DUST Search - [Suggestion] Vehicle Structural Health (long read)

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Suggestion] Vehicle Structural Health (long read)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 432	Posted - 2013.08.03 03:19:00 - [1] - Quote I'm almost certain this has been talked about a long time ago, but I haven't seen this pop up recently and I'd also like to share my own ideas. Structure. It is one of the three bars of health every ship in EVE Online has. First comes shield, then armor, and finally structure lies underneath it all. It is nothing more than an extra sliver of health in dire times, or is it? It provides its own unique quirks... I will not be describing how structure works in EVE specifically, but rather describing it through how it can be implemented into Dust. First of all, dropsuits should not receive structural health. Once your armor is gone, the next round will kill you. Once your armor is gone, you are nothing more than a regular human being. Vehicles do not and should not behave like dropsuits. Once a vehicle's armor is gone, does it make sense that a single SMG round can blow up an entire tank? You can strip away all the armor from an M1-Abrams tank, but what remains is its structure. Shoot any rifle at this skeletal structure and it will only dent it at best. Structural Health Bar (or curve, but I will use "bar" from now own to describe the health shown in a vehicle's HUD) It would simply go next to the left of the armor health bar. As for the icons for each layer, shield will remain as the shield, but armor will take on the Medieval helmet (who thought that that would be an excellent icon for something in the future? hehe), while structure will take the current icon for armor (the way that it is in EVE). I must admit, it might become overload for the HUD to show a third health block when a player looks at a vehicle. The HUD itself representing a player's health can be improved. It is actually no different from old games. EVE recently had its HUD improved. I believe something like this can be brought into Dust. Structural Health Values Structural health in EVE is typically equal to a ships base main tank HP (an armor ship would have base structure roughly equal to its base armor). Since adding about 3000 structure to a shield/armor HAV might be a lot (or will it actually be one of the balances that might be needed?), I say to take the average of the vehicle's base armor and shield. Attributes of Structural Health Every anti-vehicle weapon should have equal efficiency against structure. This is how it is in EVE as structure has a base resistance of 0% against any damage type. Since armor/shields are naturally more resistant than structure, every anti-vehicle weapon should have a damage bonus higher than any damage bonus against shield/armor. We all love that armor burn. We all love losing vehicles to armor burn. Armor burn should do its best to reduce armor to 0, but once it hits 0, armor burn stops until another anti-vehicle weapon impacts armor at its critical level. Armor burn will not affect structural health, but in fact, it should decrease the efficacy of armor reps (hang on! Let me explain!). This is one way armor vehicles can take advantage of structure. Instead of having their armor rep trying to fight the effects of armor burn, they can simply wait for their armor to reach 0 before starting up armor reps, as they will become more efficient. Of course they would need to be away from danger if they will hit 0 armor intentionally. Structural damage should be almost irreparable (more details later) and the more structural damage a vehicle sustains, its performance decreases. For example, a vehicle should lose acceleration and top speed as its structure is taking damage. Effects should be minimal at first but they should increase exponentially as structure nears 0. Structural Modules Bulkhead Reinforcements - This module greatly increases structural strength (hp) but also increases vehicle mass which decreases speed and acceleration. Passive module. Structural Reinforcement - This module greatly increases the resistances of structure (and I mean greatly increases them, not a whimpy 30%, but something like 60%). Active module. Only one module permitted. EVE's Damage Control Units provide 60% resists to structure. Chassis Optimization - This module reduces structural strength (hp) but also decreases vehicle mass which increases speed and acceleration. Passive module. Yes we already had something similar, but it reduced armor plating. I believe that it should take away from structure, not armor. Structural Repair Unit - This module helps repair structural damage at a rather slow rate. Passive module. Why should it be a passive module? I'm thinking that it should repair structural damage at roughly 10 hp/s. Making an active module repair at a similar rate makes little sense. I believe this can be similar to armor repair modules on dropsuits: slow but constant. While armor tanking is viable for dropsuits, structural tanking should never become a main tank
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 432	Posted - 2013.08.03 03:19:00 - [2] - Quote My Own Thoughts As mentioned above, structure tanking shouldn't be as viable as armor or shield tanking. But providing these different options to do with structure makes vehicle fittings feel more like a sandbox where you can do anything. Sure, you can stack bulkhead reinforcements with a structural reinforcement, but it comes at a great cost. Your vehicle performance decreases as you take more damage, and your repair rate is incredibly slow if coupled with a structural repair unit. Add to the fact that your vehicle has increased mass, any tank will become virtually stationary if enough damage is received. Structure should rather be used as a last resort. A shield/armor tanker who has lost all of their armor can cling onto whatever is left of their vehicles as a last attempt to prove victorious. High Power, or Low Power? I tried to decide about making the structural modules high power or low power, but putting them in either didn't seem right, at least for now. Placing them in high slots makes no sense because in EVE, these kinds of modules go into low power. But placing them in low power slots takes too much away from armor tanking for vehicles due to the extremely limited number of low slots. I'm not asking to make vehicles have fitting layouts to match those of capital ships in EVE, but the "biggest" vehicles have fitting layouts roughly equal to a cruiser in EVE. For now Dust is rather limiting with its max limit of 5 modules in high/low power. The way I see it, there are two solutions. The first one is to raise this limit to 8, which would equal EVE's limit. Current vehicles stay as they are but proto vehicles can reach 8 slots for their specific tank and perhaps 4 slots on the opposing side. This would give shield the advantage of being able to fit structural modules in addition to damage modifiers, but armor will keep its advantage of being able to fit utility modules such as MCRUs, active scanners, and active heat sinks. Rigs The second solution is to make Rig slots for vehicles. These slots are seen in the upper left of the fitting window in the picture linked above. Structural modules would go into these rig slots as they modify the vehicle itself, just like rigs do in EVE. As a result, structural modules would not be modules but rather rigs. Providing three rig slots for every vehicle would be fair in which both armor and shield vehicles can take advantage of structure without sacrificing low power slots. Rigs would require no CPU and PG, but rather will use up Calibration points. A Tech 1 ship in EVE has 400 Calibration points and three rig slots, while Tech 2 ships have 350 Calibration points and two rig slots. We can implement this into Dust as well, where basic vehicles have 3 rig slots while specialized vehicles (Enforcers, LLAVs, ADS, etc) have only 2 rig slots and slightly less Calibration points.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 432	Posted - 2013.08.03 03:19:00 - [3] - Quote So what are everyone's thoughts?
Void Echo Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 881	Posted - 2013.08.03 03:36:00 - [4] - Quote one of the possible ways to bring back balance to the vehicle side, but infantry want to one shot us so theyl never accept it unless your use common sense
Aizen Intiki Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 319	Posted - 2013.08.03 03:46:00 - [5] - Quote I would take rigs over structure.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 434	Posted - 2013.08.03 03:48:00 - [6] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: I would take rigs over structure. Well, rigs can affect a lot of other attributes other than structure, but I believe structural rigs can be a start.
Aizen Intiki Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 319	Posted - 2013.08.03 03:51:00 - [7] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: I would take rigs over structure. Well, rigs can affect a lot of other attributes other than structure, but I believe structural rigs can be a start. NO, I'm saying keep as is, but add rigs. No structure.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 439	Posted - 2013.08.03 20:51:00 - [8] - Quote Bump
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 526	Posted - 2013.08.18 18:11:00 - [9] - Quote Bump
Mobius Kaethis Molon Labe. League of Infamy 554	Posted - 2013.08.18 18:21:00 - [10] - Quote I think the armor burn mechanic as it currently stands is representing structure burn in EvE. If this is CCP's intention than they have just simplified the shield/armor/structure mechanic for Dust by integrating structure into armor. With this in mind I'd have no problem with separating structure from armor but only if the base armor is decreased by the amount of structure a vehicle has.



Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.