cannons should change next

[minipancho94]

on the subject or weapons, instead of the rock paper scissors aproach, i\'d prefer an element based aproach. for example in SWG you had ion weapons which were more effective agaisnt shields, then you had concussion missiles which were better agaisnt armor, then you had lasers which were balanced agaisnt both.

also i think we need to have armor added in addition to hull. armor is even heavier, but stronger than hull. your only meant to have 1-2 layers of it on your ship, and would take time to punch through. after that, precision missile hits should still be able to tear your ship apart.



as for weapons themselfs, we could either add more variety, or add more stats to change on the weapons. for example we could have a new cannon that does AOE, or we could have a box on the AMCs weapon page to set it to cannon or MG fire modes.

 

[ThiagoTGM]

Not exactly. Usually the \"invulnerability\" of ship only lasted until it faced an adversary of the same size or a group of smaller ones that have a combined power big enough. Now giving the shields of a big ship a ridiculously long time before regening and at the same time cutting their capacity to 1/4 isn\'t that much of a good balance. I wouldn\'t say the big ships still wreck small ones. Thing is, since the small ones are much, much faster than the big ones, they have no problem to stay behind the big and shoot without being shot. What saved the big ones was the fact that small ships were unable to carry weaponry fast enough to prevent the shields from regening nor the power to overcome the regen. Groups of smaller ships always did, but thats another scenario. Now this protection is gone, and the small ship only need to keep behind the ship and shoot until the shields are down, since they will take a very long time to even start regening.

As for diversity, I won\'t say I wouldn\'t like more types of weapons, but we need to be careful since too much diversity may make the game overcomplicated.

 

[ThiagoTGM]

I may be wrong, but the way AM works isn\'t that an AM particle and a normal one in contact simply make eachother disappear?

 

[Racr]

That daedalus is a terrible ship stat-wise.

 

[Ciber]

Dispersers.

Instead of blocking attacks, dispersers spread out all the damage so that no blocks get destroyed, but alot of the blocks on the surface get damaged. No blocks are ever destroyed from this unless the sheild fails or damage no longer has anywhere to go. Until the sheild fails, the damage is distributed among all blocks which are exposed to vacume. So you can get blocks down to one hp, but not below until the sheild fails.

maybe hull integrity feild would be better?

 

[Krazykat]

oh not so simple, they dissapear, but that means they release all of the energy that was held in that matter, and the amount of potential energy in matter is huge. That\'s why \"Anti-Matter\' is associated with big booms. oh ya the big bang is when all of the matter and antimatter came together, the energy dissipated from that, and reformed into matter and our universe

 

[Krazykat]

but... why? so a huge AM cannon shoots at my ship a bit, and now it has destroyed ALL of my outer hull blocks... great now repairing is even harder. It is nice that now even though there are big weapons they dont just insta kill everything and the damage is repairable

 

[Morrigi]

If you have a ship that\'s smaller, it\'d be a good idea to try to dodge the huge AM cannon shots.



Also, I contest your point on repairing large blast areas being more difficult. In my experience it\'s a lot easier to fix one big dent than a bunch of little tiny holes peppered all over the place that make you have to dig through half of your internal systems to patch up properly. I\'d much rather pull out the 10x10 brush setting, slap a couple of those on, fill in the edges, and be good to go.

But anyway, that\'s not the point. The point is to add balance in combat. Weapons, by definition, are intended to do damage. Taking in all of humanity\'s very extensive experience and history of war, it is nearly always the case that larger weapons strike harder, but slower. With modern weapons, there is a bit of a triangle effect - a balancing act between power, rate of fire, and weight. If you want firepower, you sacrifice rate of fire and find yourself with a heavier weapon. If you want a high rate of fire, you must sacrifice firepower but can make a lighter weapon. If you want firepower and a high rate of fire, you will end up with a very, very heavy weapon that is however very, very powerful.

High-caliber guns do a hell of a lot of damage but have a slow rate of fire and need to be more massive due to the need to deal with more heat buildup, physically heavier projectiles, increased recoil, higher pressures, increased energy consumption and even more heat in the case of energy weapons, etc. There are a few, specialized examples that manage to balance both high stopping power and high rate of fire, but to my knowledge modern examples have not been tested on technologically equivalent counterparts and thus this cannot be relied on.



Oh, and complaining that the gun you got shot with was just too big... I mean, come on. You let him get that far on your first date?