Missiles and Large Ships vs. Small Ships

[dwwojcik]

oh yeah that's the good stuff

The other issue would be with smaller ship engagements. E.g two similar class vessels. One has a ammo missile nuke, and as soon as it's opponents shields go down it fires 1/1 swarms and then it's nuke obliterating the ship. That being said, if the second ship can dodge or shoot down the nuke it's got a gurenteed victors if the other ship had to devote 30% of it's mass/block count to holding that missile.

Eh I'm not sure that's an issue. Nothing wrong with a bit of rock paper scissors. The ship with the missile put all its eggs in one basket... if that pays off, more power to them.

 

[Jojomo]

I don't think he meant that a small ship should have the same maximum damage potential as a capital. It sounds more like "don't underestimate the little guys".

"alpha damage on par with a capital ship" sounds pretty much like same maximum damage potential to me...

Say you're commanding a modern day Naval frigate; would you rather get attacked by an Arleigh Burke destroyer or an F-18 loaded with Harpoon anti-ship missiles?

The Destroyer has more overall firepower but you might be able to keep out of its weapons range if things go south. On the other hand, you can't afford to lose track of that little F-18 since you can't outrun it and it will seriously mess you up with those harpoons if you're not careful.[

One F18? "I'll take that any day of the week instead of a modern destroyer please", says the frigate captain. The destroyer can throw way more hurt at the frigate that the F18 can, and (depending on the classes) likely goes as fast or faster than the frigate can.

 

[dwwojcik]

Sorry let me clarify then. Dr. Whammy was on the right track. I meant that the alpha damage of an individual missile should be equal whether it's fired from a Battleship or a Bomber. (Assuming both ships are intentionally outfitted to carry the same missile) The Battleship will undoubtedly always have greater overall firepower unless the designer is a total buffoon.

 

[The Judge]

There isn't a good way to balance this and all it would do is kill PvP balance already more than Schine is destroying it

 

[Lecic]

Small ships are already very powerful in numbers and can pack respectable alpha that a capital ship should fear.

Ammunition will really only buff large ships due to them having the space for ammo capacity to have staying power in battle, as opposed to the current system, where both large and small ships can have staying power because weapons work as long as you have power.

Logistics are better served on the large scale of replacing damaged or destroyed ships rather than having to micromanage the ammuntion/fuel/etc of all of your vessels.

I don't think he meant that a small ship should have the same maximum damage potential as a capital. It sounds more like "don't underestimate the little guys".

Good thing "the little guys" are already quite good, making this entire premise flawed.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

One F18? "I'll take that any day of the week instead of a modern destroyer please", says the frigate captain. The destroyer can throw way more hurt at the frigate that the F18 can, and (depending on the classes) likely goes as fast or faster than the frigate can.

Really? That's very interesting, considering all the talk that's been going on about smaller, faster ships dominating PVP.

Destroyer vs F-18 as an opponent; for those interested.

Spoiler

An Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate has a top speed of about 25mph while the destroyer can move at about 35mph. The F-18 can move at 1,190mph and has 9 hardpoints. You have much a better chance of keeping away from the destroyer; which gives you more control of the engagement; even if it means you avoid the fight or dump a torpedo in the water to let them run into it. All they can do is chase you or let you go. The F-18 has 4 (or more) chances to come zipping in at near mach 2, dump ordnance then 'turn and burn'. You're screwed if he comes in low and/or at an angle that is a blind spot to your defenses or if he has ECM.

Modern naval weapons' ranges; typical of this kind of engagement.
Anti-Air/area defense weapons
CIWS: (point defense) 2-3 miles
Sea sparrow (SAM): 10 miles
RIM-162 (SAM): 32+ miles (I'm guessing the real range is classified and more like 120 miles)
RIM-66 (SAM): up to100 miles

Air-to-Ground/anti-ship Payloads
Harpoon (anti-ship): 77 Miles
Exocet (anti-ship): 112 Miles
AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (air to ground): 170 Miles

Good thing "the little guys" are already quite good, making this entire premise flawed

Flawed? Not really; assuming you understand the premise. This thread isn't about big vs small, or one vs many. It's about missiles.

 

[Jojomo]

Destroyer vs F-18 as an opponent; for those interested.

The total damage of an F18s weapons and a modern destroyers weapons aren't even worth comparing (only considering conventional weapons)

The frigate can't outrun the destroyer.

 

[dwwojcik]

Flawed? Not really; assuming you understand the premise. This thread isn't about big vs small, or one vs many. It's about missiles.

To be honest the title is pretty bad, I wrote it before I was quite done with the body of the suggestion and I forgot to come up with a new one. It ended up being less about small ship and much more about missiles than I had thought it would be, which I guess is just where my brainstorming and our discussion took us as the idea developed. The title is where I suspect Lecic got his slightly skewed impression of what the idea was about.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

The total damage of an F18s weapons and a modern destroyers weapons aren't even worth comparing (only considering conventional weapons)

The frigate can't outrun the destroyer.

No one's talking about "total damage". We're talking about overall threat capability. A destroyer doesn't need to use its total armament to disable or destroy your ship. Likewise, the hornet doesn't need the entire armament of a destroyer to do this either.

Regarding "outrunning"; The destroyer is in just as much danger of your weapons as you are of theirs. Depending on the circumstances, spending the minutes to hours needed to catch you (as opposed to only seconds to minutes for an F-18) might not be the brightest idea on their part.

To be honest the title is pretty bad, I wrote it before I was quite done with the body of the suggestion and I forgot to come up with a new one. It ended up being less about small ship and much more about missiles than I had thought it would be, which I guess is just where my brainstorming and our discussion took us as the idea developed. The title is where I suspect Lecic got his slightly skewed impression of what the idea was about.

Did I misinterpret your intentions? If so, I think some clarification is in order.

 

[dwwojcik]

Nope I don't think so, you seem to have been right on the money so far. We're on the same page.

 

[Non]

Say you're commanding a modern day Naval frigate; would you rather get attacked by an Arleigh Burke destroyer or an F-18 loaded with Harpoon anti-ship missiles?

The Destroyer has more overall firepower but you might be able to keep out of its weapons range if things go south. On the other hand, you can't afford to lose track of that little F-18 since you can't outrun it and it will seriously mess you up with those harpoons if you're not careful.

This is an awful analogy, the speed difference between large ships and small ships in starmade that are decently well constructed will not be nearly as extreme as that between a modern fighter and warship.

The F-18 has 4 (or more) chances to come zipping in at near mach 2, dump ordnance then 'turn and burn'. You're screwed if he comes in low and/or at an angle that is a blind spot to your defenses or if he has ECM.

Certainly not enough for this to be viable. The mechanics of an engagement are so different between starmade and modern naval combat, in terms of how tracking an enemy occurs, how damage is dealt, and the amount of focus and attention required by an operator they are incompatible.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

This is an awful analogy, the speed difference between large ships and small ships in starmade that are decently well constructed will not be nearly as extreme as that between a modern fighter and warship.

Extreme or not; it's not quite as far off as you'd like to believe. Speed tanking is speed tanking. It doesn't matter if you beat your opponent in a circling dog fight or get in, dump ordnance (repeatedly if necessary) and get out before they can retaliate. Either way, the smaller craft can win due to the larger craft not being able to hit it.

Certainly not enough for this to be viable. The mechanics of an engagement are so different between starmade and modern naval combat, in terms of how tracking an enemy occurs, how damage is dealt, and the amount of focus and attention required by an operator they are incompatible.

Regarding the mechanics of engagement; that's pretty much the point of this thread with regard to missiles specifically. No one wants the game to be "real life" combat. What has been repeatedly asked for in these recurring threads, is for all weapons (not just C/C and B/B) to be equally viable for combat use.

 

[Non]

refer to one of my earlier comments

 

[Lecic]

Flawed? Not really; assuming you understand the premise. This thread isn't about big vs small, or one vs many. It's about missiles.

It's about giving missiles ammunition to change the large vs small dynamic. Yes?

To be honest the title is pretty bad, I wrote it before I was quite done with the body of the suggestion and I forgot to come up with a new one. It ended up being less about small ship and much more about missiles than I had thought it would be, which I guess is just where my brainstorming and our discussion took us as the idea developed. The title is where I suspect Lecic got his slightly skewed impression of what the idea was about.

"Slightly screwed impression"?

This would accomplish a few things. The most important being that small ships would now be able to punch far above their weight.

Your suggestion focuses quite a bit on small ships being able to do the alpha damage to harm a larger ship. Much of your post and Whammy's post that I replied to seem to be implying that small ships cannot currently already do this. This is blatantly false. Small ships already punch far above their weight in comparison to the larger ships because, while damage and power per damage appears linear, there are many non-linear factors that cause larger and larger ships to be drastically less efficient than a smaller vessel.

Your ammunition suggestion primarily weakens small ships, as they will now no longer have staying power. Ammunition as a whole concept is an obnoxious hassle regardless of how it shifts the meta and I do not want it in the game.

 

[dwwojcik]

"Slightly scwewed impression"?

Well the word I used was "skewed" not "screwed"... I thought that was nicer.

Small ships already punch far above their weight in comparison to the larger ships because, while damage and power per damage appears linear, there are many non-linear factors that cause larger and larger ships to be drastically less efficient than a smaller vessel.

Thanks for this info, I wasn't aware of the non-linear aspects of the current balance.

I would be interested in seeing the large ship vs small ship dynamic changed... particularly because I think it makes sense that a small ship should have much less staying power than a large ship.

 

[Jojomo]

No one's talking about "total damage". We're talking about overall threat capability. A destroyer doesn't need to use its total armament to disable or destroy your ship. Likewise, the hornet doesn't need the entire armament of a destroyer to do this either.

Everything you fire at it only has a certain chance of hitting, and then a certain chance of doing critical damage.
The massive difference in numbers that the destroyer can fire above what the F18 can fire isn't irrelevant.

Regarding "outrunning"; The destroyer is in just as much danger of your weapons as you are of theirs. Depending on the circumstances, spending the minutes to hours needed to catch you (as opposed to only seconds to minutes for an F-18) might not be the brightest idea on their part.

The F18 is far more fragile than the destroyer

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Everything you fire at it only has a certain chance of hitting, and then a certain chance of doing critical damage.
The massive difference in numbers that the destroyer can fire above what the F18 can fire isn't irrelevant.

The F18 is far more fragile than the destroyer

Ok...

 

[Dr. Whammy]

It's about giving missiles ammunition to change the large vs small dynamic. Yes?

For missiles specifically; yes.

Right now, missiles are the worst choice for dealing with heavy shield regen. They tend to have the worst block damage scaling, for relative size, compared to other weapons. And we still have that annoying bug for guided missiles which reduces the amount of them that actually fly toward the target. After all these inherent issues, you still have to cut through point defense spam...

These combined issues cause most missile users to spam swarmers or "decoys" just to get enough of their damage dealers through your point defenses. All that extra point defense increases entity count per ship using them, which in turn, contributes to server lag; something we all hate.


There are ways to fix missiles and get rid of unnecessary lag in a way that won't screw everything else up but it's going to take some open minds.

Let me know if you guys want to discuss this possibility.

 

[Lecic]

For missiles specifically; yes.

Right now, missiles are the worst choice for dealing with heavy shield regen. They tend to have the worst block damage scaling, for relative size, compared to other weapons. And we still have that annoying bug for guided missiles which reduces the amount of them that actually fly toward the target. After all these inherent issues, you still have to cut through point defense spam...

These combined issues cause most missile users to spam swarmers or "decoys" just to get enough of their damage dealers through your point defenses. All that extra point defense increases entity count per ship using them, which in turn, contributes to server lag; something we all hate.


There are ways to fix missiles and get rid of unnecessary lag in a way that won't screw everything else up but it's going to take some open minds.

Let me know if you guys want to discuss this possibility.

This ammunition suggestion does nothing to fix any of these problems and ammunition is not necessary to fix any of these problems either.

 

[Non]

They tend to have the worst block damage scaling, for relative size, compared to other weapons

What do you mean by this?