing the gameplay would be to do something like add formations, or tactics to combat.

And you're proposing exactly the same thing. 25% is the same as 50 out of 200, and nothing can change it. The health module is less effective than the other defences, because it works against every weapon. Your proposal is irrevelant because it's basically unbalanced, compared to current mechanisms. It would make every other types of defences useless, even specific ones.

There's not more choices, nor gameplay, nor mechanism in your proposal, but a different way to calulate it, that wouldn't change the global balance, or efficiency. If you would like to have that mechanism added, it should be balanced, and then having the same efficiency as the current Health module.



And the Health module is not a trap choice nor inefficent, you're comparing it to something clearly unbalanced and overpowered. In fact, it can even be quite good, with some repairs behind.

I'm not sure if it still in, but I remember for a while the best tonnage to health effect on some ships was actually gained through adding some high tech flat bonus shield modules and then some of the %bonus ones. If there is something that should be changed (given it hasn't been done already), it should be that "trap choice".



Edit: Just checked, it's still in there

PanH wrote:
And you're proposing exactly the same thing. 25% is the same as 50 out of 200, and nothing can change it.

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)