Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ducimus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
I like not having it. But in a way, one would think that the repairmen would say, "Gee Captain, the last DC made the hull very weak over here and we do not recommend diving too deeply". Something like that I'm sure was said after an attack. So having the hull integrity scale is ok in my view only because you are not told by the repairmen just how bad it is.
|
My thoughts exactly. In reality, im quite sure a crew could gauge the integrity of their hull, and knew what, and what not to do. The representation of this in game is the hull integrity number. That said, i do admit it takes away an element of gambling and risk taking in some scenario's in game. Particuarlly where crush depth is concerned. |
I agree, which is why I suggested a message area that rated the hull integrity as 'excellent', 'good', 'fair' and 'poor' to replace the hull integrity percentage rating which gives an exact number. For instance, excellent might be 91% - 100%, good be 76% - 90%, fair be 51% - 75% and poor 1% - 50%.
Instead of where the hull integrity percentage is displayed now you'd have 'hull integrity condition' that would display one of the four conditions. As 'fair' and 'poor' cover the bottom three-quarters of the percentage rating you'd never truly be sure what the exact remaining percentage of hull condition
was; you'd only ever have a general idea of the state of the hull condition. I think this would be a good blend between having no idea at all (which is what occurs when the hull integrity field is completely disabled) and having an exact idea of the condition (which is what occurs when the hull integrity field is enabled), and would also feel more 'real', to boot.
What the exact percentile range the four descriptors would cover should be discussed, of course, until a general consensus was reached.