I’m ok with the direction of your suggestion. Though the extensiveness of your proposed changes go to far in my opinion.
I think this is the main problem with your proposal. I:Bs current gameplay isn’t really comparable to an FPS. Just taking the usual hits to kill and transposing it to I:B won’t end well in my opinion.
Don’t get me wrong. I really enjoy tactical, tense shooters. I really don’t think I:B will translate just inherit the emotional engagement these tactical FPS invoke by lowering ship survivability. At least not by this amount and not by this change alone.
I:Bs current gameplay, emotionally, is more akin to melee combat games. Like Chivalry. It’s a kind of dueling. Moving around each other. Deciding how to act, to retreat, to recharge shields, etc.
This is not because ships have so much health. It’s mostly because how ships can move around, see each other and all this while not being in each others weapon range.
In an FPS, if you see someone you can/must shoot him.
In a melee combat game you see someone, but you are usually still in the position to decide what to do.
I think this would result, in the end effect, in something like we’ve seen with the terminator bots in the previous version. Was that fun? I mean even playing as one of the bots? Most engagements consistent of: aligning, firing one salve, changing targets or being dead. With a really, really small window of opportunity (about 1 to 3 seconds). It is/was similar to FPS games but without any tension. You know where the targets are and if you don’t know it was due to you being overwhelmed with what was going on, not someone hiding behind a corner …
With dueling you have tension to who is going to win the duel, with the stress of fighting this extended amount of time and trying to survive.
With tactical FPS it’s the tension of danger behind any corner. The knowledge that the enemy is close but not knowing where exactly.
With aircraft combat it’s the preparations you made before the attack and living with the consequences of maybe not chosen the right target or time to attack.
This only creates a struggle to survive a situation that, in most cases, can’t be survived. I like the noticable absence of shield recover time. I don’t like the panic second. Current shield recharge rates are really, really low. Not comparable to anything console shooter like.
Just for reference. I usually hit about 4-5 shots for an average, well timed, salvo. I would probably instantly kill every interceptor and probably every bomber with the extend of changes you propose.
Yesterday I was even able to destroy a corvette with two full salvos.
I don’t agree there. Without convergence hitting anything that is more than 500meters away will be a thing of luck. Also, I would bet that even with the bigger ships, above 50% of the shots will miss at a range higher than 2km.
The problem is that turrets currently aim perfectly at the lead indicator. NPC interceptors don’t because their aiming skills have been nerved. The turret behavior on the other hand has not. Turret weapons need some inherent inaccuracy. I would propose weapon specific inaccuracy instead of introducing inaccuracy in the turret aiming.
Honestly. When new weapons are introduced I would like Flavien to put in a test weapon that can 2-3 shot an Interceptor with a fire rate about 2/3 of the current placeholder weapon. I want to be able to compare how that changes gameplay side by side.