Weapons testing yet again (Dev build 141)

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

Information on what was actually changed was rather sparse, so I got back into singleplayer to shoot up the old 11,175 shield/s 263,250 shield target with the weapons test platforms (4x 3x5x10+1 weapon groups, 50/50 for slaves):

• Beam
  • -: 6 volleys @10s reload with 7.5s burst, ~58 seconds
  • beam: ~3/4 volley @ 70s reload with 10s burst and 10s chargup, ~15 seconds
  • cannon: ~26 volleys @ 1.5s reload, ~38 seconds
  • missile: 2 volleys @ 25s reload with 20s burst, 45 seconds
• Cannon
  • -: 70 volleys @ 1s reload, 1 minute 9 seconds
  • beam: 5 volleys @ 15s reload, 1 minute
  • cannon: cannot down test target shields
  • missile: 9 volleys @ 3s reload with 15s chargeup, 2 minutes 39 seconds
• Missile
  • -: 10 volleys @ 2s reload, 18 seconds
  • beam: 8 volleys @ 25s reload, 2 minutes 40 seconds (5 extra seconds was the last volley reaching the target, all volleys initially missed)
  • cannon: not tested
  • missile: not tested

So, dumbfire missiles are actually really powerful, about on par with b/b against the test target. Sadly, lock-on missiles are still terrible, as they're the worst weapon that can actually take down the shields and in this testing initially missed every shot.

There are also some range changes involved. b/m reports 1km range while both missile setups report 6km range. Looks like b/m boats will still be sad against xbb (which is still working), while the preferred weapon against vulnerable stations will be dumbfires.

 

[Ithirahad]

No idea why this "xbb" term caught on so much, but yes, beam/beam exploits will definitely be better than weapons where there isn't a major exploit with their mechanics. Other than that... Have they made cannon bullet speeds reasonable? I've been busy messing with so many games that I don't feel like poking at a dev build which might change anyway atm.

 

[JinM]

I would be very interested to see the same weapons perform against armour with as much blocks as the shield in armour HP.

But I dont really know the exact stats for your shield 11,1765 shield/s 263,250 - is it 11k, 111k or 260k?

Let's take for example 260k shields. Each armour block has 2k hp right? (I dont start Starmade now and the wiki is still not up to date, please correct me!)

That would be 260k/2k = 130 blocks of armour. Now divide it by the radius of beams and missiles, I guess we end up with a 4x4 and 10m deep target. Except for cannons where you need to make the target 130m deep.

 

[Scypio]

Could be interesting to note the range you're using for beams. Just to be precise with them.

 

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

I would be very interested to see the same weapons perform against armour with as much blocks as the shield in armour HP.

But I dont really know the exact stats for your shield 11,1765 shield/s 263,250 - is it 11k, 111k or 260k?

Let's take for example 260k shields. Each armour block has 2k hp right? (I dont start Starmade now and the wiki is still not up to date, please correct me!)

That would be 260k/2k = 130 blocks of armour. Now divide it by the radius of beams and missiles, I guess we end up with a 4x4 and 10m deep target. Except for cannons where you need to make the target 130m deep.

Typo, 5 and 6 are next to each other. It is indeed 11k.

Could be interesting to note the range you're using for beams. Just to be precise with them.

So close the test target actually will hit me sometimes while testing cannons. Under 50m, so of course they're at their maximum damage potential.

Will they do as well in actual combat? Surely not, unless you get the drop on someone with a cloaker. But still, the only weapon improved by range is missiles and those will get in theory shot down by PD, so all weapons types right now really just diminish with range, and beams losing only damage and not ability to hit should still leave them on top.

 

[Valiant70]

No idea why this "xbb" term caught on so much

I think the name came from an old jump drive exploit called an x-drive. The term was probably widespread in the meta community. Another possible etymology is "eXploit Beam-Beam," which is a very accurate term. Come to think of it, that's probably how the x-drive got its name: "eXploit Drive."

 

[Tunk]

The xbb name is derived from the x-drive, none of the devices are using the x-drive circuit however to my knowledge.
The ones I am aware of are using derivatives of the IJD multiplier circuit.