Fix the crappy damage beam ranges

[Planr]

Currently on the new weapon systems, the ranges suck for combat on damage beams VS other weapons.

Why?
Let me give you an example.

I have a turret design which i have made several different versions of, that use different weapon fill-outs on the inside.
I compared an AMC-AMC-overdrive setup of the turret to a Beam-AMC-overdrive setup of the turret. Both did the same DPS, and shot pretty much the same way. They also had exactly the same accuracy, so the Beam-AMC setup hit its targets just as often as the AMC-AMC turret did.

The beam turret therefore is very useless compared to the cannon. It has half the range (as thats the way the devs made it) and DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE to making up for its crappy range with its equally-crappy accuracy and supposed "superiority" as a hitscan weapon.

There is no incentive to use beam weapons therefore, considering that you can achieve the same DPS and accuracy with a cannon turret at TWICE the range of the beam cannon. It is very easy for an AMC-equipped warship to pick off a damage beam-equipped warship from a distance. And since damage beams do the same DPS as AMCs, there is still no incentive to have a mix of both beams and AMCs, aside from the fact that beams use practically no energy (though i'm 99% sure that's a bug)

Here's a pic of the crappy job my beam cannon was doing against targets. It doesnt really show much but you can see its having some real accuracy issues:

So how can this crappy weapon balance be solved? There are three main options I can think of:

1)
The solution that probably comes to mind first is to give cannons and beams the same ranges. Making them equal, however, would hence mean that there is nothing really special about beams as they are (mostly already) then the same in functionality as the cannon, aside from the hitscan + aesthetic beam effect. Which means having damage beams really isnt worth it. After all, why have different weapon types if the only difference between them is their SFX appearance?

2)
So, since making the weapons work the same isnt a fun option, instead the devs should strive to make damage beams more unique and different compared to the other weapons. Make their functions and uses completely different.
For some good ideas on making them unique, I source the Homeworld games on this one. In that game, capital ships basically had the same kind of weapons that we have, with missiles, beams, and cannons. The "Ion Cannon" (Homeworld's equivalent of Starmade's damage beam) weapon type was very powerful, but took a long time to reload compared to mass drivers (their equivalent of our cannons) but did immensely more damage. So basically damage beams would become more siege-oriented weapons on their own, compared to being basically the same as cannons.
However, this kind of siege-setup for damage beams also raises questions about how its secondary and tertiary effect applications would work in turn. How would it behave then with pulse slave-links? Would that simply make it an even MORE powerful siege cannon?

3)
I'm opting to settle for a more middle-of-the-road option. Make them have a better range, but not as good as AMCs, but make them have slightly greater accuracy with AI than AMCs. They should also use more power, because right now they literally use nearly none at all. I think this alone should both equally specialize them without making them too OP. This, Option 3, seems to me as the best way to go about fixing damage beams.

 

[Hamsta]

I think beam weapons are fine as they are and do have their own roles. Beeing used as a turret just not one of them.

The big advantage that the beam-weapons have, compared to AMCs, is that they instantly do damage on the block you are aiming at. This is insanly usefull for small and agile fighters (when humans fly them...not the AI). In a fight between two fighters the one with beam-weapons will always win against an equal ship with AMCs. Therfore i can't agree with you saying they are useless and inferior to AMCs.

The only part i share the same opinion as you is, that the AIs should get an accuracy buff while using beam weapons since it is far easyer to aim and hit with them compare to AMCs.

 

[Cybertooth]

I think that beams do need more range, but as with your homeworld reference, i would prefrer beams that deal huge damage, but have a long reload time. I would enjoy using cannons at long range and closing to use heavy hitting beams, but that may just be how i think about beams though, i never think of beam weapons as being fast loading/charging weapons. Most likly beacuse of homeworld.

 

[Legolas170]

yeah, the accuracy of beams when used by ai sucks, but it is supposed to. I cant believe people are complaining about this ai, I personally like ai that doesnt core drill me instantly, which is what would happen if AI accuracy with beams was buffed. Simply put, the current beam accuracy when manned by ai allows combat to be more interesting, because otherwise people would just build massive laser arrays on their turrets, and insta-core-drill.
Also, the issue only happens with small ships, anything that is corvette size of above is almost a guarunteed hit, so I really dont see why your complaining. Cannons and missiles are the effective anti fighter weapons, and beams are for close in, heavy hitting damage, although I would like to see more range and damage

 

[Planr]

The big advantage that the beam-weapons have, compared to AMCs, is that they instantly do damage on the block you are aiming at. This is insanly usefull for small and agile fighters (when humans fly them...not the AI). In a fight between two fighters the one with beam-weapons will always win against an equal ship with AMCs. Therfore i can't agree with you saying they are useless and inferior to AMCs.

Perhaps this is true in singleplayer, but in online play, I've found it's actually very difficult to hit small ships when also in a small ship and using damage beams, mostly because the combination of server lag + constant physics updates + the messed-up crosshair targeting (when the target crosshair is green, half the time it shoots cross-eyed and doesnt hit the target) means that targets are extremely difficult to hit with beams, and that usually what you do to hit them under such conditions is use an AMC-AMC setup and spam bullets slightly ahead of your target (to compensate for their speed) and hit them en-masse.
To summarize, in online play hitscan damage beams actually have the disadvantage vs small ships compared to projectile amcs

The only part i share the same opinion as you is, that the AIs should get an accuracy buff while using beam weapons since it is far easyer to aim and hit with them compare to AMCs.

Yes, AI need an accuracy buff for damage beams for sure. I want to also say missiles should have an accuracy buff too, but I think it's best missiles are reserved as mostly an anti-capital weapon.

 

[Legolas170]

*cough*cough
read the post above you

 

[Planr]

*cough*cough
read the post above you

That would be the post I'm replying to.

 

[Legolas170]

Yes, because my name is Hamsta.
also, for somebody who was replying to me, it is interesting that you didnt mention or adress a single thing I said...

 

[LordVe]

To fix the range issue on my server, I just edited the blockBehaviorConfig.xml and increased the range to 1k and the power cost to 1.5k, I also changed the burst time to be 60s, and the cool down to 30s so that they would conform to being "phasers" for the ST ships (People seem to like to use them in the fleet engagements).

 

[Hamsta]

Perhaps this is true in singleplayer, but in online play, I've found it's actually very difficult to hit small ships when also in a small ship and using damage beams, mostly because the combination of server lag + constant physics updates + the messed-up crosshair targeting (when the target crosshair is green, half the time it shoots cross-eyed and doesnt hit the target) means that targets are extremely difficult to hit with beams, and that usually what you do to hit them under such conditions is use an AMC-AMC setup and spam bullets slightly ahead of your target (to compensate for their speed) and hit them en-masse.
To summarize, in online play hitscan damage beams actually have the disadvantage vs small ships compared to projectile amcs

Actually, i tested this on a multiplayer server vs other humans (i pretty much only play online). Otherwise i could not have made the statemant, that in fights between two human steered ships, the one with beams always wins.
I must admit that i testet this when damage-beams worked just like salvage beams (shooting in a straight line from block and not aiming at the point the crosshair is aiming at). So it either has something to do with a change they made with this or (no offence) your internet or your servers performance suck.
Even if it was a problem they added by making it aim at the crosshair, the problem would be just that and not the range beeing too short and the beam having no useable advantage compared to the AMCs.

yeah, the accuracy of beams when used by ai sucks, but it is supposed to. I cant believe people are complaining about this ai, I personally like ai that doesnt core drill me instantly, which is what would happen if AI accuracy with beams was buffed. Simply put, the current beam accuracy when manned by ai allows combat to be more interesting, because otherwise people would just build massive laser arrays on their turrets, and insta-core-drill.
Also, the issue only happens with small ships, anything that is corvette size of above is almost a guarunteed hit, so I really dont see why your complaining. Cannons and missiles are the effective anti fighter weapons, and beams are for close in, heavy hitting damage, although I would like to see more range and damage

I like the worse aiming of turrets as well. But compared to turrets with AMCs, beam mounted turrets (and AI ships) should have a higher accuracy. Not pinpoint drilling skills but still higher ones then with AMCs. Espacially since you can just avoid them by not flying into their range and picking them off one by one. And yet again i have add, that damage-beams are more suited to ships flying around instead of turrets.

 

[Legolas170]

I dunno, I still feel that the current accuracy is good, and that lazer turrets should just be used as shield killers. That, or do what I did and have EXPLODING LAZORZ

 

[mrsinister]

just adding my 2 cents, but isn't anything like Damage, Reload, CoolDown, Range, etc etc done per server in the servers config? Beams on my server have a little longer range than default.

 

[Lecic]

*cough*cough
read the post above you

*cough*cough
you're being obnoxious they'll reply to you when they feel like it you twat

 

[Legolas170]

I did that because the post made statements that were clearly adressed in the post above

 

[Lecic]

I did that because the post made statements that were clearly adressed in the post above

The post made statements that were clearly addressed to the person Planr was quoting.

 

[Legolas170]

Ok, let me slow it down for you. Planr was talking about things that had already been addressed in my post. Whoever planr was responding to is of no matter, simply that planr was speaking on things that had already been dealt with

 

[Planr]

Ok, let me slow it down for you. Planr was talking about things that had already been addressed in my post. Whoever planr was responding to is of no matter, simply that planr was speaking on things that had already been dealt with

Incorrect. Your argument in that post was that you don't think the accuracy of damage beams is a problem. You also implied that they shouldn't be used as anti-fighter weapons by AI turrets. I disagree completely. They have many uses against fighters if their accuracy is readjusted to be better. In fact it would make them an invaluable tool in an anti-fighter defense. However, raising their accuracy does not necessarily mean they will instantly core-drill ships like you say they will; frankly I find that point of view you're expressing to be an extreme and unrealistic one. There is a middle ground in that area that we can find so that they are more effective as anti-fighter weapons up close without putting AMCs out of business in that area either, and also keep them from becoming core-drilling tools at the same time.

And I will remind you that damage beams already have a huge disadvantage vs fighters due to their very short range. The small fighters can simply back off a measly 500+ meters from the enemy ship and they are safe from any damage beam AA attacks. And maybe you'd ask, "but what about beam+beam setups that are 1000 range? Well, beam+beam setups, while having longer range, have terrible reload speeds, so they're not much of a threat to fighters, especially when you consider they're already going to have really bad accuracy hitting small fighters at such a long distance.

Furthermore the things in your post are unrelated to what I was talking about to Hamsta. We were debating the effectiveness of damage beams in online fighter-to-fighter combat when you account for lag and physics/chunk updates, not the matter of their accuracy justifying the weapon's drawbacks.

 

[Legolas170]

Point made.