How about Explosion effect in defense mode causing selfdestruction?
It could work well in kamikadze ships or in ship-mines.
It would be usefull and intuitive.
Seconding this. Push is already similar enough to the proposed Explosion effect. Plus, it just fits better in my opinion and a good amount of people have suggested the self destruct button.
Give it a reasonable countdown or a way to program the time to detonation (maybe with logic blocks?).
Can I be the dick who states the unpopular opinion and says that he likes the new weapon system? Sure it need some tweaks but it allows for so much creativity and diversity with our ships, and once we get the tertiary effects in the dev build (hopefully SOON(TM)) the game will be a lot more fun. It also means that the game is less 'core drill' and more 'actual tactics', especially with the tertiary effects.
...This isn't an unpopular opinion. The new weapons system is great, it's just the balance that's bad... No offense to anyone really, but why the heck wasn't it fixed almost immediately? It doesn't take hours of intensive combination testing to see that the default values for AMCs in the builds is... bad. (Particularly power values)
This is the defensive-use list for effects so far. Most of them aren't fully working yet. They usage is like cloak/jam. Some consume power over time, some consume power one time and have to reload (so far, only the burst).
This list is not final yet, of course.
EMP -> powerShield (not taking damage to ship power)
Explosion -> topSpeed up (not final desicion)
Ion -> ShieldHarden (less damage against shields)
Piercing -> piercingProtection (protection against pierching & punchThrough)
PunchThrough -> blockArmorBonus
Pull -> Protection against push/pull/stop from other entities
Push -> one-time thruster burst in view direction
stop -> AntiGravity (less/no gravity from e.g. planets)
...This isn't an unpopular opinion. The new weapons system is great, it's just the balance that's bad... No offense to anyone really, but why the heck wasn't it fixed almost immediately? It doesn't take hours of intensive combination testing to see that the default values for AMCs in the builds is... bad. (Particularly power values)
To put this in simple terms, this is a dev build, the focus is not solely on making it a fun playable early access build for those knowing how to find it. We've been working on correcting bugs, adjusting mechanics to the new setup, trying new balances and generally doing "development stuff". If you're downloading and using a dev build, one might imagine you're capable of adjusting these config numbers just as "easily" as we can. (I do actually change the numbers often, but those changes are not pushed to each build release.)
I can appreciate that you'd like to be able to use these new systems immediately, but complaining about the imbalances in a dev build seems silly when playing this version is voluntary. The config numbers currently are a bare minimum of stats while the group as a whole is kept in (or brought into) balance, they can be increased before/after the release, and also per server/client by players themselves.
(This isn't meant as an attack on Ithirahad or anyone specifically, you've all expressed a legitimate concerns, I'm mostly trying to further explain why the balance stats aren't changing quickly.)
Adding all those confusing names is annoying. Also, there are a lot of things that already start with "SD," which is one of the reasons /give is useless. Making these the full names would be fine, but I'd rather see the already long "normal" names get cut down to things that have as few descriptors as possible.
Btw, I suspect that the difference between the explosion effect and the push effect is that the push effect would be the equivalent of dashing forwards, while the speed up effect increases the maximum speed of the ship (with the upcoming thrust system) while active.
when FTL gets implemented will the stop effect cancel a ship's FTL jump charge? that would mean Interdictors would be possible!
also could it be possible in the future to give the ability to the Pull CPUs to force dock a ship if it is within a certain distance of the surface of your ship? like say you connect docking module(s) to the pull computer and when a ship gets pulled within say 50m-100m (depends on how big the ship is) of your ships outer hull the ship your pulling with auto dock to one of the docking ports that is big enough to fit it?
of course there will be restrictions on this. you can only do this with ships you own, faction and overheated cores too keep this from being exploited where ppl just grab their targets and hold them
Adding all those confusing names is annoying. Also, there are a lot of things that already start with "SD," which is one of the reasons /give is useless. Making these the full names would be fine, but I'd rather see the already long "normal" names get cut down to things that have as few descriptors as possible.
Btw, I suspect that the difference between the explosion effect and the push effect is that the push effect would be the equivalent of dashing forwards, while the speed up effect increases the maximum speed of the ship (with the upcoming thrust system) while active.
I have to agree with Itmauve, I think we'd be better off using more simplified naming schemes. Perhaps even retroactively simplifying some of the existing block names (while be careful not to cause confusion there.)
Also, the effects systems aren't final, and yes you're correct in stating that they should not be redundant with each other, OR with the thruster system.
Adding all those confusing names is annoying. Also, there are a lot of things that already start with "SD," which is one of the reasons /give is useless. Making these the full names would be fine, but I'd rather see the already long "normal" names get cut down to things that have as few descriptors as possible.
Btw, I suspect that the difference between the explosion effect and the push effect is that the push effect would be the equivalent of dashing forwards, while the speed up effect increases the maximum speed of the ship (with the upcoming thrust system) while active.
The current names would be used in the titles/labels, those would be the "long version" as might be shown in the shop description. (That change should be applied to current blocks that have long technobabble names, too)
Also, "SD" doesn't make /give "useless." It's annoying, but it's not like it's impossible to type "/give ltmauve "SD HCT" 1000" rather than the preferred "/give ltmauve HCT 1000." At least be happy you don't have to fully type out "SchemaDyne HyperCoilThruster" or whatever it stands for. :p
Yes I think you're right.
So EMP will be used to put a ship power down to zero when not shielded? Will it need to target a power generator directely or just deal increased damage (implies moar power sucking if proportional) against power blocks (<CannonPowerDamageBonus>)?
I think I'm more the ion effect guy (must be nice with yellow fire effect)
I just tested most of the effect on weapons (21st may dev build), I'll check their passive effect later.
I tried everything on an unshielded target as there is no interest about testing something on shields ATM (except ion ofc)
mainly focus on the effect on AMC, didn't try the others too much (excepted beam for pull effect)
Punchtrought (I kept the default values) What is good:
- Working nicely
- Useless on low damage weapons (lower than the average block HP)(yea it's good it's a specialized effect)
- Give more strengh to low ROF weapons
- not OP
- make a single shot significant
What I don't like:
- [lower DPS on shields (why? the damages on blocks are not incrased)]
In fact not true, increased against non-hull blocks but I don't know if it's a good deal for this effect. I think will be used more if more polyvalent because every effect is useless against shields except ION. This will be the polyvalent option.
Piercing (default values too) What is good:
- works
- Shooting on more thin surfaces increase the damage per block
- if you shoot through the entire ship (like in lenght) your damages are really low but you have some good chances to hurt the ship's whole crew
- good with any ROF weapon
. not as OP as it looks, the overall damage of piercing is at ".75" by default
What I don't like:
-[lower DPS on shield. Once again, why? when the target is shielded the piercing effect does nothing. If a ship have only one weapon and one effect (like AMC and piercing) the right thing to do should be to disconnect piercing while his target is shielded and use it only when the shield is down, this is bad I think.]
There is the non-hull blocks damage aumentation, too, and for this effect I think this is a good idea to keep it as your main targets are not-hull-blocks (and it needs to be a little shitty against shields).
Explosion (still default) What is good:
-I feel like this is an effect for small-sized (and high ROF) weapons. The AMC I tested with was a group of 40 blocks and it was too much to be efficient with this effect. The damage on the touched block (with 100% effect) was 600. So the weapon should be designed to deal no more than 200 on hardened hull with the 100% effect and the ROF will do the rest to make a rain of fire.
- Don't scale as much as punchtrough with high damage weapons
- Lower DPS on shields. Yes this time the low DPS on shield is good. And it's not as low as in the previous dev builds. This is so effective against not-hull blocks (like explosions are supposed to be) -50% on shields is a nice balance. What is bad:
There is nothing bad about this sweet effect. Very "warfare", I love it. Gimme some sweet animation for the explosions.
EMP (default) What is good:
- It do more damage on power
- I can see one application with damage pulse. The pulse go throught the blocks if fired very close to the target. Maybe the damage don't scratch hull block (or normal blocks) but could heavily damage power blocks. Doing quite the "EMP" thing. Didn't tested it. Actual ships won't even mind because they have powers generator everywhere and don't mind loosing some (I wrote a suggestion about power about this thing particulary) except if the entire ship is touched (little ship or huge pulse) but it would be a little OP. The best combo to do this in my mind is the range combo (pulse+beam I guess). What is bad:
- Someone else see any other applications? The other effects are awesome. Choosing EMP as an effect is a VERY little bonus compared with the others. Why don't we merge it with the ION effect? It will bust the shields quite well (the power is shielded anyway) and once down it will be deadly on power blocks... but shitty with everything else. Or maybe we should have the possibility to increase the RANGE in blockbeahviorconfig.xml. It will confirm its utility for the pulse weapon.
[I just red the last post who was not here when I began writing. If you're right, EMP may have some kind of utility.]
PULL (default) What is bad:
- It's not working! <BeamPullEffect> in <PullEffect> is set on 1.
ION (default) What is good:
- Yes very good, but not useful yet as the shields are OP even against it (with the default settings) What is bad:
- Will be used by many players OFC but the lack of flack damage on blocks will encourage the players of doing array of ION weapons over one powerful because it scale less bad once the shields are down. I think it's bad
I think this dev build is for everyone. Why is there a news for it otherway? Make us suffer? The releases are here: http://files.star-made.org/build/dev/ login-password: dev
Edit: The last dev update seems bugged for me I could not launch it. I wrote a report
Just spent the evening with Schema going over the Block Behavior Config, the next dev build should have mostly functioning stats, still at the minimum effectiveness (for reasons i earlier explained.)
I understand some confusion about why which systems do what, but we are trying to acheive tactical balances between a good many variety of systems. I continue to appreciate the input I get here.
Just spent the evening with Schema going over the Block Behavior Config, the next dev build should have mostly functioning stats, still at the minimum effectiveness (for reasons i earlier explained.)
I understand some confusion about why which systems do what, but we are trying to acheive tactical balances between a good many variety of systems. I continue to appreciate the input I get here.
...This isn't an unpopular opinion. The new weapons system is great, it's just the balance that's bad... No offense to anyone really, but why the heck wasn't it fixed almost immediately? It doesn't take hours of intensive combination testing to see that the default values for AMCs in the builds is... bad. (Particularly power values)
Whoa. That's awesome...
...Now the modifier blocks just need fancy names. May I suggest a few:
EMP -SD 5.2i Integrated EMP Field Emitter or something.
Just spent the evening with Schema going over the Block Behavior Config, the next dev build should have mostly functioning stats, still at the minimum effectiveness (for reasons i earlier explained.)
I understand some confusion about why which systems do what, but we are trying to acheive tactical balances between a good many variety of systems. I continue to appreciate the input I get here.
Oh... speaking of the BlockBehaviorConfig file, why does it suddenly no longer have line breaks? I remember it going from being easy to understand with line breaks for everything to suddenly a massive confusing mess of confusing-ness that required me to scale my Notepad down to about 100px in width to understand and locate anything.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
