Suggested weapons tweaking from a PVP player’s standpoint

[MacThule]

Thrust needs to change even if projectile speeds go up. If every ship dodge like a rabbit on amphetamines, there's not going to be a lot of variety. On the flip side, it's amost as boring if building a "rabbit on amphetamines" ship is impossible. There needs to be a proper tank <---> dodge spectrum.

Exactly. It should totally be possible to build a fast AF frigate, but you should have to sacrifice in terms of using light armor, less shields, lighter weapon loadouts, etc (i.e. a skirmisher or flanker build).
[doublepost=1535310852,1535310455][/doublepost]

There would be some pros and cons to that, but it would at least raise the limit, after a fashion, for specialized speedster ships. On the other hand everything else is going to be slow AF. How would this actually affect PVP meta though?

I think it would bring complexity. Fast ships specializing in speed, and heavy ships paying for their toughness and DPS through loss of speed mean that it couldn't just be about a single meta. When all ships can be heavy hitters and still max speed, there's really only one way to go. Get the game to the point where a heavy tank facing a fast skirmisher of comparable value is a pretty balanced fight and doesn't have a foregone conclusion and there will no longer be a single meta.

 

[happahappa]

What do you think about mechanics for reducing output spamming?
The 'problem' being, that a power penalty is only applied over groups per computer, but easily being avoided by putting one group per computer arrays on turrets, since the AI fires all computers simultaneously.
maybe it would be better, if the power penalty is applied to output groups per entity instead. or something along those lines.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Weapon 2.0: My observations so far:

Cannon recoil: Appears to have gone down from the 1st iteration but the weapon never fires dead center of where I'm aiming. As a result, long distance shots are much harder to make than with weapons 2.0. It's almost as if the cannon is actively trying to miss no matter how well I line up a shot. This system is infuriating to me due to its inaccurate representation of physics. If I can keep a real firearm on target; stabilizing my grip to hit where I'm aiming, then readjust for recoil to hit the same approximate spot repeatedly, a futuristic AI controlled turret should have no problem with this.
- My recommendation (for the devs if possible); Take a trip to a gun range and learn how recoil really works then apply these real world physics to the game.

The acid damage model: Nice idea; not sure about the execution since the initial damage spread causes canons to be less effective against heavy armor than the 2.0 cannons; especially on fighters or smaller turrets. I recently grinded away with an F-16 sized fighter armed with C/C and it took me over a minute to destroy a single standard armor block. Unless you make your PD turrets pretty big, I don't see these being able to reliably deliver enough damage to take out heavy missiles now that missile hit points scale with damage.
- No recommendation at this time; I will need to play with weapon effects to see if a more effective, compact anti-armor weapon can be made.

Beams: Highly effective; possibly too effective when compared to cannons in terms of raw destructive power. However, beam turrets don't seem to realize that they do not need to lead a moving target. As such, every beam turret I've made misses over 95% shots taken against moving Isanth-sized craft and smaller; even at close range.
- Recommendation: Remove target leading from AI controlled units armed with beam weapons. Such a combination makes no sense.

The Death Star beam: Shockingly powerful to the point where it may be a bit much in its current form.
- No recommendation at this time: To be honest, I've actively avoided the Death Beam; convinced that Schine will most likely nerf it in the near future.

Missiles: Capacity and the supposed damage buff are ok but their guidance system needs work. Also, I don't like the hit points idea since making a big enough missile will kill the effectiveness of most regular sized PD turrets.
- My recommendations: Slightly boost missile tracking/guidance to allow for more reliable hits. Lower their hit points to allow AMS a chance at stopping them. I have mixed feelings on missile capacity. Right now, at my building scale and power output levels, I don't see much of a difference over the older version. YMMV.

 

[Lord_Latterous]

maybe it would be better, if the power penalty is applied to output groups per entity instead. or something along those lines.

if that was added you would get turret spam instead, which is a lot worse than output spam :P

 

[MacThule]

if that was added you would get turret spam instead, which is a lot worse than output spam :P

Yeah, there always seem to be ways around... But it is an issue that would benefit everyone to solve. I think someone once suggested having the output penalty inherited by the parent entity or something along those lines that seemed pretty solid; I've seen a good suggestion for reducing output spam here at one point, but I don't recall what it was. Nothing's insolvable if the devs want to invest in solving it.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I'm curious; why is per-turret output spam a concern?

If someone wants to spend additional resources (weapons computers aren't as cheap to make as the modules) for a boost in firepower/efficiency, why not let them? Why not simply counter with your own spam? From a server performance standpoint, 100 weapon computers on a single entity seems like a far better option than 100 entities; each generating their own lag box. No matter which one you choose, you still have to deal with 100 beams or projectiles.

On the other hand, if you really want to curb this kind of behavior, server admins could cool it with the massive mining bonuses and free shop restocks common on many servers. Players might not be so eager to splurge on these tactics if resources were noticeably less abundant.

 

[MacThule]

server admins could cool it with the massive mining bonuses and free shop restocks common on many servers. Players might not be so eager to splurge on these tactics if resources were noticeably less abundant.

This is long overdue; the lack of need for economy deeply distorts gameplay. The chokes around Fert & Ram/Sert are pretty decent now, but even the default mining bonuses are probably too high and then most servads double down on that. Ships just aren't worth what they should be. But it's getting better I think; I hope to see the base bonus go down once they revamp the galaxy.


I don't think putting 100 comps on your ship and logic-firing them is a huge problem performance-wise, not compared the the idea of 100 turrets. The reason it seems to be a problem is that it defeats an intended balance.

Consider it this way; if Schine didn't want to create a softcap on outputs, why would they have a cumulative power penalty for single-computer outputs in the first place? It certainly isn't because the desired behavior was players using 100 computers to get 100 outputs without the penalty; I think that regardless of our personal feelings about outputs we can all agree that the intend was to softcap them to an extent.

So if combat is being balanced under an expectation that players have to pay for more outputs - and to all appearances that is the case - then this bypass is still a problem for gameplay even if it's not a performance problem. And output spam is important, it has a serious impact on combat. So either they should scrap the output penalty completely, or prevent these common workarounds. That's my take, anyway, so we can all be fighting on relatively even ground with a combat balance that reflects actual build capabilities.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I agree with this assessment.

What you're describing is basically a low level exploit. From a development standpoint, it may be difficult to code a limitation on the number and type of computers an entity can have without breaking other parts of the system. The old saying "careful what you wish for" comes to mind.

Whether they scrap the soft cap for multiple outputs or continue to allow multi-computer turrets, the end result will be the same and both options are better for the game than turret spam.

Unfortunately, I don't see an easy fix to this problem other than making weapon computers substantially more expensive than they are now.
You are correct in saying that ships are not worth what they should be. In modern navies, a fighter is a valuable asset but is also considered an acceptable loss in a large engagement when compared to a destroyer or carrier. Over abundance of resources and the lack of any real economy has resulted in a form of hyper-deflation; where virtually any asset is relatively easy to replace and is considered an acceptable loss.

This is the only space/military game I've ever played where it is openly expected that you get a large ship in only a few hours of game play. This has led to a noticeable sense of entitlement among players and an unwillingness to work their way up to becoming powerful. This "instant win" mindset needs to go away if any meaningful balance is to occur.

 

[MacThule]

This is the only space/military game I've ever played where it is openly expected that you get a large ship in only a few hours of game play. This has led to a noticeable sense of entitlement among players and an unwillingness to work their way up to becoming powerful. This "instant win" mindset needs to go away if any meaningful balance is to occur.

And not only that, the sense of entitlement to easy power and vast resources with no investment is going to make the existing player base resistant to reductions that would actually open the game up for a broader audience by making it more playable.

The instant win mentality runs deep. In the thread talking about starter ships, it was suggested that any starter ship should be able to solo any of the standard pirate ships. In other words, able to win without effort from the moment of spawn.

 

[Zoolimar]

What do you think about mechanics for reducing output spamming?

Unfortunately, I don't see an easy fix to this problem other than making weapon computers substantially more expensive than they are now.

Schine already has the mechanics in place to combat this, they just don't use it.

Acid damage model makes even single big guns effective in dealing damage against their targets if not as effective as dozens of outputs.
Armour in theory should be the counter to mini-outputs but developers don't want to use it. If armour just divided the incoming damage depending on its thickness (well power 2 of thickness) instead of confining it to a single block you won't be able to use hundreds of outputs effectively.

Example:

Let's say we have a 10 thick advanced armour layer and incoming 3000 damage from 10 outputs (for a total of 30k damage).

In current system it would destroy 10 blocks if I'm not mistaken, not accounting for multiple ticks from lasers and all that stuff.
Total dealt damage is 20-30k

If we divide incoming damage it would just deal 300 damage to 10 blocks and that's it.
Total dealt damage 3k and no destroyed blocks

EDIT:

Another way to do it is to use something like this:

Incoming damage^3 / (Incoming Damage^2 + Armour Thickness HP^2)

 

[happahappa]

if that was added you would get turret spam instead, which is a lot worse than output spam :P

i'm aware of that. and i don't think, that applying the power penalty per entity alone would solve the issue.

assuming that:
- docked ships don't get any power from the parent (why not?)
-a ship is any entity with its own reactor, that is not a station
-a turret is any entity docked to a rail docker
-entities docked to ships and stations that are docked to normal rails and are no ships, are just part of the parent structure, such that they are part of that particular penalty calculation as well.

if the game could recognize entities as ships, say by associating the core of the ship with the type 'ship core', it could sum up all outputs of all entities docked to the ship, including the ship itself and apply the penalty.
that would be all outputs of the ship (parent), all outputs of its turrets, and all outputs of entities docked to other rails (no turrets), that are no ships themselves.

using the same entity typing, you could also remove the requirement for rail mass enhancers for docked ships and apply them only to turrets (for whatever reasons we actually need them) or remove them completly, since there aren't any self-powered turrets anymore anyway.

based on that, you could also avoid adding the turrets of ships, that are docked to a station to the power penalty calculation of the station.

and while they are at it, they should add each turret by entity name in the power consumption and priortity table
[doublepost=1535364267,1535362430][/doublepost]

I'm curious; why is per-turret output spam a concern?

If someone wants to spend additional resources (weapons computers aren't as cheap to make as the modules) for a boost in firepower/efficiency, why not let them? Why not simply counter with your own spam? From a server performance standpoint, 100 weapon computers on a single entity seems like a far better option than 100 entities; each generating their own lag box. No matter which you one choose, you still have to deal with 100 beams or projectiles.

On the other hand, if you really want to curb this kind of behavior, server admins could cool it with the massive mining bonuses and free shop restocks common on many servers. Players might not be so eager to splurge on these tactics if resources were noticeably less abundant.

in my opinion it is an issue. for me, it doesn't feel 'natural' if a ship has like more then 50 outputs (cant really pin it down to a number without context), whatever weapon type you take. and it is heavily used for pvp designs. and since it is an effective design choice for battles, everyone is forced to make the same design choices to stay competitive. the price of computers are pretty insignificant.

i would prefer a solution that is effective at design time, so you dont have to keep the economical dimension in mind while building.

 

[Lord_Latterous]

i'm aware of that. and i don't think, that applying the power penalty per entity alone would solve the issue.

assuming that:
- docked ships don't get any power from the parent (why not?)
-a ship is any entity with its own reactor, that is not a station
-a turret is any entity docked to a rail docker
-entities docked to ships and stations that are docked to normal rails and are no ships, are just part of the parent structure, such that they are part of that particular penalty calculation as well.

if the game could recognize entities as ships, say by associating the core of the ship with the type 'ship core', it could sum up all outputs of all entities docked to the ship, including the ship itself and apply the penalty.
that would be all outputs of the ship (parent), all outputs of its turrets, and all outputs of entities docked to other rails (no turrets), that are no ships themselves.

using the same entity typing, you could also remove the requirement for rail mass enhancers for docked ships and apply them only to turrets (for whatever reasons we actually need them) or remove them completly, since there aren't any self-powered turrets anymore anyway.

based on that, you could also avoid adding the turrets of ships, that are docked to a station to the power penalty calculation of the station.

and while they are at it, they should add each turret by entity name in the power consumption and priortity table
[doublepost=1535364267,1535362430][/doublepost]


in my opinion it is an issue. for me, it doesn't feel 'natural' if a ship has like more then 50 outputs (cant really pin it down to a number without context), whatever weapon type you take. and it is heavily used for pvp designs. and since it is an effective design choice for battles, everyone is forced to make the same design choices to stay competitive. the price of computers are pretty insignificant.

i would prefer a solution that is effective at design time, so you dont have to keep the economical dimension in mind while building.

adding a power penalty is a stupid way of getting rid of output spam, and might even break other things regarding balance too, to get rid of output spam you must first figure out why it is effective and part of the meta, it is part of the meta right now because it is effective for shredding systems and making sure that your beams waste as little damage as possible, but it is not wise to go above 400-500 beam/missile outputs since lag will make you waste a little or a lot of damage depending on how many outputs you have

 

[Zoolimar]

It's pretty easy why output spam is still one of the main solutions.

-Beams rock (or more like other weapons suck)
-Beams have shitty acid damage
-Good beams also jump from block to block
-You always deal full damage to at least one armour block

As a result building beams that destroy one block per tick is a logical solution to all the problems. To stop it you must:

-Make other weapons viable
-Give beams full acid damage
-Remove the full damage to armour block and instead make armour diminish the total damage of attack. The weaker the attack the larger should be penalty. So that peashooters would be worthless against properly armoured targets.

 

[MacThule]

The weaker the attack the larger should be penalty. So that peashooters would be worthless against properly armoured targets.

This is closer to how real materials behave as well. It would feel more natural.

 

[happahappa]

There is obviously no deeper concept behind weapons being followed, that would make the game more balanced, diverse and exciting. hence, we are having this argument. reducing output spamming would be just one of many things necessary to accomplish that. i don't think it can get much worse then it currently is. even if they would 'break' something else in the process. weapons are currently like half of the reactor chambers. i wish, at some point we will get something, that really adds to the enjoyment of the game again. something that breaks this never ending circle of replacing one half baked thing, that does something, but nothing really well, with something really nice.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

in my opinion it is an issue. for me, it doesn't feel 'natural' if a ship has like more then 50 outputs (cant really pin it down to a number without context), whatever weapon type you take. and it is heavily used for pvp designs. and since it is an effective design choice for battles, everyone is forced to make the same design choices to stay competitive. the price of computers are pretty insignificant.

i would prefer a solution that is effective at design time, so you dont have to keep the economical dimension in mind while building.

Doesn't feel 'natural'? How interesting...
- - - -
While unconventional from a realism standpoint, multiple outputs on a weapon isn't the issue. The real problem is...
- the lack of any power penalty on 1:1 multiple-computer/multiple-output weapons vs a massive penalty on single-computer/multiple-output weapons.
- the lag generated by turret spam.
- the fact that we can gather enough resources to make either of the above in just a few minutes. ...or hours if you're taking your time.

We need to put a to stop to player entitlement and those who enable it. The best way to do this is through resource scarcity and/or a higher cost associated with these exploi... um... advantages. This happens in the real world as well, in the form of upgraded military radars, avionics, ECM and fire control systems.

In short; we need to make them scale back and choose between saving up to make a decent ship with decent weapons (think Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer), a god-like ship with 'meh' weapons (a UNSC frigate armed with WW2 cannons and .50 cal. machine guns) or a 'meh' ship with god-like weapons (Civil-War-era steam ship with a rail gun or death ray).

 

[Zoolimar]

- the lack of any power penalty on 1:1 multiple-computer/multiple-output weapons vs a massive penalty on single-computer/multiple-output weapons.

Power penalty is a shitty mechanic created to patch the fact that multiple outputs are much more effective than weapons with one or just a couple outputs. If weapons actually worked properly you wouldn't need it.

We need to put a to stop to player entitlement and those who enable it. The best way to do this is through resource scarcity and/or a higher cost associated with these exploi... um... advantages. This happens in the real world as well, in the form of upgraded military radars, avionics, ECM and fire control systems.

Or just removing the exploits through creating properly working weapons systems. So that waffle board arrays would be a very niche weapon setup that is rarely used and if effective only against a very small number of possible targets.

-One needs you to work on both weapons and economics at the same time in the hopes that it would change something and could overcome by pure grind.
-The other needs work to be done only on weapons and can't be beaten with grinding resources.

 

[MacThule]

On consideration, power penalty may not be the optimal regulator for output spam, more of a stopgap.

I do think that the issue would be largely remedied by a change in weapon behavior, as suggested by Zoolimar . I also believe that some economic drawdown will help moderate many kinds of excesses, including outputs to an extent, but I don't think it will prevent very wealthy factions from fielding ships with 100-output waffle-irons.

Hmm. I doubt Schine will make a major change to weapons right now (though better now than later). Based on the recent silence and lack of updates, I'm guessing they're too deep in preparing to roll out the new galaxy at the moment... Not a battle I would choose unless it were vital. Shame too, them having just done a major period of experimentation with weapons, that they didn't try something like this.

 

[happahappa]

Doesn't feel 'natural'? How interesting...

We need to put a to stop to player entitlement and those who enable it. The best way to do this is through resource scarcity and/or a higher cost associated with these exploi... um... advantages.

a) that's what i'm talking about here...




b) increasing the costs of weapon computer and modules and forcing players to tediously mining asteroids for a time span that is already way too long compared to the time span you spent in actual battle is not adding anything to the enjoyment of the game, especially if battle is the only way of getting a thrill in the game. besides that any battle is utterly pointless anyway, because there is nothing to fight for. you should respect the player and the time he spents in the game more and let him in turn make something that adds to the game in that time. manual mining doesnt add anything to the content or excitement of the game.

Power penalty is a shitty mechanic created to patch the fact that multiple outputs are much more effective than weapons with one or just a couple outputs. If weapons actually worked properly you wouldn't need it.

Or just removing the exploits through creating properly working weapons systems. So that waffle board arrays would be a very niche weapon setup that is rarely used and if effective only against a very small number of possible targets.

Why is a power penalty a 'shitty mechanic'? It adds a trade-off to the additional outputs in a scale, that would make scenes like in the image above a thing of the past. Maybe it would be more intuitive, if you had a simple linear function, but if you would give the player an easy to use weapon power consumption calculator, then this would be a no-brainer. at least it would be more consistent, since you already have the penalty in groups per computer. and that effects only manually fired onboard weapons.

I'm not sure what you mean with a 'properly working weapon system' and I'm not sure if I want to wait for it .

 

[Zoolimar]

Why is a power penalty a 'shitty mechanic'? It adds a trade-off to the additional outputs in a scale, that would make scenes like in the image above a thing of the past.

Because it punishes players for building simple and logical weapons setups. I'm not even talking about waffles. When a player builds 3 outputs on one computer game punishes for such a "ridiculous and outrageous" system. Even though putting weapons on a single computer is the most logical and comfortable for manual use.

You need to either split weapons on multiple computers and use logic, which is also not working very good right now, or put them on turrets and allow AI to shoot. Or even use manually controlled turrets.

Such mechanic adds additional steps where they are not needed and currently also fails to actually punish the behaviour that it is supposed to stop. Instead punishing new players for no knowing that you must give all of your weapons to AI.