Discussion Regarding Balancing the Doom Laser

[dwwojcik]

I figure it should probably scale depending on how big the weapon is. A useless pea shooter on a small ship shouldn't take more than a couple seconds, while a literal planet killer should take at least a minute. 10 seconds feels ok for a battleship main gun, space is big and empty and hard to hide in unless you happen to have a jump drive charge at the ready. Of course this is just spitballing, extensive playtesting is probably the only way to find good numbers.

 

[Nosajimiki]

...That would be in line with a concept of Sci-Fi ships being able to have huge spinal mounts ...

This is the part of your statement that actually ballences the mechanic. "Doom beams" in sci-fi are pretty much always huge, often taking up large volumes inside the ship and requiring nearly the entire power out of the ship's reactor(s). Doom beams are big, expensive, and often not all that efficient. Starmade doom beams are small and far more power efficient than they should be allowing you to one-shot a shield using very little power allocation from a ship much smaller than your target. This is what makes it feel so out-of-place and unbalanced far more than it not having a charge time or some other arbitrary restriction.

I think charge-firing makes sense but I'd just keep it as a set amount of time, without the variable charge duration/output the cannon+missile has. It would be a good debuff- if you can't stop charging whenever you want to fire whatever you have, it gives your target a window of opportunity to escape. This follows a similar theme to the turning-away-to-break-the-beam weakness the regular beam has. Plus it would make the gun a little more unique compared to the cannon+missile.

1. I don't think yall are considering that "doom beams" are long ranged hitscan weapons. There is not really any getting away from them in most situations except for maybe a tactical jump, but most ships can't run their jump drive and combat chambers at the same time, so in most cases, that charge time is an inconvenience at best.
2. They are not latch-on like beam-missile; so, turning has no effect other than distributing the damage along your armor which will in many cases be just as likely to expose your reactor to a more vulnerable angle.
3. The charge mechanic would just have a similar problem as homing missiles where ppl would just let the AI handle it for them, then it's not really a nerf at all.
4. A charge mechanic is redundant on a beam that does not latch on since it already takes 5 seconds of maintaining your aim on the enemy to be used as a manual weapon.

 

[JinM]

I think its great that smaller ships now can tackle bigger ships. Now you have less incentive to play titanmade, if you dont have supporting fighters that take on small ships.

This meta part is so cool, I don't would like that doom lasers get nerfed to prevent such meta.

 

[Nosajimiki]

I think its great that smaller ships now can tackle bigger ships. Now you have less incentive to play titanmade, if you dont have supporting fighters that take on small ships.

This meta part is so cool, I don't would like that doom lasers get nerfed to prevent such meta.

But that is why you have bombs. Smaller ships now can take out MUCH bigger ones using them but it requires a lot of skill and a bit of luck achieving the exact niche that Doom Beams were envisioned for. But that kind of firepower on a hitscan weapon is a terrible idea. If there is no ROI on big ships, then we just end up in the opposite end of problems with forced mini-made. That basically kills fleet diversity, and anything big enough to pack logic, fancy turrets, or any of the other cool features that make Starmade better than the half dozen other space-sand-box games out there.

The result is that there will not be any of those big ships you want to kill anymore and combat will deteriorate into fighters one-shotting each other before the other guy even knows he's under attack. Also, doom beams completely destroy the balance of same-mass conflicts in all weight classes so pretty much any possible outcome is seriously game killing.

Don't get me wrong, I think there SHOULD be a way for small ships to pack a big punch, but such a weapons system should not also make same-mass conflicts broken or fleet diversity a waste of time and resources. That is what a hitscan super weapon does which bombs do not. Bombs are also a much more logical system to fill the "bomber" niche than a weapon system that reflects what is typically a big ship system in pretty much every sci-fi universe it's seen in.

 

[JinM]

forced mini-made

I play the same Starmade with seeing the same meta for 2 years now. So I am happy if this game gives me a totally new meta.

And the exageration of forced mini made can be doubted by booth of us. We booth know that Shine wont make the beam-beam totally OP.

The result is that there will not be any of those big ships you want to kill anymore and combat will deteriorate into fighters one-shotting each other before the other guy even knows he's under attack.

What you call an deterioration of the combat do I call great combat of smaller fighters buzzing around and being able to wittnessing action loaded battles where fighters trying really hard to dodge each hit. I honestly would love watching such a battlezone.

Also, doom beams completely destroy the balance of same-mass conflicts in all weight classes so pretty much any possible outcome is seriously game killing.

For me this sounds more like unpredictability of combat. Now it's not about who has the biggest ship anymore. It's about where, how and when to strike, and not primarily about what strikes each other.


Lastly I want to add, that this beam-beam meta actually encourages players to play as team. A bigger ship now needs at least one smaller fighter to defend itself against one dodgy enemy fighter.

And do you think there should be one big ship that can kill all the others? I guess not. Then tell me how to counter titans if not with titans. Fighters with bombs alone as counter is not enough, thats just not enough variety in meta imo...

 

[GnomeKing]

Starmade doom beams are small and far more power efficient than they should be allowing you to one-shot a shield using very little power allocation from a ship much smaller than your target. This is what makes it feel so out-of-place

 

[Nosajimiki]

I play the same Starmade with seeing the same meta for 2 years now. So I am happy if this game gives me a totally new meta.

And the exageration of forced mini made can be doubted by booth of us. We booth know that Shine wont make the beam-beam totally OP.

What you call an deterioration of the combat do I call great combat of smaller fighters buzzing around and being able to wittnessing action loaded battles where fighters trying really hard to dodge each hit. I honestly would love watching such a battlezone.

For me this sounds more like unpredictability of combat. Now it's not about who has the biggest ship anymore. It's about where, how and when to strike, and not primarily about what strikes each other.


Lastly I want to add, that this beam-beam meta actually encourages players to play as team. A bigger ship now needs at least one smaller fighter to defend itself against one dodgy enemy fighter.

And do you think there should be one big ship that can kill all the others? I guess not. Then tell me how to counter titans if not with titans. Fighters with bombs alone as counter is not enough, thats just not enough variety in meta imo...

Ummm.... how often do you actually PvP? I've designed weapon systems in this game that can blast a same mass ship in 30 seconds, and it's just not fun even when you are the one doing the blasting. I've designed video games with actual doom beams, and ruined the end game because they are really cool to see once or twice, but they make the game stale as hell after about 15 minutes.

The 3 biggest causes for frustration in PvP in any game are: battles being too quick, battles being too random, and battles that result in an unwinnable standoff. The new shield regen mechanic ensures that the 3rd scenario is pretty much gone (which is a good thing no matter how much I don't like patching bullet holes), but the doom beam make the first 2 way worse. Not being too random is the one thing Starmade has classically done well, and battles being too quick only happen when one person was hopelessly outclassed (which is okay), or there were exploits involved (less okay.)

Also, while you may be right that more fighter fights would be neat in SM, you don't need to make cruisers obsolete to do that. Starmade cannot compete with other games in the Genre for fighters. What starmade CAN compete for is scalable fights.

 

[EricBlank]

Dudes try to keep it civilized. An argument about what meta we like better is outside the scope of this thread. Youve made your points, please dont take this any further, or make a new thread for that.

 

[NaStral]

I’m not sure if it’s intended by the devs but the B/b combo as of this dev build is not as accurate as it used to be pre weapons update. I equiped an old fighter of mine with a 76/50% B/b array paired with a 150/100% C/c. Against smaller vessels on the move the B/b was not of great use, but against larger target, it was an important asset.

 

[dwwojcik]

I don't think a doom beam would make cruisers obsolete, as long as they're implemented as an artillery weapon. Artillery doesn't usually do very well against things that are up close, so the smaller ships in the hostile fleet just have to get close enough to make the axially mounted doom beam hard to aim. Of course even up close a cruiser could still get pasted if it's careless about flying into the crosshairs of the beam, but it should still be worth the risk if the doom beam sucks so much power any ship mounting it was unable to support adequate defenses, as it should. Doom beam ships should be glass cannons, if you want a well rounded battleship, you should have to use missiles and cannons.

Then again you might be right, the doom beam might ruin combat. But I think it's cool enough of a concept to be worth at least trying.

For fleet composition I'm imagining sort of a four-way rock-paper-scissors:

• Bombers are strong against large ships, but weak to point defense.
• Screens are strong against bombers, but are weak to ships of the line.
• Ships of the line are strong against screens and other ships of the line, but weak to doom beams.
• Doom beam ships are strong against ships of the line and each other, but weak to basically anything that can get inside the practical range of the doom beam.

I'm just spitballing though.

 

[EricBlank]

Might have to go out of the way to make doom beam carrying ships glass cannons reliably, but it stands to reason any vessel packing so much excess firepower will have to limit itself in other areas.

The idea is kinda that it is a very large and resource hungry weapon, even though its quite powerful, so youve got to have something that limits its utility. Being spinal mounted and unable to track targets is a pretty big disadvantage when squaring off against smaller craft, and that seems fair. Having a very long reload time will also help. You want to employ it, at the right moment, against the right target, not expect it to be useful in every situation.



Idea: use a reactor chamber to add a doom beam, not a normal weapon and computer. The chamber requires like 50% rc for basic functionality, requires a class x reactor where x is a pretty large number, to power it in the first place, and only fires forwards from the reactor chamber itself when the system has been charged and released, like a jump drive.

 

[GnomeKing]

all good ideas for a New actual Death-Star-esque Doom-Laser weapon type... but still (surely?) no need to lose the Less-than-doomy-but-still-high-power long-range laser (B/B) concept (for example, vs more efficient shorter-range 'Standard' beams, or high-power short-range 'laser-cutters').

 

[dwwojcik]

Do we really need a regular 'ol long range laser? It seems to me that the doom beam is basically that, but more interesting. (and specialized)

Edit: It also seems like making aiming harder is a pretty big theme for the weapons update, with the recoil. Plus the devs were the first to float the axial aiming idea. A regular long range hitscan weapon goes against that.

 

[EricBlank]

Not so sure on that front whether that was the intent. I do think a normal long range beam laser has its place, thats part of why i came up with that convoluted nonsense i posted in the op.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Do we really need a regular 'ol long range laser? It seems to me that the doom beam is basically that, but more interesting. (and specialized)

Edit: It also seems like making aiming harder is a pretty big theme for the weapons update, with the recoil. Plus the devs were the first to float the axial aiming idea. A regular long range hitscan weapon goes against that.

Yes, I feel we do. The whole point of a sniper beam, is that it is a moderately powerful, but reliable long range weapon. C-B is strong, but has accuracy and recoil issues. M-B is strong but can be shot down. B-B is the most logical weapon system for that role (as it has classically been), but doom beaming it and then nerfing it means there is no "Vanilla" sniper weapon.

What you call an deterioration of the combat do I call great combat of smaller fighters buzzing around and being able to wittnessing action loaded battles where fighters trying really hard to dodge each hit. I honestly would love watching such a battlezone... And do you think there should be one big ship that can kill all the others? I guess not. Then tell me how to counter titans if not with titans. Fighters with bombs alone as counter is not enough, thats just not enough variety in meta imo...

Sounds to me like what you are actually looking for would be better solved by a universal logarithmic falloff in weapon potency. Small ships struggling to hit each other need each shot to count, and they need their weapons to scale in a meaningful way against big ships. If the damage per weapon block started off high, then degraded as your reactor went up in class, then small ships could use ALL of the weapon classes to inflict proportionally heavy damage. This means lethal dog fights between fighters and a meaningful punch when flanking cruisers, but without giving bigger ships brokenly powerful weapons. It also encourages a dynamic that Cruiser guys often ask for which is where big ships can't just one shot each other, but slow down to become a more tactical battle.

Following this model, you'd get all the weapons making since in each weight class, and not limiting them to overly pigeonholed roles.

 

[JinM]

I've designed video games with actual doom beams, and ruined the end game because they are really cool to see once or twice, but they make the game stale as hell after about 15 minutes.

I am totally on your side that they should not be as you describe them. Again, as allready said before, I think Shine wont make them OP. But if they nerf them, they should be nerfed in a way that big ships now allways need a smaller fighter escort to counter a small fighter just killing the big ship.


And sidenote, what game did ya make? =)

 

[Dire Venom]

Just to throw it out there, a charge mechanic like the old jumpdrives could work.

-You begin charging, draws increasing amounts of energy/s untill full.
-Automaticaly losses charge over-time and suffers a cooldown penalty if not fired when it is fully primed.

E.g not something you can realisticaly charge pre-battle, and only gives a limited opportunity to fire when charged.

I would fully support it being a direct-aim weapon which on board AI can't fire.

Thus a potent, but counterable weapon. If they can evade your line of fire for the (x) time it's primed they're safe.
However, if caught un-awears or have their engines knocked out/disabled (looking at you tractor beam) their ship could potientialy get vapourised by a good shot.

As others have suggested, a "Power Surge Detected" pop up in the HUD could work wonders at communicating this.

 

[dwwojcik]

Yes, I feel we do. The whole point of a sniper beam, is that it is a moderately powerful, but reliable long range weapon. C-B is strong, but has accuracy and recoil issues. M-B is strong but can be shot down. B-B is the most logical weapon system for that role (as it has classically been), but doom beaming it and then nerfing it means there is no "Vanilla" sniper weapon.

But doesn't it make sense for a long range sniper weapon to have downsides? Sniper cannons have accuracy issues and missiles can be shot down, so why shouldn't artillery beams be harder to aim and unable to be fired as readily? Not having a 'vanilla' sniper weapon means you might have to make a tough decisions about what to arm your ships with, instead of just going with the easy sniper gun choice every time.

 

[EricBlank]

Thats going to be true, yeah, it shouldnt be too hard to balance a basic long range beam weapon. This was more about what to do with an actual doom laser, like for capitol ships or blowing up planets

Just to throw it out there, a charge mechanic like the old jumpdrives could work.

-You begin charging, draws increasing amounts of energy/s untill full.
-Automaticaly losses charge over-time and suffers a cooldown penalty if not fired when it is fully primed.

E.g not something you can realisticaly charge pre-battle, and only gives a limited opportunity to fire when charged.

I would fully support it being a direct-aim weapon which on board AI can't fire.

Thus a potent, but counterable weapon. If they can evade your line of fire for the (x) time it's primed they're safe.
However, if caught un-awears or have their engines knocked out/disabled (looking at you tractor beam) their ship could potientialy get vapourised by a good shot.

As others have suggested, a "Power Surge Detected" pop up in the HUD could work wonders at communicating this.

Thats a good idea actually. Must fire when at full charge, but warns nearby vessels of the threat during, at the very least, the last 6-7 seconds of charging.

You know at this point i think it should be separate from the basic beam weapons, like a special weapon like tractor beams or making it a reactor chamber with its own tree, since chambers have a minimum functional size relative to the reactor.

 

[Nosajimiki]

I am totally on your side that they should not be as you describe them. Again, as allready said before, I think Shine wont make them OP. But if they nerf them, they should be nerfed in a way that big ships now allways need a smaller fighter escort to counter a small fighter just killing the big ship.


And sidenote, what game did ya make? =)

Used to make a bunch of Indie games back in the late 90s early 2000s. The game I am specifically referencing was a real-time derivative of Gravwars with the weapon diversity of Scorched Earth. Got so complex it need multiple people to control a single ship before we decided to scrap the project.

But yeah, one of the weapons was a "death ray" which was a crazy overpowered beam weapon, while there were other weapons that could 1-shot, beams by their very nature (whether it be a 2-d artillery game or Star-made) just make landing that over-powered shot too easy for other impetuses to really make a huge difference.

A more recent game, Stardust, is just a flash game I made by myself a few years back. Doesn't have a "doom beam" per-say, but people have complained about the end game weapon being too OP as well... which I am opt to agree with.

But doesn't it make sense for a long range sniper weapon to have downsides? Sniper cannons have accuracy issues and missiles can be shot down, so why shouldn't artillery beams be harder to aim and unable to be fired as readily? Not having a 'vanilla' sniper weapon means you might have to make a tough decisions about what to arm your ships with, instead of just going with the easy sniper gun choice every time.

The hard choice should be ease of use vs potency. Don't get me wrong, there may be a worth while reason for having a doom beam, but if you have to ask what the game needs more in context of the other weapons available in 3.0, I'd say a sniper beam is a far more important role to fill.

Frankly, I think it might be better if they just moved "lock-on" beams to the basic beam system, and made beam-missile the doom beam with what ever weird caveat that they deem for it
[doublepost=1525660719,1525660047][/doublepost]

But doesn't it make sense for a long range sniper weapon to have downsides? Sniper cannons have accuracy issues and missiles can be shot down, so why shouldn't artillery beams be harder to aim and unable to be fired as readily? Not having a 'vanilla' sniper weapon means you might have to make a tough decisions about what to arm your ships with, instead of just going with the easy sniper gun choice every time.

Sniper Cannons can acid heavy armor, because a sniper beam is split into 50 tics, if it's damage were nerfed, it would have a hard time aciding against tanky ships. This would make it balanced as a light ship killer where accuracy is more important, and the cannon would be the heavy ship killer where bypassing armor resistance is most important.