[Dev Build] 0.201.004 - Weapons Update Current Early State and Discussion

[petlahk]

-- Scroll to the bottom for the PDF with working images --

Spoiler: Just scroll to the bottom and read the PDF. But here's the original text.

Cannon:Cannon Weapon:

An approximation of what damage in a realistic battle scenario might look like using this array.

600:300 Cannon:Cannon

- 4,950 dmg/projectile.

- Power Consumption: 90,000

- Penetration: 21 blocks

- 2 Layers of ADV armor will stop one projectile at outer layer.

- Suggest ~4 layers ADV armor, or, total armor value greater than 2,000 for sufficient protection.

Personal Conclusion:

The damage values of a weapon of this type of this size appear to be approximately balanced. When comparing the block/weight/mass class of a ship which carries this weapon to a ship of similar weight class, it could be assumed that the amount of armor required to shield against Cannon:Cannon is not unreasonably large.

However, when comparing the power consumption values of the Cannon:Cannon weapon to the Sniper Weapon, Charge Weapon, and Beam Weapon, the power consumption is way too high for the minimal damage that the weapon deals. I would suggest that this weapon pairing consume far less power than the Sniper and Charge weapons, and slightly less power than the Beam:Cannon weapon. Final values will of course depend on final effectiveness however.

Cannon:Beam Sniper Weapon:

Armor after a single shot from the array.

600:300 Cannon:Beam

- 144,000 dmg/projectile.

- Power Consumption: 90,000

- Penetration: 46 blocks

- ~8 second reload time.

- 8 Layers of Advanced armor was insufficient to stop or slow the projectile. (8,000 AHP)

- Currently, Sniper Weapon may be overpowered.

Personal Conclusion:

In it’s current state the Cannon:Beam Sniper Weapon may be overpowered. Some suggestions balancing Cannon:Beam for future dev builds or the final release are:

1) Lowering the threshold of damage required to over-penetrate a target. This would make a weapon of this size and damage more likely to over-penetrate and thus do less ungodly amounts of hull damage, even if weapon damage scaling is not adjusted.

2) Lowering the acid damage for a weapon of this type and size. This would reduce the size of this hole while causing the projectile to penetrate further. (Though smart armor building might already reduce the size of the hole.)

3) Decreasing the damage scaling on the Cannon:Beam Sniper Weapon. Would make armor more viable in this block/mass/weight class

4) Increasing reload time. While the speed of fights might already decrease the viability of the sniper weapon in a 1-on-1 engagement of two ships similarly sized I do not think that 8 seconds is sufficiently long to balance the sheer damage delivered by the Sniper Weapon in its current state.

5) Increasing power consumption/cost curve – specifically resting cost. By doing this the ship size required to field a sniper weapon could be made to increase to be slightly larger, or significantly larger than the opponent ships. This would maintain the Sniper Weapon as a powerful weapon, yet make building a fielding one a harder and more nuanced decision.

I personally think that when balancing the Cannon:Beam Sniper Weapon emphasis should be focused on items 1, 4, and 5. This would maintain the Sniper Weapon at it’s current damage levels as a powerful weapon while still maintaining the viability of armor and balancing the weapon’s strength against its cost.

Items 1 and 2 would ensure that the Cannon:Beam Sniper Weapon could not do overly much serious damage to small ships, or overmuch damage to small ships or negate the usefulness of armor. While items 4 and 5 could be used to turn the Cannon:Beam Sniper weapon into a high-cost, high-damage, balanced tactical weapon.

Cannon:Missile Charge Weapon:

Pictured is the damage from one shot from the array. Picture taken from the front.

Picture taken from the back.




600:300 Cannon:Missile

- 54,000 dmg/projectile.

- Power Consumption: 90,000

- Penetration: 37 blocks

- ~3 second reload time.

- 8 Layers of advanced armor was insufficient to stop or slow the projectile. (8,000 AHP)

- Currently, Charge Weapon may be overpowered.

Personal Conclusion:

In it’s current state Cannon:Missile Charge Weapon may be overpowered. The following are a few suggestions for balancing the weapon:

1) Change the ratio of the Charge Weapon such that it emphasizes acid on the outer layers of armor before penetrating farther into the craft. (This would probably require flipping the cone the other way)

2) Cause the acid damage to spread to all adjacent armor blocks before spreading to system blocks. (Would retain the current inside-out cone shape, but decrease the deadliness of one shot)

3) Lower the overall damage scaling of this weapon. (Make it less powerful)

4) Drastically increasing the time it takes to charge the weapon above the basic charge.

5) Lower penetration values such that this weapon would over-penetrate at 5 ADV. Armor blocks or fewer. (5,000 AHP)

6) Increase power consumption for this weapon.

I personally suggest a focus on all above items with either item(s) 1 and/or 2, and a minor focus on item 5.

I believe that if item 1 and/or 2 were implemented then the damage from the Cannon:Missile charge weapon would distribute itself much more reasonably. If the emphasis were placed on the armor blocks before the system blocks and/or focusing on outer layers first then the damage from the weapon would be greatly mitigated. As it currently stands the weapon deals lots of damage all through the armor of a craft, and into the interior of a craft. Items 1 and/or 2 would help to mitigate that.

Item 3 is probably necessary because the damage output from this weapon is currently *ahem* insane. Item 3 should especially be considered if damage output from the Sniper Weapon is not decreased. This would better allow for the sniper weapon to be a very powerful, yet high-cost, long-range sniper weapon, while the Charge Weapon be a slightly less powerful, yet still effective close range weapon. The Charge Weapon would still be effective against small craft at close range.

Item 4 would greatly help to balance the weapon compared to armor in a battle. By increasing the charge time – even if all items are not addressed – the charge cannon loses enough of it’s effectiveness that a miss is a large setback. Currently it is a relatively fast reload time coupled with a very fast charge time. Also, this would be more in-line with the concept of a charge weapon.

Item 5 is a general issue in the dev build’s current state. However, I place this emphasis far more heavily on the sniper cannon than the Charge Cannon. I say this because the sniper cannon concept seems to be more of a long-range high-penetration weapon that could strike at the internal systems of a craft from afar. Currently this is hardly the case for the Sniper Weapon, however, once the values are adjusted it becomes only more critical to distinguish the Sniper Weapon from the Charge Weapon.

Item 6 - Well, the weapon is currently just really good and chews through armor. This is a problem. Also, the Charge Weapon and the Sniper Weapon should not be the go-to weapons due simply to their destructive capability. Power consumption should possibly be lower and not equal to the sniper weapon, this would depend heavily upon final damage output however.

Beam:Cannon Weapon:

An approximation of the damage of the array if the vessels were moving in a standard fire-fight.

An approximation of the damage of the array if the array stayed fixed on one point.

600:300 Beam:Cannon

- 5,400 dmg/projectile.

- Power Consumption: 45,000

- ~3 second fire time.

- ~4 second reload time.

- 4 layers of ADV armor should be sufficient for survivability in an engagement.

Personal Conclusion:

The Beam:Cannon weapon might be slightly overpowered, but only *slightly* so. Pretty much my only suggestions would be to:

1) Slightly nerf the damage output

2) Slightly increase the power consumption to be higher than Cannon:Cannon yet lower than both Sniper Weapon, and Charge Weapon.

3) Slightly increase reload time.

The damage output needs to be brought down slightly so as to not just chew through advanced armor like it does. I believe that the optimal advanced armor thickness for all these weapons should be an approximate average of 4 or 5 layers at this weight/block/mass class – meaning that on average, one shot should not remove 4-5 layers of armor. Currently, this weapon just *slightly* exceeds that threshold.

On item 2. If the power consumption were brought up above Cannon:Cannon yet kept below Sniper and Charge then this weapon would come closer to becoming the optimal choice for closer combat. Not too deadly, not too costly, not tricky too use.

On item 3, just a minor balance. Reload time should probably stay around the low-mid range of all weapon reload times however.

Beam:Beam DOOM LASER:

Pictured above is the damage from one shot of Her Majesties Doom Laser.

DOOM LASER

600:300 Beam:Beam

- 31,500 dmg/tick

- 315,000 dmg/sec

- Power Consumption: 45,000

- Penetration: 23 blocks

Personal Conclusion:

The devs know it’s broken at the moment. They even said so in the dev notes, so I’m not gonna waste my time here. It basically should just be one of the most powerful weapons with really heavy cons as well.

Beam:Missile Perma-Latch:

-Config is currently broken and I’m feeling tired and lazy at the moment-

Missile:Cannon Heat-Seekers & Missile:Beam Lock-Ons:

The result from 1 of 3 heat-seeking missiles hitting it’s target.

The result of 1 lock-on missile striking 8 layers of ADV armor.

Missile:Cannon 600:300 stats

- 108,000 dmg/missile

- Shots: 5 (provided you have the missile ammo crates)

- Reload: 1 second

- Radius: 8.0

- Range: 4,000

- Missile Speed: 562.5

- Power Consumption: 1,350,000

Missile:Beam 600:300 Stats

- 1,080,000 dmg/missile

- Reload: 2 seconds

- Radius: 12.0

- Range: 8,000

- Missile Speed: 1,125

- Power Consumption: 1,350,000

Missile capacity on the ship: 3.3/3 (possibly a bug)

Personal Conclusions:

I grouped both of these together because my thoughts about both of them are about the same. My first thought is that the damage compared to the power consumption is finally about right. And, my second thought is that the missile ammo values still need tweaking.

Firstly, I think that the mere fact that missiles can be shot down by PDS fire, coupled with the idea of the ammo system does a lot to balance them out. However, the anti-missile PDS fire really needs to be working better as it currently seems rather borked.

Secondly, the time it takes for ammo to reload needs to go drastically up. And, possibly, ammo capacity needs to go down even farther. (Full credit to YamiHikari for the initial idea and testing. And credit to Ithirahad and others for the initial discussion.) As it stands, 3 missiles in capacity will reload in about 5 seconds. That’s about 1 missile reloaded everyone 1.5 seconds. This really fast reload time sort of defeats the purpose of missiles being a last-ditch or final weapon to only be used when you know it can hit, as per the devs wishes (God bless Schema. All hail.).

I would suggest a reload time of at least 15 seconds, if not 30 seconds, if not a full minute for each missile. I think 30-45 seconds is probably optimal. This would give players the leeway to try to slip one past a well-designed point defense screen, yet still make it rather tough to think about using them. Also, the things are still freaking powerful, and probably will remain slightly so. However, the most powerful missile is and should still be, the bomb. As outlined in the next section.

Missile:Missile Bomb:

All hail the mighty Tsar Bomb, the destroyer of your hopes and dreams. (That’s from one bomb BTW.)

600:300 Missile:Missile

- 14,040,000 dmg/missile

- Reload: 26 seconds

- Radius: 18.0

- Range: 4,000

- Missile Speed: - Your ships velocity-

- Power Consumption: 1,350,000

Personal Conclusion:

Yes. It is terrifying. Yes, a relatively small bomb missile set up can very easily overpower the shields of whatever ship you’re fighting in your same weight-class.

However, two very simple things balance the entire thing out. The first is that the thing is really hard to aim, fire and hit with. Like, really hard. I have used two 2:2 missile groups on a relatively small fighter against those trading guild haulers and only managed to hit 2 times while moving. It’s hard. And that’s a fast fighter against a vessel only slightly larger and slightly slower than it.

Next you have to consider that larger ships tend to be slower if you want more weapons inside of them. The viability of running just a bomb array that large on a ship correspondingly large is really low.

However, the main thing that makes it difficult to run bombs on a large ship isn’t how hard it is to aim one based on your ships vector alone, but the fact that if you accidentally run into it you will blow your own ship up. It’s relatively easy for a fast-moving fighter not to blow itself up. It is a lot harder for a ship carrying a 600:300 missile:missile bomb array to not do so. As far as I can tell the timer before it activates doesn’t scale with array size, which is perfect.

Tl;Dr this section – it looks scary but it’s balanced.

Final Conclusions and Notes

Firstly, The ranking for weapon power should probably go something like:

a. Cannon:Cannon

b. Beam:Cannon (and possibly Beam:Missile, I haven’t tested it yet.)

c. Charge Cannon and Sniper Cannon. With their roles being different, and with Sniper Cannon being slightly more powerful, slightly more expensive, and much longer range.

d. “The Bomb”

e. DOOM LASER

With doom laser being very expensive and having equally as many drawbacks as “The Bomb”. Possibly doom laser needs to be wimpier than “The Bomb” or on the same level.

Secondly, general missile changes:

- Snipped from the end of the first missile section –


“The time it takes for ammo to reload needs to go drastically up. And, possibly, ammo capacity needs to go down even farther. (Full credit to YamiHikari for the initial idea and testing. And credit to Ithirahad and others for the initial discussion.) As it stands, 3 missiles in capacity will reload in about 5 seconds. That’s about 1 missile reloaded everyone 1.5 seconds. This really fast reload time sort of defeats the purpose of missiles being a last-ditch or final weapon to only be used when you know it can hit, as per the devs wishes (God bless Schema. All hail.).


I would suggest a reload time of at least 15 seconds, if not 30 seconds, if not a full minute for each missile. I think 30-45 seconds is probably optimal. This would give players the leeway to try to slip one past a well-designed point defense screen, yet still make it rather tough to think about using them. Also, the things are still freaking powerful, and probably will remain slightly so. However, the most powerful missile is and should still be, the bomb.”

Thirdly, armor and penetration values badly need to be adjusted.

This might take the form of in general higher armor values. However, Lancake has pointed out that the accuracy of the numbers decreases with higher AHP values even with some changes they made recently to the system.

This probably should take the form of general adjustments to the penetration values of each weapon combination independent of the other, general damage decreases/adjustments for each weapon combination, and general power cost increases/adjustments.

I trust the new system, I trust the devs. These are just suggestions, the new system already seems like it’ll turn out better than anything we’ve had in the past.

Finally – Discussion:

What are everyone else’s opinions? Particularly about increasing the missile reload times.

Do you think that my approximate weapon ranking (guess) is fair or accurate?

Please keep discussion civil.

I’ll try to remember to post the craft files of the ships I used for the testing later.

And, as a final end-note, I think the PDS/Turrets are still a bit wonk/glitched, possibly even more so than usual.

Links:

A nicer PDF version:

Album of Images Used With some Extras:

Edit: All of the images are borked right now. I would suggest reading the PDF. I'll try fixing them when I'm less tired.

Edit 2: Decided that the text was harder to use than the embedded PDF. Left the text there in the spoiler.

Edit 3: Formatting at the end.

Edit 4/Addendum: I may have counted the recharge values slightly slow (+/- .5 seconds/second). There aren't any recharge values in the stats either for missiles or for the weapons so it was the best I could do.

 

[Mork2]

I'm liking the new system even with the bugs from the perspective of capital ship combat.
The new armour system is very nice you will have to really think about your armour for capital ships.
One tactic is to use basic hull on the outside to absorb hits that your armour blocks that way the block hits just take out 1 basic hull each time. Assuming you have enough armour backing it to stop the shot. So sloped armour and positioning may end up very important.

Also with the missile/missile shield ignoring bomb, capital ships will really want spaced armour or lots of armour. Also note once you launch the bomb its not your friend unlike other weapons. I did a test multi bomb launch and one hit my own ship and I had 40% of my ship disappear from 1 out of 3 bombs. Unfortunately I didn't blueprint it before hand so I will have to rebuild it from scratch later.

Note the penetration data on weapons is old and doesn't count now, also since there is no armour pool either. If the shot is powerful enough to pass through all the armour hp added up in a straight line it will punch into the ship. If it has enough damage to kill every block in a line and right out the other side thats what it ends up doing just like one of the odd punch weapons. If its not enough to do that it will crater and do that acid damage. If the armour total in line is more than the damage it will only damage the first block in line. Hence why if you have enough armour to block shots expendable lightweight basic hull on the outside is usefull. If you have 50k armour in that line and they hit you with a 48k shot only the block hit will take the 48k damage so if you have basic hull on the outside the 48k shot would take out 1 basic hull.

So your weapon damage vs targets armour is important. To low and you only damage/destroy one block per shot. To powerful and you just punch lines through the ship which isn't bad if you hit something important. Just right for your target and you start acid burn damage.
Due to the punch through your might want to design oversized chambers and not exact size ones. Otherwise one cannon/beam shot later your chamber is to small and all sub-chambers down the chain are disabled as well. Same with the stabilisers etc....

I did notice that there is acid burn on non-armour blocks before the hull in one of my test shots. I was seeing if I could use something lighter than basic hull to absorb the shots but only armour blocks that block shots work all system blocks take burn damage if outside the armour and hit first.

The bombs make small ships capable of damaging slow massively shielded capitals. Armour is more important to capitals. If the ship isn't designed well you can get crippled when your local shield drops.

The missile count is a bit low I think you can get it to 3 pretty easy. Due to the low count and slow regen I would prefer if the missiles had a larger explosion radius and far slower rate of fire since the ammo counter regenerates slowly. It might also be nicer to have a count of 8 but keep the low missile regen speed. So you could fire a small salvo as it is just 2 launchers firing one round each will outrun the current missile ammo regen speed.

 

[Ithirahad]

0.201.004 has a few broken things in config. There's a bit (linear="true") for the beam/missile combination tick rate that renders it nonfunctional, there are two values swapped in the missile capacity config, beam/cannon is set to zero acid damage (despite the dev blog saying it has a bit)... I'd wait until at least .005 (or whenever the configs are updated) before doing reviews like this.

As for ammo capacity, it does not need to go down further, however I can agree that missile build time needs to increase. It'd be nice if we could place down missile regenerator blocks to control our own regen speed though, at the cost of lots of power for other things.

 

[jstenholt]

Keep doing good work, this was a great breakdown.

Side note: anybody else notice rails are completely broken in the Dev build?

 

[Ithirahad]

Side note: anybody else notice rails are completely broken in the Dev build?

They are; this is off-topic though :P

 

[petlahk]

beam/cannon is set to zero acid damage

That's important to note. Thanks Ith.

 

[Dire Venom]

Great rundown!
Missile capacity/reload certiantly seems like it would need some work done as you mentioned.
I would quite like to see them being less effectives start of a battle, and becoming more effective as PD gets shot off.
To acheive that Capacity and reload time would certiantly need to be raised.

 

[MacThule]

-- Scroll to the bottom for the PDF with working images --

Spoiler: Just scroll to the bottom and read the PDF. But here's the original text.

Cannon:Cannon Weapon:

An approximation of what damage in a realistic battle scenario might look like using this array.

600:300 Cannon:Cannon

- 4,950 dmg/projectile.

- Power Consumption: 90,000

- Penetration: 21 blocks

- 2 Layers of ADV armor will stop one projectile at outer layer.

- Suggest ~4 layers ADV armor, or, total armor value greater than 2,000 for sufficient protection.

Personal Conclusion:

The damage values of a weapon of this type of this size appear to be approximately balanced. When comparing the block/weight/mass class of a ship which carries this weapon to a ship of similar weight class, it could be assumed that the amount of armor required to shield against Cannon:Cannon is not unreasonably large.

However, when comparing the power consumption values of the Cannon:Cannon weapon to the Sniper Weapon, Charge Weapon, and Beam Weapon, the power consumption is way too high for the minimal damage that the weapon deals. I would suggest that this weapon pairing consume far less power than the Sniper and Charge weapons, and slightly less power than the Beam:Cannon weapon. Final values will of course depend on final effectiveness however.

Cannon:Beam Sniper Weapon:

Armor after a single shot from the array.

600:300 Cannon:Beam

- 144,000 dmg/projectile.

- Power Consumption: 90,000

- Penetration: 46 blocks

- ~8 second reload time.

- 8 Layers of Advanced armor was insufficient to stop or slow the projectile. (8,000 AHP)

- Currently, Sniper Weapon may be overpowered.

Personal Conclusion:

In it’s current state the Cannon:Beam Sniper Weapon may be overpowered. Some suggestions balancing Cannon:Beam for future dev builds or the final release are:

1) Lowering the threshold of damage required to over-penetrate a target. This would make a weapon of this size and damage more likely to over-penetrate and thus do less ungodly amounts of hull damage, even if weapon damage scaling is not adjusted.

2) Lowering the acid damage for a weapon of this type and size. This would reduce the size of this hole while causing the projectile to penetrate further. (Though smart armor building might already reduce the size of the hole.)

3) Decreasing the damage scaling on the Cannon:Beam Sniper Weapon. Would make armor more viable in this block/mass/weight class

4) Increasing reload time. While the speed of fights might already decrease the viability of the sniper weapon in a 1-on-1 engagement of two ships similarly sized I do not think that 8 seconds is sufficiently long to balance the sheer damage delivered by the Sniper Weapon in its current state.

5) Increasing power consumption/cost curve – specifically resting cost. By doing this the ship size required to field a sniper weapon could be made to increase to be slightly larger, or significantly larger than the opponent ships. This would maintain the Sniper Weapon as a powerful weapon, yet make building a fielding one a harder and more nuanced decision.

I personally think that when balancing the Cannon:Beam Sniper Weapon emphasis should be focused on items 1, 4, and 5. This would maintain the Sniper Weapon at it’s current damage levels as a powerful weapon while still maintaining the viability of armor and balancing the weapon’s strength against its cost.

Items 1 and 2 would ensure that the Cannon:Beam Sniper Weapon could not do overly much serious damage to small ships, or overmuch damage to small ships or negate the usefulness of armor. While items 4 and 5 could be used to turn the Cannon:Beam Sniper weapon into a high-cost, high-damage, balanced tactical weapon.

Cannon:Missile Charge Weapon:

Pictured is the damage from one shot from the array. Picture taken from the front.

Picture taken from the back.




600:300 Cannon:Missile

- 54,000 dmg/projectile.

- Power Consumption: 90,000

- Penetration: 37 blocks

- ~3 second reload time.

- 8 Layers of advanced armor was insufficient to stop or slow the projectile. (8,000 AHP)

- Currently, Charge Weapon may be overpowered.

Personal Conclusion:

In it’s current state Cannon:Missile Charge Weapon may be overpowered. The following are a few suggestions for balancing the weapon:

1) Change the ratio of the Charge Weapon such that it emphasizes acid on the outer layers of armor before penetrating farther into the craft. (This would probably require flipping the cone the other way)

2) Cause the acid damage to spread to all adjacent armor blocks before spreading to system blocks. (Would retain the current inside-out cone shape, but decrease the deadliness of one shot)

3) Lower the overall damage scaling of this weapon. (Make it less powerful)

4) Drastically increasing the time it takes to charge the weapon above the basic charge.

5) Lower penetration values such that this weapon would over-penetrate at 5 ADV. Armor blocks or fewer. (5,000 AHP)

6) Increase power consumption for this weapon.

I personally suggest a focus on all above items with either item(s) 1 and/or 2, and a minor focus on item 5.

I believe that if item 1 and/or 2 were implemented then the damage from the Cannon:Missile charge weapon would distribute itself much more reasonably. If the emphasis were placed on the armor blocks before the system blocks and/or focusing on outer layers first then the damage from the weapon would be greatly mitigated. As it currently stands the weapon deals lots of damage all through the armor of a craft, and into the interior of a craft. Items 1 and/or 2 would help to mitigate that.

Item 3 is probably necessary because the damage output from this weapon is currently *ahem* insane. Item 3 should especially be considered if damage output from the Sniper Weapon is not decreased. This would better allow for the sniper weapon to be a very powerful, yet high-cost, long-range sniper weapon, while the Charge Weapon be a slightly less powerful, yet still effective close range weapon. The Charge Weapon would still be effective against small craft at close range.

Item 4 would greatly help to balance the weapon compared to armor in a battle. By increasing the charge time – even if all items are not addressed – the charge cannon loses enough of it’s effectiveness that a miss is a large setback. Currently it is a relatively fast reload time coupled with a very fast charge time. Also, this would be more in-line with the concept of a charge weapon.

Item 5 is a general issue in the dev build’s current state. However, I place this emphasis far more heavily on the sniper cannon than the Charge Cannon. I say this because the sniper cannon concept seems to be more of a long-range high-penetration weapon that could strike at the internal systems of a craft from afar. Currently this is hardly the case for the Sniper Weapon, however, once the values are adjusted it becomes only more critical to distinguish the Sniper Weapon from the Charge Weapon.

Item 6 - Well, the weapon is currently just really good and chews through armor. This is a problem. Also, the Charge Weapon and the Sniper Weapon should not be the go-to weapons due simply to their destructive capability. Power consumption should possibly be lower and not equal to the sniper weapon, this would depend heavily upon final damage output however.

Beam:Cannon Weapon:

An approximation of the damage of the array if the vessels were moving in a standard fire-fight.

An approximation of the damage of the array if the array stayed fixed on one point.

600:300 Beam:Cannon

- 5,400 dmg/projectile.

- Power Consumption: 45,000

- ~3 second fire time.

- ~4 second reload time.

- 4 layers of ADV armor should be sufficient for survivability in an engagement.

Personal Conclusion:

The Beam:Cannon weapon might be slightly overpowered, but only *slightly* so. Pretty much my only suggestions would be to:

1) Slightly nerf the damage output

2) Slightly increase the power consumption to be higher than Cannon:Cannon yet lower than both Sniper Weapon, and Charge Weapon.

3) Slightly increase reload time.

The damage output needs to be brought down slightly so as to not just chew through advanced armor like it does. I believe that the optimal advanced armor thickness for all these weapons should be an approximate average of 4 or 5 layers at this weight/block/mass class – meaning that on average, one shot should not remove 4-5 layers of armor. Currently, this weapon just *slightly* exceeds that threshold.

On item 2. If the power consumption were brought up above Cannon:Cannon yet kept below Sniper and Charge then this weapon would come closer to becoming the optimal choice for closer combat. Not too deadly, not too costly, not tricky too use.

On item 3, just a minor balance. Reload time should probably stay around the low-mid range of all weapon reload times however.

Beam:Beam DOOM LASER:

Pictured above is the damage from one shot of Her Majesties Doom Laser.

DOOM LASER

600:300 Beam:Beam

- 31,500 dmg/tick

- 315,000 dmg/sec

- Power Consumption: 45,000

- Penetration: 23 blocks

Personal Conclusion:

The devs know it’s broken at the moment. They even said so in the dev notes, so I’m not gonna waste my time here. It basically should just be one of the most powerful weapons with really heavy cons as well.

Beam:Missile Perma-Latch:

-Config is currently broken and I’m feeling tired and lazy at the moment-

Missile:Cannon Heat-Seekers & Missile:Beam Lock-Ons:

The result from 1 of 3 heat-seeking missiles hitting it’s target.

The result of 1 lock-on missile striking 8 layers of ADV armor.

Missile:Cannon 600:300 stats

- 108,000 dmg/missile

- Shots: 5 (provided you have the missile ammo crates)

- Reload: 1 second

- Radius: 8.0

- Range: 4,000

- Missile Speed: 562.5

- Power Consumption: 1,350,000

Missile:Beam 600:300 Stats

- 1,080,000 dmg/missile

- Reload: 2 seconds

- Radius: 12.0

- Range: 8,000

- Missile Speed: 1,125

- Power Consumption: 1,350,000

Missile capacity on the ship: 3.3/3 (possibly a bug)

Personal Conclusions:

I grouped both of these together because my thoughts about both of them are about the same. My first thought is that the damage compared to the power consumption is finally about right. And, my second thought is that the missile ammo values still need tweaking.

Firstly, I think that the mere fact that missiles can be shot down by PDS fire, coupled with the idea of the ammo system does a lot to balance them out. However, the anti-missile PDS fire really needs to be working better as it currently seems rather borked.

Secondly, the time it takes for ammo to reload needs to go drastically up. And, possibly, ammo capacity needs to go down even farther. (Full credit to YamiHikari for the initial idea and testing. And credit to Ithirahad and others for the initial discussion.) As it stands, 3 missiles in capacity will reload in about 5 seconds. That’s about 1 missile reloaded everyone 1.5 seconds. This really fast reload time sort of defeats the purpose of missiles being a last-ditch or final weapon to only be used when you know it can hit, as per the devs wishes (God bless Schema. All hail.).

I would suggest a reload time of at least 15 seconds, if not 30 seconds, if not a full minute for each missile. I think 30-45 seconds is probably optimal. This would give players the leeway to try to slip one past a well-designed point defense screen, yet still make it rather tough to think about using them. Also, the things are still freaking powerful, and probably will remain slightly so. However, the most powerful missile is and should still be, the bomb. As outlined in the next section.

Missile:Missile Bomb:

All hail the mighty Tsar Bomb, the destroyer of your hopes and dreams. (That’s from one bomb BTW.)

600:300 Missile:Missile

- 14,040,000 dmg/missile

- Reload: 26 seconds

- Radius: 18.0

- Range: 4,000

- Missile Speed: - Your ships velocity-

- Power Consumption: 1,350,000

Personal Conclusion:

Yes. It is terrifying. Yes, a relatively small bomb missile set up can very easily overpower the shields of whatever ship you’re fighting in your same weight-class.

However, two very simple things balance the entire thing out. The first is that the thing is really hard to aim, fire and hit with. Like, really hard. I have used two 2:2 missile groups on a relatively small fighter against those trading guild haulers and only managed to hit 2 times while moving. It’s hard. And that’s a fast fighter against a vessel only slightly larger and slightly slower than it.

Next you have to consider that larger ships tend to be slower if you want more weapons inside of them. The viability of running just a bomb array that large on a ship correspondingly large is really low.

However, the main thing that makes it difficult to run bombs on a large ship isn’t how hard it is to aim one based on your ships vector alone, but the fact that if you accidentally run into it you will blow your own ship up. It’s relatively easy for a fast-moving fighter not to blow itself up. It is a lot harder for a ship carrying a 600:300 missile:missile bomb array to not do so. As far as I can tell the timer before it activates doesn’t scale with array size, which is perfect.

Tl;Dr this section – it looks scary but it’s balanced.

Final Conclusions and Notes

Firstly, The ranking for weapon power should probably go something like:

a. Cannon:Cannon

b. Beam:Cannon (and possibly Beam:Missile, I haven’t tested it yet.)

c. Charge Cannon and Sniper Cannon. With their roles being different, and with Sniper Cannon being slightly more powerful, slightly more expensive, and much longer range.

d. “The Bomb”

e. DOOM LASER

With doom laser being very expensive and having equally as many drawbacks as “The Bomb”. Possibly doom laser needs to be wimpier than “The Bomb” or on the same level.

Secondly, general missile changes:

- Snipped from the end of the first missile section –


“The time it takes for ammo to reload needs to go drastically up. And, possibly, ammo capacity needs to go down even farther. (Full credit to YamiHikari for the initial idea and testing. And credit to Ithirahad and others for the initial discussion.) As it stands, 3 missiles in capacity will reload in about 5 seconds. That’s about 1 missile reloaded everyone 1.5 seconds. This really fast reload time sort of defeats the purpose of missiles being a last-ditch or final weapon to only be used when you know it can hit, as per the devs wishes (God bless Schema. All hail.).


I would suggest a reload time of at least 15 seconds, if not 30 seconds, if not a full minute for each missile. I think 30-45 seconds is probably optimal. This would give players the leeway to try to slip one past a well-designed point defense screen, yet still make it rather tough to think about using them. Also, the things are still freaking powerful, and probably will remain slightly so. However, the most powerful missile is and should still be, the bomb.”

Thirdly, armor and penetration values badly need to be adjusted.

This might take the form of in general higher armor values. However, Lancake has pointed out that the accuracy of the numbers decreases with higher AHP values even with some changes they made recently to the system.

This probably should take the form of general adjustments to the penetration values of each weapon combination independent of the other, general damage decreases/adjustments for each weapon combination, and general power cost increases/adjustments.

I trust the new system, I trust the devs. These are just suggestions, the new system already seems like it’ll turn out better than anything we’ve had in the past.

Finally – Discussion:

What are everyone else’s opinions? Particularly about increasing the missile reload times.

Do you think that my approximate weapon ranking (guess) is fair or accurate?

Please keep discussion civil.

I’ll try to remember to post the craft files of the ships I used for the testing later.

And, as a final end-note, I think the PDS/Turrets are still a bit wonk/glitched, possibly even more so than usual.

Links:

A nicer PDF version:

Album of Images Used With some Extras:

Edit: All of the images are borked right now. I would suggest reading the PDF. I'll try fixing them when I'm less tired.

Edit 2: Decided that the text was harder to use than the embedded PDF. Left the text there in the spoiler.

Edit 3: Formatting at the end.

Edit 4/Addendum: I may have counted the recharge values slightly slow (+/- .5 seconds/second). There aren't any recharge values in the stats either for missiles or for the weapons so it was the best I could do.

Excellent report and analysis - thank you!!

I think I agree with the ideas of slower charging for Cm combos and longer reloads for Cb.

EDIT: Also, I hadn't registered how rapid the missile replenishment really is. That is insanely rapid when I think about it; missile capacity is still very near infinite for most configurations unless one seriously under-deploys capacity blocks. I would expect missile resupply to occur in terms of minutes rather than seconds since the intent is to make the make them a limited, high-risk : high-yield option. Particularly large missiles and bombs.

 

[Nosajimiki]

All pretty valid observations, but some of the conclusions could use tweaking.

In many cases you will need to dig through 100s of meters of systems to reach a reactor which is now the only part of the ship with HP; so, those high penetration values (except for the doom beam which is borked) are a must to keep fights from lasting forever when using alpha weapons.

I think the fix for alpha weapons needs to happen at the armor level: like making armor scale up logarithmically instead of linearly as it gets thicker. Because weapons scale up logarithmically being 3 dimensional, armor needs too also. Also, armor HP does not scale well as it gets denser and more expensive. I would suggest making more advanced armors offer better protection for their mass than lighter armors due to increased cost, manufacturing complexity, and minimum amount you can thin it out which makes it less versatile. Otherwise, it just makes since slap on 5 layers of hull instead of 1 block of advanced.

Going back to the "doom beam", I'd suggest keeping it's damage over time the same as other beams (10x damage for a weapon that is super easy to hit with and long ranged will never be balanced), Instead, make it do fewer and more powerful tics that apply acid damage. Beam-beam should be a long-ranged weapon, not an end-all doom beam.

 

[petlahk]

I think the fix for alpha weapons needs to happen at the armor level: like making armor scale up logarithmically instead of linearly as it gets thicker. Because weapons scale up logarithmically being 3 dimensional, armor needs too also. Also, armor HP does not scale well as it gets denser and more expensive. I would suggest making more advanced armors offer better protection for their mass than lighter armors due to increased cost, manufacturing complexity, and minimum amount you can thin it out which makes it less versatile. Otherwise, it just makes since slap on 5 layers of hull instead of 1 block of advanced.

THIS. THIS SO MUCH YES. When you first said "make them scale logarithmically" I was like "gaaahh, does he mean with fancy calculations that make it harder for the game?" and then I read farther. Yeah. I too definitely think that more advanced armors need to have even more HP for their cost and weight. Based on your logarithmic idea the standard armor and advanced armor should have mass:HP ratio of 2:4 and 3:21* (probably 3:9 instead), respectively, compared to the mass:HP of basic. Which just isn't how it is right now. With Basic armor having the mass:HP ratio of 1:1.

You wanna make the proposal, or should I?

Edit:

Realized that 3^3 is 21. So, maybe 3:21 for the ADV is a little *too* much. But the point stands.

 

[MacThule]

A log curve on the armor function would be a vast improvement.
When your curve for hull starts to get inefficient, you switch to armor. When the curve for armor gets inefficient, you switch to advanced. When the curve on advanced gets too inefficient, you start in on layering, spacing, composites, protrusions, ablatives (viable now with the block-respawning astro beams!), and other intelligent hull design methods.
[doublepost=1524779746,1524777096][/doublepost]I really like the detailed feedback, petlahk

It has me thinking that it would be cool if we had a weekly test & review post to encourage information sharing on specific topics where everyone posts pics and vids and test results on one system specifically. Cannons & cannon combos 1 week, beams and beam combos another week, missiles and missile combos another week, mines and mine combos finally. That way we could see a wide variety of different kinds of testing from around the community, but all test results on a particular system would be in one spot... then players and devs could really get a broader understanding of a specific weapon's capabilities in general, as explored by several minds against a variety of armors, stations, ship types, on turrets, logicked devices using the system, etc.

 

[Nosajimiki]

THIS. THIS SO MUCH YES. When you first said "make them scale logarithmically" I was like "gaaahh, does he mean with fancy calculations that make it harder for the game?" and then I read farther. Yeah. I too definitely think that more advanced armors need to have even more HP for their cost and weight. Based on your logarithmic idea the standard armor and advanced armor should have mass:HP ratio of 2:4 and 3:21* (probably 3:9 instead), respectively, compared to the mass:HP of basic. Which just isn't how it is right now. With Basic armor having the mass:HP ratio of 1:1.

You wanna make the proposal, or should I?

Edit:

Realized that 3^3 is 21. So, maybe 3:21 for the ADV is a little *too* much. But the point stands.

I actually meant both maths and block growth, but pushing armor values into the extreme like that would work too. Also, 21x for adv vs hull does not sound unreasonable to me. It is about 20x as expensive to manufacture and way more complex of a production line, so why not. Old armor could achieve an effective 4000 hp per block of adv. with passives and was still easy to drill through.

 

[dwwojcik]

Also, I hadn't registered how rapid the missile replenishment really is. That is insanely rapid when I think about it; missile capacity is still very near infinite for most configurations unless one seriously under-deploys capacity blocks. I would expect missile resupply to occur in terms of minutes rather than seconds since the intent is to make the make them a limited, high-risk : high-yield option. Particularly large missiles and bombs.

I wouldn't worry too much about this, I'm sure missile regen is jacked way up to make testing missiles easier. Once everything seems to be working as intended the devs will start to think about how often you get to launch.

 

[Mork2]

At the moment 5 layers of basic armour has the same armour value and mass as 1 layer of advanced armour. At the moment standard armour isn't very efficient it has triple the mass of basic but only double the hp of basic. If the more expensive armour blocks have a higher hit point/mass increase then it becomes more valuable.

Note on an armour tanking ship you would put 50% resist on all damage type with chambers to double your apparent armour level.
The current capital ship power core I have has 16 layers of advanced armour sandwiched between things. Mostly 1 layer thick and 1 set of 5 layers thick. So that's 32k HP armour just in my core systems from the front or rear. An angled shot from the front might have to pass through the centreline plate that will increase the armour amount massively. And this is before external hull or other internal hull plates.

 

[arkahys]

THIS. THIS SO MUCH YES. When you first said "make them scale logarithmically" I was like "gaaahh, does he mean with fancy calculations that make it harder for the game?" and then I read farther. Yeah. I too definitely think that more advanced armors need to have even more HP for their cost and weight. Based on your logarithmic idea the standard armor and advanced armor should have mass:HP ratio of 2:4 and 3:21* (probably 3:9 instead), respectively, compared to the mass:HP of basic. Which just isn't how it is right now. With Basic armor having the mass:HP ratio of 1:1.

You wanna make the proposal, or should I?

Edit:

Realized that 3^3 is 21. So, maybe 3:21 for the ADV is a little *too* much. But the point stands.

I'am starting to think to this complex balance but I'am just coming in the work (game), and watching your report I'am not really understand some numbers, I suspect recent changes as 0.201.005a was just release and watching Xml files to try to find some interesting stuff may explain why I don't understand some of yours value.
With the constant changes of release I think that in kind of hard work you do (your PDF) you could write value of blocks , etc... of (and) version used to grant your work and allow comparison and utility further (version, balance, etc.. ).

I will do that for current version and I think that will let us to see changes, balances,etc... done version after version.

As 0.201.005a

• basic armor :
  • HP = 200
  • AHP = 1000
  • Effects armor :
    • Heat = 0.0
    • Kinetic = 0.0
    • EM = 0.0
  • Weight 0.05
• Standard armor :
  • HP = 400
  • AHP = 2000
  • Effects armor :
    • Heat = 0.0
    • Kinetic = 0.0
    • EM = 0.0
  • Weight 0.15
• Standard armor :
  • HP = 1000
  • AHP = 3000
  • Effects armor :
    • Heat = 0.0
    • Kinetic = 0.0
    • EM = 0.0
  • Weight 0.25

May they change armor value after your post ?

I'am waiting to see "effect armor" because that's might balance balance all of this in a good way.

Just before weapon update was thinking to more more type of armor, starting with idea of a stronger armor, I finally think to differents kind of heavy armor : more AHP and less HP and an other one more HP and less AHP, with some tweaks where purpose is to be effective against piercing or explosive and layers will make difference.
With effects armor this could be give more utilities to basic/standard/adv by giving to one or other a higher armor to an particular effect, but could be see as a false constraint to use this kind of "useless armor". When They talk about 3 type of effect and armor, that's remind me my idea of more type of armor, and may be good to have more specialised materials for armors for alpha, high rate, piercing, explo,etc... (without making hundreds type of armors !!!!)

 

[petlahk]

I'am starting to think to this complex balance but I'am just coming in the work (game), and watching your report I'am not really understand some numbers, I suspect recent changes as 0.201.005a was just release and watching Xml files to try to find some interesting stuff may explain why I don't understand some of yours value.
With the constant changes of release I think that in kind of hard work you do (your PDF) you could write value of blocks , etc... of (and) version used to grant your work and allow comparison and utility further (version, balance, etc.. ).

I will do that for current version and I think that will let us to see changes, balances,etc... done version after version.

As 0.201.005a

• basic armor :
  • HP = 200
  • AHP = 1000
  • Effects armor :
    • Heat = 0.0
    • Kinetic = 0.0
    • EM = 0.0
  • Weight 0.05
• Standard armor :
  • HP = 400
  • AHP = 2000
  • Effects armor :
    • Heat = 0.0
    • Kinetic = 0.0
    • EM = 0.0
  • Weight 0.15
• Standard armor :
  • HP = 1000
  • AHP = 3000
  • Effects armor :
    • Heat = 0.0
    • Kinetic = 0.0
    • EM = 0.0
  • Weight 0.25

May they change armor value after your post ?

I'am waiting to see "effect armor" because that's might balance balance all of this in a good way.

Just before weapon update was thinking to more more type of armor, starting with idea of a stronger armor, I finally think to differents kind of heavy armor : more AHP and less HP and an other one more HP and less AHP, with some tweaks where purpose is to be effective against piercing or explosive and layers will make difference.
With effects armor this could be give more utilities to basic/standard/adv by giving to one or other a higher armor to an particular effect, but could be see as a false constraint to use this kind of "useless armor". When They talk about 3 type of effect and armor, that's remind me my idea of more type of armor, and may be good to have more specialised materials for armors for alpha, high rate, piercing, explo,etc... (without making hundreds type of armors !!!!)

Yep.

Keeping in mind that .005a is probably about to be changed again due to Lancake and Schema getting some config values wrong (To quote Schema "It's been one of those days today.").

Also. I might be wrong, but I think that the armor rating doesn't actually mean anything anymore. I think it's only the HP that means something in the dev build, the armor rating doesn't factor in right now.

A lot of what you've said about armor and the tertiary effects is stuff a few of us have been discussing recently.

We've talked about how it's currently slightly disappointing that the tertiary effects are countered by chambers and not by armor for instance.
I know that layering is useful, but I can't help but agree. My personal opinion would be that the three new tertiaries (Kinetic, EM, and Heat) should do three different "types" of damage. With Kinetic dealing the majority/all of its damage to just Armor, EM dealing the majority/all of its damage to just shields/power-generation, and Heat being a 50/50 split between Armor and Shields.

We might be able to get them to alter the current Armor to have higher values. But, also, as you and others have pointed out, this test is very much "ideal" conditions. And those test cubes are just solid blocks all the way through.

And, about alpha. I've always had a hard time understanding exactly what it is myself. And, I think the term is about to change to 'acid' damage due to how the devs used that term.

But. I think there is probably some stuff we still don't know quite yet. I plan to keep updating/remaking this post as we progress into the dev build. And I might post some formal suggestions based on discussions I've had with people (with due credit given of course!).

But, it's getting late, so it'll have to wait till sometime tomorrow.

Have a good one.

 

[Scypio]

A log curve on the armor function would be a vast improvement.
When your curve for hull starts to get inefficient, you switch to armor. When the curve for armor gets inefficient, you switch to advanced. When the curve on advanced gets too inefficient, you start in on layering, spacing, composites, protrusions, ablatives (viable now with the block-respawning astro beams!), and other intelligent hull design methods.

Lol no. Armor still useless compared to weapons. No needs to nerf it anymore.

 

[petlahk]

Lol no. Armor still useless compared to weapons. No needs to nerf it anymore.

Uhhh. I think he might mean exponential curve in terms of how much AHP if gives. To make higher armor actually somewhat... decent?

 

[Nosajimiki]

At the moment 5 layers of basic armour has the same armour value and mass as 1 layer of advanced armour. At the moment standard armour isn't very efficient it has triple the mass of basic but only double the hp of basic. If the more expensive armour blocks have a higher hit point/mass increase then it becomes more valuable.

Note on an armour tanking ship you would put 50% resist on all damage type with chambers to double your apparent armour level.
The current capital ship power core I have has 16 layers of advanced armour sandwiched between things. Mostly 1 layer thick and 1 set of 5 layers thick. So that's 32k HP armour just in my core systems from the front or rear. An angled shot from the front might have to pass through the centreline plate that will increase the armour amount massively. And this is before external hull or other internal hull plates.

32k armor is not anything when you consider alpha weapons are measured by damage in the millions; so, let's say you install that 16 layers on a ship with a 50x50m profile, you are looking at 10k added mass for that armor. In contrast, a same mass cannon-beam weapon can hit for about 4.6 million (This includes the mass of the power system required to support it). So, a weapon could blast an 8m wide circular hole through all that armor and still have enough damage left over to burn away up to 300,000 system blocks as it waltzes right through you.

As your ship gets bigger, that 50x50 profile gets more spread out and makes your armor even more useless, which is why I suggested a math fancy logarithmic armoring system.

I'am starting to think to this complex balance but I'am just coming in the work (game), and watching your report I'am not really understand some numbers, I suspect recent changes as 0.201.005a was just release and watching Xml files to try to find some interesting stuff may explain why I don't understand some of yours value.
With the constant changes of release I think that in kind of hard work you do (your PDF) you could write value of blocks , etc... of (and) version used to grant your work and allow comparison and utility further (version, balance, etc.. ).

I will do that for current version and I think that will let us to see changes, balances,etc... done version after version.

As 0.201.005a

• basic armor :
  • HP = 200
  • AHP = 1000
  • Effects armor :
    • Heat = 0.0
    • Kinetic = 0.0
    • EM = 0.0
  • Weight 0.05
• Standard armor :
  • HP = 400
  • AHP = 2000
  • Effects armor :
    • Heat = 0.0
    • Kinetic = 0.0
    • EM = 0.0
  • Weight 0.15
• Standard armor :
  • HP = 1000
  • AHP = 3000
  • Effects armor :
    • Heat = 0.0
    • Kinetic = 0.0
    • EM = 0.0
  • Weight 0.25

May they change armor value after your post ?

I'am waiting to see "effect armor" because that's might balance balance all of this in a good way.

Just before weapon update was thinking to more more type of armor, starting with idea of a stronger armor, I finally think to differents kind of heavy armor : more AHP and less HP and an other one more HP and less AHP, with some tweaks where purpose is to be effective against piercing or explosive and layers will make difference.
With effects armor this could be give more utilities to basic/standard/adv by giving to one or other a higher armor to an particular effect, but could be see as a false constraint to use this kind of "useless armor". When They talk about 3 type of effect and armor, that's remind me my idea of more type of armor, and may be good to have more specialised materials for armors for alpha, high rate, piercing, explo,etc... (without making hundreds type of armors !!!!)

aHP is no longer a thing. I believe that is just in there to be backwards compatible with power 1.0 ships.

...And, about alpha. I've always had a hard time understanding exactly what it is myself. And, I think the term is about to change to 'acid' damage due to how the devs used that term.

But. I think there is probably some stuff we still don't know quite yet. I plan to keep updating/remaking this post as we progress into the dev build. And I might post some formal suggestions based on discussions I've had with people (with due credit given of course!).

Do you mean alpha as a term or alpha protective shields? As a term it is still independant from "Acid" because alpha simply describes high reload for front-loaded damage. As a shield effect, I think the plan is to tie it to the new 3 type secondary system. Alpha= beam secondary. DPS= cannon secondary. no secondary = balanced. Missiles = not sure about this, but I suspect charge weapons would be based on a % of how much you charge them.

 

[petlahk]

Do you mean alpha as a term or alpha protective shields? As a term it is still independant from "Acid" because alpha simply describes high reload for front-loaded damage. As a shield effect, I think the plan is to tie it to the new 3 type secondary system. Alpha= beam secondary. DPS= cannon secondary. no secondary = balanced. Missiles = not sure about this, but I suspect charge weapons would be based on a % of how much you charge them.

Thank's for the clarification Nosa.