Suggested weapons tweaking from a PVP player’s standpoint

[Dr. Whammy]

a) that's what i'm talking about here...


View attachment 50278

b) increasing the costs of weapon computer and modules and forcing players to tediously mining asteroids for a time span that is already way too long compared to the time span you spent in actual battle is not adding anything to the enjoyment of the game, especially if battle is the only way of getting a thrill in the game. besides that any battle is utterly pointless anyway, because there is nothing to fight for. you should respect the player and the time he spents in the game more and let him in turn make something that adds to the game in that time. manual mining doesnt add anything to the content or excitement of the game.

No. My idea was to for players to choose between grinding out the "ultimate weapon" so they can feel special, or use the system as it was originally intended so you have legitimate bragging rights when you spank the pants off of your opponent, who is no better or worse armed than you are. This isn't about respecting people's time. It's about playing the game by the rules, as it was intended. If you want to sacrifice your time and effort to bend those rules, then there should be a price to pay for it.

On the other hand, I agree with Zoolimar that the power penalty concept is a heavily flawed and ineffective way of dealing with this issue.

I think the "acid damage" and "wide projectile" systems have the potential to eliminate the need for multi-output weapons. If you can choose between a wide beam or wide cannon burst with shallow/superficial damage over a large area or a narrow beam/projectile with deep penetration and some acid damage, that might curb some of this behavior. On the other hand, manually-fired or logic-fired waffles were a promising AMS option before the missile HP buff. That could still be a good niche for them if Schine gets a clue that missiles shouldn't be armored like flying explosive bank vaults. Who the hell uses armored missiles anyway?

Regardless of what option they go with, weapon accuracy needs to be fixed first. Otherwise, this is all pointless. On a recent test, I measured roughly an 11 degree deviation from point of aim with a basic single output cannon system at a range of less than 800 meters. It did not improve as I got closer. 11 degrees? I'll lay money on the table that there isn't anyone on this forum with the strength to pick up a gun who shoots that badly.

 

[boomchacle]

What needs to be done is for
**Cannons:** buff the dps by a lot, increase projectile speed, get rid of recoil for the person who fires the cannons(but keep it for the person receiving the cannons projectiles).
**Beams:** just reduce the efficiency of b/b, make it do like 17-20 damage power power instead of 24, make b/c 6km range.
**Missiles:** Increase all missile speeds by like 2, most ships just outrun missiles right now. Don’t have more beam slave % on the M/B combo decrease the range.

For cannons Also I was thinking of an idea for a “muzzle brake effect” for cannons as an alternative of just getting rid of recoil entirely. It increases damage by 1.1x but almost completely negates recoil felt by the user. This would only be viable if cannons got a decent buff in damage though, as the opportunity cost of changing from 1.5x damage from your usual kinetic, heat, or EM effect to 1.1x for your muzzle break effect is 40% damage

(For those who have bought into video game myths about silencers and muzzle breaks, they actually increase the kinetic energy of projectiles by a small percentage in real life rather than decreasing the damage)


Please input your comments and opinions about these proposed changes

I feel like these would all make sense, except make the Beams do the same amount of damage, but reduce their Acid damage. Laser beams should not have as much splash damage as cannons do because they should be penetrating weapons which are good at killing shields and bad at armor. Cannons, on the other hand, should do crippling damage to ships if they penetrate the armor, and deal splash damage.

 

[MacThule]

11 degrees? I'll lay money on the table that there isn't anyone on this forum with the strength to pick up a gun who shoots that badly.

Yeah. Such a variation should only be appropriate if the weapon is vastly disproportionate to your ship size (and I don't think the current system is even calculating for this, which means it's probably an inappropriately large flat offset).

I'm torn; Cannon were dominant in the previous weapons incarnation even after several nerfs, but it seems like with the new weapons they've really thrown the whole book at them all at once and taken every possible step to prevent them from dominating the other systems. To the point of going way, way too far and making them mostly useless except for Cc weapons on PD turrets and the charge-cannon. Maybe this was the intent, and honestly they probably aren't any 'more' useless than beams used to be in terms of combat value. Which is why I'm torn between thinking they over-nerfed cannon and thinking that maybe simply the change in meta from cannon to beam is a big part of what's making current cannon dynamics hard for the community to swallow.

Like; if Cc is only to be useful for PD, then so be it. Charge cannon is useful enough in certain situations (close passes or large enough targets can yield substantial hits). Cb rail guns or sniper guns seem a little underpowered but are perhaps meant to be because they offer a few non-DPS advantages?? Raw cannons seem pretty shabby though, and that's where I feel like something may need to be buffed, is for straight cannons with no slaves, even if that means making the slave systems remove that buff progressively to keep their performance relatively close to where it is.

 

[Zoolimar]

Cannon were dominant in the previous weapons incarnation even after several nerfs

When was that? 2-3 years ago? Cause before power 2.0 multi-output beams seemed to be pretty much the main weapons alongside missiles. Cannons were mostly for really long range attacks and PD waffles.

 

[IKindaCrashAlot]

Cannons have always been either a secondary weapon with C/C pierce, a stop array or just a C/C PD array for the past 2 years or so. With exceptions here and there

 

[MacThule]

When was that? 2-3 years ago? Cause before power 2.0 multi-output beams seemed to be pretty much the main weapons alongside missiles. Cannons were mostly for really long range attacks and PD waffles.

That's probably fair; they had definitely improved beams before the 2.0 reboot. I still felt like there were a few things about cannon that made them too much for certain meta-ships I was seeing, but in general MP they were not in dominance anymore.

Anyway, they are almost certainly a bit gimped now.

 

[happahappa]

My final remark on the question of ‘output spamming’:


Assuming you have a turret A with one weapon and turret B with multiple weapons, such that

all weapons in B have the same primary, secondary and tertiary type, the same ratio between primary and secondary and primary and tertiary, and the sum of all primary modules of B = the sum of all primary modules of A, sum of all secondary modules of B = the sum of all secondary modules of A, sum of all tertiary modules of B = the sum of all tertiary modules of A.

So basically the weapons of turret A are split up into more weapons with the same ratio in turret B (single output turret vs mutliple output turret by using one output per computer).

Lets say “damage per turret” is just the sum of damage per weapon. But “effective damage per turret” is the application of that damage to an entity via the means of the game engine (amount of impacts, damage distribution(acid damage, etc), syncronization issus, lag, …), then the effective damage per turret isn’t necessarily the same as the turret damage.

Assuming that turret B has an higher effective damage then turret A, and we want to avoid output spamming, then the power penalty per output has to be high enough to nullify that advantage somehow. (The higher power costs would force you to use a lower amount of weapon blocks on turret B (given both turrets have the same power limitation), reducing the damage per turret and as such, reducing the effective damage as well, and ideally balancing both turrets to the same effective damage)

 

[Zoolimar]

Assuming that turret B has an higher effective damage then turret A, and we want to avoid output spamming, then the power penalty per output has to be high enough to nullify that advantage somehow. (The higher power costs would force you to use a lower amount of weapon blocks on turret B (given both turrets have the same power limitation), reducing the damage per turret and as such, reducing the effective damage as well, and ideally balancing both turrets to the same effective damage)

Why do you insist on using power penalty instead of armour?

 

[happahappa]

I like beams as powerful close range weapons, that are ripping through your ship and making really deep scars.
That's kind of what I expect from beams

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I like beams as powerful close range weapons, that are ripping through your ship and making really deep scars.
That's kind of what I expect from beams

That sounds cool, but that's a rather limited application for beams.

If you look at most real life and sci-fi beam weapons, they tend to have a wide variety of applications. The Tactical High Energy Laser; a modern day energy-based AMS, works (or worked; as it has been discontinued) by heating the exterior of a rocket/missile/artillery shell to rupture or ignite its fuel tank or explosive payload. In Sci-fi we've seen everything from the piercing/slicing lasers you describe (Babylon-5) to disintegrating weapons (Star Trek Phasors/Disruptors), to directed beams of super heated plasma, to convergent lasers that generate enough heat to violently evaporate metal as if it were water; creating an explosion. StarMade's Beams 3.0 are nice but they seem limited to only one function (extreme punch through). Even as 'limited' as they are, they have all but completely outclassed all other weapons with regard to usability. It's only natural that; given how effective these are at draining shields and cutting through armor, that players would look for ways to widen the area of damage they create.

I guess what I'm saying is; I think all weapons (even waffles) should be a viable combat option and they should all have the potential to be reconfigured in ways that tailor them to the kind of engagement you're expecting (with fair trade-offs, of course); if for no other reason than to keep with the idea of creative freedom and for it to actually make sense to have these other weapons in the game. Schine has the ability to make weapons that actually make sense; AP cannons, heat rays that strip armor laterally, missiles that create a wide fragment burst to take down agile fighters and incoming missiles, etc. Why they squander this ability is anyone's guess.

 

[happahappa]

I was referring to the change in the damage model of it, that came with the recent update. Damage seems more superficial now, even on short distance. So that actually requires you to use multiple outputs to compensate for that.
But that beams loose effectiveness over distance was a great idea. that already makes them more a close combat weapons, if we had any effective mid- and long range weapons.

But when it comes to the actual properties and varieties of weapons, maybe that should be seen as a whole with power 2.0, in the sense that the reactor and weapon specialization together (choice of chambers and choice of weapons) should make up the types and subtypes of ships, that are possible in the game.

ideally -- at least in my imagination, not sure if that has any merit --, those different shiptypes form a set of units that interact like units interact in any good strategy game. there is an anti-unit for each unit, like anti-aircraft for aircraft units, rocket throwers againsts armed vehicles, submarines against ships, and of course there are nukes . something along those lines, that would require you in starmade to make a set of different units and to deploy them together strategically. including smaller unit types, that could be potentially hazardous for certain larger unit types (rocket throwers against modern armor, so you have to use the infantery to kill the rocket throwers first,...).

but battles should last much longer and maybe they shouldn't result in the total loss of the ships (or at least you should get the choose between disabling and destructing as ship but atm, if you aren't able to run, there is usually not much left of you, .
so it is rather extreme at the moment. you get eaten away by beams in seconds (because the only ship type we have atm, is a multi output beam ship). maybe we should try the opposite. that destroying a ship in a ship to ship battle is very difficult (at least for most ship types), so you are forced to make strategic decisions like disabling certain systems or weapons. disable shields, weapons, thruster, use the tractor beam to carry the ship away, while the crew is still inside it, panicking . for ship building, that might also give redundancies a proper purpose.

but my point was basically, without a deeper concept about ships and weapons, it's hard to tell, what 'balanced' should mean and what properties weapons should have. and it doesn't look like, that there is any such concept being followed.

 

[Zoolimar]

All that you are describing
happahappa
is well and good but you would be hard pressed to make it work with how little options there is in the game. Instead of creating simple basic systems and adding ways to modify them in more complex ways Schine choose to simplify everything. And it probably will go further down this road considering the overall direction.

 

[IKindaCrashAlot]

Look, this thread was to create a baseline suggestion to make weapons actually usable in this state of the game. It wasn’t for the likes of people such as Whammy and MacThule to come and spout their crude suggestions. Either voice your opinions on the changes I suggested or don’t comment at all. This is “Suggested change from a veteran PVPer’s standpoint. Not suggested changes from people who have never been involved in real pvp or the pvp scene at any point and have little to no idea about pvp and balance

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Look, this thread was to create a baseline suggestion to make weapons actually usable in this state of the game. It wasn’t for the likes of people such as Whammy and MacThule to come and spout their crude suggestions. Either voice your opinions on the changes I suggested or don’t comment at all. This is “Suggested change from a veteran PVPer’s standpoint. Not suggested changes from people who have never been involved in real pvp or the pvp scene at any point and have little to no idea about pvp and balance

There is nothing "crude" about wanting a system where.
A) all weapons are equally viable combat options. ...or...
B) each weapon has an obvious strength and weakness to be evenly countered by and/or compensated for, by other weapons.

Right now, we don't have either and it doesn't take a "veteran PVPer" to see that.

Before dropping my name, try putting your pointless bias aside and actually read what I wrote. Maybe you will see that (for the most part) I was agreeing with you on this issue.

 

[IKindaCrashAlot]

There is nothing "crude" about wanting a system where.
A) all weapons are equally viable combat options. ...or...
B) each weapon has an obvious strength and weakness to be evenly countered by and/or compensated for, by other weapons.

Right now, we don't have either and it doesn't take a "veteran PVPer" to see that.

Before dropping my name, try putting your pointless bias aside and actually read what I wrote. Maybe you will see that (for the most part) I was agreeing with you on this issue.

Exactly this is where you’re wrong not all weapons should be equally combat viable. Schine tried to do this by making max weapon range 4km. That’s made for the most stale gameplay ever. Also riddle me how you’re going to compensate for weapons weaknesses with other weapons? B/B was supposed to compensate by taking away the users shields? So tell me Mr. “You don’t have to pvp to make pvp suggestions” how has that been working out lately?
[doublepost=1536906851,1536906337][/doublepost]

That sounds cool, but that's a rather limited application for beams.

If you look at most real life and sci-fi beam weapons, they tend to have a wide variety of applications. The Tactical High Energy Laser; a modern day energy-based AMS, works (or worked; as it has been discontinued) by heating the exterior of a rocket/missile/artillery shell to rupture or ignite its fuel tank or explosive payload. In Sci-fi we've seen everything from the piercing/slicing lasers you describe (Babylon-5) to disintegrating weapons (Star Trek Phasors/Disruptors), to directed beams of super heated plasma, to convergent lasers that generate enough heat to violently evaporate metal as if it were water; creating an explosion. StarMade's Beams 3.0 are nice but they seem limited to only one function (extreme punch through). Even as 'limited' as they are, they have all but completely outclassed all other weapons with regard to usability. It's only natural that; given how effective these are at draining shields and cutting through armor, that players would look for ways to widen the area of damage they create.

I guess what I'm saying is; I think all weapons (even waffles) should be a viable combat option and they should all have the potential to be reconfigured in ways that tailor them to the kind of engagement you're expecting (with fair trade-offs, of course); if for no other reason than to keep with the idea of creative freedom and for it to actually make sense to have these other weapons in the game. Schine has the ability to make weapons that actually make sense; AP cannons, heat rays that strip armor laterally, missiles that create a wide fragment burst to take down agile fighters and incoming missiles, etc. Why they squander this ability is anyone's guess.

That sounds cool, but that's a rather limited application for beams.

If you look at most real life and sci-fi beam weapons, they tend to have a wide variety of applications. The Tactical High Energy Laser; a modern day energy-based AMS, works (or worked; as it has been discontinued) by heating the exterior of a rocket/missile/artillery shell to rupture or ignite its fuel tank or explosive payload. In Sci-fi we've seen everything from the piercing/slicing lasers you describe (Babylon-5) to disintegrating weapons (Star Trek Phasors/Disruptors), to directed beams of super heated plasma, to convergent lasers that generate enough heat to violently evaporate metal as if it were water; creating an explosion. StarMade's Beams 3.0 are nice but they seem limited to only one function (extreme punch through). Even as 'limited' as they are, they have all but completely outclassed all other weapons with regard to usability. It's only natural that; given how effective these are at draining shields and cutting through armor, that players would look for ways to widen the area of damage they create.

I guess what I'm saying is; I think all weapons (even waffles) should be a viable combat option and they should all have the potential to be reconfigured in ways that tailor them to the kind of engagement you're expecting (with fair trade-offs, of course); if for no other reason than to keep with the idea of creative freedom and for it to actually make sense to have these other weapons in the game. Schine has the ability to make weapons that actually make sense; AP cannons, heat rays that strip armor laterally, missiles that create a wide fragment burst to take down agile fighters and incoming missiles, etc. Why they squander this ability is anyone's guess.

So uh you figured out beams>other weapons. Congrats whammy, this was weapons 3 first 10 minutes type of discoveries.

Also. Keep the babbling about Star Trek or whatever that is off this thread because this isn’t what it’s about. If you have the need to spout more information that has little to no relation to this thread subject, please take it somewhere else. Also just a friendly reminder once again. This thread is simply to analyze the basic tweaks I have suggested, this isn’t make-your-own-starmade-weapons system thread. Your pages of clutter just clog up the chances of getting any kind of reaction out of schine (even though I already have with the launch of the official test server, these changes have been implemented).

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Exactly this is where you’re wrong not all weapons should be equally combat viable. Schine tried to do this by making max weapon range 4km. That’s made for the most stale gameplay ever. Also riddle me how you’re going to compensate for weapons weaknesses with other weapons? B/B was supposed to compensate by taking away the users shields? So tell me Mr. “You don’t have to pvp to make pvp suggestions” how has that been working out lately?
[doublepost=1536906851,1536906337][/doublepost]

So uh you figured out beams>other weapons. Congrats whammy, this was weapons 3 first 10 minutes type of discoveries.

Also. Keep the babbling about Star Trek or whatever that is off this thread because this isn’t what it’s about. If you have the need to spout more information that has little to no relation to this thread subject, please take it somewhere else. Also just a friendly reminder once again. This thread is simply to analyze the basic tweaks I have suggested, this isn’t make-your-own-starmade-weapons system thread. Your pages of clutter just clog up the chances of getting any kind of reaction out of schine (even though I already have with the launch of the official test server, these changes have been implemented).

No. ^ THIS ^ is clutter.

If you really want a productive/constructive discussion on this topic, then grow up and let's get back to work.

To answer your question; beams should be accurate but weak over long ranges; allowing you to choose between incinerating your target at close range at the cost of being hit more or more slowly wearing down your target from a distance where evading cannon fire and shooting down missiles is more likely. Right now, any weakness beams have is compensated for by B/B and output spam.

Cannons should be less accurate than beams but more damaging (on average); allowing you to engage at any range but not be as damaging as beams at close range and not as accurate at long range. You'd have an advantage in overall damage output at the cost of a lower percentage of your shots actually hitting the target; especially at range. Recoil appears more manageable after the last patch but right now, their accuracy is garbage. While cannons are ok against shields, their acid damage model only favors larger arrays. This is why I agree with the dps boost you suggested.

Missiles seem to have a hard time hitting targets below a certain size and above a certain speed. I disagree that increasing missile speed is the fix. Instead, I think we should look at their tracking ability. Reason; missiles very quickly reach their target but often do not "lead" it well enough to score a hit. Their turning radius is fine, since when a missile misses, it turns in a tight arc to try and hit the target again. Above a certain speed, a skilled pilot (and even some AI units) can avoid the same missile repeatedly until it expires. From what I can tell, their targeting works in a manner similar to AI guided turrets; attempting to lead targets. The problem is that when a target moves above a certain speed, weapons' leading ceases to work properly. It trails behind the target starting at less than 1km and gets worse as range or target speed increases. You miss shots because the missile is aiming for where the target is rather than where it's going to be. Even a simple AI 'orbit' flight pattern is enough to cause this. If you fix missile tracking, you'll be able to tell what the next step is (if any) for missile rebalancing and point defense.

AI aiming should also be looked at in addition to weapons, the two go hand in hand.

 

[StormWing0]

hmm could try this sort of thing, Cannons shoot down missiles like they do currently, Beams shoot down Cannon rounds, and Missiles could absorb beam rounds to gain strength.