The *responsible* warhead rebalancing thread.

[Dr. Whammy]

Ok. I'm going to beat a dead horse... with a dead horse. The idea for a damage buff to warheads has been mentioned a few... um...dozen times but I think this time we should justify it with a fair balancing system that could actually work. The result of this kind of change would be better PVP, a surge in creativity and possibly, less players hiding in their home bases. For all you non-warhead/non-logic types; don't fret. There are plenty of forum discussions and how-tos on You-Tube to help you make your own weapons of mass destruction.

So here we go... comments, concerns, suggested changes are all welcome as usual.

1) Give warheads a serious damage and radius buff: The current damage output is too low to be more than a tap on the shoulder/. Crank it up to the neighborhood of 100,000 - 500,000 with 15-25m radius. This is the result you'll get at 500,000 damage with 25m radius.

Spoiler

Due to explosion mechanics, this blast cannot cripple a titan and can barely "alpha-kill' an Isanth, skill and quality designing are still required for effective use. For a one-time-use weapon, this is more than reasonable.


2) Make warheads 'expensive' to build: Instead of requiring only alloyed metal mesh and crystal composite, make individual warhead blocks cost 500-1000 of one or more ore/crystal types. This makes it very costly to make a lot of these shield piercing, high damage weapons; thus severely limiting people's ability to do this...

Spoiler

...but still allowing for things like this

Spoiler

3) Allow turrets to include torpedoes as a target: This is a major biggie which need to be considered. Otherwise torpedoes can easily become over-powered. We're trying to create a balance that is fair to everyone, not turn everyone into Luke Skywalker...


4) Eliminate the potential for griefers: Yeah... all that cloaked torpedo ramming nonsense, needs to stop so here's a workaround.

The compressed antimatter inside a warhead is naturally unstable. While in motion and when directly exposed to radar emissions and certain other high energy emissions (radar jamming, or cloaking fields), the antimatter stability degrades even further; causing an immediate explosion if it gets too close to the radar emitting entity. Exposure to cloaking/jamming fields during passage through an atmosphere will also cause warheads to explode.

Bottom line; any ship carrying exposed (meaning; not covered on all 6 sides) warheads that are cloaked and/or jamming will explode, the instant they they get within 1/10 of a sector from any ship or station or if they enter the atmosphere of a planet. Opening a door or a force field to fire at point blank range under the above conditions will also cause a detonation.

With this system in place, success in PVP will require real skill and planning rather than just a bigger ship.


Your thoughts, ladies and gentlemen?

 

[Proxima_Centauri]

The current damage output is too low to be more than a tap on the shoulder/. Crank it up to the neighborhood of 100,000 - 500,000 with 15-25m radius.

This is absolutely ridiculous and over the top.
The most damaging weapon per block right now is missile/beam/overdrive, which does 1932 damage per block in the array (at a cost of 54000 energy PER BLOCK)

The smallest torpedo size is 7? So that puts your suggestion at 14285-71428 damage PER BLOCK (7 times to 36 times the damage of the MOST powerful ship weapon currently) with zero energy consumption

The 15-25m radius is ridiculous as well, as it takes missile arrays in the THOUSANDS of blocks to achieve that kind of radius normally.

3) Allow turrets to include torpedoes as a target:

How do you propose to do this?
There is no way for an AI to determine whether something is a "torpedo" or not without some sort of checking mechanism that detects the warheads and the push modules or something.
Also the fact that turrets can only have one "task" currently without getting out of the ship and resetting it to target something else is a problem. Who is going to put giant torpedo-shooting turrets on their ships when the threat is 99% something else?

Bottom line; any ship carrying exposed (meaning; not covered on all 6 sides) warheads that are cloaked and/or jamming will explode, the instant they they get within 1/10 of a sector from any ship or station or if they enter the atmosphere of a planet. Opening a door or a force field to fire at point blank range under the above conditions will also cause a detonation.

This is really convoluted and counter-intuitive
What about this:
-if you undock something (as in actually undock with logic or with the hotbar, not getting docked entities shot off) then both the entity and the parent ship automatically lose cloaking/jamming?
this would still allow bombers to get in close with radar jammer before releasing their munitions

 

[JonasWalker]

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.

 

[Zekester81]

In my personal experience, torpedoes and warhead blocks could use a small buff to damage and radius. That would leave them still (imo) slightly under powered with collision damage turned off, but make them more powerful with it on. For that to be of any use, like JonasWalker said, collision needs some serious attention. With collision on currently, you can blow a nice pocket in a solid block of armor, at the cost of all the collision lag and the fact that your target might get thrown in some direction at high velocity. Collision on also allows for the torpedo to have an armor cap over the warheads not leaving them exposed, as the armor will increase the penetration of the torpedo into the target before detonation. Think of the difference between setting off a firecracker in your open palm as compared to doing it in a closed fist. I have done extensive testing of this.

They could be a very powerful weapon, but I believe that the downsides of it being difficult to actually use and the fact that they cost real materials and therefore can only be used in limited numbers depending on mothership size, offset the power of such a weapon. Cost of materials could be increased somewhat as well.

Edit: I will also say that I think a new type of core should be created, a torpedo core if you will, that will designate the torpedo as a missile to AI systems and not allow for jamming and cloak to be used on them in any way unless attached to a mothership.

 

[StormWing0]

I'd say this is overkill for single warheads anyways, now if we're talking getting to this point with groups of warheads now it is reasonable but the way single warheads work is fine although they could use a small damage and blast radius buff to something like 2 - 4 times the current at worse. That said this idea is only reasonable if we're dealing with warhead groups.

As for how to make the AI detect or use warheads correctly having a torpedo setting for the AI when using warheads as the main weapon would help, as for shooting down warheads have it scan for anything with warheads on it and inside 1/4th the range not of the same faction, chances are it isn't friendly 90% of the time.

 

[Bladeriker]

Buffing Damage is a must for Warheads one block need to do more damage than it currently does. However, it should take a group of blocks to get to 500K damage.

Increasing the cost to produce Warheads is a sounds idea, as the more powerful a weapon is the more it should cost to manufacture it.

As I have not experimented with cloak/jamming, I am not sure how favorable the Idea of unstable Warheads are based on jamming/Cloaking fields.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

This is absolutely ridiculous and over the top.
The most damaging weapon per block right now is missile/beam/overdrive, which does 1932 damage per block in the array (at a cost of 54000 energy PER BLOCK)

The smallest torpedo size is 7? So that puts your suggestion at 14285-71428 damage PER BLOCK (7 times to 36 times the damage of the MOST powerful ship weapon currently) with zero energy consumption

The 15-25m radius is ridiculous as well, as it takes missile arrays in the THOUSANDS of blocks to achieve that kind of radius normally.

I fail to see why you're so upset when the warhead is STILL single use only. If they miss or if it's shot down, they are SOL while you are free to fire volley after volley of your INFINITE AMMO missiles.

How do you propose to do this?
There is no way for an AI to determine whether something is a "torpedo" or not without some sort of checking mechanism that detects the warheads and the push modules or something.
Also the fact that turrets can only have one "task" currently without getting out of the ship and resetting it to target something else is a problem. Who is going to put giant torpedo-shooting turrets on their ships when the threat is 99% something else?

Simple; add "warhead" to the list of selectable target types in the AI menu or add it as a sub function for point defense. Either way, the AI would fire at warheads only; destroying torpedoes/mines or cutting into the enemy ship's torpedo bays and detonating it from within.

This is really convoluted and counter-intuitive
What about this:
-if you undock something (as in actually undock with logic or with the hotbar, not getting docked entities shot off) then both the entity and the parent ship automatically lose cloaking/jamming?
this would still allow bombers to get in close with radar jammer before releasing their munitions

Your counter proposal is promising... But we need a way to stop griefers who don't actually build bombers but rather kamikaze while cloaked. My plan was to make it so that if you wanted to park a stealth bomber next to its target, deploy a warhead, then try to shoot them pointblank that the radar would trigger your now exposed warheads and blow you up. You can't enforce an honor system so the only alternative is a game mechanic that blocks exploitation.

Also, for everyone concerned about the 500,000 damage. That was an example. Even 100,000 damage is reasonable. Just remember the "make warheads expensive" part of my thread. The purpose of that was to make torpedo users, less able to spam and force them to use actual tactics for a critical hit solution. After all, for all the resources and time it takes to build one of these, you still only get one chance to use it then boom! all gone. You need to build another.
[doublepost=1468610230,1468609812][/doublepost]The point of all of this is to add the capability of adding substantial punch to smaller ships who are otherwise unable fight back against shield tanking, 3m thick, advanced armored dreadnoughts in such a way that the fight isn't completely one-sided, yet the "little guy" can't just exploit this system and go around killing capitals Star Wars style.

 

[StormWing0]

I'm all for making it so smaller ships can fight back but this is overkill for ungrouped warheads. Now the damage and range levels you are wanting are reasonable for groups of warheads but if used on singles they'd be far too OP to even think of using anything else.

The single warheads do need a damage and range boost just not one this crazy.

 

[Sgtwisky]

Ive been considering making a similar thread. And I agree with you to an extent but disagree in some areas.

My take on the same general idea.

Spoiler: My Version of this Suggestion

Damage:
I think warheads should do closer to 20k-25k. They should be harder to make but they only need to be around 10x more expensive (to compensate for damage buff). Though further cost assessment could be done after they were in action.

Radius:
I'm somewhat unsure on a good size. So I would leave it as is for the time being, until we see how players use them in combat with the other changes.

Stealth:
I would make it so any ship could not cloak or jam with warheads on it, or any entities docked to it. I wish there were a workaround, but there really isn't. Allowing cloaked ramming ships is just bad.

AI Targeting:
AI should be able to target warheads. Turrets when set to AMS should target them, and ships if they are not already targeting something.
AI should not target any warheads on an entity with a friendly faction signature, but will attack enemy entities with warheads on sight.
AI should attack Neutral Entities with warheads IF the faction the AI belongs too has "Attack Neutral" on.

Side note: It would be nice if we could chose by entity weather or not they will target Neutral's. If we could then this suggestion would be even better.

War Decleration:
If a warhead explodes and does damage to a structure, and has a faction block attached, it will auto declare war on the faction which caused the damage. If a warhead does not have a faction block, there will be no war declaration. This would mean you can still try to be sneaky but odds are they are going to have AMS setup and ready to ruin your plans. But it allows the oppertunity to be stealthy on targets that are not p

What I think this would mean for game-play:

1. Warheads will be inexpensive enough to carry them on your bombers and "Bombardment" or "Artillery" ships.

2. It will take many warheads to bring down a ship or station. But you can still use them to tactically remove turrets, or external power reactors.

3. We shouldn't have to worry nearly as much about kamikaze tactics. Odds are they will just see their warheads explode before they get near their targets due to AMS.

4. Any faction that has Neutral as Enemy, will find they must faction their torpedo's to avoid their own ships from attempting to engage them.

5. Any faction utilizing torpedo's without faction blocks, and without Neutral as Enemy, will be susceptible to other torpedo users more so then those who faction them.

6. If a faction attacks you while your offline, you have a much greater chance of getting a war deceleration. If you don't have AMS and are not Enemy's with Neutral's then you're partially to blame.

In the end, I would like to see warheads being a good tactical weapon, which is useful in some situations and worthless in others. I want to see warheads that can hurt, but only if used properly, and against the right unguarded targets. I think if warheads were like that, then it would add another layer of "rock paper scissors" to the game.

EDIT: (Extra thoughts)

Spoiler: Extra Thoughts

The exact damage for warheads IS still up for debate as is the cost. But I think its better to start lower and ramp up after the effects are seen.

I like the idea of a "Stealth Bomber" but I don't see any work around without still allowing someone to use cloaked warhead ramming. If someone thinks of a good way to do this then that's great.

I also think the idea of warhead grouping is interesting and deserves some thoughts on the math that might work behind it. And how the damage is applied to the target. For example does it originate at the point of impact? or would it cause multiple smaller explosions? What about how radius might scale? or for that matter the way damage would scale. I'm not opposed to groupings. I just don't have a clear idea in my mind of the way it might work.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

See... This is precisely why so many people complain that PVP doesn't happen enough in StarMade. You guys need to lighten up, open your minds a little. I am NOT suggesting a one hit kill anti-capital weapon. Seriously; do you know how hard it is to actually hit a moving ship with a torpedo?

Sgtwisky, My suggestion for "automatic detonation" (part 4) addresses stealth in a more fair way. If you are cloaked or jammed, you cannot kamikaze or launch when close to a ship, station or planet or your weapon will explode; damaging your ship.

Regarding 'expensive'; I'm talking about making each block cost as much as the "weapons computers" in terms of raw materials. Use actual ore and crystal capsules rather than the generic alloys and composite it takes now. Make it hurt the bank a little to build these things.

Regarding damage and radius; I think you guys might change your tune if that collision/clipping glitch everyone is so fond of was gone. (it IS a glitch and thus an exploit) But what the hell... I'll be a team player anyway...

I'll re-test the damage on advanced armor at intervals of 25,000, 50,000 75,000 100,000 and 200,000 with variations in radius at 10m, 15m, and 20m, then post pictures.

Regarding faction ID; unfactioned entities already take on the faction of their parent entity. Why not make it so they KEEP it when undocked?

Regarding AI; I agree with the point defense turret options. Honestly, I think it should be relatively easy to spot and kill these things but you have to keep in mind the substantial cost and risk a torpedo user is taking by employing these weapons. If they succeed, they take one bite out of your gigantic capital then either die or retreat. If they miss, the weapon is lost and they still die or retreat. Seriously, what's the big deal? Can people really not handle the challenge? Do you really need to be invincible that badly?

 

[Valck]

The current damage output is too low to be more than a tap on the shoulder/. Crank it up to the neighborhood of 100,000 - 500,000 with 15-25m radius.

This is absolutely ridiculous and over the top.
The most damaging weapon per block right now is missile/beam/overdrive, which does 1932 damage per block in the array (at a cost of 54000 energy PER BLOCK)

So what? A single torpedo dropped from a fighter craft can blow a hole in a battleship. If that fighter gets past the battleship's AA, if the CIWS doesn't take out the torpedo, if the torpedo hits at all, and if the torpedo hits a critical section. The proposed buff to warheads doesn't make them nearly as dangerous.
You need one pilot per fighter, or you can command a battleship bristling with turrets instead... if you don't like the odds, get in a fighter yourself.

The smallest torpedo size is 7? So that puts your suggestion at 14285-71428 damage PER BLOCK (7 times to 36 times the damage of the MOST powerful ship weapon currently) with zero energy consumption

Except your MOST powerful ship weaponry doesn't disappear after you've fired a single shot. Plus you need launch mechanisms, and possibly storage as well, so the "7 block rule" doesn't quite hold up.

The 15-25m radius is ridiculous as well, as it takes missile arrays in the THOUSANDS of blocks to achieve that kind of radius normally.

Maybe missile arrays in the THOUSANDS to scratch a hole are ridiculous and need rethinking...

3) Allow turrets to include torpedoes as a target:

How do you propose to do this?
There is no way for an AI to determine whether something is a "torpedo" or not without some sort of checking mechanism that detects the warheads and the push modules or something.

Warheads plus push modules plus rail/docker, compared to other blocks, equal or greater than someRatio => torpedo. Or for pete's sake, add a specialized torpedo warhead/core/whatever, and redesignate the current warheads as satchel charges or firecrackers.

Also the fact that turrets can only have one "task" currently without getting out of the ship and resetting it to target something else is a problem. Who is going to put giant torpedo-shooting turrets on their ships when the threat is 99% something else?

Turret AI needs more options to select and prioritize targets in general, not only because of this suggestion.

Your thoughts, ladies and gentlemen?

I like it, numbers and mechanics are not final, but warheads need a serious buff.

 

[Proxima_Centauri]

I fail to see why you're so upset when the warhead is STILL single use only. If they miss or if it's shot down, they are SOL while you are free to fire volley after volley of your INFINITE AMMO missiles.

Missile+Damage Pulse has a reload of 90 seconds, far longer than most fights last.

Why don't you address the fact that warheads use ZERO power and IGNORE SHIELDS
I'm not really sure in what deluded fantasyland you live in in which you think they need some sort of buff.

we need a way to stop griefers who don't actually build bombers but rather kamikaze while cloaked.

So your style of warhead use is acceptable, but "kamikaze" tactics are griefing?
Nice double standards.

Also, for everyone concerned about the 500,000 damage. That was an example. Even 100,000 damage is reasonable.

500,000 plus that radius is enough that that tiny fighter you posted could demolish a frigate in a single hit (keep in mind, warheads IGNORE shields)
I think 50,000 damage and 8 radius is the maximum it should be (and they should remain unstackable)

So what? A single torpedo dropped from a fighter craft can blow a hole in a battleship. If that fighter gets past the battleship's AA, if the CIWS doesn't take out the torpedo, if the torpedo hits at all, and if the torpedo hits a critical section.

Current AA is garbage, and very easy to distract with decoys, even with 100% accuracy enabled.

The proposed buff to warheads doesn't make them nearly as dangerous.

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

if you don't like the odds, get in a fighter yourself.

What a terrible way of reasoning it
"If you think it's unbalanced, maybe you should just replace all your current strategies with it instead XDD"

Except your MOST powerful ship weaponry doesn't disappear after you've fired a single shot. Plus you need launch mechanisms, and possibly storage as well, so the "7 block rule" doesn't quite hold up.

Except for the fact that torpedoes need ZERO power and IGNORE shields and you can easily carry hundreds of them
Your "they cannot be reloaded" argument is untenable.

Maybe missile arrays in the THOUSANDS to scratch a hole are ridiculous and need rethinking...

I've thoroughly tested every weapon system in the game, and I can tell you that they are all very well balanced, including missiles, with the notable exception of unbalanced ranges.

Warheads plus push modules plus rail/docker, compared to other blocks, equal or greater than someRatio => torpedo. Or for pete's sake, add a specialized torpedo warhead/core/whatever, and redesignate the current warheads as satchel charges or firecrackers.

Literally what?

but warheads need a serious buff.

And why is that?
Being able to bypass shields and requiring no energy and already doing comparable damage to real weapons is still under-powered?

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Missile+Damage Pulse has a reload of 90 seconds, far longer than most fights last.

Why don't you address the fact that warheads use ZERO power and IGNORE SHIELDS
I'm not really sure in what deluded fantasyland you live in in which you think they need some sort of buff.

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

So your style of warhead use is acceptable, but "kamikaze" tactics are griefing?
Nice double standards.

If you were paying attention and fully read and understood my posts, you'll notice that I've actually nerfed myself with this idea. 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. To be honest, you seem more frightened by the complexity of my launchers than by the warheads themselves. Think about that for a second before you respond.

500,000 plus that radius is enough that that tiny fighter you posted could demolish a frigate in a single hit (keep in mind, warheads IGNORE shields)
I think 50,000 damage and 8 radius is the maximum it should be (and they should remain unstackable)

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...

Spoiler

Each weapon has a total of 5 warheads at the aforementioned specifications... It took 4 direct hits to kill this 3000-4000 mass ship.

Spoiler

Current AA is garbage, and very easy to distract with decoys, even with 100% accuracy enabled.

AI menu... add an option to set Target type to "Warheads". Any questions?

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

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.

What a terrible way of reasoning it
"If you think it's unbalanced, maybe you should just replace all your current strategies with it instead XDD"

You know you just contradicted yourself right?

Except for the fact that torpedoes need ZERO power and IGNORE shields and you can easily carry hundreds of them
Your "they cannot be reloaded" argument is untenable.

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. The reason they ignore shields is because you are otherwise, invincible in your giant capital ship. Also... here are two more things to think about.
1) Swarmers (which are carried on almost every PVP capital) can attack torpedoes.
2) Unless you are terribly ill-prepared or just a lousy pilot, you will most definitely kill, scare off or retreat from any torpedo armed pilot before he can launch these "hundreds" of torpedoes you're so desperately frightened of.

I've thoroughly tested every weapon system in the game, and I can tell you that they are all very well balanced, including missiles, with the notable exception of unbalanced ranges.

You need to test more...

And why is that?
Being able to bypass shields and requiring no energy and already doing comparable damage to real weapons is still under-powered?

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...

Have I left anything else out?

 

[sayerulz]

Why does everyone want to be luke skywalker and decimate big ships in one shot from your little fighter so badly?

FFS, if you want to kill a cap ship with fighters, USE MORE THAN ONE FIGHTER.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Why does everyone want to be luke skywalker and decimate big ships in one shot from your little fighter so badly?

FFS, if you want to kill a cap ship with fighters, USE MORE THAN ONE FIGHTER.

Before we do this; three questions...

1) Did you read the whole thread?
2) Did you understand my posts?
3) Did you look at ANY of the pictures?

 

[sayerulz]

I read the whole thread. And I think that you are going WAY overkill on buffing warheads.

They should remain a niche weapon, that can be used by someone who is willing to put in the work for a very specific application, but that will not play a large role on battlefields overall.

This is, if for no other reason, because they are one of the laggyiest weapon systems there is ingame.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I read the whole thread. And I think that you are going WAY overkill on buffing warheads.

They should remain a niche weapon, that can be used by someone who is willing to put in the work for a very specific application, but that will not play a large role on battlefields overall.

This is, if for no other reason, because they are one of the laggyiest weapon systems there is ingame.

You're referring to this again aren't you?

I'm sorry if one little random builder frightens you all so much. I specifically said to make the weapons "Expensive" with regard to materials so people CAN'T spam you like this. Hell! make the damn things cost 5000 Fertikeen so we have to choose between warheads and armor. Ya pansies.

Edit: regarding niches; just how frequently do you guys get attacked by warheads?

 

[sayerulz]

That thing is an extreme example, but any collision based weapon is going to create lag. Especially when someone puts a warhead ram on a cap ship.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

That thing is an extreme example, but any collision based weapon is going to create lag. Especially when someone puts a warhead ram on a cap ship.

...and gets the front of their ship blasted off because they get shot by defense turrets set to destroy warheads. Yeah; at no point am I asking for shielded warheads.

Come on, Dakka-man. You know better than that.

 

[sayerulz]

...and gets the front of their ship blasted off because they get shot by defense turrets set to destroy warheads. Yeah; at no point am I asking for shielded warheads.

Come on, Dakka-man. You know better than that.

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.