Fair enough. That puts armor at a firm cross between shields and hull, though, so it still doesn't add anything new into the mix.

It does not require sustenance, like shields do. Hull is safe as long as armor is not penetrated, even when shields are down.

Safe-r wrote:Hull is safe as long as armor is not penetrated, even when shields are down.

then when differentiate between hull and armor?

Cornflakes_91 wrote:

Safe-r wrote:Hull is safe as long as armor is not penetrated, even when shields are down.

then when differentiate between hull and armor?

In EVE, for instance, hull regenerates really slowly even with a hull repair tool.

A further difference could be that hull hits come with an increased chance of damage to internal systems (not in EVE last time I played it).

This said, I think the current health indicator is OK for the RTB. It is something simple that works. Long term, I'd hope for localized armor/hull damage where individual systems can be targeted and shot out.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:

Safe-r wrote:Hull is safe as long as armor is not penetrated, even when shields are down.

then when differentiate between hull and armor?

Damage done directly to hull could damage ship's systems (turrets, shield generator, engines, etc.). Just like in FTL.

Safe-r wrote: Damage done directly to hull could damage ship's systems (turrets, shield generator, engines, etc.). Just like in FTL.

would be weird if my turrets, which have to reach through the armor, cannot be damaged while the plate they are sitting on is intact....

if at all i'd limit that to internal systems

Or, you could have two health bars. One for the armor and one for the shields. And every shot intercepted by a module is a shot that isn't hitting your armor.

To organize things.

Shield properties:

• Can take X damage before failing
• Regenerates hitpoints while not under fire
• Requires energy
• Internal systems not targetable
• External hardpoints not targetable

Hull properties:

• Can take X damage before failing
• Does not regenerate hitpoints
• Does not require energy
• Internal systems targetable
• External hardpoints targetable

Suggested armor properties:

• Can take X damage before failing (property of shields and hull)
• Does not regenerate hitpoints (property of hull)
• Does not require energy (property of hull)
• External hardpoints targetable (property of hull)
• Internal systems not targetable (property of shields)

If armor works at all, I like the "only external hardpoints destroyable" idea, but it still means armor is mostly hull, as demonstrated above. I don't think the "only external hardpoints destroyable" thing is quite enough.

I would tweak it slightly:

What if, like some types of real-world armor, ship armor becomes "stronger" if an electric current is run through it? In that case, you could say that ship armor does require energy, and that adds a genuinely new mechanic to the game. Do you increase power to armor to take those extra hits, or do you increase power to thrusters and try to flee to give your shields a chance to come back online, or do you increase power to weapons and try to finish the other ship off first? You now have a new choice to deal with, and choices are fun.

Talvieno wrote: What if, like some types of real-world armor, ship armor becomes "stronger" if an electric current is run through it? In that case, you could say that ship armor does require energy, and that adds a genuinely new mechanic to the game. Do you increase power to armor to take those extra hits, or do you increase power to thrusters and try to flee to give your shields a chance to come back online, or do you increase power to weapons and try to finish the other ship off first? You now have a new choice to deal with, and choices are fun.

cough cough

Carp, I should've known Cornflakes would come up with it first.

You could have armor regenerate over time but it could require ore + time when repairing in space or ore + money to instantly repair in a station. If you are willing to give up hard points you could then reduce the repair time/increase the efficiency (hit points to ore ratio) of repairing the armor.

pulsar9 wrote:You could have armor regenerate over time but it could require ore + time when repairing in space or ore + money to instantly repair in a station. If you are willing to give up hard points you could then reduce the repair time/increase the efficiency (hit points to ore ratio) of repairing the armor.

why should it suddenly take no time to repair a ship just because its docked at the smallest possible station that can hold a docking port for that ship?

It should always take resources and time and nothing else or special "its a station!" mechanics.
A station is nothing but a ship which trades engines vs production capacity.

money costs should come from the one who performs the repair, to pay for the resources and machine time.
You pay, he organises the rest.

If you own the place you dont pay money directly but you have to get the materials yourself.


And why should it be more efficient when i sacrifice a hardpoint?

the extra work of ripping out support structure and replacing it with hull materials is less resource intensive than to just replace the broken parts?

Cornflakes_91 wrote: why should it suddenly take no time to repair a ship just because its docked at the smallest possible station that can hold a docking port for that ship?

It should always take resources and time and nothing else or special "its a station!" mechanics.
A station is nothing but a ship which trades engines vs production capacity.

money costs should come from the one who performs the repair, to pay for the resources and machine time.
You pay, he organises the rest.

If you own the place you dont pay money directly but you have to get the materials yourself.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with there being no difference between repairing in space and in port. Ore + money + time, yes, but I think one could argue convincingly for there being a penalty to repairing in space - like a 2x modifier on time taken.

Scytale wrote: Personally, I'm not comfortable with there being no difference between repairing in space and in port. Ore + money + time, yes, but I think one could argue convincingly for there being a penalty to repairing in space - like a 2x modifier on time taken.

Who said that there should be no quantitative differences?

it should work the same in terms of what you need, not how much.

Equipment+resources+time.

Quantities variable but never 0 of any.

Works for me. Quantitative difference is fine (and necessary!) as far as I'm concerned, don't care much for the qualitative difference idea, we seem to be (bizarrely!) agreeing again.