My take on a new AMC system
- Thread starter Captain Fortius
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
My personal view is that we need more types of guns. Guns that have AoE damage and direct damage. Armour is a great idea there wil obviously be more lag and worse frame rates with all of this. Ap guns to penatrate with some efficiency the armour suggested. Guns Specific to sheilds, or beam guns. This game has a lot of potential in this area, i hope that more updates are on the way.
** Btw the heat seeking missles need work they need a larger detection range
** Btw the heat seeking missles need work they need a larger detection range
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 290
- Reaction score
- 367
There\'s just not much more to say.
As for the stuff in the news;
I\'m happy for the promised new weapon types. The combination system doesn\'t make much sense though. My idea of shape dependant stats would be far better. I mean... who builds a rocket launcher in their laser gun to make it more shooty? Not even orks would come up with this nonsense.
Plus, as of yet they said nothing about adressing the armor issue. Or how projectile sizes don\'t mach a weapon\'s output.
There sits my unfinished Retribution class battleship, pride of the Imperial Navy, waiting for the optimization and the new guns. Imagine the awkwardness when the mighty main lances will shoot a tiny beam, not unlike a single salvage laser from their massive barrels.
Imagine the frustration, when the super-thick armored prow, bearing the proud eagle\'s visage will fail to deflect any shots, and will get drilled through in half a second like anything else.
These issues are far from resolved.
As for the stuff in the news;
I\'m happy for the promised new weapon types. The combination system doesn\'t make much sense though. My idea of shape dependant stats would be far better. I mean... who builds a rocket launcher in their laser gun to make it more shooty? Not even orks would come up with this nonsense.
Plus, as of yet they said nothing about adressing the armor issue. Or how projectile sizes don\'t mach a weapon\'s output.
There sits my unfinished Retribution class battleship, pride of the Imperial Navy, waiting for the optimization and the new guns. Imagine the awkwardness when the mighty main lances will shoot a tiny beam, not unlike a single salvage laser from their massive barrels.
Imagine the frustration, when the super-thick armored prow, bearing the proud eagle\'s visage will fail to deflect any shots, and will get drilled through in half a second like anything else.
These issues are far from resolved.
NeonSturm
StormMaker
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 5,110
- Reaction score
- 617
Range has to depend on reaction speed, accelleration and max speed on a server - also on sector size.
If \"accelleration time to reach max speed\" differs between two ships, the ship with more accelleration might keep the target out the range (with strafe) while shooting itself indefinetely and at the same time the target has no chance to get out of range.
See this approach (doesn\'t relate to server speed, dampening and max speed jet...): http://star-made.org/content/redo-weapon-stat-formula-all-weapons-generic-balance
- Cap everything above sector size? Or two? Or above sensor range?
If \"accelleration time to reach max speed\" differs between two ships, the ship with more accelleration might keep the target out the range (with strafe) while shooting itself indefinetely and at the same time the target has no chance to get out of range.
- To increase the distance by one \"step\" (from 1:2 thrust to 1:1 or from a 1:1 to a 2:1 ship), you should have to double your array size \"x\" times - independent of other stats.
x is part of the balance.
See this approach (doesn\'t relate to server speed, dampening and max speed jet...): http://star-made.org/content/redo-weapon-stat-formula-all-weapons-generic-balance