+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Discovery Mod Balance (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=31)
+---- Thread: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" (/showthread.php?tid=149570)
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Kauket - 04-19-2017
(04-19-2017, 07:25 PM)Tænì Wrote:(04-19-2017, 07:23 PM)Auzari Wrote: >>>removing the reward of trapping someone into doing something stupid so you get their regens
I don't think anybody always absolutely makes an optimum regen in the middle of the fight when you don't have an exact percentage indicator.
"i have no argument so i'm going to blame you for something that you don't do in order to make some kind of a point but i can be master level hypocrite by voting yes on both my personal and faction account" lolstop it, it isnt relevant
also the only way you can get insta'd is if you go into a double nuke, or if you never regen and get insta'd by a sabre w/ 2.00's+archs, because even they can't insta you. not counting the GB razors and stuff mind you.
Not being able to tractor nanobots is not really rewarding.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Epo - 04-19-2017
Armor and bots standarisation would be fine, if all hitboxes (also turnrates, handling etc) in question were set the same according to LF-LF ; HF-HF ; VHF-VHF etc ways of balancing.. Taking away the PvP pros/cons for fancy looks and fights should theoretically turn fights to totally skill-based ones.
I'm not sure whether to go for yes or not. I'd be for standarising them along with the circumstances presented above, otherwise, donno.
//Edit: Well, you meant something different, sorry for misunderstanding.
On a sidenote, as Unlucky's said, it's the capital fights balance that needs love more than snub one.
(04-19-2017, 07:36 PM)Unlucky_Soul Wrote: I feel its not snubs but caps that need changes. Snubs are fine as it is
I will refrain from docking for now.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - TheShooter36 - 04-19-2017
A good change, making things more obvious always helps
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Enkidu - 04-19-2017
(04-19-2017, 07:46 PM)Auzari Wrote: "i have no argument so i'm going to blame you for something that you don't do in order to make some kind of a point but i can be master level hypocrite by voting yes on both my personal and faction account" lolstop it, it isnt relevant
Not being able to tractor nanobots is not really rewarding.
Quote the right thing, babe. You going to debate-brigade too?
I voted on my faction account because I thought about 1) what would be good for the faction and 2) what would be good for my member base. Representing a gestalt entity, then me. You could argue I'm biased and manipulating the account - you could argue that's my job as an OFL to represent the interests of a group of players and balance that impacts them.
I'll let you choose what stance, adversarial or empathetic, you choose to walk away with, you having experience as an OFL yourself.
Edit: Changed "Indies" typo to "Member base".
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Haste - 04-19-2017
(04-19-2017, 07:46 PM)Auzari Wrote: Not being able to tractor nanobots is not really rewarding.
[/color]
...I think it's a bit too much of a stretch to argue a 5-10% decrease or increase in nanobots on ships will suddenly make it impossible to tractor any.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Kauket - 04-19-2017
(04-19-2017, 07:57 PM)Haste Wrote:(04-19-2017, 07:46 PM)Auzari Wrote: Not being able to tractor nanobots is not really rewarding.
[/color]
...I think it's a bit too much of a stretch to argue a 5-10% decrease or increase in nanobots on ships will suddenly make it impossible to tractor any.
Oh, well, your post made it look like it was going to suffer the same fate as battleships - turning the HP bar into an overall %, but the 5-10% stuff can work.
My point was that if you entirely removed the ability to have regens, you'd also lose the reward of outsmarting your opponents, such as you being in a gank, insta'ing someone for regens as they weren't paying attention to their hull count. I mean that, a group fight kind of reward.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Haste - 04-19-2017
Because the current average "multiplier" of nanobots to armor is closer to 2.5 than 2, most ships gain a little base armor and lose some nanobots. Although the opposite would likely apply to some heavier ships like SHFs that currently have massive nanobot counts with relatively tiny armor values.
All in all though, it wouldn't make for that significant a change. It's mostly an attempt to convey information better, both through the red hull bar and infocards, by making the full bar correspond to exactly half the total nanobots a ship has, instead of just some random value dependent on the ship.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Corile - 04-19-2017
>remove the eagle+nomad guns because no diversity
>standardise every snub so that fighting everything is exactly the same
Also, I voted no, because some ships should be easier to insta than other ones.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - An'shur - 04-19-2017
It would make things a bit easier to understand, but I voted no, because it is not necessary. Time can be focused elsewhere.
Edit: Also... I am for diversity too.
RE: Armor & Nanobot Standardization | "QoL change" - Traxit - 04-19-2017
@Phantom votes yes.