Suggestion for Planned Beam Weapons

[-Moose-]

Reference : http://star-made.org/content/new-years-news



ASSUMPTION



I am assuming that beams will act as they do now. A constant beam of damage with 100% accuracy and instant travel. No reloads or travel times.

I am also assuming that beams will have the same (or similiar) DPS as AMC cannons, but like current mechanics this damage is delivered in 'ticks' which will have lower damage than an individual AMC shot.

I am assuming that range, 'ticks', and damage are all related on the number of connected beam blocks and scale simliarly to what cannons currently do.

I am assuming that beams have the same energy drain as AMC's do and do not recieve any bonuses against Hull or Shields.



PROBLEM


1. One thing I've been worried about the coming weapons update is that beam weapons will completely replace cannons. On paper an instant travel beam is a straight upgrade over Cannons where you have to predict and time a projectile. Even if the DPS of Beams is lower than Cannons, Cannons will still lose DPS due to dodged or missed shots. While Beams will only lose DPS if you can't put your curser on the enemy, and in this situation Cannons would be no better.

2. A Beam turret would be completely undodgeable, as turrets have 100% accuracy and beams are instant travel. Meaning that Beams will be superior on turrets as well.

3. Beams should be more than just a instant travel cannon +/- a few stats, and instead a unique weapon that stands apart from cannons and has it's own niche.

This in mind I have been thinking about some ways where one could balance beams making them a unique and independant weapon that does not completely surpass Cannons.



SOLUTION



Make beams function similiar to pulsars, where dimensions not block count affect the stats of the beams.

Z = Length = Damage of the beam

Y = Height = Distance of Beam

X = Width = Faster Damage Tick

Like Pulsars, the dimensions should have a profound effect on their respective stats. A 5 block long beam should do much more damage than a 5 block long AMC cannon. However, AMC cannons have a much longer range than the Beam block.

A beam that's 10 long x 10 wide x 10 high should have more DPS (and possibly range) than 30 blocks of cannon.

But an array made up of several 30 block cannons will have more DPS than the single beam.



EFFECTS



[new]* Beams will be affected more by slave systems than AMC's. The less Master blocks you have, the greater the bonus provided by Slave blocks. This means that beams can be adjusted to even greater degrees with less slave blocks as they would have less blocks overall than an AMC cannon would have of the same caliber.

[new]* Small Beam Turrets are still useful for ships that get to close. Large beam turrets are great for taking farther away ships (might still be an issue due to undodgeable 100% accuracy turrets) at the cost of raw DPS provided by an array.

* Beams will not function as well as shotguns, as a single length of beam will have very short range and very long damage tick.

* Beams will have much more variety than AMC's where two ships with equal amounts of beam blocks may have differant ranges or damage. EX, long range weak damage vs short range big damage.

* Beams would be more deadly block for block, but would take up more raw space than an array of Cannons meaning both have a place in combat or even on the same ship.



PERSISTANT PROBLEMS



* Large beam turrets are still unavoidable at crazy long ranges. Even though this is slightly subsided by requiring the turret to be built as tall as a skyscraper and dealing lower damage than an array of AMC's taking up the same space. An undodgeable 100% accuracy turret is still an issue.



-=-=-=-=-



Just my thoughts, if anyone has any other ideas feel free to add them!

*Note, I'd rather not have this system affect non-combat beams (ex salvage beams). Salvage beams in particular need to be in an array to gather any decent area of salvage in a decent amount of time.

 

[Earthdeath]

I agree with the idea, since otherwise we\'d just see giant ships zapping things into dust in an instant. Obviously each added block should be a big drain on power too, or some of the million+ block ships will just do that anyway by stripping the inside decor for more beam blocks.

 

[MineCatFTW]

I\'m more excited for them to be used as massive capital ship main weapons, where one shot punchs holes straight through other ships, like BIG holes.

 

[Keptick]

I\'m pretty sure that lasers will be anti shield weapons and deal very limited damage to hull.

 

[ltmauve]

Or just because of their utility (they miss less often) they have reduced DPS compared to cannons.

 

[MrFURB]

The biggest distinguishing factor with beams is that they are mechanically a thousand times easier to use than the other weapon types. They\'re long range hitscan weapons with options for charge-up or continuous fire. If that doesn\'t scream dollar-store cannon convenience, then I don\'t know what will.

This actually makes balancing them both easier and harder. It\'s easier because you can now bump up or down the stats of the weapon more than other ones. If you make the lasers have less overall DPS than other weapons, they still have their mechanical advantages and still have their niche. Try doing the same with cannons, and they lose their primary purpose. It gives us more room to make adjustments. At the same time, balancing by convenience or ease-of-use is hard to compare to simply balancing by DPS. How do you quantify how much better a hitscan weapon is over a projectile weapon? At that point it\'s up to testing in an actual battlefield; which I\'m sure will happen a lot seeing as the lazors and beams are the most commonly talked about weapons!

On the next topic, some of the lasers will naturally be more effective against shielding or against hull, depends on the laser. The \'punch-through\' type lasers, like the charge and siege lasers will deliver a massive buttload of damage over a small area with a long cooldown or charge time. If you try digging a hole in an enemy ship with these it\'s going to take a long time... But at the same time, they\'re brute-force design lends them well against shields or especially heavy armor.
The cutting/melting style beams, such as the rapid or conical laser, will naturally be more effective against hull. They deliver much smaller amounts of damage at a much faster interval, allowing for the rapid clearing of lots of blocks and melting away light armor. The conical laser would be more specialized for this purpose than the rapid one, as it\'s almost shotgun-style effect can target lots of different blocks, but you can only hit a shield once.

It\'ll be fun to see what a rapid laser melting my initials into someone\'s bulkheads looks like. Hope that helps!

 

[MineCatFTW]

I would say the best way to balance the lasers that are more large-ship oriented is to have ridiculous power costs, so you can fire it for a very limited time, but do a lot of damage. This is mostly for the massive charge laser though, cause thats the one I\'m most excited for.

 

[Clock]

I came up with a neat idea for balancing lasers--how about if you use them non-stop for too long, the lasers begin to overheat?

 

[MineCatFTW]

The power would do something similar, but would require less new mechanics as well as more customizablilty for usage.

 

[NeonSturm]

Overheat = Dis-Integrators with variable strength? EMP for your power strips? :D

Requires automatical repears though.



I would like a different design-need for different purpose though. If not just checkerboard or exposed long strips.

 

[-Moose-]

Thanks everyone for posting! Now to address a few points that caught my attention.



@NeonSturm


I would like this more:

• x (width) = Damage of the beam (Frequency from light spectrum?)
• y (height) = Same damage in shorter time (Amplitude or size)
• z (length) = Distance of Beam

Can you develop on this idea? I am curious as to know why you prefer this over my proposed system. My idea was that most ships end up being longer on the Z axis, and larger ships have more room on the Y axis, thus, smaller ships can pack a big damage, but small range beam, while larger ships have more room to have a long range higher damage beam.



@BraveSteelDragon


The problem with axis-based weapon stats, is that it greatly limits the design\'s usability. Which is exactly why pulsators are used so rarely on any non-dedicated ship.


I disagree, Pulsators aren\'t used because they are an axis weapon, rather they are rarely used because they deal no damage, they have extremely limited utility in a combat situtation, and their range is pitiful even on a specialized ship* These statistics can be altered on the beam weapon.

I would like to add that I would like to see Beams actually pack a punch, a beam thats 100 blocks long should do waaaay more damage than an AMC made of 100 blocks

*a ship with 100 pulsators tall gets you just shy of 95 radius (190 diameter) iirc. Now 100 of those blocks are taken up by the Pulsator tower so you have about 45 blocks around your ship. Now if your ship is longer than it is tall (as many ships are as you need a lot of force) you end up with a ship whose pulse won\'t be able to reach the bow. To top it all off, when ship that that large is fighting an equally sized ship, 45 blocks is the equivelant distance of your arm hair.



A possibly better solution would be an hybrid system between what you propose and the power generator system.



I would like to hear more about this idea. How will you keep it from being simliar to thrusters? Where the axis does matter, but adjacency has a much higher bonus and renders the axis bonus moot.

@Clock


I came up with a neat idea for balancing lasers--how about if you use them non-stop for too long, the lasers begin to overheat?


I was working on the assumption that beams would function as they do in the current version. A \'reload\' would require a rework of the beam as it isn\'t in the current beam mechanics. However, I\'d like to hear you expand on this idea more. I am rather intrigued by this idea as a ship would still need to have AMC\'s or turrets onboard to provide constant fire. This would also make beam turrets bareable to fight.

@MrFURB


http://star-made.org/comment/95630#comment-95630
(linked due to length)


Thank you for providing a detailed analysis to the problems that beams would have if implimented. I have put some thought as to just toning down the damage of beams, however I don\'t believe it\'s the right approach. Damage is only relevant if you can actually hit something. Even if cannons do higher DPS, it will mean nothing as you will lose most of your DPS to missed or dodged shots. Meanwhile, beams will only miss if you aren\'t able to point your cursor at them, and in this situation you won\'t be able to hit them with Cannons anyway. Overall, beams would be more reliable and higher damaging than cannons.



This isn\'t even taking into account turrets and their 100% accuracy. A cannon on a turret is bad enough, but you can still dodge it, dodging a beam on a turret is unavoidable.



-----



I\'ll also add some more information to the main post, such as what I am assuming that beams will act like when they are released, and another effect I believe will happen when the Master/Slave system is implimented.

 

[AdamofBlastWorks]

Different Beam weapons, a variety with multiple dividers of types

Pulsing Beams and Constant Beams. There would have to be a difference, Constant Beams obviously being weaker for one and probably a larger power drain. Both (and therefore all Beams) should have a heat displacement mechanism as well so you can\'t have lots of constant beams but with plenty of power to back them up indefintely and just raze everything

They could also be divided into spectrum groups that do more damage, use more energy, produce more heat, and cost more credits to buy or resources to make the farther along the color spectrum to blue and violet.

All Beams should also do more damage to certain things than others as a collective. Weather or not they are good againts shields, idk, but I think they should (in reality, they would probably pass right through, unless the shields use some kind of physical partical too, not just energy, or they put out so much energy that they can change the direction of light (that would be who knows how much)). But in theory, they would do more damage to systems than armor, except glass, it could melt that, and also turn sand into glass slowly or something. So they could damage your guns, engines and any docking or turrets or any computers (including the core) that are exposed much faster than they destroy armor. The logic is that they can melt stuff inside, slagging it. If the block the beam hits has a heat displacement mechanism, then it can also add heat counter to it.

Also, special beams, such as low power Beams that can penetrate shields, but also cost a lot to make or buy.

If they do add in the ability to shoot down missiles, Beams would also be a viable option of that.

Another idea I have is to have reflectors and refactors. You could cover your ship with reflectors or refractors that would receive much less damage from Beams then normal armor (that could only be effective, if Beams aren\'t super weak to begin with), but are structurally weaker and recieve much more damage from kinetic weapons. Reflectors would bounce the Beam at an angle, so you could even use them inside your own ships to redirect beams to the point of hiding htme inside. Incredible things could happen with these, like a reflector ship with a curved front shield that can redirect Beams fired at it (including friendly Beams) closer together or just shoot them back atthe enemy. You could also take a bunch of lasers around it, and reflect it into the center and have a massively powerful Beam \'firing\' from places that you could fit enough Beam cannons to fire from there.

Refractors would do similar things as the Reflactor, but it splits the Beam up into weaker ones, so you could make a weak Beam Shotgun (probably good against missiles), but disperse it with varying degrees of Refcrating(from straight out Reflectors to slowly and slowly more but weaker and smaller Beams until it just makes a flash with minial damage, but no Beams Reflect/Refreacted).

Another really cool, but just plain crazy idea, woudl be to \'collect\' Beams, so you could go do something Death Star style. It would obviously have its restrictions, like from the same ship, same Beam type (probably another division of Beams just for this, i.e. different colored and strength collect Beams), massive energy use, only works if all beams to collect are fired at the same time (unless they fire at at each other, all canceling out until a final on fires to shoot them all of in that direciton, long cool down.

What do you guys think?

 

[-Moose-]

The idea of multiple beam types was introduced in the master and slave system. See here for the news post :

http://star-made.org/content/new-years-news

The master slave system allows you to hook up a \'slave\' computer to a \'master\' computer and the slave computer will have certain effects on the master computer (see chart in above link) some of your ideas such as a shotgun beam and a charge beam are already confirmed.



The idea of anti-missile weapons (aka point defense) has been discussed before, but I am unaware of any confirmation as of yet. You should search previous topics on the idea and see if you can build upon them.

-=-=-=-

Otherwise --while your ideas are very interesting-- this topic is concerned with the theory that beam weapons will render cannons useless if they are added with the same mechanics as current beams (Like a salvage beam that does damage before removing blocks).

The idea of heat displacement and specialized armor are suggestions worthy of their own posts and requires a change in game mechanics. I\'m afraid that\'s outside the current scope of the topic. I invite you to research previous topics and start your own topic on these ideas as they do have their own merit and they would recieve more debate and input.

 

[ltmauve]

I would prefer they act like normal weapons in regards to power scaling, simply because all the other weapons act like that.

In regards to balence, maybe beams should be slightly inaccurate - especially the normal and rapid-fire ones. The sniper and charge cannons less so, but the rapid laser shouldn\'t be able to kill a squardon of fighters in under three seconds.

 

[firestar3637]

What about on capital ships? A captial ship wouldn\'t bother targeting fighters, the person piloting the ship would just let their turrets do that. In a battle with two capital ships, AMC\'s would reach the target slower than the beams, but it would still be the same amount of damage. In addition, the captial ships wouldn\'t be moving around very much, and even if someone put a ludicrous amount of thrusters on their ship, the capital ship would still be a giant target. Implementing this sort of thing would make capital ships less likely to have weapons other than AMC\'s, and I personally would like to see captial ships using all types of weapons. Implementing limitations like this would not help that goal.

 

[NeonSturm]

I suggest (sorted by strength) - just some examples:

1. Last-resort weaponry
   • 
     Costs almost as much as it can kill. Use to have a stronger ship with less mass and if you are far away from spawn or have a lot else to lose.
2. Bombs
   • 
     Inherit bomber motion
   • TTL (time to live) [optional: and damage decays over travel time]
   • inaccurate on distance especially vs small/medium and moving objects.
3. Inital Missiles or giant lasers
   • 
     You can\'t use them twice in a shorter battle. The reload time is just too long, or you have limited stock and only regenerate while out of combat.
4. Cannon
   • 
     TTL [optional: decaying damage over time]
   • Faster projectile = exponentially more power usage, but not damage, since you have the same ammount of Anti-Matter. Thus more range as well.
   • Will be more inaccurate depending on damage / reload * angularVelocity-of-target.
5. Missiles and beam weapons.
   • 
     garanteued hit < 1 sector
6. Particle accellerators
   • 
     not exactly a weapon, but a setting on lasers and amcs to shot a constant high-velocity possibly multi-sector particle stream, where not a single projectile, but a couple of matters.

It is simply as that: The easier something is to hit, the stronger the weapons you can use against it, because damage of anti-matter cannons doesn\'t depend on velocity, but antimatter eleminating matter - unlike real-life guns with kinetic damage.

Decaying damage over distance may be a balancing choice for pulsars, wave-like directed energy weapons and instable projectiles (summarized as bombs) and to limit cannon projectiles in range without a hard-cap.

 

[CES]

I think that beams should be long range, strong vs. Shields and quite weak against hull. This would make hull much more useful. But not a better shieldkiller than Amc s, but a easy long range weapons that would be great for turrets.

 

[CES]

I don\'t understand why it would make jammers useless, please explain? And before I meant better against shields in a relative sense, it would not be a shield slayer, just a shield...... poker.

Thanks for the constructive criticism, though.

 

[NeonSturm]

If you get hit, a jammer disables. Dunno if it is intendet, but I noticed it.

The laser turret would fire at the direction of a target - independent if it could see it, once queued it fires.

If it fires after you activated your jammer, jammer deactivates, turret queues another shot and the whole thing repeats itself.

 

[CES]

Good point. The problem of turret range spanning sectors might be fixed by having hammers not respond to beams?

EDIT: Autocorrect apparently thought people hide from radar with hammers