Would you call cannon-cannon-effect weapons "tier 3"?

DrTarDIS · Sep 5, 2016

When I'm inclined to Tier a weapon, I do so by it's effective engagement range.
Eg
tier 1: cannon, cannon/cannon , cannon/pulse
tier 2: beam, beam/cannon, beam/pulse
tier 3: cannon/beam, Missile, missile/cannon, missile/missile, missile/pulse, beam/beam
tier 4: Missile/beam

Effects are simply utility options to add to any of those.

kulbolen · Sep 5, 2016

your classification system is flawed, and should not be used.

kiddan · Sep 5, 2016

To be fair, there isn't really any weapon better than another one in every way. A weapon with more damage consumes more power and vice-versa.

Groovrider · Sep 5, 2016

In my mind I suppose I rate weapons as anti-fighter, anti-ship, and anti-station/structure. This is entirely dependent on the prey i'm hunting so not an objective measure.

Madman198237 · Sep 6, 2016

/Begin_ramble

Master_Artificer said:
I would call a weapon by what it is:

A cannon cannon is a machinegun
A cannon beam is a sniperrifle
A cannon missile is a shotgun

etc etc
snip

To build on this statement: If you have a tier 2 machinegun, and you try to shoot an enemy sniper, you're going to lose. If, instead, you have a machinegun and you're 20 feet away from said sniper, you will win.

Continue this metaphor for any combo you want, my point stands. There are no different tiers in a sandbox/balanced game, because everything is equal when applied right. If you walk into a room with a shotgun and a knife, then you're doing it right. If instead you go wandering through a maze of small rooms with a rocket launcher, then you're absolutely screwed (Hello, elementary rocket science!). Proper application. You do not use a hammer to tighten bolts, and you can't use a C/M shotgun at 3 sectors' distance from your target.
But if you're ten meters off your target's blind spot, that might just be the time to test the usefulness of a shotgun cannon.

Neither one is "above" or "better" than the other. (Although I'd argue that anyone dumb enough to use a shotgun in space should be shot and sent to the Russian front)
Hence, tiers in a sandbox/balanced game are a useless waste of time.

JinM · Sep 6, 2016

A "tier" in gaming language reffers to a next level, that you can only achieve after you accomplished certain tasks.

You want to use the "tier" definition on a gaming mechanic, that has no upgrades or downgrades, because you can allways and at every state of the game use every weapon system. We have no tech tree like in Warcraft 3 or Starcraft.

So if you want to use the "tier" word to describe the complexity of a weapon, its like trying to describe how a fruit salad tastes accordingly to the number of different ingredients you used. There are no tiers for meals, and that also is the matter with the weapon systems you use in Starmade.

If you use the word specialisation or effectiveness (equals tastiness for meals

) its a new matter ofc.

I understand that you want to categorise the different weapons. Well why not categorise them accordingly to their uses. BB-turrets against fast fighters, MB-turrets and MB-Fighters against Fighters, CB Main Weapons vs slow ships and Stations, and so on. Or categorise them according to the level of the object they are placed on. CCO you only need in small turrets and is likely found on frigattes or smaller ships (level 2 ships, level 1 be a fighter without turrets in this example), a BBStop-turret is something that is so specialised that it only finds a place on big flagships or stations (level 4), but makes no sense on smaller ships because they need that weapon-capazity for damage.

HerrColonel · Sep 6, 2016

JinM · Sep 6, 2016

Winterhome · Sep 6, 2016

I cringed when I saw the thread title.
When I read the thread, I cringed harder. Much harder.

In any game with "Tiers", you're basically blocking off content that would make you even remotely competitive behind hours of grinding, and making it so that anything below top tier is merely a consolation system to make people feel marginally better about their shitty equipment. "Tiers" in games always have and likely always will imply a ladder heirarchy, with higher tiers being better than lower tiers of the same kind of equipment in most, if not all ways.

Combine "Tiers" with a PVP focused game and by default, you've got an extremely unbalanced game, with only top-tier gear being capable of pulling off wins in proportion to your skill as a player.

What you're describing here isn't a "tier" system - you're merely describing how complex a weapon system is. We don't need a word for that.

Just describe it as X/Y/Z Main/Secondary/Tertiary or whatever. I usually do stuff like "20k/20k/20k C/C/Pu" or "5k/5k/5k B/P/I" or "7k/0/7k M/B/Pi" or whatever. It's easy to interpret, it's to the point, and it doesn't leave anything to the imagination.

Incidentally, this is a top-tier thread. I haven't seen poll results that oppose the OP's point this heavily in years.

Saxopi · Sep 6, 2016

No offense, but this is the most pointless thread I've ever seen.

NeonSturm · Sep 6, 2016

If you have a cannon-cannon-punch weapon, you can kill maybe 7 blocks per shot and 10 shots per second = 70 blocks per second.
When you use a cannon-only weapon, you would be able to kill 1 block per second with just that one weapon.

Then you say: but you could make multiple weapons …
… but multiple pistols are not a machine gun - they require multiple hands to hold too (In Starmade, master-controllers).

You say that 1-1-1 + 1-1-1 is not superior to 2-2-2 (Ion, punch), but I answer that the choice given to the pilot alone separates it into the next tier/level.

In the past, we had front-loaded riffles which could fire exactly once after 20 seconds or more on preparation time.
Does everyone agree that riffles with multiple rounds are the next tier? Even if the bullets are more difficult to manufacture?

You might say "I don't care about manufacturing time" and you might be right; AS LONG as you have others do it for you in mass-production-style.
But once you are in a post-apocalyptic world or stranded at some forest-island, would you prefer your standardized machine gun or a bow?

Level, what is level? Level is if it is stronger. It can also cost more and adds unused overkill.

Tier, what is tier? It is a tech-level in my understanding since I started the post.
If your skill increases, it's not a technology but skill.
But if you upgrade your weapon, you get another technology-level.

If you separate a 600 block weapon into 2x 300 to get ion/punch, you can do not more damage than previously.
But you can safe 50% power if you do not fire stupidly both guns.

In StarConflict, you get 1 additional upgrade slot per tier and 1 additional equipment slot per 6 tiers if I remember that correctly but it's better to use lower tiers if you have not enough money to upgrade your higher ships.

But one tier has interceptors, fighters, frigates and new destroyer-class ships and you may choose to pick a lower-tier destroyer over a higher-tier interceptor in some cases. It is not always better to choose the higher tier.

If you have 1 ship tier 6 and one ship tier 7 and pick tier 7, you get matched against higher tier players. Tier-7 is worse than Tier-6 as long as you don't have 3 tier-7 to stitutionally choose the best one.

Higher tiers are not always better because they cost more or require a bigger society/infrastructure.
A jeep is better than a horse, but only as long as you get enough fuel and this fuel is not more expensive than a servant who cares for the horse while you are doing something else.

If you mix up cannons and beams, you require a more complex factory to build both types - it's a higher tier (Technology).

Winterhome · Sep 6, 2016

NeonSturm said:
When you use a cannon-only weapon, you would be able to kill 1 block per second with just that one weapon.

Wrong. Flat-out wrong. This isn't Starmade 2014 anymore.

Cannons penetrate blocks. A straight cannon can penetrate blocks just fine, and in many cases excels at it compared to cannon-cannon due to its potentially 10x higher alpha damage per shot. There is no such thing as a straight upgrade, with the sole exception of going from No Effect to Punchthrough.

HerrColonel · Sep 6, 2016

NeonSturm said:
If you have a cannon-cannon-punch weapon, you can kill maybe 7 blocks per shot and 10 shots per second = 70 blocks per second.
When you use a cannon-only weapon, you would be able to kill 1 block per second with just that one weapon.

Then you say: but you could make multiple weapons …
… but multiple pistols are not a machine gun - they require multiple hands to hold too (In Starmade, master-controllers).

You say that 1-1-1 + 1-1-1 is not superior to 2-2-2 (Ion, punch), but I answer that the choice given to the pilot alone separates it into the next tier/level.

In the past, we had front-loaded riffles which could fire exactly once after 20 seconds or more on preparation time.
Does everyone agree that riffles with multiple rounds are the next tier? Even if the bullets are more difficult to manufacture?

You might say "I don't care about manufacturing time" and you might be right; AS LONG as you have others do it for you in mass-production-style.
But once you are in a post-apocalyptic world or stranded at some forest-island, would you prefer your standardized machine gun or a bow?

Level, what is level? Level is if it is stronger. It can also cost more and adds unused overkill.

Tier, what is tier? It is a tech-level in my understanding since I started the post.
If your skill increases, it's not a technology but skill.
But if you upgrade your weapon, you get another technology-level.

If you separate a 600 block weapon into 2x 300 to get ion/punch, you can do not more damage than previously.
But you can safe 50% power if you do not fire stupidly both guns.

In StarConflict, you get 1 additional upgrade slot per tier and 1 additional equipment slot per 6 tiers if I remember that correctly but it's better to use lower tiers if you have not enough money to upgrade your higher ships.

But one tier has interceptors, fighters, frigates and new destroyer-class ships and you may choose to pick a lower-tier destroyer over a higher-tier interceptor in some cases. It is not always better to choose the higher tier.

If you have 1 ship tier 6 and one ship tier 7 and pick tier 7, you get matched against higher tier players. Tier-7 is worse than Tier-6 as long as you don't have 3 tier-7 to stitutionally choose the best one.

Higher tiers are not always better because they cost more or require a bigger society/infrastructure.
A jeep is better than a horse, but only as long as you get enough fuel and this fuel is not more expensive than a servant who cares for the horse while you are doing something else.

If you mix up cannons and beams, you require a more complex factory to build both types - it's a higher tier (Technology).

I think this explaination is insanely twisted.

But feel free to call that tiers or anything, I don't mind. Why are you trying to share your nonsense?

NeonSturm · Sep 6, 2016

HerrColonel said:
But feel free to call that tiers or anything, I don't mind. Why are you trying to share your nonsense?

Because I want to know how I have to talk about stuff

I don't want to be the cause of a negative discussion in my suggestion threads again just because I did use "the wrong word" for it.
Where it does not even have to be a wrong word, but different expectations put into that word from different peoples.

Jaaskinal · Sep 6, 2016

I think you should look at your poll numbers, and consider the value of continuing to push your position.

HerrColonel · Sep 6, 2016

NeonSturm said:
Because I want to know how I have to talk about stuff

I don't want to be the cause of a negative discussion in my suggestion threads again just because I did use "the wrong word" for it.
Where it does not even have to be a wrong word, but different expectations put into that word from different peoples.

It's extra dumb. All that counts when you're debating (or argumenting for your suggestion) is your point. If you need 2 sheets explaination for a single word the trouble is not people getting pissed. Trouble is you unable to communicate. Make sure you have a logic argumentation before assuming it's just people "disliking"

JinM · Sep 6, 2016

NeonSturm said:
If you have a cannon-cannon-punch weapon, you can kill maybe 7 blocks per shot and 10 shots per second = 70 blocks per second.
When you use a cannon-only weapon, you would be able to kill 1 block per second with just that one weapon.

Then you say: but you could make multiple weapons …
… but multiple pistols are not a machine gun - they require multiple hands to hold too (In Starmade, master-controllers).

You say that 1-1-1 + 1-1-1 is not superior to 2-2-2 (Ion, punch), but I answer that the choice given to the pilot alone separates it into the next tier/level.
(... 10 times more text following)

You write so much. Now just in one word: Do you want to categorise weapon systems in Starmade? Yes or No?

In at maximum of 5 words, if you answer with yes, what is the sole purpose you need that categorisation for? Effieciency? Specialisation? Something else?

Because it is important, if you want to discuss with some1, that he understands your point. Your sole purpose why you want to know or discuss this element. Your examples give me no idea of what you actually want to categorise in. Give the child a name, and maybe we can know where it belongs.

I can't even repeat what you want in my own words, or break it down into some simple subject-name, because the examples are so confusing. What is it that you want to categorise the weapons into? Use less words. First name the exakt purpose you want in maximum of one sentence, then give at most 2 examples (not longer than one sentence or 20 words each) that support your first sentence. There are not 5 paragraphs needed. If you can't express what you want in one paragraph, you might not have understood it yourself jet.

And no one wants to read 5 paragraphs neither, you get so much more quality in interaction if you make it clear in short texts what you want. If people are interested in your opinion, then go on and explain further in a next answer if they respond.

NeonSturm · Sep 6, 2016

Jaaskinal said:
I think you should look at your poll numbers, and consider the value of continuing to push your position.

Perhaps.
Did peoples vote directly after reading the op or got misguided by the answers which pushed opposing points?

HerrColonel said:
It's extra dumb. All that counts when you're debating (or argumenting for your suggestion) is your point.

Wrong.
The expectation which others bring into the topic's arguments also counts because some do not critically think and throw in a negative post based on what they believe is meant.

If you need 2 sheets explanation for a single word the trouble is not people getting pissed. Trouble is you unable to communicate.

Maybe I go into the topic with the expectation "tiers are technology-levels and technology depends on required infrastructure/organisation level" and I bring a point about "complexity" and "more situational choices without downside".
Some know.
And others go into the topic with a special meaning of tiers shaped by what they experienced in other games which used the word "tier".
They say stuff like

[QUOT]what would be the impact to game play, ai cant use secondaries right now so it wont affect fleet battles[/QUOTE]

The Master/Slave/Effect system isn't a "tier" [personal opinion] system you ignorant cock waffle [discredit]. Your suggestion for a literal second tier of weapons is a "tier". Was it really necessary to make an entire thread for this?

Ion deals 200% to shields and 0% to structure. That's not better, and that's not a tier. That's a sidegrade, a trade-off for better use in specific situations.
Now, of course, Punch is simply superior to a "pure" weapon, but this is a balance issue and not evidence of "tiering" existing in the master/slave/effect system.

distract,
fortify their opinion by explaining tier with tier and discredit other opinions,
talk about ion and punch separately without considering 2/2.

Do you really count that in?

JinM said:
You write so much. Now just in one word: Do you want to categorise weapon systems in Starmade? Yes or No?

No
I want to know if there IS a categorisation - misguiding question.

In at maximum of 5 words, if you answer with yes, what is the sole purpose you need that categorisation for? Effieciency? Specialisation? Something else?

Communication

Your examples give me no idea of what you actually want to categorise in. Give the child a name, and maybe we can know where it belongs.

Slaves and Effects add choices. Some choices allow for situationally better.

Does "the possibility of situational adaption" make a weapon-system better than a non-modified without making it worse?
Thus making it a (categorizable) tier?, through the "possibility of adaption to one more category of situations".

What is it that you want to categorise the weapons into? Use less words.

I want to know if SM already IS tiered (not introduce anything new).

Weapons which can adapt vs weapons which cannot.
Example: Weapons which can adapt to the knowledge "does the target have shields" for "reducing power consumption" vs weapons which cannot.
Concrete example: (1+1+1 ion & 1+1+1 punch) vs (3+3 normal). One system is stituationally useless and using just 1 cuts power requirement to 50%

(this could be a new tier if power is soft-capped at 2 million and more requires fuel because it prolongs sustained fire).

And no one wants to read 5 paragraphs neither, you get so much more quality in interaction if you make it clear in short texts what you want. If people are interested in your opinion, then go on and explain further in a next answer if they respond.

Exactly what I tried to do.
Did you took my responses as added paragraphs?

-Moose- · Sep 6, 2016

The current weapon system cannot be described as "tiered" simply because a "tier 3" system is not necessarily better than a "tier 1" system. It all depends on the amount of blocks used.

Furthermore by your own admission a weapon tier can change on the conditions. (vs armor or shields) Making the entire system meaningless for the purposes of objective classification.

It is better and easier to classify weapons on their role rather than the weapon itself.

NeonSturm · Sep 6, 2016

-Moose- said:
The current weapon system cannot be described as "tiered" simply because a "tier 3" system is not necessarily better than a "tier 1" system. It all depends on the amount of blocks used.

Furthermore by your own admission a weapon tier can change on the conditions. (vs armor or shields) Making the entire system meaningless for the purposes of objective classification.

6 blocks in (3-3) cannon-cannon draws 100% power and deals 100% damage in all situations?

3 blocks in (1-1-1) cannon-cannon-ion draws 50% (of 6 blocks) power and deals 100% damage on shields
3 blocks in (1-1-1) cannon-cannon-punch/pierce draws 50% (of 6 blocks) power and deals 100% damage on hull

Both together use 100% power and deal 100% damage in all situations.
Choosing just one uses 50% power and deals 100% damage in all situations when you make the right choice.

Added option: "right choice -> -50% power consumption".
Penalty: "wrong choice -> -100% damage". But this does not matter as long as you decide to not choose.

Search

Would you call cannon-cannon-effect weapons "tier 3"?

Is the number of controllers the tier of a system?

Yes

I haven't thought much about it jet.

Maybe

No

DrTarDIS

Eldrich Timelord

kulbolen

kiddan

Cobalt-Blooded Bullet Mirror

Groovrider

Moderator

Madman198237

JinM

HerrColonel

JinM

Winterhome

Way gayer than originally thought.

Saxopi

NeonSturm

StormMaker

Winterhome

Way gayer than originally thought.

HerrColonel

NeonSturm

StormMaker

Jaaskinal

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HerrColonel

JinM

NeonSturm

StormMaker

-Moose-

NeonSturm

StormMaker