The *responsible* warhead rebalancing thread.

[Proxima_Centauri]

So, you can't actually think of a valid opposing view so you resort to insults? Typical...

Why don't you try addressing my points instead of resorting to ad homenim or strawman arguments?
Literally half of your post is just childish namecalling.
I'm trying to explain why this may be bad for game balance, and all you are doing is having a fit because someone shut down your thread so early.

you'll notice that I've actually nerfed myself with this idea.

See my previous post.

A 5000% increase in damage and a 1000% increase in radius isn't as dangerous?

Let's be perfectly clear on one thing, there is a good chance that NO ONE is building launchers as complex as mine. ...and if they are, they're doing one hell of a job keeping it a secret.

And? What's the point of that? If you can't back up your ideas then what does it matter how good you claim you are at something?

To be honest, you seem more frightened the complexity of my launchers than the warheads themselves. Think about that for a second before you respond.

I'm "frightened" of you and other factions using this warhead buff to fuck up noobs even more than you already do.

You really aren't paying attention are you? Read my posts again and while your at it, look at the pictures. Most impacts at 500,000 dmg and 25m radius won't even one-shot an Isanth. It is beyond difficult to even hit a frigate unless it's stationary. Also, the ship in the picture weighs about 3000-4000 mass and was hit (while stationary) with a one of these...

Your testing methods are all wrong m8...

First off, the radius listed in the weapons menu is wrong, it can only be determined experimentally.

It is not possible to make a missile with both 500000 damage and 25 radius. So first of all, since you claimed to make a missile like this, you are in fact flat out lying. For my tests I went with a missile with 500,000 damage and about 28 radius (because of how splash damage works, they will have the same area of destruction for the same amount of damage, the radius is only the maximum radius if the damage points aren't used up by blocks)

Radius testing (against lowest hp block) shows that the 48 radius listed here is wrong. The block is 51x51 and the radius goes just past it, indicating a radius of 26-29, and damage of 500,400

For context, this is the type of damage you suggested that 1 warhead block should do in your OP.

Now lets test it against an Isanth.

Wow look at that, nearly dead in a single hit. 44% structure points and all armor gone in a single hit.

One more shot finishes it off. Barely qualifies as "multiple shots to kill an Isanth."

Now lets test it against a ship that isn't complete garbage.

Again, a single shot blasts through 130k armor and nearly 1-shots it

Again, one more shot finishes it off

So that's two single blocks, with practically no power used, that can wreck these ships like they're nothing (going by your suggestion)
For reference, these missiles used 2,500,000 power each shot to do this same damage.
I am not seeing how "warheads need this buff."

For a one-hit-wonder that can't one-shot a stationary frigate vs your giant murder-boat armed with infinitely reloading swarmers and nukes? No... not really.

Honestly dude, just calm down...

You still haven't answered my concerns.
Why should a <50 mass fighter be able to take out corvettes and frigates 100-300 times its mass?
How is that balanced?
Also, you do realize that this can be scaled up, right?
If you want to be able to take out 600k mass death machines with this, be aware that those 600k death machines will be using it against you as well, and they will wreck you with it.

S
Actually, they do need power. It takes power to maneuver into firing position. It also takes power to activate the push engine(s) for torpedoes or the push effect beam(s) for mine throwers.

Wow, 1000 energy to launch that torpedo, amazingly demanding.
How does that compare to the millions of energy needed for missiles?

Also, do you think that ships that don't use warheads just sit there and don't move or something?

The reason they ignore shields is because you are otherwise, invincible in your giant capital ship.

Capital ships would be able to use these things too, and what you're basically saying is "I don't have the time or patience to build a ship that can take a dreadnought on so instead I'm going to suggest that the devs give me this super unbalanced weapon that I am conveniently in the best position to use, and I'm going to lie about its potential adverse effects, ad hominem ad hominem blah blah...."

You're afraid aren't you? Your sense of invincibility is being called into question and you don't like that, do you? You want to parade around in your giant battleships obliterating any puny fighters or frigates that come your way and boast of how "unstoppable" you are. You're a bully who wants the game to be about the cheap thrill of preying on something that cannot defend itself from you. Furthermore, you're afraid of what will happen if you actually lose to a smaller ship. What kind of pilot are you if you can't even handle a little corvette/frigate? You do not have the honor or courage to face off against an opponent that can truly challenge you nor do you have the creativity to come up with an effective counter. So you complain and argue with no testing or evidence to back up your claims. When your argument is defeated, you resort to insults. How sad...

Is that your entire argument?
"You're afraid! "

Lets summarize your accomplishments in this thread:
-make rambunctious suggestion without any regard to game balance
-respond to level headed criticism with ad hominem and other fallacies ("you're afraid!")
-make false claims in your "tests"
-brag about being the "best" at warheads as if it has anything to do with this discussion
-claim that your methods of using warheads are "legit" while others are "griefing" for no other reason than that you use them
-ignore the fact that warheads don't use energy
-ignore the fact that warheads ignore shields
-claim that 4-5 warhead blocks killing a ship that's 5000 mass is "balanced"


Again, I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion here, but you are showing your lack of maturity and control with every post.

 

[MacThule]

I think it should be relatively easy to code entities so that a warhead on them toggles a tag in their code, and this shows up in some noticeable way to other players in their navcomps. At even their current explosive potential, they're almost certainly carrying something that can be detected.

I feel like the buffs in discussion are very excessive - regardless of cost balances. I do support improving their role, but not by making them completely uber.
[doublepost=1468645347,1468645094][/doublepost]Also... I don't think that approaching changes to damage based on whether a single-block weapon system can cripple a "titan" (i.e. can cripple the LARGEST ships in the game) in one shot is a healthy approach. Nothing should be able to cripple a titan in one shot except a super-weapon wielded by another titan or titanic station.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Yeah... You really can't beat a titan with these; that was never the point. This is about the fear of getting the paint scratched.

There are too many players who want to have their cake and eat it too; roaming about in titans able to destroy anything in their path while remaining near-invulnerable to attack. They essentially want "godmode" in multi-player at everyone else's expense. 100,000-500,000 damage with the current stacking mechanic is still weak-sauce compared to a titan's 'small' missiles. Proxima and I already demonstrated that. Most noteworthy of all is the fact that these things are single use only.

There should be a system in place that keeps StarMade from becoming a game of attrition and endless grinding. Strategy and build quality should be rewarded; not tossed aside by those who want to be unimaginative bullies.

 

[MacThule]

Gotchya. Misread the way you approached the potential effect in the OP.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Why don't you try addressing my points instead of resorting to ad homenim or strawman arguments?
Literally half of your post is just childish namecalling.
I'm trying to explain why this may be bad for game balance, and all you are doing is having a fit because someone shut down your thread so early.

Yeah... You name call then get offended when someone doesn't put up with it and basically calls you out on your nonsense with something even more painful; the truth. You don't have the stomach for a challenge. That's why you want to remain invincible in your biggie-boats. The only thing you've "shut down" so far is your own credibility.

And? What's the point of that? If you can't back up your ideas then what does it matter how good you claim you are at something?

The 1st and 13th posts of this thread back up everything I've said. YOU aren't listening.

I'm "frightened" of you and other factions using this warhead buff to fuck up noobs even more than you already do.

Actually, I've never attacked anyone. That alone proves you don't know what you're talking about. You PVP junkies are the ones who attack unprovoked. Then people like you have the nerve to want to take away home base protection... all for the sake of your cheap thrills.

Your testing methods are all wrong m8...

First off, the radius listed in the weapons menu is wrong, it can only be determined experimentally.

It is not possible to make a missile with both 500000 damage and 25 radius. So first of all, since you claimed to make a missile like this, you are in fact flat out lying. For my tests I went with a missile with 500,000 damage and about 28 radius (because of how splash damage works, they will have the same area of destruction for the same amount of damage, the radius is only the maximum radius if the damage points aren't used up by blocks)

I never said I used missiles with 25m radii for testing. That was your idea, not mine. What I did was modify the block behavior config file to change warhead values then test against immobile targets. Get your story straight m8.

Radius testing (against lowest hp block) shows that the 48 radius listed here is wrong. The block is 51x51 and the radius goes just past it, indicating a radius of 26-29, and damage of 500,400

For context, this is the type of damage you suggested that 1 warhead block should do in your OP.

Now lets test it against an Isanth.

Wow look at that, nearly dead in a single hit. 44% structure points and all armor gone in a single hit.

One more shot finishes it off. Barely qualifies as "multiple shots to kill an Isanth."

Now lets test it against a ship that isn't complete garbage.

Again, a single shot blasts through 130k armor and nearly 1-shots it

Again, one more shot finishes it off

So that's two single blocks, with practically no power used, that can wreck these ships like they're nothing (going by your suggestion)
For reference, these missiles used 2,500,000 power each shot to do this same damage.
I am not seeing how "warheads need this buff."

So your first test is probably water. Yes; decorative blocks cannot stop a 500,000 damage blast. I think everyone already knows that.
I did a similar test on glass (basic hull equivalent) and got substantially different results.

You did not disprove that it takes more than one hit to kill a small ship. I get a similar effect with 500,000 damage missiles; often requiring 3-5 shots to hit a moving Isanth. While we're on the subject of mobility, explain to me why you're scared of being hit with a warhead in a ship so small. You obviously never tried to fire one of these things so you are completely unaware of how hard it is to score a torpedo hit against a ship that size.

Honestly dude, just calm down...

No... Sorry but this is far too entertaining.

You still haven't answered my concerns.
Why should a <50 mass fighter be able to take out corvettes and frigates 100-300 times its mass?
How is that balanced?
Also, you do realize that this can be scaled up, right?
If you want to be able to take out 600k mass death machines with this, be aware that those 600k death machines will be using it against you as well, and they will wreck you with it.

That 50 mass fighter is more likely to get the snot stomped out of it by the frigate/corvette's turrets and/or swarmers long before it can fire off a torpedo and subsequently miss due to it being insanely difficult to hit a moving ship of that size. The balance is simple; tactics and strategy over brute force. It's the only way the smaller ship can survive the encounter.

Regarding scale; I'm not only aware of it. I'm counting on it! The whole point of this thread is to make it so no one is safe/invincible outside their home base. You people want PVP? great, let's have it on terms other than "I'm bigger so I automatically win"... So I guess the better question is; Do you dare risk getting a bite taken out of a 600k ship by torpedo bombers that can run circles around you?

Wow, 1000 energy to launch that torpedo, amazingly demanding.
How does that compare to the millions of energy needed for missiles?

Two words; UNLIMITED ammo.

Also, do you think that ships that don't use warheads just sit there and don't move or something?

See? You were just about to a semi-convincing argument then you shot yourself in the foot. You spent all this time trying to show me how devastating this kind of damage can be to an Isanth-sized ship only agree with me that they can barely be hit in the first place.

Capital ships would be able to use these things too, and what you're basically saying is "I don't have the time or patience to build a ship that can take a dreadnought on so instead I'm going to suggest that the devs give me this super unbalanced weapon that I am conveniently in the best position to use, and I'm going to lie about its potential adverse effects, ad hominem ad hominem blah blah...."

I'm sorry... were you saying something?

Spoiler

Is that your entire argument?
"You're afraid! "

Lets summarize your accomplishments in this thread:
-make rambunctious suggestion without any regard to game balance
-respond to level headed criticism with ad hominem and other fallacies ("you're afraid!")
-make false claims in your "tests"
-brag about being the "best" at warheads as if it has anything to do with this discussion
-claim that your methods of using warheads are "legit" while others are "griefing" for no other reason than that you use them
-ignore the fact that warheads don't use energy
-ignore the fact that warheads ignore shields
-claim that 4-5 warhead blocks killing a ship that's 5000 mass is "balanced"


Again, I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion here, but you are showing your lack of maturity and control with every post.

Fearful and hypocritical you are. Rational and level-headed, you are not. Please try again.
[doublepost=1468647153,1468646923][/doublepost]

Gotchya. Misread the way you approached the potential effect in the OP.

No problem. I've been thinking about our last exchange with regard to PVP. I think this is the best way to balance things. It will encourage the 'little guys' to stand up and fight. Whether or not they are left standing at the end is another story but at least they won't be completely helpless and cowering in their home bases.

After all, Asymmetrical warfare is a thing these days.

 

[Crashmaster]

For someone who flings 'fearful and hypocritical' around that was sure a lot of crying of leaving forever and unreasonableness at the mere suggestion of modifications to home base protection.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

For someone who flings 'fearful and hypocritical' around that was sure a lot of crying of leaving forever and unreasonableness at the mere suggestion of modifications to home base protection.

If you want to contribute to this discussion and actually come to a fair solution that actually encourages PVP rather than scares off a big chunk of the player-base, that's fine. If you want to revisit the home base topic, that's fine too but go do it elsewhere; this is not the thread for that.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I would be ok with higher damage warheads provided their expense in resources/manufacturing time is proportional. Plus the various collision glitches that let you do horrific things being fixed.

I think this is the key. These weapons should come at a high cost and not be subject to glitch exploitation.
[doublepost=1468675912,1468675726][/doublepost]

You never mentioned anything about warheads not being shielded. And it would be easy to put a shield made of blast doors over a big blob of warheads on the front of a ship. Someone will do that, and it will cause massive lag.

The bottom line is we need better collision detection mechanics all around; not just for torpedo strikes. That glitch everyone uses needs to go away, leaving only the true direct impact. Development in this area will also make fighter/drone carriers and turrets even easier to field so it's a win/win.

 

[Crashmaster]

Well, warheads could use a small buff,

Actually, I've never attacked anyone. That alone proves you don't know what you're talking about. You PVP junkies are the ones who attack unprovoked. Then people like you have the nerve to want to take away home base protection... all for the sake of your cheap thrills.

though I do not think you are interested in a solution for encouraging PvP at all. In fact you were quite opposed to encouraging (loss-less even!) PvP in the other thread. You come off sounding like you have a real problem with all PvP'ers frequently so don't act like you're suggesting this to benefit them. In fact I don't think this suggestion is for improving PvP for everyone at all but intended to promote config changes that you like without any knowledge of (still thinks 'biggie-boats' are near invincible), or regard for, *reasonable* PvP balance.



Also no one is afraid of you, your 'complex launchers' or any other internet spaceships or potential scratches thereon. Knock it off and get over yourself.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Well, warheads could use a small buff,



though I do not think you are interested in a solution for encouraging PvP at all. In fact you were quite opposed to encouraging (loss-less even!) PvP in the other thread. You come off sounding like you have a real problem with all PvP'ers frequently so don't act like you're suggesting this to benefit them. In fact I don't think this suggestion is for improving PvP for everyone at all but intended to promote config changes that you like without any knowledge of (still thinks 'biggie-boats' are near invincible), or regard for, *reasonable* PvP balance.



Also no one is afraid of you, your 'complex launchers' or any other internet spaceships or potential scratches thereon. Knock it off and get over yourself.

Here's a better idea. How about I just put your dumb ass back on ignore and listen only to people who have something constructive to add?

Bye!

 

[Crashmaster]

Here's a better idea. How about I just put your dumb ass back on ignore and listen only to people who agree with me?

Bye!

FTFY

 

[StormWing0]

If you want to contribute to this discussion and actually come to a fair solution that actually encourages PVP rather than scares off a big chunk of the player-base, that's fine. If you want to revisit the home base topic, that's fine too but go do it elsewhere; this is not the thread for that.

Oh we are trying to contribute, you keep shutting down anyone with the slightest hint of not agreeing with you or wanting to change your idea so it isn't so OP. XD

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Oh we are trying to contribute, you keep shutting down anyone with the slightest hint of not agreeing with you or wanting to change your idea so it isn't so OP. XD

YOU are contributing; just as most of the others here are. You've been constructive and I value your feedback because, believe it or not, I want to get back into multi-player and PVP. What I don't want is to be is target practice for people who spend every waking hour online building a titan. You may ask, "Well, Dr. Whammy, why don't you build your own titan?" My answer is; I shouldn't have to, just to be able to survive on a multi-player server.

If everyone was flying around in little corvettes and frigates, I'd be all over some PVP. But unfortunately, they're not. They're flying around in ships 10-30 times my size, with shields impenetrable to my weapons. Half of them don't even build their own; they just download one of Skylord Luke's CC builds.

This is what StarMade has become with regard to PVP;
- Grind away at mining.
- Download and spawn a big ship, make a gang, kill little ships.
- Complain that StarMade is 'boring' when the little ships don't want to fight anymore.
- Leave Starmade or ask the devs to remove home base protection so they can kill little ships while no one is looking.


As far as "shutting people down", you may want to read Proxima's and Crash Master's posts a second time.

Proxima opens up with insults and it only gets worse over time. Examples;
"This is absolutely ridiculous and over the top."
"I'm not really sure in what deluded fantasyland you live in in which you think they need some sort of buff."

...So I paid him back; which kinda sucks because I was actually interested in what he had to say before the flame war started.

Crash Master, on the other hand, has decided to follow me and start trouble because of a disagreement on another thread. That's perfectly fine, Free speech is still alive and kicking so you can all be amused by his antics but I've had enough of his continuously inflammatory crap.

Bottom line; I like this community, and if you guys can help me put together an idea that will make PVP about skill and design rather than "my ship is bigger than yours...", I'm all for it. But there's no need to be a jerk about it. We can discuss this rationally and without disrespect. I am more than willing to work with anyone who wants to do so.

 

[JonasWalker]

Well if they're one of Skylords builds there should be plenty of mistakes you can exploit. :D

*Btw the ribbing is in good nature if anyone else hasn't picked up on it.

 

[StormWing0]

lol in my case it's more like "My Fleet is bigger than yours". XD

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Well if they're one of Skylords builds there should be plenty of mistakes you can exploit. :D

On occasion, I have...

lol in my case it's more like "My Fleet is bigger than yours". XD

Yeah. I try to use numbers to offset the smaller size of my ships as well. I had something the neighborhood of 43 frigates on LvD before they reset. Their combined firepower might have taken out the above ships but at a heavy cost.

Before I got all those ships I made damn sure to get as far away from the established factions as I could.

 

[StormWing0]

Yeah. I try to use numbers to offset the smaller size of my ships as well. I had something the neighborhood of 43 frigates on LvD before they reset. Their combined firepower might have taken out the above ships but at a heavy cost.

Before I got all those ships I made damn sure to get as far away from the established factions as I could.

lol I've been known to booby trap whole systems and wander off somewhere else. So once I get building there's usually something to the effect of a system full of stations and a good sized fleet guarding each one. Some poor sap comes along and it turns into a bloodbath.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Ouch... Are you able to do this solo or to you have a faction with you?

If fleet orders persisted indefinitely instead of reverting to "idle" I would have tried that approach on LvD. I'd probably have a lot less interest in asymmetrical warfare and more interest in mass-production.

 

[StormWing0]

Back than it was before the fleet orders we have so I just dropped them off, AI active and left. Doing it solo only works if the ships are cheap and resources are easy to come by. So none had shields in particular or higher level armor hulls but the idea was to go for numbers at the time. Nowadays if I did it on that scale again I'd make a fleet, send them to the destination, than unmake the fleet due to the annoying issue of fleet orders defaulting when the maker logs. >_> Likely would use ships with docked weapons and a damage based weapon change like my Brawlers in the drone wars competition. Nothing like double shotguns unloading into a ship at an undodgeable range.

 

[sayerulz]

Ok, so what I'm reading here is:

-you hate titans

-you think everyone should just fly around frigates, corvettes, and fighters

-you want to encourage this by giving cheap little ships the ability to decimate titans with a weapon that has extreme damage and ignores shields, but is hard to hit fast things with.

What you need to realize is that a fleet of small ships is already more effective for resources spent. Most mid-range titans can be killed by like 50% of their mass at most in smaller ships. Even if you lose all of them in doing so, you are still winning the resource war.

You have even said yourself that you would be doing this if there were not problems with the fleet AI. So why do you think that the way to fix broken AI is to add broken weapons?