New weapons... need to balance armor and shields...

[Vyor]

As far as I know this has not been thought of as of yet, if it has been please link it in a reply...

I have been thinking about this for sometime and think I found a nice solution thanks to the new weapons that will be coming. Below I will outline a chart for how this balancing would work:

The percentages indicate overall weapon effectiveness. As you can see AMCs are not incredibly powerful against shields, while it is very powerful against hull(the logic being it's antimatter), however, the lasers are far more effective against shields, while not effective vs. armor(the logic being scifi, I don't need logic!).

The missiles are highly effective vs both, with a slight disadvantage to shields(not 100% sure about this).

The pulsar is super effective vs. shields, but is resisted by armor(it is a giant magnetic wave... armor wouldn't be too affected)...

Mines are made to knock out both shields and armor effectively, at the cost of needing strategic placement or else they are useless(the logic being real world warfare, esp. WW2).


Any thoughts? Suggestions?

 

[Vyor]

bump...

 

[Winterhome]

The weapons are not defined as specific methods of operation.
They are defined as specific projectile behaviors.

As far as we know, a Pulsar is a gamma burst or a TNT detonation, so it could do anything. Lasers are heat based, mostly, so if you use normal logic, they'd completely *ignore* shields and melt armor, as would "Antimatter" rounds, as they aren't affected in the same way by matter based particle shields.

It'd be interesting to see a weapon type specifically designed for defeating shields and a type specifically for structure, but the ones we already have are not good candidates for it.

 

[Vyor]

The weapons are not defined as specific methods of operation.
They are defined as specific projectile behaviors.

As far as we know, a Pulsar is a gamma burst or a TNT detonation, so it could do anything. Lasers are heat based, mostly, so if you use normal logic, they'd completely *ignore* shields and melt armor, as would "Antimatter" rounds, as they aren't affected in the same way by matter based particle shields.

It'd be interesting to see a weapon type specifically designed for defeating shields and a type specifically for structure, but the ones we already have are not good candidates for it.

The shields full name is antimatter deflector... so ya, it wouldn't ignore it(my logic is that the lasers would reduce the effectiveness of the deflector because it adds energy to it)... also, I put the logic stuff in for fun...

The pulsar weapon looks like a massive energy wave, hence why I likened it to what I did.

I would assume that the missiles and mines use a combination of an EMP weapon and antimatter, the missile has too carry fuel, so less room for the EMP device.


also... this isn't criticism of the suggestion...

 

[CyberTao]

The Shield block is the "SD Shield Disperser", I dont see how you got "Anti matter deflector". I assume the idea is to Spread the energy/impact over an area and eventually the Disperser overloads (hence "shields down")

Whats more, a weapon's effectiveness against shield or Hull depends on the weapon array itself - 3- Beam weapons will be insta travelling but have a low rate of fire - 3- Favoring High DPS arrays and firing at shields. AMCs can fired quick rapidly, and hence are better used against Faster objects. Missiles have a AoE and therefore already do extra to Hull by way of that - 3-. Pulse is Close ranged and Mines are Used for running away/traps.

They Balance themselves in a way.

 

[Vyor]

The Shield block is the "SD Shield Disperser", I dont see how you got "Anti matter deflector". I assume the idea is to Spread the energy/impact over an area and eventually the Disperser overloads (hence "shields down")

Whats more, a weapon's effectiveness against shield or Hull depends on the weapon array itself - 3- Beam weapons will be insta travelling but have a low rate of fire - 3- Favoring High DPS arrays and firing at shields. AMCs can fired quick rapidly, and hence are better used against Faster objects. Missiles have a AoE and therefore already do extra to Hull by way of that - 3-. Pulse is Close ranged and Mines are Used for running away/traps.

They Balance themselves in a way.

No... they don't... with current damage system the AMC is overpowered.


Read the flavor text in the shop.

 

[CyberTao]

No... they don't... with current damage system the AMC is overpowered.


Read the flavor text in the shop.

I wasnt aware the shop had any useful info o -o

Also, Your using the New weapons System's Types but implying we are going to keep the same weapons set ups for AMCs? I would assume their Range, Rate of Fire, and Speed would all be modified with the Slaved weapons, with default AMCs being a short ranged, rapid fire sort of gun for fighters o -o

When you consider all the Variables that will be thrown in, your Chart is fairly shallow - 3- each weapon will behave differently, and that should roughly Balance them for now, and then be tweaked once we get additional features like the HP system.

 

[Vyor]

I wasnt aware the shop had any useful info o -o

Also, Your using the New weapons System's Types but implying we are going to keep the same weapons set ups for AMCs? I would assume their Range, Rate of Fire, and Speed would all be modified with the Slaved weapons, with default AMCs being a short ranged, rapid fire sort of gun for fighters o -o

When you consider all the Variables that will be thrown in, your Chart is fairly shallow - 3- each weapon will behave differently, and that should roughly Balance them for now, and then be tweaked once we get additional features like the HP system.

As you can see, I am useing main weapons in the chart.

 

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

I think this would balance AMC somewhat, but make missiles (and lasers) too powerful. Even if only using lasers, people could just not care that your hull is 3x the protection on account of hull protection scaling horribly compared to shields (after some point, the shields just end up 3x more effective for protection...then they keep going, you can't fix scaling issues by changing coefficients). Once your shields go down, if they had any decent DPS they'd be able to drill away at the hull.
In terms of shield vs. hull damage effectiveness, I'd prefer AMC be the one that's equally effective (80% to both) rather than missiles/mines.

 

[CyberTao]

As you can see, I am useing main weapons in the chart.

There is no "Main" weapon o -o The new system is a Fusion of weapons types - 3- I dunno, some of the weapons will be more useful verus shields I assume, and some more effective against "Hull", but your suggestion would not really help in any sense of Balancing methinks - 3-

 

[Yarp]

Trying to "balance" something as yet completely unseen?

"Balance" is all up the air. It is nowhere and it is everywhere. It is the force. It is the farce. It is in flux. It is in flush.

No equation can be "balanced" if all it is comprised of are variables. Creativity is as much or more art than science. The nature of a game in Alpha.

I think you mean to propose gameplay strategies and styles to promote flavor in the new upcoming system.

If that is the case, can you tell me why I should ever use anything besides missiles when they are 90 and 100 percent effective against different targets while Lasers and AMC are stopped relatively dead in the water against respective applications? Seems like a meager strategy cycle on face value.

Also, percentages? Though thank you for not giving percentages greater than 100. Those are reserved for enthusiastic pro athletes who received college scholarships for something other than math. On the other hand, 100% effectiveness - a guaranteed kill?

Your ship ah-splode.

 

[NeonSturm]

I would like to see deflector-shields.

The bigger the target, the greater they need to change the angle of a projectile to be effective.
Thus giving diminishing returns with greater ship sizes.

If you can hit with equal shield power and weapon velocity a ship of size x at distance x and a ship of size 5x at distance 5x, it would make fighters somewhat more balanced.

I agree with anti-matter being most effective to hull, but I don't agree with lasers (as long as they are called lasers) being effective to shields.

Missiles can get equipped with different warheads.
I think they should be the most burst-fire-capable weapons; only usable once a battle.
Their re-charge should be on/off-able and take so much energy that you can just not afford it while fighting, except on energy-optimized ships like for jam-cloakers or thruster-stack-ships.

In StarGate-Universe some episode told me that they cycle their shield through different frequencies with almost no shield-energy loss on an exact match for the cost of being unable to shield against different weapon frequencies.

Reversing that assumption leads to the thought that projectiles which change their frequency based on the current shield cycle may contain less energy due to inefficient weapon outputs, but may be a lot more effective against shields.
Thus particle-beams (with similar properties as lasers except in atmosphere) might be more effective against shields.

But I think that you should not be able to just put two different weapons on your ship and be equipped for all cases.

 

[Vyor]

There is no "Main" weapon o -o The new system is a Fusion of weapons types - 3- I dunno, some of the weapons will be more useful verus shields I assume, and some more effective against "Hull", but your suggestion would not really help in any sense of Balancing methinks - 3-

Yes... there is... If you look at the chart of new weapon systems then you see that there is. The weapons are buffed and changed by sub-systems, but there is a main system...

If that is the case, can you tell me why I should ever use anything besides missiles when they are 90 and 100 percent effective against different targets while Lasers and AMC are stopped relatively dead in the water against respective applications? Seems like a meager strategy cycle on face value.

Also, percentages? Though thank you for not giving percentages greater than 100. Those are reserved for enthusiastic pro athletes who received college scholarships for something other than math. On the other hand, 100% effectiveness - a guaranteed kill?

Your ship ah-splode.

Missiles are slow, inaccurate, with a long refire rate. In essence, why you don't use them now.

The percentages denote how much of it's potential damage affects the thing it is hitting. Missiles and mines hit equally effective, the other 3 don't... I'll show you what I mean:

not actual numbers
missiles/mines total damage capabilities: 100 damage
missiles/mines v armor: 100 damage
missiles/mines v shields: 90 damage

AMC total damage: 50(each shot)
vs.armor: 50
vs.shields: 15

 

[Vyor]

I think this would balance AMC somewhat, but make missiles (and lasers) too powerful. Even if only using lasers, people could just not care that your hull is 3x the protection on account of hull protection scaling horribly compared to shields (after some point, the shields just end up 3x more effective for protection...then they keep going, you can't fix scaling issues by changing coefficients). Once your shields go down, if they had any decent DPS they'd be able to drill away at the hull.
In terms of shield vs. hull damage effectiveness, I'd prefer AMC be the one that's equally effective (80% to both) rather than missiles/mines.

With the new ship health update core drilling will be fixed, so hull should be more useful. The damage would be decreased to very little against armor, thanks to how it works:

lasers total damage:100
attacking armor decreases this by 70%: 30 damage
the weak armor has a defence of 25%: 22.5
the strong armor has a defence of 50%: 15

This insures that it scales. Missiles have a long reload time, and are fairly inaccurate.

I would like to see deflector-shields.

The bigger the target, the greater they need to change the angle of a projectile to be effective.
Thus giving diminishing returns with greater ship sizes.

If you can hit with equal shield power and weapon velocity a ship of size x at distance x and a ship of size 5x at distance 5x, it would make fighters somewhat more balanced.

I agree with anti-matter being most effective to hull, but I don't agree with lasers (as long as they are called lasers) being effective to shields.

Missiles can get equipped with different warheads.
I think they should be the most burst-fire-capable weapons; only usable once a battle.
Their re-charge should be on/off-able and take so much energy that you can just not afford it while fighting, except on energy-optimized ships like for jam-cloakers or thruster-stack-ships.

In StarGate-Universe some episode told me that they cycle their shield through different frequencies with almost no shield-energy loss on an exact match for the cost of being unable to shield against different weapon frequencies.

Reversing that assumption leads to the thought that projectiles which change their frequency based on the current shield cycle may contain less energy due to inefficient weapon outputs, but may be a lot more effective against shields.
Thus particle-beams (with similar properties as lasers except in atmosphere) might be more effective against shields.

But I think that you should not be able to just put two different weapons on your ship and be equipped for all cases.

Umm... no... weapons shouldn't go through shields, just no... star wars doesn't cycle through frequencies. Why? Because it allows someone to easily destroy a ship.

Also, bombers would likely be using very large missile weapons in great numbers. They swarm a ship and fire many missiles. This is how real life and most sci fi universes work.

 

[NeonSturm]

Umm... no... weapons shouldn't go through shields, just no... star wars doesn't cycle through frequencies. Why? Because it allows someone to easily destroy a ship.

You got that wrong Vyor!
The cycle is less than the time a projectile needs to bypass a shield. The cycle means... just look at this example:

• f = frequency
• f1 = 0% absorption, 100% fluctuation
• f2 = 10% absorption, 90% fluctuation
• f3 = 40% absorption, 60% fluctuation
• f4 = 100% absorption, 0% fluctuation (match)
• f5=f3, f6=f2, f7=f1, f8=f ... others ... repeat
• fluctuation = energy loss due to weapon frequency causing fluctuations in your shield.

If this cycle repeats every second, I think that is how StarGate-Universe meant it.

If you stay longer in one frequency than in others, you would get a buff in absorption before too much fluctuation is caused in this frequency, but a nerf as in increased fluctuations before all the weapon energy is absorbed for other frequencies.

 

[Vyor]

You got that wrong Vyor!
The cycle is less than the time a projectile needs to bypass a shield. The cycle means... just look at this example:

• f = frequency
• f1 = 0% absorption, 100% fluctuation
• f2 = 10% absorption, 90% fluctuation
• f3 = 40% absorption, 60% fluctuation
• f4 = 100% absorption, 0% fluctuation (match)
• f5=f3, f6=f2, f7=f1, f8=f ... others ... repeat
• fluctuation = energy loss due to weapon frequency causing fluctuations in your shield.

If this cycle repeats every second, I think that is how StarGate-Universe meant it.

If you stay longer in one frequency than in others, you would get a buff in absorption before too much fluctuation is caused in this frequency, but a nerf as in increased fluctuations before all the weapon energy is absorbed for other frequencies.

No... star gate uses a similar system to star trek... if you remember, that is how the borg were so powerful(course the enterprise still 1 shot a borg cube thats to it as well).

 

[MrFURB]

I believe that basic mechanical differences between weapon types in the new system are great enough to warrant them having their own roles, strengths, and weaknesses without having to rely on giving them specific numerical differences in effectiveness versus shields, armor, or structure.

Making certain weapons ineffective against certain defenses isn't bad in and of itself. In fact, in many games it's required in order to balance multiple offensive and defensive systems together. What I'm trying to point out is that we can modify a weapon's effectiveness against blocks and shields without a specific damage multiplier, instead working with damage delivery methods, rate of fire, and area of effect damage types.

Seeing a weapon in action should automatically clue you in to it's intended purpose and usefulness. Adding in hidden numbers that do magic behind the scenes would throw a slight chink in the system by causing damage representations to not be completely true. "Huh, my giant doom cannon says it does 10,000 damage, but I'm only seeing 3,000 pop up..."

 

[Vyor]

I believe that basic mechanical differences between weapon types in the new system are great enough to warrant them having their own roles, strengths, and weaknesses without having to rely on giving them specific numerical differences in effectiveness versus shields, armor, or structure.

Making certain weapons ineffective against certain defenses isn't bad in and of itself. In fact, in many games it's required in order to balance multiple offensive and defensive systems together. What I'm trying to point out is that we can modify a weapon's effectiveness against blocks and shields without a specific damage multiplier, instead working with damage delivery methods, rate of fire, and area of effect damage types.

Seeing a weapon in action should automatically clue you in to it's intended purpose and usefulness. Adding in hidden numbers that do magic behind the scenes would throw a slight chink in the system by causing damage representations to not be completely true. "Huh, my giant doom cannon says it does 10,000 damage, but I'm only seeing 3,000 pop up..."

But if every weapon is equally effective(specifically lasers and AMCs) the meta game would eventually just focus on whatever works better(as it stands right now, AMCs have an insane rate of fire, with very high damage). You don't have the numbers hidden, you have them say plain as day.

Doom cannon stats(assuming AMC):
rate of fire: ??
damage vs. shields: 3,000
damage vs. armor: 10,000
damage vs. misc(rocks, crystals, and other random things): 10,000

 

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

Doom cannons will pop up regardless of messing with the damage amounts by target type (in fact, with missiles not requiring power at all right now, they are already good for doom cannons compared to AMCs on really large ships). The main point of the new weapon system is that AMC becomes one of many specialized weapon systems. It likely won't have the DPS it does now and will be rather inadequate compared to, say, a siege laser. The tradeoff is that siege lasers aren't easy to spam (and thus will be pretty ineffective vs. small ships). These tradeoffs will help the metagame diverge into different directions.
All in all, I think some changes to weapon damage based on shields vs. hull will help a bit, but won't actually do all that much other than overcomplicate weapon specialization to the point you can't effectively kill anything without multiple ships.

 

[Vyor]

Doom cannons will pop up regardless of messing with the damage amounts by target type (in fact, with missiles not requiring power at all right now, they are already good for doom cannons compared to AMCs on really large ships). The main point of the new weapon system is that AMC becomes one of many specialized weapon systems. It likely won't have the DPS it does now and will be rather inadequate compared to, say, a siege laser. The tradeoff is that siege lasers aren't easy to spam (and thus will be pretty ineffective vs. small ships). These tradeoffs will help the metagame diverge into different directions.
All in all, I think some changes to weapon damage based on shields vs. hull will help a bit, but won't actually do all that much other than overcomplicate weapon specialization to the point you can't effectively kill anything without multiple ships.

Or just having more than 1 weapon system... which most people already have...