Scale Weapon Cooldown by group size

[lostinplace]

So, I think we've all run into the silliness of superweapons by this point. I think that it's pretty neat building ships that are pretty much just giant cannons with thrusters, but I also feel like it's making ships a little sillier than they could be.

I actually think mega-damage is cool, I just think it's less cool when it's leveraged several times in the course of a fight. If you want to core a ship with one blast, that's awesome, but you should only get one try.

I propose that the reload time of a weapon scales geometrically with the size of the average module group attached to the computer.

a formula like this:

Cooldown = Base Rate / (0.25+ (0.5e)^ (-0.025 * average group size * number of groups) ) * cyclecoefficient

yields a sigmoid curve that incentivizes many groups of smaller weapon systems, and also establishes a functional cap for reload time that can be tuned to desired conflict length.

This would mean that battles would be decided by two things, the effective usage of smaller weapon systems, and the correct and well timed usage of the "main guns"

Instead of the now well-known 2-3 shot slugfest, a battle would like like this:

Combatants fire main weapons to take down shields,

Combatants use secondary weapon systems to finish shields/damage other weapon systems, destroy critical systems,

When the next combatants main gun finishes cooldown, they use it immediately, homefully strinking the core that they've exposed using their secondary weapons.

 

[CyberTao]

Smaller weapon groups means waffle guns /TinFoilHat
We actually have a penalty for using more than 1 output per weapons computer, +10% power costs per extra output.

Instead of 1 main gun and a few smaller guns, people would just break the main gun up into 5 or so parts, keeping the Damage the same, but getting a faster reload. While this might be your idea, it doesn't solve anything, one shot turns into 5 shots in a row, cooldown penalty is avoided.

There are plans to deal with 1shotting and core drilling with high alpha weapons, as well as to make Armour scale better with larger ships, would rather wait and see how that plays out than try something this radical.

 

[lostinplace]

My assumption is that you would tweak the curve to get it where you want it, but waffle guns were in fact what I'd want to see, since they can't get very big without eating a lot of power or causing huge cooldown penalties.

The issue with the system is less the resilience of the ship, increasing the armor values will just increase the size of our superweapons. there's nothing in any current (or proposed system) to limit the size of a weapon

 

[lupoCani]

Although I will not speak for the dev team, as far as I can see, this goes directly against their philosophy on several levels. The key point being your statement:

there's nothing in any current (or proposed system) to limit the size of a weapon

And there shouldn't be. Scalability is a core concept of the game, time and time again endorsed by the devs as something they're striving for. A mechanic that serves simply to draw a line- "ships/weapons above this size are not effective" is not a welcome part of the game.

 

[Ithirahad]

No line should be drawn, but if efficiency of weapons tapers off as they get huge I see no problem with it.

 

[Lecic]

but waffle guns were in fact what I'd want to see,

Where you here for the horror that was age of waffleguns? Judging by your account age, no.

Let me educate you on them.

Do you find current combat to be laggy, with blocks getting destroyed in large quantities of blocks being destroyed at once by the three or four punch/pierce rapid cannons or missiles?

Multiply that by about a 4 dozen outputs and you've got waffleguns.

Power is not enough of a limiter for most gun types having numerous outputs. High alpha weapons, perhaps, but anything with a decent RoF has few issues with upping their outputs. My proof? Increased power cost per output was already a thing when we had waffleboards.

When the next combatants main gun finishes cooldown, they use it immediately, homefully strinking the core that they've exposed using their secondary weapons.

The core is not going to be as important in the future with the upcoming HP system, which presumably revolves around destroying a certain amount of mass of the enemy ship to kill it.

If you want to balance superweapons, here's my ideal solution- start to give weapons diminishing returns based on the total weapon block mass of a ship. Got more than, say, 15% of your ship mass dedicated to weapons? Well, you're gonna start seeing them be a little less efficient.

 

[Ithirahad]

If you want to balance superweapons, here's my ideal solution- start to give weapons diminishing returns based on the total weapon block mass of a ship. Got more than, say, 15% of your ship mass dedicated to weapons? Well, you're gonna start seeing them be a little less efficient.

I dislike this for two reasons... First, it feels kind of arbitrary - If I put a cannon on top of my car rather than holding a pistol and shooting out the window, it doesn't make the cannon any weaker than it would be if it was on a big boat where it belongs. The recoil would make the car fall over probably, but that's not the point. Second, it limits people's options block-ratio-wise in an awkward way. If someone wants to make a giant flying gun, IMO it should be totally possible, but they might catch hell trying to power it and they'll probably find themselves without much defense or maneuverability.

 

[Lecic]

I dislike this for two reasons... First, it feels kind of arbitrary - If I put a cannon on top of my car rather than holding a pistol and shooting out the window, it doesn't make the cannon any weaker than it would be if it was on a big boat where it belongs. The recoil would make the car fall over probably, but that's not the point. Second, it limits people's options block-ratio-wise in an awkward way. If someone wants to make a giant flying gun, IMO it should be totally possible, but they might catch hell trying to power it and they'll probably find themselves without much defense or maneuverability.

It's more of a "why aren't super massive guns practical in real life" than "I could totally slap a cannon on my smart car"

IRL, a larger weapon becomes harder and harder to maintain. This is sort of simulating that without making waffleboards gods.

Building a super weapon would definitely still be possible, but it wouldn't be like today where every ship can fit a superweapon (and is generally recommended to do so).

 

[Ithirahad]

It's more of a "why aren't super massive guns practical in real life" than "I could totally slap a cannon on my smart car"

IRL, a larger weapon becomes harder and harder to maintain. This is sort of simulating that without making waffleboards gods.

Building a super weapon would definitely still be possible, but it wouldn't be like today where every ship can fit a superweapon (and is generally recommended to do so).

Power limitations facilitate this. And maybe weapon blocks having more mass than other types, but that's a feature for some other time. Arbitrary %-of-ship stuff makes no sense. (Except for FTL because that's an engine.) I don't even like it on scanners, but I understand that it's a necessary evil. However, I don't really want this to become a common method of balancing.

 

[lostinplace]

.... Did anyone here actually evaluate the function I provided? It seems like most of your objections are non-issues, since even waffle guns couldn't become that massive without hitting substantial cooldown penalties. (for the values I provided, 6 groups of 5 would create about a 3x cooldown modifier)

Really the idea is that cooldowns can be adjusted to regulate weapon size, to make superweapons less prevalent. No one seems to object to the idea of regulating cooldown time, everyone just seems to agree on, "you'll never take our enormous silly guns away from us, the constitution gave us this right and it's ours forever."

I don't want to take people's enormous weapons away, I think they're cool. I just don't want them being continually used in battle.

If you want a 10million millimeter howitzer, awesome, you just shouldn't fire it twice in 15 seconds without expecting the stress of the blast to shatter the barrel.

 

[Spartan-228]

I like this. There is also an upside for fighters. Fighters guns which are usually small won't necessarily need 90 to 100% cannon cannon weapons to achieve a good rate of fire. This also means they can be a little more powerful, maybe actually do some damage to ships with advanced armor.

 

[CyberTao]

Penalty wouldn't apply to weapons set on separate computers. My battleship uses separate ships as it's main weapons, a concept I need to make a thread someday to properly explain.

What I'm trying is to say is that this system would buff my battleship, which does not use conventional SM weapons, adding even more advantages to this building style without any extra negative. I makes my design stronger than normal on-ship weapons, which I don't quite like.

 

[CaptainTaz]

I don't want to take people's enormous weapons away, I think they're cool. I just don't want them being continually used in battle.

Weapons.... are made for battle..... Having a big gun means you deal more damage, not have something pretty to leave in your shipyard and never move.

If you want to balance superweapons, here's my ideal solution- start to give weapons diminishing returns based on the total weapon block mass of a ship. Got more than, say, 15% of your ship mass dedicated to weapons? Well, you're gonna start seeing them be a little less efficient.

I also disagree with this idea, because some people (*Cough* me *Cough) Like to build "Ships" that are just large weapons in space, like a floating rocket launcher or an all-in-one defense sentry to protect their stuff. This idea would also kill off turrets entirely, along with small, slow, and vulnerable drones with big guns.

 

[Lecic]

Weapons.... are made for battle..... Having a big gun means you deal more damage, not have something pretty to leave in your shipyard and never move.

I also disagree with this idea, because some people (*Cough* me *Cough) Like to build "Ships" that are just large weapons in space, like a floating rocket launcher or an all-in-one defense sentry to protect their stuff. This idea would also kill off turrets entirely, along with small, slow, and vulnerable drones with big guns.

You'd still be able to build a weapon that is just a big rocket launcher with engines. It's just that currently, every ship is basically a rocket launcher with engines.

 

[Megacrafter127]

Penalty wouldn't apply to weapons set on separate computers. My battleship uses separate ships as it's main weapons

tsk, regardless of what system, I always make a separate computer for every group. a PITA, but it is worth it.

 

[CyberTao]

tsk, regardless of what system, I always make a separate computer for every group. a PITA, but it is worth it.

It's like a turret, except it trades ability to turn for being embedded in the main ship (better defensive). Works perfectly for ships that are designed to only engage in certain directions (forward facing). You actually get more bonuses this way than just using separate computers on a ship, only downside is it needs it's own shielding.

 

[lostinplace]

Penalty wouldn't apply to weapons set on separate computers. My battleship uses separate ships as it's main weapons, a concept I need to make a thread someday to properly explain.

What I'm trying is to say is that this system would buff my battleship, which does not use conventional SM weapons, adding even more advantages to this building style without any extra negative. I makes my design stronger than normal on-ship weapons, which I don't quite like.

I think your strategy is really neat, but the system I've proposed would not buff your battleship.... I don't know why you think it would

This idea would also kill off turrets entirely, along with small, slow, and vulnerable drones with big guns.

This system would kill off slow vulnerable drones with big guns, which I believe is a benefit
[DOUBLEPOST=1425663841,1425663371][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, for the sake of informed arguments, this is a graph of the curve I was talking about, where y is cooldown, x is group size and z is number of groups
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+=+10+/+(0.25++(0.5e)^+(-0.025+*+x+*+z)+)+*+5+from+x+0+to+35,+z+0+to+35

 

[sp33dfire]

I think the cool down idea isn´t so bad.

Just imagine this mother of god ion cannon from CnC. Such a big weapon on a ship is great, I´d love to see that somewhere.... But Imagine something with 500k dmg per shot and it shoots every 15 secs....
I really don´t know, how long your shields would do this.
The point was, that such a weapon should fire once or twice in a fight. I don´t think most Titans would be destroyed after one or two shots and thats the interesting point. Instead of building 1 big fat cannon you may build more smaller ones to cover the damage of one. It wouldn´t make any difference for the damage but fights would be more interesting if there are more than 3 projectiles flying before the fight ends.

I don´t think the cooldown of all weapon systems is high enough for a hugh amount of modules. For me the cooldown of a computer should go up for each module block added.

 

[AtraUnam]

Would there be an equivalent range or damage increase for having a bigger weapon with an otherwise much lower dps? because Otherwise I would just waffle 100 damage cannons next to and behind each other.

 

[lostinplace]

I don´t think the cooldown of all weapon systems is high enough for a hugh amount of modules. For me the cooldown of a computer should go up for each module block added.

Yeah, that would be nice, but I liked the idea of challenging people to build weapons arrays to skirt the limitations, and in exchange make the tradeoff between armor ad firepower
[DOUBLEPOST=1425665796,1425665757][/DOUBLEPOST]

Would there be an equivalent range or damage increase for having a bigger weapon with an otherwise much lower dps? because Otherwise I would just waffle 100 damage cannons next to and behind each other.

waffling 100 damage cannons would yield a very high cooldown, see the graph
[DOUBLEPOST=1425665903][/DOUBLEPOST]....Actually looking at the values I provided for the graph, a 10x10 array would be fine... but I just threw those values in so that it could be graphed, the idea is that you'd tune the function to achieve the desired distribution